Higher transmission in the 12X42 than the 10X52 😳🤔🤷🏻‍♂️ (1 Viewer)

[NDhunter]

Shouldn’t a 10X52 be noticeably brighter than a 12X42, both having similar lenses and coatings ? Maybe not, my understanding of such things is admittedly very limited.

Yes, a 10x52 will be brighter when used under lower light conditions, which is the best test of what you
actually see. Transmission values are not visual brightness. Now this is comparing similar quality optics.
It does come down to physics.
Jerry

 

[GrampaTom]

Heres the link to Gils #19 above:

https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/testrapporten/COLOR_VISION_BRIGHTNESS_RESOLUTION_AND_CONTRAST_IN_BINOCULAR-IMAGES_highres.pdf

 

[ReinierB]

What exactly do you want to say here?

No.

Hermann

Not much. Just something I have noticed.
For instance CL 8x25 and VP 8x25, both measured with 94/95% transmission. Stated: 88% and 91%.
EL 10x50 and EL 12x50: 87-89% transmission measured. Stated: 90%.
Source: Houseofoutdoor.

 

[Maljunulo]

Transmission values are not visual brightness.
Jerry

This point seems to elude a surprising number here.

If 100 photons enter a binocular, and 90 photons emerge from the eyepiece, the transmission of that binocular is 90%.

This is irrespective of whether it is a sunny day in the Saudi desert, or a gloomy, overcast day in Seattle, Washington.

No matter the perceived “brightness” there will still be 90 photons emerging for every 100 incident. It doesn’t matter what the total incident photon flux is.

I hope this clarifies.

 

[Thotmosis]

Photons are strange birds. We know that photons have no mass and we like to think that gravity only affects things that have a mass. However, photons still get deflected by the Sun and can even orbit around a black hole. How exactly are photons being affected by gravity then?

How Gravity Affects Photons & Light: A Complete Physics Guide – Profound Physics

profoundphysics.com

 

[Maljunulo]

I think the conventional explanation is that gravity curves the space-time, through which the photons travel.

 

[Ignatius]

Mustn't confuse quantum physics with classical physics. Different games, different rules. Newton and photons do not mix. Even though he was a very bright chap - in his time and its level of knowledge about the universe.

 

[GrampaTom]

lifted directly from Gijs article linked yesterday here, https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/test..._AND_CONTRAST_IN_BINOCULAR-IMAGES_highres.pdf:

And as is explained, "accommodation" the ability to see near and far comes from the Ciliary Muscle distorting the human lens as the eye/brain magic demands. The new synthetic lens implanted from surgery will not move like the human lens hence the loss of accomodation. Richard and I have a different experience as I miss my close vision a bit more frequently than just reading. There are now lens that do what transitional eyeglasses do, but not considered as good optical quality-wise.

 

[Ignatius]

lifted directly from Gijs article linked yesterday here, https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/test..._AND_CONTRAST_IN_BINOCULAR-IMAGES_highres.pdf:

And as is explained, "accommodation" the ability to see near and far comes from the Ciliary Muscle distorting the human lens as the eye/brain magic demands. The new synthetic lens implanted from surgery will not move like the human lens hence the loss of accomdaotion. Richard and I have a different experience as I miss my close vision a bit more frequently than just reading. There are now lens that do what transitional eyeglasses but not considered as good optical quality wise.

View attachment 1604253

Aren't those trifocal implants rather expensive?

 

[Patudo]

If you're genuinely as delighted with your 12x42 as your previous posts suggest, why not just enjoy it, regardless of how good the 10x52 (or anything else) may be, instead of looking around the internet for reasons to establish its superiority?

The Allbinos link offers their explanation of why the 10x52 transmission - by their measurements - may be slightly lower (88.2%, plus minus one percent, vs 89% +/- 1%). It's there if you read carefully through it. A very quick look through other Allbinos reviews shows the 8x32 FL has (by their measurements) higher transmission than the 8x42 despite the latter having the famed totally-internal-reflecting Abbe-Koenig prisms; while per Swarovski's own material the 10x40 Habicht's transmission is no better (96%) than the 8x30. So I don't think it need necessarily be taken for granted that a larger objective binocular should have higher transmission - indeed the opposite might be true, as larger objectives may require more complex eyepieces to correct for aberrations etc.

