-
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.
Twilight Viewing (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Tricky001
- Start date
Thanks for all the replies and great information. You all certainly know far more that me! So, it seems that ideally a pair of SLC 10X56 with AK prisms is the way to go. As I intend to go second-hand, what vintage should I go for to get these prisms? BTW, we haven't seen the hedgehog for a few nights but it has been very warm (for this part of the world) so we think he is coming for the food later in the night.
Yes. But I doubt if that will make much difference. Some where here in this forum there is information about when Swarovski improved the coatings on their binoculars. I don't have that information at hand. It is safe to say that looking for as late a model as possible is your best bet while also considering its over all condition.
Bob
Thanks, again, David.
Myself
I reckon: acuity 20/15, pupils dilate to about/at least 5 mm, not at all sure about 5.6 mm.
Instruments
The 8x42 had di-electric coated prisms, the 10x56 did not.
To remind, they were a Leupold McKinley 8x42 and Barr-&-Stroud Savannah-ED 10x56.
Conditions
By "night" I meant several hours after dusk.
May be a little moonlight, not much. I remember the darkness was such that either the moon was not bright or was covered by clouds.
Tested on distant trees lit by the sky, and
nearer trees partly reached by the light of street lamps, which was more "neon" in color, if that is the word, not amber.
Results
Instantly on raising to the eyes the image with that 10x56 definitely looked brighter.
But after those first moments there was definitely more information through that 8x42 than that 10x56,
on outlines of trees,
details of foliage and structure within them,
and more and better rendition of color:
of leaves, branches, fruits.
I remind, in daylight (also) the 8x42 conveyed more detail than the 10x56.
Hope there is at least some useful info. in there!
Adhoc
Last edited:
Adhoc,
You're not making it easy.
Hours after sunset, with little moon and a cloudy night you really should have been deep in scotopic territory, yet with the ability to resolve foliage and discriminate colour you were clearly in mesopic if not phototopic range.It's sounding like you most of what you were able to see was due to street light and other terrestrial light sources. You describe them as 'neon' not amber. The spectrum of a neon cold dischare tube is orange. Is that what you meant?
David
You're not making it easy.
Hours after sunset, with little moon and a cloudy night you really should have been deep in scotopic territory, yet with the ability to resolve foliage and discriminate colour you were clearly in mesopic if not phototopic range.It's sounding like you most of what you were able to see was due to street light and other terrestrial light sources. You describe them as 'neon' not amber. The spectrum of a neon cold dischare tube is orange. Is that what you meant?
David
PYRTLE
Old Berkshire Boy
Getting back to the O.P. by Tricky 001, I think we're looking for a second pair of bins purely to watch wildlife for an extra 30 minutes, ( dependant on age and eye performance ). The budget appears to be based on the price of a pair of used 8 x 50 Trinovid BA - say £500 just for arguments sake. If you're still thinking of another pair your original thought is pretty good but ask yourself one question........will it be justifiable? Just for that few minute more? Sure?
I have 3 pairs of bins, all Zeiss, all perform differently. 7x42BGAT T*P, 8x32FL, 8x42SF. I'm now too old to benefit from 8x56 Night Owls!
Here's the spanner in the works. You could observe (with very poor comparitive resolution ) for much longer with a night vision monocular or even quite a decent trail camera for the budget, if it's the activity of hedgehog, owls, and other nocturnal critters that your interested in seeing up to and after dark.
Just a thought. Otherwise go out and get the best 8x56 within your budget.
Good luck, Pat
I have 3 pairs of bins, all Zeiss, all perform differently. 7x42BGAT T*P, 8x32FL, 8x42SF. I'm now too old to benefit from 8x56 Night Owls!
Here's the spanner in the works. You could observe (with very poor comparitive resolution ) for much longer with a night vision monocular or even quite a decent trail camera for the budget, if it's the activity of hedgehog, owls, and other nocturnal critters that your interested in seeing up to and after dark.
Just a thought. Otherwise go out and get the best 8x56 within your budget.
