Loud Green Man
Well-known member
Notwithstanding availability any thoughts on the finest low light set of bins out there?
LGM
LGM
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Best Low Light Binocular? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Loud Green Man
- Start date
How about this one? It has a 27 foot aperture(8230 mm).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Binocular_Telescope
For birding probably a Zeiss 8x56 FL if you are young and your eyes can use the big exit pupils although they would be heavy for birding. If you are over 50 years old any good 10x50 would be best. The best 10x50 I have tried is the Swarovski 10x50 SV.
Attachments
Last edited:
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Do you have a specific magnification in mind?
You haven't said what you intend to use the binos for or given us any idea about other priorities such as preferred size or weight or budget.
If you want the best low light bino in a regular birding format (as opposed to a 54 or 56mm objective size) then Zeiss HT 8x42 is the one IMHO.
Lee
If you want the best low light bino in a regular birding format (as opposed to a 54 or 56mm objective size) then Zeiss HT 8x42 is the one IMHO.
Lee
LGM,
It's not something we can give you a straightforward answer to without knowing your definition of low light, your maximum pupil diameter and the size of the objects you are wishing to observe. Generally an 8x42 will fulfill the needs of most middle aged birdwatchers but a 10x56 will normally allow you to see more in even darker conditions.
It's a complicated balance of factors which Holger Merlitz explores in his paper "Performance of binoculars: Berek’s model of target detection." Some of the more pertinent sections are covered in the preview from his upcoming book. Page 141onwards.
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/book_english/preview.html
David
It's not something we can give you a straightforward answer to without knowing your definition of low light, your maximum pupil diameter and the size of the objects you are wishing to observe. Generally an 8x42 will fulfill the needs of most middle aged birdwatchers but a 10x56 will normally allow you to see more in even darker conditions.
It's a complicated balance of factors which Holger Merlitz explores in his paper "Performance of binoculars: Berek’s model of target detection." Some of the more pertinent sections are covered in the preview from his upcoming book. Page 141onwards.
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/book_english/preview.html
David
In David's statement about 10x56 vs 8x42 the word "normally" is crucial. If you placed this thread in the Zeiss forum because you will go for Zeiss, or similar optical quality, then that is correct. I was tempted to buy a moderately good 10x56 at a sale and expected great things but found that it showed less detail than a very good 8x42 at night in a side-by-side comparison. (Pl. note also that the the exit pupil gain was only 5.6 mm vs 5.25 mm.)
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
LGM, POST 1,
If you have the option to check a few before buying, I would try an 8x54 Zeiss Victory HT and/or a Swarovski SLC 8x56. Both combine a large exit pupil with high light transmission. How they fit your eyes in low light conditions you certainly have to check.
Gijs van Ginkel.
If you have the option to check a few before buying, I would try an 8x54 Zeiss Victory HT and/or a Swarovski SLC 8x56. Both combine a large exit pupil with high light transmission. How they fit your eyes in low light conditions you certainly have to check.
Gijs van Ginkel.
Hermann
Well-known member
Provided you find the weight and size of an 8x56 acceptable. If you prefer light weight, something like the Habicht 7x42 with it's extremely high light transmission might fit the bill. And it's only 620 gr.
You'd have to accept the small field of view though.
Hermann
For those who haven't read Holger's paper or, like me, haven't checked the original work of Zeiss and Leica scientists they address the issues that acuity and contrast discrimination decrease with light level and their relationship with age. While there is much individual variation, typically by the time you are sixty an 8x54 would have no advantage over an 8x42 or an 8x32 once you are in your seventies. Both studies clearly show the advantage of increasing magnification, so for the typical sixty year old a 7x42 would be worse than a 8x42.
I think part of the conflicting advice is due to what different users call low light. The 'twilight factor' was product of the Zeiss study and is only really applicable to moonlight light levesl and lower, but that still needs to be treated with caution as if doesn't take age and pupil diameter into account. The Leica/Holger work shows that most of the benefit of higher magnification doesn't occur until colour vision begins to fade and is more pronounced in the older user.
