8x or 10x magnification (1 Viewer)

[Odradek]

I always wonder if there is really a difference between 8x and 10x magnification. So far i always used 8x binos and during the moments i could compare them to 10x binos there where two things i recognized. First, 8x was big enough to clearly identify the bird and 10x was not necessary anymore. Second, the bird was too far away to identify it no matter if 8x or 10x was used.

I tried the Zoom-Eyepiece on my scope and was looking for birds i could not identify with the lowest magnification. Then i zoomed in a bit. In the most cases i had to zoom way further than 2x,4x or 6x more to clearly identify the bird. In my birdinggroup is a member who is very "pro 10x" but the 2 times he compared his 10x bino with my 8x bino he was quiet impressed (or maybe disappointed) that the difference ways way smaller than he expected.

Now, am i looking wrong? I think that -maybe in some situations- 10x could help to identify a bird better. But at the bottomline, the difference between 8x and 10x seems to be tiny. Is it overrated? The oppinions are going from "there is no difference" to "the difference is enormous". I know, at the end it is personal choice. But i am interrested what other birders think about this. What are your experiences?

 

[typo]

I don't believe there is a straight forward answer to the question as it very much depends on the user and the binoculars.

Higher magnification does amplify hand shake, but how much shake there is depends on the individual, but also the weight and balance of the binocular. In my experience those are not the only factors. The effective binocular resolution and the visual acuity of the user also come into play. Different light levels will give a different answer. Add in binocular sample variation and I suspect it's a total lottery. You simply wont know what to expect until you pick up an individual binocular.

I can see more detail with my 7x than I can with much more prestigious 8 and 10x models yet with my cheap 12x I see almost twice the detail.

David

 

[looksharp65]

Not very long ago I argued, with some success, that a combination of a 6.5x/7x and a 10x would be very much better than a single 8x binocular, given that both were brought when birding.
The 6x to 7x has a significantly better perceived depth of field than an 8x and is indispensible for warblering in forests and gardens. Its minor magnification disadvantage vs the 8x is very easy to overcome by walking a few steps closer if birding at fairly close distance.
The 10x, used for longer distance, yields 56% larger areal magnification than an 8x (1.25^2 = 1.5625) and bridges distant objects closer in a way that would require long walks with an 8x.
"A 7x can do everything an 8x can, exept for the things a 10x does the best" used to be my motto.

This line of reasoning is still pretty much correct, but in all honesty I have found that my 8x30 E II delivers all the detail that my 10x32 FL can.
I did a test with them handheld, but with my elbows resting on a firm support. Conditions were about as good as they can be and the 8x was every bit as good as the 10x over long distance.
The most strange thing in all this is that in the reality I find the 8x more inferior to the 6.5x at short distance than I find it inferior to the 10x at longer distance.

Then I thought it's not really about resolution and smallest discernable detail with a 10x, but rather the larger area of the birds and their details that give a more direct impression, which is largely a matter of taste.

My main objection to 8x binoculars are their annoying way of being difficult to focus.
A good 10x snaps into focus and there's no doubt about where the focus is, since their depth of field is so shallow. And a 6.5x can be prefocused at a certain distance and only requires small adjustments to show anything sharp. But with 8x I often overshoot, though less with the E II thanks to the glorious 3D effect, and the Meostar with its slightly slow focus.

Thus, my previous aversion against 8x binoculars has transformed into acceptance.
Maybe 6.5x/7x + 8x is a perfect combination.
If it tells anything, I'm looking to buy a Meostar 8x32 HD when they are released (which I really hope will happen although MeoptaMan denies it) and may possibly sell the 10x32 FL if I find the Meostar HD good enough to take its place. No idea, but maybe an idea.

//L

 

[John Russell]

I suspect that recognition increases with the square of the magnification, i.e. 10x is 56% better than 8x if the bins are mounted. However for hand-held use, shake would diminish recognition by a factor of the magnification, which brings us back to linear relationships.

Here is an interesting link: http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbarch.../576629/page/2/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/vc/1.
Note that for comparison purposes the resolution has been multiplied by the magnification.

