A Zeiss Conquest HD on steroids. (2 Viewers)

[CharleyBird]

[email protected] said:
I don't care about any other user, and I don't care if you believe me. I know what I saw and what my eyes perceived. That is why I sold all my 32 mm and 42 mm binoculars and went to 56 mm binoculars.

You've made a remarkable change Dennis, from anything heavier/larger/higher than an 8x32mm being unacceptable only months ago, to your latest 56mm inamoratas.


You've more than doubled your weight load. Take care

 

[Swedpat]

"Yes, the 8x56 SLCs are amazingly bright, but how much brightness do you actually need? For most birding needs, mid-sized binoculars (8x32) are more than adequate. In fact, when I started birding, 7x35 was pretty much the standard configuration. Full-sized binoculars (7x42 or 8x42) will allow you to see incredible detail in very dimly lit environments.

But keep in mind that you can only use as much brightness as your eye will admit, so any binocular whose exit pupil is larger than your eye’s pupil (if you are over 50 your eye only opens to 3 or 4mm while a 7x42 binocular has a 6mm exit pupil) is probably providing more brightness than you can use -- even at night. So why bother schlepping these monsters around?

Because it isn’t only about brightness. It’s about the quality of the image, and Swarovski’s 8x56 SLC offers perhaps the best image that I have seen in any binocular. Despite their considerable weight, I found them almost impossible to put down."

Size Matters: The Case for Really Big Binoculars

Size Matters: A Case for Really Big Binoculars Contrary to what some of us would like to believe size really does matter. Flight, for example, imposes strict limits on size. Ostriches...

www.audubon.org

Now you confirm that 56mm binoculars are not brighter than 42 or 32 in bright conditions. Didn't you say the opposite earlier?

And:

"if you are over 50 your eye only opens to 3 or 4mm".

That is not correct. Such numbers are valid for 70- 80 years old or so. While this is individual, people in general can still have 5-6mm eye pupil at 50 years old.

 

[[email protected]]

Now you confirm that 56mm binoculars are not brighter than 42 or 32 in bright conditions. Didn't you say the opposite earlier?

And:

"if you are over 50 your eye only opens to 3 or 4mm".

That is not correct. Such numbers are valid for 70- 80 years old or so. While this is individual, people in general can still have 5-6mm eye pupil at 50 years old.

It is not just about brightness with a bigger aperture. A bigger aperture is better.

Size Matters: The Case for Really Big Binoculars

Size Matters: A Case for Really Big Binoculars Contrary to what some of us would like to believe size really does matter. Flight, for example, imposes strict limits on size. Ostriches...

redirect.viglink.com

World's Best 8X42: The Zeiss 8X56FL

The image provided by the best current binoculars looks so good that it’s easy to fall into the assumption that binoculars are now so close to optical perfection that further improvement wouldn’t accomplish anything as it would be invisible to the eye. Every now and then I disabuse myself of...

www.birdforum.net

 

[Paultricounty]

"Yes, the 8x56 SLCs are amazingly bright, but how much brightness do you actually need? For most birding needs, mid-sized binoculars (8x32) are more than adequate. In fact, when I started birding, 7x35 was pretty much the standard configuration. Full-sized binoculars (7x42 or 8x42) will allow you to see incredible detail in very dimly lit environments.

But keep in mind that you can only use as much brightness as your eye will admit, so any binocular whose exit pupil is larger than your eye’s pupil (if you are over 50 your eye only opens to 3 or 4mm while a 7x42 binocular has a 6mm exit pupil) is probably providing more brightness than you can use -- even at night. So why bother schlepping these monsters around?

Because it isn’t only about brightness. It’s about the quality of the image, and Swarovski’s 8x56 SLC offers perhaps the best image that I have seen in any binocular. Despite their considerable weight, I found them almost impossible to put down."

Size Matters: The Case for Really Big Binoculars

Size Matters: A Case for Really Big Binoculars Contrary to what some of us would like to believe size really does matter. Flight, for example, imposes strict limits on size. Ostriches...

www.audubon.org

See the problem here is your leaving out the part, either by design or ignorance that that’s your conclusion (if you’re being sincere and not in sale mode, there is a side bet going on) that this is what you see and it’s influenced by your vision or lack thereof. More people have the opposite experience (unless they’re selling something) that the image is not better in the 56, Zeiss or Swaro than the SF, NL Noctivids under 90-95% of observing conditions in GOOD LIGHTING. Like you said it’s about exit pupal, the eye can’t take in more brightness. So if what you’re saying is what you’re truly observing , then it has more to do with you than the binoculars.

