Which 10x binoculars to pair up my SLC 8x42? (1 Viewer)

[binomaniac]

Grampa Tom, I understand what you mean about the feeling that a pair of binoculars enlarges more than in the specifications. I recently bought a Leica Noctivid 8x42 and the first impression after looking through it was that the magnification is at least 9x

 

[GrampaTom]

I should've known better having looked through lots of scopes over the years and knowing they vary. I just wasnt prepared or thinking about this re binos, when looking that day. I know, in spite of the questions I posed above, that 8s are not always 8 and 10s are not always 10. Fractional variation is to be expected. Its not something one notices, unless you're rapidly looking from one bino to another. As well its seems like a real can of worms if this gets turned into a discussed attribute of bino reviews.

 

[Conndomat]

Letters through NL were slightly, but noticeably bigger. Sort of an 8.1X vs 8X,

Hi,

do you really think that such a small difference is visible?

Example ... You see a person in 50m. Distance, then the person comes to you at 49.38m., that is the difference between an 8x magnification and an 8.1 magnification.

Binoculars rarely have exactly 8x or 10x, but small deviations are probably not noticeable.

Andreas

 

[GrampaTom]

Hi,

do you really think that such a small difference is visible?

Example ... You see a person in 50m. Distance, then the person comes to you at 49.38m., that is the difference between an 8x magnification and an 8.1 magnification.

Binoculars rarely have exactly 8x or 10x, but small deviations are probably not noticeable.

Andreas

Andreas, I have no idea what the real X difference was. I get that many here think you cant tell between and 8 and a 10... UHuh... Put me in the other camp. Regarding these 2 highly thought of, latest and greatest 832s, there was a difference. It was noticeable, but only if you went from one to the other, stopped and said (to yourself) huh? Then went back and looked again. Then handed it to the other guy and asked him "What do you see?". Ive been using .1 up or down here in conversation, to make the point it wasn't a big diff. Also notice I used the words in that quote "sort of." What ever the difference was, it was noticeable. Could it have been .5? I agree deviations such as this are not noticeable if you pick up just one, read its an 8x, say, and just go about your business. That one, will always be your 8. Nobody talks about X variation. But as I wrote above do we really believe every 7, 8, 10, 12, etc is just exactly that? Not trying to make a mole hill here, please.

 

[Conndomat]

Could it have been .5? But as I wrote above do we really believe every 7, 8, 10, 12, etc is just exactly that?

Hello Tom,

a 0.5x difference can be seen, tested with a Swarovski 8.5x42 and Zeiss SF 8x42.
The difference is very small, with 8x to 10x I notice clear differences.

I think that differences from 0.1x to 0.3x are barely perceptible, so it is hardly important in practice whether a binocular has 7.9x or 8.1x.
Most of the measurement results from binoculars, at least with high quality ones, were practically in the milli range, a 10x binoculars was then a 10.15x or 9.95x, I never noticed really big differences to the manufacturer's information and to the real magnifications.

Allbino's always include the measured magnification in their ratings, the differences in the high levels are not that breathtaking.

Personally, it is not so important to me whether my 8x really has 8x or "only" 7.9x or 8.1x, the main thing is that the optics are good.

Andreas

 

[Maljunulo]

........... I'm finding I prefer the x32 size, form factor, and handling.

As am I. (8X32 SF)

 

[GrampaTom]

Has anyone ever wondered how all those 8 and 10X binos come out perfectly 8 and 10? Thinking about the variations of design and the surfaces of all those lens is this possible? Or are written X specs a nominal thing? How come there are no 8.2s or 9.9s? A recent comparisons of the NL832 and SF832 revealed a difference in magnification reading the Starbucks sign across the parking lot for both myself and the store owner.

a 0.5x difference can be seen, tested with a Swarovski 8.5x42 and Zeiss SF 8x42.
The difference is very small, with 8x to 10x I notice clear differences.

I think the point I tried to make in #9 above stands and is valid. Quoted X is nominal. Actual varies a bit. This is not a biggie.

Andreas, what if the variation within a nominal X, we observed that day, existed in the 8.5EL AND the SF8 you're talking about? In other words what if the 8.5 wasnt zactly that, and neither was the 8, then what could we say? The observed difference you report seemed dependent on the .5 being so. It quite possibly wasn't. See it?

I fear Ive taken this thread away from the OPs question. I apologize.

Maljunulo, I'm not sure I understand your SF832 recommendation as a compliment to his SLC842, though.

 

[henry link]

Hello Tom,

a 0.5x difference can be seen, tested with a Swarovski 8.5x42 and Zeiss SF 8x42.
The difference is very small, with 8x to 10x I notice clear differences.

I think that differences from 0.1x to 0.3x are barely perceptible, so it is hardly important in practice whether a binocular has 7.9x or 8.1x.
Most of the measurement results from binoculars, at least with high quality ones, were practically in the milli range, a 10x binoculars was then a 10.15x or 9.95x, I never noticed really big differences to the manufacturer's information and to the real magnifications.

Allbino's always include the measured magnification in their ratings, the differences in the high levels are not that breathtaking.

