Comparisons and differences in the current "Alpha" bins? (1 Viewer)

[Pileatus]

I have been looking for an SLC 10x56 for astro use however they are impossible to find in the U.S. Have you an opinion regarding your 8x56 at night?

George

I use a 10X50 SV hand-held during the day and mounted at night for astronomy.

I have been looking for an SLC 10x56 for astro use however they are impossible to find in the U.S. Have you an opinion regarding your 8x56 at night?

George

Are you using a binocular mount for astronomy use?

I have been looking for an SLC 10x56 for astro use however they are impossible to find in the U.S. Have you an opinion regarding your 8x56 at night?

George

I purchased a 10X50 SV primarily for backyard astronomy use, though I often use it during the day. I immediately constructed a binocular mount that allows me to lie back in a chair, align the binoculars to my eyes and sit back and watch a completely stabilized view of the night sky. The difference between hand-held and stabilized viewing with a binocular is impossible to explain. For me, it's the difference between OK and WOW that's truly amazing. I also mount the following: 7X42 SLC, 8.5X42 SV, 8X32 SV and my Nikon 8X32 SE. Mounted, the best choice I have is the 10X50 SV. For casual hand-held sessions I prefer the 7X42 SLC, though my wife's 8X32 SV is the stellar hand-held choice for pure enjoyment.

The so-called flat field of the SV is a real benefit when viewing the night sky.

Here's a photo...

 

[[email protected]]

I use a 10X50 SV hand-held during the day and mounted at night for astronomy.

Are you using a binocular mount for astronomy use?

I purchased a 10X50 SV primarily for backyard astronomy use, though I often use it during the day. I immediately constructed a binocular mount that allows me to lie back in a chair, align the binoculars to my eyes and sit back and watch a completely stabilized view of the night sky. The difference between hand-held and stabilized viewing with a binocular is impossible to explain. For me, it's the difference between OK and WOW that's truly amazing. I also mount the following: 7X42 SLC, 8.5X42 SV, 8X32 SV and my Nikon 8X32 SE. Mounted, the best choice I have is the 10X50 SV. For casual hand-held sessions I prefer the 7X42 SLC, though my wife's 8X32 SV is the stellar hand-held choice for pure enjoyment.

The so-called flat field of the SV is a real benefit when viewing the night sky.

Here's a photo...

Flat field is great for astro use because you see the stars right to the edge. Even that 8x32 SV is better mounted isn't it. It is funny but even 8x improves on a tripod.

 

[M&P805]

Still waiting for the Orion Monster Parallelogram to be delivered. Currently either hand held or struggling with the Oberwerk monopod in a zero gravity chair.

 

[Pileatus]

Still waiting for the Orion Monster Parallelogram to be delivered. Currently either hand held or struggling with the Oberwerk monopod in a zero gravity chair.

My scientific response is "okie dokie that should stabilize whatever binocular you choose!"
No matter what bin you mount you will enjoy a dramatic difference in viewing pleasure.
Enjoy.

 

[Conndomat]

I have been looking for an SLC 10x56 for astro use however they are impossible to find in the U.S. Have you an opinion regarding your 8x56 at night?

George

Hi George,

The SLC 8x56 needs an extremely dark sky, there are only very few places in Germany where you can still use the glass in the sky!
In addition, the eye pupil should be beyond 6mm. otherwise it makes no sense.
I think the 10x56 is the more sensible binoculars for Astro.
Otherwise, the SLC 8x56 has a great look, I also often use it day and night to observe owls, deer, badgers and other nocturnal animals.

 

[Robert Wallace]

I agree with you. I had the SLC 8x56 and I liked it for the same reasons you do. The big aperture binoculars have a lot of advantages that not even the smaller alphas can compete with. Outside of FOV I would say the SLC 8x56 is better optically than the NL 8x42. The optical superiority of the bigger aperture can't be overcome by coatings and glass. It is a matter of Physics.

Unless you are in your 20s an exit pupil of 7mm is wasted. Which is more important physics or physiology?, The size of the dilated pupil declines with age (mine are less than 4mm, probably nearer 3 - measured by my optometrist) . Very few serious birdwatchers and ornithologists use 8x56.
I suspect 8x56 are enjoyed by people to whom theoretical optical excellence is more important than function.
I accept that the Royal Navy's 7x50s have an advantage in rough seas because of easier eye placement, but how many birders are sailors?

 

[qwerty5]

The 'Swaro News' and my Leica NV bins has me thinking about the state of the art ALPHA binoculars. I own a pair of Leica NV and have viewed, briefly, through a pair of Swarovski NL Pure as well. What I haven't seen are a pair of Zeiss SF bins.

Regarding the top-end Alpha bins:

• What is the same among them?
• What is better than its peers?
• Which suffer from some deficiency relative to its peers?

