Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
RHoward42
member
Reged: 01/13/08
Posts: 52
Loc: Jacksonville, Florida
|
|
An observation:
As a Fuji 10x50 FMT-SX owner, i think i know what a good view looks like through a pair of binoculars. I was sure there was no better and often wondered how those three big European manufacturers could justify such high prices for their nocs. Within the last few days, I have done some side by side comparisons of my fujis versus a friend's Swaro 10x50 SLC. I must say that i now understand the high price. In my view, (i hate to say it), the Swaro beats my Fujis in every way. The view is just absolutely wonderful. The resolution and color seem to be superior. My biggest surprise is that they seem to be as bright or brighter than my fujis in low light conditions. I can see every point of light with the Swaros that i can with my Fujis in the night sky. Also, i now am convinced that the Fujis have a slightly yellowing color. They are compact (relatively speaking), and fit/finish is unbelievable. I love the smooth focus with integrated locking diopter. At $1800, they should be really good, and i must say WOW, they are. I think i have the optics bug now and will start saving my money.
Rick Howard
--------------------
Richard Howard
12x50 Bushnell Legend Roof
10x50 Fujinon FMTR-SX
10x50 Swarovski SLC NEU
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14711
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Interesting comments and observation. For the past week I've been comparing a Leica Ultravid 10x42 to the views of my Fujinon 10x50, and I'm leaning toward the opposite conclusion you reached.
The 10x42 Ultravid is indeed a fine binocular, but it certainly has no better resolution than the Fujinon, does not bring stars to finer points. The Ultravid has a narrower field of view. Even with the wider fov, the Fujinon is significantly sharper in the outer edges of the field of view. The beam transfer in the Fujinon is better than the Ultravid. The central 40% of the Fujinon provides a 100% beam, whereas only the central 5% of the Ultravid provides a 100% beam. The Ultravid has far more curvature, to the point that it has only about a 70% usable field of view. The Ultravid shows the same amount of aberration in the view at 70% that the Fujinon shows at 95%. The Ultravid shows the same amount of aberration at 60% that the Fujinon shows at 80%. Both have fine contrast and the Fujinon certainly weighs more, but having a 6.5° field of view that is without significant aberration, IMO, is far more useful than a 6.2° binocular that has only 4.5° sharp. I don't know how much the Leica 10x42 Ultravid is worth, but maybe that's a good thing, I'm not comparing the price.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
RHoward42
member
Reged: 01/13/08
Posts: 52
Loc: Jacksonville, Florida
|
|
Professor Edz,
In no way do i have the credentials to write an informative review of binoculas. All i can say is that to my layman eyes, the swaros seem brighter, resolve finer detail (at distance), lack the yellowing color i notice through my Fujis, and just offer a more pleasing view. Again, i defer to your expertise. I still love my Fujis and will not part with them.
Rick Howard
--------------------
Richard Howard
12x50 Bushnell Legend Roof
10x50 Fujinon FMTR-SX
10x50 Swarovski SLC NEU
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14711
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Perhaps all this tells us is that the Swaro and the Leica are very different.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
RHoward42
member
Reged: 01/13/08
Posts: 52
Loc: Jacksonville, Florida
|
|
Or i need to have my eyes checked
--------------------
Richard Howard
12x50 Bushnell Legend Roof
10x50 Fujinon FMTR-SX
10x50 Swarovski SLC NEU
|
Wes James
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 3450
|
|
I think when you directly compare/A-B comparisons, you kind of knock out the issue of having to have your eyes checked! Would now be interesting to see a comparison of the Swar's vs. the Leica's. Then, of course, one would have to throw in something like the Zeiss Victory FL's! Would be interesting to have a shoot-out to find the ultimate 10x astro bino! Whoops- can't forget the Nikon 10x70 Astrolux!
--------------------
Wes
Atlantic Beach, FL
Some bino’s from Miyauchi 5x32 Binon's up through Garrett 20x110 Signature's,
Some telescopes from a Stellarvue 80mm NHNG up through a couple of 8” reflectors…
And a wonderful 4.25" Delmarva Shiefspiegler!
Some good friends, made here on C/N.
Oh- several cats and a wonderful wife!
Anyone want a cat???? :-O
"When your work speaks for itself- Don't Interrupt" -Gamble Rogers
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12885
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
According to the method EdZ uses to categorise binocular performance , I think I can safely predict that the Zeiss Victory FL will NOT perform much , if any better than the Leica Ultravid .
The Zeiss FL has many great qualities as an all - round daytime instrument , but aberration - free outer regions of the field of view is not amongst them .
Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1274
|
|
Richard,
Congratulations on the new Swarovski. Your findings don't surprise me. My 10x50 Fujinon is excellent for astronomy, with a crazy wide flat field and high transmission. But, its daytime view does not particularly impress me, not like its 7x50 sibling, or a 8x42 Leica Trinovid, does. It just doesn't quite have the same eye-slicing sharpness, or the deep clear color saturation, and it's rather sensitive to bright light outside the field of view.
The high end roofs are made with birding and hunting in poor light in mind. The military style 7x50 bino, not just Fujinon, is kind of special in this way. It was put here to torture us. The daytime view is exquisite. Yet the field is narrow, it could use a little more magnification, and nobody wants to deal with such a monster. Every so often, I just pick mine up and look at a tree or something, gasp, and put it back down.
Ron
|
hallelujah
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/14/06
Posts: 2148
Loc: Rocky Mt. High Colorado
|
|
Quote:
Perhaps all this tells us is that the Swaro and the Leica are very different.
edz
Remember this old ranking system??
Swarovski SLC New 10x50 WB "tied" for first place with the Fujinon 10x50 FMTR-SX,(I pointed this out several months ago) with Leica-Trinovid 10x50 BN coming in at #3 position.
http://www.optyczne.pl/ranking_optyczne_pl-ranking_lornetek-10x50.html
--------------------
Celestron Traveler 8x25 & B. & H. 8x40 FC JAPAN & Revue 10x50 CF Porro FC JAPAN &
Pentax 12x50 PCF WP II FMC & Pentax 16x60 PCF WP FMC &
Pentax 20x60 PCF WP II FMC & Orion 12x63 Mini Giant FMC JAPAN &
SPECTRUM I 20x65 FC JAPAN &
Orion 15x70 Little Giant II FMC JAPAN & Orion 20x70 Little Giant II FMC JAPAN
Orion 16x80 Giant FMC JAPAN & Orion 30x80 MEGAView FMC JAPAN
Barska 30x80 X-Trail LW FC & Burgess Optical Series II 20x90 FMC
Hallelujah! For the LORD God Omnipotent Reigneth
Edited by hallelujah (08/22/08 04:05 PM)
|
Wes James
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 3450
|
|
Man,.. wish I could read that!
Wes
|
medinabrit
professor emeritus
Reged: 10/27/04
Posts: 648
Loc: medina ohio USA.
|
|
I have the 8x30 & 15x56 Swaros .Out of over 20 Binos i have the 15X56 are my favs . When out at the various wildlife areas we visit whenever someone gets to look through the 30,s they always comment on how very good they are .
I was 70 yrs old last thursday so my eyes probably are not perfect but i do love those Swaro bins.
Have to admit though that since i got the Miyauchis they dont get used quite as much .
I do like high power.
BUT the 15x50 slc would be the last one i would ever part with.
Brian.
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12885
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Belated birthday greetings , Brian !
You didn't look a day over 68 last time I saw you , and I now know you must have been 69 at the time :-)
I still regret not buying those 15 x 56 Swarovskis for £595 when I had the opportunity to do so , but would only have been able to have afforded to do so if I charged £100 per person per night for guests to stay at our caravan ! :-)
Hope to see you and Karin again sometime in the not too distant future .
Take care
Your friend
Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
hallelujah
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/14/06
Posts: 2148
Loc: Rocky Mt. High Colorado
|
|
Quote:
Man,.. wish I could read that!
Wes
Last year our friend Pepin the Short mentioned that someone he knew was working on a Polish to English translation. I asked him about the translation recently, but he did not reply. 
--------------------
Celestron Traveler 8x25 & B. & H. 8x40 FC JAPAN & Revue 10x50 CF Porro FC JAPAN &
Pentax 12x50 PCF WP II FMC & Pentax 16x60 PCF WP FMC &
Pentax 20x60 PCF WP II FMC & Orion 12x63 Mini Giant FMC JAPAN &
SPECTRUM I 20x65 FC JAPAN &
Orion 15x70 Little Giant II FMC JAPAN & Orion 20x70 Little Giant II FMC JAPAN
Orion 16x80 Giant FMC JAPAN & Orion 30x80 MEGAView FMC JAPAN
Barska 30x80 X-Trail LW FC & Burgess Optical Series II 20x90 FMC
Hallelujah! For the LORD God Omnipotent Reigneth
|
hallelujah
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/14/06
Posts: 2148
Loc: Rocky Mt. High Colorado
|
|
Quote:
I was 70 yrs old last thursday so my eyes probably are not perfect but i do love those Swaro bins.
I do like high power.
Brian.
Brian,
A belated Happy Birthday.
I like high power also! 
I have handled the Swarovski 15x56mm MANY times, in the sporting good stores, for some unknown reason my wife just looks the other way. I don't understand why!
http://www.opticsplanet.net/swarovski-15x56-forest-green-binoculars.html
--------------------
Celestron Traveler 8x25 & B. & H. 8x40 FC JAPAN & Revue 10x50 CF Porro FC JAPAN &
Pentax 12x50 PCF WP II FMC & Pentax 16x60 PCF WP FMC &
Pentax 20x60 PCF WP II FMC & Orion 12x63 Mini Giant FMC JAPAN &
SPECTRUM I 20x65 FC JAPAN &
Orion 15x70 Little Giant II FMC JAPAN & Orion 20x70 Little Giant II FMC JAPAN
Orion 16x80 Giant FMC JAPAN & Orion 30x80 MEGAView FMC JAPAN
Barska 30x80 X-Trail LW FC & Burgess Optical Series II 20x90 FMC
Hallelujah! For the LORD God Omnipotent Reigneth
Edited by hallelujah (08/22/08 07:53 PM)
|
charen
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/28/05
Posts: 1082
Loc: New Zealand
|
|
Yes hi end binos do have certain ‘mystique‘ but do they justify the very hi prices ?
