Does it make sense having a 10x32 and a 10x42 of the same type? (2 Viewers)

[Dennis Mau]

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.

Dorubird brought up a good point with dark adaptation when using binoculars in low light or as the light decreases. It really would make a difference when using binoculars in low light, just like it does a when using a telescope for astronomy.

 

[ReinierB]

I actually think I cover all my needs with the Curio 7x21, NL 10x32 and NL 10x42.

Other people would swap the 10x32 for a 8x32 and I understand that. I already had the NL 10x32 and don't want to sell it and loose a couple of hundred euros. I also prefer 10 power over 8 power in almost all cases.

I've drawn a line at 4mm exit pupil. Exit pupil ≥ 4mm; useful in dimlight. Exit pupil < 4mm; not so useful in dimlight. That is my experience at least.
So 10x32 for bright daylight birding (also 70-80% of all cases). 10x42 for difficult light (the NL 10x42 is better in handling glare as well, probably because of the larger exit pupil.) And (that is my experience) a 10x42 is better in resolving details really far away.

 

[Viraj]

I actually think I cover all my needs with with the Curio 7x21, NL 10x32 and NL 10x42.

Other people would swap the 10x32 for a 8x32 and I understand that. I already had the NL 10x32 and don't want to sell it and loose a couple of hundred euros. I also prefer 10 power over 8 power in almost all cases.

I've drawn a line at 4mm exit pupil. Exit pupil ≥ 4mm; useful in dimlight. Exit pupil < 4mm; not so useful in dimlight. That is my experience at least.
So 10x32 for bright daylight birding (also 70-80% of all cases). 10x42 for difficult light (the NL 10x42 is better in handling glare as well, probably because of the larger exit pupil.) And (that is my experience) a 10x42 is better in resolving details really far away.

A nice combo indeed. I will also use a similar set of binoculars for birding except NL 8x42 instead of NL 10x42 for better low-light performance. Honestly, I cannot see a big difference between NL 10x32 and 8x42 for details recognition. NL 10x42 might be superior in that aspect, however, I have Canon 12x36 IS III for long-range observations.

Enjoyyy....

 

[mwhogue]

(snip) I have Canon 12x36 IS III for long-range observations.

Sweet. The 12x32 IS III remains under - appreciated IMO.

Mike

 

[Viraj]

Sweet. The 12x32 IS III remains under - appreciated IMO.

Mike

There are few of us in BF still using it for birding. If I am correct @yarrellii (still) use it as his primary binoculars for birding. If one can make peace with its shortcomings such as CA, it will provide excellent results for detail identification of long rang targets compared to non-IS models, even unmounted alphas such as NL 12x42.

 

[Viraj]

Hi, @ReinierB I think you had enough opportunities to compare your new NL 10x42 with already familiar NL 10x32. Would you like to share your thoughts/findings with us? Do you think x42 is so much better than x32? Are there differences in colour rendition, contrast, and transparency between them? Do you see a big difference between low-light capabilities? Looking forward to getting your insights 😊

 

[Torview]

I have an 8x32SF and an 8x42SF, the 32 gets more use because I take it daily walking the dog, if I`m out and about its pretty much always with me.

However if I`m going Birding rather than just out and about I take the 42, easier eye placement, Birds pop more with the shallower depth of field and its just more enjoyable to look through.

Two of the same power but different apertures may be illogical but it covers all my needs.

 

[Hermann]

I have an 8x32SF and an 8x42SF, the 32 gets more use because I take it daily walking the dog [...]

However if I`m going Birding rather than just out and about I take the 42, easier eye placement, Birds pop more with the shallower depth of field and its just more enjoyable to look through.

There is no difference in the depth of field. In binoculars the depth of field depends solely on the magnification.

Hermann

 

[ReinierB]

Hi, @ReinierB I think you had enough opportunities to compare your new NL 10x42 with already familiar NL 10x32. Would you like to share your thoughts/findings with us? Do you think x42 is so much better than x32? Are there differences in colour rendition, contrast, and transparency between them? Do you see a big difference between low-light capabilities? Looking forward to getting your insights 😊

I am sorry, I haven't been a lot in the field lately. I can't tell much at the moment.
There isn't a lot of difference, as far as I have seen. The NL 10x42 is just a bit more comfortable (except for the weight) and I like using it with the headrest (not so much with the NL 10x32, because with the added weight of the NL 42 I can hold it more stable/comfortable.)
The NL 10x42 has more comfortable eye placement, a bit less glare, a tiny bit larger AFOV and of course brighter in dim light. However, I need some more time comparing them!

