Traded my NL 10x42 for a NL 10x32 (1 Viewer)

[Dutchbirder64]

Last weekend I traded my NL 10x42 for a NL 10x32 after some days of testing them next to each other. I have my NL 10x42 for 3 years now and I really was satisfied with them, except for the weight and the so called biological skin of the bins. I had no tears but I was getting some lighter wear marks on the green skin.

The weight on my neck really bothered me. I visited my local dealer House of Outdoor optics and Jan van Daalen gave me a NL 10x32 for a week to find out if there are any negatives.

And there are really no negatives. A lot lighter, same FOV, same magnification, same sharp to the edges view and during daytime no differences despite the 1mm smaller exit pupil. Only during lowlight in the evening I could see a slight light loss but not bothering at all. I am 59 so the dilation of my pupils is not the same as when I was 25 and us oldies won't see much difference anyway.

Jan gave me a good price on the 'old' bins and I am happy.

 

[norway]

That's been my experience with 10x42 vs. 10x32 as well; no advantage to a larger aperture in >99% of field conditions, and even in the dimmest of light, any real-life difference to my relatively-young eyes is so subtle that it could just be placebo effect.

It would be very interesting to see the results of comparing them under double-blind ABX testing. 🙂

 

[ReinierB]

I have the NL 10x32 as well. Very nice performer in daylight. When the sun is setting I get some problems with glare watching into the direction of the setting sun. That's the moment I prefer a SLC 42 which I have as well.
I wonder what your experience is when you compare the NL 10x42 with the NL 10x32. Is the 10x32 more prone to glare having a smaller exit pupil? (Now I am assuming the smaller the exit pupil, the more prone to glare. But I am not sure.)
I am sorry bringing up the glare issue in the NL's again. I have been thinking about swapping the NL 10x32 for a 10x42, only for that reason. But I like it's lighter weight too!

 

[[email protected]]

How about ease of eye placement between the 10x32 and the 10x42? Anytime in the past when I have moved from a 10x42 to a 10x32, I find the 10x32 to finicky for eye placement and I tend to get more blackouts. A 3.2mm EP is getting pretty small.

 

[Stuarts vision]

I found the 10x42 the best in use including eye placement & comfort. The 10 &8x32 I found just as bright but the 42 was just better for eye placement

 

[[email protected]]

I found the 10x42 the best in use including eye placement & comfort. The 10 &8x32 I found just as bright but the 42 was just better for eye placement

For daytime use, the biggest difference between a 10x32 and 10x42 is ease of eye placement and fewer blackouts. I had both the NL 10x32 and NL 10x42, and I had problems with glare with both of them when observing in the direction of the setting sun. The NL 10x32 was slightly worse for glare than the NL 10x42 under those conditions. I had all the NL's and the worst of the bunch when observing in the direction of the setting sun was the NL 8x42 surprisingly enough.

 

[[email protected]]

I found the 10x42 the best in use including eye placement & comfort. The 10 &8x32 I found just as bright but the 42 was just better for eye placement

The 10x42 was better for eye placement than the 8x32? They have the same size EP.

 

[[email protected]]

I have the NL 10x32 as well. Very nice performer in daylight. When the sun is setting I get some problems with glare watching into the direction of the setting sun. That's the moment I prefer a SLC 42 which I have as well.
I wonder what your experience is when you compare the NL 10x42 with the NL 10x32. Is the 10x32 more prone to glare having a smaller exit pupil? (Now I am assuming the smaller the exit pupil, the more prone to glare. But I am not sure.)
I am sorry bringing up the glare issue in the NL's again. I have been thinking about swapping the NL 10x32 for a 10x42, only for that reason. But I like it's lighter weight too!

It is strange how much better the SLC is at controlling glare than the NL, isn't it? What size SLC do you have? I wonder what it is about the SLC that makes it so much better at glare control than the NL. Does it have something to do with the big FOV in the NL, or is there a difference in baffling and blackening in the binoculars? I have the SLC 8x56 and I can look directly below the setting sun with no glare problems.

 

[Scott98]

Light weight is very important to me for birding. There are some nice lightweight 40-42mm options these days if you still want a larger binocular for dim light or whatever. The Zeiss SFL's and the Nikon Monarch HG's are very light for 40-42mm binoculars.

