For the person who asked me why I recommend the P7 (between the P7 and the P3) one day ago. Sorry I carelessly deleted the initial message, I just wanted to edit my message but I erased the wrong message 😅: Thank you for your question. When I decided to talk about the P3 and the P7 in 8x42, I wanted to talk about things that don't appear on paper. Sometimes there are variations between the real specifications and the specifications announced, and obviously we can't see on paper if the magnification is close to 7.5, 8.0, 8.5, etc... This can have slight consequences on the immersive view, the size of the exit pupil, and the steadiness of the image. I appreciate a bigger magnification than expected like 8.5 instead of 8.0 because the apparent field of view is bigger than expected. Honestly, when I bought the P3 in 8x42, I was hoping something like that :p. But it was not the case. To my eyes, both P3 and P7 in 8x42 have the same magnification, the same field of view, and the same apparent field of view. But there are differences. The P7 provides more neutral colors, on the P3 the image is a bit yellow. It’s a matter of taste, but I prefer the P7 during gray days and in low light conditions because the image seems brighter to me. Though I said the central sharpness is equally good (in 8x42) in the P7 than in the P3 (in 8x42), I meant that if there was a difference in terms of sharpness between the two models in 8x42, then to my eyes the difference would not be obvious, in the 8x42. But in theory, the phase coating which is including in P7 and not in the P3 is supposed to increase the sharpness of the image. That’s why I think the P7 in 10x42 is sharper than the P3 in 10x42 but not necessarly on the 8x42 because I believe that it’s more difficult to have a sharp image with 10 power. And in this case, the phase coating could help a lot at 10x42. But it’s not so simple, indeed I owned a Solognac 900 in 10x42 released in March 2021, and in my opinion the sharpness was equivalent to my Prostaff 7S in 10x42. And later on, I watched a video and the video says that there is no phase coating on the Solognac. So, it can show that phase coating is not everything however. Also in theory, the “dielectric coating” on the P7 is a bit better than the “silver coating” on the P3, for the brightness. Thus, first I recommend the P7 because I think the “phase coating” and the “dielectric coating” are advantages in theory. And secondly, I recommend the P7 because they have water repellent coating. This can be highly usefull during cold days to reduce the water condensation (it's different form "fogproof" : when you see "fogproof" it is to prevent the water condensation from going inside the binoculars), especially on the eyepiece lenses because you are likely to put your face on the eyecups, which causes a thermal shock.
Yo tengo el Solognac 900 10x42 y francamente por el precio 230€ no creo que se encuentre nada mejor ,por otra parte tengo unos vanguard ed IV 10x42 que valen el doble que los solognac y quitando el campo de vision que es mayor y la cantidad de CA que es mucho menor ,veo mas nitido por los solognac ,con lo cual me hace pensar que muchas veces no estafan con esto de la optica
Thank you such a great video. It appears that both binoculars have excellent edge to edge sharpness. Can't see any softening or falloff on the edges. Like the new design!
Thank you ! Actually, I see a slight field curvature. I think it's all about accommodation. My camcorder has a better accommodation than my eyes. Maybe a very young person can have the chance to see the image as well as we can see on the video through the binoculars. It's a difference between 8x42 and 10x42 on the P7(and probably on the P3). On the 10x42, the apparent field of view is much bigger, but coma and astigmatism are more noticeable at the edge.
All are good for birdwatching in 8x42 or 10x42. My favourite is the the P7 because they have a dielectric coating and water repellent coating. The P3 has "only" a silver coating, and for the 7s only Nikon knows the nature of the coating. If I compare my 10x42 7s to my 10x42 P7, I would say the 10x42 7s has less chromatic aberration than the 10x42 p7 (I'm not sure because adjusting the IPD [interpupillar distance] can reduce or increase the chromatic aberration but the big field of view of the P7 and its low weight is definitely a joy to use. Nevertheless, I prefer the balance of the 10x42 7s and its larger neckstrap. To me the 10x42 P7 has more vivid colors. For the moment I don't have time to compare them carefully but I think I will compare the 10x42 7s and 10x42 P7 one day.
