Resolution 32 vs. 50 (3 Viewers)

[Scott98]

Worrying about credentialed experts and the proper terminology reminds me too much being at work! I'm a layperson here in hobby-land. That's why I avoid words like "resolution"....the views are more "alive" with bigger aperture works for me. I don't have to deal with the physics! Above my pay grade.

btw I came across another good post on the 10x56SLC/10x50EL decision, this echoes many of my own thoughts about them, and the HT's - maybe Joachim posted it on BF somewhere too, here is a translated version:

Swarovski SLC 10x56 or EL 10x50 or Zeiss HT 10x54?

Swarovski SLC 10x56 oder EL 10x50 oder Zeiss HT 10x54

Swarovski SLC 10x56 oder EL 10x50 oder Zeiss HT 10x54? Vor ein paar Wochen hatte ich wieder meinen Händler in Braunschweig aufgesucht, um mir ein paar Gläser anzusehen. Da das SLC 10x56 direkt vor mir stand, hab ich es mit nach draussen genommen. Beim Durchsehen kam der für mich völlig überraschend

www-osj--forum-de.translate.goog

 

[ReinierB]

I haven't seen a lot of fans of the HT 54 yet...

 

[Maljunulo]

That is an answer to an entirely different question.

“Can we see any difference in resolution between a binocular with 50 mm objectives, and a binocular with 32 mm objectives of equal magnification?”

That question will have almost as many answers as responses

 

[tenex]

That is an answer to an entirely different question.

Yes, the one that actually concerns binocular users here. To me, the center sharpness of 10x32 FL is in the same class as 10x56 SLC, so Dawes' Limit be damned. (SLC does better in the outer field, which may be related to aperture but as stopped down by one's daylight pupil, not in the usual astronomical sense.) Real-world applications of other physical laws involve similar qualifications.

I haven't seen a lot of fans of the HT 54 yet...

No, one doesn't (except for Dennis). The major issue is poorly corrected aberrations in the outer field, noted by every serious reviewer including Roger Vine, Henry Link, and Joachim Schmolke referenced in #81 above. In crepuscular terrestrial use alone that won't be as irksome; for daylight viewing or astronomy, it will, so SLC 56 will be preferred. Or perhaps even FL 56, whose virtues Henry has extolled in 8x; I haven't seen a review of the 10x56 but surely someone here has one. (Andy?)

(So yes Reinier, I meant both SLC and HT would feel good in the hand, and FL as well. Not so sure about Conquest though.)

 

[Conndomat]

I haven't seen a review of the 10x56 but surely someone here has one.

Andreas

 

[mfunnell]

Or perhaps even FL 56, whose virtues Henry has extolled in 8x; I haven't seen a review of the 10x56 but surely someone here has one. (Andy?)

I have a 10x56 FL. I’m probably not the right person to do a ‘proper’ review of them (especially for astronomical use) - but do find they work very well for me, including for “stargazing”.

I’ve not noticed any problems with aberrations or distortion in their outer field - but I’ve not really been looking for ‘em either. If they’re there, they are not so objectionable that they’ve caused me to notice.

…Mike

 

[BoldenEagle]

I have the SLC 10x56 and have compared it to EL 10x50 and Zeiss Conquest 10x42, so here is my rather subjective evaluation between them.

Regarding central sharpness, I can't see big differences between them (maybe EL 10x50 had just a little more detail or contrast than the two others) with my average eyesight (about 20/20 with glasses). I doubt that I can personally gain more USABLE resolving power by using my 10x56 than those smaller ones.

But 10x56 format has other, more important features (than just better theoretical resolution) which I personally prefer; the most important is 5.6 mm exit pupil size, which allows very easy and transparent image; I can use my binocular scanning the sky for very long periods without straining my eyes, the image is simply just so easy and pleasant (and I can believe that with 8x56 this would be even better). Secondary, the big exit pupil lets more light in, so the image is brighter in twilight than with smaller apertures but this difference is not that huge even when comparing with Conquest 10x42 (which I believe has near the same light transmission as SLC) and with 10x50 the difference is hardly detectable.

By image quality, EL 10x50 and SLC 10x56 are very close each other, EL has better edge sharpness but SLC has also very large sweet spot and for me the difference is not significant. Conquest 10x42 has clearly worse edge sharpness and furthermost; it has excessive chromatic aberration very near image center (which I think pretty much spoils otherwise quite good binocular).

I haven't star tested properly any of my binoculars but I think it should be remembered that there allways will be optically better and worse samples, which may cause the differences between binoculars rather than the aperture difference, when regarding the perceived sharpness.