Coatings were in their infancy when those studies were done and there would have been fewer differences in transmission spectrum than we see now. I personally see most difference at mesopic light levels, in the transition between daylight colour vision and night monochromatic vision. Our ability to see blue is the first to be lost and a binocular with a relatively stong transmission at 440nm will normally preserve full colour vision longer and may seem perceptually brighter than another. This is quite different from those scientific studies looking at target detectability and effective acuity which will me more dependant on the photopic 555nm and scotopic 505nm maximum sensitivities.
How much difference a 3% or 5% difference in transmission makes to 'brightness' or twilight performance is much discussed on the forum. What ever it is, I suspect it's somewhat less than the 30-40% increase in threshold detection a 60 year old would get from switching from an 8x42 to a 10x56 according to the work done Leica which seems to fit my experience of moonlight testing with binoculars of widely differing quality extrememly well.
David
I think part of the conflicting advice is due to what different users call low light. The 'twilight factor' was product of the Zeiss study and is only really applicable to moonlight light levesl and lower, but that still needs to be treated with caution as if doesn't take age and pupil diameter into account. The Leica/Holger work shows that most of the benefit of higher magnification doesn't occur until colour vision begins to fade and is more pronounced in the older user.
Coatings were in their infancy when those studies were done and there would have been fewer differences in transmission spectrum than we see now. I personally see most difference at mesopic light levels, in the transition between daylight colour vision and night monochromatic vision. Our ability to see blue is the first to be lost and a binocular with a relatively stong transmission at 440nm will normally preserve full colour vision longer and may seem perceptually brighter than another. This is quite different from those scientific studies looking at target detectability and effective acuity which will me more dependant on the photopic 555nm and scotopic 505nm maximum sensitivities.
How much difference a 3% or 5% difference in transmission makes to 'brightness' or twilight performance is much discussed on the forum. What ever it is, I suspect it's somewhat less than the 30-40% increase in threshold detection a 60 year old would get from switching from an 8x42 to a 10x56 according to the work done Leica which seems to fit my experience of moonlight testing with binoculars of widely differing quality extrememly well.
David
Last edited:
Loud Green Man
Well-known member
So at 59 there's no advantage in use of a good 8x56 over my existing Leica 10-15X50 Duvid other than slightly less wobble when used unsupported?
They will mainly be used in a woodland setting at dawn and dusk.
No one has mentioned the recently discontinued Zeiss 8x56 milk bottles?
LGM
They will mainly be used in a woodland setting at dawn and dusk.
No one has mentioned the recently discontinued Zeiss 8x56 milk bottles?
LGM
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
LGM, post 12,
Even at 59 your eye pupils may be able to dilate more than average values, so you could check that yourself. Personally I would prefer any of the top 8x56's over the Duovid. If you can find the 8x56 Victory FL it certainly also is worth a try. (I have published a fairly elaborate test of old and new 8x56 binoculars of different brands on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor in The Netherlands. It is in Dutch, but the tables and graphs should explain themselves. The 8x56 Zeiss Dialyt of the most recent production line may also be interesting to consider).
Gijs van Ginkel
Even at 59 your eye pupils may be able to dilate more than average values, so you could check that yourself. Personally I would prefer any of the top 8x56's over the Duovid. If you can find the 8x56 Victory FL it certainly also is worth a try. (I have published a fairly elaborate test of old and new 8x56 binoculars of different brands on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor in The Netherlands. It is in Dutch, but the tables and graphs should explain themselves. The 8x56 Zeiss Dialyt of the most recent production line may also be interesting to consider).
Gijs van Ginkel
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Depends partly on your actual maximum pupil size. You might try to estimate it. When it comes to transmission I think there might be bins that are better than the Duovid, especially in the blue spectrum that might be helpful in dusk and dawn. The higher mag will be helpful in very low light, IF you can avoid wobble. Also take into account that a large bin might be more difficult to hold steady for longer periods. I would also consider such things as field of view and ergonomics. Trying the bins side by side in your particular conditions and type of usage is the only way to decide.
Last edited:
Rathaus
Well-known member
I have the funky looking 8x56 BGATP Dialyt swine hunter. In fact, I had it out this afternoon in very bright and clear conditions, watching parrots and bees feeding and gathering from a flowering tree. I was using the 8x56 alongside the 15x60 BGAT, both handheld while seated...the 15x60 with braced elbows. Truly stunning views. I have a collection of current alpha glass, but very often find myself reaching for this era of Zeiss.