On a related note, what near "ALPHA" bins (Meopta?) should be considered with these bins in a similar context? In my case for example, while I really like my Steiners, I must say my Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 bins blow away my Steiners mainly due to overall bulk and probably give 90~95% of the 'view quality' as the Alpha options. For rough use on my farm and general utility viewing though, the Steiner's rule for ease of use (Independent Focus) and overall durability and general 'toughness'.

So in summary, saying you had an ALPHA budget for new bins, what would you choose as well as why. While I'm thinking primarily of comparing 8x42 bins, I'm also open to suggestions of other options like 8x32 or 8x56 versions realizing these have a significant difference in ergonomics and some issues with light gathering for use at dawn or dusk and in unfavorable lighting conditions like overcast or otherwise dark skies.

In my specific case, I'm debating what to do with my Leica NV bins. Do I keep them? Do I trade my 8x42's for some 10x42's or 12x50's? On the flip side, I need to be really picky to fault them for something like an eye-box that is a little hard for me to find consistently with my eyeglasses or the fact that they are deceptively heavy for such a trim package in 'big' bins.

TIA,
Sid

I'm a little late, I know but I would check out Tobias Mennle's site: www.greatestbinoculars.com. He reviews alpha bins and is very detailed with his reviews and often compares binoculars.

As far as near alpha bins, I think there are several that provide alpha views for under $2000. The Meopta B1 and Vortex Razor UHD are the ones I know of. [email protected] reviewed the UHD and thought it was better than any of his other alphas (you can find his review in one of the UHD threads in the Vortex subforum).

 

[sidpost]

Unless you are in your 20s an exit pupil of 7mm is wasted. Which is more important physics or physiology?, The size of the dilated pupil declines with age (mine are less than 4mm, probably nearer 3 - measured by my optometrist) . Very few serious birdwatchers and ornithologists use 8x56.
I suspect 8x56 are enjoyed by people to whom theoretical optical excellence is more important than function.
I accept that the Royal Navy's 7x50s have an advantage in rough seas because of easier eye placement, but how many birders are sailors?

I don't know what my pupil size is but, I can honestly say that my Steiner 8x56's produce an excellent image. I tend to grab them more often than my Leica Noctovids where both are sitting side by side. The NV are really good bins but, the Steiner's are not slouches either. Which are better really depends on the environment that day and what I'm looking at.

 

[jcnguyen09]

Regarding the top-end Alpha bins:

• What is the same among them?

They are all over price! hahaha

• What is better than its peers?

Leica NV: most beautiful color rendition; sleek, sophisticated design; Great eyepieces, 19mm ER, great for glasses wearers
Swar NL: FOV, AFOV, Sharpness edge to edge. Reasonable handheldable 12x42 with FHR; 10x32 with 396' FOV/69 degree AFOV
Zeiss SF: Light weight, users friendly

• Which suffer from some deficiency relative to its peers?

Leica NV: Narrow FOV, heavy, not very users friendly
Swar NL: Glare control
Zeiss SF: Straight, internal flares; size

 

[lmans66]

So I guess one has to pick, eh?

Now..... if one doesn't select one of those, then one needs to make an equal listing of pros' and cons' for the next line-up down. Most likely the Ultravid, and EL,......and from there a further step down to the Zeiss Conquest, Trinovid, SLC? , but also the Meostar, GPO etc (all the $1000 dollar glass).

Then, one can decide.

 

[casscade]

Strictly speaking of optics the 8x56 slc is an incredible glass, close to a no compromise optic imo. It has a slightly smaller fov than say the nl or sf, but a superior glass with the same magic view of the best Leica 7x42’s but with a bigger apparent fov. As 42’s go the 8x42 NV, 8x42 slc, and NL are my favs, I’d be fine with any of the three and never miss another if I had only one.

The 10x56 SLC is probably my favorite big 10 followed by the 10SV and Leica UV plus, still none are as impressive in view as the 8x56 imo. All great btw just different, it’s all in what you like and what you want.

 

[etc]

I suggest an unconventional approach. This is what worked for me. I too spent years trying to pick this or that Alpha. The easiest way to improve performance is to increase the objective size and the magnification. Say, 10x50 or such. It is superior in most ways to the 8x42. It picks up noticeably more detail. I find it more enjoyable. I've had a number of 8x42s but 10x54 is transcendental.

all 8x42 Alphas are so close in terms of performance that there is no quantum leap from one to another. Even 20 year old Trinovids are not substantially inferior to the latest-greatest and are totally competitive. It's only when you expand parameters do you begin to notice substantial differences.

I wish I had gotten a 10x50 Trinovid or Ultravid 20 years ago. Or the Swaro equivalent. I have no brand loyalty.

I have a Zeiss 8x42 SF and 10x54HT. I almost always grab the 10x54 and only take 8x42 when I must. Due to size and weight constraints.

For me, the size is negotiable and don't mind a 10x50 even though it feels twice as heavy and twice as large as a 8x42. Swaro SLC 10x56 is gigantic but I surely would not turn it down.

