Cameras and Lenses
informal binocular test
A store where I am a regular customer has a large binocular display. I looked through several bino's at a package in a dark corner of the store, approximately 100ft/30m away. The package was covered in various sized print.
I compared 8x32(30): Zeiss FL, Swaro SLC, Kahles, and Zeiss Conquest
I compared 8x42: Zeiss FL, Leupold Golden Ring, Leica BN, Leupold Wind River Pinnacles and 10x42 Swaro SLC
I found:
1) 10x was too much for me to hold steady.
2) All 42's were brighter than all 32's(30's); not by a lot, but they were slightly brighter.
3) I have good eyesight, but I could discern only a slight difference between the 42's. Likewise, I could discern only a slight difference between the 32's(30's).
4) The Leupold GR was optically indistinguishable to me from the Zeiss FL or the Leica.
5) I now know why the Leupold GR's are so heavy, they're massive. The hinge on the Leupold GR was larger than any other bino hinge that I saw. It also appears to be of metal, whereas the other bino's use synthetic hinges. Looking at the robustness of the GR's, I would guess that you could use them to tear down old buildings or dig holes in tundra.
6) Optically, the Pinnacles were so close to the other 8x42's that I barely discerned any difference. The P's were as bright, but may have had less resolution than the GR's that I had used immediately prior.
7) The Pinnacles were by far the most comfortable to hold. Their barrels are narrower than the other 42's and longer than the 32's(30's), which made them very well suited to my hands. They felt like 32's. I liked the light weight, too. The Pinnacles felt "dainty" compared to the GR's.
8) The Leupold GR had a focus that took a lot more turning than the others. This was not good or bad, just different.
9) The color was similar for all, but darker for the 32's(30's).
Hope this is of interest.
Dear Engineer,
1. Same for me. Although mounting the binocular on a monopod does wonders.
2. Even though the jump from 32 to 42 will yield more than a 50% increase in light, this does not register as a great increase to our eyes. The question is how much increase in detail, especially at dusk, does this bring to your sight. The twilight factor changes from 16 to 17.1.
3. Difference in what, please? Brightness? Resolution? Contrast? The total effect?
4. How about Field of View? Sharpness across the entire field? Contrast? Distortions, especially at the edges?
5. A larger, heavier binocular may be steadier but do you want to carry them all day?
6. See 4, above.
7. You are the one who has to be satisfied with the ergonomics.
8. Your preference counts.
9. I too, find it hard to discern color differences among binoculars which others perceive. However, perception is also personal. I did perceive color difference between my two eyes!
Every binocular represents a design compromise: FOV, weight, expense, quality of coatings, suppression of chromatic aberration, distortions, flatness of field, mechanics and ergonomics. We have to chose the model that is optimized for our needs.
Try the Nikons. Look at the difference in FOV, look at the off center performance and remember the binocular has to suit you, in the field.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood 
engineer:
3) I have good eyesight, but I could discern only a slight difference between the 42's. Likewise, I could discern only a slight difference between the 32's(30's).
[QUOTE=Pinewood]3. Difference in what, please? Brightness? Resolution? Contrast? The total effect?[/QUOTE]
The total effect. What I was trying to convey was that no flaw or characteristic of one binocular stood out to me compared to the others.
engineer:4) The Leupold GR was optically indistinguishable to me from the Zeiss FL or the Leica.
[QUOTE=Pinewood]4. How about Field of View? Sharpness across the entire field? Contrast? Distortions, especially at the edges?[/QUOTE]
Leupold's ads seem to emphasize durability rather than optical superiority. Durability is good, but so is optical excellence. For this reason I was surprised at how good the GR was optically. I perceived no distortions. The best way for me to describe the GR was like looking through two empty tubes. They simply made the lettering on the bag across the room look larger. As I gently scanned, I saw no color difference, bending of straight lines, fuzziness near the edges, or prism-like color separation. The Zeiss FL and Leica were like the GR.
engineer:6) Optically, the Pinnacles were so close to the other 8x42's that I barely discerned any difference. The P's were as bright, but may have had less resolution than the GR's that I had used immediately prior.
[QUOTE=Pinewood]6. See 4, above.[/QUOTE]
I thought that I might be seeing slightly tinier features with the Zeiss FL, Leica and GR than with the Pinnacles, but it was a very small difference.