• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

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

ReinierB

Well-known member
Netherlands
I wonder, which one will be better for dawn/twilight? Or would that be subjective?
I am thinking about SLC 8x42 vs. EL 10x50.
The 8x42 has bigger exit pupil (5.25mm) and better light transmission (91%). Compared with the EL 10x50 it's 5mm and 90%.
So on paper the SLC 8x42 would be better, right? I know the twilight factor is 22.4 vs 18.3 in favor of the SLC 8x42. But that only says something about the details that you can still see, right?
This is one thing that I find confusing. What would be your answer?
The Habicht 10x40 has an exit pupil of "just" 4mm, but has a light transmission 96%. Would that be a winner or a loser compared with the other two?
Or can I say they are all quite even?
 
ReinierBos, I'm not even going to think of answering this scientifically because others have researched this in all its complex physics and detail and to be honest I lose the will to live once I've got halfway through the first page, so let someone else better qualified give you your answer. But ...

... just to say what I think nobody can argue with: unless you have a very steady hold or you regularly use a tripod or decent support of some kind, then any advantages of the higher magnification will be more than offset by shake. I have used both the SLC 8 and the EL 10 that you mention and I know which one gives me the clearer detail. It's the 8x. That's not because it's an SLC rather than an EL. But others may hold that EL more steadily, so if you are one of those there is nothing here that I've written that is worth your notice. I know it's a superb instrument but that makes things even more annoying if you are one of those who can't hold it still enough to get the best out of it. I am unfortunately one of those!

In my own case, I decided to limit magnification to 8.5 as something that works very well for me; so I have an 8x42 SLC for its warm and contrasty 3D image, and the 8.5x42 EL for its cooler, razor-sharp look. (Yes, I like different renderings: I think I enjoy the imagery more for its art than for positive IDs.)

But, Stop Press: to my amazement yesterday, when trying out a new bin just for fun at a local stockist, I discovered the following: on asking to try an 8x42 NL Pure I was handed an NL and in a short viewing of potted plants and such like across the alleyway (i.e. only about 10-15 yards away, not even approaching a full test) felt very secure in the viewing. The assistant asked what I thought and looked quite amused about something. He had deliberately given me a 12x42 NL Pure and it was so well balanced and easy to handle that I had no sensation of shake at all. Possibly after a few more minutes I would have done; who knows? Not sure a 12x would be any use to me though. As far as I can remember the 10x50 EL is more front-heavy.

Over to the experts to answer your question more fully. I believe Kimmo Absetz may be a good source of reference for this sort of question; it might be worth your searching his name on here or elsewhere meanwhile.

Tom
 
Hello,

A traditional way of looking at how useful a binocular may be at dawn or dusk is the twilight factor:
the square root of the objective size, in millmetres, times the power.
The square root of 8x42 is 18.33
The square root of 10x50 is 22.36

Advantage to the 10x50, with a twilight factor of 22.36, reflecting it greater light gathering ability and its higher magnification. The latter is important for seeing detail.

Twilight factor is based on the mathematical log, so it is not a simple arithmetic comparison and it is only a guide.

Stay safe,
Arthur Pinewood
 
I wonder, which one will be better for dawn/twilight? Or would that be subjective?
I am thinking about SLC 8x42 vs. EL 10x50.
The 8x42 has bigger exit pupil (5.25mm) and better light transmission (91%). Compared with the EL 10x50 it's 5mm and 90%.
So on paper the SLC 8x42 would be better, right? I know the twilight factor is 22.4 vs 18.3 in favor of the SLC 8x42. But that only says something about the details that you can still see, right?
This is one thing that I find confusing. What would be your answer?
The Habicht 10x40 has an exit pupil of "just" 4mm, but has a light transmission 96%. Would that be a winner or a loser compared with the other two?
Or can I say they are all quite even?

It depends on the light level and how much your eye pupil (age) can dilate.
But I wold get one with as large exit pupil as possible.

To some extent it also depends on the overall transmission curve, not just the maximum.
Modern bins tend to have higher transmission in the blue/violet spectrum for that reason.

Either way, 5mm/5.25mm is barely optimal/enough for twilight usage.

Personally I prefer 7x42 or 8x54/56 in low light settings.

But if your eye pupils can't dilate to 6 or 7 mm, that won't give you any advantage over, let's say a 10x50.
 
Hello,

A traditional way of looking at how useful a binocular may be at dawn or dusk is the twilight factor:
the square root of the objective size, in millmetres, times the power.
The square root of 8x42 is 18.33
The square root of 10x50 is 22.36

Advantage to the 10x50, with a twilight factor of 22.36, reflecting it greater light gathering ability and its higher magnification. The latter is important for seeing detail.

Twilight factor is based on the mathematical log, so it is not a simple arithmetic comparison and it is only a guide.

Stay safe,
Arthur Pinewood
Well, a 50x50mm have a twilight factor of 50....does make sense, no?

I think it's a disputable measure if you don't take into account the actual size of the exit pupil in the first place.
 
How can I measure that? I wonder what it in my case. I am 38 years old, but have no clue how large my pupils are when it is dark.
Your optician can measure it.

Or arrange a dark setting (20 minutes in darkness should do it) with a ruler as a reference and take a flash selfie, and you would be able to estimate it. (don't use any red eye reduction or any pre-lights). Or just use a mirror and try to estimate it with a ruler.

Max pupil size depends on age and general physiology (some have larger eyes!), but at 38 years, 6-7 mm is definitely possible. The ability to dilate the eye pupils tend to decrease with age.
 
Last edited:
I wonder, which one will be better for dawn/twilight? Or would that be subjective?
I am thinking about SLC 8x42 vs. EL 10x50.
The 8x42 has bigger exit pupil (5.25mm) and better light transmission (91%). Compared with the EL 10x50 it's 5mm and 90%.
So on paper the SLC 8x42 would be better, right? I know the twilight factor is 22.4 vs 18.3 in favor of the SLC 8x42. But that only says something about the details that you can still see, right?
This is one thing that I find confusing. What would be your answer?
The Habicht 10x40 has an exit pupil of "just" 4mm, but has a light transmission 96%. Would that be a winner or a loser compared with the other two?
Or can I say they are all quite even?
Ranked from best to worst for dawn/twilight. The high transmission of the Habicht wouldn't make up for the bigger 5 mm EP of the other two.
1) EL 10x50
2) SLC 8x42
3) Habicht 10x40
 
My favourite pre-sunrise binocular is the SLC 7x50 HD - being 51 my pupils only get to about 6mm so 1mm is wasted, you might get a bit more being younger.
 
Don't get hung up on it.
Ive got 8x25's and 10x42's
I've had 8x56 Zeiss.
We are talking minutes as the sun start to fade, and evening darkness descends.
Sure ... the 8x56's were best at dusk, but they didn't really leave my 10x42's in the dust. And if I used the 10x42's at dusk, 15 minutes later, the 8x56's were doing about the same performance.... or there abouts if you get my drift.
Just my take on it.
 
Don't get hung up on it.
Ive got 8x25's and 10x42's
I've had 8x56 Zeiss.
We are talking minutes as the sun start to fade, and evening darkness descends.
Sure ... the 8x56's were best at dusk, but they didn't really leave my 10x42's in the dust. And if I used the 10x42's at dusk, 15 minutes later, the 8x56's were doing about the same performance.... or there abouts if you get my drift.
Just my take on it.

If your eye pupil is 6-7 mm in low light (which is likely for OP) a 10x42 (EP=4.2mm) will vignette your pupil and viewing comfort will be affected negatively, so it's not all about the brightness you get. It's the same effect as when using pocket bins with very small exit pupils. The view will appear less stable and more jittery, and you will be able to see less detail. Putting the bins on a tripod a smaller exit pupil might be a bit easier to handle.

There are reasons why Lewis Hamilton don't drive a Fiat Panda...;)
 
I wonder, which one will be better for dawn/twilight? Or would that be subjective?
I am thinking about SLC 8x42 vs. EL 10x50.
The 8x42 has bigger exit pupil (5.25mm) and better light transmission (91%). Compared with the EL 10x50 it's 5mm and 90%.
So on paper the SLC 8x42 would be better, right? I know the twilight factor is 22.4 vs 18.3 in favor of the SLC 8x42. But that only says something about the details that you can still see, right?
This is one thing that I find confusing. What would be your answer?
The Habicht 10x40 has an exit pupil of "just" 4mm, but has a light transmission 96%. Would that be a winner or a loser compared with the other two?
Or can I say they are all quite even?
I wrote a few words on Swarovski twilight glass a few weeks back if it helps but can't add much to the other comments concerning the 2 candidates mentioned -
I'm silly enough to have both of swarovski's highest transmission and largest exit pupil binoculars at the moment. A habicht 7x42 GA 96% transmission 6mm exit pupil and a 8x56 SLC hd with 93% transmission and a 7mm exit pupil. I thought I'd just pop up a few things I've found having used both extensively in case anyone thinking of giving them a go for birdwatching.

