Mom likes to watch the birds. She has a pair of nice binoculars that she paid around $500 for 30 years ago, but she took them to my brother's in Florida and left them there. Now she is looking for a new pair and asked me to help her find something nice, but not terribly expensive.
I'm looking at Bushnell Elite E2 8x42 or 10x42. I can get the 8x32 for about $290 and the 10x42 for $330 with the expires soon 30% rebate. Does anybody have any experience with these? Is there something else I should be looking at around that price point? What is better for birding 8 or 10x?
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 13, 2018, 07:30:52 AM
Mom likes to watch the birds. She has a pair of nice binoculars that she paid around $500 for 30 years ago, but she took them to my brother's in Florida and left them there. Now she is looking for a new pair and asked me to help her find something nice, but not terribly expensive.
I'm looking at Bushnell Elite E2 8x42 or 10x42. I can get the 8x32 for about $290 and the 10x42 for $330 with the expires soon 30% rebate. Does anybody have any experience with these? Is there something else I should be looking at around that price point? What is better for birding 8 or 10x?
I've had two pairs of Bushnells over the years. I lost one in the woods, and replaced them with a model called the Bushnell Custom Compact, which is no longer in production. I used them for hunting, but the Compacts were too small for birding, although I've used them for that. I'm not much of a birder. This probably isn't much help, but I think Bushnell had more of a mid to low end reputation back when I bought mine, but I don't know where they are today. The name has been around for as long as I can remember. They were perfectly adequate for what I wanted, but like stereo equipment, it starts to get exponentially more expensive to squeeze out small increments of improvements. 20 years ago, a hunting fanatic friend paid over $1000 dollars for a pair of Leitz Trinovids. I had a brief look through them and they were very nice, but the extra $800 over mine didn't seem worth it. For $1000 I expect to be able to see through walls.
Optically, it is the square cm of the front lenses that matter. Magnification is secondary.
Quote from: Baruch on March 13, 2018, 01:13:40 PM
Optically, it is the square cm of the front lenses that matter. Magnification is secondary.
In the past, that was true, but I'm wondering if improvements in lens technology cancels this out. I don't know the answer, but modern cameras and cell phones have tiny lenses, at least the majority of those sold. Perhaps that is a much resolution that the majority of the public wants. I still lean toward larger lenses, but many of my photographer friends tell me they aren't necessary. Or maybe they mean they just aren't necessary for the little people.
Quote from: Baruch on March 13, 2018, 01:13:40 PM
Optically, it is the square cm of the front lenses that matter. Magnification is secondary.
lol
While technically that may be true I doubt mom is interested a $12,000 dollar, 60 lb pair of Yamato 20 x 120 Naval binoculars so she can have a larger objective lens for her back yard bird watching.
Quote from: SGOS on March 13, 2018, 01:35:19 PM
In the past, that was true, but I'm wondering if improvements in lens technology cancels this out. I don't know the answer, but modern cameras and cell phones have tiny lenses, at least the majority of those sold. Perhaps that is a much resolution that the majority of the public wants. I still lean toward larger lenses, but many of my photographer friends tell me they aren't necessary. Or maybe they mean they just aren't necessary for the little people.
That is possible because of electronics. Are you talking about a CCD binocular with an artificial viewing screen?
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 13, 2018, 01:59:45 PM
lol
While technically that may be true I doubt mom is interested a $12,000 dollar, 60 lb pair of Yamato 20 x 120 Naval binoculars so she can have a larger objective lens for her back yard bird watching.
Have her son carry them. Make him prove he still loves her.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 13, 2018, 07:30:52 AM
Mom likes to watch the birds. She has a pair of nice binoculars that she paid around $500 for 30 years ago, but she took them to my brother's in Florida and left them there. Now she is looking for a new pair and asked me to help her find something nice, but not terribly expensive.
I'm looking at Bushnell Elite E2 8x42 or 10x42. I can get the 8x32 for about $290 and the 10x42 for $330 with the expires soon 30% rebate. Does anybody have any experience with these? Is there something else I should be looking at around that price point? What is better for birding 8 or 10x?
Forgive me for seeming STUPID, but the binoculars she left behind could be shipped back for $5...
Aside from that, I have a spotter scope that goes 10-30x for watching my local birds. It fits on a camera tripod and is more stable than binoculars.
QuoteAside from that, I have a spotter scope that goes 10-30x for watching my local birds. It fits on a camera tripod and is more stable than binoculars.
Good advice. I would go for that. Binoculars need a steady hand.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 15, 2018, 02:38:02 AM
Aside from that, I have a spotter scope that goes 10-30x for watching my local birds. It fits on a camera tripod and is more stable than binoculars.
Quote from: pr126 on March 15, 2018, 05:32:30 AM
Good advice. I would go for that. Binoculars need a steady hand.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both. No hand can hold anything as steady as a tripod. But tripods are cumbersome, requiring you to adjust your position to suit the tripod. Hand held binoculars are not as steady, but easier to do a search with greater speed, especially when you need to move a couple of feet, or change your position. You also use both of your eyes, which for me is the biggest advantage. Not to say I wouldn't want a spotting scope, but only for certain specialized situations. For general ease of use, I prefer binoculars.
Quote from: SGOS on March 15, 2018, 06:06:04 AM
There are advantages and disadvantages to both. No hand can hold anything as steady as a tripod. But tripods are cumbersome, requiring you to adjust your position to suit the tripod. Hand held binoculars are not as steady, but easier to do a search with greater speed, especially when you need to move a couple of feet, or change your position. You also use both of your eyes, which for me is the biggest advantage. Not to say I wouldn't want a spotting scope, but only for certain specialized situations. For general ease of use, I prefer binoculars.
I like the spotting scope because I mostly watch my birds at 3 feeders about equidistant from the house and the 30X spotter on the tripod is great for that. And my hands tremble from old DDT exposure, so binoculars are unsteady.
But it just occurred to me that I could set the digital camera on there and set it t take timed pics without me shaking it and hope for some good ones. Duh!
Quote from: Cavebear on March 15, 2018, 06:30:26 AM
I like the spotting scope because I mostly watch my birds at 3 feeders about equidistant from the house and the 30X spotter on the tripod is great for that. And my hands tremble from old DDT exposure, so binoculars are unsteady.
But it just occurred to me that I could set the digital camera on there and set it t take timed pics without me shaking it and hope for some good ones. Duh!
That's the blessing of digital. You can take hundreds of photos and just save the best ones. And in photography is where tripods come into their own. They can be critical for taking a good photo.
Quote from: SGOS on March 15, 2018, 06:41:32 AM
That's the blessing of digital. You can take hundreds of photos and just save the best ones. And in photography is where tripods come into their own. They can be critical for taking a good photo.
Yeah, the unshakiness of the hands...
Quote from: Cavebear on March 15, 2018, 02:38:02 AM
Forgive me for seeming STUPID, but the binoculars she left behind could be shipped back for $5...
She left them on purpose so she could watch Florida birds. She spends a few weeks at a time down there 3 or 4 times a year. They used to drive, but these days they prefer to fly. They take as little with them back and forth as they can get away with because it costs extra to check a bag.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 15, 2018, 07:02:11 AM
She left them on purpose so she could watch Florida birds. She spends a few weeks at a time down there 3 or 4 times a year. They used to drive, but these days they prefer to fly. They take as little with them back and forth as they can get away with because it costs extra to check a bag.
Ah, My parents went back and forth between NH and FL and back, stopping here in MD for a few days every October and May.
The most popular sizes for general use are 10x42 and 10x50, but size isn’t the only consideration. There is also eye relief and field of view. In general these two contradict each other. Increasing eye relief decreases field of view. Increasing field of view decreases eye relief. If you find one that gives you both it will probably be more expensive.
If you have a Cabellas of Bass Shop close to you, there is nothing like a little hands on comparison
My spotter is a good one and I like it. I mean, I can almost tell if a fly is male or female, LOL! What I want though, is how to attach an camera to the spotter for good pictures. There is probably a a connection screw-on, I just don't know what it is.
Pocket camera with 3X optical telephoto, jammed against 8X binoculars, both hand held in an emergency situation, and shot from my boat to the shore in Alaska. This was in a situation where time was limited. And these burry ones were the most in focus out of about 20 shots. So we can cross off that option.
58 years ago, I worked in a camera shop in Chicago where they sold the gadget you are looking for. I have not seen them since. One of the salesmen speculated that the pictures would not be as clear as the sample I was looking at in the ad, which he claimed must have been faked. It was too much money to risk, as I was in high school. The adapter itself was only $10, but the scope would have been the expensive part. Today, if such a thing is still around, it's probably better.
(https://i.imgur.com/VvTj5B7.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/2p4s8aq.jpg)
Quote from: Cavebear on March 25, 2018, 10:23:37 PM
My spotter is a good one and I like it. I mean, I can almost tell if a fly is male or female, LOL! What I want though, is how to attach an camera to the spotter for good pictures. There is probably a a connection screw-on, I just don't know what it is.
There probably is an adapter, but exactly what depends on your scope, camera and lens combination.
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2012/11/spotting1.jpg)
My obligatory bear photo. Taken in Yellowstone in 2011 fromn a long way off using a Nikon D70 with a 200 mm lens.
(https://i.imgur.com/kJzFVrE.jpg)
Sorry Cavebear. I'm not sure what I did, but while trying to quote your post I somehow managed to edit it instead. I tried to fix it, but I'm not sure I got back to how it was to begin with.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 26, 2018, 11:47:14 AM
My obligatory bear photo. Taken in Yellowstone in 2011 fromn a long way off using a Nikon D70 with a 200 mm lens.
(https://i.imgur.com/kJzFVrE.jpg)
Good one. Did you use a tripod for that, and has it been cropped? The black phase grizzly is very interesting. I've never seen one of those.
No tripod. Yes it was cropped.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 26, 2018, 01:10:26 PM
No tripod. Yes it was cropped.
Curious. Do you object to adjusting pictures for lighting and definition?
Quote from: Cavebear on March 26, 2018, 11:22:33 PM
Curious. Do you object to adjusting pictures for lighting and definition?
No. I do it all the time. At least for lighting. Not so much definition.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 26, 2018, 11:22:33 PM
Curious. Do you object to adjusting pictures for lighting and definition?
I know this wasn't to me, but why not adjust for anything you want? Digital recreations in photographs are approximations of color and lighting to begin with. In a normal photo, they are close enough to the true colors so that people don't notice anything odd, but read a technical review of a specific camera at a site like www.dpreview.com/reviews, as opposed to Walmart or Amazon, and you will find 5 page reviews with a section that includes an analysis of color and definition across the whole field of view. No camera or photo creates a perfect reproduction.
This was true of film also. Kodak Kodachrome was probably the most popular 35mm slide film in its day, but was also criticized for exaggerating the warmer colors. Ectachrome was a much faster film, and both films were often used by National Geographic photographers. But Ectachrome to my eye, suffered from a washed out look. Some believe the colors were actually more accurate, but they were still not exact, and I threw out a lot of Ectachrome slides because looking at them tended to bore me.
Today when cropping my photos, I tweak stuff all the time, I usually add a bit of blue and/or green to scenery to bring out the sky and the trees. And I've noticed a current trend for some noted photographers to intensify the colors to such an extreme that it creates a surreal quality. Hollywood did this in the second Guardians of the Galaxy, where the opening scene of the couple driving through the countryside looks so colorful as to be a bit unearthly. Later, Ego's planet and bejeweled castle are given the same treatment.
I haven't had much luck trying to give a blurry photo more definition or making an overexposed shot less washed out. You have to have a reasonably good picture to start with.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 27, 2018, 06:45:18 AM
No. I do it all the time. At least for lighting. Not so much definition.
I like to change all my bird and cat blog pictures to high definition. It really shows on the small blog space.
https://marksmews.blogspot.com/ (https://marksmews.blogspot.com/)
Quote from: Cavebear on March 25, 2018, 10:23:37 PM
What I want though, is how to attach an camera to the spotter for good pictures.
That is an age old question and yes there are answers. People have wanted to take photographs of what they see in their astronomy telescope for a long time. Most camera attachment either replace or screw onto the eyepiece of the telescope. Finding these things in a neighborhood store is a difficult task. Internet search is much easier. Either you start searching telescope stores and parts, or you start searching camera stores and parts.
If you have money the high end is a CCD camera. It doesnt have a lense because it is expected to be attached to a telescope.
If you have a machine shop and you know how to use it you can make your own attachment.
If you dont want to mess with the hassle, there are a lot of camera attachments already made. It depends on what telescope you have and what camera.
(doing this on my phone, I dont know if this link works on a computer)
https://www.telescope.com/mobileCategory/Astrophotography/Camera-Adapters-T-Rings/pc/4/62.uts
https://www.telescopeadapters.com
https://agenaastro.com/parts-accessories/adapters/t-thread-adapters.html
several kinds on amazon
a couple of searches: ( maybe I will think or more later)
telescope camera attachment
T-adapter kit
I think I will check Amazon. I want a ready-to-use thing.