-
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 bino 10x (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter batvenci
- Start date
Of those you mention I would say the Zeiss 10x54 HT would have the best low light view because it has AK prisms and higher transmission than the other choices.
Yes, but the Zeiss HT is the "King" of transmission at 95% in a roof. It is specifically designed for low light use. The SLC and SV are 93% and 90% respectively. I don't think any roof will match the HT when it comes to low light. Some porro's could because they have very high transmission at about 95% like the Fujinon 10x50 FMTR-SX.
Last edited:
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Dennis, post 5,
Although there is a small difference in light transmission between the SLC 10x56 and the Zeiss Victory HT 10x54, there is also a small difference in the size of the exit pupil, so the 56 mm SLC is probably just as bright as the 54 mm Victory HT.
Gijs van Ginkel
Although there is a small difference in light transmission between the SLC 10x56 and the Zeiss Victory HT 10x54, there is also a small difference in the size of the exit pupil, so the 56 mm SLC is probably just as bright as the 54 mm Victory HT.
Gijs van Ginkel
WJC
Well-known member
Either way, whose human brain is actually going to quantify the difference? :cat:
Bill
Last edited:
10x80 Emil Busch or 10x80 Ross with modern coatings.
I think that there is a good modern 10.5x70.
I had a 10x70 Ross monocular that was quite good.
P.S.
The 10.5x70 Helios Apollo MS is independent eyepiece focus and weighs 2500g.
Claimed 92% transmission.
£329 or maybe less.
I think that there is a good modern 10.5x70.
I had a 10x70 Ross monocular that was quite good.
P.S.
The 10.5x70 Helios Apollo MS is independent eyepiece focus and weighs 2500g.
Claimed 92% transmission.
£329 or maybe less.
Last edited:
Would prefer to have a binocular bearer for the 70-80mm stuff...
In the neighborhood, we have a celebrity black whitetail deer and she and her now grown fawn are reclusive. The neighbors talked her up in 2016 and I really didn't believe she was that dark...until I saw her on the edge of a large field this year after a good deal of fruitless evenings glassing, from just before sundown on for an hour or so. Using both the 10x56 SLC HD and the 10x54 HT, I prefer the SLC's view, fwiw, as an hour after sundown objects had more definition. My impression was that the Zeiss gave conifers at a distance a lighter look, but with less detail.
In the neighborhood, we have a celebrity black whitetail deer and she and her now grown fawn are reclusive. The neighbors talked her up in 2016 and I really didn't believe she was that dark...until I saw her on the edge of a large field this year after a good deal of fruitless evenings glassing, from just before sundown on for an hour or so. Using both the 10x56 SLC HD and the 10x54 HT, I prefer the SLC's view, fwiw, as an hour after sundown objects had more definition. My impression was that the Zeiss gave conifers at a distance a lighter look, but with less detail.
Those 10x70's would definitely be superior for low light viewing and astronomy if you have young eyes but you are probably going to want a tripod to hold them for any length of time.
If they perform equally under low light because of the slightly bigger aperture of the Swarovski the Zeiss still has the advantage of AFOV and weight. The Zeiss 10x54 has an AFOV of 63 degrees and a weight of 37 oz., whereas, the Swarovski has an AFOV of only 60 degrees and a weight of 42 oz. Those two factors given equal low light performance would make me choose the Zeiss.
Although I have zero experience with any of the above binoculars, I kinda crossed that bridge earlier in the year. I was looking for a birding binocular for those gloomy, cloudy, winter days. I went thru the decision process which included those you mention above along with the Meopta Meostar 10X50. Quite honestly a good argument can be made for any of the above. I ended up getting a Swarovski EL 10X50 Field Pro. I know it gives up a little in absolute light transmission but probably it's transmission curve is pretty flat with nice color representation. Also...although HEAVIER it's not much larger than a large 42mm binocular. ALSO....it has the largest FOV in its class with a flat FOV. So things that were higher up on the list for ME were smaller size, largest FOV, lowest weight, and edge to edge sharpness.
Why don't you go to a shop or sporting goods store and look thru some of those you've mentioned. How are you going to use them?
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Pray tell where you're getting these from - I suspect they might have the multi-coated ED-glass 10x50 Oberkochen I've been after for a long time too...
