• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

best low light bino 10x (1 Viewer)

As people come and go on Internet forums, ranging from experts to newbies in any given aspect of the forum’s focus, it’s impossible to put any topic to rest. But, in order to push the level of understanding up the ladder a bit, I want to try approaching the idea of image brightness. To help drive home my thoughts, I will start with a story.

I was having breakfast at a friend’s house when we were about fifteen. His mother gave him a glass for his milk that had 2 or 3 drops of water in it. His teenage butt became unreasonable and he castigated his mother. But, was anything really accomplished? Yes, it was. He embarrassed his mother. He embarrassed me. And, he made himself look like an intolerant fool. Perhaps a better question would have been: was anything beneficial accomplished. It wasn’t.

We should first consider milk is already 95-97% water and then consider how much a few drops of additional water is going to change the flavor or nutritional value of the milk. Of course, there would be a difference. But, who has the biological equipment to recognize that difference? Again, much flutter—no flight.

The same is true with IMAGE BRIGHTNESS in instruments of similar quality, aperture, and magnification. The real contributing factor in image brightness is the size of the EXIT PUPIL and the spot presented to the receptors in the eye.

AR coatings, glass types, prism types, and eyepiece types DO play a part. However, as in the example above, they play such a small part—AGAIN WHEN COMPARING SIMILAR INSTRUMENTS—as to create endless discussions of useless consequence. And, would the findings of ONE HOUR be the same for the same individual under different physiological and environmental conditions, the next? Different tests performed at different times with different subjects having different ranges of accommodation for different visual acuities under different conditions will produce different results.

If one wants a brighter image than that available using his or her current binocular ... buy another binocular. All the rhetoric in the world is not going to change the physics of the matter.

Please, if anyone has any empirical information to contradict what I have just said—hey, I want to learn, too, and not spread inaccuracies—share it with me. Share it here that others might take advantage of the information. That’s empirical information and not a collection of opinions. :cat:

Just a thought,

Bill
Nicely put Bill :t: I hope the OP takes note :cat:

When EP's and Brightness in two instruments are so similar that we are getting to the thresholds of human perception, the question of which one is 'better' as the sun dips over the ol' horizon and off to warm (or fry! :) someone else's cockles, becomes a bit like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic ..... there might be some momentary advantage - but ultimately you're not going to be seeing much! :eek!:

I've compared two bins during that lovely time of afternoon as the light engoldens :) and the shadows lengthen and with the p**fteenth in difference between the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED and another similarly parametered bin, I can detect a difference (on the day, and for a particular MOMENT, and considering whether or not I've had carrots for lunch! :) :cat: ..... but it's like horse race:-

It's Brightness by half a length, but here comes EP - It's Brightness - it's EP, it's EP - it's neck and neck ,oh and with a late charge down the outside it's their progeny - Effective Brightness by a short half head!

Ultimately, other factors come in to play, like the feel and balance of the instrument, the ergonomics, and the particular 'flava' of the AR Coating recipe and resultant colour rendition (unless you prefer color! :) and how you like all of those. ..... :cat:

"And, would the findings of ONE HOUR be the same for the [SAME] individual under different physiological and environmental conditions, the next? Different tests performed at different times with different subjects having different ranges of accommodation for different visual acuities under different conditions will produce different results." ..... definitely a Second Ed paragraph right there Bill :t:

Finally, let the OP be informed enough about the Zeiss x54 HT that they go and read the threads here on BF of reputable testers who've eyeballed the thing and had some consequential things to say ..... ! Fair warning. :cat:



Chosun :gh:
 
Last edited:
WDC here, I have to generally agree with the much wiser, and more experienced WJC. (As to why I picked WDC, it has nothing to do with WJC. Just my initials, and he beat me to it...) Anyways, as I've alluded to in some of my own posts, once one is what I would call 'object based' in the use of optical devices, only the grossest, or most physically apparent differences are readily noticed, unless there are relatively severe differences in the image in terms of the overall field, or the basic manufacturing standards.

To really see the differences what some of the folks here talk about, requires one to not use the binoculars for their intended purpose, and instead focus on singular attributes, and have a comparative reference that others can understand. Its not that these qualities can't be evaluated by an individual, or an inert measuring device, for that matter, but that folks have a variety of biases, or physically different needs with regard to what a 'general purpose' optical device might offer to them. I honestly do appreciate folks here reporting on their responses and opinions of different binoculars, but I have learned that they don't always apply to me, and that there are 'n' amount of variables that could have affected their response, none of which is guaranteed to duplicate mine.

