Over the years I have gravitated to more compact binoculars but always kept my limit @ a 4mm exit pupil minimum. I have greatly enjoyed my leica 8 x 32 trinovids which are now my sons and my 8 x 32 ultravids (non HD). I cannot really tell any difference between the two optically. The ultravids are a few ounces lighter.
With the flourite obejectives I thought about buying some 10 x 32's.
Selecting between Zeiss FL, Swar EL, and Leica HD, I am curious if there is a significant difference. The Leica are the most compact. The Swor EL's do not have Flourite Objectives (yet) but I understand they soon will.
I have a pair of Zeiss FL's in 10 X 42 and they are fantastic. Far better than my older pair of heavy 10 x 56 Zeiss victories (APO) that now reside in the center console of my pickup.
Any of the you guys that make a living selling these products have a recomendation (Sell all of them)? I know they are all good.

EZ

EZ

The last pair of binos I boght was a pair of 8x20 Leica's.

I went to Cabelas and looked at[and through ] several different pair of bino's, comparing them side by side.

I also compared how they handled and focused.

It was important to me to be able to work the focus wheel with one hand, as I use bino's a lot when sneaking and stalking through the woods.

The binos in one hand, the gun in the other.

Also the Cabelas had one of those optical charts way up high on the wall so it made it easy to compare which bino looked clearer to My eyes.

I've got some Leica 10x32s that I just bought and they're fine glass but, frankly, I don't think you will be gaining any significant advantage by going from the 8x32s you have.
It's your money and a man should get what he wants but it seems like a lot of money for 2x to me.

If I was going to spend the money, I'd rather buy 10x42s or similar and keep the 8x32s.

Interestingly, I was looking for hogs last night with about 1/2 moon and used Leica 10x32s and Leica 12x50s at the same place and basically the same time. It is hard to quantify but it appeared to me that the 12x50s were at least 25% better at picking out details than the 10x32s, which is almost exactly the difference in their respective exit pupils. Of course, a bigger exit pupil number is not the same as the actual amount of light that comes through but that's about what it looked like to me. I dunno what this proves, if anything, but I just thought I'd throw it in.

Like you, I too owned a pair of 8x30 and 8x40 Tinovids. Both these ended up with my folks.
I also replaced them with a set of non HB 8X30 ultravids which I use for most of my hunting other than "way off" hunting, such as in the mountains.
I am currently recommending the 10x30s ULTRAVIDS to a friend that wants only one pair where I use an old pair of ZEISS 10x40B's.

Wait till THESE binoculars will be out - they are awesome... Wait - January is not that long anymore...

Klaus

Your mileage may vary, but this is my take on the 10x32s. Personally, I ended up staying with 8x magnification. Not only was it harder to hold a 10x (shakes more visble) and FOV was smaller, but most importantly, I found I had to adjust 10x binoculars more often when glassing at different distances (depth of view smaller) compared to 8x glasses.

The advantage a 10x glass brought me was largely negated by this effect - and I found myself better served with an 8x. Optical resolution is often the key to seeing "more detail", not more magnification.

Try it out for yourself before you decide to buy.

- mike