Shorebirds and big open fields + owl watching at night / NL 10x42 or 10x52 ? (1 Viewer)

[Fimmus]

Hi all, I'm wonder if anyone could perhaps give me some future advice on a second binocular that could compliment my 8x32, witch in my case does a great job as a compact and handy binocular in dense woodlands and for warbler watching, but i have a feeling that a NL10x42 could be a great addition for looking at shorebirds and over big open fields?

I've done some research on this forum and it seems to me to be a great combo both in higher magnification for that little bit of extra reach and bigger objective lenses for cloudy days and at dusk, but now that the NL10x52 has launched, I'm wonder if that might check most of the boxes and one extra if I also want to use it for owl watching at night?

And maybe the extra weight wouldn't be that big of a downside when combined with a chest harness? And correct med if I'm wrong, looking for shorebirds and over big open fields, you might be mostly standing stationary?

I'm not planning to buy a second pair now, but it would be great to have some guidance for which direction i could be going and where i should place my focus on later in the future.

So, watching shorebirds and scanning big open fields + owl watching at night, would you choose 10x42 for its lighter weight or 10x52 for its better low light gathering abilities for those occasions mentioned above?

I have seen many say that 10x is not that big of jump in magnification, and people recommend 12x42s, but I get a feeling that 12x would be a little troublesome at dusk, and not usable at night while looking for owls?

Thanks in advance

 

[tenex]

I have seen many say that 10x is not that big of jump in magnification, and people recommend 12x42s, but I get a feeling that 12x would be a little troublesome at dusk, and not usable at night while looking for owls?

It isn't. But as you say 12x42 won't be ideal for low light, so if that's part of the plan I'd consider 12x50 (EL?). 8x and 12x would pair very well, it's just a question of the exit pupil you need. It's all about compromises, and there aren't even as many choices as one might like. (NL 12x52 might be ideal... but without it, can you justify 12x42 for shorebirds and 10x52 for owls?)

 

[Scott98]

these questions are all personal preference, so only you can answer. For me, the choice was to go with the big aperture at 10x for all the reasons you mention. 10x56 in my case, not 10x52 but similar. The massive light-gathering ability is really nice for birding after sunset.

I prefer lower magnification for most birding, if I do need to use the 10x56 for shorebirds I'm usually near the car and brace my elbows on the roof of the car for support. They're too heavy to carry on walks. It's all about the extra weight. A 10x42 would be much lighter and feasible to wear on a neck strap for long periods. The 10x52 may be too heavy for some people. The vast majority of birders would choose 10x42 for lighter weight I think. I also do astronomy and the larger 50mm+ aperture is best for that.

 

[Maljunulo]

If you’re serious about owls, think about the Fujinon 10X70 FMT-SX.

They’re good in very low light, but dark is still dark.

I’ve watched a family of Great Horned Owls in the woods, and it is really dark under a tree canopy at night.

 

[etudiant]

Hi all, I'm wonder if anyone could perhaps give me some future advice on a second binocular that could compliment my 8x32, witch in my case does a great job as a compact and handy binocular in dense woodlands and for warbler watching, but i have a feeling that a NL10x42 could be a great addition for looking at shorebirds and over big open fields?

I've done some research on this forum and it seems to me to be a great combo both in higher magnification for that little bit of extra reach and bigger objective lenses for cloudy days and at dusk, but now that the NL10x52 has launched, I'm wonder if that might check most of the boxes and one extra if I also want to use it for owl watching at night?

And maybe the extra weight wouldn't be that big of a downside when combined with a chest harness? And correct med if I'm wrong, looking for shorebirds and over big open fields, you might be mostly standing stationary?

I'm not planning to buy a second pair now, but it would be great to have some guidance for which direction i could be going and where i should place my focus on later in the future.

So, watching shorebirds and scanning big open fields + owl watching at night, would you choose 10x42 for its lighter weight or 10x52 for its better low light gathering abilities for those occasions mentioned above?

I have seen many say that 10x is not that big of jump in magnification, and people recommend 12x42s, but I get a feeling that 12x would be a little troublesome at dusk, and not usable at night while looking for owls?

Thanks in advance

For shorebirds and big open fields, an image stabilized binocular is hard to beat. If allows one to see detail much more effectively while avoiding the encumbrance of a scope/tripod.
I've been very happy with the Canon 10x42ISL, an optically excellent porro, fully waterproof, the IS runs for a couple of weeks of steady birding on a pair of AA batteries. The glass is heavy and has massive oculars, so the ergonomics are peculiar, but at US $1500 new, it is a true bargain imho.

 

[Bentley03]

Fimmus, it sounds from your post that you've already made up your mind to stay brand loyal to Swarovski. I also sense money will probably not be an issue when you do decide to buy.
So, your 10x42 NL vs 10x52 NL decision is one that only you can make, based on testing both models (preferably on several occasions, if you have a toy shop nearby).
The x52 gives up nothing to the x42, in terms of FOV, so if those are the candidates, the x52 makes more sense for light gathering purposes, and as such, unless weight is going to be an issue, the x52 format appears to be the more 'fit for purpose', or versatile, of the two, if both shorebirds and owling are to be covered. The x52 will also be the better instrument for astronomy, if that interests you, or may become of interest to you.
I haven't had my 10x52 long enough to give you more than my initial thoughts, but side by side with my 10x42 I sense that I can hold the 10x52 steadier, resolution in the 10x52 is slightly better (that perception may simply be a byproduct of being able to hold them steadier). Lastly, for me, the 10x52 appears to control stray light better than the 10x42, but that is absolutely not 'fact', because I haven't yet had the opportunity to test them in really difficult lighting conditions. My benchmark for tricky reflective coastal work is my 10x42 EDG, for me the best of the best in these situations, but I'm excited to try the 10x52 NL's, because I have a suspicion they might come close (but will not surpass).
On the other side of the coin, the person testing the two pairs of NL's with me had a strong preference for the 10x42, better balance in the hands, could hold them steadier, felt they were more immersive and (technical term coming up!) had more sparkle.
Spend as much time as you are able to testing before choosing, and in as many different lighting situations as you can.

 

[dalat]

For shorebirds and open fields, it's a scope that will make a real difference to your birding. 10x instead of 8x won't, birds will still be too far away. A light wide angle bin like your 8x32 and a scope is the ideal combo for that environment.

For watching owls, a 8x50 (52 or similar) or 10x50 will probably be good, but honestly, I don't think that this will be a huge difference either. If it's dark, you won't see anything in any binocular, it's just the usable time at dawn that gets a bit longer with larger aperture (and that only if you have young eyes).

So in summary, my recommendation is to start thinking about a scope.

 

[ReinierB]

I think it really makes sense having a 8x32 and a 10x42.
Is see enough difference between 8x and 10x. When I am using 8x, I always have the feeling I am missing something. I have a SLC 8x42 for low light (owls, deer, dark woods etc.) a NL 10x32 for birdwatching during the day and an EL 12x50 for wetlands, meadows, etc, but also for low light at open fields.

A 50/52 is quite heavy. I carry my EL 12x50 mostly with an harness.

 

[Tringa45]

I concur with Dalat that for shorebirds a scope is mandatory. A binocular may help you to find them, but in most cases only the scope will give you a decent view or even an ID.
Minor magnification differences are of little impotance in binoculars. Handheld, a 7x binocular will show you about five and a half times as much detail as the naked eye and a 10x binocular only about seven times. Beyond 10x magnification, gains are minimal.
In bright ambient lighting and if mounted on a stable tripod, a good scope will enable you to benefit fron its nominal magnification down to exit pupils of around 2 mm, and that means 30-50x.
If however you are observing under poor lighting conditions, you want to get as much light to your retinae as possible, and that means large exit pupils.
Last year I was out with some other birders observing Short-eared Owls in agricultural land at dusk. Although I am nearly 80, my 8x56 SLC gave me a much brighter view than a 10x42 IS Canon. The difference to a 10x50 EL was small, but if you are young you would likely profit from 6 mm or 7 mm exit pupils under these conditions.
With dilated pupils your own visual acuity suffers, so a premium binocular is not a necessity, and for twilight observation you would be better served by an inexpensive 7x50 or 8x56 than the best available 10x42.

John

 

[Maljunulo]

You’re always going to be “missing something” even if you travel with a truckload of equipment and bearers to hand it to you.

I’d rather marvel at, and enjoy, what I can see than obsess over what I might be missing.