In short, one can learn plenty on this forum, but, just realize their responses and opinions will probably not directly correspond to your own. Nonetheless one can still benefit from the intent and experience of all the folks in this community. Bottom line is you need to physically try them for yourself, as specs on paper, and opinions only go so far.

Cheers,

Bill
 
WDC here, I have to generally agree with the much wiser, and more experienced WJC. (As to why I picked WDC, it has nothing to do with WJC. Just my initials, and he beat me to it...) Anyways, as I've alluded to in some of my own posts, once one is what I would call 'object based' in the use of optical devices, only the grossest, or most physically apparent differences are readily noticed, unless there are relatively severe differences in the image in terms of the overall field, or the basic manufacturing standards.

To really see the differences what some of the folks here talk about, requires one to not use the binoculars for their intended purpose, and instead focus on singular attributes, and have a comparative reference that others can understand. Its not that these qualities can't be evaluated by an individual, or an inert measuring device, for that matter, but that folks have a variety of biases, or physically different needs with regard to what a 'general purpose' optical device might offer to them. I honestly do appreciate folks here reporting on their responses and opinions of different binoculars, but I have learned that they don't always apply to me, and that there are 'n' amount of variables that could have affected their response, none of which is guaranteed to duplicate mine.

In short, one can learn plenty on this forum, but, just realize their responses and opinions will probably not directly correspond to your own. Nonetheless one can still benefit from the intent and experience of all the folks in this community. Bottom line is you need to physically try them for yourself, as specs on paper, and opinions only go so far.

Cheers,

Bill
Agree with that Bill^2. :)

That's mostly because what folks on here end up telling you about is THEIR eyes :cat:

Few folks arguing here until they are blue in the face, realise this. :brains:

Very few folks here know how to minimize the distortions and variability especially of their own eyes by either turning the bins around back to front before analysing and passing comment, or taking due care to do the same by photographing with grid patterns. Even fewer actually do.

No doubt this is why the Santa Ana winds blow so hot and hard causing much 'flaming' and wildfire in the process! :eek!: :-O

We even had one extraordinary fulla here who went from 20/20 to 20/10 overnight! :eek!: 3:)

There's more than just a few headed in the opposite direction too! :) :eat:

So yes, there's nearly as much (or more) variability in peeps peepers here than the instruments themselves. Not only buyer, but reader beware ...... :cat:

Trying before you buy is crucial (where possible) , not least because that eye/alignment/relief - fit, is often as crucial as any other two or more factors put together! ;)



Chosun :gh:
 
FWIW my suggestion for a drama-free marriage with your low-light aid to spying is as follows:

Purchase whichever bin floats your canoe highest in the water and thereafter grow to love it through use that seeks to find the positive rather than imperfections.

By all means if you must strain your eyes in reading page upon page of technical detail, reviews or even peering into the darkest reassess of your chosen instrument with a torch to confirm your “worst fears” but be assured this glass half empty approach is sure to end in tears on the rainguard

LGM
 
Last edited:
As people come and go on Internet forums, ranging from experts to newbies in any given aspect of the forum’s focus, it’s impossible to put any topic to rest. But, in order to push the level of understanding up the ladder a bit, I want to try approaching the idea of image brightness. To help drive home my thoughts, I will start with a story.

I was having breakfast at a friend’s house when we were about fifteen. His mother gave him a glass for his milk that had 2 or 3 drops of water in it. His teenage butt became unreasonable and he castigated his mother. But, was anything really accomplished? Yes, it was. He embarrassed his mother. He embarrassed me. And, he made himself look like an intolerant fool. Perhaps a better question would have been: was anything beneficial accomplished. It wasn’t.

We should first consider milk is already 95-97% water and then consider how much a few drops of additional water is going to change the flavor or nutritional value of the milk. Of course, there would be a difference. But, who has the biological equipment to recognize that difference? Again, much flutter—no flight.

The same is true with IMAGE BRIGHTNESS in instruments of similar quality, aperture, and magnification. The real contributing factor in image brightness is the size of the EXIT PUPIL and the spot presented to the receptors in the eye.

AR coatings, glass types, prism types, and eyepiece types DO play a part. However, as in the example above, they play such a small part—AGAIN WHEN COMPARING SIMILAR INSTRUMENTS—as to create endless discussions of useless consequence. And, would the findings of ONE HOUR be the same for the same individual under different physiological and environmental conditions, the next? Different tests performed at different times with different subjects having different ranges of accommodation for different visual acuities under different conditions will produce different results.

If one wants a brighter image than that available using his or her current binocular ... buy another binocular. All the rhetoric in the world is not going to change the physics of the matter.

