Advantages with 7x binos (1 Viewer)

[gorank]

Why doesn't more birders use 7x binos?? Though I own a pair of 8x binos, I just can see advantages with a little less magnification:

Easier to hold steady a whole birding day (in windy conditions).
Greater field of view.
Better for scanning the sky.
Less eye-strain.
Larger exit pupil = better in low light.
Larger exit pupil = better eye comfort.

If you don't have a scope I can understand that you might want 10X binos but since most birders also uses a scope I am a bit puzzled.

Is this a psychological matter, 8 is bigger than 7 and thus better, are we so afraid of losing some detail? But do we, really? Maybe it is stability and not magnification that makes the difference.

At least here in sweden the 7x42 Zeiss BGAT were rather popular 10-15 years ago among the "fanatic birders". And still I see rave reviews of people who praise this classic binos.

So should I leave the main stream birding community and choose 7x binos instead of the 8.5 status magnifiers ??
Or even dare to buy the old 7x42 zeiss, instead of a contemporary ultra shiny pair with a red dot?

I'm eager to hear your thoughts!

 

[scampo]

I think your train of thought is rather individual (as it should be I suppose). As in Sweden, 7x were popular in the UK about a decade and more ago (this was well before people had evolved sufficiently to hold their hands steady) - more for their twilight viewing abilities. Now we tend to go to bed earlier, so do not need such a bright glass (or could it be that the likes of Swaro, Leica, Zeiss and Nikon have made their 8/10x brighter...?).

Let's be sensible - 10+x is what we need as it gives us more of what we want a binocular for but for many of us such a magnification is more difficult to hold still and cannot offer such a natural width FOV.

 

[Art Thorn]

I think it just comes down to personal preference. I have 8 and 10 power glasses, and I prefer the 10 power most of the time. I was surprised that my wife, who has not used binoculars in the past, also prefers 10 power. She still has difficulty finding the bird right away, so I thought the 8 power, with a 7.5 degree field of view, would be better for her. Not so. She finds birds more quickly with the 10 power 6 degree glasses. I don't understand why, because there is no other real difference (same quality Nikon superiors).

 

[Edward woodwood]

What you need depends what you do....

in a rainforest say 7x bins are wonderful....a little extra light goes a long way.The slight drop in magnification is not an issue but the extra filed is very useful.

the old zeiss 7s have incredible resolution too and are very good when seawatching or trying to pick up raptors etc. 10x in a binocular is way too much for me.

I use 8x mostly but often take my old 7x instead.

 

[Art Thorn]

Everyone is different, and situations are different. I like to see the detail of a bird, and I don't shake too much (yet) so I use 10 power. But if I go into a dense forest looking for warblers, I take the 8 power (not because of brightness but for the field of view). The same with scopes. My three eyepieces give me 42,67 and 120 power. I prefer the 120, because I am at the shore and like to see the ducks, etc., close up. I try the other eyepieces when I am seaching through a flock for something unique, but switch back to 120 as soon as I find 'that' bird.

 

[laika]

Is there a big difference in depth of field in a 7x roof bino vs a 10x roof bino?
Or in a roof bino vs a porro in the same magnification? I know a porro bino have better 3D view,(at least in theory ) because of the longer distance between the objective lenses.More correctly I'am asking is there a difference roof vs porro even if yoy close one eye? The reason for asking this is my left eye which is almost blind.I can only read the biggest frontpageletters in the newspapers.
When i use my Leica Ultravid 10x42BR i must use the focusingwheel very often ,compared to a Swarovski 7x42 Classic or my Fujinon 7x50,but the Fuji has IF and not comparable to CFbinoculars.

When i compare my Leica to my brothers Swarovski 8.5x42 EL,i must admit i don't like the EL's focus at all.Too slow for me. Leica is much quicker ,but perhaps not in the same class as Nikon 10x42 HG which i also have tested.

 

[deboo]

Is there a big difference in depth of field in a 7x roof bino vs a 10x roof bino?
Or in a roof bino vs a porro in the same magnification? I know a porro bino have better 3D view,(at least in theory ) because of the longer distance between the objective lenses.More correctly I'am asking is there a difference roof vs porro even if yoy close one eye? The reason for asking this is my left eye which is almost blind.I can only read the biggest frontpageletters in the newspapers.
When i use my Leica Ultravid 10x42BR i must use the focusingwheel very often ,compared to a Swarovski 7x42 Classic or my Fujinon 7x50,but the Fuji has IF and not comparable to CFbinoculars.