I was looking for a 'top end' 10x bino some months ago.
I viewed through the new Swarovski 10x50 SLC's and some German Minox BD 10x50 BR EDs. [Minox was originally a subsidiary of Leica.]
The Swarovski’s certainly were impressive with its color and resolution during day time testing. The image was warm.
The Minox’s displayed slightly more curvature of field and edge aberrations however the image was slightly brighter - this of course in part due to the 8mm difference.
The Minox’s are heavier at 1490 mgs but I find them relaxing to hand hold.
The eye relief is 19mm. The image was more neutral.
I brought the Minox's in the end as they were about a third less then the Swarovskis.
Ultimately the Swarovski’s were a superior binocular when it came to optical and build qualities.
However the 10x58 ED Minox's do make excellent astro binos. Stars are ultra sharp and CA is basically non existent. The Afov is 62 degrees.
They can be brought in the US for just over a US$1000. They also produce a 15x58 ED version at slightly higher price.
I am surprised there are basically no reviews on the ED 58mm Minox’s. They are somewhat of a ‘sleeper’ binocular.
Are they worth it ? – yes. However this ‘hobby’ can certainly become expensive. 
http://www.brayimaging.co.uk/Astro/binoculars.html#Minox
--------------------
35 binos.
80mm Cat.
WO66ED
SV NH 80mm / EQ3
Meade 8in.LX90
Skywatcher Equinox ED120 / Goto HEQ5.
Edited by charen (08/23/08 12:37 AM)
|
hallelujah
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/14/06
Posts: 2148
Loc: Rocky Mt. High Colorado
|
|
Quote:
I am surprised there are basically no reviews on the ED 58mm Minox’s. They are somewhat of a ‘sleeper’ binocular.
Quote:
Sleeping Beauty. I was tempted to buy the Minox BD 15x58 BR ED on astromart, a number of months ago, but had difficulty letting go of the money. At that time it was only $400.
The individual selling it also used his for astronomy.
Look forward to your review. 
--------------------
Celestron Traveler 8x25 & B. & H. 8x40 FC JAPAN & Revue 10x50 CF Porro FC JAPAN &
Pentax 12x50 PCF WP II FMC & Pentax 16x60 PCF WP FMC &
Pentax 20x60 PCF WP II FMC & Orion 12x63 Mini Giant FMC JAPAN &
SPECTRUM I 20x65 FC JAPAN &
Orion 15x70 Little Giant II FMC JAPAN & Orion 20x70 Little Giant II FMC JAPAN
Orion 16x80 Giant FMC JAPAN & Orion 30x80 MEGAView FMC JAPAN
Barska 30x80 X-Trail LW FC & Burgess Optical Series II 20x90 FMC
Hallelujah! For the LORD God Omnipotent Reigneth
|
scopedude
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 06/26/06
Posts: 831
Loc: 6 deg. South
|
|
Now I wonder how Kowa's best compares to those European counterparts. I wish someone had all of them and post a comparo here 
--------------------
Megrez 80 FD, Megrez 88, FLT-98, ZS110 APO
Vixen R150S, Vixen NA140SSf
Celestron C8 CF, C5 Spotter
WO 7x50
|
hallelujah
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/14/06
Posts: 2148
Loc: Rocky Mt. High Colorado
|
|
Here is alittle info:
http://kowa-usa.com/frontend/proddetail.asp?pn=GENESIS%2044%2010.5x44&co=10000370,10000391
--------------------
Celestron Traveler 8x25 & B. & H. 8x40 FC JAPAN & Revue 10x50 CF Porro FC JAPAN &
Pentax 12x50 PCF WP II FMC & Pentax 16x60 PCF WP FMC &
Pentax 20x60 PCF WP II FMC & Orion 12x63 Mini Giant FMC JAPAN &
SPECTRUM I 20x65 FC JAPAN &
Orion 15x70 Little Giant II FMC JAPAN & Orion 20x70 Little Giant II FMC JAPAN
Orion 16x80 Giant FMC JAPAN & Orion 30x80 MEGAView FMC JAPAN
Barska 30x80 X-Trail LW FC & Burgess Optical Series II 20x90 FMC
Hallelujah! For the LORD God Omnipotent Reigneth
|
Scanning4Comets
Postmaster
Reged: 12/26/04
Posts: 5637
|
|
Quote:
http://www.opticsplanet.net/swarovski-15x56-forest-green-binoculars.html
You just HAD to post that link didn't you?
WOW !!!
--------------------
Markus
|
Swedpat
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/18/05
Posts: 1120
Loc: Boden, Sweden, Scandinavia
|
|
Quote:
The Zeiss FL has many great qualities as an all - round daytime instrument , but aberration - free outer regions of the field of view is not amongst them .
Kenny
Kenny,
That was also my impression when I tried the Victory FL. "Sharp to the edges" is a common expression used by manufacturers which often is highly exaggerated.
Regards, Patric
--------------------
*2,3x40 Constellation View Wide-Bino
*Leupold 6x30 Yosemite
*Leupold Katmai 6x32
*Nikon Sporter I 8x36
*Swarovski SLCNew 7x42B
*Bresser (Lidl) 10x50
*Oberwerk 11x70
*Meade 5000 26mm Plössl, Vixen LV 10/5mm
Psalm 19:2
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4060
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
I prefer the wider 60° AFOV/8.6° FOV in my 7x42 Zeiss FL's that fall off the last 5° AFOV than the other brands with 55° AFOV that may be sharp to the edge. When viewing like normal in the daytime I never notice the aberration in the last 5° AFOV.
Joe
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED,Meade 102ED APO,Orion EON 72,120ST
Apex 127,C6 XLT,CR150,C9.25,XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL,Canon 10x42L IS WP,15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45, Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
17mm Ethos, 22mm Nagler, 40mm Pentax XW, 14mm Pentax XL, 5.2mm Pentax XL, 8-24mm Pentax XL Zoom
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12885
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
<
I prefer the wider 60° AFOV/8.6° FOV in my 7x42 Zeiss FL's that fall off the last 5° AFOV than the other brands with 55° AFOV that may be sharp to the edge. When viewing like normal in the daytime I never notice the aberration in the last 5° AFOV. >
Joe ,
I actually agree about the basic philosophical and psychological advantages which the extra field of view provides in daytime usage , but the Zeiss FLs I've looked through have not really been aberration - free to such an extent from ON - AXIS .
Your quoted figure of a 5 Apparant degree forfeiture from the 60 AFOV equates to only 1/12 or just above 8% .
That would be sharp to 92% out from centre .
In my experience , to my eyes ( with prescription glasses ) the deterioration begins much closer to centre , to the point of the image being practically useless from around 85% from centre , radially speaking .
In fact , although CA suppression is definitely improved in the FL over my BGAT , thus giving the impression of improved contrast , and the image is brighter by some margin , in respect of percenatge area of sharpness , I didn't see a lot of difference from that in my 7 x 42 BGAT .
Of course , the FLs also have improved water resistance , adjustable eye cups and locking diopter -- all improvements above the BGAT , so I'm not questioning their overall superiority over my old BGAT .
Perhaps my eyes are poorer at accomodation than yours ?
Regards
Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Luigi
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 4933
Loc: MA
|
|
The angular extent of your eye's sharp accuity is only ~2 degrees. Stare at a word in a post on this forum and see how many words you can read around it without moving your eyes. Your eyes constantly dart around to build up a high resolution picture in the brain. The bins only need to have high resoultion over the normal range of darting. Beyond that, you move the bins to center the view.
Center your eye's pupil on the exit pupil. When you rotate your eyeball to look toward the edge, the eye's pupil moves off the exit pupil and you need to shift the relative position of the eye and eyepiece. Again, it's best to move the bin and eye together to center on the view.
Bins don't need to be sharp at the edges.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Dob. IM-715 MCT. 120ED. Lunt 60mm Ha.
Zeiss, Leica, Fujinon, Nikon, Pentax, Bushnell bins
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14711
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
I differ with that opinion.
It is much easier IMO to use a binocular that has a fuller sharp fov.
As I pointed out earlier, The Ultravid shows the same amount of aberration in the view at 70% that the Fujinon shows at 95%.
The Ultravid has a 6.2° field of view and is sharp only for about 4.5° of it. I see the unsharp images.
The Fujinon has a 6.5° field of view that is without significant aberration out to nearly the full 6.5° view. I use all of it. IMO, is far more useful than a 6.2° binocular that has only 4.5° sharp.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
StarStuff1
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 04/01/07
Posts: 971
Loc: South of the Mason-Dixon Line
|
|
Hmmmm, I kinda have a slightly different view (pun intended). A little edge softness is tolerable to me in a 60°+ afov bin if the rest of the fov is sharp and pretty much abberation free. BUT, comparing a $2000 top of the line bin with a decent <$150 bin like the Nikon Action AE there is no way I can see an $1800+ difference.
Last year I had a chance to compare a $100 8.5X32 to a new $1,100+ Leica 8X42, both roofies. I'm not exactly inexperienced in doing this although I can no way consider myself an expert either. This was in the daytime and only for a short while. Just an impression. Sure, the Leica was brighter and a little bit sharper. Eye relief seemed about the same and afov very similar. Ergonomics were a non-issue with either one.
Unless money was no issue at all I would have a hard time justifying the difference in price. It seems that is not mentioned here often enough. Forgive my rant. My sig line indicates 12 bins. In reality I have have over 20 including Swift Audobon 8.5X44s, an inexpensive Fuji 7X35 ($110 15 years ago) and older Fuji 14X70s as well as a recently traded FUJI 7x50 high dollar bin.
My final coment here is that a whole lot of fun and good observing of both birds and stars can be had with bins costing less than $150. Go up to $300 or so and the viewing gets even better. Unless money is no object, at what point does cost outweigh benefit? 
--------------------
Tools that make objects very far away appear much closer than they actually are.
|
CESDewar
GorillAstronomer
Reged: 01/16/05
Posts: 2069
Loc: Morganton, GA, USA
|
|
Unless money is no object, at what point does cost outweigh benefit?
This is a very good question. I sent off my Leica UltraVids to EdZ with a comment that I personally doubted whether they were worth what I paid for them on optics alone. Of course they have a wonderful warranty - lifetime - no fault. I can drop these out a window, and they will be replaced. I can accidentlly throw them into a fire and they will be replaced, my wife can throw them at me in a fit of rage, and they will be replaced
That alone is worth quite something. And while EdZ notes that the Fuji's appear to outperform them optically, he will also point out that the Fuji's are twice the weight of the Leicas.
That being said, there is often a problem with premium optics. After spending a vast amount of money, no one likes to think they made a bad decision, or that they wasted their money - I've seen countless reviews of equipment where I really wondered if someone was expressing their opinion, or just expressing what they hoped was the case.
I had no such issue which is why I sent them off to EdZ for an evaluation. Certainly the on-axis acuity and contrast is superb - I did see IC-342 in these binoculars, although that's probably as much a tribute to dark skies as to superb optics. But I was very disappointed in the edge sharpness as it did not begin to match my Canon 18x50 binoculars and I wanted to confirm that the optical performance was not quite as "great" as to be expected in ultra-premium binoculars. Of course, it might be that my pair is of significantly poorer optical quality than average Leica Ultravids, or that other ultra-premiums - Swarovski/Zeiss outperform it - but hopefully we can, on this forum, get enough ultra-premium binoculars under scrutiny to arrive at an informed decision about that.
--------------------
Edited by CESDewar (08/23/08 08:23 PM)
|
pedro
super member
Reged: 09/28/04
Posts: 199
|
|
Post deleted by pedro
|
pedro
super member
Reged: 09/28/04
Posts: 199
|
|
They also produce a 15x58 ED version at slightly higher price.
I am surprised there are basically no reviews on the ED 58mm Minox’s. They are somewhat of a ‘sleeper’ binocular.
Are they worth it ? – yes. However this ‘hobby’ can certainly become expensive.
Quote:
Hi
Recently I bought a brandnew 15x58's but sold them soon after I have compared them carefully side by side with my Canon 15x50's (all of the time with the IS turned OFF)...the only advantage of the 58's was their superior clarity (due their plus 8mm in aperture) and their very comfortable body shape(when hand held) - but the Canon overcome them in all respect IMO - color correction, sharpness, FOV correction – less CA (quite absent in Canon) day and night - I am really disappointed because I was expecting more of them...
Pedro
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1274
|
|
Get the bino up fast, cram it into your eyes, focus immediately with one long desperate finger stroke just as the backlit little bugger flies right by the sun and disappears. You know it was a bluebird, but was the breast spotted?
Well, "how many arc seconds apart were the spots?" is not the main question here. Was the bino easy to grab in panic mode, did you get the eyepieces centered sufficiently, was the focuser fast but not too fast, did kidney bean effect confuse the view as you were panning, did scattered light totally wipe the view out?
It is a great thing to perform standardized tests of optics. But, carefully controlled measurements of resolution, transmission, etc., on a top end birding binocular, are missing a big part of the picture, sort of like evaluating a Ferrari at 70 mph on the interstate.
Optics measurements can define quite nicely the capabilities of an astronomy binocular. Astronomy is a similar, calm, contemplative exercise in optics. But birding is different. There is more to it than that. A combination of objective measurements, and subjective field tests by experienced users, is most valuable. Too bad about the subjective part, but what can you do?
This doesn't excuse birding binos from having to play with the big boy Porros in matters of resolution and transmission. These optical qualities are surely important parts of the birding equation, and undoubtedly the main issues if that binocular is used for astronomy, as is perfectly reasonable. It's just not what it's for, and not nearly all you are paying the big bucks for.
Ron
|
BobinKy
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 1682
|
|
Ron--
Good description of the difference between birding and stargazing hobbies--our targets, instruments, and critical practices.
--------------------
Bob
38°N
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14711
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
Get the bino up fast, cram it into your eyes, focus immediately with one long desperate finger stroke just as the backlit little bugger flies right by the sun and disappears. You know it was a bluebird, but was the breast spotted?
Well, "how many arc seconds apart were the spots?" is not the main question here. Was the bino easy to grab in panic mode, did you get the eyepieces centered sufficiently, was the focuser fast but not too fast, did kidney bean effect confuse the view as you were panning, did scattered light totally wipe the view out?
This even more reinforces my point that it is far more useful to have a binocular in hand that has a fuller sharp fov. The action described above would fairly eliminate the possibility of centering the view. Without a clear sharp view to the edges, you lose the ability to use fully one half of the viewing area to identify when the object is not centered.
Perhaps for a more even comparison, let's look at the Celestron Regal LX 10x42 roof, a near exact equal of the Leica Ultravid. Color and clarity are fine. Contrast is excellent. Eye placement and focus are easy. It weighs only 2 ounces more. Resolution is equal. The fov is almost the same as the Leica, yet the sharp fov is wider. It cost less than $400.
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
One thing that interests me about premium binocular characteristics is that they are generally consistent from model to model over time. Leica's tend to be soft off-axis. This isn't as noticeable in daylight as it is for astronomy, stars being such a demanding test of sharpness, but you can see it in daylight if you know what to look for. And you can see it in every Leica bino.
Swarovskis generally have a warmer color tone.
I have never had the chance to look through Zeiss binos, but based on the comments from experienced observers here, I have a pretty good idea what to expect.
Sharp to the edge claims always spark skepticism from me -- my right eyebrow automatically starts rising. I have never looked through Fujinon 10x50s, but knowing something about our friend EdZ, I'm confident they truly are sharp to the edge. The only binos I have ever looked through that really are sharp to the edge are Canon IS binos. But that wasn't enough to convince me to buy them. My beloved Nikon 8x42 LXs and 12x50 SEs are not sharp to the edge. They are darn sharp out to 85-90%, which, combined with all their other features is enough for me.
Assertions that premium binoculars aren't worth the price, miss the point. Amateur astronomers don't typically go for premium binoculars (no small reason why the top brands are built for daytime use). Imagine yourself on the refractor forum, though, suggesting the view through a Tele Vue, Takahashi, TMB, or AstroPhysics APO refractor doesn't seem worth the extra money over your budget achromat.
Pretty funny, huh? 
Or try dropping in on the eyepiece forum and opining that Tele Vue Nagler's don't seem like a worthwhile investment. $600 for a single eyepiece?? Are you kidding??
The difference between budget and premium binoculars is no less significant. Seriously. Some premium binos aren't good choices for astronomy, but that doesn't mean none of them are. How does Fujinon produce an outstanding view for 1/3rd the premium bino price? They weigh a ton and don't have central focusing.
If you want a binocular that is comfortable to hand hold for extended periods, delivers excellent optical quality, performs well in daylight and at night, and will work reliably for years (not to say decades), guess what? You have to pay for it. Saying premium bionculars don't seem worth the price just means you don't value what they deliver.
Frankly, I'm not going to spend $8,000 or more on a 6-inch APO refractor. But that doesn't mean they aren't worth the money. If you want that level of performance and aperture in a refractor, that's what it costs.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12885
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Great post , Fiske .
Your comment about the Canon IS perhaps interested me even more than the others .
I've only tried the 10 x 30 , 18 x 50 and 12 x 36 mark2 and none of them for astronomy ( which I'm sure their most praiseworthy qualities must prove most advantageous for ).
I happened to perceive improvements in all three in terms of sharpness when the stabilisation feature was NOT activated , and there is no doubt in my mind that the optics are top notch , yet to my eyes , there remains that little " something " almost indefinable about the overall view through them that just leaves " something " to be desired , when compared for example to what I see through my Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT and Nikon 10 x 42 SE .
I can only put this mysterious apparant absence down to the small exit - pupils , which I've always found more challenging for extended viewing sessions than binoculars with exit pupils of 4mm and larger , regardless of time of day or night or what I'm looking at .
Apart from that , I just don't find any of them to be very comfortable to hold or adjust , which are things I tend to spend a lot of time doing when I'm out for a few hours with binoculars in the daytime .
To me , it feels a bit more like holding a camera or digital recorder than binoculars .
All that said , for some reason ( perhaps the slightly larger exit - pupil , 5 minute stabiliser option and the fact that I still haven't got a higher magnification binocular that I'm particularly happy using ) the 15 x 50 continues to figure very highly on my wish list .
Regards and clear skies
Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Kenny:
Thanks!
Quote:
I happened to perceive improvements in all three in terms of sharpness when the stabilisation feature was NOT activated , and there is no doubt in my mind that the optics are top notch , yet to my eyes , there remains that little " something " almost indefinable about the overall view through them that just leaves " something " to be desired , when compared for example to what I see through my Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT and Nikon 10 x 42 SE .
So they seem better to you with stabilization off? I have tested them mostly at night, and used them only a bit during the day (where I noticed quite a bit of CA, frankly). But, at night, I found the edge sharpness considerably better with stabilization on. In fact, I thought I read somewhere the stabilization feature somehow flattens the field and that is how it seemed to me.
I agree with you that they are not as good, optically, as the premium Nikons. (Still darn good, though.)
Quote:
Apart from that , I just don't find any of them to be very comfortable to hold or adjust , which are things I tend to spend a lot of time doing when I'm out for a few hours with binoculars in the daytime .
To me , it feels a bit more like holding a camera or digital recorder than binoculars .
Exactly! In fact, comparing them with holding a digital camcorder is brilliant. That is precisely how they felt to me, as well.
If I were to get one, it would be the 15x50. Still a distant second to a pair of Nikon 10x42 LX Ls or possibly the new 10x42 EDG binos.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
Bruce MacDonald
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/12/06
Posts: 1078
Loc: Devizes, Wiltshire, UK
|
|
Quote:
Perhaps all this tells us is that the Swaro and the Leica are very different.
edz
From my own unscientific opinion based on quick looks with both brands of binoculars in daylight I lean towards the Swarovskis. So I would agree with you that they are indeed different. The view in the Swaros was sharper and more pleasing to me than the Leicas.
--------------------
Bruce MacDonald
Devizes, Wiltshire, UK
Per Mare Per Terras
Viz Top Tip: Don't waste money buying expensive binoculars. Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4060
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
The Nikon 14 x 40 StabilEyes look alot more like a digital camcorder than the Canon IS binoculars IMHO. A rock steady image has more value to me than what a binocular feels like.
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED,Meade 102ED APO,Orion EON 72,120ST
Apex 127,C6 XLT,CR150,C9.25,XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL,Canon 10x42L IS WP,15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45, Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
17mm Ethos, 22mm Nagler, 40mm Pentax XW, 14mm Pentax XL, 5.2mm Pentax XL, 8-24mm Pentax XL Zoom
|
Bruce MacDonald
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/12/06
Posts: 1078
Loc: Devizes, Wiltshire, UK
|
|
Quote:
They also produce a 15x58 ED version at slightly higher price.
