# Compact Binocular recommendations please....



## peejay (May 10, 2005)

Hi,

We've had a cheap pair of Tasco binoculars in the van for ages, everytime I get them out I keep promising myself a decent pair. Used mainly for birdwatching and I love ship watching when on the coast.

Its a minefiled out there as usual and i'm pretty clueless.

Used mainly in the van hence they need to be compact and wouldn't mind paying about £100, is that enough for a good pair?

Pete


----------



## BillCreer (Jan 23, 2010)

Hi,
for £100 you'll get a reasonable pair from most manufacturers. 8 X magnification is a good compromise as those with greater magnification are difficult to hold steady.
The last number you see (as in 8x30) indicates the size of the "big" lenses and the rough rule is the bigger the lens then the brighter the image.
If you want some that are water/ bomb proof and will last a lifetime you'll need to spend £500 upwards. Not only do binoculars in this price range give you a brighter sharper image they are easy to sell second hand.
It's a bit like hi-fi in that you shouldn't try very good ones because once experienced you won't want to settle for second best.


----------



## pandalf (Oct 29, 2006)

The problem with pocket size binoculars is always the narrow depth of field =- they will typically be something like 8x30 or similar. Binoculars with a 50mm depth of field will be MUCH easier to use and will also let more light into the lens. But they are correspondingly bigger. I reckon 40mm depth of field binoculars are a great compromise. They will deliver substantially better performance than a 30mm pair, but will not be too much bigger. And you could then go with something like 10x or 15x magnification with a decent chance of being able to hold the binoculars steady. There is nothing worse than a pair of binoculars with great magnification (say 20x plus) and a tiny 30mm depth of field. As soon as you get beyond about 10x, holding the view straight becomes all but impossible.

So my vote would be something like 12x40, from a decent brand like Nikon where you know the quality of the optics will be good.


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

Hi Pete

We've recently returned from France and one of the couples who were with us are keen twitchers. One of them had a really nice pair of Bushnell 8x42 roof prisms (excursion model I think) with which I was very impressed. I should add that personally I use a pair of Zeiss 10x50 porro-prisms which are as good as you'd expect from Zeiss but are much heavier. The Bushnells were equal to the Zeiss in most respects and better in some. They may be slightly over your budget over the counter but I believe that bargains can be found, ask Zebedee, he's just bought some at bargain prices for himself and Sian.


----------



## peejay (May 10, 2005)

Thanks guys, 12x40 seem to be too big, unless you can get compact versions?

Ken, I've found 2 8x42 on t'internet that are a good size for us...

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/27955/show.html

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-bushnell-natureview-plus-8x42-roof-prism-binoculars/p1005519

Am I on the right lines with these?

Pete


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

Hi Pete

Yes you are, but I would want to try before you buy. When you pick up a pair that suit you personally, you will know at once. They will just "_feel right_".

See the long (and probably boring :roll: ) PM I have sent you. I didn't want to post on the thread as I've gone a bit technical and most members would not be interested.

Dave


----------



## rogerblack (May 1, 2005)

I agree with the recommendations for Bushnell, bought a pair a few years ago and absolutely love them. They weren't cheap but should outlast me and I got really fed up with previous poor quality units I'd bought over the years. Although they're not pocket-size they are reasonably lightweight for the size. Excellent for wildlife and for watching ships - I keep a telescopic monopod in the moho and sometimes use it for the binos as well as the camera.


----------



## peejay (May 10, 2005)

Cheers everyone, lots of rearch to do tommorrow methinks.

pete


----------



## JeanLuc (Jan 13, 2007)

For general and birdwatching use, I would recommend either 8 x 42 or 10 x 42 in a roof prism design - that's where the optic tubes are straight rather than cranked as in older styles. 8x magnification are a bit easier to hold steady than 10x but try both. I would not go for a smaller objective lens than 40mm otherwise the width of field of view will be compromised.

If money is no object, then Zeiss, Leica, the best ED Nikon or Swarovski are magnificent. But you are looking at a price approaching or exceeding £1,000 for those brands. A more affordable and very good brand is Opticron (my wife and I each have a pair of Opticron iMagic 8 x 42 - they cost around £380 nowadays).

I can also recommend Sherwoods as a good mail order / internet supplier. If you can get to the Alcester / Stratford-upon-Avon area you could visit them, but they are tucked away in a small hamlet and a bit hard to find.
http://www.sherwoods-photo.com/homepage.htm


----------



## autostratus (May 9, 2005)

Hi Pete

I doubt you'll be happy, long term with compact binoculars.

We started with the compact size but as we got more into birdwatching we found they were just not good enough and we needed something better.

We each had a pair of 10x50 Zeiss but I now have a pair of 10x42 Kowa with rubber cups which can be forlded back to put up to the lenses on specs. Great binos and not too heavy to hang about the neck all day.