To the original poster - Holger Merlitz has written a couple of fairly detailed posts comparing the two (in German) on the popular German binoculars site which is the most informative comparison between the two I have come across. Regarding low light performance specifically - one of Holger's observations that really impressed me was that he found that both binoculars were able to show him details on horses in a paddock (spots on their coats, etc) when it was too dark for him to see them by the naked eye. Highly recommended.
The WW2 10x80s would have to be taken apart and the surfaces multicoated.
These binoculars are enormously heavy.
The modern 10.5x70 is much cheaper and more practical.
Not sure if 10x80s made now, although 80mm binoculars with interchangeable eyepieces could work as 10x80.
I have recently been informed that Zeiss were coating lenses in 1932 but were prevented by the military from revealing this or patenting it. These early coatings were soft but done by depositing. They were effective.
Similarly the Biometer lens design was invented in the 1930s but not patented till perhaps c.1950. This 5 glass lens did the job of 6 glass lenses and was available in f/3.5 and possibly f/2.8. The military wanted it for aerial lenses.
The Biometer 80mm f/2.8 is found on the Pentacon Six. I saw one advertised a few days ago converted for Nikon.
These binoculars are enormously heavy.
The modern 10.5x70 is much cheaper and more practical.
Not sure if 10x80s made now, although 80mm binoculars with interchangeable eyepieces could work as 10x80.
I have recently been informed that Zeiss were coating lenses in 1932 but were prevented by the military from revealing this or patenting it. These early coatings were soft but done by depositing. They were effective.
Similarly the Biometer lens design was invented in the 1930s but not patented till perhaps c.1950. This 5 glass lens did the job of 6 glass lenses and was available in f/3.5 and possibly f/2.8. The military wanted it for aerial lenses.
The Biometer 80mm f/2.8 is found on the Pentacon Six. I saw one advertised a few days ago converted for Nikon.
In my experience, once you get out a couple of hundred yards or so you are at the mercy of the atmospherics of the moment.
Last evening around and shortly after sunset, I was switching back and forth between Swarovski EL SV 10X42 and Fujinon FMT-SX. The Fujinons gave a noticeably brighter and more "pleasant" view, but I could see (slightly) more with the Swarovskis. It was more difficult for me to find optimum focus with the Fujinons, so that may account for some of the difference. Both glasses were rested on the upper edge of a car window, and supported by both hands. They were both very steady.
Textures and shadings seemed better rendered by the Swarovski glasses.
I just throw this in for what little it may be worth.
Last evening around and shortly after sunset, I was switching back and forth between Swarovski EL SV 10X42 and Fujinon FMT-SX. The Fujinons gave a noticeably brighter and more "pleasant" view, but I could see (slightly) more with the Swarovskis. It was more difficult for me to find optimum focus with the Fujinons, so that may account for some of the difference. Both glasses were rested on the upper edge of a car window, and supported by both hands. They were both very steady.
Textures and shadings seemed better rendered by the Swarovski glasses.
I just throw this in for what little it may be worth.
I had a Fujinon FMT-SX 10X70 for a few weeks. I was extremely disappointed with the effective eye relief (claimed ER is 23mm) and the substandard terrestrial view. I never mounted it for astro use due to the eye relief issue.
I purchased a 10X50 SV instead...enough said.
WJC
Well-known member
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
Last edited:
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Bill,
I once compared a Nikon EII 8x30 to a Nikon SE 8x32, under the night sky. The SE should have provided a roughly 20% increase in brightness, if all other things were equal, but I was hard pressed to see the improvement. Perhaps there were more air to glass surfaces in the SE's eyepieces, causing a loss of brightness but it was far more likely that I could not perceive such a difference, which made the difference trivial.
So in a high quality 10X, I doubt that anyone could see the difference between a 10x54 and a 10x56. I would guess that the Austrian brand has licensed Zeiss AR coatings so that there is no secret formulae or even secret sauce, making a difference to the human eye.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
I once compared a Nikon EII 8x30 to a Nikon SE 8x32, under the night sky. The SE should have provided a roughly 20% increase in brightness, if all other things were equal, but I was hard pressed to see the improvement. Perhaps there were more air to glass surfaces in the SE's eyepieces, causing a loss of brightness but it was far more likely that I could not perceive such a difference, which made the difference trivial.
So in a high quality 10X, I doubt that anyone could see the difference between a 10x54 and a 10x56. I would guess that the Austrian brand has licensed Zeiss AR coatings so that there is no secret formulae or even secret sauce, making a difference to the human eye.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
litebeam
Well-known member
^^^This....