I am surprised there are basically no reviews on the ED 58mm Minox’s. They are somewhat of a ‘sleeper’ binocular.
Are they worth it ? – yes. However this ‘hobby’ can certainly become expensive.
Quote:
Hi
Recently I bought a brandnew 15x58's but sold them soon after I have compared them carefully side by side with my Canon 15x50's (all of the time with the IS turned OFF)...the only advantage of the 58's was their superior clarity (due their plus 8mm in aperture) and their very comfortable body shape(when hand held) - but the Canon overcome them in all respect IMO - color correction, sharpness, FOV correction – less CA (quite absent in Canon) day and night - I am really disappointed because I was expecting more of them...
Pedro
There is this review.....
Bray Imaging UK review of Minox 10x58ED
I would love to try a pair based on that review.
--------------------
Bruce MacDonald
Devizes, Wiltshire, UK
Per Mare Per Terras
Viz Top Tip: Don't waste money buying expensive binoculars. Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.
|
DJB
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/23/05
Posts: 1587
Loc: Lisle NY
|
|
Hi Fiske,
That is interesting that the IS feature can flatten the field. Is it possible the IS gets everything in alignment moreso than where one left off before (where IS left the optics after having last used it)? Curious.
I'd love to read that source if you can remember. Thanks.
Best regards,
Dave.
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Dave:
Sorry. Lost in the hinterlands of my memory. (I don't think I made it up, though. )
Joe O. ought to be able to confirm or deny this easily, as he has a zillion pairs of IS binos. Plus all sorts of tripods. One way to determine whether stabilization improves edge sharpness would be to mount the 15x50s, say, on a tripod, and try viewing star fields both with and without IS enabled to see whether stars are sharper near the edge when it is turned on.
Joe??
Meanwhile, back on topic(!), I understand some of the newer Swaros have a more neutral color tone. Haven't seen these myself, though. Also, I haven't evaluated Swaros at night or done any side by side comparisons with my Nikons. It would be interesting to compare off-axis sharpness between the two binos. From what I have read concerning them, I expect they are quite a bit sharper off-axis than the Leica and Zeiss binos. The Swaro 10x50s seem better suited to observers with large hands. My hands are medium size, and I find both the Nikon LX and SE binos more comfortable to hold than the swaros.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1274
|
|
I'd like to sort of add to what Fiske has said about top end roof binos. They deserve a lot of respect, in my opinion.
Binoculars with multi-coating, and phase coated prisms were first introduced by Zeiss and Leica. The Leica Trinovid was the first waterproof, internally-focusing, phase coated, roof prism bino, and in addition was the first bino to use sliding eye cups. the Zeiss Victory is the first binocular to use rugged, lightweight, and precisely-machinable polyamide compounds for a binocular body. Although a recent entry into the field, Swarovski has already introduced the open hinge design, and pioneered lens coatings that are hydrophobic and easy to clean.
It is one thing, indeed a Noble, Regal thing, to take a top end bino apart, reverse engineer it, and outsource the design to a growing, hungry industry. This helps workers in poor countries, and brings excellent binoculars to many satisfied users, for a much lower price than the originals. The world is certainly a better place for it.
But, innovation is a different game. The top companies hire the top graduates from the leading institutions, pay them handsomely, give them the best equipment, software, and support, and parking places with their name on a sign. And there their little Porsches will be found, late after quitting time, and most Saturday afternoons. These people have a personal stake in being the best. They are running scared, yes, but smoothly and efficiently, and will not be easily caught.
Similarly, generic drugs are cheap and effective. But if you want newly advanced medicines for when you get old and face something that might kill you, and you want a unimaginable cool new binocular waiting for you when you are healed up and ready to venture forth to the NWR, you will support the likes of Eli Lily, and Zeiss. It costs more money, but it is more than just a money deal.
Now, who am I to talk so snobby? I got my Trinovid used at a decent price, after all. Well, the guy I bought it from now has himself a new next-generation Leica. The cycle goes on.
Let's not forget where progress comes from, nor it's worth.
Ron
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4060
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
I have never put any of my IS binoculars on a tripod to test edge sharpness with or without IS and I don't have any interest in doing so because it's meaningless to me IMHO. For astro use I use my 60-110mm straight,45 deg and 90 deg binoculars most of the time on my myriad of mounts. BTW my $200 Canon 8x25 IS show more fine detail handheld than my $1,600 7x42 Zeiss FL's handheld.
Joe
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED,Meade 102ED APO,Orion EON 72,120ST
Apex 127,C6 XLT,CR150,C9.25,XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL,Canon 10x42L IS WP,15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45, Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
17mm Ethos, 22mm Nagler, 40mm Pentax XW, 14mm Pentax XL, 5.2mm Pentax XL, 8-24mm Pentax XL Zoom
|
RichD
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/08/07
Posts: 561
Loc: Derbyshire, UK
|
|
Great post Ron. The optical "big boys" of zeiss, leica and swarovski really have and continue to break new ground in their field, and we all benefit from that.
Interesting that Leica seem to show superb contrast and sharpness on axis but that they are quite soft off axis. Primarily designed not for astronomical applications, but daylight (birding) viewing?
I had assumed that for the cost and prestige of the Leica name, they would have excellent edge correction and would be great for astro use, the only reason we didn't hear of more CN members using them was the cost factor.
--------------------
Clear skies
Rich
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Quote:
I have never put any of my IS binoculars on a tripod to test edge sharpness with or without IS and I don't have any interest in doing so because it's meaningless to me IMHO.
Thanks a lot Joe! 
Perhaps another Bino forum member with a pair of Canon 15x50 IS binos and a tripod might be willing to give this a try? Someone to whom IS bino performance characteristics are not meaningless...
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1274
|
|
Rich,
Thanks, I hope I don't get kicked off for such a rant!
I don't notice any problem with the edge correction of my Leica Trinovid 8x42, I'd call it plenty good. It's not as good as the Fujinon 10x50, but better than the 7x50. But in hand held use, the field appears so wide that the edge is way out there, not something I ever look at. The truly sharp sweet spot is what matters to me, and that is large and excellent in the Leica.
Leica's edge correction is probably bound up with it's insistence that the "rolling ball" effect be eliminated, for the most relaxed view while panning. Users debate the wisdom of this, but it results in pincushion distortion and astigmatism at the edge.
Ron
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14711
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
Leica's edge correction is probably bound up with it's insistence that the "rolling ball" effect be eliminated, for the most relaxed view while panning. Users debate the wisdom of this, but it results in pincushion distortion and astigmatism at the edge.
Ron
The aberration in the outer field of the 10x42 Trinovid is predominantly (about 70% to 80%) curvature.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1945
Loc: Vallée des nuages
|
|
Quote:
.... BTW my $200 Canon 8x25 IS show more fine detail handheld than my $1,600 7x42 Zeiss FL's handheld.
Joe
Joe,
You got to cut down on your coffee consumption! :-)
--------------------
B'rock, son of Grilka
Member of the House of Kozak
Klingon Poet-Warrior
----------------------------------------------
"The character of a Klingon poet-warrior is measured not only by the metal of his blade--but also by the mettle of his words."
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4060
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I have never put any of my IS binoculars on a tripod to test edge sharpness with or without IS and I don't have any interest in doing so because it's meaningless to me IMHO.
Thanks a lot Joe!
Perhaps another Bino forum member with a pair of Canon 15x50 IS binos and a tripod might be willing to give this a try? Someone to whom IS bino performance characteristics are not meaningless...
My 15x50 IS are sharp to the edge handheld with IS on so why would I want to put them on a tripod with IS off ?
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED,Meade 102ED APO,Orion EON 72,120ST
Apex 127,C6 XLT,CR150,C9.25,XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL,Canon 10x42L IS WP,15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45, Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
17mm Ethos, 22mm Nagler, 40mm Pentax XW, 14mm Pentax XL, 5.2mm Pentax XL, 8-24mm Pentax XL Zoom
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4060
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
.... BTW my $200 Canon 8x25 IS show more fine detail handheld than my $1,600 7x42 Zeiss FL's handheld.
Joe
Joe,
You got to cut down on your coffee consumption! :-)
Binocular Resolution: Handheld vs Mounted
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED,Meade 102ED APO,Orion EON 72,120ST
Apex 127,C6 XLT,CR150,C9.25,XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL,Canon 10x42L IS WP,15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45, Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
17mm Ethos, 22mm Nagler, 40mm Pentax XW, 14mm Pentax XL, 5.2mm Pentax XL, 8-24mm Pentax XL Zoom
|
medinabrit
professor emeritus
Reged: 10/27/04
Posts: 648
Loc: medina ohio USA.
|
|
Joe ,my observations with the Canon IS bins are about the same as your own.
I sometimes think about selling all the other below x15 binoculars & just using the IS bins but just cant bare to part with them .
A few days with the Canons & most of the guys would change their minds.
I cant understand why more bird watcher dont use them.
The 10x30 are perfect for birds.
Brian.
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Quote:
My 15x50 IS are sharp to the edge handheld with IS on so why would I want to put them on a tripod with IS off ?
Uh, to determine whether the IS feature improves edge sharpness. That is, are the binos sharper near the edge of the FOV with IS on than with IS off? I seem to recall reading somewhere that the IS feature acts to flatten the field. The reason to tripod mount them for the test is to eliminate handshake with IS off to get the best view of the edge resolution.
Really, Joe, it is something that would take minutes to do. I was somewhat surprised by your response...
 
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14711
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
My 15x50 IS are sharp to the edge handheld with IS on so why would I want to put them on a tripod with IS off ?
Uh, to determine whether the IS feature improves edge sharpness. That is, are the binos sharper near the edge of the FOV with IS on than with IS off? I seem to recall reading somewhere that the IS feature acts to flatten the field. The reason to tripod mount them for the test is to eliminate handshake with IS off to get the best view of the edge resolution.
Really, Joe, it is something that would take minutes to do. I was somewhat surprised by your response...