@@colvertfurtif @colvertfurtif Thank you so much for your detail reply! Does the advantage of 7s only occur in 10x42? I am thinking to buy a 8x42 because i am doing bird photography and all i need is to know the approximate locationand the breed of the birds. I guess I may consider the P7. Thank you so much!
@@tmr11059 I don't know about the first question because in the 7s series I have only the 10x42. But what I see on paper is that 8x30 7s and 8x42 7s have a small field of view, under 120 metres at 1000 metres. It's not big at all. The 8x42 p7 is a bit better, 126 metres at 1000 metres. The 8x30 p7 is much better is this regard, 152 metres at 1000 metres ! (but probably more blur with such a big field of view). I would say : 8x42 P7 : relaxing view, lightweight, long eye relief (it's very important if you wear eyeglass), field of view "OK". 8x30 P7 : eye placement can be finicky, very lightweight, eye relief "OK", big field of view, it can do the "job" in your case.
@@colvertfurtif Really appreciate your detail ans. I just noticed that the eye relief for the P7 10x42 is only 15mm. In this case, I will get the 8x42 because I am wearing glass. Thank you so much for your help!!
I have just purchased the Nikon p7. 8x42. I had tried the p3, Nikon monarch, Celestion and some Bushnells. I can’t believe how good the p7s are. I am not experienced in all things binocular - but for what I paid - which has to be allowed for I’ve been blown away.
Yes. I use the 8x42 and 10x42 most of the time because they are very lightweight, only 600 grammes. I prefer the 8x42 for the ease of use during an extended period of time : easy to keep the image steady, easy to focus, easy to get a sharp image related to a better depth field, easy to follow birds. I can do the same thing with the 10x42 but only during a short period of time. On the market you can find low cost binoculars in 10x42 with a weight less than 550 grammes but I don't think they provide a field of view as big as the P7 or P3 in 10x42. They might be interresting too. For example, I think about the Bresser Corvette 10x42. If you don't like chromatic aberrations, you should buy binoculars with "ED glass" like the Nikon M7. You can find cheap binoculars with "ED glass" from Chinese brands like Svbony. I have the 8x42 Svbony SV 202 and for the price (135 euros) I have really nothing to say but they are heavier. I also owned an 8x42 Opticron WP PC Mg with no mention of the ED glass : however the control of the chromatic aberration was very good. Even the Nikon 7S has less chromatic aberrations than the P7. Also, cheap binoculars with BK7 seem to be good for the control of chromatic aberrations. To me, the neckstrap and objective caps on the P7 are weak points of the P7. You cand find better accessories in those lightweight binoculars under 675 grammes in 8x42 or 10x42 : I think about Vortex Diamondback HD, Bresser Pirsch, Bresser Pirsch ED, Olivon PC3 , Olivon PC3 ED and Perl Dravia and much more expensive, the Nikon Monarch HG in 8x42. I really like the P7 because I don't see on the market another model with the follwing features together : - 600 g for the 10x42 (590 grammes for the 8x42) - oil and water repellent coating - fogproof. - phase coating - dialectric coating - huge apparent field of view for the 10x42. - color rendition : neutral
@bicak_knife_messer_tool do you prefer those over nikon 8x42? I'm thinking of getting some binoculars for birding. I had nikons before and liked them a lot
I would say it depends on the shape of the eyeglasses. In addition, the higher the eye relief, the easier the use with glasses is. Moreover, the higher the size of the eyepiece lenses is, the easier the use with eyeglass is (no difference for the size of the eyepieces lenses between the P7 in 8x42 and 10x42). It also depends on the effective eye relief : the available room for the eyeglasses when the eyecups are fully retracted is a bit shorter than the eye relief in pratice. On the P7 10x42, the effective eye relief is quite good because the eyecups are flat. I would say it also depends on the apparent field of view. It's easier to use eyeglasses when the size of the circle of the image is small. And the apparent field of view of the P7/P3 in 8x42 is smaller than the one in the P7/P3 in10x42. For eyeglasses wearers the P7/P3 in 8x42 is a safer option because it can fit to the majority of eyeglasses thanks to the 20.2 mm of eye relief and its apparent field of view which is not big. The eye relief of the P7 in 10x42 is shorter, 15.7 mm.
