Post by High Sierra Fan on Dec 2, 2017 15:26:50 GMT -8
Great helps. As to use a little wildlife and a lot of off trail route scouting. Sierra route finding.
I’m not unhappy about heading places and finding they don’t go but if I can save some up and down I figure it’s worth looking into. The use during mobility things like climbing to untrailed pssses and cols is why I’m considering weight versus just optical quality.
I completely should have explained my use case first off. Error on my part I poke at whenever I read that in some one else’s post.
Given the use, the extra power of the 10s might come in handy, and you won't typically need the image quality and field of view that are needed for bird finding and identification. You clearly know this, but spend as much as you can. Superior optics are worth what you pay for them.
I have walked myself into my best thoughts, and I know of no thought so burdensome that one cannot walk away from it. -Soren Kierkegaard
This thread sparked me to look into the difference between binocular and monocular. My takeaway is that unless you look through it for extended periods or really want/need a wider field of vision, the monocular will provide equal optics at less weight and lower price.
If carrying for backpacking, I'm going with a mono, since there's not much I'd actually need them for other than "casual/curious" use.
In the case of someone routefinding in mountains, something larger and better might be more appropriate, but I don't need a pair of binoculars that run $2000+. Just sayin'...
Post by davesenesac on Dec 5, 2017 12:19:14 GMT -8
A 300mm full frame DSLR telephoto lens has a magnification of 6x as does a 200mm APS-C lens. A bonus is one can take a photo then look at a stable image later on an electronic viewfinder. That noted, it is also true that a good pair of binoculars at same magnifications given such is a direct aerial image, will always looks clearer. And also using a camera is always more complicated to set up versus binocs. Much depends on how often it will be used. For bird enthusiasts, they must go in this era with image stabilized binocs while someone like this person that infrequently needs to view things at distance, a telephoto lens works. However I also plan to purchase something hefty with stabilization to toss in my car, not for backpacking, because my old car binocs are very beat up.
American's are brainwashed in favor of power... 10X in a compact is not something that is especially easy on the eyes (strain), nor do they do well in low light (which any 20/25mm bin struggles with), and have a fairly narrow FOV (Field Of View). Also, a light 10X will have greater "hand-shake" than a light 8x. I wouldn't consider a 10X with less than a 40 mm objective.
I'd suggest an 8x20 or 25. A good pair will have a "gentler" view, wider FOV, lesser hand-shake, and will be brighter in low light. I had a Zeiss Victory 8x20 (Zeiss has dropped it in favor of an 8x25) and it was a lovely bin. Because Zeiss has gone to 8x25 you can get a good deal here on the 8x20:
Just for fun, I have been on a long crusade to let people know that it's a binocular, not a pair of binoculars, unless you do in fact have two. This is a monocular. Mono for one (one eye ...)
and this is a binocular (bino , from Latin, means two or twofold , so two eyes) Bino has the same root as bi , the prefix used in bicycle, bilingual,bipartisan and so on.
so this is a pair of binoculars :
BTW, having sold binoculars for 30 years, I am well aware that many are atracted to the higher magnification but I too suggest a combination that gives a brighter image and lower magnification over high power. So for example 8x25 over a 10x25 . The former , if from the same manufacturer and series (same prisms/glass/coatings) will be much easier on the eyes giving more light and easier to hold too.