Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics 10X42 vs 8X42

There have been a few users here that have recommended the eight powers over the ten power.

Being an admitted greenhorn on higher end sport optics why wouldn't you want the extra power?

If one is in the bush I get it, but would anyone choose eight power over ten in open mule deer country..if so why?

What is it that some like the eights over tens, brighter, wider field of view, what is worth sacrificing the extra power in open country.

Thanks for the following lesson.

I wouldn't recommend an 8x over a 10x, I like 7x the best.

Shake. It is much easier to hold an 8x steady and the extra 2x isn't worth it to me...simply don't need to sdee the mountains on the moon. The other issue is brightness. More power means more light is needed....so bigger objective lenses are needed for low light conditions, hence a heavier and larger bin. Frankly, I'd go for a 7x42 power and that is what I did. I can hold mine steady with one hand while holding my rifle in the other. This size gives very bright sight pictures even in low light conditions and they are simply awesome. The do duty as bird watching bins and I use them for everything from hunting to watching nature. Go small. That is my recommendation. Remember, size isn't everything, no matter what she says.

That's a real personal choice, but I'd take 8x over 10x at most any price range. There are several reasons. One is that when you compare 8x vs 10x of the same make and model the 8x will be brighter and have better resolution. Next there is less image shake as the 10x also magnifies shake by 20% as well as the size. The 8x glass has a wider fov and generally is easier on the eyes for extended sessions. I like lesser magnification for even open desert country because they deal with heat mirage better than the 10x. However, lots of people prefer 10x because they like a bigger image and there are those who can hold a 10x steady enough. Also when conditions are right there is a real use for 10x glass. I have a 10x glass and I like it a lot, it just is not an all around choice most times for me. I'd say look at as many as you can and make your own personal choice. Actually I really prefer 7x as an all around choice.

I didn't read the question too closely, but the answer is 10x.

All things being equal:

An 8x will have better resolution ("the" ultimate criteria for bino), larger field of view, larger exit pupil, be brighter for longer in twilight, and have less image shake. The last is what tips the scales for me in favor of the 8x.

A 10x will have a better "twilight factor" however, (8x TF = 18.33 and 10x TF = 20.49), which is a function of it's higher magnification, and of course, higher magnification does have its other obvious inherent advantages.

Here's a way to compare:

At 800 yards, the 8x will make objects appear to be at 100 yards.
At 800 yards, the 10x will make objects appear to be at 80 yards.

Consider the factors in paragraph 1, and make a decision as to which way you want to lean in the inevitable optical compromise.

For me, it's the shakes. I tend to glass for long periods at a time, and I experience much less eye fatigue over the course of a day with lower-power binos. Since I've begun using 15x on a tripod, I have really become spoiled, and the "shakes" are much more noticeable when glassing handheld. The advantage of image steadiness on the lower power glass has become even more noticeable to me. So I opt for the steadier glass, and get the resolution, FOV, brightness, etc., and concede the TF and magnification.

rb

So then what it sounds like you are saying you don't believe there will many situations that you will be able to see more detail with a 10X even at greater distances? What would you consider conditions you would grab the 10X?

This is pretty new to me, most everyone I know has opted for 10x42, but most of my friends are casual hunters, but we all pretty much hunt open mule deer country.

I do remember years ago I had a pair of Zeiss Delitrims 8X30 for the ball games and remember they did have a crisp view more so than the 10X I bought years later, but I attributed that to Zeiss vs mid range Nikons.

You mentioned in both of your post's open country. if you can hold them steady the 10x42 is the best choice, but some cant hold a 10x steady enough. if you could spend some serious time with both the answer would be obvious.
For myself I prefer the 10x42 and have no problem with eye fatigue as long as I stay away from using my spotting scope too much.
I also use a 15x56 bino for open country but have never seen anyone that can hold them steady with out a tripod, I sometimes will put my 10's on a tripod for a few minutes just to give my arms a break so that I dont get the shakes.
I see no need for an 8x but you might like them.
B

I can't add much that hasn't already been covered already except get the best binos you can afford at 7x or 8x. Tons of good choices and buy them from Cameraland, get multiple sets and send back the ones you don't like, can't beat that!

I have tried using 8X in the west;and they work well. But I have been using 10X for so many years that I find the extra magnification useful for me.Rick and others are right when it comes to issues of shake and movement with the 10X but I just get a sold rest and have at it.