I've tried both NL models and outstanding though the 12x42 is, my own perception is that in terms of outright image quality the 10x52 is superior yet - but it is also a larger, heavier and less handy binocular, less good (despite lower magnification) as an all-round birding binocular. You may not be able to see miniscule differences in CA or transmission, but you'll definitely notice the difference in weight and size between the two every time you pick up the x52.

 

[Maljunulo]

So I don't think it need necessarily be taken for granted that a larger objective binocular should have higher transmission -

Whoa!

Where did that idea come from?

What did I miss?

 

[GrampaTom]

Aren't those trifocal implants rather expensive?

The Ophthalmologist and Optometrists I worked with both thought my birding hobby would be best supported with the single focus distance lens choice, so I did not explore price of Transitions. I did at their recommendation, opt for Toric lens as my Astigmatism was significant. There is an uncharge for that.

 

[SuperDuty]

If you're genuinely as delighted with your 12x42 as your previous posts suggest, why not just enjoy it, regardless of how good the 10x52 (or anything else) may be, instead of looking around the internet for reasons to establish its superiority?

The Allbinos link offers their explanation of why the 10x52 transmission - by their measurements - may be slightly lower (88.2%, plus minus one percent, vs 89% +/- 1%). It's there if you read carefully through it. A very quick look through other Allbinos reviews shows the 8x32 FL has (by their measurements) higher transmission than the 8x42 despite the latter having the famed totally-internal-reflecting Abbe-Koenig prisms; while per Swarovski's own material the 10x40 Habicht's transmission is no better (96%) than the 8x30. So I don't think it need necessarily be taken for granted that a larger objective binocular should have higher transmission - indeed the opposite might be true, as larger objectives may require more complex eyepieces to correct for aberrations etc.

I've tried both NL models and outstanding though the 12x42 is, my own perception is that in terms of outright image quality the 10x52 is superior yet - but it is also a larger, heavier and less handy binocular, less good (despite lower magnification) as an all-round birding binocular. You may not be able to see miniscule differences in CA or transmission, but you'll definitely notice the difference in weight and size between the two every time you pick up the x52.

I have no idea if the 12X42 is superior since I haven’t seen either of the 52mm models, maybe it is, maybe not, I basically just found the AllBinos numbers interesting, nothing more than that, maybe you shouldn’t make unfounded assumptions about my posts. As far as me enjoying my 12X42, I damned sure do, I don’t know how anyone in their right mind wouldn’t.

 

[ReinierB]

I have both and feel a bit ashamed saying that. I have the NL 10x32 as well.
I now have some experience with all three of them.
The NL 10x52 is the best concerning glare. Just a bit at the edges when I am nearly looking right into the sun. The NL 10x32 has very much glare when I am doing that, but I am not doing that a lot when birdwatching, so it justn't really bother me. The NL 12x42 is somewhere between the two regarding glare. Maybe a bit leaning toward the NL 10x32. Probably because the exit pupil isn't much bigger.

The NL 10x52 is ergonomically nice, but the NL42 just a bit nicer. The barrels fit my hand better. The barrels of the NL 52 are very thin in the middle (wasp taille), but become quite large at the end. The NL 52 is a bit more front heavy as well. Somehow I like using the head rest with the NL 10x52 but not so much with the NL 12x42, although the latter has more magnification. I think it is because the eye placement of the 12x42 is more finicky and because of that I like to put my eye sockets as far as possible into the eyecups. I have deep lying eyes and the head rest is just a bit too long for the NL 12x42 althoufh I have screw it in totally. I think the eye relief of the NL 12x42 is smaller than that of the NL 10x42, although they are stated the same. I also think the eye relief of the NL 10x52 is just a bit larger, but I am not sure.

Swarovski has redesigned the eyecups I think. The rim is a bit thinner. Now the eyecups fit perfectly and are not too firm! The eyecups of the NL 10x52 fit on my NL 12x42 as well. Amybe all the NL 42's and 52's get those eyecups now, I don't know. My NL 12x42 is three years old.
I might order the eyecups for my NL 12x42 as well, because they work much better.

I am valueing larger exit pupil more and more. It's the comfort I like.