A complete novice's choice (2 Viewers)

[Dr. K]

I enjoyed the opportunity, the other day, to introduce a person to binoculars. This person is an intelligent, worldly, healthcare professional only recently introduced and smitten with the idea of birding, with no experience at all with binoculars. It took a lot to hold myself back from telling her everything that I like about (most of) my modest binocular collection. Without having the intellectual noise of outside opinions, test results, reviews and marketing, that burdens many of us on this forum, she was able to try several and develop her own opinion. While that opinion would likely change over time, I thought her conclusion was interesting, so I am sharing.

SAMPLE

Nikon E(c) 7x35
Nikon Monarch 5 8x42
Nikon Eii 8x30
Swarovski CL B 8x30
Swarovski NL 8x32
Zeiss FL 7x42

METHODS

Over a period of two days, she and a partner were invited to try all the bins, watching birds through a window, in the yard, in daylight and dusk. She tried each pair several times, frequently one after the other, but with sustained periods of observation (5-10 minutes) with one or another to watch a particular bird. Birds observed were variable in size and speed of movement, varying in range from ~4-30m. Species (USA) include eastern bluebird, carolina wren, house sparrow, northern cardinal, Mississippi kite, mourning dove, downy woodpecker, american goldfinch. She was told about differences in magnification, fov, prism type, and was directed to note focus feel, and eye comfort. She was not told about price.

RESULTS

The factors that she found to be most compelling were weight, size, manual ergonomics and haptics, ease of eye placement ("eye comfort"), and general ease of use (= ease and speed of getting the bins on the bird, focusing). Her choice (far and away, I might add), was a tie between the Nikon Monarch 5 and the Swarovski CL B, and,I had the impression that she was leaning slightly toward the CL. That's when I couldn't resist and told her that they are in fact distinguished by about $1000... mostly to help direct her toward the next practical step, but perhaps also to save my other alphas from further embarrassment.

CONCLUSIONS

Novices, more often than not, want to feel comfortable with the bins they use, as a visual aide and not as a collector's item. To see through the glass rather than look at it. The extent of our thinking and financial investment in the tools of the hobby belies the comparatively little money that needs to be spent for that essential function. No, that doesn't mean I will bee selling off my favs, but it is a good reminder to enjoy the view and *try to reject the symptoms of upgraditis, and especially, to resist the impulse to indoctrinate new birders with technical jargon and paywalls that could pull their attention from that paramount experience of being closer to the birds.

 

[tenex]

Did she or can you explain exactly how the M5 and CL (1st or 2nd?) better met her simple critera for ease of use? Certainly not due to FOV...

 

[Dr. K]

Did she or can you explain exactly how the M5 and CL (1st or 2nd?) better met her simple critera for ease of use? Certainly not due to FOV...

It was all about a sense of comfort and ease. Of course the CL is known for comfort from the ‘eye box,’ which I expect is, in part, related to choosing easy eye placement over using a wide angle eyepiece that might introduce blackouts (and cost more to make?). The Nikon M5 is a crowd pleaser, for beginners, and to me does feel nice in the hand while being lightweight and again, easy eye placement. This reminds me that I have a parent who also preferred the M5 to ‘better’ bins that I’d previously bought her, which she attributed to the comfort of the eye cups.

I could understand about ruling out the porros and the large Zeiss, but the NL not making the list surprised me. I think she preferred the shape of the barrels better in the rounded bins, in contrast to the pinched design of the NL - she really liked the thumb indents in the CL (as does my wife; as do I). A more granular analysis, if I could ask her more detailed questions now, I think would be less helpful than we might hope, as the general impression can be difficult for one with less experience to dissect.

Edit - I’ll add that my wife, who is more driven by personal comfort and fit than optical analyses, IS experienced with bins and birding, has her choice of any model (though has not tried EVERYTHING), and still insists that the CLs suit her best. I also find them very pleasing to use but I was surprised and maybe a little disappointed when she chose those over some EL32s that I thought would meet her criteria for size and comfort but with added fov. The difference, perhaps, is that she has bonded with the CL. The person described above had not, and was not aware that the CLs were my wife’s, and was not told about our preferences prior to making her decision.

 

[Patudo]

Interesting and enjoyable read. Swarovski (and Nikon too) have quite probably put in a fair amount of R&D into the preferences of first-time binocular buyers, as this group would make up a pretty significant percentage of their sales, no doubt. Ease of view and ergonomics/handling are great virtues in themselves, and often, I think, underrated in discussion and reviews. The teams involved in designing both products would be happy to see that their efforts succeeded so well, no doubt.