Regards, Juhani

 

[[email protected]]

I have the SLC 10x56 and have compared it to EL 10x50 and Zeiss Conquest 10x42, so here is my rather subjective evaluation between them.

Regarding central sharpness, I can't see big differences between them (maybe EL 10x50 had just a little more detail or contrast than the two others) with my average eyesight (about 20/20 with glasses). I doubt that I can personally gain more USABLE resolving power by using my 10x56 than those smaller ones.

But 10x56 format has other, more important features (than just better theoretical resolution) which I personally prefer; the most important is 5.6 mm exit pupil size, which allows very easy and transparent image; I can use my binocular scanning the sky for very long periods without straining my eyes, the image is simply just so easy and pleasant (and I can believe that with 8x56 this would be even better). Secondary, the big exit pupil lets more light in, so the image is brighter in twilight than with smaller apertures but this difference is not that huge even when comparing with Conquest 10x42 (which I believe has near the same light transmission as SLC) and with 10x50 the difference is hardly detectable.

By image quality, EL 10x50 and SLC 10x56 are very close each other, EL has better edge sharpness but SLC has also very large sweet spot and for me the difference is not significant. Conquest 10x42 has clearly worse edge sharpness and furthermost; it has excessive chromatic aberration very near image center (which I think pretty much spoils otherwise quite good binocular).

I haven't star tested properly any of my binoculars but I think it should be remembered that there allways will be optically better and worse samples, which may cause the differences between binoculars rather than the aperture difference, when regarding the perceived sharpness.

Regards, Juhani

Comparing the Swarovski 10x50 EL to the Swarovski 10x56 SLC from Scopeviews Binocular Reviews.

Swarovski 10x50 EL Review

scopeviews.co.uk

Summary

I absolutely love the 10x50 ELs. Larger binoculars have a bit more reach, smaller ones slightly better portability, but taken in the round these are among my favorite binoculars ever, simple as that.

On the one hand, the daytime view is simply the best: bright, wide, flat, sharp, with really outstanding resolution and contrast and almost no false color. The view for astronomy is as good as it gets, too – wide and steady for lovely views of star fields and clusters, but deep and contrasty enough to find smaller DSOs and show nebular detail in larger ones.

On the other hand, these are a small and reasonably light binocular, a real relief after reviewing some big 15x56s. They handle like a large 10x42, and so are much more comfortable and manageable than big-eye binoculars.

There are a couple of downsides: a trace of ghosting and veiling flare on a bright artificial light is pretty much just academic. But that tighter-than-advertised eye relief is a minor annoyance.

All in all, though, these come the closest yet to being the perfect all-round binocular – outstanding for everything and still very manageable to carry. Overall, I slightly prefer them to the 12x50 EL for their steadier, wider view. If I had to own only a single pair, these would be a contender.

The Swarovski 10x50 ELs get my highest recommendation. I’m tempted to buy a pair.

Swarovski 10x50 EL vs Swarovski 10x56 SLC HD

• · The ELs are 200g lighter and 2 cm shorter, but the difference feels even greater than the numbers suggest
• · The ELs are much more elegant, but basic build quality is the same
• · The ELs have a flatter and wider (115 m vs 110 m at 1000 m) field
• · The SLC HDs have much more real-world eye relief
• · The SLC HDs are a touch brighter during the day and significantly brighter at dusk or at night thanks to their bigger objectives and Abbe-König prisms
• · Both binoculars are among the very best for suppressing false color
• · The SLC HDs suppress ghosts and flare a little better
• · The focuser is essentially the same
• · The view is just superb through both
• · Their compact size (but not the view) make the ELs a more general purpose binocular
• · List price is about 20% more for the ELs

 

[Vespobuteo]

I haven't seen a lot of fans of the HT 54 yet...

For low light work on the move (wildlife, not stars!) I prefer the 8x54 HT:s due to the ergonomics and lighter weight. Excellent build quality as well.

Carl Zeiss Victory HT 8x54 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Swarovksi SLC 10x56 versus Zeiss Victory HT 10x54

The original plan was to get a 10x56 SLC but found a Victory HT 10x54, what are the pros/cons? Only interested in these two specific models.

www.birdforum.net

Zeiss 10x54 HT Review

www.scopeviews.co.uk

 

[GrampaTom]

Comparing the Swarovski 10x50 EL to the Swarovski 10x56 SLC from Scopeviews Binocular Reviews.

Swarovski 10x50 EL Review

scopeviews.co.uk

Summary

I absolutely love the 10x50 ELs. Larger binoculars have a bit more reach, smaller ones slightly better portability, but taken in the round these are among my favorite binoculars ever, simple as that.