Good luck, Pat
David
With the levels of my knowledge and understanding it is not easy for me to make it easy for you
No the light of the street lamps was not orange at all--it seems I was way out with that word "neon" (in that sense)--I meant blue-white!
Yes you are quite right about the light which conveyed those colors to me. They were seen on/in the trees reached by the street lighting.
From your responses, on and off this forum, I make a definite gain, but so often much of your explanation, thorough and patient, is wasted on me at the time. After I read up and acquire the necessary background knowledge I often lose track of the original explanation. Most of your writings on this forum, some at such length, are scattered across "random" threads. Once again as several times before I urge you to put down a "Collected Works of Typo" somewhere as reference for all interested.
To other readers of this thread
Sorry about all this. But it is not really off topic!
This is what I have been going on about.
As David indicates in post #7, and I have been suggesting for some time, at night more magnification can be more useful than a larger exit pupil, also in accordance with the 'twilight factor'. However I point out as a modifying clause to that, and only as such, that for this the optical quality of the higher-x instrument has to be comparable to that of the lower-x.
FYI
The Eden XP 10x56, which is praised by David and others, and appears to be an excellent balance of price and performance as a low-light binocular, it seems is now not available.
Adhoc
With the levels of my knowledge and understanding it is not easy for me to make it easy for you
No the light of the street lamps was not orange at all--it seems I was way out with that word "neon" (in that sense)--I meant blue-white!
Yes you are quite right about the light which conveyed those colors to me. They were seen on/in the trees reached by the street lighting.
From your responses, on and off this forum, I make a definite gain, but so often much of your explanation, thorough and patient, is wasted on me at the time. After I read up and acquire the necessary background knowledge I often lose track of the original explanation. Most of your writings on this forum, some at such length, are scattered across "random" threads. Once again as several times before I urge you to put down a "Collected Works of Typo" somewhere as reference for all interested.
To other readers of this thread
Sorry about all this. But it is not really off topic!
This is what I have been going on about.
As David indicates in post #7, and I have been suggesting for some time, at night more magnification can be more useful than a larger exit pupil, also in accordance with the 'twilight factor'. However I point out as a modifying clause to that, and only as such, that for this the optical quality of the higher-x instrument has to be comparable to that of the lower-x.
FYI
The Eden XP 10x56, which is praised by David and others, and appears to be an excellent balance of price and performance as a low-light binocular, it seems is now not available.
Adhoc
Adhoc,
It seems there was a difference in optical quality in your comparison, but If those blue white street light were mercury vapour lamps, the offerings from Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski the detail and colours may well look very different too.
As for putting some of this info together? I have thought about it from time to time, but then I remember I'm rubbish at explaining stuff, as "so often much of your explanation, thorough and patient, is wasted on me" and "after I read up and acquire the necessary background knowledge I often lose track of the original explanation" rather illustrates. ;-)
David
It seems there was a difference in optical quality in your comparison, but If those blue white street light were mercury vapour lamps, the offerings from Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski the detail and colours may well look very different too.
As for putting some of this info together? I have thought about it from time to time, but then I remember I'm rubbish at explaining stuff, as "so often much of your explanation, thorough and patient, is wasted on me" and "after I read up and acquire the necessary background knowledge I often lose track of the original explanation" rather illustrates. ;-)
David
David,
That is harsh on yourself and not quite right!
The content of your responses has been
as far I can know always or nearly always correct and relevant,
and some of it probably not available from another source.
The problem is the omission of
the more basic and general knowledge which leads to that.
It sometimes seems that in these responses
you are "writing to yourself" or others with equal knowledge!
But if one asks you something basic then you answer that very well.
If all your posts on this forum so far are put together
and roughly organized and/or indexed
then a reader in a particular matter can look for a post/s
which give/s more background or else helps towards that.
Still better of course is a book like Holger Merlitz has put out!
You could start with the chapter (and post it somewhere for us)
'Performance of binoculars: daylight, twilight and night'
"copy-and-pasting" heavily from your lengthy BirdForum posts
and equally long explanations in private writings!
Adhoc.
That is harsh on yourself and not quite right!
The content of your responses has been
as far I can know always or nearly always correct and relevant,
and some of it probably not available from another source.