 

[Harry Stottle]

I agree with dalat about the need for a scope for shorebirds, but sometimes even with a scope the birds are too far away!

I have tried 10x56's for owls but find the FoV too narrow, especially for nightjars in flight.
I have not tried 8x50ish at dusk but they would be as heavy and clumsy as my 10x56, although with a better FoV.
For nightjars, owls etc at dusk I find either my 7x42 Dialyts or my 7x 42 FL's are ideal. They are light, bright and have a very wide FoV.

If you are looking for a second pair of bins to cover most situations to compliment your 8x32's, my choice would be a 10x50 or possibly a 12x50 if you can put up with the narrower FoV.

 

[Tringa45]

but sometimes even with a scope the birds are too far away!

You can say that again! The Spoonies (my grail bird) are in Siberia at this time of year.

John

 

[Scott98]

I have tried 10x56's for owls but find the FoV too narrow, especially for nightjars in flight.
I have not tried 8x50ish at dusk but they would be as heavy and clumsy as my 10x56, although with a better FoV.

this is true...when I've tried to use the 10x56 to spot woodcocks, the narrower field of view feels restrictive. 8x56 would be best in that situation. But the 10x56 greatly illuminates things. When everything is dark in the 7x42's, the 10x56 is still showing a clear view. No question the 10x52 NL will do fantastic job on things like woococks & owls and the FOV is huge for 10x.

I love the big aperture, for me there is no question I prefer the 10x56 over 10x42 at all times. I like the eye comfort of the larger exit pupil too. It just comes down to the weight. 27 ounces is the most I want to carry for 3 hours, either in a case or neckstrap. 36, 42 ounces, not so much.

 

[Fimmus]

Thank you all for great input and for your personal experiences. Highly appreciate it!

Have actually been wondering about the svaro ATC/STC lately, and as i don't have a car and do all my to and from by bus and tram, and the lower weight of the ATC/STC makes that less cumbersome, that would be a real treat, and also as i live two minutes from the sea, a heavier bin for that use wouldn't be a huge issue otherwise, but a scope are something that has been triggering my interest.

Funny thing is that yesterday i borrowed my stepdads Breitler Viking spotting scope and went to Kalandsvika nature reserve (in Norway) where there is a birdwatching tower, and boy i really felt the need for a spotting scope. ☺️

Well, i guess i will have to start saving for a spotting scope and 10x56/10x52 NL.

If only money grew on trees. 🤔

 

[BogBean]

I think it really makes sense having a 8x32 and a 10x42.
Is see enough difference between 8x and 10x. When I am using 8x, I always have the feeling I am missing something. I have a SLC 8x42 for low light (owls, deer, dark woods etc.) a NL 10x32 for birdwatching during the day and an EL 12x50 for wetlands, meadows, etc, but also for low light at open fields.

A 50/52 is quite heavy. I carry my EL 12x50 mostly with an harness.

My shackles really do go up, when I hear anyone advocating multiple pairs of binoculars for birding.
I firmly believe you need a single pair of binoculars. Anything more is likely, if anything to make you a worse birder, especially if you are relatively new to the hobby.
However, I also appreciate that I should chill more, it's not my money.

But your configuration above.. how on earth does it work!
I frequently go on walks with a low light start in forest, and thru some open fields when it's still dull. Then on thru a mixture of habitats in good light.
(and all the time I'd worry about any valuables left in the car). That's typical birding behaviour. There's definitely no room for 3 pairs of binoculars.

Do you somehow limit yourself to one habitat and one light condition per walk?

 

[Viraj]

My shackles really do go up, when I hear anyone advocating multiple pairs of binoculars for birding.
I firmly believe you need a single pair of binoculars. Anything more is likely, if anything to make you a worse birder, especially if you are relatively new to the hobby.
However, I also appreciate that I should chill more, it's not my money.

But your configuration above.. how on earth does it work!
I frequently go on walks with a low light start in forest, and thru some open fields when it's still dull. Then on thru a mixture of habitats in good light.
(and all the time I'd worry about any valuables left in the car). That's typical birding behaviour. There's definitely no room for 3 pairs of binoculars.

Do you somehow limit yourself to one habitat and one light condition per walk?

