That is not true with the Nikon HG 8x42. It has a big 42mm aperture, but only weighs 23.5 oz. and is quite compact for a 42mm.
Last edited:
-
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.
NL Pure 10x42 or 10x52 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter AllanG
- Start date
Nah, a lot of birders have a 8x32 and a 10x42. It makes a good combination. The 8x32 for close in birding and the 10x42 for more distant shore birds. Plus, with the 10x42 you wouldn't necessarily have to use on a tripod and a 12x42 you would. A 10x42 is a more versatile binocular than a 12x42 because you can hold it steadier, it has a bigger FOV and better DOF.If you want to use a tripod anyway, you might want to get a scope instead of a 10x binocular. With a good scope you can watch the the people on the ships you're watching pick their noses ...
Seriously: Getting a 10x binocular when you already have a decent 8x32 makes no sense IMO. None whatsoever.
Hermann
Thanks for your advice, however, I have demoed a few scopes, both angled and straight, and I just can’t get on viewing through one eye, and even when I demoed the BTX, I found it wasn’t as ‘natural’ as using a good bino, so that’s why I want to stay with binos.If you want to use a tripod anyway, you might want to get a scope instead of a 10x binocular. With a good scope you can watch the the people on the ships you're watching pick their noses ...
Seriously: Getting a 10x binocular when you already have a decent 8x32 makes no sense IMO. None whatsoever.
Hermann
CharleyBird
Well-known member
(Following the comments from Hermann)
Assuming tripod mounted viewing shipping a mile away, I'd guess you will appreciate a larger jump in magnification and aperture.
Weight won't matter, nor will centre focus at that distance.
I'd prefer two eyes, big sea watching binoculars rather than a telescope. Of course you can't carry these, they are for long distance and astronomy. There is only so much compromise before you realise you need two different binoculars.
I have a 16x70 APM which is the absolute limit of hand held yet sometimes not enough for long distance shipping or sea birds.
Perhaps look at some APM models around the 30 to 40x magnification in the 90-110mm range e.g there is a 34x110 ED wide angle.
You could save half the price of an NL.
APM Telescopes. Giant Binoculars (100mm aperture and more)
www.apm-telescopes.net
Last edited:
Hermann
Well-known member
Makes sense. But don't forget scopes need some time getting used to. Most people I know got used to them quite quickly, and they do show a heck of a lot more detail.
If you want to stick to binoculars, I'd definitely go for higher magnification, at least 12x, probably 14-15x. Such binoculars can still be used handheld in a pinch, especially if you can support your arms on something like a wall. On a tripod they work exceptionally well. Or get a stabilised pair.
Hermann
Great advice there @AllanG , I have recently bought the Canon 15x50 IS and it is a superb bit of kit. Although I have the 14x52 NL Pure fitted with the forehead rest and the winged eyecups, the stability afforded by the Canon is unbelievably effective.
The Canon is not as sharp or in other ways, ie weight and ergonomics, as good as the NL but at half the price it meets my requirements for a high powered binocular with an amazingly steady view. `
Were I still in the market for a 14/15 x 50/52 bino and knowing what I know now I would, hand on heart, go the Canon route.
Still love the Pure's and fully accept the more robust nature of them, no tricky electronics and a much superior weather/water resistance, but crikey them Canon's are a remarkable bit of kit.
Harry Stottle
Unknown-Known
If Nikon made an IS ED50 I would be very interested. Paired with my 7x42FL (or similar) it would make a great combo.
Some day I might get a NL Pure again. But I don't know which model it will be.
I am usually a 6 to 8x guy for handheld use.
But NL Pure provides very stable hold with the head support, so it's possible I will go for 10x. Then the question is: 42 or 52mm?
52mm gives 53% brighter image in low light and the eye placement is more comfortable with larger exit pupil. But it's heavier and longer so the hold comfort is probably noticeably better with 42mm.
I am usually a 6 to 8x guy for handheld use.
But NL Pure provides very stable hold with the head support, so it's possible I will go for 10x. Then the question is: 42 or 52mm?
52mm gives 53% brighter image in low light and the eye placement is more comfortable with larger exit pupil. But it's heavier and longer so the hold comfort is probably noticeably better with 42mm.
Of course it's true. How much does the 8x30 MHG weigh and how much does the 8x42 MGH weigh
You missed my point. My point is the Nikon HG 8x42 is the lightest 42mm binoculars in its class. I don't know of any other 42mm binoculars that weigh only 23.5 oz. The Swarovski NL 8x32 with only a 32mm aperture weighs almost as much at 22.8 oz. Also, the Nikon HG 8x30 at 15.8 oz. is one of the lightest binoculars in the 30mm class, with even the Zeiss SFL 8x30 being heavier at 16.2 oz. Both Nikon HG's the HG 8x42 and the HG 8x30 are very compact and light for their aperture.