It's a simple straightforward test that, as far as I know, no one has ever posted a result for, and it is quite simple. I suspect someone who regularly measures these sorts of things might be a better candidate to perform the test.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Kimmo Absetz
super member
Reged: 10/12/05
Posts: 110
|
|
As a general comment about the Canons, in my experience (having rather thoroughly tested a number of units of the 15x50 and the 10x42 L, both on tripods and off, with and without IS engaged) whether or not the image near the edge is sharper with the IS on or off depends on sample variation concerning how well the optical system is aligned (I'm not talking about "binocular alignment" here, but the alignment of the optical elements within each tube with respect to the optical axis of that tube).
An ideal sample would have perfect alignment without the vari-angle prisms, and the vari-angle prisms would be flat at default position, both when the IS system is off and when it is operating but there is little shake and the image has settled. In this case, there would be equal edge resolution both with and without stabilization, and the edges would be equally sharp at a given distance from the center in all rotational orientations. In samples with less than perfect alignment of the normal optical elements (objective, eyepiece, prism cluster) there can first of all be unsymmetrical edge sharpness, meaning that not all orientations of the field edge are equally sharp at the same distance from center, and secondly the vari-angle prisms may not be perfectly flat at "rest" (IS off), at their default center when active, or both, and this can cause less-than-optimum edge resolution either with the IS on, IS off or both depending on what exactly the set of conditions happens to be. The opto-electronic system of these Canons is quite complex, and unfortunately manufacturing tolerances don't seem to be quite as good as would be needed for consistent performance from unit to unit (which, to be fair, is just about impossible to find in any make or model if you get to look at more than three or four samples of a product).
Also, not having seen the newest generation Swarovski EL's, Nikon EDG's or the Fujinon 10x50 (the Fujinon 7x50 FMTR-SX I am familiar with), the Canons are the only binoculars that I consider to be "sharp to the edge." The Leica range is below par in this respect, except for the 10x50 and 10x32 (and, possibly, the 12x50 which I don't have experience with). The Zeiss 42mm FL's are a mixed bag. The 10x42 actually has very good edge performance (as good as or better than the Nikon SE) while the 7x and 8x42 are not that great.
Kimmo
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12885
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Thanks for that , Kimmo .
It seems perhaps such a test is not so simple after all !
Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Kimmo:
Yes. Thanks for the report! Interesting.
Are you saying, then, that the IS feature does not generally improve edge sharpness when engaged? In other words, it does not increase field flatness by design but maye increase or decrease edge sharpness depending on component alignment.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
richtea
sage
Reged: 02/01/05
Posts: 241
Loc: UK Yorkshire
|
|
Hi Kimmo
I found the comment on the 10 x 42 FL edge performance quite interesting
There has been a vast amount of debate and indeed some dispute about this on various forums
For what its worth i tried a 10 x 42FL for some coastal viewing and thought it was very bright and decent towards 75% of the field
I may have missed some of your posts or testing but did you compare the FL in a fair test at all please ?
Regards
RichT
--------------------
Carl Zeiss MC Jenoptem 10 x 50 Nikon SE 10 x 42 Nikon E11 8 x 30/10 x 35 Meade 10 x 50 (40) Pentax Papilo 6.5 x 21 Minolta Activa WPFP 8 x 40 Praktica WA Lanthanum (x 2) 8 x 25 Swift Audubon 804 FMC 8.5 x 44 Fujinon CDPC Roof 7 x 42 Opticron Minerva Porro 9 x 35 Smith Wesson PC MC Roof 8 x 32 Bushnell Discoverer PC3XTR 8 x 42 Swift 10 x 42 Ultralite Hawke WP 10 x 42 porro
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4060
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Thanks Kimmo, I have alot of testing planned with a myriad of new eyepiece/scope/binoviewer combinations etc and testing my Canon IS binoculars on a tripod with the IS off was not on my list. So now they could look to you for the tests.
Joe
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED,Meade 102ED APO,Orion EON 72,120ST
Apex 127,C6 XLT,CR150,C9.25,XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL,Canon 10x42L IS WP,15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45, Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
17mm Ethos, 22mm Nagler, 40mm Pentax XW, 14mm Pentax XL, 5.2mm Pentax XL, 8-24mm Pentax XL Zoom
|
John F
sage
Reged: 02/16/04
Posts: 383
Loc: Washington State
|
|
Kimmo,
I have the Leica 12x50 Ultravids and can tell you that they're not sharp to the edge. They are extremely sharp and clear across most of the field but the stars do get soft out around the last 10% of the field. However, with their very large 68-degree AFOV and 5.70-degree TFOV I usually don't notice it unless I look for it.
John Finnan
--------------------
BINOCULARS
Nikon 7x50 Prostar
Swarovski 8.5x42 EL
Nikon 10x70 Astroluxe
Zeiss 15x60 B/GAT
Takahashi 22x60 Astronomer
SCOPES
Questar 3.5-Inch
Tele Vue NP-127 with TV Bino Vue
EYEPIECES
Deep Sky: 31Nagler, 17-13-10-8-6 Ethos
Lunar & Planetary: 16-10-6-4 ZAO-II
Binoviewing: 24Pan,16Nagler, 10ZOA-II,7.5Taks
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1945
Loc: Vallée des nuages
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
.... BTW my $200 Canon 8x25 IS show more fine detail handheld than my $1,600 7x42 Zeiss FL's handheld.
Joe
Joe,
You got to cut down on your coffee consumption! :-)
Binocular Resolution: Handheld vs Mounted
Joe,
I thought you were going to link me to a caffeine drinker bin users vs. decaf bin users test! :-)
I don't think you'll find many 7x42 FL owners use their bins on a tripod for birding, and that's what the bin was designed for.
If a Cedar Waxwing suddenly popped out of the woods for a special guest appearance, by the time I adjusted the mount, he'd be long gone.
This actually happened with a hawk today. I had my 8x30 E2 on a tripod when a hawk set down on a branch about 50 ft. away (I was doing my own hand held/mounted test, using bird feathers instead of resolution chart bars). By the time I cranked up the tripod head, he vamoosed.
If I had been using the bins hand held, I might have able to make an ID (red tail or red shoulder). If not, at least I would have seen him!
Unless I'm watching birds at a feeder, I like the mobility of hand held bins for birding, and I also prefer a wide FOV and a minimum of 3.75mm exit pupil (5mm on overcast days or winter days).
Also, I have an essential tremor so I see shakes with IS bins too, or I should say "swims".
So whether I'm using an IS bin or a non-IS bin, I need to be braced for the best views.
But when I'm on the hoof, and I can't find a tree or pole to brace myself against, I accept the trade-off of some shakes for at least getting to see the bird before he flies off, and for the ability to see deep into the woods with a larger exit pupil, wider FOV, and greater DOF than the current crop of IS bins offers me.
If Canon ever comes out with an 8x42 IS L with an 8* FOV, and with less "boxy" ergonomics and lighter weight than the 10x42 IS L, I will start stuffing my pigs feet jars full of quarters to save up for one.
--------------------
B'rock, son of Grilka
Member of the House of Kozak
Klingon Poet-Warrior
----------------------------------------------
"The character of a Klingon poet-warrior is measured not only by the metal of his blade--but also by the mettle of his words."
|
Kimmo Absetz
super member
Reged: 10/12/05
Posts: 110
|
|
Quote:
Kimmo:
Yes. Thanks for the report! Interesting.
Are you saying, then, that the IS feature does not generally improve edge sharpness when engaged? In other words, it does not increase field flatness by design but maye increase or decrease edge sharpness depending on component alignment.
Fiske,
Yes, this is essentially what I meant. The field flattening is accomplished in the eyepiece, and the stabilization unit is essentially either an optical flat (in its ideal default centered position and, in an optimally aligned unit, when it is "parked" while the IS is off) or it is a slight wedge, with corresponding artefacts to the image.
Rich,
I have written a test on the Zeiss FL's in 2004, but the 10x42 in that test was not a particularly good sample, having some miscollimation issues that were clearly visible in a star-test. That sample did not have edge resolution as good as the Nikon 10x42 SE, but I have since tried out other samples of the 10x42 FL that were much better, although I have not systematically charted their edge performance.
Kimmo
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4060
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
I don't think you'll find many 7x42 FL owners use their bins on a tripod for birding, and that's what the bin was designed for.
Brock,
I don't use my Zeiss 7x42 FL's on a tripod and don't plan to. But like I said I could see more fine detail better in my Canon 8x25 IS than the 7x42 FL's because of IS. If you are a human tripod then IS binoculars may not be for you. I purchased the Zeiss 7x42 FL's because they are the brightest 7x binoculars with a wide 60° AFOV/8.6° FOV (450 ft./1000 yds) with 6.5ft close focus and light weight (26.1oz). BTW the new 7x42 Nikon EDG have a smaller 419 feet/1000 yards FOV , 9.8 ft close focus and weigh 28.6 oz. And the new Leica Ultravid HD 7x42's have a FOV of 420 ft./1000 yds, 10.8 ft close focus and weigh 27.2 oz for $2,095.
Joe
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED,Meade 102ED APO,Orion EON 72,120ST
Apex 127,C6 XLT,CR150,C9.25,XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL,Canon 10x42L IS WP,15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45, Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
17mm Ethos, 22mm Nagler, 40mm Pentax XW, 14mm Pentax XL, 5.2mm Pentax XL, 8-24mm Pentax XL Zoom
|
wal.s
member
Reged: 04/06/08
Posts: 18
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
|
|
Regarding ultra premium binos, I agree with Fiske's and Ron's point of view. However I must say that my 10 x 42 ultravid indeed suffers from unsharp edges. My 7 x 50 eats it alive (not quite). Best 10 x views I've ever had for birding / nature and of course astronomy.
Wal.S
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
7 x 50 WO, 10 x 42 Ultravids, 15x70 HD Garret Sig.
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1274
|
|
Wal,
Welcome, and thanks for your comments.
My Leica is the older Trinovid BA. There are folks over on birdform who say the the Trinovid has better edge correction than the Ultravid, despite the latter's several improvements. I haven't compared closely, and can't say personally.
But, the riotous thing about top level binoculars, at least as far as forum reality goes, is that people feel strongly about them for strange reasons, including, "just got it, must be good", "can't afford it, must be a rip-off", and wildly varying uses, preferences, and fixations. If you just search around a bit you can find ABSOLUTELY EVERY POSSIBLE OPINION expressed regarding the relative strength of any such bino with respect to any other. My opinions about MY OWN BINOS varys from week to week, even! This is great fun, but ultimately means to me that the differences are small.
