Choosing binoculars for low-light conditions, Trinovid 8x32 or 8x42? (1 Viewer)

etc · Jan 28, 2007

I narrowed down my choices to

Leica Trinovid 8x42, 8x32
Swarovski SLC 8x30, 8.5x42

Basically I understand that the smaller 8x32 is lighter and more practical but the bigger 42mm objective gathers more light. How big a difference is there between the two, in terms of twilight usage?

Also low light conditions are not really the primary usage, but nice to have that option.

How does Leica Trinovid 8x42 compare to Swarovski 8.5x42 EL?

ceasar · Jan 28, 2007

You will notice a difference among them only during the last 45 minutes before and after twilight. (AM and PM) If you aren't going to be doing major birding during these time periods then don't lose any sleep over the extra 10mm in objective diameter helping you achieve something other than a sore neck if you intend to wear the binoculars all day. If it's really a Major Concern, then get a 7 x 42 instead.

What's the MAJOR difference between the Trinovid 8 x 42 and the EL 8.5 x 42?

In purely practical terms, there probably isn't a dimes worth of difference between them. In actual cash, there is hundreds of bucks involved. Leica Trinovids are being discontinued and they inevitably will cost less than they do now down the road. Leica's Ultravids will continue to cost about as much as the Swaro EL's do now.

This is something to keep in mind before you apply for a 2nd mortgage to buy one or the other.

Bob
BTW, Welcome to Bird Forum! :hi:

etc · Jan 28, 2007

I will remove Swarovski 8.5x42 and 8x30 from my list, and really at this point I am trying to decide between two Leicas, 8x32 and 8x42. I hear they are built better.

Hm, 7x42 sounds like an interesting proposition.

solentbirder · Jan 28, 2007

If you live in the northern latitudes the half-light of dawn and dusk can last for many hours in the summer. As you go towards the equator the angle of the sun to the horizon gets steeper and twilight is shorter. If you're often going to be observing in twlight I'd definitely get a 42mm model. The choice of 7x or 8x is really personal preference. Hope that helps.

Pinewood · Jan 28, 2007

Bob writes from about 40º North, about the same latitude as Naples, Italy. The contiguous 48 states do not experience the long twilights of most of the UK. However, the 8x32 mm Trinovid will provide a wider FOV than the the 8x42.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

Tvc15_2000 · Jan 28, 2007

It might be helpful to understand your needs.
How you are planning to use the low light ability of the binoculars, and how often?

Waiting for ducks at twilight to land on a pond? Looking for owls after dark?
Birding by moonlight?

I am using the Ultravid 10 power series. I find for 95% of my birding I prefer the 32. Its small light, a pleasure to use and about a good as anything else I have looked at. I love the compact form. I would take the 32 for general birding. I prefer the 32 to the 42 in very bright conditions.

I use the 25 for backpacking, bicycling, and for walks at work during lunch. Its tiny provides a great view but its limited to good lighting.

There are times like yesterday when it is very overcast and I expect to be out late into the evening when I take the 42. It provides extra viewing time in the evening. My girlfriend was using a Pentax 10x28 and could no longer see birds in the available light as the sun set, while I was doing fine. Other than light gathering ability I do not see much advantage using the larger heavier 42 in good light (in my opinion).

FrankD · Jan 28, 2007

I tend to prefer larger exit pupils, not necessarily because of their potential to increase low light visibility but rather for comfort. Any time I pick up an 8x42 or 7x42 I feel a level of comfort that I just do not get from any 8x32 that I have tried. In which case, I would suggest either the 8x42 or 7x42 Trinovid for that reason.

John Finnan · Jan 28, 2007

etc said:
I will remove Swarovski 8.5x42 and 8x30 from my list, and really at this point I am trying to decide between two Leicas, 8x32 and 8x42. I hear they are built better.

Hm, 7x42 sounds like an interesting proposition.

I tried a pair of 7x42 Ultravids in a store yesterday and was very impressed with them. They're not much larger (physically) than many 8x32s and they're lighter than most 42mm binoculars. The focuser on the pair I tried wasn't bad and they were a delight to hold in your hands and observe with. I tried a pair of the even smaller and lighter Leica 8x32 Ultravids before but I want not pleased with them because they were so small that I could not hold them comfortably in my hands. The 7x42s had a "just right" feel to them. The 7x42 BN version is also an excellent binocular but it is larger in size and heavier. A big disadvantage of the 7x42 Ultravids is their high price. However, if you can afford the 8.5x42 ELs then you can afford them.

bodromarsh · Jan 30, 2007

I have used in the field, or looked at in the stores any bino you care to name. I will take a Leica Trinovid 8x42 anyday. Right now Cabelas has the Trinovid 8x42 for $1099.00 with free shipping.

The Trinovid is the binocular that other binoculars dream about when they sleep. It is incredible.

steve johnson · Jan 30, 2007

I have a very hard time telling the dim light difference between an 8 x 32 and an 8 x 42. Sure, with something like 10 x 28 where there is less than a 3mm exit pupil you will see a difference, but between 4mm vs. 5mm I am not so sure. Now if you are around 7 years old you may see a difference, but if you are an older adult I doubt it. However, there is a good test you can try. Find a variable power rifle scope with an adjustment range such that you can look through the instrument with exit pupils of around 3mm to 11mm. Start with the scope on low power (large exit pupil) and crank up the power until the image dims. If it is brighter for you at 5mm that it is at 4mm than an 8 x 42 may help. If it does not dim until after 4mm than you are unlikely to see much effect.

Swissboy · Jan 30, 2007

John Finnan said:
.. I tried a pair of the even smaller and lighter Leica 8x32 Ultravids before but I want not pleased with them because they were so small that I could not hold them comfortably in my hands. The 7x42s had a "just right" feel to them. ..

I discovered that the reason the x32 Ultravid models do not feel comfortable is that the strap lugs are not positioned optimally. They get in one's way when trying to hold the bins. The longer larger models are fine in that respect. Seems like styling collided with handling.

eetundra · Jan 30, 2007

Since low light is not your primary usage I'd recommend the 32mm. Sure it is nice to have 42mm, but by the same logic it would be nice to have 50mm (which beats 42mm for low light) but since it is only a sometimes thing you could easily save a few ounces and get just as good a look at birds with the 32mm.

Most of the feedback I've recieved around here is that is becomes a comfort issue and not a low-light seeing issue.

Swissboy · Feb 2, 2007

eetundra said:
Since low light is not your primary usage I'd recommend the 32mm. ....
Most of the feedback I've recieved around here is that it becomes a comfort issue and not a low-light seeing issue.

Overall you are right; but I specifically got myself a x42 FL after having experienced many frustrations in rainforest understorey. I should add, however, that the most recent models (Ultravid, FL) are brighter than my x32 Trinovid.

Choosing binoculars for low-light conditions, Trinovid 8x32 or 8x42? (1 Viewer)

More options

etc

Well-known member

ceasar

Well-known member

etc

Well-known member

solentbirder

Well-known member

Pinewood

New York correspondent

Tvc15_2000

Well-known member

FrankD

Well-known member

John Finnan

Active member

bodromarsh

Active member

steve johnson

Active member

Swissboy

Sempach, Switzerland

eetundra

Well-known member

Swissboy

Sempach, Switzerland

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread