• 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.

Which would YOU pick.... (1 Viewer)

chill6x6

chill6x6

Registered User
Supporter
It's a late winter day. The weather forecast calls for low, thick clouds and the sun will definitely not show it's face today. It IS an off day for you however and all you can think about is getting to get out and look at some birds. You have TWO binoculars at your disposal, a Zeiss FL 10X42 AND a SV 10X50. For arguments sake we are going to assume the FOV of both is the SAME. Which binocular do you pick?
 
Apart from the possibility that a 4.2mm EP could be limiting, I'd probably go with the Swaro anyway. I'm not keen on the colour balance of the Zeiss under those conditions, but I'm sure others will disagree. ;)
 
It would depend on how far I was going to hike. For a shorter hike or from a stand I would take the 10x50 SV because it will give a superior view but for a longer hike I wouldn't want to carry it and the Zeiss 10x42 FL would be good enough.
 
Chuck, I know you've got a whole binocular shop selection at your ready disposal so I'm probably going to grab the 8×32 SV :) ;)

If I have to choose out of the 10×, it's probably going to be the Swaro 10×50 SV - but I'd want to carry it on a chest harness or sling or something. The difference between 3/4, and a kilo, is not that great, and the 10×50 seems to have that immersive almost 3-D like Wow view. I'm figuring in terms of brightness it's going to be pretty close, so that's not really a factor.

I'm also figuring that the extra EP of the Swaro is going to make for easier eye placement and more comfortable viewing - especially if the going gets heavy and you are breathing pretty hard. That, and the sharper to the edge Fov is utimately what swings it the Swaro's way. :king: On a personal note, I love the hand filling ergonomics of the big open bridge Swaro - I can hold that one rock steady. I'm really not a fan of unibody type closed bridge ergos - not sure if that is a factor for you .... ?

In the event that you run into dangerous biteys or recalcitrants, then having a kilo of metal in your hand to wield could give you a fighting chance too ! :eek!:

Do you wear snow shoes /old tennis racquets to get around ? and how far is the hike likely to be ? Is the environment going to be wooded, or open ? Mostly flat ? Undulating ? Up hill down dale ? Or true mountain goat country ? Are there any expanses of water involved ? Are you carrying other things - food /water /clothing /camera, etc ? Are you packing a sidearm or something too ?

Chuck, I think contemplating such choices means that you've got the bug hard - and you may need to seek psychiatric treatment - like the rest of us ! :-O




Chosun :gh:
 
I agree with Dennis on this one. For a short hike or a vantage point watch I would go 10x50 but for a longer walk or scrambling over rocks at the coast, or similar, I would take the 42mm every time.

Lee
 
With all due respect to the respondents to this thread, most could not take advantage of a larger exit pupil.
Ref.
Factors Affecting Light-Adapted Pupil Size
in Normal Human Subjects
Barry Winn,* David Whitaker,-f David B. Elliott,% and Nicholas J. Phillip

There are a number of academic papers available on this subject.
 
Robert Wallace said:
With all due respect to the respondents to this thread, most could not take advantage of a larger exit pupil.
Ref.
Factors Affecting Light-Adapted Pupil Size
in Normal Human Subjects
Barry Winn,* David Whitaker,-f David B. Elliott,% and Nicholas J. Phillip

There are a number of academic papers available on this subject.
Click to expand...
A lot more people than is normally thought could take advantage of a 5mm exit pupil. Ed once posted a study (whose bookmark I have had wiped during an auto upgrade - grrr) showing that people well into their 50's and 60's and even some 70 year olds were capable of 5mm or more dilation.

The question is - would you want to ?

It's not like you're getting the eyes of a 20 year old across the full pupil. With that greater diameter for those older folks comes more aberrations.

I think in the case of a 10×50 SV versus a 10×42 FL, the reasons I mentioned - easier eye placement, more margin of error, the famous randpupille design, and more of the Fov sharply in focus, and for me (other folks can do as they please) - much better ergonomics and a steadier view makes the 10×50 SV an easy choice.

These parameters of performance /enjoyment far outweigh a bit of brightness here and there - in practice likely very hard to detect - or worth very few minutes at the end of the day (and would you even want to be out wherever it is Chuck has in mind to go, at that late hour anyway ?! :-O :)

At the end of the day, it's a wonderful bit of BF madness - either of those bins would do much better than the naked eye ! As Ronh says - there's something quite magical about the magnified view :)




Chosun :gh:
 
Robert,

I'm not sure how relevant that paper to this discussion due to the short adaption time and angular diameter of the target, but I think you will find that the 9cd/m2 fitted line shows the average pupil diameter for a 70 year old would be approximately 5mm (top plot figure 2). That would be a just a little better some other other studies I've seen. I'm in my sixties now, and last time I checked I could still get at least 5.5mm, which was the limit of my measurement method.

David
 
Last edited:
So....so far NO one has picked the 4-5%, maybe 6% brighter A-K prism 42mm FL(or HT if you will) over the larger exit pupil S-P prism 50mm SV. So was that mostly because exit pupil size trumps % brightness? Did I pick too good of a S-P 50mm binocular to start with? What If I picked a Meopta Meostar B.1 10X50 vs. the same FL/HT 10X42?

My question really is would you pick a 42mm AK prism binocular OR a 50mm SP prism binocular when low light/poor viewing conditions are a concern?

I agree I tend to prefer the more balanced light presentation of a nice SP prism. HOWEVER I do find I walk out the door more with the FL 10X42 in my hand vs. the 10x50 in such conditions. Mainly because of the walking vs. weight issue.
 
Chuck,

A 10x50 has a 42% larger exit pupil area than a 10x42, if you can use it, so it will take more than AK prisms to swing that difference. I don't like carrying more weight than necessary either. Just double check that it's necessary.

David
 
Last edited:
"My question really is would you pick a 42mm AK prism binocular OR a 50mm SP prism binocular when low light/poor viewing conditions are a concern? "

The bigger aperture 10x50 SV would perform better in low light than the 10x42 FL IMO even though the FL has the advantage of the AK prisms and a few % better light transmission. 50mm versus 42mm is a big aperture advantage. Either one I feel would be plenty bright though. The decision IMO would be based on how far you are hiking.
 
Last edited:
The Zeiss. If I'm out birding all day the 10x50 is just too heavy.

Birding is about fun, and carrying big 10x50s all day isn't my idea of fun.

Hermann
 
Chuck:

Take the FL, the 10x42 is much better to lug around. You will not miss much if anything.

You know you must rotate binoculars occasionally or one of them might feel slighted....:-O

Jerry
 
typo said:
Chuck,

A 10x50 has a 42% larger exit pupil area than a 10x42, if you can use it, so it will take more than AK prisms to swing that difference. I don't like carrying more weight than necessary either. Just double check that it's necessary.

David
Click to expand...

That's exactly where I was going David. I DO bump up the magnification to 10X from the 7/8X I normally use. That helps for sure. I can use the new model SLC 10X56....for sure there is a difference in low light performance between it and the FL 10X42. As much walking and lifting/looking as I do....the 10X50 and especially the 10X56 as Hermann said just isn't so much fun. But for sure once I start birding when it's low/no sun it seems I wish for all the binocular I can get.

Hermann said:
The Zeiss. If I'm out birding all day the 10x50 is just too heavy.

Birding is about fun, and carrying big 10x50s all day isn't my idea of fun.

Hermann
Click to expand...

Mine either..

NDhunter said:
Chuck:

Take the FL, the 10x42 is much better to lug around. You will not miss much if anything.

You know you must rotate binoculars occasionally or one of them might feel slighted....:-O

Jerry
Click to expand...

And that IS what I usually carry! Although once I start I almost always wish for more binocular. And you don't have to worry....I swap out pretty regularly and sometimes two at the time!B :)
 
Chuck. For a 10x I actually prefer my Swarovski SV 10x32 and my Swarovski Habicht 10x40 W. Both are under 23 oz. so they are way easier to carry than either a standard 10x42 or 10x50 roof. The Habicht's with 96% transmission are brighter than just about any 10x42 roof and the little SV 10x32 will be as good as any 10x42 roof 99% of the time and it is a whole lot easier to carry especially on rough terrain. I believe you have one but the Nikon Monarch MHG 10x42 is under 24 oz. also and ie is a very nice lightweight 10x42.
 
Last edited:
typo said:
Robert,

I'm not sure how relevant that paper to this discussion due to the short adaption time and angular diameter of the target, but I think you will find that the 9cd/m2 fitted line shows the average pupil diameter for a 70 year old would be approximately 5mm (top plot figure 2). That would be a just a little better some other other studies I've seen. I'm in my sixties now, and last time I checked I could still get at least 5.5mm, which was the limit of my measurement method.

David
Click to expand...
Not competent to discuss this in any detail but was trying to justify the perceived wisdom which is summarised in the conclusion of the paper.
Viz: The results of this study are consistent with previous
reports suggesting that pupil size becomes smaller in
an almost linear manner with increasing age.The present results extend this conclusion to
cover a large range of illumination.
I have become very cynical about some of the discussions regarding "best optical properties" of various binoculars. A suitable antidote is to correlate the contribution to our knowledge of birds of well known and respected ornithologists and the model of binocular used. I say this after reading "Behind the binoculars - interviews with acclaimed birdwatchers".
 
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.

Similar threads

J
Do you consider Resale Value/Opportunities due to Brand Recognition?
Replies
14
Views
694
Patudo
P
B
Which monocular as a substitute for binoculars...?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
wm.wragg
W
R
10x low light binoculars for around €1000 ?
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Gijs van Ginkel
G
G
Leica, Zeiss & Swarovski binoculars compared: A personal report
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Paultricounty
P
S
Hello from Singapore, Binocular help
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
Chris Pringle
C

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top