I get that for many, if not most, size is not negotiable and even 8x42 is too big which explains the popularity of 8x32, etc.

 

[DrewskiMT]

rying to pick this or that Alpha. The easiest way to improve performance is to increase the objective size and the magnification. Say, 10x50 or such. It is superior in most ways to the 8x42. It picks up noticeably more detail. I find it more enjoyable. I've had a number of 8x42s but 10x54 is transcendental.

So etc, does this also mean that a hardcore optics enthusiast/hunter/birder should pay for the alpha premium for 8x32, and then step down to the $1000 Beta (Sub-alpha class) for 8/10x42, and then step down again to $500-$1000 class for 10/12x50+ binos? Would "overall image quality/quality of the image" remain approximately the same across the binos as "price class" decreased incrementally while objective lens size and magnification increased in size class?

 

[Troubador]

So etc, does this also mean that a hardcore optics enthusiast/hunter/birder should pay for the alpha premium for 8x32, and then step down to the $1000 Beta (Sub-alpha class) for 8/10x42, and then step down again to $500-$1000 class for 10/12x50+ binos? Would "overall image quality/quality of the image" remain approximately the same across the binos as "price class" decreased incrementally while objective lens size and magnification increased in size class?

Drewski, I understand where you are coming from and I agree that there is nothing 'automatic' about the quality of the view improving by increasing magnification and objective size. But Etc only mentions Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski so it is clear what segment of the market he is talking about.

Lee

 

[DrewskiMT]

I guess I just was curious, has anyone subjectively or objectively compared alpha 8x32, to beta/$1000 10x42, to $500 12x50? The user's viewing experience changes a lot due to increased hand shake with each jump up in magnification. But on a tripod, I wonder what the different views actually look like in terms of resolution and brightness and the like. I will have to find a 12x50 and a tripod and find out!

 

[Maljunulo]

One of the hardest words to quantify is "better".

We resort to numbers to describe physical properties, and the things we can measure objectively, but none of that really quantifies "better".

It is generally conceded that the so-called "Alpha" binoculars are "better" than "lesser" glass, and with decent vision most can easily see the difference.

The images in the alpha glass will have "something" which the beta glass does not have, and we use words like "crystalline" or "sparkling" or "transparent" and so on above and beyond field of view, chromatic aberration, field curvature and so on. Those are relatively easy.

So when we talk about a "comparison" perhaps the best we will be able to come up with will be to say that this one is "better" than that one as a way to contrast the two instruments.

Any glass is good until you look through a better one.

Just random thoughts.

 

[jcnguyen09]

My experience is that no matter the sizes, if you want the same performance, optical quality, you most likely have to stay in the same categories: Alpha, sub Alpha or Beta. I don't think you can find the same quality, performance by increasing or decreasing the sizes to a lesser categories. Whatever the branches, they don't put the same glass or better glass on the alpha to the cheaper sub alpha or Beta categories.

 

[etc]

I only have 8x42 and 10x54 Alphas. They do 100% of what I need. My budget does not allow for expansion into something more esoteric and specialized like 12x60 or such. I want a 12x60 for astro and also a 6x30 on the lower end of the scale to complete my collection.

8x42 Alpha is very fine but when I moved to 10x, it generates a wow factor every time. I wish I had gotten a 10x50 Trinovid 20 years ago. Now you are getting into military grade good here.

 

[DrewskiMT]

One of the hardest words to quantify is "better".

We resort to numbers to describe physical properties, and the things we can measure objectively, but none of that really quantifies "better".

It is generally conceded that the so-called "Alpha" binoculars are "better" than "lesser" glass, and with decent vision most can easily see the difference.

The images in the alpha glass will have "something" which the beta glass does not have, and we use words like "crystalline" or "sparkling" or "transparent" and so on above and beyond field of view, chromatic aberration, field curvature and so on. Those are relatively easy.

So when we talk about a "comparison" perhaps the best we will be able to come up with will be to say that this one is "better" than that one as a way to contrast the two instruments.

Any glass is good until you look through a better one.

Just random thoughts.

"Any glass is good until you look through a better one."

Absolutely, I could not have said it better myself.

 

[ZDHart]

Sid... you mentioned that your use would be on your farm, so I'm guessing your viewing distances may be fairly long. I can see how you would appreciate a pair of tens.

Having just received a pair of Leica UVHD+ in 10x42, I'm totally sold. Awesome ergonomics, superb detailed clarity and razor sharpness, and wonderfully pleasing color quality and contrast. And, the price at $2300, while not inexpensive, is not stratospheric as some other models are priced at today. Most definitely, UVHD+ 10x42 is a model you should give some consideration to!

Also, consider Victory SF 10x42 - if a flat field and more edge sharpness is important to you. Color quality isn't Leica, but each brand offers something different.