EL choice for lower light? (1 Viewer)

[Aotus]

Hello.

I have been using my EL 8x32 for about six months and love them. However, as the daylight hours are fewer, I have come to wonder whether a larger exit pupil would make a big difference to me in lower light. Then, I recall the many reviews that have stated that the EL32 excels in low light, comparable to a larger objective bino. I wish there were an EL 7x42. I love the open bridge design, and I think I'd like to stick with Swaro (though have been tempted to pull the trigger on a Nikon EDG II 7x42 on a couple occasions). I've considered the EL 8.5x42, believing now that the weight wouldn't bother me (now that I use the young harness), and the larger space for my fingers would be a relief, especially with gloves. However, the 8.5x42 are a small step up in exit pupil size. Would that really make a difference in lower light? Enough to make up for the loss of FOV?

Thanks for any thoughts.

 

[jan van daalen]

Hello.

I have been using my EL 8x32 for about six months and love them. However, as the daylight hours are fewer, I have come to wonder whether a larger exit pupil would make a big difference to me in lower light. Then, I recall the many reviews that have stated that the EL32 excels in low light, comparable to a larger objective bino. I wish there were an EL 7x42. I love the open bridge design, and I think I'd like to stick with Swaro (though have been tempted to pull the trigger on a Nikon EDG II 7x42 on a couple occasions). I've considered the EL 8.5x42, believing now that the weight wouldn't bother me (now that I use the young harness), and the larger space for my fingers would be a relief, especially with gloves. However, the 8.5x42 are a small step up in exit pupil size. Would that really make a difference in lower light? Enough to make up for the loss of FOV?

Thanks for any thoughts.

Hi Aotus,

I think it would largely depend on your age and for that matter your pupils.
If you are under 35 years, you would. If you are above 50, you won't.
Personally, if you love the 32 but glove wearing is a issue for you with the EL, I would go for the NL32. No doubt about that.

Jan

 

[Aotus]

Thank you for that reply. I would love to get a pair of the NL 8x42 but that's a significant leap too far for my wallet.

A well-timed bump of another thread answered my question about EL 8x32 vs. EL 8.5x42. In particular the following posts from this thread:

Looking for any opinions on the light gathering capabilities of the el42 vs 50mm models, for a very short time I had both 8.5x42 and 8x32 and made comparisons at dusk but the difference was never mind blowing, the 42mm had marginal improvements in micro contrast but very little difference in low light.

Currently 45 and have no idea how far my pupils open up at dusk to make full use of the larger exit pupil!

Matt

I think you have answered your own question... I have compared 32mm and 42mm like binoculars pretty extensively for meaningful differences while birding during low or poor light conditions. I have also compared pretty extensively the SV 10X42 and 10X50. Low or poor light conditions for each. As an avid birder, I really thought the differences were minimal.

I will still be on the lookout for a good deal on a 7x42 from another brand, and will try to stick it out with my EL32 as the light gets lower for now.

 

[mwhogue]

Aotus,

Since your goal is to beef up low light options, IME the Zeiss FL 7x42 would be better choice than the EDG II or the UV. All three are great but the FL is best in low light. YMMV.

There is also the Opticron 7x42 roof which is well regarded here.

Mike

 

[Conndomat]

If you are under 35 years, you would. If you are above 50, you won't.

Hi,

well, I wouldn't say that apodictically! Especially between 50-75 years there are still quite a few people who have an EP. of 5mm. or have more.

https://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/martin.adler/pup_age.html

As an alternative, the 8x42 SLC could be mentioned, with an EP. of 5.25mm. is it suitable for twilight.
If you are not an eye glasses user, the 7x42 Habicht would be an option, but it has a small FOV, or a Zeiss HT 8x42.
There are enough alternatives.

Andreas

 

[GrampaTom]

Ive heard Jan's advice about age and pupils, from multiple sources. As well, I've read what Andreas just posted. Curious, at my last optometrist visit, I asked her to measure my low light pupil, but was underwhelmed that she quite got the mission. She took a smallish metric rule, held it up against my eyes in the darkish room and got a quick and dirty "estimate" of about 5mm... Im 77. That kinda took me no where. It seems certainly possible, as with so many things, Y or MMMV.

