I had a chance to use my newly acquired Swarovsky binoculars that I mentioned a few posts ago.  These are the 10×42′s.  I agonized over whether or not to get the 8×42′s since they have a wider field of view and are considered by some to be better at finding birds in thick brush.  However, I read several accounts by people who said they preferred the ten power since they had no problems using them in brush and that they were useful at identifying birds far off.   In the past I have always used 7x binoculars and have heard other people claiming that for birding you couldn’t beat 6x!  Like everything else such things are extremely subjective and also depend upon the particularities of the area and conditions, etc.

Anyway I decided upon the ten power binoculars because I didn’t think I would have a problem using them in brushy, woody conditions and also because I often try to identify birds far out on the waters of Puget Sound.  Spotting scopes are good for these far-off conditions of course, and I have a Bausch & Lomb balscope (15X-60X) that I bought for $300 back in 1972 when I was taking an Ornithology course taught by Dr. Mengel at the University of Kansas.  This was an incredible amount for me at the time, and I still have this old classic still marked with my address of the time (2234 Tennessee St., Lawrence, Kansas–stick on strips).  This good friend is very rugged and durable, but I suppose it is considered dated for these times.  I have used my newly acquired Swarovskys down on the Sound looking at birds very far out in the water.  I compared them to a $19 pair of binoculars that I bought last year to replace my Bushnells which were stolen in Panama.  The cheap binoculars had a power of 10X50 and were considerably inferior to the Swarovskys as expected.  The Swarovskys were incredibly brighter even though they had a smaller objective lens (42 mm) as opposed to the cheaper binoculars (50 mm).  Remember that the first number represents the power, and the second number the diameter of the objective lens (the big lens): e.g. 8X42.

I almost didn’t go on my morning walk because my right knee is still hurting, but I thought that I would go slow and take the opportunity to look for birds.  The Swarovskys did extremely well.  The image was very bright even in the dimness of the woods on this cloudy day.  The focusing knob was smooth and quick, allowing me to rapidly focus on the fast moving birds in the trees.  I was able to see details on the birds that allowed for quick and easy identification.  All in all I am very pleased with them.  In my short halting walk I didn’t see that many birds but here is a list:

1. Chestnut backed Chickadee
2. Bushtit (Pacific Coast variety)–once called the Common Bushtit.
3. Red Breasted Nuthatch
4. Robin
5. Common Crow–the crows here by Puget Sound may be the smaller Northwestern Crow.  I’ve never made my mind up about them.  As far as I know they both occur here.
6. Stellars Jay
7. Golden Crowned Kinglet
8. Red-shafted Flicker now listed under the Northern Flicker as a subspecies.
9. Common Raven
10. Winter wren
11. Oregon Junco–apparently this is now considered a subspecies of the Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis) which includes at least six subspecies none of which appear to be actually called the Dark-eyed Junco! Don’tcha just hate the Taxonomists?  (just kidding)
12. Spotted Towhee (I learned this one as the Western Towhee–more taxonomic reshuffling.

I realize that this is a puny list, but hopefully when I walk down to the water, I’ll see more aquatic species…and remember it was a very short walk!  Hey, why am I defending myself?  Is it a competition?