 

[ReinierB]

I have an 8x32SF and an 8x42SF, the 32 gets more use because I take it daily walking the dog, if I`m out and about its pretty much always with me.

However if I`m going Birding rather than just out and about I take the 42, easier eye placement, Birds pop more with the shallower depth of field and its just more enjoyable to look through.

Two of the same power but different apertures may be illogical but it covers all my needs.

I think it is logical, at the least that is what I want to hear.
The 42 is just a tiny bit better in almost every way, except for the weight.
As Hermann says, the DOF should be the same, but the 42 gives you just a bit more comfort and maybe brightness, that it may feel that the DOF is different. I also think the view through the NL 10x42 is just a bit more enjoyable.

 

[Viraj]

I am sorry, I haven't been a lot in the field lately. I can't tell much at the moment.
There isn't a lot of difference, as far as I have seen. The NL 10x42 is just a bit more comfortable (except for the weight) and I like using it with the headrest (not so much with the NL 10x32, because with the added weight of the NL 42 I can hold it more stable/comfortable.)
The NL 10x42 has more comfortable eye placement, a bit less glare, a tiny bit larger AFOV and of course brighter in dim light. However, I need some more time comparing them!

Thank you for the reply 😊 Please let us know more about your findings in the future, after they get an extensive use 😊

 

[Torview]

There is no difference in the depth of field. In binoculars the depth of field depends solely on the magnification.

Hermann

Thankyou Herman.

The Birds still pop more for me with the 42 so I find them more enjoyable.

 

[ReinierB]

Thank you for the reply 😊 Please let us know more about your findings in the future, after they get an extensive use 😊

This weekend I was on a sailing boat on the wadden sea and took my NL 10x42 with me. I barely noticed glare, although the sun was low and the sea was mirroring the sunlight. I would have faced more glare with the NL 10x32, I am sure.

So for me the NL 10x42 is especially better in lowlight, difficult light, coping with glare and eye placement.

The eyecups of the NL 10x32 are a bit smaller and therefore just a tiny bit better suited for my facial structure (they fall deeper in my eye sockets and I like that. That's why I like the quite narrow eyecups of the SLC 42 as well.)
The fieldpro attachment lugs are very tight on my NL 10x42 and can only be twisted with the hand. Some might prefer that, but I like the fact that they are looser on my NL 32. Just two minor advantages of the NL 10x32.

Optically I do not see a difference. Both very bright, no CA (I am not sensitive for that), both a big FOV.

Although the AFOV of the NL 8x32 is a bit smaller than on the NL 10x32's. I might swap the NL 10x32 for a NL 8x32 for the larger exit pupil, if I find a good deal for a NL 8x32. I hope the NL 8x32 deals better with glare as well.
Having a 8x32 and a 10x42 of the same type makes more sense.

 

[SanderBird82]

Een mooie combinatie inderdaad. Ik zal ook een vergelijkbare verrekijker gebruiken voor vogelspotten, behalve NL 8x42 in plaats van NL 10x42 voor betere prestaties bij weinig licht. Eerlijk gezegd zie ik geen groot verschil tussen NL 10x32 en 8x42 voor het herkennen van details. NL 10x42 is misschien beter in dat opzicht, maar ik heb Canon 12x36 IS III voor observaties op lange afstand.

Veel plezier....

Is it worth to have an 8x42 NL Pure (in have already) and a 10x32 NL Pure?

 

[rodneyAB]

Is it worth to have an 8x42 NL Pure (in have already) and a 10x32 NL Pure?

a good question. I've been using NL 12x42, and NL 8x32, recently added the NL 8x42. Is there any sense in that? Is the EP value worth it?

 

[Viraj]

Is it worth to have an 8x42 NL Pure (in have already) and a 10x32 NL Pure?

This is a difficult to answer question. It not only involves real life conditions but also psychology. Generally I like to use x10 power to see a big picture but in real world conditions x10 dose not have a big advantage over x8 for detail recognition (for me). So I think my favour for x10 power is mostly psychological.

I usually tend to pick my NL 10x32 over 8x42 because of the small size and the x10 power. It is also newly acquired. For me NL 8x42 has less glare, easy eye box compared to the 10x32. Maybe I was got used to it for a long time. NL 10x32 offers easy handling.

