Dusk light performance relative to weight, NL Pure 10x32 vs 10x42 (1 Viewer)

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

Hello everybody,

My current setup includes (among an age old spotter) a Nikon Monarch M7 8x30. So the the needs for a light weight bino are covered.
However, I want to include an additional bino into the mix and decided on the NL Pure.
Living in Norther Scandinavia, low light performance is quite important for me, since the dusk period can be fairly long.
Now I am wondering, how much more noticeable is the increase in aperture between the x32 and the x42 variant? While I could try both, it wasn't side by side and not over an extended time frame, and certainly not in low light conditions.

My main usage cases are hiking, frequently over long periods of time and with heavy gear. My plan is to use the Nikon for scenarios where I need to save on weight, and the Swaro for most everything else. But still, I will carry it around in addition to a largish backpack quite frequently.

In you opinion, is it worth to accept the extra weight to get increased low light performance? How crucial is the difference in brightness anyway?

Best wishes and have a wonderful easter holdiday!

If you could try the 12x42 NL...

 

[ReinierB]

Hello everybody,

My current setup includes (among an age old spotter) a Nikon Monarch M7 8x30. So the the needs for a light weight bino are covered.
However, I want to include an additional bino into the mix and decided on the NL Pure.
Living in Norther Scandinavia, low light performance is quite important for me, since the dusk period can be fairly long.
Now I am wondering, how much more noticeable is the increase in aperture between the x32 and the x42 variant? While I could try both, it wasn't side by side and not over an extended time frame, and certainly not in low light conditions.

My main usage cases are hiking, frequently over long periods of time and with heavy gear. My plan is to use the Nikon for scenarios where I need to save on weight, and the Swaro for most everything else. But still, I will carry it around in addition to a largish backpack quite frequently.

In you opinion, is it worth to accept the extra weight to get increased low light performance? How crucial is the difference in brightness anyway?

Best wishes and have a wonderful easter holdiday!

Hello!

I have been birding in Finland, Lapland, Nothern Cape etc. at the end of may and it didn't even get dark! I have seen great grey owl, ural owl and pygmy owl all by light. Woodpeckers (white backed, three-toed, grey-headed), lekking grouse (black, capercaille, hazel), buntings (rustic, snow, lapland), etc. all by bright daylight.
Just saying: it depends on when you are birding! In may, juni, july, an 10x32 is sufficient and an excellent choice. That's the main birding season. The darker part of the year, I would go for 42mm, 50mm or even 56mm.
So when do you mostly hike? At summertime? Go for the NL 10x32. I have it and love it. Not much dimmer than the SLC 10x42 I tried.

I loved the birding in the nothern part of Scandinavia. One of the best trips of my life!

 

[SalomoneSeverino]

So, back from skiing in Sjaunja.
Yes, I would agree, 200 grams in a backpack, resting on your hip is not directly comparable to 200 grams more in a binocular. The binos hang from your neck, might be swinging around, bouncing etc. So I'm not sure if just saving up on body weight might be a good approach either
@ReinierB Thank you for your input! This actually got me thinking. While my case differs from yours in that I am here year round, you do make an excellent point. Most of the birding will be done in spring - autumn anyways where low-light capabilities are less of an issue.

 

[Declan Joseph Deasy]

What about winter birding in dull weather on salt marshs and estuaries

 

[SalomoneSeverino]

@Declan Joseph Deasy Good point, however in winter, everything is frozen here, sea included. So maybe it is better to weigh up greater ease of use for long trips in summer against the occasional bird in winter. To be honest, I have absolutely no idea. But this thread provided me with loads of additional aspects to think about!

 

[ReinierB]

My current setup includes (among an age old spotter) a Nikon Monarch M7 8x30. So the the needs for a light weight bino are covered.

If you really like the 8x30, it also makes sense keeping this one for light travelling and add a NL 10x42. A bigger exit pupil is also a bit more comfortable/forgiving.
I have the EL 12x50 too and don't really think it is very heavy when I carry it bandolier style or on an harness.

 

[SalomoneSeverino]

Hej everybody,

I strongly believe these opinion and advice seeking posts are only really valuable for future readers, if they entail information on the resulting purchase decision as well.
I finally decided on the 10x42 NL (ordered yesterday, so still waiting).
While this thread provided a ton of very helpful arguments for both the 10x32 and 10x42 NL, I decided on the larger aperture due to:

• Living in Northern Sweden, where days are short in winter
• This however only really made a difference as I am out quite a lot in winter skiing. So even if yes, bird live is less abundant in the colder, darker months, I spend a lot of time outside then. Otherwise I would most likely have gone for the 10x32.
• Among my most favorite nature types is dense oldgrowth spruce forest. So even during summer, spring and autum, light might be limited
• I work with bird monitoring, which starts middle- end of february
• I have light weight option with a Nikon Monarch 8x30. So I felt as if the overlap in use cases between the 8x30 and 10x32 would be larger than between the 8x30 and 10x42.

Finally, I thought that the larger weight of the 10x42 should be more quickly noticeable than light gathering capabilities of the 10x32. It should be more straight forward to identify if the 10x42 is too heavy for my use than to realize that the 10x32 is too dark.

Thank you kindly for all your valuable insights and have a great and feathery summer!

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

Hej everybody,

I strongly believe these opinion and advice seeking posts are only really valuable for future readers, if they entail information on the resulting purchase decision as well.
I finally decided on the 10x42 NL (ordered yesterday, so still waiting).
While this thread provided a ton of very helpful arguments for both the 10x32 and 10x42 NL, I decided on the larger aperture due to:

• Living in Northern Sweden, where days are short in winter
• This however only really made a difference as I am out quite a lot in winter skiing. So even if yes, bird live is less abundant in the colder, darker months, I spend a lot of time outside then. Otherwise I would most likely have gone for the 10x32.
• Among my most favorite nature types is dense oldgrowth spruce forest. So even during summer, spring and autum, light might be limited
• I work with bird monitoring, which starts middle- end of february
• I have light weight option with a Nikon Monarch 8x30. So I felt as if the overlap in use cases between the 8x30 and 10x32 would be larger than between the 8x30 and 10x42.

Finally, I thought that the larger weight of the 10x42 should be more quickly noticeable than light gathering capabilities of the 10x32. It should be more straight forward to identify if the 10x42 is too heavy for my use than to realize that the 10x32 is too dark.

Thank you kindly for all your valuable insights and have a great and feathery summer!

Enjoy your 10x42 NL!