Got them at at Focus Optics, Church Lane, Corley nr Fillongley/Coventry.
http://www.focusoptics.eu/focus/
(Focus Optics, Fillongley, Warwickshire comes up on Google earth)

The advantage of getting them there was the adjoining nature reserve. They asked how much we wanted to pay, gave us half a dozen pairs to play with (and look over at the feeding birds) and left us to our own devices until we wanted help to buy.
I'm sure there other places who give similar service and it's worth looking around.
Another company had a permanent shop at Rutland Water where we bought a 'scope for birdwatching

It might be worth your while to visit Rutland Water for
The British Birdwatching Fair 2011

19th - 21st August
Egleton Nature Reserve, Rutland 
Buy one of the Birdwatchng mags for details

It will pay to take your time making your choice even buying a second hand pair at first to get to know what suits you. Bit like buying a motorhome I suppose. 

Good luck with the search.


----------



## pandalf (Oct 29, 2006)

I bought some Nikon binoculars a few months ago from this trader on Ebay:

http://photography.shop.ebay.co.uk/...1&_ssn=cameracentre1315&_trksid=p3911.c0.m282

They were excellent - the price was very keen and their service was excellent. They have several pairs of Bushnell binoculars on sale right now, including some 10-42 roof-prism binoculars at well under £100. I would have no problem buying from this trader again.


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

Pete,

I recommend ones that are the optic equivalent of Bromptons.... 

For hand held use, I suggest not going above 8x.

As you are approaching old fogey, your pupil diameter will not be as large as it was, you won't be doing most of your viewing at dusk, and you stated compact.

So I suggest 8x35, from a quality optics name. If you are to enjoy using them, rather than risk being irritated by them, try before you buy.

Dave
(Sorry, Pandalf, I disagree totally with your post )


----------



## wakk44 (Jun 15, 2006)

DABurleigh said:


> ..................
> 
> (Sorry, Pandalf, I disagree totally with your post ).......


Dave,

I am sure a lot of us who are considering a new pair of binoculars and are watching this thread with interest would like to know why you disagree with Pandalf's post,can you please explain in more detail.

Is it the Bushnell brand,the 10-42 roof prism binoculars or the e-bay trader in the link that you totally disagree with ?


----------



## pandalf (Oct 29, 2006)

DABurleigh said:


> (Sorry, Pandalf, I disagree totally with your post )


Dave - you are welcome. We all look for different things from acquisitions like this. For what it's worth, I totally disagree with your 8x35 recommendation as well.

All I know is what worked for me. We had a pretty good pair of 10-30x25, and they totally sucked. The huge zoom length was a total waste of time, as it became all but impossible to hold the binoculars steady at even a middling degree of zoom. Meanwhile, the puny depth of field limited the use.

Now we have the 10-22x50 Nikon binoculars that this guy on Ebay sells, and for me they are tremendous. I am not yet too retarded to take advantage of 22x zoom, and I am not worried about them being too pocketable.

But I will remain of the view that binoculars with an approximate 40mm depth of field are an excellent compromise, and if I am honest I would always want a bit better than just 8x magnification. After all, the actual size of a pair of 12x40 binoculars will be no greater than the size of an 8x40 pair. But that's me.


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

I wasn't going to post the waffle :lol: I sent to PeeJay but since there seems to be some interest, here goes.

Some of it is personal opinion, so read critically, check technical details with Mr Google if you need more information, and I would strongly suggest you try before you buy at a specialist shop. I would not remotely purchase binoculars however cheap they are . . . if ours ever need recollimating I have only to pop them back to Sherwoods. Quite a problem if bought on the Web however!! 8O

Hope it helps

Dave 

Hi Pete

Sian and I just bought a pair of binoculars each, after a fair bit of research, and there are a number of things to consider.

I'll tell you what we looked at, and Mr Google will help you with any details you want to clarify.

8 x 42 is a common spec, and I agree that 8 times magnification is best for what you want. Anything more powerful becomes difficult to hold steady.

If you wear specs you need a long relief eyepiece lens, otherwise your field of view will be severely limited. Most decent bins have fold back rubber eyepiece cups or "wind-in" ones to accommodate specs wearers.

The objective lens (the second number above) basically tells you how bright the image will be. Not very significant in broad daylight, but when it gets dusk the bigger the better - within obvious reason. A 42mm objective lens is pretty good, and still not too bulky.

You need to decide between porro prism and roof prism types. The porro prism are the traditional sort where the objective lenses are wider apart than the eyepieces. These (in theory) give a more enhanced depth of field view, but in practice it's hard to spot any difference with decent quality bins. Some people prefer them although they are far less popular now. Sian preferred the feel and handling of them, so that's what she had. The roof prism ones are a bit less bulky and can be identified easily as each side of them is straight, just like a short telescope.