I'd be happy to hunt with either but given a choice I will take 10X. Personal thing.

Actually, for me (again this is a pretty personal choice) there are not too many times where I can't get what I need from 6-7x. I have been using a 7x36 Swift Eaglet for awhile now and it is almost always my first choice out the door binocular. I hunt Mule Deer in sage/juniper desert and these have answered the questions I have asked of them. I don't have too much trouble holding 10x steady, but even then I like the lesser magnification. As I mentioned in my earlier post, heat mirage is a consideration for me. I have been able to see more farther away with my 7x than hunting companions with 10x have sometimes been able to see.

I hunt WYO almost every year, and these caffeine laden hands and eyes prefer 8x by far. Much less shake. If you're young, YMMV. I use Zeiss FLs 8x42. You really don't need more: They can pick out a deer or an antelope so far away that he'll be gone when you get there.

I've been using 8s and sometimes find it hard to spot horns on smaller bucks at a distance depending on the background. Was considering going to 12s but after reading these posts sounds like could be tough without a tripod.

For all the reasons mentioned, I'll take an 8X over the 10's any day.

Roy

I've got three 8X binoculars, one 6X and one 12X. Of the bunch, the 8X get far more field time.
I've owned and hunted both 9X and 10X quality glass as well as played with stuff belonging to friends.
I hunt alot of open country. With the steadier 8X binoculars, I've been really surprised how much detail I can see way out there with them. Try a yound balck bear at 2.5 miles. Could see enough detail to place his ears high on his head an see a long, pointed snout, etc.
The thing about image shake is how much it robs you of the fine details you sometinmes desparately need to see. When I use a very heavy Leica 12X50 BN (46 ozs. w/ strap), it doesn't show me 50% more. More like 25-30% more. Image shake.
That's another point even more important than magnification. Binocular weight. I got quite a surprise comparing the light Pentax ED's to my Leica BA. On a tripod, they were too close to call optically. But, hand held, they were quite different. The further out the subject, the bigger the difference. At 1.5-2.0 miles, the much heavier Leica ( 34 ozs. w/ strap)could show me stuff I could see at all with the much lighter Pentax ED ( 26.5 ozs. w/ strap ). E

I asked the same question here and at the shop where I bought my Ultravids. The shop manager say they sell way more ten power binos than eight power, but most of their sales are to fairly inexperienced guys who just assume more horsepower is better, especially if it doesn't cost more. That said the ratio tightens up a lot on the high end Leica and Swarovski sales, there are still guys who prefer tens but most go for the 8x42 as a best all around binocular.

I ended up with a 6x30 Yosemite for bow hunting, an 8x42 Ultravid for all around use and a 10x42 Nikon SE just to have since they have discontined them. I love the SEs but really do notice the shakes after using the other two. The Ultravids are so good I really don't see that I am missing anything.

I have never really noticed all that much difference in shake between the 8x and 10x binoculars - at least there is not enough, IMO, to justify the big issue that is routinely made about it. To me this has always seemed like "much ado about nothing."

Where there really does seem to be a difference is in overall optical quality and sample variation - especially in binoculars retailing at say, under $600. In every such line I've had the chance to examine (including Nikon Monarchs, Bushnell Discoverers and Legends, Brunton Eternas, Pentax DCF WPs and SPs, Leupold WindRiver Cascades, etc.)the 8x options have been amazing in their unit-to-unit consistency whereas the 10x options have really astounded with their very high degree of quality variation. Some units have been very good where others have been utterly abysmal and yet others have hit everywhere in between these extremes. However, almost universally, the 10x models have shown more and bigger problems with optical abberations and have generally been of poorer optical quality than their counterpart 8x models.

BTW, this observation has proven less true of the high-end optics I've examined - those retailing for say, $1000+

I notice a shake difference between 7x and 10x whilst glassing for bears from a boat for hours on end.

Do you notice more shake with the 10x from a boat?

John, I can verify that from some of my own experience.
While in college I worked at a friends sporting good store once in awhile and saw pretty much the same thing. Same can be said for scopes. Most of the folks fashioning the 6x-InfinityX with 50mm objectives had the least amount of experience. That's not to say some people running these scopes don't know what they're doing, just more of an "on average" type statement. (same with binocs) Wonder how many times I had to tell a guy he didn't need a 4x12 on his 30/30. <grin>

7x42