Pick One ALPHA 8x42 (2 Viewers)

[Dennis Mau]

NL replaced my HT as favorite

Robert. Do you find the NL as bright as the HT in low light, and what else do you like about the NL more than the HT, except of course the bigger FOV?

 

[Robert Moore]

The NL was actually better than the HT in low light. I compared both side by side on a tripod in low light and looking at faint stars for astronomy. I wear glasses and the NL just has an easy view like the 7x42 Leica. The transparency of the image is just like no other binocular I have looked through and I love that along with absolutely no CA to my eyes. The HT was good at CA but the NL has none.

 

[Dennis Mau]

The NL was actually better than the HT in low light. I compared both side by side on a tripod in low light and looking at faint stars for astronomy. I wear glasses and the NL just has an easy view like the 7x42 Leica. The transparency of the image is just like no other binocular I have looked through and I love that along with absolutely no CA to my eyes. The HT was good at CA but the NL has none.

Thanks! Very interesting. I think the transmission of the NL is about 93%, so it is very close to the HT. I did like the transparency of the NL also if I just didn't get the glare I would have kept them. Maybe it is because you wear glasses that you don't get any glare in the NL's. Glad you like them.

 

[Robert Moore]

I think they are brighter because they have a flatter transmission graph is my only explanation.

 

[etudiant]

you're stranded on birders' paradise island in the South Pacific. you have one ALPHA 8x42 and it's the...............

Getting too old for the minute optical distinctions between alphas or for 8x.
Would rely on my Canon 10x42ISL, just need the island to have a Japanese 7/11 for batteries and snacks.

 

[Swedpat]

It's interesting that I perceive NL Pure 8x42 noticeable brighter than Conquest HD 8x42.
I think the stated light transmissions are 90 vs 92%. It seems too small difference to be detected, at least too small difference to be detected more than very very marginal. But it feels like more than that.
This makes me curious to know how I will perceive Habicht 7x42 with 96% light transmission!

I have not compared NL Pure to HT, SF or other high grade model, though.

 

[ZDHart]

Leica Ultravid HD+. Build-quality solid as a rock, superb image quality, and absolutely enchanting color quality.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I think they are brighter because they have a flatter transmission graph is my only explanation.

That makes perfect sense. That is probably why.

 

[Dennis Mau]

It's interesting that I perceive NL Pure 8x42 noticeable brighter than Conquest HD 8x42.
I think the stated light transmissions are 90 vs 92%. It seems too small difference to be detected, at least too small difference to be detected more than very very marginal. But it feels like more than that.
This makes me curious to know how I will perceive Habicht 7x42 with 96% light transmission!

I have not compared NL Pure to HT, SF or other high grade model, though.

I think about 2% is the limit in transmission at which I can notice a difference. You will definitely notice a difference in the brightness with the Habicht 7x42. You have almost 5% difference in transmission plus a 1 mm bigger exit pupil.