To my eyes, today on a sunny day. -color rendition : yellow-green on the Svbony, more neutral on the Nikon. There is slight lack of saturation in the red for the Svbony when I look at a red roof, but the view on trees is great. -sharpness at the center : a bit better on the Nikon (less astigmatism?) or maybe it's just because I did not find the best position of the diopter ring on the Svbony. -Chromatic aberrations : the Svbony controls them in a better way, or maybe I did not adjust the IPD in the best way on the Nikon. -Ghost images due to reflection on the eyepieces : pink-red on the Svbony, green on the Nikon, same low intensity. -Glare control : I see glare in both cases. -Quality inside the barrels : I see a multicolored ring ("mirror effect") around the circle of the image on the Svbony, the image on the Nikon is free of this effect, so the Nikon is well blacked inside. For birdwatching, I recommend the Nikon because its weight is only 590 g and it's well blacked inside. Besides, It's very important to not extrapolate to others formats (I also have the Svbony SV202 8x32 which is free of the multicolored ring effect) . It's only my opinion on the 8x42 size, between the SV 202 and P7.
@@colvertfurtif Thank you so much for your reply! Speaking of Svbony SV202 series, I have two doubts in mind now. 1. Since the 8x42 was launched much later than the rest of the series (8x32, 10x42, 10x50), and even its retail price was mysteriously higher than the 10x42 of the series. I was wondering, did they improve something in the 8x42? To your tests, did you find anything interesting happening? 2. I'm still struggling if I should go for a more robust 8x42 option for better low light viewing but quite a lot heavier (about 200g difference) and bulker or just get a 8x32 for better portability but sacrifice image quality in low light. For this particular SV202 8x32 vs 8x42, how would you suggest? Do they have very similar image quality in bright to moderate light condition? Do you think 8x32 is good enough for watching indoor concerts? Thank you very much in advance! Have a great day!
@@colvertfurtif Thank you so much for your reply! Appreciate that a lot and great help for me. Between the SV202 8x32 vs SV202 8x42, do you find any image quality difference in good light condition? As for low light, consider an indoor concert performance or indoor sports event in a museum hall, will it be obvious difference between them? Price is not that much difference, but there is a 200g heavier and also obvious bigger size. Thank you and have a nice day!
@@kp66udv 1. The 8x42 is heavier than the 10x42 (I don't have the 10x42), so I think the build quality is better. At least it's better than the 8x32. Indeed, I can slightly change the aligment of the optics by putting pressure (up/down) on the barrels of the 8x32 with my hands. I did this because I like to have an ultra perfect aligment when it's possible to move the barrels with my hands. It was risky because I could have broken the binoculars and the rubber. On the 8x42 it's impossible to move the barrels, so the the build quality of the 8x42 is impressive. 2. To me, the SV 202 in 8x42 is better than the SV 202 in 8x32 for the central sharpness (maybe less astigmatism) and the contrast, even in normal conditions. For watching indoor concerts, yes 8x32 is enough. I use an 8x42 more for the ease of the eyes placement than for the brigtness, I struggle more often with the 8x32 in order to get a sharp image. In dark places like indoor concerts, i think you will have a dark images in both cases, so you should pick the lightest. There are also the "low magnification" like the 5x25 (for example the very cheap Visionking, I have it : a bit heavy and too bulky for a "25 mm" but I like it for 50 euros or 50$), 6,5 x32 (for example Kowa BD II), 7x32 (Hawke) or 6x30 (Opticron or Kowa), etc ... which are interesting for concerts.
@@amiwho9780 Yes, to my eyes 8x42 is sharper to the 8x32. I struggle with the 8x32 in order to get a sharp image. I don't think there will be an obvious difference for indoor activities. In dark places, both of them will provide dark images. I also suggest the "low magnification" like the 5x25 (for example the very cheap Visionking, I have it : a bit heavy and too bulky for a "25 mm" but I like it for 50 euros or 50$), 6,5 x32 (for example Kowa BD II), 7x32 (Hawke) or 6x30 (Opticron or Kowa), etc ... which seem to be interesting for concerts.
