the greatest weight savings are probably to be obtained by scrimping on the prisms.
John
And the rubber armour and possibly the wall thickness of the optical tube.
Lee
the greatest weight savings are probably to be obtained by scrimping on the prisms.
John
Denis, I'm not so sure it's necessarily the small aperture per se, I wonder if it's more to do with the shorter focal lengths that are used in the smaller binoculars to achieve a smaller proportioned instrument, rather than one which is merely as long but thinner, if you get my meaning. Shorter focal lengths give rise to shorter, "wider" light cones which are harder to baffle effectively, and also more curved optical surfaces (smaller radii) with more oblique light entry angles; also more prone to reflections and flare.Stray light is just harder to control in the smaller apertures. For members with shallow eye sockets keep in mind the CL will probably work the best with it's optical box and the HG will be more prone to blackouts. That was my observation at least.
Denis, I'm not so sure it's necessarily the small aperture per se, I wonder if it's more to do with the shorter focal lengths that are used in the smaller binoculars to achieve a smaller proportioned instrument, rather than one which is merely as long but thinner, if you get my meaning. Shorter focal lengths give rise to shorter, "wider" light cones which are harder to baffle effectively, and also more curved optical surfaces (smaller radii) with more oblique light entry angles; also more prone to reflections and flare.
But yes, - the observed outcome would be the same - a greater tendency to flare under difficult lighting conditions.
Interesting. The Leica Ultravid HD Plus 8x32's must have some exceptional baffling because even though the binocular is short and compact the flare control is excellent. The New Swarovski 8x30 CL is a little longer than the HG 8x30 so perhaps that is why the flare control is better?
I have tested a lot of the binoculars in Canip's list and I have tested the Zeiss 8x32 FL and the Nikon 8x32 EDG and the Swarovski 8x32 SV side by side. If I put these three in Canip's list they would all be above the Swarovski 8x30 CL with the SV 1st and the EDG 2nd and the FL 3rd and then the CL 4th. The FL and the EDG are a little better at flare control than the SV but overall the SV is the best binocular and IMO the best 8x32.The other binocular that I would like to see in this comparison of premium compacts is the Zeiss 8X32 Victory FL. Not sure how it performs compared to bins evaluated by Canip but it is relatively compact and lightweight. It is an older design but has received good reviews. There seem to be few of these around at dealers in the US and I was told by a rep that this binocular is no longer in production. I also heard FWIW that Zeiss has an 8X32 SF in the works but it is not coming out anytime soon due to the high demand on the production line in Germany for the 8X42 and 10X42 SF. Take that with a grain of salt.
I have tested a lot of the binoculars in Canip's list and I have tested the Zeiss 8x32 FL and the Nikon 8x32 EDG and the Swarovski 8x32 SV side by side. If I put these three in Canip's list they would all be above the Swarovski 8x30 CL with the SV 1st and the EDG 2nd and the FL 3rd and then the CL 4th. The FL and the EDG are a little better at flare control than the SV but overall the SV is the best binocular and IMO the best 8x32.
I have tested a lot of the binoculars in Canip's list and I have tested the Zeiss 8x32 FL and the Nikon 8x32 EDG and the Swarovski 8x32 SV side by side. If I put these three in Canip's list they would all be above the Swarovski 8x30 CL with the SV 1st and the EDG 2nd and the FL 3rd and then the CL 4th. The FL and the EDG are a little better at flare control than the SV but overall the SV is the best binocular and IMO the best 8x32.
I agree on the 10x56 FL's flare control. What didn't you like about the NV's?A larger EP obviously is an advantage when you want to avoid seeing glare, but the baffling also plays a major role and the FL 56mm is among the very best in this respect. I owned the NVs and, while I did not like them enough to keep them, I agree that their glare control is outstanding. But the glare resistance of my FL 10x56, which has a smaller EP than the 8x56 mentioned above, is even better (the best I have ever seen): when viewing the landscape under a low sun it shows no glare at all but a crystal-clear image (the details of which were completely obscured to the naked eye due to the strong light coming from the sun).
Those three the SV, EDG II and the FL are $2K alpha binoculars. They are the three best 8x32's made so they are better than the less expensive 8x30's.I basically agree: the 32mm SV, EDG and FL (I own all three) are in a different class, optically but also price-wise.
Allbinos ranks EDG the highest (I believe, haven't checked) but other people with different priorities may well rank them differently. Anyway, to answer AltaVista question, imo the FL 8x32 is a better glass than the binos reviewed by the OP, but you'd have to pay quite a bit for relatively small improvements.
I agree on the 10x56 FL's flare control. What didn't you like about the NV's?
Denis, I'm not so sure it's necessarily the small aperture per se, I wonder if it's more to do with the shorter focal lengths that are used in the smaller binoculars to achieve a smaller proportioned instrument, rather than one which is merely as long but thinner, if you get my meaning. Shorter focal lengths give rise to shorter, "wider" light cones which are harder to baffle effectively, and also more curved optical surfaces (smaller radii) with more oblique light entry angles; also more prone to reflections and flare.
But yes, - the observed outcome would be the same - a greater tendency to flare under difficult lighting conditions.