32mm VS 42mm-Venturer (1 Viewer)

iambirding said:

i am tempted to splurge and get the new lighter nikon hgl 8 x 42. they are very expensive. the new HGL are 19 % lighter

Click to expand...

I and others commented on this in the thread I started re: comparison of Ultravid and FL 7x42. At the time I compared them I also handled the new "light" 8x42 LX. The difference between it and the original LX is huge. The new version is great, though it does suffer from more chromatic abberation than its competitors--EL, Ultravid, and FL.

I would be interested to read more 10x32 views as this is what this thread started out as,please,most (all) comments so far are a little off the mark . Can,t wait for mine to arrive though.

Henry B said:

I would be interested to read more 10x32 views as this is what this thread started out as,please,most (all) comments so far are a little off the mark . Can,t wait for mine to arrive though.

Click to expand...

As I said above, I am very pleased with my 10x32's, but I can see some features which are quite critical with these bins and which can easily put some people off. As richt told in his excellent post "Sharpest or most pleasing view whats the story?" the view through the Nikon SE (and in my experience also the HGs) is razor sharp and natural but it requires very careful viewing to feel comfortable. I have said it earlier and I still repeat that the feeling with the Nikons is that you have to keep the eyes almost stuck forward - although the field of view is relatively wide. I have a cheap old pair of Russian 8x30's (a Zeiss plagiate), which allow much more eye movement. The (in)famous chromatic aberration of the HGs can also be significantly reduced by not moving the eyes.

In addition to the (overly) fast focus the field flattening eyepiece utilized by the HGs may increase the impression of a small DOF. Usually the field curvature (curvature of sharpness) means that the sharpness "comes closer" at the periphery of the field. When you are viewing in an open area the lowest part of the field is usually the closest, which may better match with curved sharpness (like the Swarovski ELs). I think the HGs have as good "real" DOF as the ELs.

I hope you are pleased with your Nikon HGs - they are great but do require some adaptation for some of us. In this respect the Swarovskis may have a (small) edge.

Ilkka

Henry B said:

I would be interested to read more 10x32 views as this is what this thread started out as,please,most (all) comments so far are a little off the mark . Can,t wait for mine to arrive though.

Click to expand...

I purchased a pair of Nikon 10x32 HGs a couple of weeks ago and have been well impressed.

I used Zeiss 10x42 for about 15 years and was very satisfied with them. I eventually replaced them with Leica 8x32BAs which were decidedly better - sharper, brighter, closer focus and better handling. After 10 years of almost daily use plus many foreign trips including several to south east Asian rain forests (now that is a severe test for bins) they have never let me down. My new Nikon HGs are a distinct step up from the Leicas - sharper, brighter, better close focus. My main concern in buying 10x32s was a possible lack of brightness in low light. This is not a problem and they match my Leicas for light gathering at dusk.

Regards

Ian

Got em to-day, did some back garden birding ,first impressions very favourable. Will give them a longer try-out to-morrow and let you know how I got on.

Jonathan B. said:

Yes, Ilkka, I foresee someone steering this in the direction of the Astromart forum, "Birding Optics, No Birding."

As for the HG 8x32, I tried a pair early this year for the first time. I liked them optically and ergonomically, but I found the focus mechanism to be a bit too fast--the opposite of the Swaro EL. It seemed to me that in some instances, especially viewing objects from about twenty feet and beyond, I found it slightly (and I mean slightly) difficult to focus them precisely. I have not sensed that with my SE 8x32 or with HG 8x42. Has anybody else had this impression?

Click to expand...

i am also having trouble focusing at 20 or so feet what does this mean how can 2 people have the same problem and no one else notice this? do you think there is something wrong with the bins?

Four days on and I am chuffed to bits with them,they do everything it says on the label. F.O.V ,brightness, sharpness etc, these will do me a very long time. sorry if this very brief but i,m not into all the techy stuff.. ps LX ,venturer are nicknames says so on label aswell..

Henry B said:

Four days on and I am chuffed to bits with them,they do everything it says on the label. F.O.V ,brightness, sharpness etc, these will do me a very long time. sorry if this very brief but i,m not into all the techy stuff.. ps LX ,venturer are nicknames says so on label aswell..

Click to expand...

i didnt really understand what you said i assume you like yours. which model do you have 32 or 42? it must something in my translation. thinking of ordering another pair not sure? hows the focus any trouble? what other bins have you used before?

10x32hgs

iambirding said:

i didnt really understand what you said i assume you like yours. which model do you have 32 or 42? it must something in my translation. thinking of ordering another pair not sure? hows the focus any trouble? what other bins have you used before?

Click to expand...

Sorry you did not understnd my post,I thought it was quite clear.F.O.V,D.O.F, brightness,weight,and everything else about these binoculars are superb,imho..I also own 8x36 sporters and 10x40 optolyth classics .choice was mmade on all of these through other posts and reviews. Hope this helps on your outlay for your new binoculars.regards ..

DHB said:

Does anyone have further experience or comments regarding the 10x32 vs 10x42 comparison?? I really like the smaller size and but I don't want to shoot myself in the foot just because of a size issue.
Thanks in advance
Dave

Click to expand...

I'll throw in my two cents worth as I've had many of the above bins. The Venturer 42s were too heavy around my neck, and I'm now using 10x42 se (quite a bit lighter) when I need the absolute best view on a dry day/evening. But my day to day bins are my 10x32 Venturers. They are rugged, fit my hands well, and provide a very nice view. I also find the focus speed great, especially when viewing moving objects. I find it a bit hard to keep up with Warblers with the SEs (I have both the 8x32 and 10x42). And resolution (all other things being equal) is directly proportional to objective size (ask the astronomers). However, when I did have the 8x42 Venturers, I also had 8x32 Venturers (both sold), and never saw an advantage in the larger glasses.

Art Thorn said:

...my day to day bins are my 10x32 Venturers. They are rugged, fit my hands well, and provide a very nice view. I also find the focus speed great, especially when viewing moving objects.

Click to expand...

Art-have you tried the Leica Ultravid 10x32s? I also have the Venturer 10x32s. The Leicas, which I tried briefly in a shop last weekend, seemed to have equivalent sharpness/clarity as well as brightness, and were quite a bit smaller and lighter and have a 20ft wider FOV. Plus they felt good (at least to me). Haven't done any extensive looking through them, and was hoping someone had used both bins and could offer some insights. A lot more $$ for the Leicas, that's for sure...Rod

Art Thorn said:

[SNIP] And resolution (all other things being equal) is directly proportional to objective size (ask the astronomers). [SNIP]

Click to expand...

Art,

Visit
http://www.leica-camera.com/sportoptik/information/abc/index_e.html
and
http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/glossary.php
on the second, click on "O" and the "objective diameter."

Note that both Leica and Nikon only talk about light grasp when they discuss objective diameter.

The theoretical resolution of any optical system is determined by the diameter of the main light collecting lens or mirror. However, you need to use an appropriate magnification to allow your eye to see all the detail the system is capable of showing, and binoculars simply do not use enough power to utilize the theoretical resolution of the objective. A person with excellent vision might see all the detail a 42mm objective provides at 21x, but 42x is likely more reasonable for most folks.

There are sites that mention resolution when talking about objective diameter and, oddly enough, many of these folks also sell telescopes. They should know better.

Clear skies, Alan (astronomer and birder)

AlanFrench said:

Art,

Visit
http://www.leica-camera.com/sportoptik/information/abc/index_e.html
and
http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/glossary.php
on the second, click on "O" and the "objective diameter."

Note that both Leica and Nikon only talk about light grasp when they discuss objective diameter.

The theoretical resolution of any optical system is determined by the diameter of the main light collecting lens or mirror. However, you need to use an appropriate magnification to allow your eye to see all the detail the system is capable of showing, and binoculars simply do not use enough power to utilize the theoretical resolution of the objective. A person with excellent vision might see all the detail a 42mm objective provides at 21x, but 42x is likely more reasonable for most folks.

There are sites that mention resolution when talking about objective diameter and, oddly enough, many of these folks also sell telescopes. They should know better.

Clear skies, Alan (astronomer and birder)

Click to expand...

Surely what matters is the actual resolution rather than the theoretical one. As far as I know the main limitation in binoculars is the optical quality. Alula quotes measured values for some samples of top end bins (one sample of each I think) and there is quite a bit of variation between different products even with the same objective diameter. Manufacturers could give us lots more information about their binoculars including resolution, light transmission and so on. But for some reason they don't. (One or two including Zeiss mention light transmission.)

RCMann said:

Art-have you tried the Leica Ultravid 10x32s? I also have the Venturer 10x32s. The Leicas, which I tried briefly in a shop last weekend, seemed to have equivalent sharpness/clarity as well as brightness, and were quite a bit smaller and lighter and have a 20ft wider FOV. Plus they felt good (at least to me). Haven't done any extensive looking through them, and was hoping someone had used both bins and could offer some insights. A lot more $$ for the Leicas, that's for sure...Rod

Click to expand...

Hello Rod.
No, I have not tried the Leicas (well, maybe, for a minute when someone has handed me their glasses in a situation when I didn't have mine). For the money, I've got two (maybe all three) pairs of Nikons which I use under different circumstances, and which my wife uses and my friends use when they come to visit.

AlanFrench said:

Art,

Visit
http://www.leica-camera.com/sportoptik/information/abc/index_e.html
and
http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/glossary.php
on the second, click on "O" and the "objective diameter."

Note that both Leica and Nikon only talk about light grasp when they discuss objective diameter.

The theoretical resolution of any optical system is determined by the diameter of the main light collecting lens or mirror. However, you need to use an appropriate magnification to allow your eye to see all the detail the system is capable of showing, and binoculars simply do not use enough power to utilize the theoretical resolution of the objective. A person with excellent vision might see all the detail a 42mm objective provides at 21x, but 42x is likely more reasonable for most folks.

There are sites that mention resolution when talking about objective diameter and, oddly enough, many of these folks also sell telescopes. They should know better.

Clear skies, Alan (astronomer and birder)

Click to expand...

Hi Alan,

I agree with you, about magnification, and I do prefer the 10 power glasses because I see the most detail that way (but am still not concerned about the Dawes limit ;-)). With scopes I've settled on a Televue 85, but had a Swaro and a Celestron C5. Unquestionalbly, the biggest difference I ever saw was in brightness, with the C5 by far the most impressive (and awkward). But the question was asked about resolution so... And you will remember that I said that I never did notice a difference between the 32 and 42 Venturers.

Having an opportunity to snag a pair of 8x32 HGs off Ebay for $450, I just couldn't resist. I really haven't had a chance to use them birding much yet, but won't be surprised if they end up being my regular bin. Can't believe I'm gonna relegate my new Zeiss 8x42 FLS to backup status.

Probably the biggest reason they rate so high for me is the position and the movement of the focus wheel. My 2nd and 3rd fingers fall right on it and can easily make the minute adjustments that the fast focus requires. The focus seems a little stiff at first, but I believe this is for the best. The Nikon HG focus movement is also the smoothest I have found. Much better than Leica’s. This has become something I highly desire.

Optically, the HGs do not have the center resolution of the FLs, but they still are very sharp. They appear to be as sharp as my 8x32 Leica BAs, which in my experience have only been beat out by the FLs and the Nikon 8x32 SE. CA is supposed to be one of the negatives of this bin, luckily CA has never been an issue for me. Of course the HGs have very good FOV and close focus as do most high end 32s.

I think the HGs are well suited for an eyeglass wearer such as myself. The ER of the Leica 32s was sufficient for me, but the greater ER of the HGs does make viewing a somewhat more enjoyable. I might feel a little differently if I didn’t use glasses, the eyecups do seem a little flimsy when extended. When collapsed, they extend a couple mm out from the eyepiece glass which provides a degree of protection I prefer. The eyecups themselves are of a soft rubber which should not harm plastic eyeglass lenses.

The 32s have the same contours as the 42s. I think this is a mistake. The concave shape is great for the bigger 42s, but I think the smaller 32s would be better straight or even a little convex. Even so, handling does not seem to be an issue as whenever I grab the HG my fingers land right on the focus wheel.

Yeah, at just over 25 oz could be a little lighter, and I had to buy a case, rainguard and neck strap, but for $450 the Nikon 8x32 HGs are a delight.

Hmmm...wonder if the 10x32 HGs might be the first 10x I would enjoy using?