I think in most of the cases having a 8x32 and 10x42 makes sense considering exit pupil sizes. According to my experience 4mm is a good size. For me going from 4mm to 5mm does not give a huge advantage. However with the big FOV and the fore head rest to stabilize NL 10x42 can be the only binoculars for one. It can also be coupled with Curio 7x21 for more versatility.

The reason for me to have NL 8x42 and NL 10x32 purely the circumstances occurred. I wanted to buy an NL 10x42 but at the shop decided to go with NL 8x42 after a comparison with both. That time I thought to have only one pair of binoculars. Since it is my first pair of Alfa binoculars and there is a history associated with it, I didn’t want to sell it and bought NL 10x32 for mag difference and easy handling.

I also think buying an NL 8x32/42 and an NL 12x42 makes more sense. However for the time being I am not convinced to buy an NL 12x42 due to limited budget and having Canon 12x36 IS mitigates the need of an NL12x42 to some extent.

 

[SanderBird82]

Dit is een vraag die moeilijk te beantwoorden is. Het gaat niet alleen om echte omstandigheden, maar ook om psychologie. Over het algemeen gebruik ik graag x10 power om een groter geheel te zien, maar in echte omstandigheden heeft x10 geen groot voordeel ten opzichte van x8 voor het herkennen van details (voor mij). Dus ik denk dat mijn voorkeur voor x10 power vooral psychologisch is.

Ik kies meestal voor mijn NL 10x32 boven 8x42 vanwege het kleine formaat en de x10 power. Het is ook nieuw. Voor mij heeft de NL 8x42 minder schittering en een makkelijke eye box vergeleken met de 10x32. Misschien was ik er al lang aan gewend. NL 10x32 biedt gemakkelijke handling.

Ik denk dat het in de meeste gevallen zinvol is om een 8x32 en 10x42 te hebben, gezien de grootte van de uittredepupil. Volgens mijn ervaring is 4 mm een goede maat. Voor mij geeft het niet zo'n groot voordeel om van 4 mm naar 5 mm te gaan. Echter, met het grote gezichtsveld en de voorste hoofdsteun om NL te stabiliseren, kan 10x42 de enige verrekijker zijn voor iemand. Hij kan ook worden gekoppeld aan Curio 7x21 voor meer veelzijdigheid.

De reden dat ik NL 8x42 en NL 10x32 heb, zijn puur de omstandigheden. Ik wilde een NL 10x42 kopen, maar besloot in de winkel om voor NL 8x42 te gaan na een vergelijking met beide. Die keer dacht ik dat ik maar één verrekijker zou hebben. Omdat het mijn eerste verrekijker van Alfa is en er een geschiedenis aan verbonden is, wilde ik hem niet verkopen en kocht ik NL 10x32 vanwege het mag-verschil en de eenvoudige bediening.

Ik denk ook dat het verstandiger is om een NL 8x32/42 en een NL 12x42 te kopen. Maar voorlopig ben ik niet overtuigd om een NL 12x42 te kopen vanwege het beperkte budget en het hebben van een Canon 12x36 IS vermindert de noodzaak van een NL12x42 tot op zekere hoogte.

Ik begrijp dat mensen kiezen voor 8x42 (5.2 ER) en 10x32 als ze dit overdag gebruiken.

Ik gebruik 8x42 ook in bossen.
10x32 (als ik had) gebruik dit overdag in open terreinen. Dus waarom geen x32

I wish a can but a 12x42 NL Pure in future. But i am not sure if i could hold it stady

 

[Trinovid]

Ik begrijp dat mensen kiezen voor 8x42 (5.2 ER) en 10x32 als ze dit overdag gebruiken.

Ik gebruik 8x42 ook in bossen.
10x32 (als ik had) gebruik dit overdag in open terreinen. Dus waarom geen x32

さっぱり分からんけど、何でオランダ語で書くのするべきでしょうか？

 

[SanderBird82]

さっぱり分からんけど、何でオランダ語で書くのするべきでしょうか？

Ah, i am sorry.
I didnt realize i my translator program was working.

I will write in English next time !

 

[Trinovid]

Wat would you like to know?

Meer informatie ですか？書いたないよ。ちなみに、このサイトは英語何のよ。オランダ語を勘弁してください。