• 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.

Is 8x32 or 8x42 the best Birding format? (1 Viewer)

WJC said:
Could you extrapolate on what exactly is an "extremely high contrast design"?

Bill
Click to expand...

The most important component is a long, ribbed, tapered front tunnel,
which will actually appear to be a straight tunnel (the magnifying
effect of the objective makes it look 'straight').

A frequently-forgotten element is true flat-black 'flocking' coating the interior,
especially of the front tunnel. Matte-grey/black metal coating or
semi-gloss black plastic isn't the same, although some semi-gloss ribbing
has been given a rather ingenious assymetric 'ramping' that directs the light
outward over and over...that's fairly recent, or I should say,
recently revived for smaller binoculars. The ramped ribbing is
not exactly new...you can see it in the deep tunnels of the ~1970
Kowa Prominar. The Fujinons favor a slight 'parabolic shift' to the
tunnel that a multiple-reflection trace would show to throw the rays
forward. It's a similar ploy to foil multiple reflections, like
optical 'shark's teeth' (but pressing light out not in).
There is engineering behind these schemes.


The objective should be inset inward from the front of the binoculars, with
a flat black finish (common on armored binoculars) or a stepped outer
cap (older binoculars).

There can be an 'open-can' structure behind the front tunnel sometimes,
subtended by two irises and lined with flat-black flocked walls or parts.
That is extremely effective in conjunction with a decent front set-back.

The eyepiece should have a clean field-stop that steps in from the lenses.
Black edge-coating on the eyepiece elements is a bit obsessive, but
can add a bit more to saturation and deeper grey-level.

----------------------

There isn't any single thing. It's a 'dark concerto' of suppression layers.
The tunnel is the biggest piece, since a far wider swatch of light enters
than you look at. This went missing in many roofs and Porros for a while
and came roaring back a few years ago. Stubby-length binoculars
and xtra-wide-angle binoculars often don't have a decent tunnel, but they
cannot actually carry a good tunnel out in the distance allowed.
The sudden cutoff of the short tunnel is better in some cases.
Some small Bushnell Customs do actually continue the tunnel to the prism,
but they have extreme flocking and a following Barlow to help
both the contrast and the eye relief.
 
Last edited:
Swedpat said:
With the same light transmission 42mm lens collects 72% more light than a 32mm lens. Maybe the difference was not as big in your example.
Still I think your example proves the huge exaggeration of the results of new improved coatings we hear today. The stories of the significantly brighter image with the new improved light transmission of 95%( compared to optics with 92%). If the difference between a 32 and 42mm aperture is perceived as small a newer optics with 2-3% higher light transmission has to be insignificantly brighter.
Click to expand...

I totally agree about the huge exaggeration of new coatings. I'd advice forgetting the theoretical figures and just do a real-life comparison in fading light.
 
O-N:

I'm truly grateful for that clarification. Two things, however, jump to mind. First, that you have missed the MANY posts I have made concerning the same thing, over the past 10 years on BF—interjecting those issues when people lay the cause of higher resolution and contrast at the feet of very similar coatings.

Secondly, that you have spent a good bit of time unnecessarily singing to the choir. The point I was trying to make was that I have never heard—nor expect to hear—of an "extremely high contrast ‘design’”. To me, that is just taking the qualities of a good bino—for any number of reasons--and tacking it down with its own name.

Often while trying to make realistic inroads into that conversation, I have illustrated my points with a cutaway I made of a Fujinon MTR-SX bino. It is attached and may be helpful in your conversation with others. |=)|

Thanks again,

Bill
 

Attachments

  • 5 Fujinon Cutaway copy.JPG
    5 Fujinon Cutaway copy.JPG
    55.3 KB · Views: 118
Last edited:
"
I'm truly grateful for that clarification. Two things, however, jump to mind. First, that you have missed the MANY posts I have made concerning the same thing, over the past 10 years on BF—interjecting those issues when people lay the cause of higher resolution and contrast at the feet of very similar coatings.
"
I've been studying the history of Japanese binocular design directly.
I haven't condcuted an extensive review of your personal articles, but it's nice someone else has
that interest.


"
Secondly, that you have spent a good bit of time unnecessarily singing to the choir. The point I was trying to make was that I have never heard—nor expect to hear—of an "extremely high contrast ‘design’”. To me, that is just taking the qualities of a good bino—for any number of reasons and tacking it down with its own name.
"
The point of my details is this: Flat black paint is only the beginning.
There are pieces of engineering and technology designed into the things (when they are done right).
Combining scattering and ray tracing is key for the engineer.


