• 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.

What's your favourite low light binocular, and why. (1 Viewer)

Rg548

Retired Somewhere
United Kingdom
So what is your favourite...??
I've had the Zeiss FL8x56... awesome but ultimately too big, so wasn't used enough to justify the price.
I would like the Habicht 7x42, but I know it has very small FOV, but as this would only be a low light glass, perhaps I could live with that. And they are reasonable cost.
I looked throught the Nikon 7x42 EDG a while back, but wasn't as impressed as the Zeiss FL.

What are your thoughts, even if it's cheaper porros that you feel are good.
I want a quality bino, but it will only be used for low light, any other time I am delighted with my 'new'BN's.
Old Swaro SLC's??
Any ideas??
 
I use a Swaro SLC-neu 7x50 (bigger exit pupil that the SLC 8x56 ;-) ). Perfect for watching Barn Owls at dawn. The current SLC 8x56's are probably marginally optically better and may have marginally better transmission and do have a wider FoV but I can't justify upgrading when there's nothing I really dislike about the 7x50s. If the 8x56's are as good as the 15x56s which I love then you'll have an excellent pair of binoculars. Size and weight will of course be an issue - you don't get lightweight or small lowlight binoculars.
 
When Geco decided to bow out of the UK market I took advantage of their discounted offers and bought a pair of their Abbe-König prism 8x56 bino's primarily for their low light performance.

They are exactly the same as the GPO Passion 8x56 and are sold by Wex and the excellent Stealth Birding amongst others.

They are heavy (ish), beautifully made and quite superb in low light.
 
I would base my choice on two criteria.

First, what's the highest magnification I'm willing to hand hold in the dark? That's the magnification that will show me the most hand held detail in darkness.

Second, what's the diameter of my eye's pupil at the lowest light level I plan to use the binocular? That combined with my magnification choice will tell me what binocular aperture I need. Done, except to pick the best choice among 10x56s.
 
My favourite low-light binocular is the Canon 10x42 L IS which is also my favourite daylight binocular. This is because I have found that in low light image stabilisation makes even more of a difference than in good light, as the eye and brain need more time to form and process the image. If the image shakes, that becomes much slower and more difficult or even impossible. You can easily test this by comparing views of a normal binocular hand-held or on a tripod or otherwise well supported when light levels are low.

If you intend to use a tripod for low-light viewing, then the best 10x56 (Swarovski SLC, for example) would be ideal. When hand-holding, it is IS.
 
So what is your favourite...??
I've had the Zeiss FL8x56... awesome but ultimately too big, so wasn't used enough to justify the price.
I would like the Habicht 7x42, but I know it has very small FOV, but as this would only be a low light glass, perhaps I could live with that. And they are reasonable cost.
I looked throught the Nikon 7x42 EDG a while back, but wasn't as impressed as the Zeiss FL.

What are your thoughts, even if it's cheaper porros that you feel are good.
I want a quality bino, but it will only be used for low light, any other time I am delighted with my 'new'BN's.
Old Swaro SLC's??
Any ideas??
I don’t have much experience with low light binoculars but as you like the Trinovid you might like the 7x42 BA/BN. Not too heavy, not too expensive, exceptional view, not as narrow view as the Habicht or heavy as the old Swaro SLC. Meopta also has a 7x42.
 
7x50 would be the next logical step if 56mm is too big. Seems like there are a lot of vintage 7x50 options out there. Looks like that size used to be more popular.
 
My favourite low-light binocular is the Canon 10x42 L IS which is also my favourite daylight binocular. This is because I have found that in low light image stabilisation makes even more of a difference than in good light, as the eye and brain need more time to form and process the image. If the image shakes, that becomes much slower and more difficult or even impossible. You can easily test this by comparing views of a normal binocular hand-held or on a tripod or otherwise well supported when light levels are low.

If you intend to use a tripod for low-light viewing, then the best 10x56 (Swarovski SLC, for example) would be ideal. When hand-holding, it is IS.
Really interesting, thanks for the inspiration. And what about "big eyes" IS, like the x50 Canon range? That should theoretically mix the best of both worlds, isn't it? Big lenses plus IS. Wouldn't a (say) 15x50 show more than a 10x42?

