• 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.

NL8x32 vs 8x42 microcontrast/ resolution (1 Viewer)

B

blake69

Member
Italy
Good evening,

I have NL 8x42/12x42. Former owner Habicht 8x30W Curio CL NL 10x32/42. I'm obsessed with microcontrast to get the best resolution on details. Well, I got rid of the NL 10x32/42 because in my eyes they weren't sharp enough. Question: does the NL 8x32 hold up to the NL 8x42 in terms of microcontrast/resolution?

greetings from Venice
 
yes, of course, set perfectly, I have had many binoculars, except that the 10x series of the NL did not bite the image like the 8 and 12, in my experience.
 
I bought them because I had the possibilities and I wanted to have enough time to examine them thoroughly. Then they sold them because they didn't satisfy my taste. Compared to the 8 and 12 x 42 they seemed poor in image, and I am not the only one to have had this impression but many others. But let's get back on topic: NL 8x32 vs 8x42 microcontrast /resolution please.
 
After reading your posts, as a NL owner (8x42), I wanted to understand microcontrast, a term with which I was unfamiliar. I found a series of conflicting views in dpreview, a photo equipment evaluation site I frequent.
Micro contrast: Is it a myth? Sorry to veer off topic, but I remained confused. Then I found this video which may be helpful to others: What is microcontrast
 
By microcontrast I mean the ability to go to the limit of the resolution, to find the detail within the detail. For example, my Leica 8x32 HDplus has it, capable of bringing out the sharp edges of the light on the porosity of the tiles or on the plaster of the walls, where others fail in this work.

With the NL 10 I turned the focus up and down and I was never completely convinced that I had found the resolution limit. With the 8 and 12 every time it is a success, satisfied, accomplished, complete.
 
Back on topic.

Obviously, a glass with a 42 mm objective will resolve finer detail than a glass with a 32 mm objective. (all other factors being equal)

Whether a human eye can see the difference at the magnification of a binocular, or more relevant, whether or not those who respond can (or think they can) will be interesting.

I eagerly await the responses, because this is very interesting.
 
Last edited:
I do not believe anyone is able see more details with 42mm aperture than with 32mm using the same magnification, as long as the magnification is far below the point where image breakdown becomes noticeable.
I doubt it's possible even when comparing 20mm to 60mm either.
The main reason a larger objective has higher resolving power is that it allows higher magnification without image breakdown.
 
Maljunulo said:
Back on topic.

Obviously, a glass with a 42 mm objective will resolve finer detail than a glass with a 32 mm objective. (all other factors being equal)

Whether a human eye can see the difference at the magnification of a binocular, or more relevant, whether or not those who respond can (or think they can) will be interesting.

I eagerly await the responses, because this is very interesting.
Click to expand...
Theoretically, the resolving power of an objective is 1/2 of its diameter. So to be able to see a difference in resolution between a 32mm and a 42mm binocular of the same optical quality, we should look through both binoculars at 21x power, which is the resolving power for a 42mm lens. But since hand-held binoculars work at low powers (maximum 12x), this is far below their resolving power.
So, in conclusion, between two binoculars 8x32 and 8x42 with the same optical and mechanical quality, we will not be able to notice differences in resolution, until we theoretically increase the power from 8x to 21x
 
Last edited:
dorubird said:
Theoretically, the resolving power of an objective is 1/2 of its diameter. So to be able to see a difference in resolution between a 32mm and a 42mm binocular of the same optical quality, we should look through both binoculars at 21x power, which is the resolving power for a 42mm lens. But since hand-held binoculars work at low powers (maximum 12x), this is far below their resolving power.
So, in conclusion, between two binoculars 8x32 and 8x42 with the same optical and mechanical quality, we will not be able to notice differences in resolution, until we theoretically increase the power from 8x to 21x
Click to expand...

I have not heard that before. It sounds low. Telescopes(providing quality is good enough) can be used with magnification to more than twice the diameter of the aperture in mm before the image breakdown results in that no more details will be revealed.
But yes: it sounds logical that difference in apertures can be noticed before that.
 
Last edited:
4.56/D (in inches) yields resolving power, in arc seconds, of a binary pair of equal magnitudes, in still air.

A human with good vision can resolve about one arc minute, so do the arithmetic however you like.

It just occurred to me that at least some raptors may see Mizar (14.4”) as a double star, and certainly Albireo. (-34”)
 
Last edited:
Maljunulo said:
4.56/D (in inches) yields resolving power, in arc seconds, of a binary pair of equal magnitudes, in still air.

A human with good vision can resolve about one arc minute, so do the arithmetic however you like.

It just occurred to me that at least some raptors may see Mizar (14.4”) as a double star, and certainly Albireo. (-34”)
Click to expand...
Concurring with Maljunulo, Rayleigh Criterion for resolution shows the human eye typically can resolve about one arc minute. One may test the resolution of their own eyes in easy ways. For example, place a white sheet of paper behind a window screen and step back until you cannot resolve the screen mesh (it disappears from view as distinct screen lines). Your eye resolution in radians is the screen mesh separation distance divided by the distance from the screen at which you lose the ability to resolve the mesh.