"Often while trying to make realistic inroads into that conversation, I have illustrated my points with a cutaway I made of a Fujinon MTR-SX bino. It is attached and may be helpful in your conversation with others.
"

That is a beautiful design.
Fujinon has been tops on contrast for many decades.
There's a reason astro types call that the top...over any others.

There are variations and things to look for at the shop, though.
That's why I identify the pieces. There are non-Fujinon strategies that
still work great. Suppression is an area like the lens train....various good
and bad designs, complex strategies.

Probably the most useful thing we can do if keep a watchful eye out and
identify models that should have decent suppression but don't. That has
happened up and down the price scale. (But never to my knowledge in Fujis)..
 
Last edited:
OPTIC_NUT said:
The most important component is a long, ribbed, tapered front tunnel,
which will actually appear to be a straight tunnel (the magnifying
effect of the objective makes it look 'straight').

A frequently-forgotten element is true flat-black 'flocking' coating the interior,
especially of the front tunnel. Matte-grey/black metal coating or
semi-gloss black plastic isn't the same, although some semi-gloss ribbing
has been given a rather ingenious assymetric 'ramping' that directs the light
outward over and over...that's fairly recent, or I should say,
recently revived for smaller binoculars. The ramped ribbing is
not exactly new...you can see it in the deep tunnels of the ~1970
Kowa Prominar. The Fujinons favor a slight 'parabolic shift' to the
tunnel that a multiple-reflection trace would show to throw the rays
forward. It's a similar ploy to foil multiple reflections, like
optical 'shark's teeth' (but pressing light out not in).
There is engineering behind these schemes.


The objective should be inset inward from the front of the binoculars, with
a flat black finish (common on armored binoculars) or a stepped outer
cap (older binoculars).

There can be an 'open-can' structure behind the front tunnel sometimes,
subtended by two irises and lined with flat-black flocked walls or parts.
That is extremely effective in conjunction with a decent front set-back.

The eyepiece should have a clean field-stop that steps in from the lenses.
Black edge-coating on the eyepiece elements is a bit obsessive, but
can add a bit more to saturation and deeper grey-level.

----------------------

There isn't any single thing. It's a 'dark concerto' of suppression layers.
The tunnel is the biggest piece, since a far wider swatch of light enters
than you look at. This went missing in many roofs and Porros for a while
and came roaring back a few years ago. Stubby-length binoculars
and xtra-wide-angle binoculars often don't have a decent tunnel, but they
cannot actually carry a good tunnel out in the distance allowed.
The sudden cutoff of the short tunnel is better in some cases.
Some small Bushnell Customs do actually continue the tunnel to the prism,
but they have extreme flocking and a following Barlow to help
both the contrast and the eye relief.
Click to expand...
Interesting ideas. In my experience Fujinon's are a high contrast binocular. This gives us some guidelines to look for if we are looking for a high contrast binocular.
 
[email protected] said:
Long debated is the topic of what format 8x32 or 8x42 is the best for birding. With the new Zeiss 8x42 SF's only being available in 8x42 I have been asking myself if I could ever go back to an 8x42. I REALLY appreciate the size and weight of the 8x32 and I don't think the light grasp advantage of the 8x42 is really that important for mostly daylight birding. I think the Exit Aperture of the 8x32 at 4mm is really comfortable and is optimum and I don't feel the bigger Exit Aperture of the 8x42 at 5mm is really that beneficial. Overall I feel the 8x32 is a better birding binocular. What do you think? Do you prefer an 8x32 or an 8x42 for birding? Your opinion could cost me $2500 if I decide I want the Zeiss SF so be careful!
Click to expand...

Only your own practical evaluation could give you the correct answer,
buy the Zeiss SF and see which one you will use most often,
but maybe you will end up wanting both, suitable for different occasions.

The portability of the 8x32 SV is its strongest point I think. You never need to leave it at home. Also perfect for activities that are not primarily birding, like hiking and biking etc.

A 42mm + a lightweight 32mm (as the 32mm swaro) will be a good combo.

If you just want a single binocular for all types of birding in all types of weather and light conditions. A 42mm will probably be the best choice.

In low light and gray weather, a 10x50mm would be even more useful.

Personally I have big problems motivating myself to upgrade my 7x42 FL to the new Zeiss SF 8x42, mostly because I think 7x is a very comfortable magnification to use. Good in low light and a perfect for scanning when birding with a spotting scope.
 
Vespobuteo said:
Only your own practical evaluation could give you the correct answer,
buy the Zeiss SF and see which one you will use most often,
but maybe you will end up wanting both, suitable for different occasions.

The portability of the 8x32 SV is its strongest point I think. You never need to leave it at home. Also perfect for activities that are not primarily birding, like hiking and biking etc.