 

[[email protected]]

Light weight is very important to me for birding. There are some nice lightweight 40-42mm options these days if you still want a larger binocular for dim light or whatever. The Zeiss SFL's and the Nikon Monarch HG's are very light for 40-42mm binoculars.

Yes, that is a big reason I like the SFL 8x40. It is light as an an NL 8x32 but yet outperforms it in low light and easy eye placement.

 

[tenex]

A 3.2mm EP is getting pretty small.

The 10x32 format is a relatively recent one; Trinovid BN was the first I'd ever seen, and I bought it on the spot. (I think BA 10x32 had been introduced a just few years before, in 1998. Was it indeed the first?) It was so good I wondered why the traditional choice had always been 8x30 vs 10x40. A number of people here call it a poor format, so I wonder whether they just didn't try good ones, or wear eyeglasses and were having an eye relief issue. It's suboptimal for owling or rainforests, but in a wide range of more typical daylight it really leaves nothing to be desired in viewing comfort or performance, and the only time I've found a larger pupil making a practical difference is in windy conditions (common in our mountains) when a bin gets harder to hold steady. Otherwise I think it just feels pleasant psychologically at the moment of bringing a bin to one's eyes, which doesn't last very long, so one had better not mind the extra weight.

 

[ReinierB]

The 10x32 format is a relatively recent one; Trinovid BN was the first I'd ever seen, and I bought it on the spot. (I think BA 10x32 had been introduced a just few years before, in 1998. Was it indeed the first?) It was so good I wondered why the traditional choice had always been 8x30 vs 10x40. A number of people here call it a poor format, so I wonder whether they just didn't try good ones, or wear eyeglasses and were having an eye relief issue. It's suboptimal for owling or rainforests, but in a wide range of more typical daylight it really leaves nothing to be desired in viewing comfort or performance, and the only time I've found a larger pupil making a practical difference is in windy conditions (common in our mountains) when a bin gets harder to hold steady. Otherwise I think it just feels pleasant psychologically at the moment of bringing a bin to one's eyes, which doesn't last very long, so one had better not mind the extra weight.

That's why I am still questioning myself: which SLC 42 shall I keep pairing up my NL 10x32. The 8x42 is a more logical choice with its 5.25mm exit pupil and very steady when it is windy. I like the 10x42 too. I think I will go out one day with both the NL 10x32 and the SLC 10x42 and compare them, especially when it is getting dark. I already know the 8x42 is much brighter, but what about the SLC 10x42? When ther is not much difference, I am letting the SLC 10x42 go, because there is not much weight saving.

 

[ReinierB]

It is strange how much better the SLC is at controlling glare than the NL, isn't it? What size SLC do you have? I wonder what it is about the SLC that makes it so much better at glare control than the NL. Does it have something to do with the big FOV in the NL, or is there a difference in baffling and blackening in the binoculars? I have the SLC 8x56 and I can look directly below the setting sun with no glare problems.

I have both the 8x42 and the 10x42. I am not sure anymore, but I thought I saw even less glare in the EL 10x50 than in the SLC 8x42. I have the EL 12x50 as well, but didn't compare it yet.
So maybe it has more to do with aperture than with exit pupil. In order of glare resistance 50 > 42 > 32.
You said the NL 42 has more glare than the NL 32? Than it is not true what I am saying.

However, I am very happy with my NL 10x32! It is pretty lightweight super performer, especially during the day and that's the moment I bird the most.

 

[Dutchbirder64]

How about ease of eye placement between the 10x32 and the 10x42? Anytime in the past when I have moved from a 10x42 to a 10x32, I find the 10x32 to finicky for eye placement and I tend to get more blackouts. A 3.2mm EP is getting pretty small.