On the one hand, the daytime view is simply the best: bright, wide, flat, sharp, with really outstanding resolution and contrast and almost no false color. The view for astronomy is as good as it gets, too – wide and steady for lovely views of star fields and clusters, but deep and contrasty enough to find smaller DSOs and show nebular detail in larger ones.

On the other hand, these are a small and reasonably light binocular, a real relief after reviewing some big 15x56s. They handle like a large 10x42, and so are much more comfortable and manageable than big-eye binoculars.

There are a couple of downsides: a trace of ghosting and veiling flare on a bright artificial light is pretty much just academic. But that tighter-than-advertised eye relief is a minor annoyance.

All in all, though, these come the closest yet to being the perfect all-round binocular – outstanding for everything and still very manageable to carry. Overall, I slightly prefer them to the 12x50 EL for their steadier, wider view. If I had to own only a single pair, these would be a contender.

The Swarovski 10x50 ELs get my highest recommendation. I’m tempted to buy a pair.

Swarovski 10x50 EL vs Swarovski 10x56 SLC HD

• · The ELs are 200g lighter and 2 cm shorter, but the difference feels even greater than the numbers suggest
• · The ELs are much more elegant, but basic build quality is the same
• · The ELs have a flatter and wider (115 m vs 110 m at 1000 m) field
• · The SLC HDs have much more real-world eye relief
• · The SLC HDs are a touch brighter during the day and significantly brighter at dusk or at night thanks to their bigger objectives and Abbe-König prisms
• · Both binoculars are among the very best for suppressing false color
• · The SLC HDs suppress ghosts and flare a little better
• · The focuser is essentially the same
• · The view is just superb through both
• · Their compact size (but not the view) make the ELs a more general purpose binocular
• · List price is about 20% more for the ELs

View attachment 1495033

Unfortunately Roger doesnt date these. At least I cant find it. Something new comes along and past kudos may or may not hold. I suspect this one's more recent

Swarovski 12x42 NL Pure Review.

While the whole is worth a read, at least take note of the summary. To see the problem note this closing comment:

"My favourite ever binoculars. If you want to own just one pair that gives wonderful views of everything, but is light and easy to carry these are what I’d recommend. They’re a stunning achievement and for my use profile they’re even more compelling than the 8x model."

 

[Scott98]

But 10x56 format has other, more important features (than just better theoretical resolution) which I personally prefer; the most important is 5.6 mm exit pupil size, which allows very easy and transparent image; I can use my binocular scanning the sky for very long periods without straining my eyes, the image is simply just so easy and pleasant (and I can believe that with 8x56 this would be even better).

Agree! This is what ushered my 10x50's out the door - ease of viewing w/ the larger 10x56 exit pupil. The comfort is addicting.

 

[Elkhornsun]

Good day,

I have people heard saying that a 10x50 has more resolution compared to, let's say, a 10x32 because of the lens diameter. Is that true? And if that is true, how will you notice that?
Let's say it is a very bright day, will the 10x50 outperform a 10x32 if you spot an object far away in regard of the resolution? Will the 50's show more pixels / show a sharper image?
I just wonder...
(NL Pure 10x32 vs. EL 10x50)

Perceived resolution depends on image magnification and equally on contrast. The larger objective will transmit a great deal more light and so the contrast of the subject increases.

A 50mm objective lens has 177% the surface area of a 30mm objective lens. Coating also play a significant role but no getting around having nearly 3x as much light passing through the binocular. This is why marine binoculars that will be needed for night use have 50mm objectives.

 

[ReinierB]

Here I did a quick comparison between the NL 10x32 and the EL 10x50: 8x42 vs. 10x50 dawn/twilight

I really see a difference far away between the 32 and the 50. I do not understand all the theory: if it's higher resolution (/more pixels), if it's because I only use the centre part of the exit pupil, if it's because of the difference in focal length. However in practice the view is a bit sharper, say 100m away, when I am looking with the 10x50 compared with the 10x32. It is more stable to, because of the weight difference I think. The view is more relaxing, maybe even more 3D?
Maybe I have to stop trying to understand all the theory and just enjoy this differenc.

 

[etc]

The advantage of bigger objective is light gathering. They make a huge difference in twilight and at dusk. With my Zeiss 10x54, I can see for hundreds of meters on a clear full moon night. there is a twilight index formula.

Then there is the bigger exit pupil size. Making them easier to use. This is why a 10x56 is a lot easier to use than 10x30, or 10x42. IME.

I spent a lot of time trying to find a perfect 8x42. Leica, Swarovski, Zeiss. Then I realized the easiest way to improve performance is to go bigger, and more power. 8 ---> 10 and 42mm --> 50+mm. Have a 50mm objective and a 54mm objective now and could never go back to anything less.