As for myself, during the past months (actually years) I've been trying to answer the question that opens this thread, and I still don't have a final answer.
I've tried some 8x56, and the one I have now is quite impressive in terms of brightness, a Vixen Foresta with AK prisms (very similar to the previous generation DDoptics Pirschler). However, it's a bit of a beast. Then I've got some nice 7x50 Porro incidentally, also Vixen (the Ultima, also sold under the Celestron brand). However, lately I've enjoyed some very nice twilight sessions with the "weird" Minox HG 8,5x52. I say it's a bit "weird" because of the unusual configuration, plus the lightweight, plus the pretty narrow field of view... and the less than stellar eye comfort (very easy to get blackouts). However, somehow the sum of its parts (very nice focus action, good feel in the hands, great contrast and sharpness... make up for all that (as a matter of fact, I'm not 100 % it's even really bright, I've been doing test and sometimes I feel the humble 7x50 Vixen Ultima Porro shows a brighter image). When in use, I feel that it quite simply delivers: it shows a lot of detail and offers that in a very light and compact format (nearly 8x42 dimensions), and the overall experience leaves me (surprisingly, given the many drawbacks) satisfied with the view: I see what I want to see. So, there you go. Currently enjoying a pretty special bino when the light fades.
 
Kite 8x56 (same as the above mentioned GPO/Geco), Fuji 7x50, Fuji HC 8x42 (at the moment my overall favourite -- much less CA than the 8x56 Kite).
 
The best low-light binoculars you can get are without a doubt are the Zeiss HT 8x54's or 10x54's because of their big aperture, high transmission with HT glass and the fact that Zeiss designed the coatings, so the transmission would be flat in the blue-green area of the spectrum where our rods are more sensitive to low light. Zeiss advertises them as the brightest low light binocular, and they are 100% correct. They usually retail at $2800 but here is a pair of HT 8x54 demos at Eurooptics for $1599.99 which is a heck of a deal. The flat transmission graph of the HT below explain why the HT is the best low light binocular around. The 10x54 because of the Twilight Factor would allow you to see more detail, but if your pupils are dilating above 7 mm meaning you are younger the 8x54 will have more apparent brightness in low light.



"The Conquest HD performs like a typical pair of Zeiss binoculars – its transmission is excellent for yellow-green light, with a bit lower values for blue-purple and orange-red light. The constructors of the Victory HT focused on the flatness of the transmission graph - its maximum value doesn't exceed 92%, but you land above 90% both for purple and orange light, a brilliant performance overall. You gain doubly, with crystal-clear images without any coloring and a great comfort of nighttime observations because our rods are more sensitive to blue-green light than our cones (the rods reaching the peak of their possibilities at 500 nm wavelength and the cones – at 550 nm). It seems the coatings of the Victory HT can be easily described as outstanding."


253275_ht8x54.jpg
 
Last edited:
I crossed this bridge some time ago. My thoughts today are the same as then. If you are REALLY wanting improved performance at low light I wouldn't be skimpy on the particulars. I'd want 10X....56mm objective....AK prisms....and the best AF coatings. So that points to the FL and SLC and one of those is what I'd get. I have both and I don't use either very much. I use the Swarovski more but for no particular reason.

Sorry no picture....I'll work on that.
 
In terms of maximising optical performance, the short answer is 'It’s complicated' . . .

What’s going to work best is going to vary with a number of factors, including:
a) the particular lighting conditions (including the ambient light level, and the target/ background contrast level), and;
b) the particular individual - taking into account her or his maximum dark adapted pupil size.

For an introduction to various sources of information, see posts #21 and 22 at: Vortex Razor UHD 18x56 ?

And for an idea of the effect of some of the considerations, see two graphs from Holger’s article on Max Berek’s work from from the 1940’s,
on target detection:

30 yo vs 60 yo Performance.jpg

Very generally, what works best will change with age (with the decrease in the maximum adapted pupil size)
- with magnification becoming increasingly important - in keeping with both Henry's and Chuck's observations.


John
 
In terms of maximising optical performance, the short answer is 'It’s complicated' . . .

What’s going to work best is going to vary with a number of factors, including:
a) the particular lighting conditions (including the ambient light level, and the target/ background contrast level), and;
b) the particular individual - taking into account her or his maximum dark adapted pupil size.

For an introduction to various sources of information, see posts #21 and 22 at: Vortex Razor UHD 18x56 ?

And for an idea of the effect of some of the considerations, see two graphs from Holger’s article on Max Berek’s work from from the 1940’s,
on target detection:

View attachment 1490372

Very generally, what works best will change with age (with the decrease in the maximum adapted pupil size)
- with magnification becoming increasingly important - in keeping with both Henry's and Chuck's observations.


