I agree. In the daytime and if you are over 60 and your eye are dilating below 6 mm it probably is the brightest binocular available but if you are younger the Zeiss HT 8x54 will give them a run for their money because of it's bigger EP but the Habicht has the advantage of being very light at 24 oz., much less expensive than the Zeiss HT and you have the stereoscopic view of the porro. I will admit, the Habicht 7x42 is the only binocular I have ever used that seems like it has an internal light inside of it when you use it. It is that bright. This discussion is starting to make me want a Habicht 7x42 again, but I have to remind myself of the narrow FOV, but that is the main reason why the Habicht 7x42 is so bright. It has a simple Kellner eyepiece incapable of a WA with simple porro optics, and the porro prism itself loses no light because of total internal reflection. The Habicht has very little glass in it, and it has the best glass Swarovski has with their best coatings, which is largely the reason for it's incredibly high transmission. It is an iconic binocular.
-
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.
What's your favourite low light binocular, and why. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Rg548
- Start date
Dennis - I hear you, in addition to what you said the HT's are also remarkably lightweight for a 54mm-56mm binocular, which is huge. It's a top-of-the-line Zeiss binocular, it's going to be quality optics, the glass and coatings are excellent. I'm basically a Zeiss fanboy, I would have liked to keep the 10x54 HT's but I can't justify having both a 10x56 and 10x54 for astronomy. For birding or carrying on hikes the 54mm's lighter weight and size would be perfect.
dorubird
Well-known member
I forgot to mention some important advantages of Habicht 7x42 vs other 8x56 (54):
1 much smaller volume
2 fantastic ergonomics
3 more three-dimensional information
My Zeiss FL 7x42 are the ones I take when I know light will be bad/it’ll get dark. Looking through them sometimes makes me wonder where they get the light from. They are very impressive with that regard.
Actually, they are my go-to binoculars from the moment I don’t think the extra weight and size will bother me compared to my lighter weight 32mm (FL/UV). But they really ’shine’ in low light.
However, I‘ve never had larger binoculars than those and I often wonder what I would gain in low light from going to some 8-10x54-56mm like the 54mm HT, the SLC 56mm or some (cheaper but probably good AK) 56mm Kite. I’m not sure if it would be worth the extra weight (and cost, as I would keep my 42mm), considering also it would probably be much less used. I love late evening walks, but e.g. when going on holiday, there is a limit to the number of binoculars to take along, and the 7x42 will probably get priority ;-). Still, I would love to check hands-on the difference in the field!
Actually, they are my go-to binoculars from the moment I don’t think the extra weight and size will bother me compared to my lighter weight 32mm (FL/UV). But they really ’shine’ in low light.
However, I‘ve never had larger binoculars than those and I often wonder what I would gain in low light from going to some 8-10x54-56mm like the 54mm HT, the SLC 56mm or some (cheaper but probably good AK) 56mm Kite. I’m not sure if it would be worth the extra weight (and cost, as I would keep my 42mm), considering also it would probably be much less used. I love late evening walks, but e.g. when going on holiday, there is a limit to the number of binoculars to take along, and the 7x42 will probably get priority ;-). Still, I would love to check hands-on the difference in the field!
Binocollector
Well-known member
Having compared my Fuji HC 8x42 to the Kite Cervus HD 8x56 -- I'd say the difference in low light performance to your 7x42 will probably be miniscule to invisible.
I mean, the Kite is not bad, not at all, but I barely use it. Not even for astronomy (where I'd prefer my Fuji FMTR 7x50). Been thinking about selling it in fact.
Also -- it has a lot more CA than the Fuji HC. Not that important in low light maybe. But I am pretty certain it will be no match for your Zeiss FL.
You forgot to mention the disadvantages of the Habicht 7x42 vs other 8x56(54):
1 Much tighter harder focuser
2 Too small hard eye cups
3 Very tunnel like narrow FOV
On a tripod. This is birding binoculars.
dorubird
Well-known member
I have complete presented the Habicht with all advantages and disadvantages for me
here
Swarovski Habicht 7x42 dissection
History Those interested in optics know that the first Swarovski binoculars appeared in 1935, in 6x30 format. Then the optical department of the Swarovski company (Swarovski Optik KG) was established in 1949. This series of Habicht binoculars has been manufactured since 1949. The mechanics and...
www.birdforum.net
"1 Much tighter harder focuser"
It is a disadvantage when we often change the focus from, say, 3m to infinity, but from 25m to infinity it moves very little with the focus wheel
"2 Too small hard eye cups"
it's a disadvantage for people who don't wear glasses, not for me who wears glasses.
