• 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.

Dusk light performance relative to weight, NL Pure 10x32 vs 10x42 (4 Viewers)

Measuring your eye pupil diameter under the light levels of interest may provide guidance on how much light will get into your eyes from larger exit pupils.
Yep, I've done that a few times. I expect the range of effective exit pupils in daylight when the eye's small entrance pupil stops down the binocular exit pupil to be the same in both an 8x52 NL and the 8x42 NL, so I don't expect a brighter image, but would hold out some hope for a cleaner, more relaxed, lower aberration image from an 8x50 NL. More like my Zeiss 8x56 FL, but with lower weight, wider FOV, better color fidelity, lower off-axis aberrations and closer focus.
 
Last edited:
Although it's been a while since I've worked in retail. The trend for birders has definitely been towards 32mm binoculars, while many hunters still go for larger binoculars with bigger exit pupils.

Obviously preferences vary, even among a given activity.
 
Hi Henry,

Sorry mate but IFAIK there won't be a 8x52.

Jan
Thanks Jan. Pretty much what I expected. The same disappointment for me as when there was no 8x50 EL Swarovision. I'm sure these large aperture, but medium to smallish exit pupil binoculars will be OK, but they're not likely to push the envelope toward a better image quality like a well executed 6-7mm EP could.
 
Thanks Jan. Pretty much what I expected. The same disappointment for me as when there was no 8x50 EL Swarovision. I'm sure these large aperture, but medium to smallish exit pupil binoculars will be OK, but they're not likely to push the envelope toward a better image quality like a well executed 6-7mm EP could.
You don't know a 'trick' like you told me how to do it with the Habichts?
If possible I will make it possible:)
 
It primarily comes down to the surface area of the objectives. A 42mm objective has a surface area that is 96% greater than a 30mm objective. A 50mm objective has a surface are that is 41% greater than a 42mm objective lens. For low light I use 7x50 (boat) and 12x50 binos. Having 50% greater image magnification with a 12x bino makes it much easier to see details and spot and ID wildlife. My 12x50 binos weigh 3 ounces more than my 10x43 ones so not as much of a difference in weight as one might expect.
 
Thanks Jan. Pretty much what I expected. The same disappointment for me as when there was no 8x50 EL Swarovision. I'm sure these large aperture, but medium to smallish exit pupil binoculars will be OK, but they're not likely to push the envelope toward a better image quality like a well executed 6-7mm EP could.
Part two,

Leica still makes the Ultravid 8x50.
Great bin but the model doesn't sell.
If one brings a new model on the market they do have to do their homework and when it turns out some specific model doesn't sell.......

Jan
 
Hm, the idea of a Habicht sure would be intriguing, however I think a combination of my current 8x30 with a 10x42 would yield higher combined utility than a 7x42 + 8x30. But then, I have never had the chance to even look AT a Swaro Habicht, let alone though one.
A 10x50 sounds absolutely fantastic but that definitely won't be something I can a) afford and b) be able to carry along on extended trips.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to think about the potential buyer of a 10x50 or 12x50. I would expect it to be mostly people buying ut as a 2nd or 3rd bino?

Now, off to a week of backcountry skiing, still with my creaky Nikon! 😄
 
Hello everybody,

My current setup includes (among an age old spotter) a Nikon Monarch M7 8x30. So the the needs for a light weight bino are covered.
However, I want to include an additional bino into the mix and decided on the NL Pure.
Living in Norther Scandinavia, low light performance is quite important for me, since the dusk period can be fairly long.
Now I am wondering, how much more noticeable is the increase in aperture between the x32 and the x42 variant? While I could try both, it wasn't side by side and not over an extended time frame, and certainly not in low light conditions.

My main usage cases are hiking, frequently over long periods of time and with heavy gear. My plan is to use the Nikon for scenarios where I need to save on weight, and the Swaro for most everything else. But still, I will carry it around in addition to a largish backpack quite frequently.

