32mm VS 42mm-Venturer (1 Viewer)

DHB · Jul 15, 2004

Still looking for opinions on this subject.
Under normal daylight or slightly darker conditions does the 32mm give up some of the brilliant color fidelity and resolution of the 42mm? I love the 10x42 but it is HEAVY. Just wondering if the 10x32 will be as disappointing as some in the industry have led me to believe. Looking for some real life experience. Thanks in advance.
Dave

Atomic Chicken · Jul 16, 2004

Dave,

I absolutely LOVE my 8X32 HG's.... they perform well in all lighting conditions. I have a pair of 10X50 Pentax that I have compared my 8X32's to in low light conditions, and the color fidelity seems fine until it gets quite dim... then the 10X50's really shine (pun intended!). For normal use in most lighting conditions, the 8X32 should be fine for you. I agree with you on the weight - I like the 10X42's, but they are just plain TOO HEAVY.

Best wishes,
Bawko

Leif · Jul 16, 2004

Atomic Chicken said:
Dave,

I absolutely LOVE my 8X32 HG's.... they perform well in all lighting conditions. I have a pair of 10X50 Pentax that I have compared my 8X32's to in low light conditions, and the color fidelity seems fine until it gets quite dim... then the 10X50's really shine (pun intended!). For normal use in most lighting conditions, the 8X32 should be fine for you. I agree with you on the weight - I like the 10X42's, but they are just plain TOO HEAVY.

Best wishes,
Bawko

Having owned both the 8x32 HG and 8x42 HG, I agree with the above. The 8x32 HG is fine for daylight, dark woods and early dusk. The 8x42 has slightly better resolution, giving a slightly better subjective image quality IMO, and of course it will be brighter in very low light.

There is a rumour on Bird Forum of a new lighter Nikon to replace the 8x42 HG.

AlanFrench · Jul 16, 2004

Leif said:
Having owned both the 8x32 HG and 8x42 HG, I agree with the above. The 8x32 HG is fine for daylight, dark woods and early dusk. The 8x42 has slightly better resolution, giving a slightly better subjective image quality IMO, and of course it will be brighter in very low light.

There is a rumour on Bird Forum of a new lighter Nikon to replace the 8x42 HG.

Odd that the 8x42 would out-resolve the 8x32. Sample variations, perhaps?

Clear skies, Alan

Curtis Croulet · Jul 16, 2004

Uh, Alan, shouldn't the larger aperture count for something?

iporali · Jul 16, 2004

DHB said:
Still looking for opinions on this subject.
Under normal daylight or slightly darker conditions does the 32mm give up some of the brilliant color fidelity and resolution of the 42mm? I love the 10x42 but it is HEAVY. Just wondering if the 10x32 will be as disappointing as some in the industry have led me to believe. Looking for some real life experience. Thanks in advance.
Dave

Dave - I own a pair of 10x32 Venturers, LXs, HGs or whatever... - I have not used them side by side with the 10x42s, but I find it very hard to believe that x32s would be significantly worse. Although my wife now has a pair of 8x32SEs I still think 10x32HGs are as close to perfect binoculars as you can get (not tried the new Zeiss FLs). The color fidelity and resolution of 10x32s are excellent, the handling is very good (if you don't have big hands AND closely spaced eyes) and the weight is acceptable for such compact binos (you can't call them light though). Optically my only complaint is the susceptibility (is this the right word?) to transverse chromatic aberration (the CA-type that comes from the eyepiece). First it was quite disturbing to me, but since I readjusted my viewing habits a bit (ie. learnt to adjust the interpupillary distance carefully and to avoid moving the eyes - just the binos), I have almost forgotten its existence.

The field of view and close focus distance are better in 10x32s than 10x42s, which I find more useful than the slightly better brightness of x42s. Under normal daylight the brightness of 10x32s is more than sufficient - even up here in Scandinavia. I can easily recommend 10x32 Venturers to anyone who likes 10x power and a compact size.

Ilkka

Leif · Jul 16, 2004

AlanFrench said:
Odd that the 8x42 would out-resolve the 8x32. Sample variations, perhaps?