Ron
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Wal:
Welcome to CloudyNights! What did you mean by the "Best 10x views" comment? Your Williams Optics binos are 7x, right?
Ron:
If you follow the comments of the few participants who own premium binoculars and have spent some time doing side by side comparisons with other binoculars (in various price ranges) you'll find their opinions are reasonably consistent. EdZ is the gold standard, of course. A few forum members have actually shipped premium binos to him for side by side testing.
I've made this point previously, but might as well restate it. Saying the difference between a $2000 Swarovski 10x50 and a $150 economy 10x50 is small is like saying the difference between a $3500 Televue 101np and a $150 import 4-inch refractor is small. The statement reveals more about the commentor's familiarity with and knowledge of optical instruments than it does about the instruments themselves. You don't hear people like EdZ making such claims...
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1274
|
|
Fiske,
You're right, of course. I didn't mean the difference between brand X and brands L, S, and Z, but the differences among the top brands, is small.
And EdZ, well, he cheats. He "measures" things, which sort of closes the door to neurosis-based opinions. Soft-headed me, I find that variations in lighting, targets, my eyes, etc., keep me in a state of mild confusion regarding the merits of every instrument I have ever owned.
Ron
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Ron:
And I have to say, you're right too. Debates about the relative merit of various binos costing $1000 and up tend to be more philosophical...
That's not to say I'll be swapping my Nikon 8x42s for a Leica, or anything!
I have found that EdZ's fame has spread far and wide. Astronomy friends of mine who rarely show up on CloudyNights know who he is and respect his opinions concerning binoculars. If he were in the birding world, vendors would most likely be sending him instruments for review hoping to get an endorsement.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14711
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
And EdZ, well, he cheats. He "measures" things
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1945
Loc: Vallée des nuages
|
|
I will start by joining others in by paying my tributes to Edz’s optical expertise. 
However, I agree with Ron that he “cheats”.
What I mean by that is simply this. Binocular testing can be very useful, particularly if you want to determine if your sample is up to par with others. For example, one binocular tester I know buys several samples of the same make and model binoculars, and if he likes the bin, he keeps the best sample and throws the rest back.
It can also be useful to compare two different bins of the same configuration, provided both bins were designed for the same purpose .
However, most birders don’t watch birds with their bins mounted on a tripod, looking through one barrel with a booster at 49X, they hand hold them and watch birds through both barrels at 7x-10x.
At those powers, the quality of the user’s eyesight, the steadiness of his hands, and the lighting and weather conditions are more often the limiting factors than the quality of the bin’s optics, particularly when comparing optics from the “Big Three” roof bin manufacturers.
But what makes me scratch my head (besides the mosquitoes taking their last stand in my backyard) is when I see people sending Ed BIRDING binoculars to test for edge sharpness and comparisons being drawn between divergent “species” of binoculars, for example, between a 10x50 FMT-SX and a 10x42 Ultravid.
That’s not only comparing apples to oranges, because one is a porro and one is a roof, and they are two different configurations, but more importantly one is an IF EP “Marine Tested” porro designed for astronomy and marine use (though I can’t imagine them being used at sea except on the QE2 in calm waters), and the other is a premium roof prism bin designed for birders and perhaps hunters with deep pockets.
Given that each bin was designed for an entirely different purpose, comparing them is more like apples to kumquats.
As Tom Hanks’ character in “Big” said when the toy designers showed him a skyscraper that turns into a robot:
I don’t get it?
WHY bother testing the edges of birding binoculars, particularly in 100s of arc seconds, that weren’t designed for astronomy? Or comparing the edges of astronomy bins with birding bins?
If you must compare a birding bin with an astronomy bin, then why not compare what counts most for birders: on-axis resolution, overall sharpness (combination of resolution and contrast), contrast, color saturation, chromatic aberration, width of FOV, depth of field, close focus, weight, hang, waterproofing, fog proofing, and ergonomics?
Add to that list usable ER if you wear glasses.
I realize that some people enjoy both stargazing and birding, but if you want a dual use bin, you will have to make compromises. The 10x42 SE and 10x42 LX are both better dual use bins than the 10x42 Ultravid, but they have a slightly narrower FOV, the SE isn’t WP/FP, and the LX, which has better optics than the LX L (and not just IMO, check out BF), weighs 10 oz. more than the Leica.
I may have already mentioned this earlier or on another CN bin forum thread: a good example of what I'm talking about can be found in Steve Ingraham’s z-birding blog on the Zeiss FL’s edge sharpness.
z-birding - edge sharpness
According to Ingraham, Zeiss designed the FL to maximize the width of the FOV and the sharpness at the center of the field, because those are the two attributes they found birders wanted most. He also contends that the Zeiss FL has a larger “zone of sharpness” than any other premium roof save that of the Nikon LX/LX L.
This illustrates my point about the apples and kumquats. The Ultravids were not designed for astronomy so if the edges aren’t sharp, that’s how they are supposed to be. Leica could surely design an EP that was sharp at the edges and the center, just as Zeiss could, particularly at those price points!
However, even premium optical designs require compromises in order to optimize their performance for their intended purpose.
Think of the 10x50 Fuji, great optics but who wants to haul around 52 oz. binoculars for birding in the field all day, and Good Luck! quickly focusing the IF EPs when a bird comes closer than the long focus distance.
OTOH, mount the Fujis on a tripod (or as I prefer, a 4-way-head parallel arm mount), and behold the sky as you may never have seen it before!
In summing up, binoculars must be appreciated for the purpose for which they were designed. If they fulfill that purpose for you, that’s what matters most, regardless of their boosted edge test results, how they compare to other bins, or how much they cost.
Brock
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Brock:
Nice post! Lots of good points in here. I guess sending the Leicas to EdZ made more sense to me because I was interested in getting the off-axis sharpness issue quantified. The fact that it is a design compromise Leica has made to position its binos for a particular audience is precisely what I figured anyway.
One minor point is that premium bino companies are concentrating on the hunting and Nascar markets (if you can believe that) in the US in preference to birders because they are apparently more willing to shell out the bucks.
Quote:
I realize that some people enjoy both stargazing and birding, but if you want a dual use bin, you will have to make compromises. The 10x42 SE and 10x42 LX are both better dual use bins than the 10x42 Ultravid, but they have a slightly narrower FOV, the SE isn’t WP/FP, and the LX, which has better optics than the LX L (and not just IMO, check out BF), weighs 10 oz. more than the Leica.
A little more detail on the "check out BF" statement, please?
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
Wes James
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 3450
|
|
Brock/Fiske-
Nice to see both of you posting here again! I- and I'm sure others missed you both while gone.
Brock- I agree with Fiske... nice post with good and valid points. Speaking from my perspective, as perhaps others, I know I love binoculars, not just one, but love having many fine pairs... and even though I mostly look at them for astro use- or judge them in their usefulness/quality as astro binoculars, doesn't mean that I don't use them for other purposes- and also wonder how a pair of Zeiss FL's compare- or how would a pair of Ultravids match up with my Fujinon 10x50's for instance- in my never ending search for the perfect binocular. We all know it doesn't exist.. yet we search.
So I think there is a point in comparing roof's to prism's... apples to oranges- and even the occasional kumquat! Helps us to see what the real differences between them are.
BTW, what a nice way to buy- purchase several of a kind simply to pick out the best one... (though I kind of did the same thing to help me choose between the 15x50 and 18x50 Canon IS's.)
Still loving the Swift 804's I got from you!
--------------------
Wes
Atlantic Beach, FL
Some bino’s from Miyauchi 5x32 Binon's up through Garrett 20x110 Signature's,
Some telescopes from a Stellarvue 80mm NHNG up through a couple of 8” reflectors…
And a wonderful 4.25" Delmarva Shiefspiegler!
Some good friends, made here on C/N.
Oh- several cats and a wonderful wife!
Anyone want a cat???? :-O
"When your work speaks for itself- Don't Interrupt" -Gamble Rogers
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1945
Loc: Vallée des nuages
|
|
Quote:
Brock:
Nice post! Lots of good points in here. I guess sending the Leicas to EdZ made more sense to me because I was interested in getting the off-axis sharpness issue quantified. The fact that it is a design compromise Leica has made to position its binos for a particular audience is precisely what I figured anyway.
One minor point is that premium bino companies are concentrating on the hunting and Nascar markets (if you can believe that) in the US in preference to birders because they are apparently more willing to shell out the bucks.
Quote:
I realize that some people enjoy both stargazing and birding, but if you want a dual use bin, you will have to make compromises. The 10x42 SE and 10x42 LX are both better dual use bins than the 10x42 Ultravid, but they have a slightly narrower FOV, the SE isn’t WP/FP, and the LX, which has better optics than the LX L (and not just IMO, check out BF), weighs 10 oz. more than the Leica.
A little more detail on the "check out BF" statement, please?
Fiske,
Thanks. My post wasn't exclusively about your Leica, I've seen an increasing number of comparisons btwn birding bins and astro bins on this forum, and the discussions tend to revolve around issues such as edge performance that are more relevant to stargazers than birders.
I would like to see more threads on birding optics and related issues relevant to birders, though such discussions would probably be more appropriate on Cloudy Days, which unfortunately has atrophied. Lately, there have been more CD threads on microscopy and off-topic subjects than on birding optics.
Some reasons for this may be that when you go to the CN homepage, for some reason, you won't see the Cloudy Days forum listed until you log in, and then since the name is "Cloudy Days and Microscopes," CNers won't realize that we discuss "birding optics" on this forum.
The description under the forum name is awkwardly worded: "This forum is to discuss birding and other daytime or indoor terrestrial usage of optics, and related equipment; e.g. microscopes."
Hence, the reasons why discussions of birding optics are taking place on stargazers' turf (CN bin forum) rather than birders' turf (CD & Mics forum).
These problems could be rectified by giving the microscopists their own forum and renaming Cloudy Days "Birdwatching, Nature Photography, and Birding Optics" and making the forum accessible without logging in so it can be seen when members open the forums list page.
The other reason, IMO, is that CN bin forum has a resident optics expert at the helm whereas Cloudy Days does not. No slam against Mark, but if someone like Henry Link was the moderator, I think that would draw much more attention to the forum.