I had no real trouble with that. Pupil diameter of humans is average about 2 to 3 mm daytime so 3.2 is on the spot but I can imagine that when you have a 42 bin it really doesn't matter as you are always in the good range. If your bin is set up good and both pupils are centered at the exit pupil there is not a real problem. it is all relatively spoken. And when you are older it won't get better.

dark adapted pupils
20 to 29 years (n=66), 7.33 mm (range: 5.7 to 8.8 mm)
30 to 39 years (n=50), 6.64 mm (range: 5.3 to 8.7 mm)
40 to 49 years (n=51), 6.15 mm (range: 4.5 to 8.2 mm)
50 to 59 years (n=50), 5.77 mm (range: 4.4 to 7.2 mm)
60 to 69 years (n=30), 5.58 mm (range: 3.5 to 7.5 mm)

 

[[email protected]]

I had no real trouble with that. Pupil diameter of humans is average about 2 to 3 mm daytime so 3.2 is on the spot but I can imagine that when you have a 42 bin it really doesn't matter as you are always in the good range. If your bin is set up good and both pupils are centered at the exit pupil there is not a real problem. it is all relatively spoken. And when you are older it won't get better.

dark adapted pupils
20 to 29 years (n=66), 7.33 mm (range: 5.7 to 8.8 mm)
30 to 39 years (n=50), 6.64 mm (range: 5.3 to 8.7 mm)
40 to 49 years (n=51), 6.15 mm (range: 4.5 to 8.2 mm)
50 to 59 years (n=50), 5.77 mm (range: 4.4 to 7.2 mm)
60 to 69 years (n=30), 5.58 mm (range: 3.5 to 7.5 mm)

What is just as important as exit pupil size is if the eye cup length matches the eye relief of the binoculars, so the cone of light exiting the binocular hits your retina perfectly. So if you get a 8x32 that fits your eye socket depth perfectly they will work very well for you in the daytime in open country, and you will have the benefit of a smaller lighter binocular. The only way to know this is to try the binoculars.

In general, though, the bigger exit pupil of a 8x42 will give you more flexibility in matching your eyes to the exit pupil because it is bigger. There are other advantages to a bigger exit pupil binocular also. If your eye dilates enough to use the bigger exit pupil, they will be brighter not only in low light but when looking into the shadows or under the canopy of a forest like Mount Verde in Costa Rica.

If you do a lot of birding in low light or in the forest, I recommend at least a 8x42. There are other advantages to the bigger exit pupil also. They tend to have less optical aberrations, can be brighter on the edge of the FOV and show less glare because the glare and aberrations never reach your eyes because they go beyond the field stop of the binocular. That is why many purists carry the big eye binoculars like the Zeiss 8x56 FL, Zeiss 8x54 HT and Swarovski 8x56 SLC even though they are heavier. Henry Link carries a Zeiss 8x56 FL for these reasons, and he had a thread on why the Zeiss 8x56 FL is the best 8x42.

 

[[email protected]]

I have both the 8x42 and the 10x42. I am not sure anymore, but I thought I saw even less glare in the EL 10x50 than in the SLC 8x42. I have the EL 12x50 as well, but didn't compare it yet.
So maybe it has more to do with aperture than with exit pupil. In order of glare resistance 50 > 42 > 32.
You said the NL 42 has more glare than the NL 32? Than it is not true what I am saying.

However, I am very happy with my NL 10x32! It is pretty lightweight super performer, especially during the day and that's the moment I bird the most.

The fact that the NL 42 has more glare than the NL 32 is not the rule but an exception. Swarovski decreased the FOV in the NL 8x32 after coming out with the NL 8x42, and I think it was due to the fact that they knew they had glare problems in the NL 8x42. Almost always, a 32mm has a bigger FOV than a 42mm. I bet the F ratio of the EL 12x50 is higher than the SLC 8x42 and that is why you see less glare in it. How easy is the eye placement on the NL 10x32?

 

[[email protected]]

That's why I am still questioning myself: which SLC 42 shall I keep pairing up my NL 10x32. The 8x42 is a more logical choice with its 5.25mm exit pupil and very steady when it is windy. I like the 10x42 too. I think I will go out one day with both the NL 10x32 and the SLC 10x42 and compare them, especially when it is getting dark. I already know the 8x42 is much brighter, but what about the SLC 10x42? When ther is not much difference, I am letting the SLC 10x42 go, because there is not much weight saving.

I would keep the 8x42. If you already have one 10x it is always nice to have an 8x for closer in birding.

 

[ReinierB]

How easy is the eye placement on the NL 10x32?

No problem at all for me! But I cant really role my eyes like in my 8x42 because of the smaller exit pupil.