8x42 vs. 10x50 dawn/twilight (1 Viewer)

[Tringa45]

Ok, you've got me, Jerry, I'll have to give a pair of these a go...

I've been trialling a pair of 8x56 SLC's to use as my low light binoculars, but we're not getting on too well, mainly due to the lack of intermediate click stops on the eyecups. Yes, I could probably adapt them with o-rings, but I like a glass (especially an expensive one) to work for me straight out of the box, without having to be adapted. That's just me. Extraordinary glass in low light, really, but they've got to go. (I note William Lewis is letting his recently acquired copy go too, which surprised me).

I know eye relief will be tight, but having recently discovered that I can easily use (and see full FOV) an Ultravid 8x32 or Kowa Genesis 8x33 wearing glasses, I'm confident that these should work for me.

The search is on...

If you can get on with the 8x32 Ultravid wearing glasses, you must be near-sighted.
I am far-sighted and find even the eye relief of my 8x33 Genesis to be suboptimal.
I can also appreciate your "problem" with the 8x56 SLC. To avoid blackouts wearing glasses I have to extend the eyecups about 2 mm beyond the first stop and guess you would be closer to the second stop. This though is a minor irritation on a binocular that has some qualities unmatched by any other centre focus binocular.
A friend has an 8x42 NL, which is an amazing optical achievement with its wide flat field and ergonomicaly it is also excellent, but if an exchange were on the cards, nothing could persuade me to part with my 8x56 SLC.

John

PS: Tenex was having problems with blackouts with his 10x56 SLC and I suggested he procure some 8x56 eyecups. These solved the problem. I suppose I could go the other way, but it would then make the 8x56 unusable for anyone without glasses.

 

[tenex]

Yes, I have John to thank for that suggestion. It does seem quite possible (given the reduced range) that the second stop of the 10x eyecups might correspond to "2mm beyond your first stop" and work conveniently for you, but you'd have to try it to see. I wouldn't worry too much about making the 8x56 unusable for others because you'd still have the originals, and with such high ER it's unusable for some like me anyway.

I've always wondered why the 8x56 should have 23mm ER, so much more than anyone could possibly need. There's usually a trade-off between ER and FOV, so couldn't it have had a wider field instead? I must be missing something here.

 

[Bentley03]

Hi Bentley 03

I didn't want to part with them but thankfully the wife has allowed them to stay, few financial bumps in the road!

I know what you mean about eye cup position on them though - tricky! I use the last but one click stop which is actually one click ( approx 2mm) further out than the last click stop - the difference between that and the final click stop seems the smallest gap between stops so I think I'm lucky that's the one that fits.

There's been some discussion recently highlighting that the eye cups for the 8x 10x and 15x are all interchangeable and I believe that swaro may well provide them free of charge so depending on your needs you may be able to find a "factory fit" work around.

All the best

Will

Will, I'm very pleased to hear you are keeping them, your enthusiasm for them was very apparent!

Ideal eyecup position for me (with glasses) is somewhere between the first and second clicks up. The gap between them is enormous, with more than adequate relief for at least one more intermediary stop. I find them very usable when set at the first stop if the target is stationary, but anything which requires panning or pointing up to the sky puts me in all sorts of trouble. Given that these are not intended as a daytime binocular, simply too big and heavy for long walks, I think the investment is excessive for an instrument which will be used infrequently that doesn't fit me perfectly. That said, for their size, they do handle really nicely, once you get to grips with them, and the focus wheel in this copy is at a different level from any SLC's I've ever used before, absolute perfection, just not as buttery smooth as an NL or SF.

I really appreciate your suggestion of swapping out the eyecups with the those of one of the other x56 models, it may well have made the difference for me, but I've already let them go.

All the best,
James

 

[Bentley03]

John and Tenex, thank you very much for your suggestions, it's really appreciated.

As you'll have gathered from my previous post, I've already parted company with them. That said, I may revisit them at some point (in the quite near future), because as the days get shorter, I'll be walking in darker conditions, and into darkness, more frequently. Optically, I agree, they have special qualities, but they are a big old lump to carry around for any length of time. But, I do really, really like them. I do need to justify owning them though.

My interest has come about after discovering my eye pupils have rather more agility than I anticipated (for my age), so I'm keen to explore low light optics while I still have the ability to take advantage of a large exit pupil. I'm going to experiment with some older large objective instruments over the Winter, but I have a suspicion my journey may well end with another pair of 8x56 SLC's.

All the best,
James

 

[Binocollector]

Vortex UHd

Kite (Cervus HD), DDoptics (all the Pirschler models), Blaser (except for the 8x30 I think -- even their 8x42 seems to be AK-equipped), Vixen (New Foresta 8x56 DCF), Bushnell (Forge 8x56), GPO aka Geco (don't you have one of those or is it a SP-model? The Passion 8/10x56 are AK) also come to mind.

 

[ReinierB]

Tomorrow I will probably buy an used EL 10x50 (FieldPro) for a good price, so I can finally answer this question myself! I still have the SLC 8x42 and will keep it for a while to compare the EL 10x50 with the SLC 8x42. Maybe I will keep both. Don't know yet... I kind of like the SLC 8x42 but always think I'm missing something because it is not a 10 power... I like the >5 mm exit pupil for it's comfort. So we will see what happens!
I have the NL 10x32 for daytime birding, but don't think it is really suitable at dawn/twilight. That's why I want a bigger objective for use in difficult light conditions (NL 10x32 suffers from glare too, which I find annoying sometimes).

 

[Paultricounty]

Tomorrow I will probably buy an used EL 10x50 (FieldPro) for a good price, so I can finally answer this question myself! I still have the SLC 8x42 and will keep it for a while to compare the EL 10x50 with the SLC 8x42. Maybe I will keep both. Don't know yet... I kind of like the SLC 8x42 but always think I'm missing something because it is not a 10 power... I like the >5 mm exit pupil for it's comfort. So we will see what happens!
I have the NL 10x32 for daytime birding, but don't think it is really suitable at dawn/twilight. That's why I want a bigger objective for use in difficult light conditions (NL 10x32 suffers from glare too, which I find annoying sometimes).

You have one of the best, if not the best 10X32 on the market. Imo I think more is missed in an 8 compared to a 10, better DOF, larger FOV, generally brighter and more stable. That being said I hear where your coming from, something to consider would be get rid of the NL10/32 and get the 10/42, keep the SLC 8/42 or sell and get 8/32. The NL 10/42 would be more compact than the EL50 and more stable and larger FOV. The EL is really nice in 12X, imo.

Paul

 

[ReinierB]

First I thought: buy a very good 10x42 and be done with it. But it is quite a heavy binocular. So I bought a 10x32 instead. But that one is not really nice for dimlight, so I bought a 8x42 (cheaper than 10x50) for a bigger exit pupil. But I really like 10 power...
If I go for a 12x50 I cannot sell the SLC 8x42, because a 12x50 is not suited for dark woods. A 10x50 would be still usable in dark woods. With a 12x50 I would miss the larger EP of 5mm or more.

So now I think 10x32 + 10x50 + really lightweight 8x30/32 (SFL 8x30 or UHVD 8x32) would be a perfect set of binoculars. Or simply keep the SLC 8x42 and be done with it.
The NL 10x32 is still quite heavy (ca. 675 gram) and large. I barely feel difference in weight/bulk between the SLC 8x42 and the NL 10x32.
So 500/550 gram would be nice....

Just see if I fall in love with the EL 10x50 tomorrow. I considered the SLC 10x56 as well, but I have drawn a line at 1kg.

 

[Scott98]

Tomorrow I will probably buy an used EL 10x50 (FieldPro) for a good price,

great purchase, it's such a nice optic. Very hard to find these on the used market.

 

[tenex]

First I thought: buy a very good 10x42 and be done with it. But it is quite a heavy binocular. So I bought a 10x32 instead. But that one is not really nice for dimlight, so I bought a 8x42 (cheaper than 10x50) for a bigger exit pupil. But I really like 10 power...

Sometimes the first thought is best; you would love SLC HD 10x42, which is still quite compact, and does well enough in low light, and you wouldn't have to think about which bin to take when. You'll surely learn something from trying EL 10x50 now, it's just not clear what yet. I find trade-offs and choosing between them very frustrating myself; life was simpler before I joined this forum, two bins and done (10/15x).

 

[Ted Y.]

I wrote a few words on Swarovski twilight glass a few weeks back

Where, please?

 

[Ted Y.]

the question would be which porro lenses are even brighter than the HT?

Steiner Shadowquest 8x56mm (same range)
You can find a comparison with Zeiss HT 8x54mm here:

Zeiss Victory HT 8×54 – Binoculars Today

[/URL]

 

[Ted Y.]

Transmission is important, but so is the contrast transfer and ... and ...
I recommand this excellent article, it heps to understand that transmission is one of the factors:

For those who want to get more information about the interaction of the eye with optical systems, I have written a revieuw paper "Color vision, brightness, resolution and contrast in binocular images".

 

[Maljunulo]

Transmission is important, but so is the contrast transfer and ... and ...
I recommand this excellent article, it heps to understand that transmission is one of the factors:

Link?