Yes but in my opinion all binoculars are good for stargazing. The sharpness is not very important to see nebulas or Messier objects because a nebula will stay a blur object, so a cheap 10x50 can do the job. But for contemplation, I prefer my monarch HG 10x42 because on the P7 10x42 or 8x42 there are visible astigmatism at the edge. But yes P7 are very good at the center, stars look like points at the center but not at the edge. For stargazing I use mainly 8x30 (wide field of view and light weight), 8x42 (image steady and quite lightweight), 10x42 (good magnification and quite lightweight, ), 15x56 and 16x50 (for Messier objects, Andromeda galaxy, the Moon or if the quality of the sky is bad because of light pollution). I think high magnification is great on open clusters. The Pleiades are wonderfull with high power. But all powers are good if you have a clear intention of your use.
@@colvertfurtif Great, thanks! I have the Canon 15x50 IS and they're great for stargazing. But I might pick up a pair of these P7s for more general use, they seem much easier to carry around.
@@theodosios2615 Yes, I can imagine the beauty of the view in your stabilized binoculars : high power and steady image, bigger exit pupil than a classic 16x50, I guess they are great for stargazing ! Yes P7 are very good for general use.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
For the person who asked me why I recommend the P7 (between the P7 and the P3) one day ago. Sorry I carelessly deleted the initial message, I just wanted to edit my message but I erased the wrong message 😅:
Thank you for your question.
When I decided to talk about the P3 and the P7 in 8x42, I wanted to talk about things that don't appear on paper.
Sometimes there are variations between the real specifications and the specifications announced, and obviously we can't see on paper if the magnification is close to 7.5, 8.0, 8.5, etc... This can have slight consequences on the immersive view, the size of the exit pupil, and the steadiness of the image. I appreciate a bigger magnification than expected like 8.5 instead of 8.0 because the apparent field of view is bigger than expected. Honestly, when I bought the P3 in 8x42, I was hoping something like that :p. But it was not the case. To my eyes, both P3 and P7 in 8x42 have the same magnification, the same field of view, and the same apparent field of view.
But there are differences. The P7 provides more neutral colors, on the P3 the image is a bit yellow. It’s a matter of taste, but I prefer the P7 during gray days and in low light conditions because the image seems brighter to me.
Though I said the central sharpness is equally good (in 8x42) in the P7 than in the P3 (in 8x42), I meant that if there was a difference in terms of sharpness between the two models in 8x42, then to my eyes the difference would not be obvious, in the 8x42.
But in theory, the phase coating which is including in P7 and not in the P3 is supposed to increase the sharpness of the image. That’s why I think the P7 in 10x42 is sharper than the P3 in 10x42 but not necessarly on the 8x42 because I believe that it’s more difficult to have a sharp image with 10 power. And in this case, the phase coating could help a lot at 10x42. But it’s not so simple, indeed I owned a Solognac 900 in 10x42 released in March 2021, and in my opinion the sharpness was equivalent to my Prostaff 7S in 10x42. And later on, I watched a video and the video says that there is no phase coating on the Solognac. So, it can show that phase coating is not everything however.
Also in theory, the “dielectric coating” on the P7 is a bit better than the “silver coating” on the P3, for the brightness.
Thus, first I recommend the P7 because I think the “phase coating” and the “dielectric coating” are advantages in theory.
And secondly, I recommend the P7 because they have water repellent coating. This can be highly usefull during cold days to reduce the water condensation (it's different form "fogproof" : when you see "fogproof" it is to prevent the water condensation from going inside the binoculars), especially on the eyepiece lenses because you are likely to put your face on the eyecups, which causes a thermal shock.
Your question was very interesting, it would be great for the community if you can repeat here again. Sorry again for my clumsiness.
