It is all "personal taste": especially for pelagics, where you can't use a
scope, and for the rainforest, where I prefer not to carry my scope around, I
love my Leica 12x50 (yes: twelve by fifty). For e.g. distant Pterodroma petrels
on pelagics or small birds in the canopy there is a great advantage over
smaller binoculars. For me there is no major difference in shaking, which
starts to my experience at a magnification of 15+. Moreover, modern 10x and 12x
binoculars have a wide angle and a very light sensitive, albeit not as wide an
angle and not as light sensitive as 8x.
The major disadvantage of my Leica 12x50 are close up views of butterflies,
dragonflies, hummingbirds (in the Americas) and so on, where smaller bins are a
great advantage over mine.
Nikolas
----------------
Nikolas Haass
Sydney, NSW
----- Original Message ----
From: George Oakes <>
To: Birding-Aus <>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 5:05:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] RFI re 8x42 v 10x 42
When I purchased new binoculars recently to compare 8 times and 10 times it
was suggested to me that if a bird is 50m away an 8 times will bring it up
to the equivalent of a little over 6m away while a 10 times will bring it up
to an equivalent of 5m away. If you compare these distances of 5m. and
6m.plus there is not much difference in looking at a bird.After taking into
account such things as shake, field of vision, and weight I finished up
buying an 8.5 x 42 binoculars.
George Oakes
Woodford in the beautful Blue Mountains.
|
