'oh good another thread about consooming gear instead of photos of the outdoors or talking about where to go';

'>>2720484
what the fuck are you on about? I'm going backpacking and I want to look at wildlife without lugging around 4lb metal-body binoculars';

'bumpin';

'what's your use case?
I've got a Vortex Diamondback 10x42. Used them this morning for work.';

'>>2720483
Got a pair of Simmons 10x25s at Cabelas for about 20 bucks, they do a decent job of making shit look bigger';

'>>2721419
Mostly to look at birds/wildlife in the daytime. I have a 50L backpack but it will be pretty full and I've gone true backpacking before so I'm trying to keep my weight down as much as I can. If by some chance I'm still light on the load I could bring my nicer binoculars with me, an old metal pair of Sears 7x35s';

'>>2720483
Vortex Vanquish';

'the 8x32 vortex diamondback hd have the best in class FOV. for budget option there is also the vortex bantam hd 6.5x32 that you can often get for $60 some bucks. but I dunno how good those are. I have the carson rd 10x42 and while pretty compact, they aren't really lightweight. going from a x32 to a x42 means significant jump up in weight, so x32 is the sweet spot when it comes to fov, size, weight, and light gathering.';

'>>2720483
I'd suggest the Vortex Diamondback HD in 8x32, or 8x42 if you're good with the weight. I find them to be very good for the money, particularly the 8x42, which is not heavy at all, and even easier to carry with a shoulder harness. Plus the VIP warranty, etc.

If you really want small and light, consider the Vortex Solo 8x36 monocular. It's the optic I use even more than my own binoculars (Nikon Monarch M7 8x42 and Vortex Viper HD 8x42) simply because it's so damn convenient, even though it's technically inferior to the other two.';

'>>2721921
>8x32
what does this mean? what does the 8 mean and what does the 32 mean?';

'>>2723128
First number is the magnification, so 8x.
Second number is the diameter of the lens closer to the object, so 32mm. The larger the objective lens, the brighter the image.';

'>>2723128
the first number is the magnification, and the second number is the objective lense. the bigger the objective lense, the more light gathering potential. that means better performance in low light conditions like dusk and dawn. most 8x42 and 10x42 are the sweet spot in terms of performance to size ratio, but while fairly small, they are not true "compact" binoculars like 8x32 which are noticeably smaller, but more importantly significantly lighter.';

'>>2723131
>>2723132
ok thanks anons. planning on getting something good but i need to save up a bit first';

'>>2720483
I tried a lot of binos in a local hunting shop and ended with noname 10x42 with bak4 something for around $130 eq. Not so lightweight but still compact enough. Try before buy';

'>>2725412
a lot of binoculars are produced in the same factories, using the same lense suppliers, or same parent company. I have some Carson RD 10x42 with bak4 and they are extremely good clarity considering I got them on sale fof $120. on par with your average $200-250 vortex or leupold, but I doubt they will have the same warranty as those brands. might not be as durable either, but they look like they even have the same housing, as if they're made in the same factories.';

'>>2720484
A good pair of Noc’s will last you a lifetime it is the literal opposite of consumerism. Sorry you’re a butthurt poorfag but you don’t get to stop the rest of us from having fun.';

'>>2725812
Nice, I was stunned when I tried a good pair of binoculars for birds. I have a long telephoto lens for my camera but trying to spot and owl in the dark branches with my naked eye or through the camera is almost impossible.';