They go about achieving a good view in very different ways, which may suit some birders more than others.

The habicht is a very traditional porro prism binocular it's been around since 1947, armoured in this case and waterproof, with straps and caps it weight in around 850 grams. It has as far as I can see 7 glass elements per barrel, a cemented doublet objective, 2 prisms and a 3 element eye piece, all the glass elements have the latest coatings and the prisms reflect the image upright through total internal reflection - no mirror coatings. The field of view is narrow at 114m at 1000m but perfectly useable, there's very little chromatic aberration in the field, although due to its simple design and lack of field flatteners the field is only sharp in the centre. Adjustment wise there's not much, fold down rubber eye cups, a central focuser and a diopter adjuster in the right barrel, eye relief is short again due to the simple design, not a good one for glasses wearers.

The SLC hd is bang up to date, released in its current guise in 2013. Armoured and waterproof with straps and caps (including objective caps which the habicht doesn't come with) it weighs in around 1350 grams. There's much more glass involved than the habichts 12 elements per barrel and these are bigger too with the 56mm objectives. These include field flatteners, high flourite glass in the objectives and a much more complicated eye piece design. This time the prisms are abe konig giving the binocular a straighter but longer form, again they reflect the view upright with total internal reflection. The field of view is much wider at 133m at 1000m despite the 1x increase in magnification, it's both useable and immersive. Thanks to the field flatteners the view is sharp pretty much to the edges although chromatic aberration does creep in more quickly and significantly than with the habichts but only off centre. There is a lot of adjustment so set up time to get the most out of them is a lengthy process, the usual diopter although this time built into the focus wheel which clicks out to reveal the scale and can't be moved accidentally, twist out eye cups and the usual focuser and ipd adjustment. Eye relief is huge, you could probably use them wearing 2 pairs of glasses!

I've hiked the isle of skye for 3 days with the habichts, climbed Snowdon with the Slc's round my neck and spent many hours using both in a variety of habitats. Your view may be different to mine but this is what I've found comparing them.

For me both offer similar daytime brightness, maybe a slight advantage to the habichts or maybe my eyes have read the specs and are seeing what they've read! There's not much in it. When it gets really dark there's nothing in it between them for me, I'm 38 with good vision but I suspect my pupils only dilate to a maximum of 6mm so really can't use the extra exit pupil of the slc's, if you download the study linked here you can see if you'd likely benefit for that 1mm increase Factors affecting light-adapted pupil size in normal human subjects. | IOVS | ARVO Journals.

The difference in magnification of only 1x doesn't manifest itself greatly in terms of how much detail you can see centre field however the stability and depth of field with the habichts is noticeably better, for me there equal in ability to i.d a bird centre field, to clarify I found them equal when you can see a bird naked eye and want to i.d it.

Off centre when your scanning an area for birds you can't see naked eye, or for example if an elusive avian has dived somewhere into a bush or tree the slc's have a distinct advantage. The wider field that's sharp to the edges means you will generally find that bird faster with them.

Handling wise is probably where the biggest differences come between them, let's go from one end to the other. Eye pieces, if you don't wear glasses you can just chuck the habicht up to your eyes, no messing, just set the ipd and dipter and your good, they both have proper scales too so it's child's play to set up if your sharing them.

Slc's are a different beast, there's much more adjustment, it takes great care and some time to get everything set just so, if not done correctly you could easily think they were terrible. Eye cups and ipd in the wrong position - kidney beans and glare will be your only friends. There is a scale on the diopter but not any really useful one for the ipd, I have to just obscure the bridge of the letter A in Austria to get my ipd right. Not so good for sharing and time consuming to set up, get it right and there mega.

Focus wheels? There both great, well weighted and accurate. The habichts is a little heavier but smoother, the slc's is lighter and smaller with a slight feeling of more friction, like rubbing 2 bits of paper together. The habichts focus usefully closer than the slc's to a degree that even when birding is a useful difference - you can't focus on your own feet with either like you can with some.

