Monocular?

[Beeezer]

I’ve a hand held 10x25 monocular nothing special, think it was about 30 nicker..
I’m thinking about getting something bigger, as I understand it if you go too big you get the shakes unless on a tripod??
Any suggestions on a hand held one that can be used easily without a tripod please??
And not mega money……
Thanks.

 

[Beeezer]

No suggestions?

 

[Turbo]

You probably know this but on a 10x25 the 10x refers to the magnification & the 25 is the diameter in mm of the lens where the light comes in.
https://www.bestbinocularsreviews.com/blog/binocular-numbers-mean-12/

10x is the practical limit for hand held observation, any bigger & you need a tripod. For the second number, the bigger the better as it lets more light in but you get to a stage that they get too heavy to hold manually.

I've tried a pair of 15x70 binos & they are nearly impossible to use hand held. The 15x is too high so the image is unsteady plus they are too heavy to hold to your eyes for more than a few seconds.

For binos most folk agree that a pair of 10x50's is about the biggest to use hand held. I have an old set of Zenith ones plus a modern set of Bresser ones, I use both for star gazing. The Zenith have a slightly clearer view but the Bressers are nicer to use with rubber eye cups.

Avoid the 'zoom' models, they are rubbish.

 

[Brad93]

Prefer binoculars but do have a leica range finding mono, only 8x zoom but super clear.

 

[Migmac]

You’ll get a set of Vortex binoculars for a few hundred pounds. Christmas is coming!

 

[Migmac]

Prefer binoculars but do have a leica range finding mono, only 8x zoom but super clear.

I’ve just had my Leica lrf binoculars replaced, went for a set of Swarovski ones this time. Between my old ones going and my new ones arriving, I used a set of new Leicas. Not as sharp as my old Leicas and not a patch on the Swarovski binoculars

 

[Agrismith]

You probably know this but on a 10x25 the 10x refers to the magnification & the 25 is the diameter in mm of the lens where the light comes in.
https://www.bestbinocularsreviews.com/blog/binocular-numbers-mean-12/

10x is the practical limit for hand held observation, any bigger & you need a tripod. For the second number, the bigger the better as it lets more light in but you get to a stage that they get too heavy to hold manually.

I've tried a pair of 15x70 binos & they are nearly impossible to use hand held. The 15x is too high so the image is unsteady plus they are too heavy to hold to your eyes for more than a few seconds.

For binos most folk agree that a pair of 10x50's is about the biggest to use hand held. I have an old set of Zenith ones plus a modern set of Bresser ones, I use both for star gazing. The Zenith have a slightly clearer view but the Bressers are nicer to use with rubber eye cups.

Avoid the 'zoom' models, they are rubbish.

I think it depends on what you're trying to view and you personally as well. I have a pair of 15x70 Celestron binoculars. I only use them for landscape not stargazing, and don't have any problems with them. It depends obviously how far your looking. If looking at the Southdown from the northdowns sometimes I will sit on a bench and put my elbows on my knees to steady. But mostly what I want to look at is close enough to not encounter problems with steadiness

 

[George A2Y]

Unless you have vision problems or size is a real issue then binoculars are a better choice, they are easier to support and steady, obviously produce stereo vision and there is much more product choice. Going up in objective size and slightly reducing the magnification also makes for easier use. As mentioned a 10 x 25 gives an exit pupil size of 2.5mm, an 8 x 32 gives a 4mm exit pupil, which is easier to align with your pupil (less chance of black shading at the edges) and (optical quality being equal) gives a brighter image in low light.

 

[sako243]

I’ve just had my Leica lrf binoculars replaced, went for a set of Swarovski ones this time. Between my old ones going and my new ones arriving, I used a set of new Leicas. Not as sharp as my old Leicas and not a patch on the Swarovski binoculars

I tried out a variety of binos quite a few years ago and one that really impressed me was Steiner (got them in 8x42). Tried them at dusk alongside Swarovski and couldn't tell the difference but I do have 20/20 vision or better. They were £450 compared to £2.8k...

When I went to a friends wedding in Zimbabwe the father of the bridge had lent the groom his Swarovskis and we were going from one end of Lake Kariba to the other. Whilst on the ferry we compared the two and what was interesting was that unanimously the younger generation found the Steiner clearer and better, the older generations preferred the Swarovskis but all agreed there was very little between the two. When I told them how much the Steiners were they said that there was no competition then as to which they would choose.

 

[Brad93]

I’ve just had my Leica lrf binoculars replaced, went for a set of Swarovski ones this time. Between my old ones going and my new ones arriving, I used a set of new Leicas. Not as sharp as my old Leicas and not a patch on the Swarovski binoculars

I've heard the old ones are better than the new. the old geovids etc.

I don't think you can best swaro quality and reliability. Any problems send them back. You certainly don't get that with leica.

 

[Migmac]

I've heard the old ones are better than the new. the old geovids etc.

I don't think you can best swaro quality and reliability. Any problems send them back. You certainly don't get that with leica.

My old Ziess beat anything, fantastic binoculars. Bought them in the early 90’s and haven’t found anything that beats them for sharpness and clarity yet.

 

[Brad93]

My old Ziess beat anything, fantastic binoculars. Bought them in the early 90’s and haven’t found anything that beats them for sharpness and clarity yet.

Yes i've heard good things about old Zeiss

 

[Migmac]

I tried out a variety of binos quite a few years ago and one that really impressed me was Steiner (got them in 8x42). Tried them at dusk alongside Swarovski and couldn't tell the difference but I do have 20/20 vision or better. They were £450 compared to £2.8k...

When I went to a friends wedding in Zimbabwe the father of the bridge had lent the groom his Swarovskis and we were going from one end of Lake Kariba to the other. Whilst on the ferry we compared the two and what was interesting was that unanimously the younger generation found the Steiner clearer and better, the older generations preferred the Swarovskis but all agreed there was very little between the two. When I told them how much the Steiners were they said that there was no competition then as to which they would choose.

We tried Steiners years ago, decent binoculars but the Zeiss I bought knocked them out the park. The new Swarovski ELs I have now are better too. Agreed a lot of money but I didn’t pay for them, so quite happy If you use binoculars every day like me, you soon find out that you get what you pay for

 

[Migmac]

Yes i've heard good things about old Zeiss

A while back I was going to sell them but I changed my mind, very glad I did

 

[voipio]

There are 16x30 image stabilised monoculars to be had, but not for £30.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bresser-Monocular-Optical-Image-Stabilizer/dp/B00X3S3Z6M#