Low light Bins? (1 Viewer)

[Pronghunter]

Sorry for so many post lately. Still trying to figure things out.

In heavily wooded areas mainly, low light dusk, twilight, shades settings, I’m looking for the best low light performance bins. 10x42 for my wife and a 10x50,54, or 56 for me. I realize 8 is the way to go, but would prefer to stick with a 10. I’ve been researching for months and again, I’m so new to a lot of this with limited experience. I’m not brand loyal by any means. Swaro, Leica, Meopta, Zeiss, Maven, etc. Has anyone compared most to see which actually allows the most visibility in low light? I realize each website describes twilight factor and light transmission, but what I’ve been told in the past is you can’t necessarily go off those numbers. So I’m a little bit lost here Thanks!

 

[dries1]

Any of those in 10X56/10X54 with AK prisms will be the best for your application, but they will be heavier. The HT 10X54 from Zeiss is likely the lowest in weight for a premium 10X50+. I use a Zeiss FL 10X56 and they are definitely brighter than any 10X50 I own, and also about 200 grams heavier. The SLC is about the same weight as the FL.

Andy W.

 

[marcsantacurz]

I have used the Zeiss 10x42 Victory HT around dusk (before and after) quite a bit. I do not notice any significant fall off from the 4.2mm exit pupil, but at 52 it might be I just don't dilate too much bigger anymore.

Table 2 of this Gijs van Ginkel review details the Victory SF, HT, Swaro EL, and Leica in 10x format (Google translate is your friend). Light transmission (Lichttransmissie) was not measured in the 10x (table 2) for all models, but you can look at Table 1 for the 8x. The HT wins.

I'm sure the binocular experts can offer more advice on this too.

Marc

 

[Ontario]

http://scopeviews.co.uk/Swaro10x56SLC.htm

 

[marcsantacurz]

BTW, I think "twilight factor" does not mean much. It is simply sqrt(magnification * objective size) (e.g. sqrt(10 x 42)). Within a certain magnification and objective size, light transmission in the different wavelengths is what matters, I believe. Also, exit pupil only matters up to your actual dilated pupil size, which varies by age (see for example the wikipedia article). There have been several posts about the physiology of this.

There's ways of measuring your actual dilation, but I have never tried them.

 

[WJC]

Sorry for so many post lately. Still trying to figure things out.

In heavily wooded areas mainly, low light dusk, twilight, shades settings, I’m looking for the best low light performance bins. 10x42 for my wife and a 10x50,54, or 56 for me. I realize 8 is the way to go, but would prefer to stick with a 10. I’ve been researching for months and again, I’m so new to a lot of this with limited experience. I’m not brand loyal by any means. Swaro, Leica, Meopta, Zeiss, Maven, etc. Has anyone compared most to see which actually allows the most visibility in low light? I realize each website describes twilight factor and light transmission, but what I’ve been told in the past is you can’t necessarily go off those numbers. So I’m a little bit lost here Thanks!

Aperture giveth; magnification taketh away.:cat:

Bill

 

[NDhunter]

Aperture giveth; magnification taketh away.:cat:

Bill

Bill and OP:

This is a very good point. Going with 8X, is the way to go for low light.

With quality optics, just do the math, it is all about the size of the exit
pupil. Just divide the objective size by the power.

Good luck, there are several good choices in the mid-range in the 8x50-56
that will do a very nice job.

Jerry

 

[Pronghunter]

Bill and OP:

This is a very good point. Going with 8X, is the way to go for low light.

With quality optics, just do the math, it is all about the size of the exit
pupil. Just divide the objective size by the power.

Good luck, there are several good choices in the mid-range in the 8x50-56
that will do a very nice job.

Jerry

Thanks. I just spent about an hour behind some borrowed 8x’s. Really the first time I’ve looked through 8’s. I’m actually not sure why I have put them off. My eyes much preferred 8’s over 10’s. What little detail I may have lost was made up in absolute eye comfort (if that’s such a thing). Now I’m questioning every optic I own due to them being 10 and one that’s 11 power.

 

[Pronghunter]

The Swaro EL’s in 8.5x42 have really caught my eye. Not sure what else would compare.

 

[chill6x6]

Question for YOU. I'm kinda confused as to what binoculars you have NOW? What are you wanting to DO with them?

 

[WJC]

The Swaro EL’s in 8.5x42 have really caught my eye. Not sure what else would compare.

If you have the money ... buy it. The EL is a FINE instrument with a great company behind it. If you buy into all that Nitnoidism, wherein you have to test this, compare that, and read the latest article from someone who shouldn’t be writing articles on optics in the first place, your life will be shortened and for no good reason.

And if I seem to be out-Jerrying Jerry, there’s a reason. [By the way, just smack him around a little bit and buy him a beer, and he’ll be good for two more weeks.] I care about my bino-packing neighbor, but so much that goes on is unadulterated, time and money wasting, male bovine excrement, from those who mean well—and may be experts in one or two aspects of binoculars—but fall short of taking in the big picture. At this very moment, over on Cloudy Nights we have people spouting MUCH more than they know about collimation with the newbies and non-English speakers following in their wake. Just about anything from one of the big three, will serve you the rest of your life.

When there is a MAJOR improvement (proven) in binoculars, pay attention. But every time some marketer or wannabe says so ... just roll over and go back to sleep ... with your hand on your wallet.

Sorry, guys. If I seem “up on the governor and cycling” at the moment, it’s only because I am. :cat:

Back under my rock, now.

Bill

 

[Pronghunter]

Question for YOU. I'm kinda confused as to what binoculars you have NOW? What are you wanting to DO with them?