 

[etc]

But 10x56 format has other, more important features (than just better theoretical resolution) which I personally prefer; the most important is 5.6 mm exit pupil size, which allows very easy and transparent image; I can use my binocular scanning the sky for very long periods without straining my eyes, the image is simply just so easy and pleasant (and I can believe that with 8x56 this would be even better). Secondary, the big exit pupil lets more light in, so the image is brighter in twilight than with smaller apertures but this difference is not that huge even when comparing with Conquest 10x42 (which I believe has near the same light transmission as SLC) and with 10x50 the difference is hardly detectable.

Plus one to the above.
I thought about 10x56 SLC but ended up with Zeiss 10x54 which is basically its equal image-wise. All of these points are on the money.

 

[etc]

Comparing the Swarovski 10x50 EL to the Swarovski 10x56 SLC from Scopeviews Binocular Reviews.

Swarovski 10x50 EL Review

scopeviews.co.uk

Summary

I absolutely love the 10x50 ELs. Larger binoculars have a bit more reach, smaller ones slightly better portability, but taken in the round these are among my favorite binoculars ever, simple as that.

On the one hand, the daytime view is simply the best: bright, wide, flat, sharp, with really outstanding resolution and contrast and almost no false color. The view for astronomy is as good as it gets, too – wide and steady for lovely views of star fields and clusters, but deep and contrasty enough to find smaller DSOs and show nebular detail in larger ones.

On the other hand, these are a small and reasonably light binocular, a real relief after reviewing some big 15x56s. They handle like a large 10x42, and so are much more comfortable and manageable than big-eye binoculars.

There are a couple of downsides: a trace of ghosting and veiling flare on a bright artificial light is pretty much just academic. But that tighter-than-advertised eye relief is a minor annoyance.

All in all, though, these come the closest yet to being the perfect all-round binocular – outstanding for everything and still very manageable to carry. Overall, I slightly prefer them to the 12x50 EL for their steadier, wider view. If I had to own only a single pair, these would be a contender.

The Swarovski 10x50 ELs get my highest recommendation. I’m tempted to buy a pair.

Swarovski 10x50 EL vs Swarovski 10x56 SLC HD

• · The ELs are 200g lighter and 2 cm shorter, but the difference feels even greater than the numbers suggest
• · The ELs are much more elegant, but basic build quality is the same
• · The ELs have a flatter and wider (115 m vs 110 m at 1000 m) field
• · The SLC HDs have much more real-world eye relief
• · The SLC HDs are a touch brighter during the day and significantly brighter at dusk or at night thanks to their bigger objectives and Abbe-König prisms
• · Both binoculars are among the very best for suppressing false color
• · The SLC HDs suppress ghosts and flare a little better
• · The focuser is essentially the same
• · The view is just superb through both
• · Their compact size (but not the view) make the ELs a more general purpose binocular
• · List price is about 20% more for the ELs

View attachment 1495033

The only reason I got 12x50 EL over 10x50 is because the former has much better overdrive past infinity for those of us who are blind as a bat and like to use optics without eyewear. The rest of these points appear correct.

 

[Scott98]

The advantage of bigger objective is light gathering. They make a huge difference in twilight and at dusk. With my Zeiss 10x54, I can see for hundreds of meters on a clear full moon night. there is a twilight index formula.

People that do astronomy will always lust after more aperture - it's built into our DNA! You won't use binos smaller than 42mm....I hear you, for me it's 35mm or bust

 

[[email protected]]

Good day,

I have people heard saying that a 10x50 has more resolution compared to, let's say, a 10x32 because of the lens diameter. Is that true? And if that is true, how will you notice that?
Let's say it is a very bright day, will the 10x50 outperform a 10x32 if you spot an object far away in regard of the resolution? Will the 50's show more pixels / show a sharper image?
I just wonder...
(NL Pure 10x32 vs. EL 10x50)

At the low magnifications, binocular operate at, there is no difference in resolution between a 10x32 and 10x50 that can be seen in the range of normal vision. That is straight from a Zeiss Optical Engineer.

 

[Scott98]

At the low magnifications, binocular operate at, there is no difference in resolution between a 10x32 and 10x50 that can be seen in the range of normal vision. That is straight from a Zeiss Optical Engineer.

Did I miss something - have you taken a job with Zeiss?

 

[tenex]

At the low magnifications, binocular operate at, there is no difference in resolution between a 10x32 and 10x50 that can be seen in the range of normal vision.

Not due to theoretical principles like the Dawes limit. But in practice, when your 2.x mm daytime pupil is stopping down a 10x50 to half its aperture, the center of that objective may perform a bit better than that of a 10x32, as Binastro mentioned back in post #2...