I am happy with a 32mm's performance during these conditions. Remember, the advantage given by a 42mm is measured in minutes not hours, so I definitely prefer the lighter weight/smaller bulk/bigger fov combination offered by SF8x32 during the main part of the day, even under murky skies.
Do you notice much difference in eye placement comfort between the SF8x32 and the SFL 8x40? The bigger exit pupil is supposed to be one of the big advantages of the SFL because of the better eye placement comfort. So for your uses you prefer the SF 8x32 over the SFL8x40 for daytime use and if price wasn't a factor you would buy the SF 8x32 over the SFL 8x40. So it sounds like most people would be better off getting a used SF 8x32 for about $1800-2000 versus a new SFL 8x40 for mostly daytime use.
Its not quite as straightforward as that. For sure I didn't have difficulty with eye placement with either SF or SFL (I wear spectacles all the time) but just because I was fine it doesn't guarantee that others will be. Also, SFL's colour reproduction is beautiful and some folks may prefer it to SF while others may prefer the slimmer tubes of SF32. There are so many factors requiring very personal decisions.
Often here at Birdforum, the exit pupil advantage, (independent of ease of view), is described as Lee does here, as something that kicks in at the ends of the day. My experience, maybe belief, is that it also counts looking into heavily wooded, shaded, scenarios or say, staring into and beyond the curling grasses overhanging the mud edge of a salt marsh, hoping to see that Ridgway Rail scurrying along, at any time of day.
I wonder if your experience isn't more a matter of superior contrast in the view through the larger bin, or a result of its larger oculars and eyecups blocking light around the eye better. I always wear a hat when birding to shade my eyes, which I find is especially important with pocket bins. They also can benefit tremendously from addition of oversized accessory eyecups.
I notice that also. Anytime you are under canopy or in a heavily wooded forest, the bigger aperture 40 mm will outperform the smaller aperture 32 mm. If you bird, for example under the canopy in Costa Rica, you definitely want the 40 mm versus the 32 mm. Most peoples eye's will at least dilate to 5 mm, so the 40 mm will help you to see into the shadows. Lee is not using his SF 8x32 under canopy, but rather out in open country. If he did, he would see that the SFL 8x40 would perform better. In open country and in daylight, the SF 8x32 would probably be better, but under a canopy or in a shaded forest or at twilight the SFL 8x40 would win. Which binocular would work better for you would depend on how you use it. For me, after using a lot of different 8x32's and 8x42's I find the 8x42 to have a big advantage in eye placement comfort and low light performance. An 8x42 or in this case an 8x40 will be way less finicky than an 8x32.
I agree with you. It is hard to compare the highest offerings of the big 3, comparing new and current models.
I found the same effect some years ago when surveying populations of Water Voles and using HT 8x42 to look for signs of their droppings, trackways and cropped vegetation in the darkness of overhanging banks and vegetation next to streams.
Fair comment LGM.
LGM,
Canip, I have no clue, sorry, with what youve done here. I know of the USAF chart. What are these boosters youve employed? Some sort of magnifying lens you put in front of bino ocular? Did you go to the boosters cuz you couldn't detect any differences without them? Or, did you use boosters because of the "short" 10m distance? Just curious.
G‘Tom,