 

[Thotmosis]

Link?

https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/testrapporten/COLOR_VISION_BRIGHTNESS_RESOLUTION_AND_CONTRAST_IN_BINOCULAR-IMAGES_highres.pdf

 

[Maljunulo]

Thanks

 

[ReinierB]

https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/testrapporten/COLOR_VISION_BRIGHTNESS_RESOLUTION_AND_CONTRAST_IN_BINOCULAR-IMAGES_highres.pdf

The text here isn't responding with the figure? The text says 4-5mm at the age of 70, the figure shows about 3.7mm? @Gijs van Ginkel

 

[ReinierB]

I have the EL 10x50 now. As new, but for € 1900 instead of the new price € 2750.
I am very happy with it!
I don't know yet if they are brighter than the SLC 8x42. I actually don't think so. But everything is closer and the AFOV is larger, so that is a big win for me. The EL 10x50 shows even less glare as the SLC 8x42. Nearly nothing, while the SLC shows a little and the NL 10x32 was barely useable because of the flare on the whole FOV. I was really looking for it (sun setting behind a tree while watching at something in that tree.)

The hold is very comfortable. Big round barrels to wrap my fingers around. 1000 gram is quite heavy, but doable. I am glad I didn't go for the SLC 10x56, although I think that one will be brighter. The EL 50 doesn't look really big and is still quite elegant.
I don't understand the position of the thumb cutouts. I don't hold my hands there. It was the same with the EL 42 I once tried. The hold of the EL 50 is nicer because of the bigger barrels, in my opinion.

The eyecups of the SLC 42 are the most comfortable, then the EL 50, then NL 32. The eyecups of the NL are just a bit too wide for my taste. The extra position is nice though. I already asked swarovski to send me the eyecups of the EL 12x50, because they are a bit shorter than those of the EL 10x50. The eyecups of the 10x50 go a bit too far for my liking (don't see the whole FOV). One position down and I get some blackouts.

The focuser of the NL pure is the nicest! Really smooth and on the right position. Then the EL's and then the SLC's. The one on the EL is a bit smoother.

I immediately swapped the straps of the NL and the EL. The thin cord and smaller strap of the EL 50 fits the NL 32 better. The huge strap of the NL pure fits the EL 50 better.

No proper bag was included with the EL. That is a pity. So I ordered one at a webshop.

Swarovski candy... I don't know, I just like the green colour and their appareance. The SLC is the least attractive in my opinion. But I am afraid I cannot part with it. The hold, it's comfort, it's compactness, the eyecups. Just very nice in use. It is also the one I easily let my children (and wife ) look through. No exposed metal which can damage/scratch. The SLC is the toughest, with all the armor. It's also a very nice pair of binoculars for the less experienced: 8 power, larger FOV, not too heavy, large EP.

I am very happy with the EL 10x50 and assume (correct me if I am wrong) that it will be brighter than all the 10x42's during dawn/twilight which are on the market.

Compared with the NL 10x32, also during daytime, it has something what makes the view more pleasant. I don't know what it is. It has to do with the large EP I reckon. But what is it exactly why I like the view better? One thing for sure: I can move my eyes without getting any blackouts, while with the 10x32 you also have to move the binoculars to avoid blackouts.
But is it only that? I doubt it. It's like it is sharper when I am watching far away (like really far away). The 10x32 is also very sharp of course, but just less immersive (if I am allowed to use this word) watching further away. It's like the EL 50 has more pixels? I don't know. Probably not.

Let's give them another investigation during dim light... I will let you know.

 

[etc]

So the diameter is the most important for darker conditions? Regardless of the power? 56>50>42>32
10x50 is better than 7x42?
Or is the exit pupil that counts? It still confuses me. The twilight factor of the 10x50 is mucher bigger that the 7x42.

That is what I think. I do not believe the Twilight Index formula. Forget it. It makes it look like if all things equal, a higher power will make it brighter. I don't believe it. According to that theory, a 15x56 will be brighter than a 10x56mm.

Just look at the sq cm area of the objective.

A 42mm objective is only 60% of a 50mm objective.
I went from a 42mm to a 54mm and the difference is stunning. You can view things in total darkness, given a full moon on a clear night. I will never own a 42mm anything again. Give me either 50mm or 54mm.
12x50 EL is very marginally larger than 8.5x42mm EL yet the difference is huge. A 54mm or 56mm has an edge over 50mm but not as huge as going from 42mm to 50mm.
I wonder how a 10x60mm bino would perform. Almost like night vision I imagine. It would also be deeply impractical, excelling at twilight / night tasks but not offering any tangible advantages during the day over something literally half the size/weight, other than a huge exit pupil size.

 

[etc]

View attachment 1522291

I have the EL 10x50 now. As new, but for € 1900 instead of the new price € 2750.
I am very happy with it!
I don't know yet if they are brighter than the SLC 8x42.

They most definitely are. Noticeably. A 50mm objective will gather more light than a 42mm objective. With power being a distant second factor.

It's just physics and no brand will override this. That is, an older 10x50 Leica Trinovid/Ultravid will outperform the latest-greatest Swarovski that's only 42mm. No coatings can be modified to overcome the laws of physics. Move to the 56mm and it's a different weight category, it will outpunch everything else.