Resolution 32 vs. 50 (1 Viewer)

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Reinier Bos, post 60,
Eyerelief is een instrument eigenschap ten gevolge van de optische constructie van de kijker. De oogschelpen spelen daar geen rol in. Wel van belang is of de oogschelpen zo zijn gemaakt, dat je de eyerelief van de kijker volledig kunt benutten. Dit even als een nederlands onder onsje.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[ReinierB]

That's 2 great binoculars. You won't notice a huge difference in daytime by going for a 50mm (eg leica ultravid) or 54mm (eg zeiss HT) or 56mm objectives.

The only time you will really notice a significant change is if your using them in low light, the objective just gathers the light so a larger one will gather more and for a set magnification also lead to a larger exit pupil.

The resolution difference is quite subtle in daytime and only really apparent at long range providing there's good "seeing" i.e less atmospheric disturbance, heat haze etc.

As I tend to have only one main birding binocular that I use when I go out specifically birdwatching I like it to be good in all conditions and the SLC 8x56 fits the brief. Of a weekend or on holiday when i might use binoculars I take my 8x32 porro with me pretty much everywhere. With you current line up you've got all the bases covered except a really low light specialist tool - a 7x42 or 8x56 will cover you very well for that.

Just to come back to this topic. I still would like to have a low light performer with at least 10 power. The SLC 10x56 would be the one to pick, instead of the EL 10x50 I think. I already have the SLC 8x42, so the EL 10x50 would not be much better in low light. But, I am afraid the 56 is too heavy and the 50 will be suited better for carrying a while. What are your experience with the SLC 56? Is panning for a while doable? Or is a tripod recommended? In that case 1kg of the EL50 would be better compared with the 1.2kg as I don't want to mount it on a tripod.

 

[ReinierB]

Oh, and I think the EL 50 is better looking. The SLC 42 is quite compact and looks ok. The SLC 56 looks really "plump".

 

[William Lewis]

Oh, and I think the EL 50 is better looking. The SLC is quite compact and looks ok. The SLC 56 looks really "plump".

If size and weight are a consideration I'd go for the EL. If outright performance is the goal get the SLC.

The difference between them in performance terms will be relatively marginal but the EL will be nicer to carry and doesn't look quite so huge.

 

[ReinierB]

What do others think? Is the low light performance worth the bulk of the SLC 56? And is the difference between the EL50 and the SLC56 very small in low light performance?

 

[Scott98]

If size and weight are a consideration I'd go for the EL. If outright performance is the goal get the SLC.

agree with this! I just had my 10x56 SLC out last night for an extended astronomy session. They are amazing performers, even in my light-polluted skies, I viewed a bunch of bright galaxies and globular clusters with ease. Superb optics. However, I always feel the heavy weight of them. I liked the lighter weight of my old 8x56 Dialyts better. Going from 35 to 42 ounces is a big change. If the EL50's were cheaper, I'd probably try them. For regular birding use I think I'd prefer the 50mm. For astronomy I'm lying on a lounge chair with my elbows on the arm-rests.

Another factor is the focuser and body, I like the 56mm SLC focuser is better than the EL focusers. And the SLC is a single high bridge, which offers more flexibility in moving your hands around the barrels. There is no denying the light-gathering power of the big 56mm lenses, for astronomy it's everything. A galaxy like M101 is simply not there in 42mm and 50mm binos from my yard, while it's clearly visible in the 56mm's.

The 10x56 is a luxury to use during the day, even at high noon. The bigger exit pupil makes it more comfortable for panning around and tracking flying birds. When I compare the 10x56 to my 10x42 during the day, the 56mm are alive with electric colors and extra contrast, the 42mm's suddenly seem a bit dull in comparison.

 

[[email protected]]

I would without a doubt get the EL 10x50. The SLC 10x56 won't give you much better low light performance than the EL 10x50, and the EL 10x50 is a much better all around binocular. If you tried them both, I am sure you would pick the EL 10x50.

 

[ReinierB]

I am not really interested in astronomy. So the choice is made then? The EL 50 will be the one? I do like watching wildlife though, like wild boar, badger, deer etc. in twilight. 50mm will do? I do have a 8x42 with 5.25mm exit pupil. A 10x50 has 5mm. It feels like the only advantage will be the extra magnification. The SLC 10x56 has more power AND 5.6mm exit pupil AND 93% transmission. So for me it appears to be a more logical choice. I do prefer the SLC 42 over the EL because of the ergonomics (it holds nicer, less front heavy and really nice eyecups. With the EL 42 I did not see the whole FOV with the eyecups fully extended and had blackouts the next step in.) If the SLC would weight only 1kg like the EL50 does, the choice would have been made. I do not bother about field flattening.
Maybe I will have to wait for the Zeiss SFL 50. Or the HT 54 would be an option as well.
I would like to have something better in dim light compared with the SLC 8x42 and I am afraid the EL 10x50 doesn't really offer that. The 12x50 would be an option as well due to the bigger twilight factor (however, only 4.2mm exit pupil)...

 

[[email protected]]

I asked Swarovski and Zeiss if a bigger aperture binocular would have more resolution than a smaller one, and they both said no. Here is my question and response from SONA.

Would an NL 8x42 binocular have more resolution or sharpness than an NL 8x32 binocular. I know the 8x42 would be brighter in low light, but which one would be sharper? Thanks!

"Hello Sir,

Neither optic is "sharper" than the other, the biggest differences would be field of view as well as low light performance. The NL Pure 8X42 has more field of view than the 8X32 and gathers more light due to the larger objective lenses.