Example: A screen mesh with about 1 mm separation with observer unaided eye losing mesh sighting at five big paces away means the resolution of the eye is 0.001m/5 = 0.0002 radians = 40 arcseconds = 2/3 arcminute.
 
My brain started to overheat after reading some of the posts on this thread.

When I found myself rhetorically muttering 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin,' I realized I needed to go birding for at least 4 hours to cool off my aching brain cells -- whatever is left of them --so I could I fully concentrate on my NL's microcontrast.
 
Owlbarred said:
My brain started to overheat after reading some of the posts on this thread.

When I found myself rhetorically muttering 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin,' I realized I needed to go birding for at least 4 hours to cool off my aching brain cells -- whatever is left of them --so I could I fully concentrate on my NL's microcontrast.
Click to expand...
I did the same and it was miserable. The whole time I was looking for birds through my FL's, I kept sobbing 'if I only had swaros'. Awful I tell'ya!

Ok, just kidding. Some bins have more magik than others. No argument there!
 
What is perceived as contrast depends a great deal on the amount of light reaching our eyes and the amount of image magnification. A 12x will provide 50% more image magnification and a 42mm objective provides an area that is 96% greater than for a 30mm objective.

With my aging eyes I want 10x or better magnification above all else. The greater the magnification the higher the quality of binocular (and more expensive) that I have found I need. I was trying out the Vortex 12x50 binos in their four different price models at $280, $560, $1100, and $1800. The $280 were not usable for me and I could see no difference in image quality between the $1100 and the$1800 ones (revised version of the $1100 model that had been their top of the line model).

I have 3 Swarovski binoculars but in certain configurations I find the Nikon Monarch 7 and the Vortex Razor to equally good in terms of the optics and durability and ergonomics. I do not like the feel in my hands of the otherwise exceptional Steiner 15x56 which are a great value at the BH Photo price of $859. I have been in the process of selling or donating all my 8x binoculars.
 
Elkhornsun said:
What is perceived as contrast depends a great deal on the amount of light reaching our eyes and the amount of image magnification. A 12x will provide 50% more image magnification and a 42mm objective provides an area that is 96% greater than for a 30mm objective.

With my aging eyes I want 10x or better magnification above all else. The greater the magnification the higher the quality of binocular (and more expensive) that I have found I need. I was trying out the Vortex 12x50 binos in their four different price models at $280, $560, $1100, and $1800. The $280 were not usable for me and I could see no difference in image quality between the $1100 and the$1800 ones (revised version of the $1100 model that had been their top of the line model).

I have 3 Swarovski binoculars but in certain configurations I find the Nikon Monarch 7 and the Vortex Razor to equally good in terms of the optics and durability and ergonomics. I do not like the feel in my hands of the otherwise exceptional Steiner 15x56 which are a great value at the BH Photo price of $859. I have been in the process of selling or donating all my 8x binoculars.
Click to expand...
Interesting thread! It seems like in order to get the microcontrast the OP is looking for, he should stick with either the 8x42 or 12x42 NL, the latter being apparently the way to go.

blake69: Curious, what are the reasons why you are looking into the 8x32 NL in spite of both the 8 and 12 x 42 NL attaining the microcontrast you desire? Looking specifically at the 12X42 NL which seems to be the highly recommended version in terms of contrast/microcontrast, image detail and clarity, any reservations you may have about keeping it long term?

Elkhornsun: Not clear from your response - out of your three Swarovskis, do you actually own the 12x42 NL? If so, any concerns about bulk, weight (on long viewing sessions), vibration/steady image, difficulty in locating a target due to the higher magnification or anything else not mentioned? Out of all your binoculars, would this be the model you would take if you were flying to an exotic destination for birdwatching?
 
I have the 12x42 and they are not difficult to hand hold if I raise the eyecups and then rest them against my eye sockets. The size of the objectives does not make a difference for me in hand holding binoculars and in addition to the 12x42, I have 12x50, 10x43, 10x32, and 10x25 binoculars at the present time (more than I need actually).
 

Similar threads

Aquaplas
Nl Pure 8x32 vs NL Pure 8x42
2
Replies
32
Views
13K
Maljunulo
M
John A Roberts
Next from Swarovski?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
10K
The BulbMogul
The BulbMogul
H
Importance of exit pupil diameter for comfort (NL 8x32 vs 8x42)
Replies
17
Views
4K
gwlee
G
N
Monarch HG 8x42 vs Save for NL Pure
Replies
4
Views
2K
Ratal
Ratal
G
Leica, Zeiss & Swarovski binoculars compared: A personal report
2 3
Replies
54
Views
6K
Scott98
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top