The problem is the omission of
the more basic and general knowledge which leads to that.
It sometimes seems that in these responses
you are "writing to yourself" or others with equal knowledge!
But if one asks you something basic then you answer that very well.
If all your posts on this forum so far are put together
and roughly organized and/or indexed
then a reader in a particular matter can look for a post/s
which give/s more background or else helps towards that.
Still better of course is a book like Holger Merlitz has put out!
You could start with the chapter (and post it somewhere for us)
'Performance of binoculars: daylight, twilight and night'
"copy-and-pasting" heavily from your lengthy BirdForum posts
and equally long explanations in private writings!
Adhoc.
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
Adhoc,
I suggest you jump straight to giant binoculars. 16-20 power and 70-120mm objectives. The tripod you'll need to support these will also dramatically aid your viewing acuity. It will also be much more comfortable.
You need some serious twilight factor, but even these won't produce light.
I suggest you jump straight to giant binoculars. 16-20 power and 70-120mm objectives. The tripod you'll need to support these will also dramatically aid your viewing acuity. It will also be much more comfortable.
You need some serious twilight factor, but even these won't produce light.
Last edited:
Kevin: "...but even these won't produce light..."
That was sharp, you have seen through to my real frustration!
I may be longing for my experience ages back with a Nikon 10x70 ("Astroluxe")
which seemed to do that--with a bit of help from external photons of course.
But also I like equipment to be small/est and light/est! That includes mounts.
Please see a bit of autobio. in these 2 posts in another thread: [Link]
The 15x50 has still not got to me! Complicated logistics.
If that is not adequate then I think it will be the Meopta 12x50.
Where I am I cannot try out different models (please see earlier in that thread).
That was sharp, you have seen through to my real frustration!
I may be longing for my experience ages back with a Nikon 10x70 ("Astroluxe")
which seemed to do that--with a bit of help from external photons of course.
But also I like equipment to be small/est and light/est! That includes mounts.
Please see a bit of autobio. in these 2 posts in another thread: [Link]
The 15x50 has still not got to me! Complicated logistics.
If that is not adequate then I think it will be the Meopta 12x50.
Where I am I cannot try out different models (please see earlier in that thread).
mfunnell
Registered Confuser
That kind of thing can be done. At least, I've been able to do it with camera gear. I'd have to think on it some to come up with a similar arrangement which might work for binoculars.
See the attachments for what I did with my camera. I used an Arca-Swiss compatible replacement lens foot, some clamps and an angle bracket to mount a bright LED torch (with standard 1/4" tripod mount) to shine the torch along the lens axis.
It works pretty well, with the obvious caveat that shining bright lights at nocturnal creatures can disturb them.
...Mike
Attachments
Mike, thanks, but I was not quite serious about more light!
Actually I would rather not add that.
Years back I was privileged to be in a team tracking and studying
a species of fauna quite new to science that is mostly nocturnal.
Apologies that my wish for anonymity makes this sound mysterious.
At night we would observe an individual/pair/family with
flashlights and other such more specialzed lights but
shine on the subject, especially the area of the eyes,
not the brighter inner beam but the
much dimmer outer circle of light, of this kind of source.
Since then to add light on fauna at night that is what I do.
Actually I would rather not add that.
Years back I was privileged to be in a team tracking and studying
a species of fauna quite new to science that is mostly nocturnal.
Apologies that my wish for anonymity makes this sound mysterious.
At night we would observe an individual/pair/family with
flashlights and other such more specialzed lights but
shine on the subject, especially the area of the eyes,
not the brighter inner beam but the
much dimmer outer circle of light, of this kind of source.
Since then to add light on fauna at night that is what I do.
mfunnell
Registered Confuser
Which is fine, because I wasn't quite serious about mounting a torch onto binoculars
(Photography is a different matter, since current technology still needs a fair bit more light for a decent photo than I do for a useful view.)I've sometimes used much the same technique, plus use a torch with stepped light levels from quite dim on up (and occasionally a torch which has an additional dim and diffuse red light as well). The bright stuff is only for when I need a photo.
...Mike
Similar threads