In you opinion, is it worth to accept the extra weight to get increased low light performance? How crucial is the difference in brightness anyway?

Best wishes and have a wonderful easter holdiday!
I think you're wasting time fretting over the wrong thing here. The weight difference between the 32 and the 42 is a mere 200 grams. When your backpack weighs 10 kilos, you won't notice the difference. When you're backpack weighs one kilo, you still won't feel the difference. And since weight is not the deciding factor here, I would ask myself the question: which bino feels best in my hands ? As much as I like the '32, I find it a little slim to hold comfortably, so I would pick the '42. But that's all personal preference. Better low light performance will only get you a few minutes more to observe per day. Unless it's all day long dark, and there is some light from the stars or even the northern light (imagine that !) that you can use, but I doubt you'll see much of a difference between the two. And if you're still thinking weight is the determining factor: go to the gym and loose 200 grams of bodyweight. Done.
 
Last edited:
The dimmer the light the more important for me to have higher magnification binoculars. I now use only 10x and 12x ones regardless of the size of the objectives which range from 25mm to 50mm. Part of subject identification depends on contrast and lower magnification means less contrast for the eyes.

With photo images if one adjusts the contrast only the image will appear to be much sharper to the eye.
 
I think you're wasting time fretting over the wrong thing here. The weight difference between the 32 and the 42 is a mere 200 grams. When your backpack weighs 10 kilos, you won't notice the difference. When you're backpack weighs one kilo, you still won't feel the difference. And since weight is not the deciding factor here, I would ask myself the question: which bino feels best in my hands ? As much as I like the '32, I find it a little slim to hold comfortably, so I would pick the '42. But that's all personal preference. Better low light performance will only get you a few minutes more to observe per day. Unless it's all day long dark, and there is some light from the stars or even the northern light (imagine that !) that you can use, but I doubt you'll see much of a difference between the two. And if you're still thinking weight is the determining factor: go to the gym and loose 200 grams of bodyweight. Done.


200 grams on your back, you'll never notice.

Holding 200 extra grams up to your face for 10 hours straight, yeah you'll definitely notice.
 
Part of subject identification depends on contrast and lower magnification means less contrast for the eyes.

I want to object to that. Contrast has nothing to do with magnification in itself. And in low light, lower magnification gives brighter image and therefore better contrast. For example: in dim condition 7x50 gives better contrast than 12x50. Still 12x50 will show more details until it becomes too dark for 4 mm exit pupil. Even dimmer than that, the 7 mm exit pupil still will show details when 4 mm exit pupil will show just darkness.
 
I think you're wasting time fretting over the wrong thing here. The weight difference between the 32 and the 42 is a mere 200 grams. When your backpack weighs 10 kilos, you won't notice the difference. When you're backpack weighs one kilo, you still won't feel the difference. And since weight is not the deciding factor here, I would ask myself the question: which bino feels best in my hands ? As much as I like the '32, I find it a little slim to hold comfortably, so I would pick the '42. But that's all personal preference. Better low light performance will only get you a few minutes more to observe per day. Unless it's all day long dark, and there is some light from the stars or even the northern light (imagine that !) that you can use, but I doubt you'll see much of a difference between the two. And if you're still thinking weight is the determining factor: go to the gym and loose 200 grams of bodyweight. Done.
I don’t know how old you are, but I can assure you that as one ages the difference between weights of 42mm and 32mm binoculars becomes quite significant.
 
I don’t know how old you are, but I can assure you that as one ages the difference between weights of 42mm and 32mm binoculars becomes quite significant.
53 years. 40 years of backpacking, And 6 of those years were heavy backpacking as an army sergeant. And I do get it, you want to save weight. But in this case, when you're hauling a big backpack with you, 200 grams will not make the difference.
 
Okay.

Revisit the subject in about 35 years, if you live that much longer.

Odds are, you’ll live about another 15+ years, according to the mortality table (life expectancy at birth) I looked at.

Enjoy.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top