So much more goes into why one binocular (regardless of objective size) is perceived to be brighter than the other, optics design, transmission levels and where in the spectrum it peeks, coatings, prism type, and of course the elephant in the room, the individuals eyesight.

 

[Paultricounty]

I have to agree with you on this. In my opinion the brightness I get from 8x42 Victory SFs with 92% transmission (claimed) is already bordering on excessive. I can't see how there'd be any benefit in normal use from increasing the brightness even further. Besides which, 8x56 are absolute bricks. The 8x42 is a miracle of ergonomics and much appreciated for that reason. I can't see how someone would want even worse ergonomics and handling than average. Lastly, I haven't tried them but I'm positive the 8x56 Conquest is absolute TRASH next to an 8x42 SF.

Very true. A perfect example as well , is take the Vortex Razor HD and UHD in the same configuration, both have almost the same light transmission (depending on the stats, review and method of testing) yet the brightness on the UHD is absolutely and Immediately noticeable when looking through them side by side.

The 56 Conquest in both 8x and 10x is an extremely good bino, but is not on the level of the Zeiss FS Swaro NL, EL, Noctivids or Ultravids. The SLC is also a step better than the Conquest, but still not on the level of the other mentioned , IMO. I’ve had and still have most of the bins being discussed and I’ve done extensive side by side testing with groups of people on numerous occasions under different lighting conditions. These we’re not Scientific measured testing using Magnifier or boosters. All were done visually, resolution charts (US Air Force 1951 three bar) were used some of the time. These mostly were subjective tests and opinions , although some did measure FOV. You’d be surprised at some of the consensus.

Paul

 

[Paultricounty]

You don't seem to be reading what I am saying, or you are not comprehending it.

Did you just say that, are you kidding me! This is bizarro land, twilight zone. That sentence blew me away 😲😳😖😧🥴😵‍💫.

It is not just about brightness with a bigger aperture. Birders don't like to believe a bigger aperture binocular is not just brighter, it is better because they don't want to carry a bigger binocular. Read these, slowly.

Size Matters: The Case for Really Big Binoculars

Size Matters: A Case for Really Big Binoculars Contrary to what some of us would like to believe size really does matter. Flight, for example, imposes strict limits on size. Ostriches...

redirect.viglink.com

World's Best 8X42: The Zeiss 8X56FL

The image provided by the best current binoculars looks so good that it’s easy to fall into the assumption that binoculars are now so close to optical perfection that further improvement wouldn’t accomplish anything as it would be invisible to the eye. Every now and then I disabuse myself of...

www.birdforum.net

 

[Scott98]

I did see one other birder sporting out-sized binoculars – a pair of Leica Ultravid HD 8x50s. After a few tentative glances we struck up a conversation. I wasn’t surprised to learn that this fellow is an amateur astronomer because astronomers understand that optics are all about aperture, and they are willing to give up a little practicality to get the last iota of optical truth.

Amen! I love the "size matters" article with the guy trying to sell his birder friends on lugging around the 8x56 SLC! Great stuff. He's not the biggest guy but he's clearly got a solid neck, much better than my sorry collection of degenerating vertebrae. I detached the neckstrap from my 10x56 SLC to protect my poor bones in case I ever get the idea of carrying them around that way.

Remember 8x56 is just opening the door to big aperture! The author would love some nice 11x80's, as I've said I did use mine for birds and sports stadiums back in my younger days, when all I had were astronomy binos. You don't feel the weight in your 20's, it seemed perfectly reasonable to bring them to the baseball game.

 

[CharleyBird]

Henry Link has said for birding he uses a Swarovski 8x42 NL more these days.


BTW, isn't it true that anything larger than 9x63 is either not centre focus or not waterproof?

 

[Swedpat]

It is not just about brightness with a bigger aperture. A bigger aperture is better.