Best Regards,

Customer Service

SWAROVSKI OPTIK North America
2 Slater Road
Cranston, Rhode Island 0290
United States
Tel.
[email protected]
SWAROVSKIOPTIK.COM"

 

[Conndomat]

I know the 8x42 would be brighter in low light, but which one would be sharper? Thanks!

But there is a difference between sharpness and resolution!
You can also quickly determine between a small and a larger telescope.

Andreas

 

[[email protected]]

But there is a difference between sharpness and resolution!
You can also quickly determine between a small and a larger telescope.

Andreas

A telescope is different. You are at a much higher magnification. At the low magnification that binoculars are used at, the aperture size makes no difference in resolution. Binoculars because of their low magnification hide many aberrations and optical imperfections that are apparent in high-end Apochromatic Telescopes operating at a much higher magnification. Maybe you should tell the optical engineers at Swarovski and Zeiss that they don't know what they are talking about! Frankly it amazes me how there are a few people on Bird Forum that think they could design a better binocular than Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica. They say things like If Swarovski used an AK prism in the NL, it would be a much better binocular, when they know nothing about the total design of the binocular or what it takes to manufacture it. It is humorous, really!

 

[Conndomat]

Maybe you should tell the optical engineers at Swarovski and Zeiss that they don't know what they are talking about! Frankly it amazes me how there are a few people on Bird Forum that think they could design a better binocular than Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica. They say things like If Swarovski used an AK prism in the NL, it would be a much better binocular, when they know nothing about the total design of the binocular or what it takes to manufacture it. It is humorous, really!

You're getting worked up unnecessarily!
I only noticed that there is a difference between resolution and sharpness and not that Zeiss, Leica or Swarovski shit binoculars build.

Andreas

 

[[email protected]]

You're getting worked up unnecessarily!
I only noticed that there is a difference between resolution and sharpness and not that Zeiss, Leica or Swarovski shit binoculars build.

Andreas

There is not a difference in resolution between different aperture binoculars of the same quality. There may be a difference between a 32 mm Tasco and a 32 mm Swarovski, but there is no difference in resolution between a 8x32 NL and a 8x42 NL.

 

[Conndomat]

There is not a difference in resolution between different aperture binoculars of the same quality.

And...did I say that?
I just pointed out that resolution and sharpness are two different things, nothing more.

Andreas

 

[tenex]

When did Dennis move to Italica?

I would like to have something better in dim light compared with the SLC 8x42

If you really want a noticeable difference, go all the way. SLC 10x56 is the more compelling choice for all the reasons you gave, or perhaps HT 10x54 to reduce weight slightly. It may look huge or fat in photos but you'll be surprised how good it feels in the hands.

 

[ReinierB]

It may look huge or fat in photos but you'll be surprised how good it feels in the hands.

Are you talking about the SLC or the HT in this case? Or both?

 

[Viraj]

I asked Swarovski and Zeiss if a bigger aperture binocular would have more resolution than a smaller one, and they both said no. Here is my question and response from SONA.

Would an NL 8x42 binocular have more resolution or sharpness than an NL 8x32 binocular. I know the 8x42 would be brighter in low light, but which one would be sharper? Thanks!

"Hello Sir,

Neither optic is "sharper" than the other, the biggest differences would be field of view as well as low light performance. The NL Pure 8X42 has more field of view than the 8X32 and gathers more light due to the larger objective lenses.

Best Regards,

Customer Service

SWAROVSKI OPTIK North America
2 Slater Road
Cranston, Rhode Island 0290
United States
Tel.
[email protected]
SWAROVSKIOPTIK.COM"

I think the word 'sharpness' is a bit confusing here. According to the reply from Swarovski, "Neither optic is "sharper" than the other". I think you could have specifically asked about the resolution and the contrast difference between NL 8x32 and 8x42. A few BF members measured the magnification of NL 8x42 is around x8.2. However, I haven't seen any measurement like that for the NL 8x32. If the magnification of 32 mm is x8 and 42 mm is x8.2, there will be a difference in the sharpness between them as well.

 

[Maljunulo]

The laws of physics seem to suggest that, all other properties being equal, a larger lens will have greater resolving power than a smaller one.

It is really idle to argue, dispute, or debate this point.

 

[[email protected]]

The laws of physics seem to suggest that, all other properties being equal, a larger lens will have greater resolving power than a smaller one.

It is really idle to argue, dispute, or debate this point.

Because of the much lower magnification that binoculars operate at versus telescopes, they do not follow Dawes Limit or the Rayleigh Criterion for determining the absolute resolution of an optic based on aperture size. Rather than aperture size, a binoculars resolution is more dependent on the magnification. With higher magnifications giving higher resolution. Read page 14 and 15 from the article.

Cosmic Challenge

Listing more than 500 sky targets, both near and far, in 187 challenges, this observing guide will test novice astronomers and advanced veterans alike. Its unique mix of Solar System and deep-sky targets will have observers hunting for the Apollo lunar landing sites, searching for satellites...

books.google.co.uk

 

[Conndomat]

The laws of physics seem to suggest that, all other properties being equal, a larger lens will have greater resolving power than a smaller one.

It is really idle to argue, dispute, or debate this point.

The human eye is the limiting factor with binoculars, the magnification is simply too low to perceive differences in resolution with binoculars of the same magnification.
Larger binocular openings only generate more light but unfortunately no better resolution.

Andreas