The 8x56 is indeed a great glass for low light, but there are many benefits to be enjoyed from this specification in bright conditions too - that wonderfully lazy and effortless ease of view being one. IMO, this is one of the finest attributes a binocular can have.
Just noticed that Focus Optics (UK dealer) has a used Zeiss FL 8x56 in near mint condition for sale at £1300.
http://www.focusoptics.eu/webshop/used-binoculars/zeiss-victory-fl-8x56-b16/
Lee
http://www.focusoptics.eu/webshop/used-binoculars/zeiss-victory-fl-8x56-b16/
Lee
I am well past my best before date, and don't need to buy a T.V. licence, but my pupils are larger than 5.5mm, maybe 5.6mm? At 65 they were 5.8mm and 5.9mm after 20 minutes in total darkness by photography.
As to moonlight, recent studies have shown large errors in earlier full moonlight lux values.
Values of 1 or 2 lux were reported, but in the best conditions in the tropics with the Moon at the zenith a bright full Moon is 0.25 lux, with a Supermoon at a maximum of 0.32 lux (Wiki Daylight lux and others).
A typical full Moon gives a lux value of 0.05 to 0.1 lux,
This is only for a few hours around full Moon. The day before or after is considerably less.
This means that a 0.25 lux Moon has a magnitude of minus 12.7, but a typical full Moon magnitude minus 11.3, plus or minus 0.4 magnitude.
The Sun is magnitude minus 26.8, with a maximum of minus 26.9.
The 0.25 lux full Moon is indeed about 450,000 times fainter than the Sun, but a typical full Moon is 1 or 2 million times fainter.
Welders glass shade 14 filters reduce light across the full spectrum by about 100,000 times, which is why exposure times viewing the Sun should be limited, as they are not dark enough for a very bright Sun.
Anyway, solar observing should be avoided unless an expert or with expert advice.
As to moonlight, recent studies have shown large errors in earlier full moonlight lux values.
Values of 1 or 2 lux were reported, but in the best conditions in the tropics with the Moon at the zenith a bright full Moon is 0.25 lux, with a Supermoon at a maximum of 0.32 lux (Wiki Daylight lux and others).
A typical full Moon gives a lux value of 0.05 to 0.1 lux,
This is only for a few hours around full Moon. The day before or after is considerably less.
This means that a 0.25 lux Moon has a magnitude of minus 12.7, but a typical full Moon magnitude minus 11.3, plus or minus 0.4 magnitude.
The Sun is magnitude minus 26.8, with a maximum of minus 26.9.
The 0.25 lux full Moon is indeed about 450,000 times fainter than the Sun, but a typical full Moon is 1 or 2 million times fainter.
Welders glass shade 14 filters reduce light across the full spectrum by about 100,000 times, which is why exposure times viewing the Sun should be limited, as they are not dark enough for a very bright Sun.
Anyway, solar observing should be avoided unless an expert or with expert advice.
Last edited:
Loud Green Man
Well-known member
At the risk of taking thread off message what aspects of the Duvid do you so dislike?
Thank you
LGM
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
LGM, post 18,
It is not that I dislike the Duovid (it is in itself a beautiful constructed instrument), but it is in my opinion not the best choice for low light conditions because of its considerable lower low light transmission compared with the 8x56 I have mentioned and because it is quite heavy. The 15x50 configuration of the 10-15x50 Duovid is certainly not a good choice for low light level observations since it combines a much smaller exit pupil with the lower light transmission, the Duovids have.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel
It is not that I dislike the Duovid (it is in itself a beautiful constructed instrument), but it is in my opinion not the best choice for low light conditions because of its considerable lower low light transmission compared with the 8x56 I have mentioned and because it is quite heavy. The 15x50 configuration of the 10-15x50 Duovid is certainly not a good choice for low light level observations since it combines a much smaller exit pupil with the lower light transmission, the Duovids have.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel
mfunnell
Registered Confuser
I have the Victory 10x56 FLs and they are excellent binoculars and very, very, good in low light. While they are quite large and a bit on the hefty side, they're not completely unmanageable - especially if used with a harness or if mounted on a tripod or monopod. For me (given my age and so likely maximum pupil size, which wouldn't help much with 8x56s) they're probably near as good as it gets in low light.
...Mike