Size Matters: The Case for Really Big Binoculars

Size Matters: A Case for Really Big Binoculars Contrary to what some of us would like to believe size really does matter. Flight, for example, imposes strict limits on size. Ostriches...

redirect.viglink.com

World's Best 8X42: The Zeiss 8X56FL

The image provided by the best current binoculars looks so good that it’s easy to fall into the assumption that binoculars are now so close to optical perfection that further improvement wouldn’t accomplish anything as it would be invisible to the eye. Every now and then I disabuse myself of...

www.birdforum.net

Wayne Mones expresses some wrong statements, and you use him as a source to support your statements.
Not only about eye people size and age, but also when he says this:

"A basic and immutable law of optics is that, all other things being equal, (magnification, quality, engineering, etc.) bigger objective lenses will give you a brighter, more satisfying view than smaller lenses. They will yield more detail and better color rendition than you can possibly obtain from smaller objectives. Big objective lenses allow you to see more detail in deep shadows."

This is simply wrong. Brightness depends on:
1: exit pupil (as long as you can make use of it)
2: light transmisson

Apart from that the kind of glass and coating can make some optics appear brighter for the eye than other despite the same transmission.
But it has nothing to do with the size of objective lens. It's about the eye beeing more sensitive for some wavelengths of light than others.

I think no one here oppose to that a larger exit pupil is more comfortable when it comes to eye placement. At the same time the most find a 1200 gram binocular being uncomfortable to handle and carry around compared to a 800 gram binocular.
The perceived difference becomes actually even bigger when the center of mass comes further away from the face with the larger model.
And this on expense of field of view.
Regarding glare I cannot comment because I have not compared that between 8x42s and 8x56s.

You say:

"But keep in mind that you can only use as much brightness as your eye will admit, so any binocular whose exit pupil is larger than your eye’s pupil (no need to quote the wrong about eye pupil size sourced from Wayne Mones) is probably providing more brightness than you can use -- even at night. So why bother schlepping these monsters around?
Because it isn’t only about brightness."

So what do you really mean: is it about brightness at all or not?

 

[[email protected]]

Wayne Mones expresses some wrong statements, and you use him as a source to support your statements.
Not only about eye people size and age, but also when he says this:

"A basic and immutable law of optics is that, all other things being equal, (magnification, quality, engineering, etc.) bigger objective lenses will give you a brighter, more satisfying view than smaller lenses. They will yield more detail and better color rendition than you can possibly obtain from smaller objectives. Big objective lenses allow you to see more detail in deep shadows."

This is simply wrong. Brightness depends on:
1: exit pupil (as long as you can make use of it)
2: light transmisson

Apart from that the kind of glass and coating can make some optics appear brighter for the eye than other despite the same transmission.
But it has nothing to do with the size of objective lens. It's about the eye beeing more sensitive for some wavelengths of light than others.

I think no one here oppose to that a larger exit pupil is more comfortable when it comes to eye placement. At the same time the most find a 1200 gram binocular being uncomfortable to handle and carry around compared to a 800 gram binocular.
The perceived difference becomes actually even bigger when the center of mass comes further away from the face with the larger model.
And this on expense of field of view.
Regarding glare I cannot comment because I have not compared that between 8x42s and 8x56s.

You say:

"But keep in mind that you can only use as much brightness as your eye will admit, so any binocular whose exit pupil is larger than your eye’s pupil (no need to quote the wrong about eye pupil size sourced from Wayne Mones) is probably providing more brightness than you can use -- even at night. So why bother schlepping these monsters around?
Because it isn’t only about brightness."

So what do you really mean: is it about brightness at all or not?

You need to read Henry's post why an 8x56 is better than an 8x42, and it is not just brightness. Using an 8x56 in the daytime is essentially like using a stopped down binocular, so consequently you have less optical aberrations because you are using the sweet spot of the objective and the 8x56 will have a longer focal length than the 8x42.

When you have a longer focal length in optics or slower f ratio it eliminates a lot of optical aberrations and the results are a clearer, more transparent view. That is why many refracting telescopes are so long to get a slower f ratio. It is all about f ratio.