Field of View is quite important. The wider it is the easier to pick up moving objects quickly, but the more likely there will be a bit of distortion at the edges of the view. It is sometimes expressed as a number of feet (at 1000 yards), or as a number of degrees. Mine are 426 feet at 1000 yards which is quite wide.

That's probably enough waffle.

We went to Sherwoods who are highly recommended, and not far from us. http://www.sherwoods-photo.com/bushnell_binoculars/bushnell_binoculars.htm

Sian has a pair of Opticron SR-GA 8 x 42 which are excellent, but I think they are no longer in production. She was lucky they had a demo pair they sold us at half price for £110.

I preferred the Bushnell Excursion 8 x 42 which are still shown on Sherwood's website as a special offer at £125, and I'm delighted with them. They do have one advantage over Sian's in that they will focus down to about ten feet. (These are the ones Ken's (Gaspode's) friends have, and he's a real expert.)

Hope this helps a bit.

Dave

Edited to use correct term.


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

Wak44,

What I disagree with? Well for starters suggesting that 15x can be held steady enough. And how anyone can confuse depth of field with objective lens diameter is beyond me.

Dave


----------



## spykal (May 9, 2005)

Hi

My wife gave me a pair of Zeiss 8 x 20 Compacts as a Christmas present 30 odd years ago ...They had just become available and at the time I think I saw them on Tomorrows World, (I was a fan of that program) They cost an arm and a leg but the investment has paid off as they have served us well ...always handy as they fit easily into a pocket or bag, easy to hold steady and they still amaze anyone who tries them ...so my reccommendation would be to save up and go for these ( the latest model...and I am tempted :wink: ) :

Zeiss 8 x 20 Compacts

( but if you can do try before you buy :wink: )


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

spykal said:


> so my reccommendation would be to save up and go for these ( the latest model...and I am tempted :wink: ) :


Second hand pair going cheap here then Pete!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

One thing I didn't mention, and Mike has reminded me. A fundamental decision you need to make is about the size and bulk of the binoculars.

Mike's 8 x 20 compacts will not be anywhere near as good in poor light as a pair with 40 or even 50 objective lenses . . . but he is far more likely to have his with him since they will almost fit into his shirt pocket. :wink: This may be a very significant point to ponder.

They have other slight disadvantages too, but mostly only noticeable by a very particular and discerning user . . . but don't buy cheap 8 x 20's or you will wish you hadn't. As Mike hinted, decent compacts cost more money in comparison with standard models.

Dave


----------



## Borisd0 (Jan 3, 2006)

Would recommend 8 x 42 .
Think about suitability for spectacle wearers.
Have a look at Nikon Monarchs About £230 from MicroGlobe.
Really pleased with them for birdwatching and we wear specs.


----------



## spykal (May 9, 2005)

Zebedee said:


> Mike's 8 x 20 compacts will not be anywhere near as good in poor light as a pair with 40 or even 50 objective lenses . . . but he is far more likely to have his with him since they will almost fit into his shirt pocket. :wink: This may be a very significant point to ponder.


Exactly ... and all we can do is relate our own experiences of the ones we use. My tiny Zeiss binoculars have been everywhere with us and the will fold and fit into my shirt pocket. The latest models are even better than the ones I have which I have snapped to show how big (small :wink: ) they are.

Mike


----------



## peejay (May 10, 2005)

Cheers all, me 'ed is really spinning now :lol: 

12x40, 8x42, 10x42, 10x50, 8x35, 8x35 :? 

I never realised this was going to be so complicated but I think I'm erring towards the more compact 8x42, 8x20, I was going to just buy of the net but its clearer now you really need to try before you buy so it will be a trip into Norwich soon.


Pete


----------



## pandalf (Oct 29, 2006)

DABurleigh said:


> Wak44,
> 
> What I disagree with? Well for starters suggesting that 15x can be held steady enough. And how anyone can confuse depth of field with objective lens diameter is beyond me.
> 
> Dave


God, you're right, Dave. How could I have been so stupid? Surely everyone knows that the second number always refers to "Objective Lens Diameter". And obviously no human being is capable of holding a pair of binoculars steady enough to use them at 15x magnification.

I clearly shouldn't be putting such incompetent drivel onto the site. It must be far better to go find someone else's efforts to provide assistance, and then deride them publicly. Maybe I will get as much satisfaction from that as it obviously gives you.


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

Pete,

8x42 are not compact 

I felt guilty enough with your stated requirements suggesting 8x35; if you really were an old fogey I would certainly have said 8x30, as your pupil wouldn't dilate wide enough to take advantage of the wider exit diameter.

As another data point, my only binns for the last 33 years are 8x40 (no way compact), have roll-down rubber for spec wearing and a field of view of 488ft @ 1000yds.

Dave


----------



## peejay (May 10, 2005)

OK Dave, ta,

Like I said, me 'ed is spinning.

