Nikon wx binoculars are not suitable for bird watching. (1 Viewer)

[huxiong]

I have a nikon wx10x50 binoculars. I used to watch the stars and view the scenery. Is it too cumbersome to watch birds? Does anyone use it?

 

[KC Foggin]

Hi there and a warm welcome to you.
I'm sorry I can't help you with your question but someone will be by soon with their thoughts.

 

[albie...]

I have never tried the WX's and probably never will because of the astronomical price tag . Judging by the specifications of the WX's I would believe that they would be too heavy for birding and the individual focusing would make them too difficult . Perhaps if they are used mounted and for distant objects they may be useful . In my opinion they are first and foremost best mounted and for stargazing , then long distant targets . Bird watching with them would be my last consideration . YMMV .

 

[Scott98]

I'm sure the views of the birds are clear but that weight spec says "no way" to me - my 42 ounce 56mm's are too heavy and cumbersome to carry around the woods looking for birds, I can't imagine 85 ounces. Individual focusing not going to be fast enough either.

I've got the glossy Nikon WX brochure right here - it's all pictures of people looking at the stars, I don't think they were intended for birds. How about a 50 or 56mm EDG binocular from Nikon....I'd love to see that.

 

[dries1]

Try birding with it, you spent the $$$ so I am sure you could figure it out yourself.

 

[PYRTLE]

This topic was discussed at length some years back when these were first announced. I'm fairly certain that due to the individual eyepiece focusing, the weight and combined bulk the conclusion was a resounding not suitable for general bird watching. The topic will be archived somewhere on BF.

 

[wllmspd]

I had a pleasant session with an owner of the 10x WX, it was tripod mounted and we were using it to help find peregrines some way away, allowing us to scan a big area at once, when we could then zoom in with other optics later. Handholding and mech strap usage are for people who’ve been down the gym a lot. The view was amazing, super wide and sharp to the field stop, but you’d expect that. If I had the money I’d probably get other optics, but for perfection there aren’t many other options.

Peter

 

[edwincjones]

I can see them as a mounted compliment to spotting scopes, or as a low mag alternative
as stated here many times - all optics are compromises
and the compromises to get the WX quality are many

I would love to have a pair but do not know what I would do with them-this, and the price prevent me from getting a pair.

edj

 

[kabsetz]

I'm sure that if I had a 10x50 WX, I'd also try it for birding, hand-held. More likely, with a finnstick. I have a friend who has quite often used the Zeiss 15x60 hand-held or with a finnstick, and that is almost as big as the WX and has higher magnification also. The biggest issue would be individual focus, so I'd probably make index markings on both eyepieces (with tape or such so as not to permanently change the looks of this collectible binocular) for infinity focus, ca 100 meters and close-up range, perhaps 10-12 meters or whatever is the most common "little birds in a nearby tree" distance.

- Kimmo

 

[PeterPS]

I'm sure that if I had a 10x50 WX, I'd also try it for birding, hand-held. More likely, with a finnstick. I have a friend who has quite often used the Zeiss 15x60 hand-held or with a finnstick, and that is almost as big as the WX and has higher magnification also. The biggest issue would be individual focus, so I'd probably make index markings on both eyepieces (with tape or such so as not to permanently change the looks of this collectible binocular) for infinity focus, ca 100 meters and close-up range, perhaps 10-12 meters or whatever is the most common "little birds in a nearby tree" distance.

- Kimmo

Focusing on birds at 10-12m isn't possible as the close focus of the WX 10x50 is 20m. That's another reason the WX is not an ideal birding tool: my experience is that even a 6m close focus (for example, Canon 12x36 IS) can be too much in some cases.

 

[dries1]

It would be a funny vision of someone wearing one of those foreign legion hats, tall rubber boots with a WX trudging through a marsh - watching how they focus. It would be a hit on u-tube.

 

[PeterPS]

It would be a funny vision of someone wearing one of those foreign legion hats, tall rubber boots with a WX trudging through a marsh - watching how they focus. It would be a hit on u-tube.

Only if there also was a talking cat (or dog) in it---not too many hits for pure binos videos.

 

[Maljunulo]

All birding is not stomping through the pucker brush, while trying to see tiny tweety birds flitting through the vegetation.

A fair portion ov my birding takes place at infinity, and focusing is quite unnecessary. (I seem to keep fiddling with it, nonetheless)

 

[Tringa45]

A fair portion ov my birding takes place at infinity, and focusing is quite unnecessary. (I seem to keep fiddling with it, nonetheless)

For the human eye the difference between 100 m and infinity is negligible, but through a 10x binocular it's one whole dioptre!

 

[Maljunulo]

I seem to recall that it is defined at 100 focal lengths, so for the human eye, that would seem to be somewhat closer than 100 yards. No clue where I read that.

 

[Tringa45]

I seem to recall that it is defined at 100 focal lengths, so for the human eye, that would seem to be somewhat closer than 100 yards. No clue where I read that.

If you were doing resolution measurements that would be a sensible distance for the tests. However, in practice many instruments will perform satisfactorily at much closer distances. My 10x42EL (focal length 150-160 mm?) has a close focus capability of 1,5 m, which is only about 10 focal lengths.

In the example above a 100 m object is only 1/100th dioptre removed from infinity for the human eye, but viewed through a binocular one has to multiply that by the square of the magnification.
Just an example: Focus on a 50 m distant object with a 2 dioptre reading glass lens behind the eyepiece of your 10x binocular. Remove the lens and your binocular will be at your personal infinity setting.

John

 

[Maljunulo]

Well, now I am totally confused.

How are you equating infinity with closest possible focus?

 

[Tringa45]

How are you equating infinity with closest possible focus?

Completely unrelated. You mentioned 100 focal lengths as approximating infinity and IIRC this is the distance Henry suggested for conducting resolution measurements on scopes. It may even be the distance at which optical designers compute the objectives of binoculars and scopes for the best compromise of the various aberrations. I merely pointed out that many binoculars and scopes can still provide visually acceptable images at much closer distances.

The other aspect is that if you are viewing objects at 100 times the focal length of your binoculars or scope, objects at infinity will not be in focus. This is because of the enormous effect of magnification on depth of field (the inverse of the square of magnification), or alternatively the natural dioptre value multiplied by the square of the magnification.

Regards,
John

 

[Maljunulo]

Thanks for the clarification.