Clear skies, Alan

Alan: I'm not sure what your point is. The 8x42 clearly provides a sharper image than the 8x32. (Same manufacturer, and presumably comparable optical design and quality.)

I happen to think the 8x32 HG is fine for general birding, even in woods and on gloomy days.

pduxon · Jul 16, 2004

Have to agree Leif it also won't give you a flipping hernia!!

iporali · Jul 17, 2004

AlanFrench said:
Odd that the 8x42 would out-resolve the 8x32. Sample variations, perhaps?

Clear skies, Alan

Am I seeing a long and bumpy road...?

Ilkka

Jonathan B. · Jul 17, 2004

iporali said:
Am I seeing a long and bumpy road...?

Ilkka

Yes, Ilkka, I foresee someone steering this in the direction of the Astromart forum, "Birding Optics, No Birding."

As for the HG 8x32, I tried a pair early this year for the first time. I liked them optically and ergonomically, but I found the focus mechanism to be a bit too fast--the opposite of the Swaro EL. It seemed to me that in some instances, especially viewing objects from about twenty feet and beyond, I found it slightly (and I mean slightly) difficult to focus them precisely. I have not sensed that with my SE 8x32 or with HG 8x42. Has anybody else had this impression?

mike60 · Jul 20, 2004

Leif, I agree with you regarding the 8x32HG. I find it exceptionally bright for its size, and very capable in dim light.

DHB · Jul 20, 2004

10x32 vs 10x42

Does anyone have further experience or comments regarding the 10x32 vs 10x42 comparison?? I really like the smaller size and but I don't want to shoot myself in the foot just because of a size issue.
Thanks in advance
Dave

iambirding · Nov 28, 2004

focusing at a distance

Jonathan B. said:
Yes, Ilkka, I foresee someone steering this in the direction of the Astromart forum, "Birding Optics, No Birding."

As for the HG 8x32, I tried a pair early this year for the first time. I liked them optically and ergonomically, but I found the focus mechanism to be a bit too fast--the opposite of the Swaro EL. It seemed to me that in some instances, especially viewing objects from about twenty feet and beyond, I found it slightly (and I mean slightly) difficult to focus them precisely. I have not sensed that with my SE 8x32 or with HG 8x42. Has anybody else had this impression?

i agree with you when i first got mine i found the focus was too fast. now i've adaped and started loving them but i also am getting use to far away focusing seems a bit weird. i am not sure what is going on mine seems when it about 50 to 100 feet away is difficult. only birded with them a few times so far. i can only imagine that we need to get use to them. i cant imagine all these pros looking through these bins and ignoring that in these bins but several people are complaining about the fast focus. does this have anything to do with depth of field or lack of resolution due to small objective size? any help on this?

Steve999 · Nov 28, 2004

Hi there,

Having gone in the last six years from Swarovski 10x42 SLC (moderately fast focus) to Nikon 8x32 SE (slow) and then in the last month to Nikon HG's (fast), I see the focus speed issue as largely one of preference and/or familiarity.

All of these are superb binoculars but some people will physically and mentally prefer one type of focus over another dependant possibly to some extent on their own level of dexterity which does vary from person to person.

At the first change from the Swav to the SE I spent some weeks getting used to the different focussing characteristic and I have just gone through the same process in a couple of weeks going from the SE to the HG. The HG does need a much finer touch but after this familiarisation period (which had its' moments of doubt!) I am now finding it very accurate and fast to focus as it becomes more instinctive with use. You go through a similar process in changing from a RHD car to a LHD one but given a little time in familiarisation, you can even drive either randomly without giving the matter any thought or expression of preference. People who own several pairs of binoculars will be well aware of this (although they are more likely to express preference).

I do think though that ultimately, some people will not have the manual dexterity for such a fine focus as the HG. My own father was an ex-rope splicer miner with huge hands and had difficulty even with a PC mouse. If anybody recognises themselves as being remotely in this category then I suspect that the HG and other similar instruments may not be for you.