A 42mm + a lightweight 32mm (as the 32mm swaro) will be a good combo.

If you just want a single binocular for all types of birding in all types of weather and light conditions. A 42mm will probably be the best choice.

In low light and gray weather, a 10x50mm would be even more useful.

Personally I have big problems motivating myself to upgrade my 7x42 FL to the new Zeiss SF 8x42, mostly because I think 7x is a very comfortable magnification to use. Good in low light and a perfect for scanning when birding with a spotting scope.
Click to expand...
Good explanation. I already have the Swaro 8x32 SV as my main birding binocular and the Swaro 8x30 CL as my smaller compact unit. I don't think you would gain much by upgrading to the Zeiss 8x42 SF from your Zeiss 7x42 FL either. The Zeiss 7x42 FL is the best 7x out there and you already have a huge FOV with it and better DOF than you would get with the 8x. As bright as the SV is I don't think I would gain much by upgrading to the Zeiss 8x42 SF either. We both have really nice birding binoculars.
 
"...Swaro 8x32 SV as my main birding binocular and the Swaro 8x30 CL..."

Someone's probably saying..
What, 8x30 as a true 'compact'? I would have thought that was a mistake,
but I've handled CLs in the shop. Amazingly compact for an 8x30, like two candlesticks.
 
OPTIC_NUT said:
"...Swaro 8x32 SV as my main birding binocular and the Swaro 8x30 CL..."

Someone's probably saying..
What, 8x30 as a true 'compact'? I would have thought that was a mistake,
but I've handled CLs in the shop. Amazingly compact for an 8x30, like two candlesticks.
Click to expand...
I had a difficult time deciding between the Swarovski 8x30 CL and the 8x25 CL-P for my compact. The 8x30 CL won out because of it's ease of use and the fact that it is brighter even though it is a little bigger. It is all about tradeoffs between those two. They are both nice binoculars. I feel the Swaovksi 8x25 CL-P is one of the best true compacts that I have tried.
 
Alexis Powell said:
It's all relative. The 8x30 CL seems like a compact to users of the 8x32 SV since the latter is big (long) compared to Leica 8x32 Ultravid and Zeiss 8x32 FL models.

--AP
Click to expand...
The Leica Ultravid 8x32 is a nice compact binocular. I always get blackouts with them because I guess the ER and eyecups just don't match my eyesockets.
 
8x32 or 8x42

troysufus said:
When it comes to the alphas (Leica, Swarovski or Zeiss) I see no need for the extra weight and size of the 42's.
Click to expand...
This Every time and also what quality optic you decide to have, but the extra weight and Size Issue will never go away thats why (apart) from my spotting scope I decide never to go over 8x30,s and has low as 8x21,s thou I only went out Useing a pair of rubber armoured tasco 8x40,s on and off for a few years and Thou they were good "standard" binoculars I realised soon enough it could be Only the 8x30,s for me they suited me and never knew anything different but Also when useing a binocular for any period of time and you are happy with it For me personally the 8x30 has become my favourite binocular for sweeping The skyline and following birds or more at ground level.
 
coal tit said:
This Every time and also what quality optic you decide to have, but the extra weight and Size Issue will never go away thats why (apart) from my spotting scope I decide never to go over 8x30,s and has low as 8x21,s thou I only went out Useing a pair of rubber armoured tasco 8x40,s on and off for a few years and Thou they were good "standard" binoculars I realised soon enough it could be Only the 8x30,s for me they suited me and never knew anything different but Also when useing a binocular for any period of time and you are happy with it For me personally the 8x30 has become my favourite binocular for sweeping The skyline and following birds or more at ground level.
Click to expand...
What kind and size of spotter do you use? What 8x30's do you use?
 
troysufus said:
When it comes to the alphas (Leica, Swarovski or Zeiss) I see no need for the extra weight and size of the 42's.
Click to expand...

I would say that it does not need to be an alpha 8x32mm to provide an adequate clear image during low light conditions. Even mid-priced 8x32s provide a good image during dusk and dawn, and it is only when it gets even darker a larger aperture really make a crucial difference.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 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

D
Zeiss SFL 8x40 This Year's Best New Birding Binocular!
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
AlphaFan
A
N
Entry/Test 8x32 binoculars
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Patudo
P
J
What binoculars are as good as Nikon Superior E?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
4K
Jaywalk
J
T
Zeiss SF 8x30 vs SFL 8x40
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
tian1227
T
Snuffleupagus
2nd Pair / Upgrade for Birder - Advise Needed
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
jring
J

Users who are viewing this thread

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