Thank you for your views. Much appreciated
Way too long explanation
Yo tengo el Solognac 900 10x42 y francamente por el precio 230€ no creo que se encuentre nada mejor ,por otra parte tengo unos vanguard ed IV 10x42 que valen el doble que los solognac y quitando el campo de vision que es mayor y la cantidad de CA que es mucho menor ,veo mas nitido por los solognac ,con lo cual me hace pensar que muchas veces no estafan con esto de la optica
Thank you. Very helpful for a beginner on a budget
Thank you such a great video. It appears that both binoculars have excellent edge to edge sharpness. Can't see any softening or falloff on the edges. Like the new design!
Thank you !
Actually, I see a slight field curvature. I think it's all about accommodation. My camcorder has a better accommodation than my eyes. Maybe a very young person can have the chance to see the image as well as we can see on the video through the binoculars.
It's a difference between 8x42 and 10x42 on the P7(and probably on the P3). On the 10x42, the apparent field of view is much bigger, but coma and astigmatism are more noticeable at the edge.
@@colvertfurtif Many thanks! 🙂
Which binocular will you recommend for a bird watcher? A nikon P3, P7 or 7S?
All are good for birdwatching in 8x42 or 10x42. My favourite is the the P7 because they have a dielectric coating and water repellent coating. The P3 has "only" a silver coating, and for the 7s only Nikon knows the nature of the coating.
If I compare my 10x42 7s to my 10x42 P7, I would say the 10x42 7s has less chromatic aberration than the 10x42 p7 (I'm not sure because adjusting the IPD [interpupillar distance] can reduce or increase the chromatic aberration but the big field of view of the P7 and its low weight is definitely a joy to use. Nevertheless, I prefer the balance of the 10x42 7s and its larger neckstrap. To me the 10x42 P7 has more vivid colors. For the moment I don't have time to compare them carefully but I think I will compare the 10x42 7s and 10x42 P7 one day.
@@colvertfurtif @colvertfurtif Thank you so much for your detail reply!
Does the advantage of 7s only occur in 10x42? I am thinking to buy a 8x42 because i am doing bird photography and all i need is to know the approximate locationand the breed of the birds. I guess I may consider the P7. Thank you so much!
@@tmr11059 I don't know about the first question because in the 7s series I have only the 10x42. But what I see on paper is that 8x30 7s and 8x42 7s have a small field of view, under 120 metres at 1000 metres. It's not big at all. The 8x42 p7 is a bit better, 126 metres at 1000 metres. The 8x30 p7 is much better is this regard, 152 metres at 1000 metres ! (but probably more blur with such a big field of view).
I would say :
8x42 P7 : relaxing view, lightweight, long eye relief (it's very important if you wear eyeglass), field of view "OK".
8x30 P7 : eye placement can be finicky, very lightweight, eye relief "OK", big field of view, it can do the "job" in your case.
@@colvertfurtif Really appreciate your detail ans. I just noticed that the eye relief for the P7 10x42 is only 15mm. In this case, I will get the 8x42 because I am wearing glass. Thank you so much for your help!!
I have just purchased the Nikon p7. 8x42. I had tried the p3, Nikon monarch, Celestion and some Bushnells. I can’t believe how good the p7s are. I am not experienced in all things binocular - but for what I paid - which has to be allowed for I’ve been blown away.
Do you think the p7 would be a good binocular for a new birder? Do you have any other recommendations? Thanks.
Yes. I use the 8x42 and 10x42 most of the time because they are very lightweight, only 600 grammes. I prefer the 8x42 for the ease of use during an extended period of time : easy to keep the image steady, easy to focus, easy to get a sharp image related to a better depth field, easy to follow birds. I can do the same thing with the 10x42 but only during a short period of time.
On the market you can find low cost binoculars in 10x42 with a weight less than 550 grammes but I don't think they provide a field of view as big as the P7 or P3 in 10x42. They might be interresting too. For example, I think about the Bresser Corvette 10x42.