Of course, the lower magnification will offer larger exit pupils, better depth of field and usually also a better real FOV.

John

PS: I've echhoed Lars' thoughts here but he was 4 min. quicker than I.

 

[looksharp65]

Hi John,

the shake can be tiring if the magnification is too much for the actual user. Then we have the aiming aspect - there's some difference between a 140 m FOV and a 115 m, which is typical for 10x binos. It's easier to direct the binoculars towards the object if the FOV is bigger.

BUT - I'm not really sure about how much of a problem shake really is apart from being tiring.
Yes, the length of the blur streaks is 25% longer with a 10x than an 8x, but after all the object magnification is also 25% more. Or 56% if we're talking areal magnification.
So, does actually shake have to be that much of a problem? I'm not perfectly sure.

Another aspect of binoculars with a wider FOV and lesser magnification is that they definitely allow the user to see more. Not less, but MORE.

The FOV is not a flat, circular disc at 1000 m, its a three-dimensional cone.
The volume of the cone is considerably bigger with a wider FOV, and the part of the cone that's in focus is deeper with smaller magnification.
The perceived depth of field of 6.5x/7x binoculars is a godsend when coupled with a large FOV.

//L

 

[eitanaltman]

But at the bottomline, the difference between 8x and 10x seems to be tiny. Is it overrated?

IMO yes, very much so. It ultimately comes down to personal preference of course, but I always wonder about people who say something like "I like to use an 8x for most situations but pull out the 10x for distant waders." If you can't identify whether a distant peep is a Western Sandpiper or a Semipalmated Sandpiper with a 8x, you aren't going to do it with a 10x either. At that point, you pull out your scope.

That's why I find the idea of carrying two bins (6x and 10x) as Lars suggest above kind of odd. The difference between the two is so minimal. If you really need a short-range and long-range option, you should carry a binocular and a SCOPE.

 

[typo]

John,

I've done similar experiment to EdZ a few times , but as I've included other binoculars with different weights, balance, resolution and different light levels I've realised it's a complicated story as I mentioned above. There was about 40% variation with three 10x models hand held for example. I concluded the 7x and 12x I mentioned generally give me the best results for my needs but obviously have different uses in the field. Others might come up with different answers with the same binoculars.

David

 

[CSG]

I've got both. I like the reach of 10x even if it's a bit more challenging to hold steady. For all around use, I prefer 8x. Using the bill of my hat as a brace helps with using 10's a lot (any bins, actually).

If I could have only one all around bin it would be something like a 7x42. As they're hard to find these days, I settled for an 8x42 of high quality for my primary all arounder (Zeiss HT).

 

[kbrabble]

I used a 10x40 for many years, and upgraded earlier this year to an 8x42. The 8x42 are definitely better optically than my ageing 10x40, but took a bit of use to get used to. I am not 100% sure of my analysis on this, but at first there seemed to be a huge difference in the magnification. After more use, I think the main difference for me is with the increased field of view of the 8x. The bird just appears a lot smaller, more so than the small difference in magnification would seem to account for. My reasoning behind this comes from comparing my 10x with an 8x that has a similar FOV, the difference in the size of objects are very minimal. After using an 8x for the past year, I prefer them over the 10x, and have not seen any circumstances where a 10x would have allowed me to ID the bird where an 8x wouldn't.

I think I agree that if you need more than an 8x to ID the bird, you will need more than 10x too. The best combination, in my opinion, is a high quality 8x with a wide FOV, and a spotting scope.

 

[Steve C]

I have evolved into an 8x user, although in many ways I prefer aspects of the 7x, especially the depth of field. I find when I get right down to it, I can see no practical difference in 7x vs 8x. As for 10x, if I can't see it with 7-8x, I am not going to get what I need with 10x either. I also have no problem with 8x seeming to be difficult to focus. Some models of binoculars seem to focus easier than others.

So when push comes to shove, I'll use 8x for an all around. I'm seriously thinking of looking at 12-15 x binoculars for a more serious look.

