Does it make sense having a 10x32 and a 10x42 of the same type? (1 Viewer)

[Viraj]

But you already have the NL 8x42!
Let us know what you think of the NL 10x32.

I have just received the NL 10x32 and did a quick check with my other binoculars including SFL 10x40, Habicht 10x40, UV 10x32 and NL 8x42. To be honest I like them all 😃 Except the UV has more saturated but considerably dark view.

I can’t immediately see the FOV difference between NL 10 and SFL. However I feel the SFL is a tad brighter and has a bit more relaxed view. Habicht would be the best of the lot with its 3D if it has better eyecups and a bit more FOV. NL 8x42 has the most relaxing view with its lower power, huge FOV, and the big exit pupils. Most of the time mag difference doesn’t make a big difference for detail recognition.

Overall the NL 10x32 feels better in the hand so probably will stay with me. SFL is on par with the NL 10x32 however, it shows CA (from eye pieces) in difficult conditions. Now I have several pair of binoculars and can easily share them with my wife when we go out birding.

 

[Hermann]

So you have one do-it-all pair of binoculars, I suppose?

I've been into birding and binoculars for more than 40 years, so I've got a few. However, and that's the difference between us, for birding I only use two that are very different. So the decision process is very simple: Habitat, planned type of activity. End of story.

Hermann

 

[Dennis Mau]

There are two types of birders. There is the serious birder who only considers his binoculars as a tool, and then there is the birder that likes the hobby of collecting and using different binoculars as well as birding and enjoys trying and using different binoculars. I fall into the 2nd category. I like birding, but I don't just consider the binoculars I use a means to an end.

Furthermore, I enjoy buying and trying different binoculars and comparing them to see how they perform for birding almost as much as birding itself. I am kind of a binocular nut, although I never have a huge collection of binoculars, only having a few pairs at most usually that I commonly use. There is nothing wrong with having several nice binoculars, which may be more than you really need because you simply enjoy having them, the same way some people collect vintage automobiles. Using and enjoying binoculars is to me a hobby in itself, and I constantly like to try new ones.

 

[tenex]

Although my own eye pupil is <3.2mm, I have the feeling the 10x42 resolves details better, especially far away.

This could be true of your own examples, but not as a general function of objective size. Misunderstandings like this have circulated for years, probably drawn from astronomy where aperture rules for reasons that are irrelevant in daytime terrestrial observing. (I even recall BVD claiming that larger objectives provide "more color information"...)

I know, but a higher magnification with same objective size, will have a smaller exit pupil. I guess that, having the same eye relief, a smaller exit pupil might be more uncomfortable when you roll your eyes to see further away from the center of the FOV.

I don't know about that because as I said, I can hardly ever look at the field edge anyway. Otherwise I'm quite satisfied with an exit pupil of 3.2mm or so unless instability is involved (high wind, boats etc). So I'm always curious why it is that some people dislike them so.

 

[Viraj]

I had quite a big problem with blackouts in NL 8x42 and it took a while for me to get used to it. Today I had a walk outside with my new NL 10x32 which has considerably smaller exit pupils compared to the NL 8x42. However, it didn’t show any blackouts. So I think it is not only the exit pupil size but also the facial structure play a role inducing blackouts.

Moreover, NL 10x32 is more stable in my hands compared to the NL 8x42 although the later has a higher weight. It is all because of the smaller size and low weight of the NL 10x32 make them easier to hold (for me).

 

[Dennis Mau]

I had quite a big problem with blackouts in NL 8x42 and it took a while for me to get used to it. Today I had a walk outside with my new NL 10x32 which has considerably smaller exit pupils compared to the NL 8x42. However, it didn’t show any blackouts. So I think it is not only the exit pupil size but also the facial structure play a role inducing blackouts.

Moreover, NL 10x32 is more stable in my hands compared to the NL 8x42 although the later has a higher weight. It is all because of the smaller size and low weight of the NL 10x32 make them easier to hold (for me).

I prefer my SF 10x32 for the same reason. If you can find a 10x32 that fit's your facial structure correctly as you say, it can have fewer blackouts than a 8x42 that doesn't fit your face.

 

[ReinierB]

I had quite a big problem with blackouts in NL 8x42 and it took a while for me to get used to it. Today I had a walk outside with my new NL 10x32 which has considerably smaller exit pupils compared to the NL 8x42. However, it didn’t show any blackouts. So I think it is not only the exit pupil size but also the facial structure play a role inducing blackouts.

Moreover, NL 10x32 is more stable in my hands compared to the NL 8x42 although the later has a higher weight. It is all because of the smaller size and low weight of the NL 10x32 make them easier to hold (for me).

Hi Viraj,

The NL 32 has slightly smaller eyecups. The fall deeper in your eyes. I have to turn in the eyecups of the NL 32 one step and the eyecups of the NL 42 two steps. They both fit me really nice. Maybe the NL 32 fits me a little bitte better because I like pretty tight eyecups, like the one of the SLC 42.

I can use the NL 10x32 with one hand, the NL 10x42 is a bit heavy for that. The NL 32 is really stable. I do not use a headrest on the NL 10x32, but I like it on the NL 10x42 because of the weight I think.
They are both so nice! The ergonomics of the NL 32 are perfect for me (I do not have really large hands), but the large exit pupil of the NL 10x42 makes the view more enjoyable with just a little bit less blackouts and glare as well as easier eye placement.