World's Best 8X42: The Zeiss 8X56FL

The image provided by the best current binoculars looks so good that it’s easy to fall into the assumption that binoculars are now so close to optical perfection that further improvement wouldn’t accomplish anything as it would be invisible to the eye. Every now and then I disabuse myself of...

www.birdforum.net

 

[Swedpat]

You need to read Henry's post why an 8x56 is better than an 8x42, and it is not just brightness. Using an 8x56 in the daytime is essentially like using a stopped down binocular, so consequently you have less optical aberrations because you are using the sweet spot of the objective and the 8x56 will have a longer focal length than the 8x42.

When you have a longer focal length in optics or slower f ratio it eliminates a lot of optical aberrations and the results are a clearer, more transparent view. That is why many refracting telescopes are so long to get a slower f ratio. It is all about f ratio.

World's Best 8X42: The Zeiss 8X56FL

The image provided by the best current binoculars looks so good that it’s easy to fall into the assumption that binoculars are now so close to optical perfection that further improvement wouldn’t accomplish anything as it would be invisible to the eye. Every now and then I disabuse myself of...

www.birdforum.net

Actually even a 8x42 means the objective becomes stopped down in full daylight.
So it's here about how much it's stopped down.
This can be debated for endless times. But a 8x42 being better in daylight than a 8x56 is probably a matter of imagination than fact.
It's neither brighter or sharper. You cannot detect a true difference unless the bigger is of higher quality and with better coatings.

 

[Scott98]

"A basic and immutable law of optics is that, all other things being equal, (magnification, quality, engineering, etc.) bigger objective lenses will give you a brighter, more satisfying view than smaller lenses. They will yield more detail and better color rendition than you can possibly obtain from smaller objectives. Big objective lenses allow you to see more detail in deep shadows."

This is simply wrong. Brightness depends on:

1: exit pupil (as long as you can make use of it)
2: light transmisson

I think I'm starting to understand this better - the "immutable law" statement is 100% correct. However, what's happening is that in birder-language-speak, the word "brightness" has a different definition. It implies more than actual, raw brightness - it's means something closer to "relative brightness" or maybe "apparent brightness" or "exit-pupil derived apparent brightness".

Otherwise, you're trying to disagree with basic laws of physics. If exit pupil and light transmission drove brightness, we'd all be using 20mm binoculars for everything. The telescopes on the top of Mauna Kea would be 10-inchers instead of hundreds of inches of aperture. You can't use exit pupil to reveal distant galaxies and quasars at the edge of the universe my friend

 

[[email protected]]

Actually even a 8x42 means the objective becomes stopped down in full daylight.
So it's here about how much it's stopped down.
This can be debated for endless times. But a 8x42 being better in daylight than a 8x56 is probably a matter of imagination than fact.
It's neither brighter or sharper. You cannot detect a true difference unless the bigger is of higher quality and with better coatings.

Nope, you're wrong. The 8x56 has a slower f ratio than an 8x42 and that is what makes it better.

 

[[email protected]]

1: exit pupil (as long as you can make use of it)
2: light transmisson

I think I'm starting to understand this better - the "immutable law" statement is 100% correct. However, what's happening is that in birder-language-speak, the word "brightness" has a different definition. It implies more than actual, raw brightness - it's means something closer to "relative brightness" or maybe "apparent brightness" or "exit-pupil derived apparent brightness".

Otherwise, you're trying to disagree with basic laws of physics. If exit pupil and light transmission drove brightness, we'd all be using 20mm binoculars for everything. The telescopes on the top of Mauna Kea would be 10-inchers instead of hundreds of inches of aperture. You can't use exit pupil to reveal distant galaxies and quasars at the edge of the universe my friend

I am not sure what you are saying. An 8x56 is not really brighter in the daytime than 8x42 because our eyes can accept only so much light, but it is better because it has a slower f ratio. A slower f ratio translates to a better view with fewer aberrations and more transparency.

 

[Paultricounty]

“I am not sure what you are saying. An 8x56 is not really brighter in the daytime than 8x42 because our eyes can accept only so much light, but it is better because it has a slower f ratio. A slower f ratio translates to a better view with fewer aberrations and more transparency”

Wow, is this guy out there. I said the twilight zone, it’s more like an alternative universe.