If you don't like chromatic aberrations, you should buy binoculars with "ED glass" like the Nikon M7. You can find cheap binoculars with "ED glass" from Chinese brands like Svbony. I have the 8x42 Svbony SV 202 and for the price (135 euros) I have really nothing to say but they are heavier. I also owned an 8x42 Opticron WP PC Mg with no mention of the ED glass : however the control of the chromatic aberration was very good. Even the Nikon 7S has less chromatic aberrations than the P7. Also, cheap binoculars with BK7 seem to be good for the control of chromatic aberrations.
To me, the neckstrap and objective caps on the P7 are weak points of the P7. You cand find better accessories in those lightweight binoculars under 675 grammes in 8x42 or 10x42 : I think about Vortex Diamondback HD, Bresser Pirsch, Bresser Pirsch ED, Olivon PC3 , Olivon PC3 ED and Perl Dravia and much more expensive, the Nikon Monarch HG in 8x42.
I really like the P7 because I don't see on the market another model with the follwing features together :
- 600 g for the 10x42 (590 grammes for the 8x42)
- oil and water repellent coating
- fogproof.
- phase coating
- dialectric coating
- huge apparent field of view for the 10x42.
- color rendition : neutral
Thanks! :)
Birding İdeal Binoculars Kowa BD-II XD 8X42 FoV 8.2 And Kowa BD-II XD 8X32 FoV 8.8 Awesome.
@bicak_knife_messer_tool do you prefer those over nikon 8x42? I'm thinking of getting some binoculars for birding. I had nikons before and liked them a lot
Does P3 have fog proof feature?
Yes but not the water repellent coating
so if one wears eyeglasses, you recommend the 8x42 over the 10x42?? explain?
I would say it depends on the shape of the eyeglasses.
In addition, the higher the eye relief, the easier the use with glasses is.
Moreover, the higher the size of the eyepiece lenses is, the easier the use with eyeglass is (no difference for the size of the eyepieces lenses between the P7 in 8x42 and 10x42).
It also depends on the effective eye relief : the available room for the eyeglasses when the eyecups are fully retracted is a bit shorter than the eye relief in pratice. On the P7 10x42, the effective eye relief is quite good because the eyecups are flat.
I would say it also depends on the apparent field of view. It's easier to use eyeglasses when the size of the circle of the image is small. And the apparent field of view of the P7/P3 in 8x42 is smaller than the one in the P7/P3 in10x42.
For eyeglasses wearers the P7/P3 in 8x42 is a safer option because it can fit to the majority of eyeglasses thanks to the 20.2 mm of eye relief and its apparent field of view which is not big. The eye relief of the P7 in 10x42 is shorter, 15.7 mm.
How do you compare the P7 vs Svbony's SV202 on 8x42? Which one would you recommend?
To my eyes, today on a sunny day.
-color rendition : yellow-green on the Svbony, more neutral on the Nikon. There is slight lack of saturation in the red for the Svbony when I look at a red roof, but the view on trees is great.
-sharpness at the center : a bit better on the Nikon (less astigmatism?) or maybe it's just because I did not find the best position of the diopter ring on the Svbony.
-Chromatic aberrations : the Svbony controls them in a better way, or maybe I did not adjust the IPD in the best way on the Nikon.
-Ghost images due to reflection on the eyepieces : pink-red on the Svbony, green on the Nikon, same low intensity.
-Glare control : I see glare in both cases.
-Quality inside the barrels : I see a multicolored ring ("mirror effect") around the circle of the image on the Svbony, the image on the Nikon is free of this effect, so the Nikon is well blacked inside.
For birdwatching, I recommend the Nikon because its weight is only 590 g and it's well blacked inside. Besides, It's very important to not extrapolate to others formats (I also have the Svbony SV202 8x32 which is free of the multicolored ring effect) . It's only my opinion on the 8x42 size, between the SV 202 and P7.
@@colvertfurtif Thank you so much for your reply!
Speaking of Svbony SV202 series, I have two doubts in mind now.
1. Since the 8x42 was launched much later than the rest of the series (8x32, 10x42, 10x50), and even its retail price was mysteriously higher than the 10x42 of the series. I was wondering, did they improve something in the 8x42? To your tests, did you find anything interesting happening?