I have a few and here’s a little background. I have Swaro 10x42 EL Range. Had the EL’s but traded in for the EL Range as of a week ago. Now have Zeiss 10x42 RF’s. I recently had the SF’s but sold them and purchased the RF’s. I have the Maven 11x45’s and the 10x42 Noctivids.

I HAD a pair of Zeiss FL’s and some Swaro CL’s but used them as leverage to upgrade a little. Huge mistake getting rid of the FL’s. I truly enjoyed everything about them and immediately regretted my decision.

I’ve been able to look through and borrow some Meopta and Kowas in the last week...but didn’t get to spend enough time with them.

Sooooo what seems to be my problem you may be wondering..?

Well the fact that the Zeiss have a rangefinder in the right barrel, I can clearly see a darker image on that side and it is bothersome. I feel I’m losing a lot of low light resolution I guess and the darker side is noticeable.

As for the Swaro EL Range, I also notice a difference between the EL Range and my previous ELs, but not being darker, more so in just edge clarity and overall sharpness. Sorry for poor descriptions here. To verify, I called Swarovski and they confirmed they do not have the field flattening or quite the same light transmission or low light ability.

As far as the Mavens....there an 11x and I should have purchased the 9’s. Just too much magnification in darker close quarter timber.

The Noctivids. I absolutely enjoy the view to say the least...daytime they are pretty amazing, but they (too me) do not seem as bright or resolve at dusk as wel my wife’s 10x42 SLC’s

So all this leaves me wondering...is there a combination in power/objective and optic brand that I should be using for the scenario I mentioned in my original post? A bigger objective, lower power and so on? The 8x I viewed this evening really does have me reconsidering my recent purchases.

I also realize all this is possibly a waste of time....but I enjoy learning new things, trying new things and coming to a (tried and proven conclusion) and at times get a little carried away and overwhelmed for absolutely no reason other than a way to self destruct.

 

[dries1]

Pronghunter,

What 8X did you view through, just curious.

Looks like you have no 8X and you want to go in "darker close quarter timber". Perhaps a 7X42 UVHD or a 8X42 SLC would be better than the 10X. Or you could just buy another FL, I assume it was an 8X42?
Both will also be lighter and nimble than any 8X50-8X56 which have their purpose, but I can't talk about that here.

Andy W.

 

[Pronghunter]

Pronghunter,

What 8X did you view through, just curious.


Andy W.

The same good friend that has the Meopta 10x42’s I borrowed last week has the 8’s as well. I wasn’t able to spend a whole lot of time but enough to know they were pretty stellar.

 

[dries1]

The 8X42 Meostar is a very good glass, perhaps you could borrow the 8X from your friend and spend a day with them. Take your 10X as well and compare the uses of each +s and -s, it might help you decide on your use/need for an 8X glass, after-all you have the 10X+ configuration all wrapped up.

Andy W.

 

[marcsantacurz]

I have the Swaro FPro 8.5x42 and Zeiss HT 10x42. Really, for short to intermediate range, there is not a lot of difference in the magnification to my eye. The detail is fantastic in both. That 8.5x really pops out detail. For longer range, I do notice the magnification difference.

If you are in a wooded area, I expect you don't have much long range viewing so there's probably not much difference in practice. At 1000' you're looking at 330' (10x) FoV vs 400' (8x), but at shorter distances than 1000' that difference shrinks quite a bit.

 

[chill6x6]

I crossed this bridge about two years ago. I too wanted a good low-light binocular. Mainly one to use on cloudy winter days. I ended up with a Swarovski EL SV 10X50. The reasons I picked it were largest FOV in it's class and for a 50mm, it's relatively small and lightweight. The one thing it's missing is an AK prism which I decided I would not miss or notice an extra 3-4% more light transmission. I don't use the SV 50mm as much as I thought I would because in reality there's not a WHOLE lot a SV 10X50mm binocular WILL do that a SV 10X42 WON'T do.

So the binoculars you have right now ARE nice ones. It's going to take a lot of binocular to show a meaningful improvement in low light performance. So I'd want one with AK prisms and 54-56mm objectives. Hindsight is 20/20 so I wished I had followed by own advise and went with the SLC 10X56.

 

[quincy88]

I second Andy W.'s recommendation on the UVHD 7s.
I live in a place that is heavily wooded and dark and my 7s are perfect for it. Also, the low magnification is pretty handy in dense surroundings due to the depth of field.

-as you were, q

 

[temmie]

You can always buy my 7x42 T*FL. There is hardly any binocular out there that is so pleasing and forgoving and really shines in low light, as if you weren’t looking through binoculars. Before you ask why I sell them: everything is for sale at the right price, no?

So for a scant 5000 euro(*) it’s all yours!

(*) box and US lifetime warranty included. And willing to drop the price to 4999, only today!

 

[Canip]

....
.....
In heavily wooded areas mainly, low light dusk, twilight, shades settings, I’m looking for the best low light performance bins.
.....
.... each website describes twilight factor and light transmission, ....
.....

Good low light performance in my experience is based on various elements, including

- brightness / transmission
- contrast
- field of view
etc.

In terms of sheer brightness, the HT and the new Steiner Nighthunter / ShadowQuest would rule the world, but that‘s not the only thing to look for, as was discussed in this thread:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/...d-vs-steiner-nighthunter-8x56-2016/?p=8891432

and particularly

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/...d-vs-steiner-nighthunter-8x56-2016/?p=8893343

In addition, individual characteristics of your eyes have also to be taken into account.

So transmission numbers are one indicator, but not more.

Canip