Anyway, this discussion is more appropriate for Cloudy Days, but I wanted to explain the reasons behind my previous post.
I realized from the recent ads I've seen, such as the Nikon 10x42 EDG ad aimed at hunters, that more bin manufacturers are trying to break into the hunting market segment formerly dominated by companies such as Steiner, Swarovski, Brunton, and Kahless, just as hunting optics companies have been trying to court birders.
Of course, Nikon already had a couple bins aimed at hunters (the Trailblazer and the camo colored Monarchs). Bushnell also has its "Trophies".
However, I didn't realize that NASCAR enthusiasts were a major market!
What about the plane spotting and the train spotting market segments? Who's going to capture those markets? :-)
I wish I could direct you to a BF link about the LX/LX L quality issue, but the BF search is even tricker to use than the CN search. You have to put in four terms to search, and most of the posts about the LX/LX L are buried in threads that do not have the word "Nikon" in the subject head.
However, I have seen more LX/LX L users realizing that the LX L was a step backward optically (perhaps because the prices of the LX Ls have dropped, and more people now own them). If I find those posts, I will PM you.
Brock
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14711
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
These problems could be rectified by.... renaming Cloudy Days
Actually discussions of this sort are better placed in Feedback. However, feedback already hosted this discussion not long ago.
I suggest if you want to have this discussion again, you take it to feedback, not here.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14711
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
So I think there is a point in comparing roof's to prism's... Helps us to see what the real differences between them are.
Absolutely there is. More often than not, most of what you read on some of these high end binoculars is more or less based on someone's opinion, not on real measured data. Of course, data doesn't always agree with opinion, and when that happens, it is not uncommon for those who don't share the same opinion as the data would indicate to dispel the data as not useful.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
Edited by EdZ (09/04/08 03:14 PM)
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Wes:
Thanks and it's good to be posting on the Bino forum again!
Brock:
Quote:
I've seen an increasing number of comparisons btwn birding bins and astro bins on this forum, and the discussions tend to revolve around issues such as edge performance that are more relevant to stargazers than birders.
Personally, I think this is a good thing. Very helpful for members who are interested in premium binoculars for astronomy because while certain premium binos may be excellent for daytime use, they are perhaps not the best choice for astro use. Where else is info like this available?
This is not to say that the Fujinon 10x50s are not excellent for astronomy, but the ergonomics, frankly, aren't that great. SO, if one wants a binocular that is both optically and ergnomically excellent, that basically means picking an instrument that was designed for daytime use. My choice of the Nikon LX and SE instruments was predicated upon just those criteria, and I have been happy with the results. The choice involves a trade-off, obviously. I chose binoculars whose edge performance, though excellent, isn't as good as the Fujinons, in exchange for significantly improved ergonomics.
What you say about the optical performance of the LX Ls is very interesting to me. I have not had the chance to do a side by side between 10x42 LX and LX/L binos. The LX Ls certainly seem excellent. At least the one pair I have been able to spend some time with seemed both extremely bright and sharp. Really, rivaling the 8x32 SE in both categories. I'm talking daytime use here. As I think I have already made abundantly clear, I am not a fan of 32mm (and smaller!) binos for astronomy.
While I had planned to take a close look at the 10x42 EDGs, in preparation for a trip to Costa Rico, my wife and I have decided to add two Labrador puppies to the household and the expense involved (the breeder is in Pennsylvania) has canceled out the Costa Rico trip. We lost our last dog to bone cancer in July and have struggled with that for the past several months. Personally, I was relieved when Elly started her online puppy search, even though I knew we were talking the canine equivalent of premium binos (a couple times over).
Anyway, a pair of the Fujinon 10x50s might be back in my near future now. I use the 12x50s mostly on a tripod for astronomy and it is not that big of a deal. Why not use the Fujinon's the same way?
One thing I am curious to know, however, is how much they correct for near sighted observers? With my glasses off, the 12x50 SEs just barely make it to focus.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Quote:
Of course, data doesn't always agree with opinion and when that happens, it is not uncommon for who don't share the same opinion as the data would indicate to dispel the data as not useful.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14711
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
for those who....
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1274
|
|
"One thing I am curious to know, however, is how much they [the Fujinon 10x50] correct for near sighted observers? With my glasses off, the 12x50 SEs just barely make it to focus."
5 diopters marked on the eyepieces, and if you twist all the way it will go, it looks like not quite 6.
|
StarStuff1
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 04/01/07
Posts: 971
Loc: South of the Mason-Dixon Line
|
|
Brock, what is "hang"?
--------------------
Tools that make objects very far away appear much closer than they actually are.
|
Rich V.
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/02/05
Posts: 1393
Loc: Carson Valley, Nevada, USA
|
|
Quote:
Brock, what is "hang"?
He's talking about how a binocular "hangs" around the neck. Some bins have their strap lugs positioned such that the binocular hangs in an unbalanced or awkward fashion.
As an example, my stubby little Nikon 8x30E2s "hang" at a 45° angle with the objectives pointing towards my chest due to the lugs position above the thumbs instead of at the sides of the binocular.
Rich V
--------------------
Binoculars:
33/50/75/150x100 Saturn III, 16x70 FMT-SX, 10x50 PCF-V, 10x43 DCF-SP, 10x35 E2, 7x35 E, 8x30 E2, 7x26 Custom, 8x23AS Diplomat, 8x23 Travelite
Scopes:
C9.25, 6" f8 reflector, SV80S
|
mooreorless
Just worried
Reged: 07/05/05
Posts: 1821
Loc: Cornpropst Mills,Huntingdon,Pa
|
|
Ron here is picture of the one side of diopter scale
--------------------
Regards,Steve M
|
wal.s
member
Reged: 04/06/08
Posts: 18
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
|
|
Quote:
Best 10 x views I've ever had for birding / nature and of course astronomy.
Fiske, I meant to say, However, my Ultravids provide me with the best 10 x views........ I wasn't referring to the 7 x 50 WO at that point. My apologies.
I must also mention that when I made the comment about edge sharpness, I wanted to share my experience whilst using both binoculars and comparing views from one to the other over many a night. My comments are solely based on my impressions and not on technical experiments.
The WO doesn't eat the Ultravid alive, that was an exageration. It is only that it is better at the edge - about 85 to 90% towards the edge is when I notice it. In every other respect, ergonomics, weight, centre view sharpness, colour, contrast etc, the Leica Ultravid is the winner by a long shot. Unfair to mention brightness (WO is the clear winner) due to the mismatched eye pupil sizes.
One final thing, out of all the 10 x premium binos I have used in the past, my Ultravid has earned my special respect for its friendly ability to compensate (don't know how it does it) for my right eye's astigmatism and has provided and will provide many years of pleasure. This together with its portability and slim weight compelled me to write - Best 10 x views I've ever had for birding / nature and of course astronomy.
Regards,
Wal.S
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
7 x 50 WO, 10 x 42 Ultravids, 15x70 HD Garret Sig.
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts, ideas, and info. This is very interesting thread. I love the way the Fujinons look, I must say, BUT!!! How could such compact binos weigh SO MUCH???
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1945
Loc: Vallée des nuages
|
|
Quote:
Brock/Fiske-
Nice to see both of you posting here again! I- and I'm sure others missed you both while gone.
Brock- I agree with Fiske... nice post with good and valid points. Speaking from my perspective, as perhaps others, I know I love binoculars, not just one, but love having many fine pairs... and even though I mostly look at them for astro use- or judge them in their usefulness/quality as astro binoculars, doesn't mean that I don't use them for other purposes- and also wonder how a pair of Zeiss FL's compare- or how would a pair of Ultravids match up with my Fujinon 10x50's for instance- in my never ending search for the perfect binocular. We all know it doesn't exist.. yet we search.
So I think there is a point in comparing roof's to prism's... apples to oranges- and even the occasional kumquat! Helps us to see what the real differences between them are.
BTW, what a nice way to buy- purchase several of a kind simply to pick out the best one... (though I kind of did the same thing to help me choose between the 15x50 and 18x50 Canon IS's.)
Still loving the Swift 804's I got from you!
Wes,
Glad to hear the 804s were useful to you. I still own a pair myself and use them for both stargazing and birding.
Fiske and I just returned from an extended birding expedition in Florida to look for the legendary ivory-billed woodpecker.
We got very excited when we spotted not just one but a group of them, but when they didn’t move, we crept closer for a better look and were disappointed about what we found – wooden replicas attached to a tree used as signs to advertise a local restaurant (Eat at Ivory Woods Restaurant, Next Exit Off I-275 :-).
Searching for the perfect binoculars is like the search for the illusive ivory-billed woodpecker. Just when you think you finally found the perfect binoculars, you take a closer look, and it turns out to be an illusion. As long as you realize, as you do, that perfect optics are impossible to find in a fast optical system such as binoculars (not sure it’s possible in any optical system, but that’s another discussion), then the pursuit of perfection is the goal, not perfection itself. Or as Buddha might have put it: Becoming is superior to being.
I can understand both the fun and fascination of comparing binoculars of different types and configurations. I do this myself. In fact, I wrote a 4-way comparison using my 8x32 SE, 8x30 E2, 8x50 Octarem, and 8x32 LX. Took me a long time to do my testing and write up my review, but before I finished my computer had a fatal crash, and Poof! it was gone. I may have a back-up copy of some version of it on zip disk, but my new computer doesn’t support the Iomega 250 drive, so I will have to wait until Microsoft creates that update to find out (they already have the Io 100 drivers). I didn’t write down the “data” (which is not at the level of Edz’s data, of course) but still useable, I think.
As long as you don’t lament that your birding binoculars aren’t as good as your astronomy binoculars because they don’t have as good edges, or vice versa, your astronomy binoculars don’t have a good close focus, and realize that they were designed the way they were because of their intended purpose, or in the case of cheaper binoculars, to cut costs, then it’s fine and dandy to compare apples to oranges or even applies to kumquats.
I agree with Edz’s statement below except for the last sentence:
Quote:
More often than not, most of what you read on some of these high end binoculars is more or less based on someone's opinion, not on real measured data. Of course, data doesn't always agree with opinion, and when that happens, it is not uncommon for those who don't share the same opinion as the data would indicate to dispel the data as not useful.