DRodrigues
Well-known member
Your comment on the BTX is because it's angled?
Having a 7x binocular, going to sell the 8x binocular, and going to use the new binocular on a tripod, I would go for the 14x52... But this comes from a person that used 15x56 binoculars for many years and is using now a 18x50 IS binocular...
Yes, I demoed an angled BTX, but still found it harder to focus on an object than a bino…..I think part of the problem is the different way to focus a scope, which doesn’t feel as natural to do as on a bino.Your comment on the BTX is because it's angled?
Having a 7x binocular, going to sell the 8x binocular, and going to use the new binocular on a tripod, I would go for the 14x52... But this comes from a person that used 15x56 binoculars for many years and is using now a 18x50 IS binocular...
Give us some insight about that 18x50 IS.Your comment on the BTX is because it's angled?
Having a 7x binocular, going to sell the 8x binocular, and going to use the new binocular on a tripod, I would go for the 14x52... But this comes from a person that used 15x56 binoculars for many years and is using now a 18x50 IS binocular...
Guess this is the one you are talking; Canon 18x50 IS All Weather - Image Stabilisation Binoculars
I
DRodrigues
Well-known member
Ok, I thought you would prefer a BTX straight version that would zoom, as I do...
As you increase magnification, focus becomes more critical, since the depth of field reduces. You just need to get used to it...
I usually say that with my STX115 at 120x, I focus details with the nail of a finger...
DRodrigues
Well-known member
Yes, is the Canon. I still didn't wrote a real test text but you can read my opinion about its use at the end of the 15x56 test text.
Woowww You won the Lottery ? Optics aren´t expensive in Portugal?No really, will take my time to read the link but for sure looks interesting. Never thought of people using telescopes for birding or Color Ring birding as you say.
Just to update this thread, this morning I demoed the following NL Pure binos, and compared them to my current NL 8x32:-
10x42; 12x42; 10x52
The 10x42 were easy to handle, with not too much weight, however, I didn’t feel they were that much better than the 8x32 to warrant changing them.
The 12x42 did give slightly more detail, but I really didn’t like the reduced FOV, plus I found them hard to hold steady for any length of time, which defeated the additional magnification, but I didn’t try them with the forehead rest.
The 10x52, IMHO, were by far the best of the three, as the FOV felt almost as large as the 8x32, and the additional diameter of the eye pieces felt very comfortable, plus the enlarged ‘wasp’ barrel design was very comfortable to hold, which somehow disguised the extra weight. Overall, the views through them seemed to ‘pop’, compared to the others, but I don’t know if this is due to the larger objective lens allowing more light in.
Therefore, I have pretty much decided that the 10x52 are worth upgrading to, and all I have to do now is rob my ‘piggy’ bank to fund them!!
Thanks again to all to contributed to this thread! 👍
10x42; 12x42; 10x52
The 10x42 were easy to handle, with not too much weight, however, I didn’t feel they were that much better than the 8x32 to warrant changing them.
The 12x42 did give slightly more detail, but I really didn’t like the reduced FOV, plus I found them hard to hold steady for any length of time, which defeated the additional magnification, but I didn’t try them with the forehead rest.
The 10x52, IMHO, were by far the best of the three, as the FOV felt almost as large as the 8x32, and the additional diameter of the eye pieces felt very comfortable, plus the enlarged ‘wasp’ barrel design was very comfortable to hold, which somehow disguised the extra weight. Overall, the views through them seemed to ‘pop’, compared to the others, but I don’t know if this is due to the larger objective lens allowing more light in.
Therefore, I have pretty much decided that the 10x52 are worth upgrading to, and all I have to do now is rob my ‘piggy’ bank to fund them!!
Thanks again to all to contributed to this thread! 👍
tenex
reality-based
I see this special "pop" in SLC 10x56 also. In daytime viewing the advantage isn't more light, due to your contracted pupil, but how it stops down that large objective to its central region with lesser aberrations.
Odd that you would complain of "reduced FOV" in NL 12x42 which has as much as most 10x bins, but everything is relative.
Last edited:
Many thanks for this explanation 👍 Regarding the 12x42 FOV, my ‘reduced’ observation is when I compare it to my 8x32, however, I’m sure it’s FOV is as good as most 10x bins, but it just doesn’t do it for me 😁
Hermann
Well-known member
That's typical: A binocular with a larger exit pupil will almost always "feel" more comfortable in use. I made a comparison a few years ago, with 8x binoculars (8x20, 8x30/32, 8x40, 8x50, 8x56), and the "easiest" in use was the 8x56.
Hermann
