Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Leica 10x50 BA vs new models

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Friday 5th July 2019, 23:25   #26
tenex
Registered User
 
tenex's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinewood View Post
I would guess that the colour rendition and contrast would be noticeably different between the BA and current models.
There's a family resemblance in overall color, and I find the difference rather subtle in most situations. We were just out today with a 10x32 BN and UVHD+. The UV seems a tad brighter and more saturated or contrasty when compared directly, but I could use the BN all day (and have) without finding fault. The difference seems most apparent when viewing a low-contrast subject, where the UV shows detail more easily.
tenex is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th July 2019, 14:20   #27
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenex View Post
There's a family resemblance in overall color, and I find the difference rather subtle in most situations. We were just out today with a 10x32 BN and UVHD+. The UV seems a tad brighter and more saturated or contrasty when compared directly, but I could use the BN all day (and have) without finding fault. The difference seems most apparent when viewing a low-contrast subject, where the UV shows detail more easily.
I find very little difference in overall color or brightness between the Leica models. According to Allbino's the transmission is about the same also. In fact the older BR has 89% transmission and the UVHD+ has 87%.

https://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ra...ing-10x42.html

Last edited by [email protected] : Saturday 6th July 2019 at 14:23.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th July 2019, 22:59   #28
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
The Swarovski SLC 10x56 would be better in low light than the SLC 8x56 regardless of how much your pupils dilate.
Hello,

I do not know why they keep sticking to this nonsense, this gentleman has exhaustively tested all three SLCs (8x56, 10x56 and 15x56) and can not confirm their claim .
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/4...der-the-stars/
"Of the 3 SLC's, the 8x56 are the brightest.
The new SLC 10x56
These are great allround binoculars for both night- and daytime observing. Brightness is a notch below the SLC 8X56's."

Andreas

Last edited by Conndomat : Saturday 6th July 2019 at 23:11.
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 7th July 2019, 03:37   #29
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conndomat View Post
Hello,

I do not know why they keep sticking to this nonsense, this gentleman has exhaustively tested all three SLCs (8x56, 10x56 and 15x56) and can not confirm their claim .
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/4...der-the-stars/
"Of the 3 SLC's, the 8x56 are the brightest.
The new SLC 10x56
These are great allround binoculars for both night- and daytime observing. Brightness is a notch below the SLC 8X56's."

Andreas
The SLC 10x56 will show more detail in low light than the SLC 8x56 because the higher magnification gives it a higher "Twilight Factor". The SLC 8x56 will be brighter because it will have more "Relative Brightness" than the SLC 10x56 if your pupils can dilate big enough to take advantage of the bigger exit pupil. Here is an explanation of the two terms.

"Relative Brightness and Twilight Factors for Binoculars & Scopes
If you have been looking for a new pair of binoculars or spotting scope, you have probably seen brightness and/or twilight factors reported with the various specifications and in reviews.

Both values are useful if you understand what the numbers mean and under what situations they can be used.

Relative Brightness
Relative brightness is a theoretical estimation of how bright the image should be when viewed through binoculars or spotting scopes. It is calculated by simply squaring the exit pupil value. The exit pupil is the size of the beam of light that comes out into your eye. Sometimes, this value is also reported with the binocular or spotting scope specifications, but it is also easily calculated by dividing the size of the objective lens by the magnification.

For example (see Table 1), an 8 x 50 (8 power magnification and 50 mm objective lens) binocular has an exit pupil value of 6.25 (50/8). Compare that to 10 X 50 pair of binoculars, where 50/10= 5.0 exit pupil. Then square each exit pupil value to get relative brightness values of 37.5 for the 8 X 50 and 25.0 for the 10 X 50 binoculars. The 10 X 50s have only 67% of the relative brightness of the 8 X 50 binoculars.

Table 1. Exit Pupil and Relative Brightness Calculations for Common Binocular Sizes
Mag. & Objective Equation 1 Exit Pupil Equation 2 Rel. Brightness Rel. to 850
8 x 50 50/8 = 6.25 6.25 x 6.25 = 39.1 1.00
10 x 50 50/10 = 5.0 5.0 x 5.0 = 25.0 0.67
12 x 50 50/12 = 4.17 4.17 x 4.17 = 17.4 0.46
8 x 42 42/8 = 5.25 5.25 x 5.25 = 27.6 0.74
10 x 42 42/10 = 4.2 4.2 x 4.2 = 17.6 0.47
8 x 32 32/8 = 4.0 4.0 x 4.0 = 16.0 0.43
10 x 32 32/10 = 3.2 3.2 x 3.2 = 10.2 0.27
In table 1, you can see relative brightness values for several sizes of binoculars. I also included the ratio of each value to the 8 x 50 binoculars for comparison.

You will notice that as magnification increases and/or as objective lens size becomes smaller, the relative brightness values decrease as light is lost. In the table, the 8 x 50 binoculars will have the brightest image and the 10 x 32s will have the darkest image.

Twilight Factor
Twilight factor is a theoretical estimation of how much detail can be seen in low light and is estimated by first multiplying the magnification by the objective lens size, and then taking the square root of that product. So twilight factor can increase with an increase of either magnification and objective lens size or both. The twilight factor can also remain the same if the magnification is doubled but the objective size is cut in half (and vice versa).

For example, the 8 X 50 binoculars would be 8 times 50 =400, then the square root of 500 = 20.0 value for twilight factor. The twilight factor for the 10 X 50 is simply 10 times 50 = 500 and the the square root of 500 = 22.4, so the 10 X 50s have a 12% detail advantage over the 8 X 50s in low light.

Table 2. Twilight Factor Calculations for Common Binocular Sizes
Mag. & Objective Equation Twilight Factor Rel. to 1250
8 x 50 sq. root (8 x 50) = 20.0 0.82
10 x 50 sq. root (10 x 50) = 22.4 0.91
12 x 50 sq. root (12 x 50) = 24.5 1.00
8 x 42 sq. root (8 x 42) = 18.3 0.75
10 x 42 sq. root (10 x 42) = 20.5 0.84
8 x 32 sq. root (8 x 32) = 16.0 0.65
10 x 32 sq. root (10 x 42) = 17.9 0.73
In table 2, the twilight factor has bee calculated for several sizes of binoculars. I also included the ratio of each value to the 12 x 50 binoculars for comparison. You will notice that as magnification decreases and as the objective lens becomes smaller, the twilight factor decrease as detail is lost. In the table, the 12 x 50s will show the most detail in low light and the 8 x 32s will have the least detail.

How to Use Relative Brightness and Twilight factors
Remember that both the relative brightness and twilight factors are theoretical, so we have to be careful about using these values to make comparisons between different brands and styles of binoculars or spotting scopes. If we want to compare optics of similar quality and style, then theory and reality can be nearly equal and we can get a good idea of which models should have better light gathering ability or ability to see detail in low light conditions. So both of these values are very useful for comparing different magnifications and objective lenses of the same brand and model.

But if you try comparing cheap optics with good quality optics, then theory and reality part company. If you test this in the field, you will see that high quality binoculars gather more light than cheaper binoculars even when the brightness numbers tell you they should be about the same. You will also see more detail in low light with quality binoculars than less expensively built binoculars."

Last edited by [email protected] : Sunday 7th July 2019 at 05:17.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 7th July 2019, 10:15   #30
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 123
Criticism of the twilight number: Two binoculars, 8 56 and 56 8 (such a model does not exist, but would be theoretically feasible) have the same twilight of 21, 2! While a 8x56 is perfect for twilight, a 56x8 is completely useless even during the day. ALWAYS a major exit pupil (AP) is crucial and important for use at dusk. Ideally, at least as large as the pupil of the user. Anything with an AP of less than 4 mm is therefore unsuitable for reducing the light - even if the DZ is still so high.
https://www.zeiss.de/content/dam/Spo...ch-2017-de.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected]omcast.n View Post
The SLC 10x56 will show more detail in low light than the SLC 8x56 because the higher magnification gives it a higher "Twilight Factor".
The greater detail recognition helps little if an object is no longer visible due to lack of brightness!

Andreas
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 7th July 2019, 11:13   #31
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conndomat View Post

The greater detail recognition helps little if an object is no longer visible due to lack of brightness!
You don’t help your argument with examples like this. When or how could that ever actually be the case? Perhaps you’re just exaggerating to make a point? Whether you are serious or not is a bit irrelevant - twilight factor and relative brightness are not particularly contentious issues.

Last edited by Mike F : Sunday 7th July 2019 at 20:33.
Mike F is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 7th July 2019, 11:23   #32
chill6x6
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,472
If you want to know which format works for you in low light nothing beats hands on experience.

The difference in a 8X56 and 10X56 is....not much. Most of the comparisons I've done have been at dusk and not true darkness. I would prefer a 10X56 every time.

Twilight factor- for this to work the exit pupil needs to be close to ones dilated pupil size I would think.
__________________
Chuck

Last edited by chill6x6 : Sunday 7th July 2019 at 12:14. Reason: Twilight factor..
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 7th July 2019, 13:16   #33
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by chill6x6 View Post
If you want to know which format works for you in low light nothing beats hands on experience.

The difference in a 8X56 and 10X56 is....not much. Most of the comparisons I've done have been at dusk and not true darkness. I would prefer a 10X56 every time.

Twilight factor- for this to work the exit pupil needs to be close to ones dilated pupil size I would think.
Chuck. Why would you prefer the 10x56 over the 8x56 at dusk?
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 7th July 2019, 13:26   #34
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conndomat View Post
Criticism of the twilight number: Two binoculars, 8 56 and 56 8 (such a model does not exist, but would be theoretically feasible) have the same twilight of 21, 2! While a 8x56 is perfect for twilight, a 56x8 is completely useless even during the day. ALWAYS a major exit pupil (AP) is crucial and important for use at dusk. Ideally, at least as large as the pupil of the user. Anything with an AP of less than 4 mm is therefore unsuitable for reducing the light - even if the DZ is still so high.
https://www.zeiss.de/content/dam/Spo...ch-2017-de.pdf



The greater detail recognition helps little if an object is no longer visible due to lack of brightness!

Andreas
You can say "Twilight Factor" doesn't work by using weird formats of binoculars and true it is not perfect but it a pretty good way of comparing the low light performance of different binoculars. Both "Relative Brightness" and "Twilight Factor" are important in judging the low light performance of a binocular. But in comparing an 8x56 and a 10x56 most people will see more detail at dusk with the 10x56 assuming there is enough light to see although if your pupils can open to 7mm the 8x56 will appear brighter. For a lot of people especially those that are older the 8x56 will not even appear brighter because their pupils don't open wide enough to take advantage of the bigger exit pupil. Try reading a license plate at dusk with a 10x56 and a 8x56 of equivalent optical quality at dusk and you will see it is easier with the 10x56. If the object isn't visible it is time to get out the Night Vision Binoculars preferably Generation III.

Last edited by [email protected] : Sunday 7th July 2019 at 15:04.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 7th July 2019, 14:07   #35
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
You dont help your argument with examples like this. When or how could that ever actually be the case? Perhaps youre just exaggerating to make a point? Whether you are serious or not is a bit irrelevant - twilight factor and relative brightness are not particularly contentious issues.
Well, then they seem to be smarter than the optical developers of Zeiss and Swarovski!
"The statement "the greater the twilight, the better
the suitability in the dusk "applies only if the
Exit pupil larger or at least the same size as the
Eye pupil is. If the exit pupil is smaller, then only one
Part of the eye pupil illuminated. The eye gets too little
Light and the picture appears dark.
More important is the greatest possible value
the exit pupil."
http://www.optik-foto-mueller.com/sw...ch%C3%BCre.pdf
Of course, it is crucial that the binoculars user the 7mm. AP. can also use, opens the eye "only" to 5.6mm. would be preferable here 10x56.
My AP. opens up to 6.8 mm. (Measured by the ophthalmologist) and I see a noticeable difference between a 8x56 and 10x56, so AP .. measure.

Andreas
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 7th July 2019, 16:38   #36
chill6x6
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Chuck. Why would you prefer the 10x56 over the 8x56 at dusk?
As you say....go out and read a license plate or sign at dusk and I bet most would pick the 10X56 vs. the 8X56. There's not going to be a WHOLE lot of difference though. There's not even a lot of difference between a 8X32 and a 8X42.

Several years ago I used to use riflescopes a lot and at dusk too. Most of the ones I used were Schmidt and Bender and Swarovski with 56mm objective. When it would get to sunset I would pre-adjust the riflescope to 8X due to numerous publications telling me all about exit pupil and pupil dilation to 7mm in darkness. HOWEVER, without exception the most detail could be seen at 10X. Not a lot of difference but I sure didn't feel handicapped at 10X vs 7 or 8X. So at least for me, there is a tradeoff somewhere along the way of pupil dilation/exit pupil vs magnification. There does of course get to a point close to darkness where you just can't see the object regardless of anything!
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 7th July 2019, 18:31   #37
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,139
"HOWEVER, without exception the most detail could be seen at 10X."

Yup.

"There does of course get to a point close to darkness where you just can't see the object regardless of anything!"

Generation III Night Vision. I have one of those too.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 7th July 2019, 20:19   #38
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,679
How does the Gen III night vision perform looking up a steep slope at mountain goats or bighorn at night with the moon cascading over the peak, is there any glare/ghosting.
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.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 7th July 2019, 20:39   #39
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by chill6x6 View Post
As you say....go out and read a license plate or sign at dusk and I bet most would pick the 10X56 vs. the 8X56. There's not going to be a WHOLE lot of difference though. There's not even a lot of difference between a 8X32 and a 8X42.
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!
Mike F is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 7th July 2019, 21:05   #40
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,139
"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!
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 7th July 2019, 21:08   #41
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,139
"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 by [email protected] : Sunday 7th July 2019 at 23:15.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 7th July 2019, 23:28   #42
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
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/nik...6x32-vr/p,5569 also has a higher twilight factor than the 10x42 Noctivid!

Andreas

Last edited by Conndomat : Sunday 7th July 2019 at 23:43.
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 8th July 2019, 00:01   #43
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,139
"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 by [email protected] : Monday 8th July 2019 at 00:03.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 8th July 2019, 00:32   #44
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
"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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
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 by Conndomat : Monday 8th July 2019 at 00:38.
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 8th July 2019, 02:28   #45
marcsantacurz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
"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
__________________
https://tear.com
marcsantacurz is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 8th July 2019, 03:01   #46
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,139
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 by [email protected] : Monday 8th July 2019 at 03:20.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 8th July 2019, 07:49   #47
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
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.
Nothing else I try to say all the time, here we are absolutely united!

Andreas
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 9th July 2019, 23:47   #48
tenex
Registered User
 
tenex's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcsantacurz View Post
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).
tenex is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 19th July 2019, 01:08   #49
Bhauer
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Piedmont SD
Posts: 18
Has anyone ever compared the SLC 8x56 to the Noctivid 8x42 as far as brightness in low light? Is there a substantial difference?
Bhauer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 19th July 2019, 17:03   #50
forent
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcsantacurz View Post
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 by forent : Friday 19th July 2019 at 17:12.
forent is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
leica 10x50 HD Plus vs Swarovision 10x50 Hati Binoculars 20 Friday 1st September 2017 20:25
Swarovski SV 10x50 vs Leica ultravid HD PLUS 10x50 bockos Leica 22 Monday 14th December 2015 14:47
Leica BA vs BN models Omid Leica 3 Tuesday 25th November 2008 00:11
Swarovski SLC 10x50 VS Leica Ultravid 10x50 szybszy Swarovski 19 Sunday 6th July 2008 09:46
New Leica Ultravid Models tlb Leica 10 Friday 3rd September 2004 15:47

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.18141508 seconds with 37 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:33.