• 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.

New Binos (1 Viewer)

dfasano said:
I mainly use my 8x32 for bowhunting close quarters. I'm keeping them for bowhunting. I just happened to have them while hunting last night as my Meoptas were in the safe.

I'm selling my Meopta 10x42 and want to replace them with an 8x or 10x 40 or 50 mm pair for low light scenarios.

I'm 31. Do not know my eye pupil diameter.
Click to expand...

The 10x42 anway have a similarly small 4.2 mm exit pupil.
Going from 4.2 mm exit pupil to 6.25 mm exit pupil (as from an 8x50 binocular) means an increase of 120% in the amount of light entering your eye (given equal quality instruments). That's far more significant than variations in light transmission among good quality binoculars.

At your young age I have little doubt that your eyes can accommodate a 6 or even 7 mm exit pupil when it start to get dark.
 
I know nuttin about hunting, but all things being = a 6.25 mm exit pupil should pass through approximately 220% more light than a 4.2 mm exit pupil not 120% . Am I wrong?
 
Last edited:
The-Wanderer said:
I know nuttin about hunting, but all things being = a 6.25 mm exit pupil should pass through approximately 220% more light than a 4.2 mm exit pupil not 120% . Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I think 220% of the light passed by 4.2mm so 120% more than 4.2mm - or so my back-of-envelope calculation tells me (approximating pi as 355/113 then rounding a bit). Allowing, of course, that your pupils can expand to 6.25mm (I'm pretty sure my aged pupils wouldn't make it but a 31-year-old's should).

...Mike
 
Last edited:
What about the classic Zeiss 8x56 Dialyt? Zeiss have been flogging this low light hunting thing for an eternity, and still do.

I was just looking through one tonight...it lights up the shadows for sure.

Plus, most importantly, it's Steve McQueen cool! B :)

Rathaus
 
I used USAF resolution target comparing Nikon 10x42 SE to a Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX in low light and the 10x42 would "wink out" I copied what I wrote on CN.

" What I found is as the light level went down the Fujinon would still "see" two whole elements smaller than the Nikon 10 SE and still be able to "see" the largest element 2 and 1/2 min. later moore or less before it winked out about 9:35 PM . I had my "target" set up 25 steps away, I also found that I could still see group -1 element 5 or so when I walked up and viewed the target directly. I viewed deer in my fields in the evening comparing the Fuji and 10 SE. The Fuji had better contrast in these low light views of deer etc. and really wasn't surprised that the Fuji did better in the target low light "test". "

10x is like being closer compared to 8x, but I could still see the same small lines when I walked up to the test target
 
[email protected] said:
I respect your opinion but I just tried the Razor HD 10x50 because I heard so much about it before I bought the Swarovision 10x50 SV and I really don't feel they are similar at all. The Razor felt too me like you were looking down a tunnel compared to the Swarovision. IMO there is a world of difference between the two. The Swarovision 10x50 SV not only has a much bigger FOV than the Razor but 100% of it is sharp to the edge. The Razor is lighter but the Swarovision is balanced very well so you don't notice the extra weight as much as you would think. I think if you are used to a nice large FOV as you have on the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 you will feel the Razor restrictive. Swarovski's are known for good low light performance and bringing out detail in hunting situations like you described.
Click to expand...

I've used binos with much larger FoVs and don't find it tunnel like at all. The AFoV is still respectable in the Razor and as a somewhat avid hunter, I can definitely appreciate the light weight of the Razor over the SV. Edge to edge sharpness doesn't mean too much for me, anyway, especially when hunting. When doing Waterfowl surveys it is kind of nice but I don't really notice it otherwise.
 
That why we should all try before we buy. I think I am used to a wide FOV and sharp edges with my 8x32 SV so when I tried the Razor it seems narrow. I tend to look around the FOV and my eyes notice the slight blur on the edges when I tried the Razor. If you get your deer centered in the FOV that is probably all you need. For these reasons I have grown to like the Swarovision's with it's 100% sharp wide FOV. It is personal preference. Some people could care less about sharp edges as long as the center is sharp. The 10x50 SV for some reason has a really good 3D also for a roof. I am not sure why but the view is very realistic.
 
[email protected] said:
That why we should all try before we buy. I think I am used to a wide FOV and sharp edges with my 8x32 SV so when I tried the Razor it seems narrow. I tend to look around the FOV and my eyes notice the slight blur on the edges when I tried the Razor. If you get your deer centered in the FOV that is probably all you need. For these reasons I have grown to like the Swarovision's with it's 100% sharp wide FOV. It is personal preference. Some people could care less about sharp edges as long as the center is sharp. The 10x50 SV for some reason has a really good 3D also for a roof. I am not sure why but the view is very realistic.
Click to expand...

I would agree with your first statement. And depending on what kind of hunting you're doing, weight would become more or less of an issue.
 
[email protected] said:
I respect your opinion but I just tried the Razor HD 10x50 because I heard so much about it before I bought the Swarovision 10x50 SV and I really don't feel they are similar at all. The Razor felt too me like you were looking down a tunnel compared to the Swarovision. IMO there is a world of difference between the two. The Swarovision 10x50 SV not only has a much bigger FOV than the Razor but 100% of it is sharp to the edge. The Razor is lighter but the Swarovision is balanced very well so you don't notice the extra weight as much as you would think. I think if you are used to a nice large FOV as you have on the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 you will feel the Razor restrictive. Swarovski's are known for good low light performance and bringing out detail in hunting situations like you described.
Click to expand...