I do think one's preferences can sometimes evolve with experience. It'd be interesting to see whether the "direction of travel" is different with male vs female birders.

 

[tenex]

I really don't see how E II or FL are lacking in "comfort and ease"; do you recall anything she said?

Knowing nothing about motorcycles, it might be amusing for me to choose between half a dozen models at a similarly wide but concealed range of prices. But the much more interesting question would be how I'd come feel about it six months later (if still alive).

Surely, in the absence of expert advice, almost anything today (above $20 plastic junk) will do as a first binocular, and if serious interest develops, a cheap one will be more likely to be replaced but much less painful, so M5 could be a good choice.

If I have a point here, it may be that I don't see what's inherently interesting about a beginner's initial preferences, and certainly no implication that things the cognoscenti fuss over don't really matter. (Not that you were necessarily going there, but some will.) Or that the quality of binoculars is some sort of consequential distraction from enjoyment of birds or the rest of nature.

(P.S. A friend I went shopping with several years ago for her husband's birthday chose M7 10x42, and they're still happy with it. Maybe M7 is closer to the optimal level after all.)

 

[Maljunulo]

I don't see the logic of starting out with cheap optics.

Do we really believe that their only use is to look at birds?

 

[Bill Atwood]

"No, that doesn't mean I will bee selling off my favs, but it is a good reminder to enjoy the view and *try to reject the symptoms of upgraditis, and especially, to resist the impulse to indoctrinate new birders with technical jargon and paywalls that could pull their attention from that paramount experience of being closer to the birds."

Sir, this is Birdforum.

 

[NDhunter]

I don't see the logic of starting out with cheap optics.

Do we really believe that their only use is to look at birds?

I am not sure of your reasoning. Beginners starting out with lower priced optics is the norm.
That is why binoculars like the Nikon Monarch 5 and Monarch 7 are very popular, they are very
good. Sales numbers prove that.
It does not have to be the big name brands. Common sense.
For 95% of the population, the models I mentioned above serve them perfectly well.
Not a single one of the models mentioned above is cheap.
Jerry

 

[Maljunulo]

Okay.

To me you are acquiring a precision, multi-use, instrument, which should last a substantial part of a lifetime.

If you have the means, I still don't see the logic, of buying an el-cheapo in the beginning, even if that's what many do. Just because many do something, does not make it logical or rational.

I'm not sure this "explanation" helps, and I'm not even sure it will make sense.
Richard

 

[Patudo]

To me you are acquiring a precision, multi-use, instrument, which should last a substantial part of a lifetime.

Only true if you see them as such. Some (many) folks see them as a device to better see birds (or other things).

I understand that. For me a car is just a means of getting from A to B. No, I don't own a BMW or Mercedes (cue B letting all of us know that a Roller, or whatever, is so much better, including how much it cost back in the day...).

 

[Maljunulo]

Only true if you see them as such. Some (many) folks see them as a device to better see birds (or other things).

The two views are not mutually exclusive.

 

[NDhunter]

Okay.

To me you are acquiring a precision, multi-use, instrument, which should last a substantial part of a lifetime.

If you have the means, I still don't see the logic, of buying an el-cheapo in the beginning, even if that's what many do. Just because many do something, does not make it logical or rational.

I'm not sure this "explanation" helps, and I'm not even sure it will make sense.
Richard

Richard:
There is another way to look at this subject. This website is full of enthusiasts who are well experienced
and can appreciate the qualities of optics at many different price levels, including the very best.
Then there is the more normal birder or outdoor enthusiast who has found this site to be a great place
to learn. They do not need or want anything special. They just love to get out there.

So, while your intentions may seem sound to someone that is out looking at things often, it does not
make sense to a binocular user, who just uses an optic for a few times, every now and then.
I am not sure what an el-cheapo is, but for a beginner it may the best way to start. A beginner will
be thrilled with the experience.
I don't like to see anybody on here looking down on someone who is in the market, buying lower
priced but very good optics.
Jerry

 

[Binastro]

Firstly, why should a binocular last a lifetime.

It is an instrument to bring things nearer.

Logic varies from person to person.

As I have said many times, most astronomers have £100 or at the most £200 binoculars.
They don't need it to be waterproof, but it maybe

I mention Rolls Royce, because they can be imperfect even new.
In 1963 I think they cost about £6,000.
Money does not bring perfection, just a better product that may actually be less suitable.