2. I'm still struggling if I should go for a more robust 8x42 option for better low light viewing but quite a lot heavier (about 200g difference) and bulker or just get a 8x32 for better portability but sacrifice image quality in low light. For this particular SV202 8x32 vs 8x42, how would you suggest? Do they have very similar image quality in bright to moderate light condition? Do you think 8x32 is good enough for watching indoor concerts?
Thank you very much in advance!
Have a great day!
@@colvertfurtif
Thank you so much for your reply! Appreciate that a lot and great help for me.
Between the SV202 8x32 vs SV202 8x42, do you find any image quality difference in good light condition? As for low light, consider an indoor concert performance or indoor sports event in a museum hall, will it be obvious difference between them? Price is not that much difference, but there is a 200g heavier and also obvious bigger size.
Thank you and have a nice day!
@@kp66udv
1. The 8x42 is heavier than the 10x42 (I don't have the 10x42), so I think the build quality is better. At least it's better than the 8x32. Indeed, I can slightly change the aligment of the optics by putting pressure (up/down) on the barrels of the 8x32 with my hands. I did this because I like to have an ultra perfect aligment when it's possible to move the barrels with my hands. It was risky because I could have broken the binoculars and the rubber. On the 8x42 it's impossible to move the barrels, so the the build quality of the 8x42 is impressive.
2. To me, the SV 202 in 8x42 is better than the SV 202 in 8x32 for the central sharpness (maybe less astigmatism) and the contrast, even in normal conditions. For watching indoor concerts, yes 8x32 is enough. I use an 8x42 more for the ease of the eyes placement than for the brigtness, I struggle more often with the 8x32 in order to get a sharp image.
In dark places like indoor concerts, i think you will have a dark images in both cases, so you should pick the lightest. There are also the "low magnification" like the 5x25 (for example the very cheap Visionking, I have it : a bit heavy and too bulky for a "25 mm" but I like it for 50 euros or 50$), 6,5 x32 (for example Kowa BD II), 7x32 (Hawke) or 6x30 (Opticron or Kowa), etc ... which are interesting for concerts.
@@amiwho9780 Yes, to my eyes 8x42 is sharper to the 8x32. I struggle with the 8x32 in order to get a sharp image. I don't think there will be an obvious difference for indoor activities. In dark places, both of them will provide dark images. I also suggest the "low magnification" like the 5x25 (for example the very cheap Visionking, I have it : a bit heavy and too bulky for a "25 mm" but I like it for 50 euros or 50$), 6,5 x32 (for example Kowa BD II), 7x32 (Hawke) or 6x30 (Opticron or Kowa), etc ... which seem to be interesting for concerts.
Maaf pak..
Saya tidak mengerti bahasa anda..
Jadi mana yang lebih baik, P3 atau P7 ?
P7
P3/p7 better experience tell me
Thanks, good info. Would you say the P7s are good for basic stargazing?
Yes but in my opinion all binoculars are good for stargazing. The sharpness is not very important to see nebulas or Messier objects because a nebula will stay a blur object, so a cheap 10x50 can do the job. But for contemplation, I prefer my monarch HG 10x42 because on the P7 10x42 or 8x42 there are visible astigmatism at the edge. But yes P7 are very good at the center, stars look like points at the center but not at the edge. For stargazing I use mainly 8x30 (wide field of view and light weight), 8x42 (image steady and quite lightweight), 10x42 (good magnification and quite lightweight, ), 15x56 and 16x50 (for Messier objects, Andromeda galaxy, the Moon or if the quality of the sky is bad because of light pollution). I think high magnification is great on open clusters. The Pleiades are wonderfull with high power. But all powers are good if you have a clear intention of your use.
@@colvertfurtif Great, thanks! I have the Canon 15x50 IS and they're great for stargazing. But I might pick up a pair of these P7s for more general use, they seem much easier to carry around.
@@theodosios2615 Yes, I can imagine the beauty of the view in your stabilized binoculars : high power and steady image, bigger exit pupil than a classic 16x50, I guess they are great for stargazing ! Yes P7 are very good for general use.