Ive another thought/question that comes from my experience with both an EL 1042 and Zeiss Victory Pocket 825. I bird or critter watch, well after sunrise and before sundown. By all accounts, I should not need the 4.2 EP of the ELs and have no problem with the 3.125 of the Pockets. As good as the little 825s are, I do notice that when looking into shadows, shaded places the sharpness I experience in bright sunlight, is not quite there. I had anticipated with the usual end of day explanation, that the view would just become dimmer/darker. It seems though, (Ive checked this multiple times), its that the quality of view begins to degrade, detail gets lost first. And this can happen in full daylight, if you're in a forested area and peering into dense brush, that is shadowed or under low hanging marsh grass over a mud flat at mid tide. Since I dont have a good idea of what my 77 year old Pupils can dilate to, but do see this sharpness degradation with the 3.125 EP of the Pockets, and not the 4.2 of the EL, I wonder.

There are several fans of 32s reporting here who love there EL, SF or NLs in this objective size. I'm on the verge of opting in, but confess to some concern about the choice of a 10 in 32 do to my experience with the little Zeiss and wonder if those with 1032s have done the experiment or notice what I think I do?

 

[Conndomat]

She took a smallish metric rule, held it up against my eyes in the darkish room and got a quick and dirty "estimate" of about 5mm... Im 77.

Hi Tom,

then the lady didn't feel like it, usually the pupil is measured with a pupillometer.
With the help of an infrared camera, the pupil is recorded at different light intensities and the different pupil widths are measured.

Andreas

 

[henry link]

It's pretty easy to measure your own pupil dilation when you are looking through a binocular. The test I described below in a post from last year can be set up for any light level from bright sunlight to nearly total darkness.

Henry


"It's not difficult to determine your own personal pupil dilation while looking through a binocular at any light level you choose. I've mentioned this technique many times over the last ten years, but it seems that most people don't want to bother.

All it takes is an artificial star, some masking tape and a large exit pupil binocular. The star should be defocused by setting the binocular focus at infinity or beyond and examining the star at a close enough distance so that the defocused star forms a round image of the binocular objective lens or the iris of the eye, depending on which is smaller. For simplicity this should be done with only one eye at a time. The measuring device is just two pieces of masking tape attached to the binocular's trim ring in front of the objective lens in such a way that there is an open slit between the two parallel tape strips. If the slit is visible through the binoculars then the eye is looking through a wider aperture than the slit. Adjust the width of the slit until the tape is barely grazing the edge of the defocused star on both sides and you have the diameter of the part of the objective lens that the eye is actually using. Divide that by the binocular's magnification and you have the diameter of your eye's pupil for that particular level of light when you are looking through a binocular.

I decided a few weeks ago to measure my current maximum pupil dilation in near total darkness with my eyes behind a pair of 8x56 binoculars. I set up an artificial star inside a storeroom in my garage at night. I positioned myself about 20 meters outside the open storeroom door. There was total darkness surrounding the star as viewed through the tripod mounted binocular and I used winged eyecups to block any dim lateral light from entering my eyes. The view was so dark I couldn't see the eyepiece field stop. The defocused artificial star was a dim gray circle, just bright enough to show the slit when the tape strips were placed on the objective ring. After adjusting the tape strips a few times I found that my current maximum dilation is about 5.2mm. When I first starting taking these measurements about 10 years ago my maximum dilation was about 5.8mm. I'm now almost 73."

 

[gwlee]

I have an 8x32 EL. It’s views are as bright as any other 8x32 in “low light, “ but noticeably less bright than my 8x42, which is noticeably less bright than my 10x50, which is noticeably less bright than my 7x50 when looking through my 70 something eyes.

To me, “low light” is after sunset or before sunrise though. Otherwise, I don’t notice much difference In brightness between these four high quality binoculars.

 

[Swedpat]

I have an 8x32 EL. It’s views are as bright as any other 8x32 in “low light, “ but noticeably less bright than my 8x42, which is noticeably less bright than my 10x50, which is noticeably less bright than my 7x50 when looking through my 70 something eyes.

