What is a good magnification for a distance of 500ft? (1 Viewer)

[rosieparisian]

There is a tree that is just about exactly 500ft from my backyard that bald eagles perch in. What would be a good magnification for bird watching at that distance?
Thanks in advance

 

[Maljunulo]

It depends on how much you want to see.

 

[Ted Y.]

For 500ft: I use a stabilized 12x binocular and I am OK with the details.
But not for small birds.
As always, try before you decide.

 

[lilcrazy2]

I have power poles in the fields around my house, at 134 & 168 yds that red tail hawks regularly perch on. I generally use and scan with 8x32's and when I want to get a bigger view I use some 12x50's.

 

[Vespobuteo]

There is a tree that is just about exactly 500ft from my backyard that bald eagles perch in. What would be a good magnification for bird watching at that distance?
Thanks in advance

With a 10x binocular they will appear to be at 50ft.

 

[tenex]

"Bird watching" is highly variable, so the question arises of what else you may want to do. But a perched raptor is a sitting duck (so to speak) for as much magnification as you can get, so you might even want a scope. It mainly depends on whether you want to use a tripod (or image-stabilized binocular). For many people 10x or maybe 12x is the limit of handheld stability.

 

[Bino Steve]

Ok people, don't scoff but a high quality Zoom, like a Leica Duovid 8-12 x42 might be worth a try. Stay away from the cheap zoom binos, but hey,even trying one out to see what power works for you.... The Leica is not cheap. Your fov suffers a bit with zooms. Nikon has some as well in porro design for much much cheaper. Ok let the flogging begin...

 

[Pinewood]

Hello,

Have you considered a 'scope?

Stay safe,
Arthur

 

[BKoh]

There is a tree that is just about exactly 500ft from my backyard that bald eagles perch in. What would be a good magnification for bird watching at that distance?
Thanks in advance

At that distance, 8-10x will allow you to ID the eagles. If you want to enjoy the view, 20-40x is better, but you'll need a spotting scope. Buy from Amazon and see for yourself, return if it doesn't suit your needs.

 

[GrampaTom]

I notice a sentiment here, hinting at the very real limit of viewing at this distance with 8/10X binoculars. At 500 feet depending on what detail you want to see, some here at least seem to suggest a scope may be the better tool. Is it time to step out of the silo and think about the relevance of the industries FOV at 1000 whatevers as well?

 

[dries1]

This question will only provide subjective answers, as some investigation by the original question has to reflect the response from

Maljunulo

"It depends on how much you want to see".

 

[GrampaTom]

This question will only provide subjective answers, as some investigation by the original question has to reflect the response from

Maljunulo

"It depends on how much you want to see".

dries, you referring to my #11? In case yes, I liked what Mal said there. Agree with it. Do not see the connection to what I propose here. if there is agreement seeing things at 500' becomes questionable, with an 8/10 bino, then what good is quoting/promoting what can be seen at 1000 yards/meters, left to right (or area for Lee)? Shouldn't an FOV quoted spec relate better to the distance at which we can see things - however I want to see them, simple id or details?

 

[dries1]

No I was not referring to your comment, but to the original question and I thought the response from Maljunulo was on point.

 

[Bino Steve]

Well, I believe many companies just put the degree of FOV now because it's silly to think we care about birds at 1000 yards. That's probably a military carry over if I had to guess.

 

[Troubador]

dries, you referring to my #11? In case yes, I liked what Mal said there. Agree with it. Do not see the connection to what I propose here. if there is agreement seeing things at 500' becomes questionable, with an 8/10 bino, then what good is quoting/promoting what can be seen at 1000 yards/meters, left to right (or area for Lee)? Shouldn't an FOV quoted spec relate better to the distance at which we can see things - however I want to see them, simple id or details?

A bino that at 1,000 yds/metres has an area of view 20% bigger than another model, has a 20% bigger area of view at all distances.

Lee

 

[Ted Y.]

Sometimes I observe birds with a binocular 8x42mm. I want details. For small birds, the maximum distance is 12m. For large birds, 120m.
The FOV is 135m @ 1000m. Or 13.5m @ 100m. Or 1.35m @ 10m.
From a marketing perspective, I think 135m is more impressive. Therefore, 135m it is.
And better to have a unique way to report the FOV because it allows easy comparisons.

 

[Bino Steve]

FOV is kind of funny though, because you can move your binoculars easy, unlike a telescope. So really FOV is based on how far can you move your body and head. I don't move my eyes around much out of the center of the FOV, but turn my head/torso. That's the way I see it.

 

[Maljunulo]

When you look through a properly aligned binocular, you see a circular field.

That field is a certain size.

Please explain to me how moving your head/torso increases the size of that circle.

I confuse easily.

 

[Trinovid]

Good thing people here are interested in the subject since the brand new member left this post and never came back to even check on any of the responses.

That said, since I can see an eagle from 500', I'll say that any binocular would be fine, because even a 6x is going to bring you much closer, and as already pointed out, it depends on how close you want to get. Most answers here are for 8x, 10x or 12x and I can't see any of those as being wrong.

 

[GrampaTom]

Sometimes I observe birds with a binocular 8x42mm. I want details. For small birds, the maximum distance is 12m. For large birds, 120m.
The FOV is 135m @ 1000m. Or 13.5m @ 100m. Or 1.35m @ 10m.
From a marketing perspective, I think 135m is more impressive. Therefore, 135m it is.
And better to have a unique way to report the FOV because it allows easy comparisons.

I was totally with you till, "From a marketing perspective, I think 135m is more impressive. Therefore, 135m it is." By your own first sentences you bird between 12 and 125meters, did I read that right? So 1.35 to 13.5 is the right answer... for you, no?

Lee we haven't forgot you - π*r2