"3 Very tunnel like narrow FOV"
It is clear that it is the biggest and obviously disadvantage of these Habicht for the majority.
But paradoxically, I started to learn to appreciate this thing as it is! But with time, because I needed time to observe this paradox! This small aparrent visual field of view for me is no longer a disadvantage, I even started to appreciate it aesthetically very much 😲. I said here Swarovski Habicht 7x42 dissection in more detail what conditions must be met in order to like small AFOVs. Attention! this does not exclude the fact that I also like very large AFOVs, but only that, under certain conditions, I discovered that I also like small ones
I don't know when I am birding I focus quite a bit from 3 m to 25 m especially for close in birding in woodlands. You're lucky because you wear glasses because the Habicht eye cups are torture for those that don't. I appreciate a large FOV in almost every situation, but especially open country because it helps me find birds better because I can see more in each FOV. I believe that is why Lee likes his Zeiss SF 8x32 so much when he goes to Scotland. I can't think of a situation where a bigger FOV wouldn't be an advantage, especially when the FOV is tack sharp to the edge. I have a 55-inch big screen TV and I would not want to go back to the old 25-inch picture tube TV for sure!I have complete presented the Habicht with all advantages and disadvantages for me
Swarovski Habicht 7x42 dissection
History Those interested in optics know that the first Swarovski binoculars appeared in 1935, in 6x30 format. Then the optical department of the Swarovski company (Swarovski Optik KG) was established in 1949. This series of Habicht binoculars has been manufactured since 1949. The mechanics and...
"1 Much tighter harder focuser"
It is a disadvantage when we often change the focus from, say, 3m to infinity, but from 25m to infinity it moves very little with the focus wheel
"2 Too small hard eye cups"
it's a disadvantage for people who don't wear glasses, not for me who wears glasses.
"3 Very tunnel like narrow FOV"
It is clear that it is the biggest and obviously disadvantage of these Habicht for the majority.
But paradoxically, I started to learn to appreciate this thing as it is! But with time, because I needed time to observe this paradox! This small aparrent visual field of view for me is no longer a disadvantage, I even started to appreciate it aesthetically very much 😲. I said here Swarovski Habicht 7x42 dissection in more detail what conditions must be met in order to like small AFOVs. Attention! this does not exclude the fact that I also like very large AFOVs, but only that, under certain conditions, I discovered that I also like small ones
ragin-cajun
Well-known member
Best Alpha Glass for Low Light?
I’ve been reading many of your discussions. you guys sure know glass. I’ve always had avg binocs but I figured I’ve worked long and hard enough that it’s time for a big upgrade. Before I start testing I’d appreciate suggestions for an Alpha binocular in 42 that’s fantastic in low light...
www.birdforum.net
Ah yes, here we go again..... 55" TV = AFOV. Content stays the same as smaller TV screen, just a bigger more open view of same content. Different from FOV, where larger angle means more info in whatever size AFOV is present... Right Dennis?
Elkhornsun
Well-known member
For me a low light bino for use on land is a 10x or 12x pair. I was using 10x but have migrated to 12x, first with 12x50 and now have added a 25% lighter and smaller pair of 12x x 42 binos. Light transmission is a function of the area of the objective lens but more important is the amount of image magnification. Having 25 to 50 percent greater image magnification makes a greater improvement in being able to discern details on small birds than increases in light transmission with larger objectives.
My lightweight compact binos are 10x25 and they replaced a 8x25 pair. The increase in magnification improved my ability to find and identify birds.
On the water a 7x50 works the best when out at night and needing to see other boats and navigation markers. They provide a better image than night vision binos for this situation.
My lightweight compact binos are 10x25 and they replaced a 8x25 pair. The increase in magnification improved my ability to find and identify birds.
On the water a 7x50 works the best when out at night and needing to see other boats and navigation markers. They provide a better image than night vision binos for this situation.