To me, “low light” is after sunset or before sunrise though. Otherwise, I don’t notice much difference In brightness between these four high quality binoculars.

8x42 configuration is 10% brighter than 10x50 if light transmission is the same.
So I am curious what binos are your 8x42 and 10x50?

 

[gwlee]

8x42 configuration is 10% brighter than 10x50 if light transmission is the same.
So I am curious what binos are your 8x42 and 10x50?

The 8x42 is a Nikon Premier. The 7x50 and 10x50 are Fujinon FMT-SX binoculars. My opinion is based on decades of practical experience using these three binoculars and about 18 months with the 8x32 EL. I primarily use the 50s at night, and the 32 and 42 during the day.

 

[Swedpat]

The 8x42 is a Nikon Premier. The 7x50 and 10x50 are Fujinon FMT-SX binoculars. My opinion is based on decades of practical experience using these three binoculars and about 18 months with the 8x32 EL. I primarily use the 50s at night, and the 32 and 42 during the day.

Ok! And Premier is a premium glass. Still the Fujinons are significantly superior!
What is interesting here is that you gain in brightness with the 7x50 compared to 10x50. This means you likely still have more than 5mm eye pupil size(supposing the Fujinons have similar light transmission).
I think not all ~70 years old persons can enjoy that!

 

[gwlee]

Ok! And Premier is a premium glass. Still the Fujinons are significantly superior!
What is interesting here is that you gain in brightness with the 7x50 compared to 10x50. This means you likely still have more than 5mm eye pupil size(supposing the Fujinons have similar light transmission).
I think not all ~70 years old persons can enjoy that!

The practical effects of differences in transmission have always been much less obvious to me than differences in aperture, so I don’t pay much attention to transmission claims for high quality optics.

I believe there’s a correlation between age and exit pupil size, but probably less than the often repeated 5mm Rule suggests. In using very similar 7x50 and 10x50 Fujinon FMT-SX binoculars at night for astronomy and terrestrial observing, I still find the views through the 7x50 a little brighter. In using otherwise identical, high quality eyepieces that give approximately 1m, 2mm, 4mm, 5mm, and 6mm exit pupils in the same astronomical refractors, I still find that brightness increases as exit pupil increases despite my age, and some of my peers report the same.

 

[retired2021]

For what it's worth...
I'm 68 years yound and wondered what my pupil width would be in a darkish environment.
I wanted to make up my mind to what extend exit pupil would be important in my choice for bino geometry in contributing to the amount of light that can enter my eyes. (I realise that exit pupil is important for other reasons too by the way).
I made a print in powerpoint of black filled circles. You can define the width of the dot nicely in mm with Powerpoint.
On one line I printed all diameters from 4.0/4.5----7.5/80 mm.
I asked my wife to sit next to me in a darkish room, I closed my eyes for a while and let her made the choice of my pupil width when I opened my eyes by comparing to the printed dots.
I reached to 6.0-6.5 mm with this scienifically solid and very reproducable method....

 

[Patudo]

A lot depends on what exactly you mean by low light, and also what you're trying to see in terms of bird/animal size and distance. 7x42 has been recommended in a number of these posts, but I often find myself wanting more magnification than 7x even in bright daylight, let alone in poor light. A combination of relatively high magnification and large aperture will offer a real difference to an 8x32 but such a combination does mean a bulky and weighty binocular. I remember well that last year when a peregrine near me seemed to be more active very late in the day, I lugged along my brother's 10x56 SLC one evening instead of my usual 10x42 SE and found it to offer a very definite improvement in both performance (enabling, I'd guess, at least 15 minutes more observation time) and just as importantly, viewing comfort. Fortunately I very seldom need those capabilities.

 

[Rg548]

I don't think you will see the difference you are after, unless you do a big jump up. This goes hand in hand with size and weight, and you've just got to put up with it.
I think 10x50 or similar, is where you should be at, to see a big difference.
There's no way round it. My 8x56Victory FL's are amazing in low light, but they are big and heavy. I'm happy at the moment to put up with that. It's an uncompromised performance. One day I might get something smaller, we'll see, but thay won't perform in the same way.
Simple as that.