 

[CSG]

As I just stepped outside with my 10x42 Monarch 7's, I was reminded of the benefit of 10x binoculars for astronomy.

One other thing, for me anyway, when I bird, I'm really more interested in the naturalist side of things more than just IDing a bird. Sometimes, a 10x gives you a chance to more leisurely observe from a more discrete distance.

 

[St. Elmo]

I had a 10x42 Ultravid
Then I got a Pentax PF80 scope
Then I got an 8x42 Victory FL
Looking back, the 10's stayed on the shelf for two years, so I sold them.

I tend to agree with the statement that 8x's and a scope are a good combination.

 

[iveljay]

Definitely ergonomics for me - I can, in general, handhold 10x or 12x porros far more steadily than their roof equivalents. The Nikon EII 10x35 being particularly easy to hold.
That statement does exclude the Nikon 10x50 Action Ex, however, that I never got on with, starting with the eye cups!

The other year I was using 10x bins in the prone position looking down on circling buzzards, it was like firing a rifle, far more steady than trying the same thing standing up. Also around here there are far more trees, fences etc. to brace yourself than there were in my native East Anglia which also helps with the higher powers.

I tend to use 7x or 8x more frequently though for general use (not just birds) and the only scope I ever owned just lived on the shelf.

The honest truth is that what bins I use, depends on my mood that day, and what I am likely to see, not particularly scientific at all.

Guess that we are all different.

 

[Robert Wallace]

I used 10x binoculars from about 1974 to 1997 with no problem. However I found 10x less good in woodland. I purchased a second pair of 7x binoculars in 1997 and never felt the need to use my 10x for birdwatching. I like the improved FOV and increased depth of focus of the lower magnification. I currently use 8x, if funds allowed I might be tempted to try 8.5x as a compromise.
There is no right or wrong answer it's down to personal choice.

 

[edwincjones]

I have early cataracts and I find that
the 8x no longer is as sharp,
10x is better for ID and detail, 12x IS even better

Easier/cheaper to get higher max than surgery

edj

 

[Mike Penfold]

I have early cataracts and I find that
the 8x no longer is as sharp,
10x is better for ID and detail, 12x IS even better

Easier/cheaper to get higher max than surgery

edj

Just had cataract eye surgery, and wished it had been done years ago.

Scanning for birds with 20/20 vision, and normal depth of field is very, very good. Not having eyeglasses in the way while using binoculars is even better.

Several other people in the Bruce Birding Club have had this operation, which is not a difficult procedure now.

Mike

 

[Odradek]

Thank you all for your answers!

My intention for this question was not if there is a right or wrong answer. I am just curious if the 10x magnification will -significantly- improve the identification of birds.

 

[looksharp65]

I am just curious if the 10x magnification will -significantly- improve the identification of birds.

If you're an extremely skilled birder who wants to pull out the most detail over vast distances AND you have extremely steady hands - YES.
For us common mortals - NO. We're lucky if we have a scope, a stationary bird that exactly resembles the one in the field guide and plenty time.

Skilled birders will recognize the GISS/jizz over long distance with low-power binoculars, and with a good scope he/she will be able to tell from what forest the bird comes, who its parents are and how it voted in the latest election...


//L

 

[Torview]

Maybe its time a 7.5X was offered from some enterprising manufacturer. 9`s seem few and far between as well.

 

[Chosun Juan]

....My intention for this question was not if there is a right or wrong answer. I am just curious if the 10x magnification will -significantly- improve the identification of birds.

For me 8x v's 10x comes down to an 80/20 rule.

80% of the time, the 8x will give me just as good (or better) a view in practice as the 10x, due to the 8x's greater dof, fov, and ep.

There is that 20% of the time though, where the 10x, even with it's lower dof, fov, and ep, earns it's keep, when the distance, subject, and detail needs, lighting, and stability (fatigue, environment, subject movement) stars all align....

Something like the APO Vortex Razor HD with its 120m fov has real appeal as a have your cake and eat it too, type solution - if it wasn't for (well for me at least) that damn CCW focuser! 2-3mm more objective size would work a treat too....


Chosun :gh: