Low light Bins? (1 Viewer)

Hi,

first of all, for getting optimal performance with a pair of bins in a dark environment you might want to get the diameter of your dark adapted pupils measured. Your eye doctor can do this - although they tend to often get results for the not fully dark adapted eye as that is not trivial to measure and takes time between tries. In your case it probably won't hurt as you are looking for birds and not stars and thus your eyes are probably not going to be fully dark adapted anyways most of the time.
Also people have been successful standing in front of a mirror with a ruler in front of their eyes and a camera with flash...

After you have got your dark adapted pupil size, you know what exit pupil to aim for - if you are not that young any more, 4 or 5mm might be all you need.

When comparing current bins with the same exit pupil and different magnifications in low light, higher magnification helps, provided you can still hold it steady ok. That is why the twilight factor contains magnification too. So if you are used to 10x and can hold those well, by all means stick to that magnification.

As for coatings, you of course want good ones with high transmission in general - since you are aiming for conditions which will use a lot of scotopic vision and rods are most sensitive at around 500nm in the green/blue region, getting a pair with its transmission peak in the vicinity might be a good idea. So Zeiss with their green/blue signature rendition probably does know a thing about low light bins and there is a reason why the 54mm HT models are quite popular in the hunting community.

Joachim

You should take note of what Uncle Joachim says in post 21. If, because of your age, your pupils no longer open up wide enough to take advantage of the bigger exit pupils then this rules out many models.

In your position I would be looking at Meopta MeoStar 8x or 10x42. Go for 8x if your pupils get large enough or go for the 10x if they don't.

Lee

If you read the binocular text books over a period of a century brightness is said to be fully determined by two factors:
- the size of the exit pupil and
- the amount of light transmitted
Since brightness is not fully a measurabel quantity one must als take into account the color preference of the transmitted light, since our eyes judge different colors as more or less bright depending on the color.
I have tried to catch that in a literature review published on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor, it is written in English and everything written is from literature sources. The title is"Color vision, brightness, resolution and contrast in binocular images" from May 2013.
(time flies as it usually does).
Gijs van Ginkel

In my experience, the best performing binocular in low light, dusk, late evening, nighttime and pre-dawn, is Canon 10x42 L IS. This is due to its image stabiliser, which offers overwhelming benefits over regular hand-held viewing especially in low light, where the light receptors in your eyes and your brain need more time and image consistency for processing visual information. These benefits trump the differences in exit pupil size or small gains in light transmission you get with some of the best Z, L, or SW glass.

If you can regularly view with really steady support, not just hand-held, then I'd second the recommendation for Swaro 10x56 SLC. It is a beautiful binocular.

Kimmo

If you dont want a rangefinder then I would opt for a x 8 in either Swarovski or Zeiss, so 8 x 56 SLC or 8 x 54 Victory. These should suit your need for low light use in wooded areas as suggested above.

There's an easy way to accurately measure your own pupil diameter when you're using a binocular in low light. I've described it a few times before.

https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3439936&postcount=6


Artificial stars of different brightness levels can be used to measure pupil dilation with this method for any light level from a single star point surrounded by total darkness all the way up to a glitter point in bright sunlight. A real star can also be used. Just defocus the star enough to bring the image of the objective lens into good focus.

Gijs van Ginkel said:

If you read the binocular text books over a period of a century brightness is said to be fully determined by two factors:
- the size of the exit pupil and
- the amount of light transmitted
Since brightness is not fully a measurabel quantity one must als take into account the color preference of the transmitted light, since our eyes judge different colors as more or less bright depending on the color.
I have tried to catch that in a literature review published on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor, it is written in English and everything written is from literature sources. The title is"Color vision, brightness, resolution and contrast in binocular images" from May 2013.
(time flies as it usually does).
Gijs van Ginkel

Click to expand...

As one frog said to the other:

"Time's fun when you're having flies." :cat:

Bill

Just a thought and likely worth what you paid for it. You have some great binos. You may be chasing a ghost. I’ve been down that road and (for now anyway) am just trying to enjoy what I got. There’s always something more to chase, one more ounce of perfection here or there. Gets expensive quick. Something to think about.

Anyway, I enjoy my 7x42 UVHD and 8x42 Noctivid I’m low light. The Swaro EL 8.5x42 is no slouch either.

TXdefender said:

Just a thought and likely worth what you paid for it. You have some great binos. You may be chasing a ghost. I’ve been down that road and (for now anyway) am just trying to enjoy what I got. There’s always something more to chase, one more ounce of perfection here or there. Gets expensive quick. Something to think about.

Anyway, I enjoy my 7x42 UVHD and 8x42 Noctivid I’m low light. The Swaro EL 8.5x42 is no slouch either.

Click to expand...

Leave it to an Alamo volunteer to come up with a hefty slice of logic. This one might add, collect those ounces until they equal a pound. Then, there MIGHT be enough difference for the advanced observer to quantify the difference. Still, there probably won’t be enough for the average observer to see, let alone the frugal observer to care about.

It is logical for one person to make sweeping decisions based on size, weight, ergonomics, eye relief, FOV, distortion, AR coatings, and more. But to say a binocular is unequivocally better based on one or two of those doesn’t take into account that we are all different, with different needs, goals, and perceptions.

There are many aspects in our hobby to whet the appetite of all comers. If one upmanship is your goal, by all means, waste your money. It is only a waste IF YOU think it is. My curmudgeoning is not meant to be sarcastic. But if I cause 1% or 2% of the readership to get angry enough to do their research and draw conclusions on what they came up with, I think I will have done a good thing.

As one who has owned dozens of sought-after electric guitars, but who never earned enough money with ALL of THEM to pay for ONE setup I really, truly, foolishly understand what I’m talking about.

It’s too late for me ... SAVE YOURSELF ... or at least go into the hunt with your eyes as open as your wallet. :cat:

Bill

henry link said:

There's an easy way to accurately measure your own pupil diameter when you're using a binocular in low light. I've described it a few times before.

https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3439936&postcount=6

Click to expand...

Hi Henry,

quite ingenious - I'll certainly try that one with a pair of 7x50 and work my way down to the depressing truth of what dark adaption is left...

Joachim

Pronghunter said:

Sorry for so many post lately. Still trying to figure things out.

In heavily wooded areas mainly, low light dusk, twilight, shades settings, I’m looking for the best low light performance bins. 10x42 for my wife and a 10x50,54, or 56 for me. I realize 8 is the way to go, but would prefer to stick with a 10. I’ve been researching for months and again, I’m so new to a lot of this with limited experience. I’m not brand loyal by any means. Swaro, Leica, Meopta, Zeiss, Maven, etc. Has anyone compared most to see which actually allows the most visibility in low light? I realize each website describes twilight factor and light transmission, but what I’ve been told in the past is you can’t necessarily go off those numbers. So I’m a little bit lost here Thanks!

Click to expand...

Pronghunter:
Was fortunate to have new issue 10x54 Zeiss HT, 10x56 Swaro SLC, 10x42 Canon and an 8.5x42 Swaro EL concurrently and compare them side by side over a number of months. The well-used 8.5x42 was completely refurbished by Swaro including new lens a couple years ago.

We have a melanistic whitetail in the neighborhood and she is particularly reclusive. Two neighbors and I have yet to get a pic of her and it is pushing three years. Sneaky mom. Too, I like to call owls a little in the spring so have gotten to use all the glass all in some pretty dim light, in and out of the woods.

The Zeiss was sold. The Canon with the IS on is in a class by itself and was abducted by my stargazing wife. As said above, the Swaro 10x56 is a beautiful glass. If you are steady it will show an advantage over the Canon, but very late in the day. The 8.5x42 EL is also a great glass and gives away very little in practical use to the 10x56. Bought the 8.5x42 EL in 2000 and it is still my favorite all-around bino particularly in the hills.

I always use a harness and the size of the glass is not an issue. The Canon is clumsy to handle for me, regardless. I can hold the Swaro 10x56 steady, so prefer it. It may sound counter intuitive but the 10x in the woods works very well when FOV is secondary to detail.