I don't believe that there is any such thing as the 'best' binocular. There may even be several models that are right or 'best' for you personally but discovery of this may take a significant familiarisation period.

Steve

graeme782 · Nov 28, 2004

I've just bought some new bins. I went with the intention of buying a pair of 8x32 Nikon HG's but, as others have reported, could not get on with the extremely fast focus. I found, more often than not, that whatever i was viewing spent more time out of focus than in. I don't know whether this translates to the bins having a narrow DOF or whether its down solely to the focus mechanism. I went away, considerably more out of pocket than i'd intended, with some 8x32 EL's. Very nice. B

Graeme.

Steve999 · Nov 28, 2004

I don't know whether this translates to the bins having a narrow DOF or whether its down solely to the focus mechanism.

My own view is that it is solely down to the fast focus. While not being the absolute 'best' in this respect, the HG's do have an excellent depth of field and I have found that much viewing can be done without any (or very little) recourse to the focus wheel whatsoever. This is something that became more apparent to me with familiarity after extended use.

Can't knock you for buying the EL's though as they are excellent glasses.

Steve

iambirding · Nov 28, 2004

Steve999 said:
My own view is that it is solely down to the fast focus. While not being the absolute 'best' in this respect, the HG's do have an excellent depth of field and I have found that much viewing can be done without any (or very little) recourse to the focus wheel whatsoever. This is something that became more apparent to me with familiarity after extended use.

Can't knock you for buying the EL's though as they are excellent glasses.

Steve

i agree with steve on this i have noticed a good depth of field on these bins. i've used then for 2 solid days of birding and i am starting to realize their potential. i will keep at it. thanks steve very informative on how you described the HGs. any view on 32 mm or 42 mm objective do you think there is more resolution?

Steve999 · Nov 28, 2004

Hi,

I have always thought that the view through the 42 has the edge over the 32 but there is not much in it. Just that extra feeling of being part of what you are looking at, if that makes sense. The 42 HG for me, still has that extra 'wow' factor.

Having said that, the original 42's break my neck after an hour in the field. I personally prefer bins to weigh between 600 & 700 grams so that they are heavy enough to hold still but not so heavy that they boss me about. Both the original HG and HG'L' 32's are at the top end of this parameter and suit me as a practical all day 'birding' binocular.

No matter how good the view, I cannot enjoy birding with a bin that hurts me. That was the only reason I got rid of my 10x42 SLC's which were too heavy in prolonged use for me personally - which was a shame because I absolutely loved them otherwise.

For me, the HG 32 bins are proving to be an excellent all round practical compromise and that is what you sometimes have to do in life to be happy! Pretty damn good compromise though.

Steve

Henry B · Nov 28, 2004

I am waiting delivery of 10x32 hgs from W.E. and hope to make a contribution to this thread.Choice was made on reading many other threads and reports as well as a very cometitive price from W E.

iambirding · Nov 28, 2004

Steve999 said:
Hi,

I have always thought that the view through the 42 has the edge over the 32 but there is not much in it. Just that extra feeling of being part of what you are looking at, if that makes sense. The 42 HG for me, still has that extra 'wow' factor.

Having said that, the original 42's break my neck after an hour in the field. I personally prefer bins to weigh between 600 & 700 grams so that they are heavy enough to hold still but not so heavy that they boss me about. Both the original HG and HG'L' 32's are at the top end of this parameter and suit me as a practical all day 'birding' binocular.

No matter how good the view, I cannot enjoy birding with a bin that hurts me. That was the only reason I got rid of my 10x42 SLC's which were too heavy in prolonged use for me personally - which was a shame because I absolutely loved them otherwise.

For me, the HG 32 bins are proving to be an excellent all round practical compromise and that is what you sometimes have to do in life to be happy! Pretty damn good compromise though.

Steve

i am tempted to splurge and get the new lighter nikon hgl 8 x 42. they are very expensive. the new HGL are 19 % lighter

32mm VS 42mm-Venturer (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Registered with the D.O.E.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Quacked up Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread