92% transmission of the NL Pure 32 measured? (1 Viewer)

[ReinierB]

I was a bit surprised to read that the NL 32 has 92% transmission, when they came out. The NL 42 has 91%.
The SF 42 has 92% and the SF 32 has 90%.
At least, that is what the specs say. I always wondered why the NL 32 should have more transmission than the NL 42. With Zeiss it is the other way around (and that makes more sense to me): the SF 42 has more transmission than the SF 32.

Is there an explanation for that?

Has anyone measured the transmission of the NL 32? I could not find it. I wonder how accurate the specs are considering the transmission of the bins. (For example: Optica Exotica claims that the Conquest 15x56 is a bit brighter than the SCL 15x56, althought the specs say that the Conquest has 90% transmission and the SLC has 93%.)
I know brightness is more than transmission, but I assume that transmission plays a big role in brightness? And lens diameter of course.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Reinier, post 1,
We have measured the transmission of the binocular you mention. The data can be found on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor in different reports. I give some results:
The first numbers are transmission values at 500 nm, the second at 550 nm

• NL pure 8x42: 92%/93%
• NL pure 8x32: 91,7%/92,8%
• Victory SF 8x32: 87%/90%
• GPO Passion ED 8x32: 88%/90%
• Leica Ultravid 8x32-plus: 86.8%/89,2%
• Meopta Meostar 8x32: 86%/87,6%

Gijs van Ginkel

 

[ReinierB]

Thanks. It is not a huge difference, but the transmission of the NL 42 is even bigger than that of the NL 32...

 

[ReinierB]

So do not believe the spectations to be the absolut truth. It is just an indication. Probably there is some sample variation as well.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Rienier, post 3,
Within measurement error range they are the same.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[ReinierB]

When it is the same, why does Swarovski not state it as the same?

 

[Maljunulo]

Two different populations can have different means, but not be different to a statistically significant degree.

 

[Vespobuteo]

When it is the same, why does Swarovski not state it as the same?

I suspect Swaro state the MAX value,
which is not at 550/500 nm rather than ≈575 for the 8x32 NL.

So I think both Gijs and Swaro are correct here...

The difference will not be noticeable in any case.

 

[Harrier22]

Interesting that the % difference in transmission rates between the Passion ED and the NL Pure is about 4%. In contrast, the Passion ED sells for about $500 while the NL Pure sells for about $3,000. Seems like diminishing returns…

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Am I right that not everybody here has experience with measurement data in science? There is always a small error in measurements. In our data we find an uncertainty margin of +/- 0,5%.
If we now measure 100 or more of the same instruments you get better statistics, but that is for us not possible, since we do not have funds to buy 100 NL 8x42's for statistical reasons. Often we ask the company if our data match theirs and generally it is. If not we repeat our measurements to find out if something was wrong.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Richard D]

Interesting that the % difference in transmission rates between the Passion ED and the NL Pure is about 4%. In contrast, the Passion ED sells for about $500 while the NL Pure sells for about $3,000. Seems like diminishing returns…

Transmission is only a tiny part of a binoculars specification though... There are diminishing returns with all products, but the NLs aren't just priced on having high transmission.

 

[tenex]

* Leica Ultravid 8x32-plus: 86.8%/89,2%

This result doesn't surprise me; I was never impressed with the brightness of UV 32, and the "+" seemed to make little difference. Did you test a 42?

 

[ticl2184]

I wouldn't be surprised if the light transmission is inaccurate.....It needs to be independently checked like the weight.



Cheers Tim

 

[Richard D]

I wouldn't be surprised if the light transmission is inaccurate.....It needs to be independently checked like the weight.



Cheers Tim

Gijs findings are in line with Swarovski's. As a company they're generally pretty good in stating accurate specs.

 

[ticl2184]

Gijs findings are in line with Swarovski's. As a company they're generally pretty good in stating accurate specs.

No there NOT !

I've weighed several products from Swarosvki and found them inaccurate from the stated amount.

I would also imagine the light transmission is also inaccurate.


Cheers

Tim

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

tenex, post 12,
Yes we have investigated the Leica Ultravid HD-plus 8x42, you can find the report and the spectra on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor.
Values found for this binocular:
500nm=86,8%
550nm= 87,3%

Tim, post 13,
Our research group has more than 75 years of experience with optical spectroscopy and it has produced a wealth of scientific papers including the construction and use of steady state and time resolved optical spectroscopy.
Frequently we check with the company if our results match the data by the binocular producing company.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Richard D]

No there NOT !

I've weighed several products from Swarosvki and found them inaccurate from the stated amount.

I would also imagine the light transmission is also inaccurate.


Cheers

Tim

As I said their light transmission figures are in line with Gijs who is probably as respected a tester as you'll find.

Your experience with their weight figures differs from mine - no idea why.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Tim, post 15,
I saw your post after typing my post 16.
I have had a lot of contact with different companies about our data and among them is Swarovski. And in my opinion you are wrong with your statement. Do you have any spectroscopy experience yourself that can support your statement?
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[ReinierB]

I have no knowledge about transmission or whatsoever. But I can put binoculars on a scale. It is true that the 640 gram stated for the NL 10x32 is not true, in my case. It is 670 gram, without covers, straps, etc.

 

[ticl2184]

Tim, post 15,
I saw your post after typing my post 16.
I have had a lot of contact with different companies about our data and among them is Swarovski. And in my opinion you are wrong with your statement. Do you have any spectroscopy experience yourself that can support your statement?
Gijs van Ginkel

Read my reply above ....

As I stated, The weight of several Swarovski products I've independently weighed have been inaccurate .... And not inaccurate in a positive way....

As I stated " if you can be bothered to read it" ....I stated that "I WOULD ALSO IMAGINE THE LIGHT TRANSMISSION IS ALSO INACCURATE...

Just one more time incase you couldn't get your head around it....
"I WOULD ALSO IMAGINE THE LIGHT TRANSMISSION IS ALSO INACCURATE"....

Cheers

Tim
.