Agree 100% with everything said here.
 
Just a reminder guys. BirdForum is not a Forum for the discussion of hunting. We understand everyone has their outside activities but could you please keep the hunting references to a minimum. Thank you,
 
jremmons said:
I'd look at the Razor HD 10x50 if you want that configuration. The SV was too heavy (for hunting) in my opinion, whereas the Razor had a very similar but narrower (though still not awful) view, but weighed and was balanced much akin to a standard 10x42....

J
Click to expand...

+1. At only 28 oz the 10 x 50 Razor HD is definitely worth a look. While the Swarovski 10 x 50 has a slightly larger field of view, the 60 degree AFOV of the Razor is by no means restrictive. The SV weighs almost a half pound more not to mention its costs DOUBLE the price. Is the SV better optically? Sure, I would hope it would be since you can buy 2 razors for the price of one SV. But always keep in mind the law of diminishing returns, you're getting about 90% of the performance of the SV with the Razor at half the cost.
 
Zeiss HT 8x54

You will benefit from a BIG exit pupil, 6mm+
even it your pupils can't dilate that much
it will give a more comfortable view,
a large objective diameter and high transmission
is the most important for low light use
 
Last edited:
The new Swarovski 8x56 SLC,
Big exit pupil, large objective diameter and practically the same light transmission as the Zeiss HT 8x54 (Vespobuteo, I checked with Swarovski and my transmission data were perfectly in line with theirs, so not too optimistic as you concluded from the Swarovski WEB-site). I assume,but I did not ask, that Schott HT glass was used in the newest SLC's which may explain the high light transmission in the SLC, which has Abbe-König prisms as the Zeiss HT).
Gijs
 
Gijs van Ginkel said:
The new Swarovski 8x56 SLC,
Big exit pupil, large objective diameter and practically the same light transmission as the Zeiss HT 8x54 (Vespobuteo, I checked with Swarovski and my transmission data were perfectly in line with theirs, so not too optimistic as you concluded from the Swarovski WEB-site). I assume,but I did not ask, that Schott HT glass was used in the newest SLC's which may explain the high light transmission in the SLC, which has Abbe-König prisms as the Zeiss HT).
Gijs
Click to expand...
Don't forget about Twilight Factor when trying to see detail in dim light. If these three binoculars had approximately equivalent coatings and transmission the twilight factor advantage would be with the 10x50. The Swarovski SV 10x50 would have a twilight factor of 22.36 and the Swarovski 8x56 SLC would have a Twilight Factor of 21.17 and the Zeiss 8x54 HT would have a Twilight Factor of 20.78. I would bet you would make out more detail in low light with the 10x50.
 
Last edited:
Jaymie Arnold said:
+1. At only 28 oz the 10 x 50 Razor HD is definitely worth a look. While the Swarovski 10 x 50 has a slightly larger field of view, the 60 degree AFOV of the Razor is by no means restrictive. The SV weighs almost a half pound more not to mention its costs DOUBLE the price. Is the SV better optically? Sure, I would hope it would be since you can buy 2 razors for the price of one SV. But always keep in mind the law of diminishing returns, you're getting about 90% of the performance of the SV with the Razor at half the cost.
Click to expand...
I would definitely compare the two binoculars before buying. To me there was a big difference between the Razor 10x50 HD and the Swarovski 10x50 SV. Definitely worth the difference in price for me. I believe Euro Optics had the Swarovski 10x50 SV for $1900 and the Razor HD 10x50 is $1300 so that is only about a $600 difference right now.
 
[email protected] said:
Don't forget about Twilight Factor when trying to see detail in dim light. If these three binoculars had approximately equivalent coatings and transmission the twilight factor advantage would be with the 10x50. The Swarovski SV 10x50 would have a twilight factor of 22.36 and the Swarovski 8x56 SLC would have a Twilight Factor of 21.17 and the Zeiss 8x54 HT would have a Twilight Factor of 20.78. I would bet you would make out more detail in low light with the 10x50.
Click to expand...

Hi Dennis

There are many good reasons to choose SV 10x50 for sure but I wouldn't put base the choice on the twilight factor.

For example HT 10x54 would have a factor of 23.24 beating the others in your list but wait a minute. It does this by multplying 10x mag by 54 objective but you would get the same answer if it had 54x mag and 10 objective, which wouldn't be much good at watching anything.

As you said in an earlier post, its best to try before you buy.

Lee
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 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.

Similar threads

P
Upgrade from Nikon 8x30 EII to Zeiss Victory 7x42 FL?
Replies
10
Views
1K
PedroP
P
R
Looking to decide on a new binocular
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
tenex
tenex
P
8x56 & 8x54 Brand Comparisons
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
William Lewis
W
J
brief comparison between Vanguard Endeavor ED 2 / ED4 10x42
Replies
0
Views
509
jackjack
J
J
Hello from South Korea!
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
jackjack
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top