Personally, it is not so important to me whether my 8x really has 8x or "only" 7.9x or 8.1x, the main thing is that the optics are good.

Andreas

While it's easy enough to do, Allbino's does not directly measure the magnification of the binoculars they test and their indirect method based on measuring the clear aperture of the objective lens and the size of the exit pupil is completely useless because the measurement techniques they use cannot correctly measure either one.

If you want to know the true magnification of your binocular in the center part of the field all you need is a camera. Photograph a high contrast linear target at a distance that allows the camera to reach infinity focus. Be sure to pick a target size that won't be so large when it's magnified that it will include too much distortion from the outer binocular field. Now, with no change in the focus or focal length of the camera lens photograph the same target through the binocular. Measure the size difference between the target photographed directly and when photographed through the binocular. The difference is the binocular's average magnification across the part of the FOV subtended by the magnified target. I haven't measured the Swaro 8x32 NL, but my 8x42 NL measures about 8.2x across the center 1/3 of the field, an area close enough to the center for a reasonably distortion free measurement.

I would not depend on subjective impressions of true magnification formed from simply looking through binoculars. There have been many discussions here about how those can be thrown off.

Henry

 

[GrampaTom]

Thank you Henry.

 

[Maljunulo]

Maljunulo, I'm not sure I understand your SF832 recommendation as a compliment to his SLC842, though.

Tom;

Please post a direct quote of the exact words where I "recommended" anything in post #26.

 

[cottonbase]

Tom;

Please post a direct quote of the exact words where I "recommended" anything in post #26.

The OP asked for recommendations...

 

[Maljunulo]

The OP asked for recommendations...

Well I commented on, and agreed with, another poster's comment about his preferred format.

That appears to have been regarded as a mistake.

 

[GrampaTom]

I haven't measured the Swaro 8x32 NL, but my 8x42 NL measures about 8.2x across the center 1/3 of the field, an area close enough to the center for a reasonably distortion free measurement.

Henry, Any chance you could or might measure the NL 8x32? Now, I'm curious....
Thanks

 

[henry link]

Sorry, I don't have access to an 8x32 NL, but anyone with a camera can do it by following the instructions in post #28.

Henry

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

GrampaTom, post 33,
We measured 8,2x for the NL 8x42 and within experimental error exactly 8x for the NL 8x32 and SF 8x32.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Troubador]

Well I commented on, and agreed with, another poster's comment about his preferred format.

That appears to have been regarded as a mistake.

I too am puzzled by how your agreement about a format could be misunderstood as a recommendation to pair your favourite model with the OP's SLC and to me seemed very straight forward and not a mistake at all.

Lee

 

[GrampaTom]

Lee and Maljunulo,

Well, as the guy who apparently started the controversy, and after re-reading, I now see it as Maljunulo supporting ZD's preference for the 32 size bino, even if ZD/Don was talking 10X32, (see #20). Maljunulo's "As am I." followed by the parenthesis, (8X32SF), was the part that confused and caused my question in #27. I now see it was merely his attempt to signify his particular preference for that 32 size. I read it perhaps too quickly (?) as a promotion of the 832, in response to the OP's request for a 10X (be it 9.9, 10, 10.1 or 10.2).

G'Tom

 

[ZDHart]

Tom... I believe that now you do see it, as Maljunulo intended. He was just referring to x32 in general, whether it be 8x32 or 10x32.

Confusion seems to be cleared up, now.

 

[Swedpat]

Regarding FOV, apparent field of view of the 8x42 SLC and the 10x40 Habicht will be about the same.

The Habicht is a porro, so up to about 100 meters the image scale (how big the bird looks) will be about the same as the 8x42 SLC as porros deliver a smaller image scale compared to dakkant bins. In ideal conditions the resolution or amount fo detail you will see will be higher in the Habichts as it is 10x vs 8X, but in my experience in field conditions (wind, tremors, heat haze) the difference in the amount of detail vissible between 8X and 10X is not very big.

I have never heard something like that before. Do you mean a porro gives a smaller image scale than a porro up to 100m but the same at longer distance? What do you support that statement on?

 

[dries1]

While it's easy enough to do, Allbino's does not directly measure the magnification of the binoculars they test and their indirect method based on measuring the clear aperture of the objective lens and the size of the exit pupil is completely useless because the measurement techniques they use cannot correctly measure either one.

If you want to know the true magnification of your binocular in the center part of the field all you need is a camera. Photograph a high contrast linear target at a distance that allows the camera to reach infinity focus. Be sure to pick a target size that won't be so large when it's magnified that it will include too much distortion from the outer binocular field. Now, with no change in the focus or focal length of the camera lens photograph the same target through the binocular. Measure the size difference between the target photographed directly and when photographed through the binocular. The difference is the binocular's average magnification across the part of the FOV subtended by the magnified target. I haven't measured the Swaro 8x32 NL, but my 8x42 NL measures about 8.2x across the center 1/3 of the field, an area close enough to the center for a reasonably distortion free measurement.

I would not depend on subjective impressions of true magnification formed from simply looking through binoculars. There have been many discussions here about how those can be thrown off.

Henry

So how many other NL 8X42 have a mag of 8.2?, more research is needed on this.