 

[Swedpat]

1: exit pupil (as long as you can make use of it)
2: light transmisson

I think I'm starting to understand this better - the "immutable law" statement is 100% correct. However, what's happening is that in birder-language-speak, the word "brightness" has a different definition. It implies more than actual, raw brightness - it's means something closer to "relative brightness" or maybe "apparent brightness" or "exit-pupil derived apparent brightness".

Otherwise, you're trying to disagree with basic laws of physics. If exit pupil and light transmission drove brightness, we'd all be using 20mm binoculars for everything. The telescopes on the top of Mauna Kea would be 10-inchers instead of hundreds of inches of aperture. You can't use exit pupil to reveal distant galaxies and quasars at the edge of the universe my friend

You are confusing relative brightness with total light intake. This discussion is about how bright an image looks. For example: 10x25 and 20x50 give the same brightness provided the light transmission is equal.
50mm lens collects 4 times more light than 25mm. But with twice the magnification, the light is spread over 4 times the area so the relative brightness remains the same.

If you compare a 10x25 to 100x250 telescope you of course can see A LOT more faint objects on the night sky with 100x250. This because many are too small with 10x.
And stars will shine 100 times brighter because they are point sources(also you will detect 100 times fainter stars). But the sky background will appear the same bright.
And at daytime it will be the same brightness. You just perceive it like you are 10x closer with 100x than 10x.

 

[[email protected]]

You are confusing relative brightness with total light intake. This discussion is about how bright an image looks. For example: 10x25 and 20x50 give the same brightness provided the light transmission is equal.
50mm lens collects 4 times more light than 25mm. But with twice the magnification, the light is spread over 4 times the area so the relative brightness remains the same.

If you compare a 10x25 to 100x250 telescope you of course can see A LOT more faint objects on the night sky with 100x250. This because many are too small with 10x.
And stars will shine 100 times brighter because they are point sources(also you will detect 100 times fainter stars). But the sky background will appear the same bright.
And at daytime it will be the same brightness. You just perceive it like you are 10x closer with 100x than 10x.

The 20x50 will allow you to see much more detail in low light though because the Twilight Factor is 31.62 and the Twilight Factor of the 10x25 is 15.81. Higher magnification helps you see detail even in low light.

 

[KC Foggin]

I'm absolutely in love with your 3rd image! So, so beautiful

 

[Swedpat]

The 20x50 will allow you to see much more detail in low light though because the Twilight Factor is 31.62 and the Twilight Factor of the 10x25 is 15.81. Higher magnification helps you see detail even in low light.

But 50x20 has the same twilight factor as 20x50. Is it then as good in low light?
50x50 has a twilight factor of 50. This is much better than 20x50. And 100x50 has twilight factor of 70,7.

While relative brightness index is a mathematical formula which is absolute, twilight factor is just a made up formula intended to describe the fact that magnification can rule over brightness. TF can only be used within a limited range and requires sufficient RBI to be valid, and when the difference in RBI is not too big. The TF for the above mentioned configurations shows this. <1mm exit pupil is really unuseful in low light independent of magnification.
If you can see any detail at all with 10x25 you of course see it better with 20x50. This has not really to do with low light performance.
The difference between 10x25 and 20x50 is like watching an object with naked eye through a 2,5mm hole from 20 vs 10m distance. You don't say your eye's lowlight performance increases by going closer to the object, do you?

 

[Paultricounty]

But 50x20 has the same twilight factor as 20x50. Is it then as good in low light?
50x50 has a twilight factor of 50. This is much better than 20x50. And 100x50 has twilight factor of 70,7.

While relative brightness index is a mathematical formula which is absolute, twilight factor is just a made up formula intended to describe the fact that magnification can rule over brightness. TF can only be used within a limited range and requires sufficient RBI to be valid, and when the difference in RBI is not too big. The TF for the above mentioned configurations shows this. <1mm exit pupil is really unuseful in low light independent of magnification.
If you can see any detail at all with 10x25 you of course see it better with 20x50. This has not really to do with low light performance.
The difference between 10x25 and 20x50 is like watching an object with naked eye through a 2,5mm hole from 20 vs 10m distance. You don't say your eye's lowlight performance increases by going closer to the object, do you?

He doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about, he throws things out all over the place. One would think with all the binoculars he’s tried he’d have a better understanding.