Form factor is classic porro with the habichts, this is good and bad. For viewing and focusing at the same time I find the wider spaced barrels of porro's easier to point, more contact between hands and binocular as well for me. When going for maximum stability however moving your hands to the objectives is a jump, forget about using the focus at the same time, when there though stability is great.


With the Slc's there's been a great deal of work done on the ergonomics, the barrels have really deep cut outs underneath, there not actually that much wider than an nl in the regular hand position next to the focus wheel. Moving down the barrels is also easier, no big jump in hand position, it's also just possible to hold near the ends and move the focus wheel, partly due to the shape and partly due to the lighter focus action.

Weights as stated, if you don't like it, don't get the SLC! I personally don't find it at all inhibiting but I do a physical job, plenty will find them too heavy.

Does any of this make a difference to getting on a to bird on the wing, I tend to think so, even with the narrower field of view I find it easier with the habichts due to the more stable hold when using the focus and (although not really handling!) the greater depth of field.

These glasses are designed with low light viewing higher than some on the priority list, just before you get there though a low sun may come into play, so how do they cope with glare? Both are excellent, really really good, no milky wash outs or crescents really inhibit either. Once set up I find the slc's slightly better despite there less recessed objectives, neither is anywhere near bad.

So there a hefty investment either way- how tough are they to keep that investment delivering? I think the habichts are tougher and in all likely hood easier to repair, there just as well armoured, if not better, and there's less weight behind them when they do hit something, the objectives are also further recessed and without twist out eye cups there's less to go wrong. Neither has come to harm in regular use though or got any worse over time.

So in summary which is better? Honestly there just different compromises, I prefer the slc's but I can comfortably carry them. It just depends on your personal priorities. For me I'm just glad to have a binocular with me that will perform in all lighting conditions better than almost any other.

Swarovski deserve a great deal of credit for producing 2 so distinct but capable choices for a variety of users priorities.

I really enjoyed testing them and writing this!

Will
View attachment 1460648
 
Don't get hung up on it.
Ive got 8x25's and 10x42's
I've had 8x56 Zeiss.
We are talking minutes as the sun start to fade, and evening darkness descends.
Sure ... the 8x56's were best at dusk, but they didn't really leave my 10x42's in the dust. And if I used the 10x42's at dusk, 15 minutes later, the 8x56's were doing about the same performance.... or there abouts if you get my drift.
Just my take on it.
I agree, and have commented as such in the past.
If we're talking birding/wildlife watching, the longer you persevere into the gloom with your superior twilight factor, you'd be better off switching to a torch and any pair of binoculars.
It's an opinion that never goes down well!
 
How can I measure that? I wonder what it in my case. I am 38 years old, but have no clue how large my pupils are when it is dark.

You can accurately measure your pupil size while using a binocular at any light level from bright sunlight to nearly total darkness. Just follow the instructions in this link.

 
@henry, thanks for the tip! I will try that.

"Ranked from best to worst for dawn/twilight. The high transmission of the Habicht wouldn't make up for the bigger 5 mm EP of the other two.
1) EL 10x50
2) SLC 8x42
3) Habicht 10x40"


Does anyone disagree?
The SLC 8x42 has a bigger EP (5,25) than the EL 10x50 AND has 91% transmission. So on paper the SLC 8x42 will perform better at dawn/twilight?

I have a NL Pure 10x32 which I like a lot. Probably not the best binos when it's dark (also because of the flare). So what would be a good pair of binos for darker conditions? I don't know, the Habicht 10x40 (or 8x30?) just seem a really nice performer at twilight with it's 96% transmission and 4 mm EP (comparing with the 3,2 mm I already have).
Maybe it's just talking about a gain of a couple of minutes more...
 
Habicht 7x42 would be a better choice for twilight use. I see bad flare in my Habicht 10x40 when use it in dusk that I don’t see in NL 8x42. It is sad to hear that you see flare in NL 10x32 which I am planning to buy in future.
 
I think the small AFOV of the 7x42 will get me, otherwise it would be a serious option :(. I definitely love the large AFOV of the NL 10x32 (the same as the NL 8x42). I don't know the flare is the same as it is with the NL 8x42, but I guess so. It is not terrible (after proper eye cup setting), but looking at dark trees when the sun is setting behind the trees, will give quite a lot of flare (the SLC 8x42 just a bit at the edges). No flare at all when it is clear. Futhermore I really love the NL 10x32. It's just a bit heavier than the specs say. It is about 670 kgs instead of 640 kgs (without caps and rainguard).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top