John
John. These are the typical age related you graphs you see on how pupil size varies with age, but it doesn't take into account how the rods and cones in our eye work. The rods are the part of our eyes that are responsible for scopic vision or low light vision. The rods are most sensitive to the blue-green part of the spectrum and this where Zeiss made the HT shine because they know that. That is the secret sauce of the HT!
 
John. These are the typical age related you graphs you see on how pupil size varies with age, but it doesn't take into account how the rods and cones in our eye work. The rods are the part of our eyes that are responsible for scopic vision or low light vision. The rods are most sensitive to the blue-green part of the spectrum and this where Zeiss made the HT shine because they know that. That is the secret sauce of the HT!

Hi Dennis,

That is the point of the graphs: they do take into account the change between the use of cone and rod receptors as light levels change
i.e. as lighting levels decrease from daylight to twilight to darkness - from photopic, to mesopic, to scotopic vision -
from cones, to a mixture of cones and rods, to rods.


John
 
I have the same question. I have a SLC 8x42, which gives a nice view in low light. I wonder how a SLC 10x56 would perform (I like 10 power). I also wonder if that would be really better compared with the EL 10x50. A 56mm seems so bulky to me. Too bulky. That's why I would prefer a 10x50, but how much would I give in? EL has "just" 90% transmission. A SLC 56 has 93%. I might consider a Habicht 10x40 as well. Not bulky, better priced, 3D view, 96% transmission, but "just" 4mm exit pupil....
 
No one is 'bigging up' the Habicht here....
I thought it might get a mention from one or two folk.

I own and like the 10x40 - it's transmission does make them decent for duller days and early evening, but of course the exit pupil is only 4mm so not really great for dusk. I think exit pupil makes a lot more difference than transmission, but I would have to leave the maths for someone else...
 
Heres my thoughts on swarovski's current offerings in this department :

I'm silly enough to have both of swarovski's highest transmission and largest exit pupil binoculars at the moment. A habicht 7x42 GA 96% transmission 6mm exit pupil and a 8x56 SLC hd with 93% transmission and a 7mm exit pupil. I thought I'd just pop up a few things I've found having used both extensively in case anyone thinking of giving them a go for birdwatching.

They go about achieving a good view in very different ways, which may suit some birders more than others.

The habicht is a very traditional porro prism binocular it's been around since 1947, armoured in this case and waterproof, with straps and caps it weight in around 850 grams. It has as far as I can see 7 glass elements per barrel, a cemented doublet objective, 2 prisms and a 3 element eye piece, all the glass elements have the latest coatings and the prisms reflect the image upright through total internal reflection - no mirror coatings. The field of view is narrow at 114m at 1000m but perfectly useable, there's very little chromatic aberration in the field, although due to its simple design and lack of field flatteners the field is only sharp in the centre. Adjustment wise there's not much, fold down rubber eye cups, a central focuser and a diopter adjuster in the right barrel, eye relief is short again due to the simple design, not a good one for glasses wearers.

The SLC hd is bang up to date, released in its current guise in 2013. Armoured and waterproof with straps and caps (including objective caps which the habicht doesn't come with) it weighs in around 1350 grams. There's much more glass involved than the habichts 12 elements per barrel and these are bigger too with the 56mm objectives. These include field flatteners, high flourite glass in the objectives and a much more complicated eye piece design. This time the prisms are abe konig giving the binocular a straighter but longer form, again they reflect the view upright with total internal reflection. The field of view is much wider at 133m at 1000m despite the 1x increase in magnification, it's both useable and immersive. Thanks to the field flatteners the view is sharp pretty much to the edges although chromatic aberration does creep in more quickly and significantly than with the habichts but only off centre. There is a lot of adjustment so set up time to get the most out of them is a lengthy process, the usual diopter although this time built into the focus wheel which clicks out to reveal the scale and can't be moved accidentally, twist out eye cups and the usual focuser and ipd adjustment. Eye relief is huge, you could probably use them wearing 2 pairs of glasses!

I've hiked the isle of skye for 3 days with the habichts, climbed Snowdon with the Slc's round my neck and spent many hours using both in a variety of habitats. Your view may be different to mine but this is what I've found comparing them.

For me both offer similar daytime brightness, maybe a slight advantage to the habichts or maybe my eyes have read the specs and are seeing what they've read! There's not much in it. When it gets really dark there's nothing in it between them for me, I'm 38 with good vision but I suspect my pupils only dilate to a maximum of 6mm so really can't use the extra exit pupil of the slc's, if you download the study linked here you can see if you'd likely benefit for that 1mm increase Factors affecting light-adapted pupil size in normal human subjects. | IOVS | ARVO Journals.

The difference in magnification of only 1x doesn't manifest itself greatly in terms of how much detail you can see centre field however the stability and depth of field with the habichts is noticeably better, for me there equal in ability to i.d a bird centre field, to clarify I found them equal when you can see a bird naked eye and want to i.d it.

Off centre when your scanning an area for birds you can't see naked eye, or for example if an elusive avian has dived somewhere into a bush or tree the slc's have a distinct advantage. The wider field that's sharp to the edges means you will generally find that bird faster with them.

Handling wise is probably where the biggest differences come between them, let's go from one end to the other. Eye pieces, if you don't wear glasses you can just chuck the habicht up to your eyes, no messing, just set the ipd and dipter and your good, they both have proper scales too so it's child's play to set up if your sharing them.

Slc's are a different beast, there's much more adjustment, it takes great care and some time to get everything set just so, if not done correctly you could easily think they were terrible. Eye cups and ipd in the wrong position - kidney beans and glare will be your only friends. There is a scale on the diopter but not any really useful one for the ipd, I have to just obscure the bridge of the letter A in Austria to get my ipd right. Not so good for sharing and time consuming to set up, get it right and there mega.

Focus wheels? There both great, well weighted and accurate. The habichts is a little heavier but smoother, the slc's is lighter and smaller with a slight feeling of more friction, like rubbing 2 bits of paper together. The habichts focus usefully closer than the slc's to a degree that even when birding is a useful difference - you can't focus on your own feet with either like you can with some.

Form factor is classic porro with the habichts, this is good and bad. For viewing and focusing at the same time I find the wider spaced barrels of porro's easier to point, more contact between hands and binocular as well for me. When going for maximum stability however moving your hands to the objectives is a jump, forget about using the focus at the same time, when there though stability is great.


With the Slc's there's been a great deal of work done on the ergonomics, the barrels have really deep cut outs underneath, there not actually that much wider than an nl in the regular hand position next to the focus wheel. Moving down the barrels is also easier, no big jump in hand position, it's also just possible to hold near the ends and move the focus wheel, partly due to the shape and partly due to the lighter focus action.

Weights as stated, if you don't like it, don't get the SLC! I personally don't find it at all inhibiting but I do a physical job, plenty will find them too heavy.

Does any of this make a difference to getting on a to bird on the wing, I tend to think so, even with the narrower field of view I find it easier with the habichts due to the more stable hold when using the focus and (although not really handling!) the greater depth of field.

These glasses are designed with low light viewing higher than some on the priority list, just before you get there though a low sun may come into play, so how do they cope with glare? Both are excellent, really really good, no milky wash outs or crescents really inhibit either. Once set up I find the slc's slightly better despite there less recessed objectives, neither is anywhere near bad.

So there a hefty investment either way- how tough are they to keep that investment delivering? I think the habichts are tougher and in all likely hood easier to repair, there just as well armoured, if not better, and there's less weight behind them when they do hit something, the objectives are also further recessed and without twist out eye cups there's less to go wrong. Neither has come to harm in regular use though or got any worse over time.

So in summary which is better? Honestly there just different compromises, I prefer the slc's but I can comfortably carry them. It just depends on your personal priorities. For me I'm just glad to have a binocular with me that will perform in all lighting conditions better than almost any other.

Swarovski deserve a great deal of credit for producing 2 so distinct but capable choices for a variety of users priorities.

I really enjoyed testing them and writing this!

Will
View attachment 1460648


I've tried the Zeiss but i didn't like it so much.

If I was going specifically for a low light option and not general purpose id probably go with the habichts for the stability and greater depth of field as judging best focus does become more difficult at lower light levels as other have mentioned. They're also not ridiculously expensive but I would go for the ga eye cups.

If your paring it with a thermal imager you may consider going for a 10x as locating subjects will necessitate less scanning and the (somewhat dubious) twilight factor will be greater.
Will
 
Last edited:
The obvious answer to me:
the viewfinder of my Canon R6 + 100-500mm RF lens.

The image is stabilized and I can go +3 EV so anything that's just dark for the human eye, turns into something recognizable in the (electronic) viewfinder.
I reckon there will be a binocular anytime soon with digital view, that outperforms optic view binoculars in bad light conditions very soon.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top