When i compare my Leica to my brothers Swarovski 8.5x42 EL,i must admit i don't like the EL's focus at all.Too slow for me. Leica is much quicker ,but perhaps not in the same class as Nikon 10x42 HG which i also have tested.

Good Evening Laika,

I don't know about a difference in depth of field in 7x or 10x bins.
I borrowed a pair of red Leica 8x32 BN's and there was a massive difference in depth of field compared to my 8x42's....I could not get on with the smaller Leica's and took 'em back to the shop after 3 days.
As regards the bins you mention....Swarovski, Nikon and Leica...they are all very good in my opinion. Try them out and decide for your self...As the old saying goes......" You pays your money and you takes your choice".

Dave.

 

[iporali]

Why doesn't more birders use 7x binos?? Though I own a pair of 8x binos, I just can see advantages with a little less magnification:

I would compare the binos and the eye to a digital camera with a zoom: the more resolution ("megapixels") there is in the sensor, the less you need magnification (focal length) to "see" the same thing. If your eyes are very good at seeing the details 7x binos deliver, then you can enjoy its advantages. Quite many of us however feel more comfortable with slightly larger image - maybe partly because our megapixels are not enough to resolve the details that a great 7x can bring in the eye.

If I am mainly using the scope to id the birds, 7x would probably be better for me than my 10x, but knowing how many times I have to struggle with just binos, I would not dare to trust myself with 7x magnification.

Ilkka

 

[Andrew Rowlands]

The 'old' Zeiss 7x42's are a very good binocular still. The ability to pick up movement by eye and see it clearly, as soon as you lift the bino, without having to focus, is a great asset in many circumstances. They are a little 'quicker' in use than anything else that I have tried.

With a fleeting bird, it is sometimes better not to try to use binoculars; a second or two by eye is better than half a second or so of a shaky blur.

It comes down to the way that you do your birdwatching.

Zeiss always said that the 7x42 had better resolution than their 10x40.

Andy.

 

[Edward woodwood]

agree totally Andy
ace bins

 

[Art Thorn]

Depth of field has been clearly identified in the photo world, and can't be disputed. A long lens (higher magnification) has a shorter depth of field. With a wide angle lens (very low magnification) everything is in focus. And a lens used wide open has a shorter depth of field than when the lens is closed down. The same happens with the human eye. I use reading glasses, but often forget them when I go out to eat. In a dimmly lit restaurant my pupils dilate (open to their max) and I can't read the menu. A bit more light and my pupils start to get smaller and suddenly I can read. Now if I could only figure out how all of that relates to binocs.

 

[Doug Greenberg]

I use Nikon Superior E 10 x 42 binoculars, and I love them, I've never found anything better for looking at birds. To me seeing birds at 10x is simply better than seeing them at 7x. The Nikons are reasonably lightweight, they are bright, and they are pin-sharp from edge to edge. As someone who never liked the feel of roof prism binoculars, these porros are absolutely ideal.

Obviously, binoculars are a matter of personal preference. I guess that I would be able to hold 7x bins slightly more steady than 10x, but this is not an issue for me when I am in the field. And I certainly don't have any issue with "depth of field" with binoculars. Usually I am looking at only one bird at a time, and I manage to get it into focus.

 

[Jane Turner]

I've never been a fan of big magnificaton... my eyes can resolve a lot of detail as long as I have a bright, sharp shake free image. That said, I've always used 8x by choice, but there is nothing wrng with the Zeiss 7x

Was seawatching off a rocking boat in bad light a few years back and I swear I picked up about 30 Storm Petrels before the people around me saw one. They were all using 10x.

I have once looked through a pair of 15x60 Zeiss Porros... I think if I ever find a good condition second hand pair I'll pick them up and use them instead of a scope. I'd need a bearer though!

 

[Art Thorn]

Jane and Doug have just summarized it all nicely. We are all different and all find what works best for us, given an opportunity to experiment. I've come to the same point as Doug - I will pick the 10x42 SEs almost every time. I'll add that I like the two barrels to get my hands around, probably the same idea as those 8.5x42 Swarovski's at an incredibly good price (I paid $375 U.S. for a brand new pair!!!). Time to go look at some birds.

 

[Grousemore]

Interesting point about different magnifications.
I was speaking to the manager at an optics retailer last week and he was showing me the new Leica Ultravids. He opined that "80 to 90% of birders prefer 8x rather than 10x mag"
This surprised me as I've always seen a fair mix of both when out and about and have always used 10x myself.
However there have been times recently in woods/forests where I wondered if the better depth of field of 8x may have been a better bet.

 

[scampo]

I would compare the binos and the eye to a digital camera with a zoom: the more resolution ("megapixels") there is in the sensor, the less you need magnification (focal length) to "see" the same thing. If your eyes are very good at seeing the details 7x binos deliver, then you can enjoy its advantages. Quite many of us however feel more comfortable with slightly larger image - maybe partly because our megapixels are not enough to resolve the details that a great 7x can bring in the eye.

If I am mainly using the scope to id the birds, 7x would probably be better for me than my 10x, but knowing how many times I have to struggle with just binos, I would not dare to trust myself with 7x magnification.

Ilkka

I can't easily accept this idea. Top quality modern optics all exceed the resolving ability of the human eye - they also offer a contrast that creates an appearance of extreme sharpness close to what the unaided eye achieves.

Isn't the point of binoculars and scopes that birds tend to fly away as we approach them? So we have found a clever way of getting "nearer" by the use of an optical illusion - clearly we would surely choose the most powerful magnification we could to get the bird as apparently near as we needed.

But, depth of focus diminishes as magnification increases - so a 7x bino gives a greater DOF than does a 10x bino. This means the 7x is far easier to a) focus and b) look through...

Also field of view decreases as magnification increases (for the same diameter objective, so again, 7x is easie to use than 10x on that basis...

Similarly, brightness decreases as magnification increases, so again, 7x is easier to use...

Finally, it is more difficult to hold a high magnification optic still and a shaking image is next to useless...

At 7x the image is rarely satisfyingly close enough to (most?) people in bringing the object "close enough". So that's why most people go for 8, 8.5 or 10.

Quite logical (for a change!) to my mind.

 

[gorank]

I would compare the binos and the eye to a digital camera with a zoom: the more resolution ("megapixels") there is in the sensor, the less you need magnification (focal length) to "see" the same thing. If your eyes are very good at seeing the details 7x binos deliver, then you can enjoy its advantages. Quite many of us however feel more comfortable with slightly larger image - maybe partly because our megapixels are not enough to resolve the details that a great 7x can bring in the eye.

If I am mainly using the scope to id the birds, 7x would probably be better for me than my 10x, but knowing how many times I have to struggle with just binos, I would not dare to trust myself with 7x magnification.

Ilkka

Very interesting theory, of course there must be differences, and as we are getting older we need more glasses. The resolution in the human eye is also dependent on how much light there is, and in gray and rainy whether the colors fade away as quickly as in a pair of bad binos...the megapixels in our sensors is reduced. And I guess thats why the twilight factor says that magnification increases resolution in low light..at the same time the binos apperture is getting smaller...and when the light is so low that the eye pupil is bigger than the binos exit pupil you are loosing light...and you get the opposite effect instead.
BTW our friends the eagles don't have any binoculars and still they can spot prey on several kilometers, due to greater resolution in their eyes.
I found this "basic" binos theory link rather interesting at eagle optics (a coincident):
http://www.eagleoptics.com/Default/Buying+Guide/pid2388

 

[iporali]

...
BTW our friends the eagles don't have any binoculars and still they can spot prey on several kilometers, due to greater resolution in their eyes.
I found this "basic" binos theory link rather interesting at eagle optics

Thanks gorank :clap:! You helped me to understand myself.

Ilkka

 

[Leif]

The Zeiss 7x42 BGAT seem to have quite a sizeable fan club. Many amateur astronomers adore them for their wide field and large exit pupil. When I picked a pair up I was astonished at how comfortable they felt, and they looked very well made too. I have briefly looked through some a few times, and I am always struck by how bright they are, compared with top grade 8x40 glasses. Is this simply the result of the 7x magnification? The only thing I have against them is the rubber eye tubes which are a right royal pain to fold up/down. Also they are not waterproof and nitrogen filled and that puts many people off.

Some years ago I would borrow a friends 10x50 Opolyths and they gave a wonderful bright contrasty view. Views of a local marsh with ducks and the like were glorious. Sadly I found them useless for general birding due to the narrow field of view. I guess it is very much a personal thing, but I prefer ~8x glasses with a wide field of view. I've never tried a 7x glass apart from peeking through some. I suspect most people haven't. I also prefer the large exit pupil of a 8x glass: it makes it easier to align the optics with my eyes.

Having said that, the Swift Kestral 10x50 have a good field of view albeit they are a tad heavy and bulky. The Leica 10x32 BA have a field of view as wide as many top 8x40 bins, and they are marvelous, albeit with very little eye relief, and limited in low light.

 

[Jane Turner]

The large exit pupil is the single most important factor I think... it means that you can handle much more shake. If you do most of your birding with your elbows planted on the ledge of a hide it won't matter.. but out in wind, following a flying bird, you really notice a difference.