Pete


----------



## Nethernut (Jun 4, 2008)

One tip - try to test out binoculars in poor light as that is a good indication of the quality of the lens, in bright sunlight any piece of glass will look reasonable. Even better (although difficult at this time of year) at dusk - you will really see the light gathering properties of the lens.


----------



## Spacerunner (Mar 18, 2006)

I get mine for £12 at Lidl.

Good enough for studying the talent on the beach at Agde :lol:


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

Spacerunner said:


> I get mine for £12 at Lidl.
> Good enough for studying the talent on the beach at Agde :lol:


Not really Spacey!

My fancy jobbies are dry nitrogen purged so they don't steam up!! :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Dave


----------



## BillCreer (Jan 23, 2010)

Hi PJ,

If it helps and doesn't confuse you any more I, being a greedy person, have good 10 x 25, 8 x 32 and 8 x 42 plus a good scope. 
95% of the time I take the 8 x 32 with me as they are the best compromise for me. My wife always goes for the 10 x 25 as they are nice and light.

There seems to be some confusion over depth of field and field of view.

Depth of field is all about the depth of view that is in focus at any one time. The greater the amount in focus then the easier it is too focus.

Field of view is the width/hight of the area you can see at any one time.


----------



## trevd01 (Oct 26, 2007)

Binoculars, like everything else in life have become more specialised. Like bikes, for example, or indeed motorhomes.

Our Murvi is perfect for our needs, but would not suit others.

So binoculars for birdwatching have advantages for birdwatchers, for example I have some 8x42s (the brand with the red spot), which I have finally aspired to after many years. They are literally brilliant, and I love them to bits.

But spending that much on binoculars would be something many people would find crazy.

I also have a pair of Nikon 7x50s for astronomy and garden birdwatching, but they are bulky and heavy.

I have a pair of Russian 8x22s which live in my car glovebox and I take with me on business trips when casual birdwatching might present itself as an opportunity, weigh nothing to carry, but like all small objective (x20, x22) have a tiny field of view and are very _tiring_ to use partially because they are so light. Holding a very light pair of binoculars with a narrow field of view on a bird is exhausting!

So for general use 8x40s or a good pair of 8x32s, would be my recommendation. I like Opticron as a reasonably priced binocular. Most of the Japanese optical companies (eg Nikon) make (have made in China) binoculars at all price bands. They are usually OK for the money.

Oh and I have two telescopes too.. but that's another explanation.


----------



## DaveJM (Dec 29, 2008)

Pete,

I bought a pair of Leica 10x42 some years ago. They cost me £750, far more than I intended to spend, but they have been a fantastic investment. However they were a little heavy for my wife and the 10x magnification meant she couldn't hold them still enough. Net result I went mad and bought her a pair of Leica 8x32 for her birthday. 

I am not suggesting you spend that much but as others have suggested do go and try as many different makes as you can.

Having bought good binoculors I must say we do use them alot. On walks, birdwatching, at the coast etc There is no doubt we have got our moneys worth and I have never regretted spending the money.

If you watch any of the nature programmes, particularly bird watching, the presenters invariably use 8x32 binos.


Regards


David


----------



## trevd01 (Oct 26, 2007)

... oh and Peejay.

I see you live in Norfolk.

Don'y go in to Norwich to buy, go to RSPB Tichwell Marsh (RSPB branded binocs = good value), or down to Cley - both places have a good choice (particularly at Cley), knowledgeable staff and will give you better advice/ recommendations (and the chance to look at something other than the shop window across the street when comparing)...


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

Maybe not compact, but WANT:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1108/11081910hdbinoculars.asp

oh, along with a beach holiday somewhere hot to try them out! 

Dave


----------



## peejay (May 10, 2005)

Daves post has just prompted me...

I took Trevors advice and went to Cley the other day, he was spot on, what a brilliant place, we must have spent well over an hour there trying different pairs and at no time did we feel presurised to buy. He gave us loads of advice and we eventually came away with a pair of Opticron 8x32's.
Both very pleased with them, so much so that we might have to get another pair as I can't prise them away from Judy!

Particular thanks to Trevd01 for the tip about Cley and no Dave, I shan't be having those Sony's as the second pair unless Ernie comes in. :wink: 

Pete


----------



## BillCreer (Jan 23, 2010)

Good choice.


----------



## trevd01 (Oct 26, 2007)

peejay said:


> Daves post has just prompted me...
> 
> I took Trevors advice and went to Cley the other day, he was spot on, what a brilliant place, we must have spent well over an hour there trying different pairs and at no time did we feel presurised to buy. He gave us loads of advice and we eventually came away with a pair of Opticron 8x32's.
> Both very pleased with them, so much so that we might have to get another pair as I can't prise them away from Judy!
> ...


Glad to be of help


----------