 

[Viraj]

For me definitely, the NL 10x32 is a keeper. I don't care a bit more enjoyable view of 10x42 as long as the 10x32 is stable and fits well in my hands. I didn't have any blackout problem with it and the glare doesn't bother me much. This will be my day-to-day pair of binoculars. So far I am really happy about it.

 

[Montereyman]

I have Swarvo 10x25 that are very light and compact as well as a little used 10x43 and a much used 10x32 and 12x50 and stabilized 16x42 binoculars. With your present binos the addition I would be considering is the Vortex Viper HD 10x50 that BH Photo currently sells for $399 (email promo price).

The increase in surface area with larger diameter optics is greater than one might expect. A 25mm provides a 56% gain over a 20mm, and a 50mm provides a gain of 41% over a 42mm objective.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I have Swarvo 10x25 that are very light and compact as well as a little used 10x43 and a much used 10x32 and 12x50 and stabilized 16x42 binoculars. With your present binos the addition I would be considering is the Vortex Viper HD 10x50 that BH Photo currently sells for $399 (email promo price).

The increase in surface area with larger diameter optics is greater than one might expect. A 25mm provides a 56% gain over a 20mm, and a 50mm provides a gain of 41% over a 42mm objective.

They have the Vortex Viper HD 10x50 for $399! That is an excellent binocular. I wish I wouldn't have seen that.

 

[tenex]

The increase in surface area with larger diameter optics is greater than one might expect. A 25mm provides a 56% gain over a 20mm, and a 50mm provides a gain of 41% over a 42mm objective.

And a 42mm has a whopping 72% over a 32... so why can I hardly notice a difference, even around dusk?

 

[Maljunulo]

And a 42mm has a whopping 72% over a 32... so why can I hardly notice a difference, even around dusk?

A cogent and penetrating question, sort of like asking "Why isn't it 1.72 times as bright?"

I'll be interested in the responses.

 

[Dennis Mau]

And a 42mm has a whopping 72% over a 32... so why can I hardly notice a difference, even around dusk?

Does the 42mm have as high of transmission as the 32mm? I have only really noticed a difference in brightness between a 42mm and a 32mm right at dark.

Are 32mm Binoculars all you Need? | Best Binocular Reviews

We discover if you really need larger 42mm binoculars, or if 32mm ones are just as good even in low light situations

www.bestbinocularsreviews.com

 

[dorubird]

And a 42mm has a whopping 72% over a 32... so why can I hardly notice a difference, even around dusk?

Because 10x42 and 10x32 look similar when the pupil of our eyes has not been given enough time to dilate. The pupil does not dilate in the dark instantly. Therefore, for astro observations, we need about half an hour of visual accommodation with the darkness. So after a period of time the 10x42 binoculars will obviously be brighter than the 10x32 one (of course, assuming that the light transmission is similar between the two). For example, if we sit in the deep shade of a forest for about half an hour, our pupils have time to dilate and than 42 will be brighter than 32. But a simple glance at the mobile phone, or at sunny sky will shrink the pupils of our eyes, making necessary a new adaptation to the low light canopy. Without this pupil accommodation 32 will seem as bright as 42.

 

[Maljunulo]

There is much more involved in dark adaptation than pupil size.

The pupils respond instantly, by the way, it does not take a half an hour, more like one second or less.

 

[Dennis Mau]

There is much more involved in dark adaptation than pupil size.

The pupils respond instantly, by the way, it does not take a half an hour, more like one second or less.

You're correct. The pupils respond instantly, but it takes the rods and cones more time to adapt to darkness, usually about 1/2 hour, and I think that is what Dorubird is talking about when he refers to dark adaptation. His theory is very good though.

"Pupils dilate within seconds of entering darkness. In bright light, pupils are 2–4 mm in diameter, but can expand to 4–8 mm in the dark. This process is called the pupillary light response.

"While pupils dilate quickly, it takes longer for the eyes to fully adapt to darkness:

• Cone cells: Adapt after about 10 minutes
• Rods: Adapt completely after several hours
• Eyes: Adapt from bright light to total darkness in 20–30 minutes, becoming 10,000–1,000,000 times more sensitive

Pupils constrict in bright light to limit the amount of light that enters the eye. The opposite happens in dim lighting, when pupils dilate to allow more light in. "

 

[dorubird]

There is much more involved in dark adaptation than pupil size.

The pupils respond instantly, by the way, it does not take a half an hour, more like one second or less.

Yes you are right, it is also about dark adaptation. But it also involves the dilation of the pupils of the eyes. The exit pupil responds almost instantly to light, closing immediately. But in the dark it doesn't open instantly, it takes some time.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Yes you are right, it is also about dark adaptation. But it also involves the dilation of the pupils of the eyes. The exit pupil responds almost instantly to light, closing immediately. But in the dark it doesn't open instantly, it takes some time.

The pupils dilate almost instantly, opening in the dark. It is the cones and rods inside the eye that takes some time to dark adapt. Look at yourself in the mirror and shut the lights off and watch how quickly your pupils will dilate. It is instant.

 

[tenex]

Really, I was just trying to make a simple point about the irrelevance of a modest difference in aperture toward dusk due to logarithmic perception of brightness.

 

[Trinovid]

The exit pupil responds almost instantly to light, closing immediately. But in the dark it doesn't open instantly, it takes some time.

Something much better understood by those who spend a lot of time outdoors and away from city lights. Takes seconds to adapt to sudden brightness, but minutes to fully adapt to darkness.