Printable View
I know we love the topic and we have some real specialists on this but what are the opinions on a 10 x magnification binocular. Are they a bit too much for everyday general use to try and hold a steady image.
I’m looking at the “retrovid” Leica series, the 10x40 8x40 and 7x35 Trinovid Classic range
Try them if you can. Personally I can't hold 10s still at all. The clarity/resolution of the lens is much more important than magnification.
Poor resolution with high magnification is rather like drawing on a balloon then inflating it - bigger image but no more added detail.
When you are trying them out, try to read a distant sign - that's always a good test.
That’s what I’m thinking. I don’t have the steadiest of hands anyway. We are down in norfolk this week so going to try to first in a visit to CleyspyQuote:
Originally Posted by catch21
Bigger objectives add weight, this can go either way in terms of viewing as some people benefit from the damping of the increased mass, while others just find them harder to hold still. Worth looking into technique, using your grip to rest the bins with your bridge of nose and temples.
Other than viewing (carrying, packing), bigger is usually poorer.
Very old Leica stuff will be beaten optically by more modern mid-tier glass.
It’s the new Trinovid Classic range I’m looking at so it’s up there with the ultravid opticsQuote:
Originally Posted by JGJG
Try and lean against something, helps me with 15x.
I opted for 10x32 Ultravids (BRs so fairly old now) and find them better than my GFs 8x42 Trinovids (similar vintage).
Can’t say i have noticed any stability difference.
The theory is that in low light the 8x42s should be better, but I have not noticed any appreciable difference in use.
I do have a reasonably steady hand, but nothing out of the ordinary.
During a recent trip to see puffins, with the 10x32s we were able to just about see the colouring on their beaks, but the 8x42s simply did not have the ‘reach’.
General use 8x40 everytime.
Not quite as bulky as say a 10x50, which makes them great field bino's.
Easier to maintain a steady shake free image.
Image is bright and width of field is excellent too.
I have a pair of 10 x 50 ultravid HD that are ace, yes they are a bit bulky but easy to hold still and not to heavy for me, but I am used to handling heavy kit at work, so maybe I do not notice it.
I have a older pair of 8 x 42 Trinovids, they are great size, easier to Chuck in a bag and carry.
I bought both used although the 10x50 were virtually new, the previous owner could not get on with the weight, so I was lucky I got them cheap as he part exchanged them for something lighter.
Leica Binoculars are expensive, but absolutely worth it in my opinion, took me 20 years from trying some to actually being able to get my head round owning some.
i bought my swarovski EL's from the RSPB.i was undecided between the 10x42 and the 8x50.they let me take both pairs out of the shop to try for 10mins.i chose the 10x42's as both were superb image wise but the extra magnification won out.found them both easy to hold still.off topic i bought a swarovski doubler for £100 on ebay, it screws onto one eyepiece to make a superb 20x telescope..
Hi
My 'beaters' are Swarovski 7x42SLC's (replaced 7x42SL's) - easy carry and do the early morning/late eventide hours very well (for my eyes - thats the important bit)! Maybe I had just had the old SL's too long, like old sweater/slippers..........so not gelled with the SLC's.
I also have a pair of 10x42? Zeiss Victory........heavy and tricky to hold steady.
If you can try your narrowed down options (borrow?) at the time of day would be used and length of carry for 'real-time' evaluation.
L-K
PS - Swarovski warranty or repairs (almost always free!) are exemplary.
I tried the Leica 7x35 Trinovid Classics and they were lovely, same with the 8x40 classics. Then for comparison I tried the Ultravid 8x42 which although image wise (to me) there was no noticeable difference but the eye pieces were more comfortable than the classics, the lens and the rubber of the eye piece were bigger and felt better against my eye. I also tried a pair of Swarovski EL 8x 32 which again were excellent.
I came away without anything and more confused than when I went into the shop.
Without question the classic leathered series are lovely to use and hold not as durable as the ultravids and they lose out in eye comfort, I think it will be between the 8x42 ultra ids and the Swarovski EL 8 x 32 although I understand they have now been superseded by a more expensive version
https://www.at-infocus.co.uk/field-sales-events/. ... might be of interest ...
I’ve gone for the Swarovski 8x32 took the plunge today
Good decision ... enjoy them ... should be fine as you've already tried them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtons99
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundial
Yes, I wanted to buy the Leica Trinovid 7 x 35 leathered classics but in reality as lovely as they are aesthetically as soon as you compare them to the other 2 I tried you have to concede the way they fit to your eye just doesn’t compare.
I struggled to split the Swarovski and the Leica Ultravid, I don’t think my vision is discerning enough to make the judgement, there are all sorts of technical terms like colour aberration etc. Ive gone with the popular vote really. Bought from the WWT shop which was the only place selling at less than RRP and a good cause.
I did the same, after trying 8x32, 10x32, 8.5x42, 10x42, 10x50 and 12x50 at Rutland. I considered 10x as I do a lot of birding by the sea, but saw very little difference between 8x and 10x, and the light weight sold me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtons99
I still get a little frisson every time I use them.