• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Leica 10x50 BA vs new models (2 Viewers)

"Absolutely. Sure, I can tell a difference at dusk between my Nikon 7x50 marine bins and my 10x25 BCA's, but a difference in brightness between the Nikons and my 7x42 UVHD+.......nah, and if I had to go out and read that number plate I'd certainly take the 10x42 NV's!"

Yup. The 10x42 NV's are going to be better. I agree. Better "Twilight Factor" than the Nikon 7x50's.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. Sure, I can tell a difference at dusk between my Nikon 7x50 marine bins and my 10x25 BCA's, but a difference in brightness between the Nikons and my 7x42 UVHD+.......nah,

Yup, and the optics designers of Zeiss and Swarovski are of course all idiots if they say otherwise!:t:

and if I had to go out and read that number plate I'd certainly take the 10x42 NV's!

Yup,since I had a better idea, this one, https://www.astroshop.de/geraete/nikon-bildstabilisiertes-fernglas-stabileyes-16x32-vr/p,5569 also has a higher twilight factor than the 10x42 Noctivid!

Andreas
 
Last edited:
"Yup,since I had a better idea, this one, https://www.astroshop.de/geraete/nik...6x32-vr/p,5569 also has a higher twilight factor than the 10x42 Noctivid!"

Twilight Factor always has to be considered in connection with the exit pupil. If you start getting too small of an exit pupil you are not going to have enough light. On normal formats like 10x42 ,10x56, 8x56 and 8x42 it works quite well but it has limitations. You might be surprised how well you could read the license plate with the stabilized Nikon 16x32 though even with a 2.1 mm exit pupil. It would be dim but you are going to see a lot of detail.
 
Last edited:
"Yup,since I had a better idea, this one, https://www.astroshop.de/geraete/nik...6x32-vr/p,5569 also has a higher twilight factor than the 10x42 Noctivid!"
On normal formats like 10x42 ,10x56, 8x56 and 8x42 it works quite well but it has limitations.
Whitch limitations?
You might be surprised how well you could read the license plate with the stabilized Nikon 16x32 though even with a 2.1 mm exit pupil.
The glass even has only 2mm. exit pupil!
It would be dim but you are going to see a lot of detail.
I thought such a strange format would nobody want, I at least read somewhere?
I have never heard of a 15x30 and I don't think anybody would want one. You can come up with a bunch of weird formats ...

Andreas
 
Last edited:
"Just a joke Dennis...,I do agree with the minimal improvements for the Leica 10X50 format. Besides the ergonomic improvement/weight, eyecups, (insignificant increased FOV) the Leica BA is not that far behind thee UV HD+, still a great 10X50. This is a format where the big three(L,Z,SV) rule, hands down.

IMO the SLC 10X56 or the FL 10X56 is the consummate night glass, then again the FL 8X56 is a great choice also, however I prefer the increased magnification in this format esp when used under low light."

Yup. I agree!

The HT 10x54 does not seem to get much love. I've read for astro there are off-axis aberrations, so not recommended there, but for birding & wildlife in poor light?

Marc
 
Those small aperture large magnification binoculars are mostly made because image stabilization allows you to hold them steady enough to use them and I don't think they are really intended as a low light binocular although they can work quite well for astronomy when looking at celestial objects. I think the Nikon 16x32 IS is discontinued now and I really wonder about the future of the new Canon 10x32 IS's because they have discounted them 50% to sell them. Probably the Nikon was intended for long range daytime marine use. My point is exit pupil is not the only consideration when choosing a low light binocular. Magnification plays a part in the equation also. Some people think an 8x56 is the ultimate format for dim light when in reality it is a 10x56 or better yet a 12x50 especially if you are older and your pupils are only opening to 6mm or less.
 
Last edited:
The HT 10x54 does not seem to get much love. I've read for astro there are off-axis aberrations, so not recommended there, but for birding & wildlife in poor light?
It's a matter of taste. Some people care only about the sweet spot and aren't bothered by problems with the rest of the field. Others (like me) are. That's principally why I haven't used any of the FL/HT binos. One doesn't have to put up with it, when Swarovski and Leica have alternatives (e.g. SLC 10x56).
 
Has anyone ever compared the SLC 8x56 to the Noctivid 8x42 as far as brightness in low light? Is there a substantial difference?
 
The HT 10x54 does not seem to get much love. I've read for astro there are off-axis aberrations, so not recommended there, but for birding & wildlife in poor light?
Marc
Last year I was in search of the ultimate Nachtglas. For a whole week I compared four binos literally night and day: Swarovski SLC 10x56 HD, Zeiss Victory 10x54 HT, Zeiss Conquest HD 10x56, and Leica Ultravid 10x50 HD+. (I did not care for other makers than the Big Three, sorry.) The Swarovski came out first, both optically und ergonomically just wonderful. A close second - to my surprise - was the least expensive Zeiss Conquest. The Leica was superb optically with beautiful rich colours but a little bit too dim and I did not like the eye cups. The Zeiss HT was (to me!) a disappointment, especially the lack of edge sharpness, in fact optically not up to the Conquest - maybe a bad copy, who knows. Moreover I did not like the focuser and the diopter adjustment. BTW the black Zeiss armor collects dirt like piano laquer.

Hence I easily decided for the Swarovski and could not be happier. But that's just me, your mileage may vary.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone ever compared the SLC 8x56 to the Noctivid 8x42 as far as brightness in low light? Is there a substantial difference?
As the SLC 10x56 HD is incredibly bright already, the SLC 8x56 HD - that shares the same Abbe-König prisms - should be even better in this respect. And the SLC 10x56 HD is visibly brighter than the Ultravid 10x50 HD+. Therefore I would bet that the Noctivid 8x42 is clearly less bright than the SLC 8x56 HD. But in fact I have not compared them side by side so it remains just my assumption.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone ever compared the SLC 8x56 to the Noctivid 8x42 as far as brightness in low light? Is there a substantial difference?

Hello,

the Noctivid is something as bright as the Zeiss SF 8x42 or the Swarovski 8,5x42, under these three binoculars I could not notice noticeable brightness differences!
The Noctivid I do not have anymore, but the Zeiss and the Swarovski and here is the difference to the SLC 8x56 more than clear.
The SLC is in terms of brightness, a real powerhouse, so much brighter than the Noctivid!
It is important, however, that one can really use the exit pupil, which uses the glass when the pupil "only" about 5mm. opens?

Andreas
 
Hello,

the Noctivid is something as bright as the Zeiss SF 8x42 or the Swarovski 8,5x42, under these three binoculars I could not notice noticeable brightness differences!
The Noctivid I do not have anymore, but the Zeiss and the Swarovski and here is the difference to the SLC 8x56 more than clear.
The SLC is in terms of brightness, a real powerhouse, so much brighter than the Noctivid!
It is important, however, that one can really use the exit pupil, which uses the glass when the pupil "only" about 5mm. opens?

Andreas
Thanks! I’m trying to decide between the 8x42 Noctivids and the SLC 8x56. I really like the idea of brighter SLC for early morning and late evening.
 
The Swarovski came out first, both optically und ergonomically just wonderful. A close second - to my surprise - was the least expensive Zeiss Conquest.

Hello,

Interesting!

Where would you see exactly the advantages of the SLC over the Conquest, sharpness, brightness, chromatic aberration, edge sharpness and so on?

Thank you,
Andreas
 
Has anyone ever compared the SLC 8x56 to the Noctivid 8x42 as far as brightness in low light? Is there a substantial difference?

Most would not compare those models since they are different platforms, 42mm and 56mm AND different brands. Also there is a size/weight difference as you well know.

I have the Noctivid 8X42 and a SLC 10X56. The Noctivid weighs 30.5oz and the SLC 42.6oz.

There won't be much that you could ask of an 8X42 binocular that the Noctivid WON'T do. It is a very bright binocular as is typical of most at that price point. The SLC will be ever so slightly brighter due to a larger objective and the use of AK prisms. Will you notice that and will it be useful to you is the question. IMO it is certainly not 12 ounces better. I'd pick the Noctivid for 99.9999999% of my uses.
 
(...) Where would you see exactly the advantages of the SLC over the Conquest, sharpness, brightness, chromatic aberration, edge sharpness and so on? (...)
When I ordered the four Nachtgläser at the reputable German dealer optik-pro.de, their advisor recommended to ignore the Zeiss 10x54 HT and the Leica 8x50 and to concentrate on the two 10x56 from Swarovski and Zeiss. I was sceptic but have to admit that he was right.
To your very question:
The Conquest is less expensive and it feels cheaper. The coating and the armor are IMHO not superior to Asian medium-class products. The diopter adjustment on the right ocular is rather primitive and moves the outer lens. The eye cups however are comfortable and suit my face very well, even better than the SLC's.
The field of view is also larger but at a price: I am sensitive to cromatic aberration and the Conquest shows visible green/purple halos on contrasty edges in daylight. CA artefacts in the SLC are minimal. Moreover the edge sharpness of the Conquest is ok but not really good. The colours are fine, slightly warmer than the SLC's. Brightness is excellent but the SLC is still a tad brighter. All in all the Conquest is a very good bino but the SLC is in my opinion a bit better optically and distinctly more convincing in terms of construction and build. The SLC feels like an alpha to me and the Conquest not. And because I wanted simply the best the choice was easy. Nevertheless the Conquest is a very fine bino that should satisfy most even demanding customers. If the SLC 10x56 wouldn't exist, I'm sure that I would be happy with the Conquest 10x56, especially since I mainly use it in low-light surroundings. On walks in bright light I prefer my more compact Leica Trinovid 8x42 BA that I bought back in 1993.
 
> forent <

Thanks a lot!

I know the Conquest series, myself have the 10x32 and had the 8x32 so I know that you have mechanically lost something, I was mainly interested in the visual differences and how large they judge.

Andreas
 
Most would not compare those models since they are different platforms, 42mm and 56mm AND different brands. Also there is a size/weight difference as you well know.

I have the Noctivid 8X42 and a SLC 10X56. The Noctivid weighs 30.5oz and the SLC 42.6oz.

There won't be much that you could ask of an 8X42 binocular that the Noctivid WON'T do. It is a very bright binocular as is typical of most at that price point. The SLC will be ever so slightly brighter due to a larger objective and the use of AK prisms. Will you notice that and will it be useful to you is the question. IMO it is certainly not 12 ounces better. I'd pick the Noctivid for 99.9999999% of my uses.
Thank you for this response. You have helped me make up my mind! I’m going with the Noctivid 8x42.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top