Were I a spring chicken with 20/15 vision again, would opt for the 8x56 SLC, but now I don't mind trading off a little brightness for magnification.

fwiw...

chill6x6 said:

Question for YOU. I'm kinda confused as to what binoculars you have NOW? What are you wanting to DO with them?

Click to expand...

To the OP - the second of Chill's questions is probably just as important at the first. The reason being that, even in the same environment, what best suits a birder trying to identify a bird initially seen by eye could well be different to if you were scanning around from a tree stand, trying to find, say, a bit of antler, an eye, or a flicker of ear in the same surroundings. I see nothing wrong with the latter (or indeed making a loud bang after determining the latter) but a forum that is focused - excuse the pun - on that particular activity may well have better specialist knowledge.

Patudo said:

what best suits a birder trying to identify a bird initially seen by eye could well be different to if you were scanning around from a tree stand, trying to find, say, a bit of antler, an eye, or a flicker of ear in the same surroundings. I see nothing wrong with the latter (or indeed making a loud bang after determining the latter) but a forum that is focused - excuse the pun - on that particular activity may well have better specialist knowledge.

Click to expand...

Well, you caught me. Ive been somewhat avoiding it throughout all my post or threads.... or trying to hide it I guess. Not sure how you picked up on this though. Understandably, a bird forum is probably not the best place for me to be. But yes, that’s my main use with any and all my optics as you described. That’s why I can not or do not own only one pair of binos and why I have opened a few threads lately. With that said, I absolutely enjoy bird watching year round, especially in the off season and also feel there is no better place anywhere to find or receive more knowledge when it comes to optics. I’ve searched. I was avoiding being too open about my main objective and or use with my optics.

With all that (hopefully I don’t get the boot) , that’s why I’m looking for the brightest or most light gathering Bino I can find. Dusk and dawn settings are when I need them the most. (Treestand archery)
Sold my EL’s and SF’s to purchase EL Range and Zeiss RF for longer range use. (Rifle) EL range was not a good choice.
It’s been costly but I’ve figured out a few things. Number one is you can’t have the perfect Bino. It’s almost there though. I recently realized I could have purchased just one bin that would have done it all...almost. I’ll get to that.

I love the flat field of the EL’s. Hate the rolling ball. Very noticeable for me.
The rangefinder portion of the new Zeiss RF is the best there is. Wish it had flat field. I really notice the curvature or the distorted picture about 70% out.
Like the FOV from the Zeiss but feel the EL’s have a wider view simply due to its entire view being usable from the crisp edge or due to the field flattened lens
A 42mm objective is a little smaller than I wanted for low light. Although I think the Zeiss RF (2018 model) use HT lens which have the best light transmission????
Going to a 54/56 objective they start to get heavy and bulky. Not the greatest for hiking.
So with all that said, if I would have just gone with the Zeiss 10x54 RF from the beginning, I could have avoided a lot of headache.

10x would allow me to still have great detail at longer distances and still very usable in the timber. The 54 objective is smaller than Swaros 56 and I believe it using their HT lenses still has higher light transmission and is smaller and lighter again than Swaros. And being it also has the very best rangefinder built in on the market. The only draw back to the Zeiss 10x54 is the noticeable distortion or curvature (still new to the descriptions here) or lack of field flattener. Needless to say, I’ll be selling a few pair of binos here shortly and setting down with 10x54 RF’s from Zeiss. Only wished they had the view of a 10x56 SLC HD

Pronghunter said:

Well, you caught me. Ive been somewhat avoiding it throughout all my post or threads.... or trying to hide it I guess.

Click to expand...

You mentioned your hunting interest during your first post enquiring about Zeiss Harpia and Swarovski ATX on 18th Feb. Also the username gives it away fairly easily ( prongs, as in antlers ), but that has been put to one side to help with your queries. Some members object, some play it cool or diplomatically.
P

Pronghunter, post 34,
Measured transmission values for the Zeiss Victory HT-RF 10x54 as we found them:
550 nm left tube 93,2%, right tube 79,7% (this tube has the beamsplitter)
500 nm:left tube 89,9%, right tube 72,3%

Visually the difference is very well visible when looked through the tubes separately, when looking with both eyes our "optical data brain computer system" merges these images and makes it for most people a mixed uniform intensity.
Gijs van Ginkel

Prongy

We have a lot of hunters visiting here and providing the discussion is about the binos (including rangefinders) or spotting scopes (not riflescopes) we are OK with that. Having input from hunters broadens the discussion and of course many hunters are just as interested in birding and general nature observation as the rest of us. Discussion of hunting is only allowed on Ruffled Feathers.

Lee
Moderator

Troubador said:

Prongy

We have a lot of hunters visiting here and providing the discussion is about the binos (including rangefinders) or spotting scopes (not riflescopes) we are OK with that. Having input from hunters broadens the discussion and of course many hunters are just as interested in birding and general nature observation as the rest of us. Discussion of hunting is only allowed on Ruffled Feathers.

Lee
Moderator

Click to expand...

Thanks Lee. Well that definitely clears things up. Makes me a feel better as well. As a hunter and guide, I spend hours and hours behind glass. Usually 200 days in the field all over North America and it seems most days spending hours behind glass. For me, glass had to be the best and is my most important tool. I didn’t think the hunting crowd would really fit in with the birding crowd.....but most of us really enjoy bird watching. They are fascinating in every aspect. So what better site to join. Believe me, most of the hunting forums that have an “optics” section don’t have near the knowledge as this site. Not even close.

I realize I may have been splitting hairs with my other post comparing one bin to the next....”chasing a ghost” .., just trying to get every last bit of light out of one bin, the most contrast out of the next and so on. This can make or break a day in the field truthfully. Spending 4-6 hours on a mountain panning back and forth and seeing the rolling ball from EL’s gets becomes more of an eye strain. Sitting behind a non field flattened Bino and NOT panning but trying to pick out every detail a mile a way without having sharp edges again becomes more of an eye strain and so on. Just like my thread on the Harpia and ATX. Having the ATX 95, what could I possibly be unhappy about...or what more could I want, right? I’m willing to spend the money if I can pull just a tad more light out of it, or recognize that “tip of an antler or flicker of an ear” half mile away just a little better than the other. I don’t know of any other place I could go to get the info that’s already been provided to me...which is beyond appreciated. Several on here have been so helpful and essentially have saved me a lot of $$$. I’m honestly not trying to just open threads to have conversations. There’s a reason behind all this for me and things are definitely getting straightened out due to the members on this forum. So thank you.

Gijs van Ginkel said:

Pronghunter, post 34,
Measured transmission values for the Zeiss Victory HT-RF 10x54 as we found them:
550 nm left tube 93,2%, right tube 79,7% (this tube has the beamsplitter)
500 nm:left tube 89,9%, right tube 72,3%

Visually the difference is very well visible when looked through the tubes separately, when looking with both eyes our "optical data brain computer system" merges these images and makes it for most people a mixed uniform intensity.
Gijs van Ginkel

Click to expand...

Thanks. You’ve been very helpful more times than I remember. I’ve visited the site you posted several times and have made it my home screen for easy referencing. With what you posted, are the numbers above from older Zeiss RF bins or are they from their 2018 line? And do you know if the new 2018 Zeiss RF use the HT glass? I cannot find that info. I’m almost positive they are not using the same glass they have in the new SF...would this be correct?

Prongy

Unfortunately as you have found out there are no perfect binos or scopes. They all have their vices and virtues and how these affect you personally is only something you find out when you have a look through the glass yourself.

As for Birdforum itself, I have never found anywhere where the members are so generous with their time and their experiences and willingness to help.

Good luck.

Lee

Low Light Bins

If the flat field of the EL are bothersome for panning, I tend to notice this in the smaller aperture EL SVs more. Now I will soon be viewing through an SLC 10X56 to spend some time with it, but have been using the FL 10X56 for a year. The FL is a great low light glass if you can get one used and not abused, with the backing of a company that still provides service to it's older products.

Andy W.