Please, if anyone has any empirical information to contradict what I have just said—hey, I want to learn, too, and not spread inaccuracies—share it with me. Share it here that others might take advantage of the information. That’s empirical information and not a collection of opinions. :cat:

Just a thought,

Bill
"The real contributing factor in image brightness is the size of the EXIT PUPIL and the spot presented to the receptors in the eye. "

That is not exactly true. The size of the Exit Pupil is important but the brightness of that spot measured in Lux also makes a difference. That is why binoculars with equal size exit pupils but different transmissions will perform differently. The one that transmits at a higher efficiency will appear brighter because the light intensity of the exit pupil cone will be brighter and the eye will perceive it. Kind of like the difference between a floodlight and a spotlight. Both exit pupil size and transmission are important in a low light binocular.
 
Wise words LGM, well said.

Lee

VERY wise words! BUT, if heeded, binocular forums would either shrink by 90% or would move up the ladder of understanding beyond the plateau on which they have rested since the first word was typed. I'm not being snotty, just realistic.

Just think about it. A newbie askes a question and 15 members respond with various pieces of valuable and veriviable information.

That happened, once. But then, I woke up and had to go to work. :cat:

Bill
 
"The real contributing factor in image brightness is the size of the EXIT PUPIL and the spot presented to the receptors in the eye. "

That is not exactly true. The size of the Exit Pupil is important but the brightness of that spot measured in Lux also makes a difference. That is why binoculars with equal size exit pupils but different transmissions will perform differently. The one that transmits at a higher efficiency will appear brighter because the light intensity of the exit pupil cone will be brighter and the eye will perceive it. Kind of like the difference between a floodlight and a spotlight. Both exit pupil size and transmission are important in a low light binocular.

But in instruments that were as I described, the INTENSITY—lacking the help of Superman or God—is going to be too similar to differentiate. That is why my statement was emphasized, at least in one place, with all caps. :cat:

Bill
 
But in instruments that were as I described, the INTENSITY—lacking the help of Superman or God—is going to be too similar to differentiate. That is why my statement was emphasized, at least in one place, with all caps. :cat:

Bill
Troubador say's he can tell the difference in a higher tranmission binocular. His are both 8x42's so same size exit pupil.

"Here is how I use my SF and HT.

When the weather is cloudy and grey and dark, I choose HT for its extra brightness. It isn't a lot brighter, but it is just noticeably brighter and especially in dull conditions or at dawn or dusk."

I have compared binoculars where one had a slightly bigger exit pupil than the other but the other one had higher transmission and the higher transmitting binocular was brighter. I feel that transmission can make a bigger difference than a small increase in aperture because the cone of light is more intense against your eyes receptors.
 
Troubador say's he can tell the difference in a higher tranmission binocular. His are both 8x42's so same size exit pupil.

"Here is how I use my SF and HT.

When the weather is cloudy and grey and dark, I choose HT for its extra brightness. It isn't a lot brighter, but it is just noticeably brighter and especially in dull conditions or at dawn or dusk."

I have compared binoculars where one had a slightly bigger exit pupil than the other but the other one had higher transmission and the higher transmitting binocular was brighter. I feel that transmission can make a bigger difference than a small increase in aperture because the cone of light is more intense against your eyes receptors.

I am NOT arguing INTENSITY; I don't think I ever have. But, where what you are talking about applies, the eye/brain combination does not equal a calibrated photometer. One adds up impressions and opinions. The other, photons. I prefer the latter. Either way, we have the subjective vs. the empirical. Still, I find this disagreement like peeing up a rope and, with all due respect, I will gladly support you believing as you choose. As for myself, I think I'll bow out with one closing remark:

In most instruments of similar aperture, magnification, and quality, observers aren't going to SEE the difference—opinions, and the need to stack BBs on a binocular forum, notwithstanding.

And, before I started to butt into this thread, I checked with a professor at the UAs College of Optical Sciences to be sure I was not overstepping the limits of my screw-turner's knowledge. :cat:

Bill
 
Last edited:
Well if you must have the ultimate low light binocular here's the secret:

Take an 8X56 Zeiss Night Owl in green (it must be GREEN) into an ancient woodland on the evening of 22nd November and pass your leaded glass through a freshly cleaved Rowan tree eight times while chanting "Salmay, Dalmay, Adomay!"

Now point the anointed ZNO's at the remnants of an inconstant moon and count to 56 without blinking.

Spell complete but don't send them back to Zeiss for servicing.

LGM
 
Well if you must have the ultimate low light binocular here's the secret:

Take an 8X56 Zeiss Night Owl in green (it must be GREEN) into an ancient woodland on the evening of 22nd November and pass your leaded glass through a freshly cleaved Rowan tree eight times while chanting "Salmay, Dalmay, Adomay!"

Now point the anointed ZNO's at the remnants of an inconstant moon and count to 56 without blinking.

Spell complete but don't send them back to Zeiss for servicing.

LGM

ATTENTION ALL UK AND EUROPEAN OPERATIVES!

LGM as somehow infiltrated and learned our secret, AO06. He must be taken out at all cost, lest he spread AO06 across the free, and not so free, world. You are authorized to use any method at your disposal. This includes the collimator that emits parallel light rays. :cat:

.00000000007
by direction
 
I am NOT arguing INTENSITY; I don't think I ever have. But, where what you are talking about applies, the eye/brain combination does not equal a calibrated photometer. One adds up impressions and opinions. The other, photons. I prefer the latter. Either way, we have the subjective vs. the empirical. Still, I find this disagreement like peeing up a rope and, with all due respect, I will gladly support you believing as you choose. As for myself, I think I'll bow out with one closing remark:

In most instruments of similar aperture, magnification, and quality, observers aren't going to SEE the difference—opinions, and the need to stack BBs on a binocular forum, notwithstanding.

And, before I started to butt into this thread, I checked with a professor at the UAs College of Optical Sciences to be sure I was not overstepping the limits of my screw-turner's knowledge. :cat:

Bill
"In most instruments of similar aperture, magnification, and quality, observers aren't going to SEE the difference."

That is not true. I can see the difference in brightness in a Zeiss 8x42 SF and a Zeiss 8x42 HT and I think 95% of birders would notice a small difference. When a binocular is designed for high transmission there is a difference.:t:
 
"In most instruments of similar aperture, magnification, and quality, observers aren't going to SEE the difference."

That is not true. I can see the difference in brightness in a Zeiss 8x42 SF and a Zeiss 8x42 HT and I think 95% of birders would notice a small difference. When a binocular is designed for high transmission there is a difference.:t:

Glad you can. Now, if you really want to help me and others, I am truly willing to listen and admit any mistake on my part, just have an optical engineering PhD from UA or Rochester back your exact comments on this list. That's all it will take for me to fall in line. I'm just a simple little screw turner.:cat:

Cheers,

Bill
 
Last edited:
"In most instruments of similar aperture, magnification, and quality, observers aren't going to SEE the difference."

That is not true. I can see the difference in brightness in a Zeiss 8x42 SF and a Zeiss 8x42 HT and I think 95% of birders would notice a small difference. When a binocular is designed for high transmission there is a difference.:t:

I'm not personally familiar with Zeiss SF and HT. Do they have the same FOV and how do their transmissions differ?

Ed
 
Ok, and what method do you use to compare brightness?

And which one do you perceive to be brighter?

Ed
 
Last edited:
I am very curious which of the following binoculars gives the best low light view: Swarovski SLC 10x56, Zeiss Fl 10x56, Zeiss Design Selection 10x56 T* or the newer zeiss ht 10x54? Thanks!

I'd actually decided to stay away from this thread. I have no idea what Batvenci means by 'best'. Perceived brightness, resolution, contrast or something else entirely? Of course, even if I had compared the three binoculars with a particular parameter in mind, my answers would totally depend on the type of target, the luminance to the scene and the wavelength distribution of the available light. It would almost certainly be no use to Batvenci at all. Unfortunately, these technicalities don't seem to have deterred anyone else.

I have tried a couple of the binoculars listed, but like others posting here, I haven't done any sytematic low light comparisons on those models. From testing a couple of dozen others in a range of twilight, moonlight and very dim artificial light conditions I would expect to get to get quite different answers depending on what I was looking for. My observations are broadly in keeping with Holger Merlitz paper based on the now rather dated, Zeiss and Leica research. Modern coatings quite clearly add another complexity, relating to the colour shift of the ambient light. While I might expect the SLC and HT to swap then top spot over the various lighting conditions I might personally anticipate, I would not consider buying either based on the samples I've tried.

Of couse poor QC on a sample or two won't necessarily represent the whole production run, but personally, I'd keep an open mind and take a serious look beyond Gemany and Austria for the best low light allrounder.

David
 
Last edited:
"Unfortunately, these technicalities don't seem to have deterred anyone else."

I jumped in because I thought the thread could use a little more reason. But, it seems some have calibrated eyes that can set the standard for all.

Bill
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top