My £600 1963 Mini Cooper S did the 275 mile journey through built up towns, villages and open road in 4 1/2 hours, exactly the same as the Rolls.
The Rolls was quieter, although the engine was rough above 110mph, although I cruised at 120mph, perfectly legally in 1963.
I was passed on the A1 by a lowered E type doing around 160mph, again quite legal then.
The Mini Cooper S topped out at 100mph and was very noisy, but cornered faster and went through traffic much easier.

Personally, I had no problem at all using a 12x45 KOMZ binocular for ten years that cost £28 new.
Or a Nikon Aculon 10x42 or Nikon Action VII 10x50.

Price to me has little to do with suitability.

Birdwatchers may need more exact colours and better durability, as they observe in conditions when I wouldn't bother.

If some say they need £3,000 binoculars for birdwatching that is fine.
It is probably cheaper than cigarettes, booze or dating.

I am fine using £2 to £6,000 binoculars.

I also enjoyed the Renault 4, beat up Land Rover, or even driving the Rolls Royce hearses I used to work on, maybe made in the 1920s.
and Vans, lorries etc.
My first speeding ticket was driving a furniture van at 43mph.
The Police Officer asked where my log book was.
I said 'What's a log book'.
My boss hadn't told me I needed one.

Regards,
B.

 

[NDhunter]

B.
Well said, I agree with you about optics, we can find enjoyment in anything that helps us see closer.
No matter the make or model.
You seem to have a solid understanding of things. I like that...............
I recall some years ago posting how I like the Nikon Aculon 7x35 that cost around $50. I know I talked more
about that binocular than some Swarovski model I have owned.
Jerry

 

[Maljunulo]

My thought was if you start out with something "lesser" you may not enjoy the pursuit as much than you would if you had something "better". Therefore, you are less likely to continue. I guess that's okay too, in the grand scheme of things.

My recollection is of a binocular my late brother-in-law proudly showed me that he got for $50. I couldn't believe how bad his eyesight must have been, if he could even look through it, never mind actually use it.

That was a definite exception to the general rule that "anything is better than bare eyeballs." It would pull your eyeballs out of your head.

It was not my intention to "look down on" anyone. Spend what you can, and enjoy it.

 

[mwhogue]

You gotta start somewhere.

Mike

 

[Pinewood]

Firstly, why should a binocular last a lifetime.

...

If some say they need £3,000 binoculars for birdwatching that is fine.
It is probably cheaper than cigarettes, booze or dating.

...

Regards,
B.

Hello Binastro,

Without buying cigarettes, going down the pub and not keeping an auto, one can afford one's heart's desire in a binocular.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

 

[Patudo]

if you start out with something "lesser" you may not enjoy the pursuit as much than you would if you had something "better". Therefore, you are less likely to continue.

Maybe for stars, maybe for "the other sport", too. But most of us start birding by looking at park or backyard birds. You don't need a NL to get a look (a real good look at that) at those.

Back when your brother in law showed you the binocular he got for $50 it was probably quite possible to get a binocular that would serve you well, which you would enjoy even today, for that price, especially if you knew what to look for/what you were looking at.

One ignorant buyer doesn't mean that all binoculars priced at $50 back in the day were junk, far from it.

 

[Maljunulo]

One ignorant buyer doesn't mean that all binoculars priced at $50 back in the day were junk, far from it.

Well, he certainly found one that was.

 

[Dr. K]

I would argue that inexperience does not make a person ignorant in the context that is discussed here.

Quite to the contrary, as I alluded to above, the fact that a person with less experience has not poured over the pages of technical specifications about the instruments in question, that they have not strained to understand the multitude of perspectives in this forum, frees them of these distractions as much as it denies them the insights that we seem to cherish here.

In this way, the novice finds what they themselves value most. This, in contrast to a scenario wherein a new forum-reader finds themselves sitting in their yard, pointing their favorite binoculars in all directions, straining to study the edges of the view, feeling carefully the focus resistance, trying to recognize the 'issue' that someone else found unacceptable. The novice is free from the knowledge that their favorite new tool, something they saved for, perhaps a gift, binoculars that they attribute to helping to build their new, personal relationship with nature, is referred to as "el cheapo" by those with more expertise; free from the suggestion that they are less than other participants in this club.

There is freedom and clarity in the novice's view. You might circle back to this term again, saying "ignorance is bliss." I would counter that our emphatic dissections of what was once, for each of us, a pure experience, not only resulted in gained knowledge, but also in lost perspective.

Are we all ruined? Off-base? Snobs? That's not what I'm saying. I only started this thread to share my reflection on the novice perspective, among a community of experts, remembering that there is value in other perspectives, even those with less different knowledge and experience.