I can totally understand your argument. Definitely it is enough to have one pair of binoculars to identify birds in most of the birding scenarios. It is even possible to identify birds without using any binoculars, and only with naked eyes and ears. There are many experienced birders who usually identify birds mostly with their calls.

However, there are people who enjoy using different binoculars for different purposes/habitats. It would not certainly increase their bird identification capabilities but it makes the bird watching more enjoyable. These kind of people are the usual visitors in this binoculars forum of the BF.

If I am correct, I have seen you posted the same idea of using only one pair of binoculars for birding in a few different threads. I am wondering what is the pair of binoculars you are using for all type of habitats? Do you plan to upgrade it soon because of some limitations of it? (I asked that question because usual visitors of this section is people who are enthusiastic about using different binoculars or people who want to upgrade their existing binoculars. It seems you are most unlikely belong to the first group).

However, I can’t completely agree to your point of using different magnification involve for significant errors in bird identification. It may have some truth into it but then no one should couple a spotting scope with binoculars to identify distant birds, so certainly not spotting scopes with variable magnifications.

 

[Maljunulo]

Started to respond, but I thought better of it

 

[chill6x6]

So, watching shorebirds and scanning big open fields + owl watching at night, would you choose 10x42 for its lighter weight or 10x52 for its better low light gathering abilities for those occasions mentioned above?

So IMO you have two different scenarios going on here. Shorebird/open fields and owl watching. So this leads to some larger objective binoculars AND a spotting scope.

For owls at dusk/night I use either a Meopta B.1 7X50 or a Zeiss HT 8X54. I actually use the Meopta the most. Any good quality 7-8X/50-56mm binocular would be fine. AND you need a spotting scope....and that gets my vote. I've seen a lot of owls with 8X32 binoculars! But they sure run out of steam when it comes to shore birds. So I vote for a good spotting scope and tripod.

 

[ReinierB]

My shackles really do go up, when I hear anyone advocating multiple pairs of binoculars for birding.
I firmly believe you need a single pair of binoculars. Anything more is likely, if anything to make you a worse birder, especially if you are relatively new to the hobby.
However, I also appreciate that I should chill more, it's not my money.

But your configuration above.. how on earth does it work!
I frequently go on walks with a low light start in forest, and thru some open fields when it's still dull. Then on thru a mixture of habitats in good light.
(and all the time I'd worry about any valuables left in the car). That's typical birding behaviour. There's definitely no room for 3 pairs of binoculars.

Do you somehow limit yourself to one habitat and one light condition per walk?

I think the 8x32 and the 10x42 work in all situations and for all kinds of habitats. It's just the question how heavy your binoculars may be on that occasion.

 

[crinklystarfish]

Have actually been wondering about the svaro ATC/STC lately, and as i don't have a car and do all my to and from by bus and tram, and the lower weight of the ATC/STC makes that less cumbersome, that would be a real treat, and also as i live two minutes from the sea, a heavier bin for that use wouldn't be a huge issue otherwise, but a scope are something that has been triggering my interest.

Re the desire for more 'reach' when it comes to "shorebirds and big open fields", and the suitability of 12x for owls.

For what it's worth, my own (not including pockets) solution is an NL 12x42 for almost all nature-watching situations, but I carry an NL 8x32 (instead, not as well as) if specifically heading for closed woodland, or if I know butterflies / dragonflies are going to feature heavily.

Re low-light owling, much has been written about twilight factor, and also about how higher magnification may be more of a friend than huge aperture and exit pupil as eyesight deteriorates with age. Bottom line, I personally see more detail in very low light with my NL 12x42 than I did with a Conquest HD 8x56 I tried.

Re scopes, I also have a CTC 30x75, which is extremely portable (highly important to me) and very flexible in deployment. My conclusion when compared to an ATC/STC.

My shackles really do go up, when I hear anyone advocating multiple pairs of binoculars... Anything more is likely, if anything to make you a worse birder... How on earth does it work! Do you somehow limit yourself to one habitat and one light condition per walk?

No, you carry the one binocular that's likely to best compliment the habitat and subject matter for the occasion. I'm personally content that my NL 8x32 makes me a more effective birder in closed woodland, whilst my NL 12x42 makes me a more effective birder in almost all other situations.

You could probably drive a nail in using a pipe wrench, but I'd personally prefer to leave the wrench in the toolbox and use a hammer.