It’s not that the “data” presented in Edz's reports and reviews and other CNers bin reviews aren’t useful to birders (unless they are written over their heads), but rather that the data are incomplete.
Ed’s small bins reports do not include “data” on overall sharpness (combination of resolution and contrast), contrast, color saturation, apparent brightness, flare, how many turns from close focus to infinity, hang, waterproofing, fog proofing, and ergonomics - issues important to birders, but not so much for stargazers.
I personally don’t care to know if binoculars can withstand a dunking and then freezing in the fridge, but some birders do, and hunters like this test too, because they are often outside in the winter when freezing rain can turn to ice within minutes.
Some of these qualities can be quantified, others either can’t or I’m not so sure about. Perhaps this is the reason that birders rely on seasoned bird optics reviewers’ opinions, because some “qualities” are difficult to “quantify”.
Fiske, how would you rate the 8x30 E2’s “hang” on a scale of 1-5? Or should it be 1-10? If there are no standards, it’s fairly meaningless “data”. OTOH, saying that the E2s hang at an angle of about 45 degrees and poke you in the chest as you walk so that you have to hold them down with one hand, THAT’s useful information to me.
Even more useful is the fix: Take the strap (I have an EO neoprene strap) and loop it through the center post rather than the strap connectors. Not only does it make the bins hang straight down (or nearly, depending on the size of your belly :-), but it also gets the strap near the connectors out of the way of your thumbs and hands (though you may have to push the strap toward the edge of the center post, I taped the straps at the middle of the center post, and this keeps them away from my hands.
So to repeat my earlier point -- many optics issues relevant to birders are not part of Edz’s “data” or other CN reviewers “data” or reviews, and thus the need for a CN forum where such issues are evaluated and discussed.
And that could be this forum; it doesn’t need to be Cloudy Days. The title of this forum is “Binoculars” not “Astronomy Binoculars” and birding optics are being evaluated here, so why not?
Don’t worry Ed, I’m not here to give you grief, or hijack this thread, but merely to add another POV to the discussion, and I apologize for my derisive comments on CD last month.
The sum it up, my first point was to illustrate the need for more relevant "data" and more discussions of birding optics on the CN bin forum, particularly since birding optics are being discussed here much more than they are on Cloudy Days.
My second point, is that I see far too often that for those who do "eyeball" evaluations of birding optics and don't share the same "data" as experts who bench test optics are often dismissed as not useful or incorrect.
Birders use binoculars in the hand, not on the bench, and at low powers, not boosted powers, so what they see is what they get.
If they can only see 65% to the edge with their focus accommodation, and others see the different values, that doesn't invalidate their observations, it just means that for them that's the best their eyes can do. And that will be true for many people, particularly in their age group, in this example.
Is that incorrect or non-useful "data"? I don't think so, because it tells me that the bin being evaluated has a good deal of field curvature, and that I may not be able to see as much of the edges as I would ideally like. Caveat Emptor!
I just use this example, because it is mentioned earlier in this thread, but it could be other bin qualities being measured.
Close focus distances can vary from person to person too. So can depth of field perception and usable ER.
The best you can do sometimes is work with average results.
That's not something a scientifically minded person likes to hear, and frankly, it's not what I want to hear either, I wish all qualities of optics could be standardized, so I could make purchasing decisions based solely on reviews since I live far from optics stores.
But in practice, "averaging" is what most of us have live with when it comes to choosing optics even when we know what the values are measured on the bench.
Optics issues relevant to birders and hunters are discussed on Birdforum, and they do have experts such as Kimmo and Henry chiming in from time to time with hard data, but sometimes days or weeks pass when there is no or very little activity on the BF brand binoculars forums.
If anyone hasn't visited BF binoculars forums, they are divided into 11 major manufacturers (from Leica to Bushnell to Minox – it’s not alphabetical, as you noticed) and one forum for “Other” binoculars.
Below the brand forums are a various threads related to binoculars, which are usually more active than the brand threads.
Check it out to get a feel for what topics are discussed:
Birdforum Bincoculars Forums
Btw, Wes, if you were wondering what gear Fiske and I were wearing while stalking the ivory-billed woodpeckers, here’s a photo:
Big Foot Suit
This outfit also works well for stalking the Abominable Snowman and Big Foot. :-)
Brock
|
mooreorless
Just worried
Reged: 07/05/05
Posts: 1821
Loc: Cornpropst Mills,Huntingdon,Pa
|
|
Quote:
Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts, ideas, and info. This is very interesting thread. I love the way the Fujinons look, I must say, BUT!!! How could such compact binos weigh SO MUCH???
Here is the same picture uncropped to show the size difference between the Nikon 10x42SE and Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX. To me the Fuji looks even bigger in person.
--------------------
Regards,Steve M
Edited by mooreorless (09/05/08 07:23 PM)
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14711
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
thank you Brock,
Re:
Quote:
...but rather that the data are incomplete.
Ed’s small bins reports do not include “data” on overall sharpness (combination of resolution and contrast), contrast, color saturation, apparent brightness, flare, how many turns from close focus to infinity, hang, waterproofing, fog proofing, and ergonomics - issues important to birders, but not so much for stargazers.
Well yes, some of those topics are covered in the reviews, in fact most of those topics are covered. The only things I didn't cover in this list are color saturation and hang, but then I'm not writing for birders so I could care less about hang. It's not unreasonable to assume readers are educated enough to translate degrees of focus turn into "how many turns" (270° = 3/4 turn). And, whereas many reviews contain comments about how they perceive the view, I've devised methods to actually measure some of those often reported subjective aspects. In fact, I've even gone to lengths to explain some of the common misconceptions reported in many reviews. Perhaps a more thorough reading would show the topics you wish to read about are mostly covered, and probably more than you thought.
But this thread really isn't about my method of review, it's about the measurable differences between specific models of binoculars. And like it or not, some of the finest binoculars do not have measures that are appreciably better than some that are far less costly. For instance, while you may think it inapproprite to compare the 10x42 Ultravid to the 10x50 Fujinon, I don't think so, as both could generally be considered premium in their styles. But if it makes you feel better, the Ultravid 10x42 roof so far as I can tell does not provide much optically over the 10x42 Celestron Regal LX roof. Perhaps it's more rugged, I won't drop it to find out. Early on in the comparisons I can tell you, size is exactly the same, focus is better on the Celestron, they weigh the same, the Ultravid has 3% wider fov, but the Regal has 10% wider usable fov (sweet spot), the Regal LX has slightly better resolution, light transfer (brightness) is about equal, and they have about the same depth of field and ergonomically they seem identical.
Quote:
Birders use binoculars in the hand, not on the bench, and at low powers, not boosted powers, so what they see is what they get.
Interesting perspective, but FYI not necessarily shared by some of the more prominent reviewers of birding binocs. I don't disagree at all, astronomers use binoculars at normal power and also what they see is what they get. But, for example, Henry Link, whom I respect, and whom you suggested as a reasonable prospect for a leadership role, criticizes the results of testing binoculars at low powers and recommends the better test is the boosted power test, whereas you criticize exactly the opposite. Just goes to show, ya can't please everybody. My opinion is each of these tests something different and both tests are valid for different purposes (as has been previously explained at great length both here and on BF), so I have always tested and reported both.
Quote:
If they can only see 65% to the edge with their focus accommodation, and others see the different values, that doesn't invalidate their observations, it just means that for them that's the best their eyes can do.
Is that incorrect or non-useful "data"? I don't think so, because it tells me that the bin being evaluated has a good deal of field curvature, and that I may not be able to see as much of the edges as I would ideally like.
Well, first of all people can be notoriously incorrect when assuming percent positions if they do not actually measure to that position. Try it. Pick several different binoculars where you think you are seeing an object at 70% or 90% out in the fov and actually precisely measure the position to see how far off you may be in your guestimate. I've proven for myself that I cannot guess accurately enough to consider any unmeasured position precise enough to compare results to any other binocular. (interesting to note, Steven Ingraham decries exactly this same type of guestimating). Hence, I've developed my long standing procedure for accurately positioning and measuring all to the same standards. Of course, by making everything a detailed measurement, many a critic surfaces to say, we don't need this much effort to know what we see. Steven Ingraham and I both disagree.
Criticize measuring to hundreds of arcseconds if you wish, but what that gives the reading public is a benchmark that can be carried into the view of any two binoculars to be compared, a far more accurate method of comparison than you will find available almost anywhere. I'm not worried at all, the methods speak for themselves and stand up to the strongest criticism.
But more to the point on the quote above, what the above sharpness of view perception tells you is that the binocular suffers from some combination of curvature, spherical aberration, astigmatism and coma. There is no consistency in optics that allows one to say we can determine curvature from edge sharpness. For instance, the Regal 10x42rf has a sharper wider usable fov than the Nikon Monarch 10x42rf, yet the Regal has MORE curvature. It's not until a bit further in testing beyond just field edge sharpness that we find out how much of aberration is attributable to curvature (which BTW can be a good thing, especially for birders. Read my reports to understand why) and how much can be attributed to more troublesome and in some cases devastating aberrations.
Perhaps that highlights a good example of where cursory testing and thorough testing show considerably different results from the data. Cursory testing (much of what is available) may result in assumed conclusions that do not always accurately reflect true conditions.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
Edited by EdZ (09/05/08 01:05 PM)
|
edwincjones
Postmaster
Reged: 04/10/04
Posts: 5655
|
|
Quote:
One thing that interests me about premium binocular characteristics is that they are generally consistent from model to model over time. Leica's tend to be soft off-axis. This isn't as noticeable in daylight as it is for astronomy, stars being such a demanding test of sharpness, but you can see it in daylight if you know what to look for. And you can see it in every Leica bino.
Swarovskis generally have a warmer color tone.
I have never had the chance to look through Zeiss binos, but based on the comments from experienced observers here, I have a pretty good idea what to expect.
Sharp to the edge claims always spark skepticism from me -- my right eyebrow automatically starts rising. I have never looked through Fujinon 10x50s, but knowing something about our friend EdZ, I'm confident they truly are sharp to the edge. The only binos I have ever looked through that really are sharp to the edge are Canon IS binos. But that wasn't enough to convince me to buy them. My beloved Nikon 8x42 LXs and 12x50 SEs are not sharp to the edge. They are darn sharp out to 85-90%, which, combined with all their other features is enough for me.
Assertions that premium binoculars aren't worth the price, miss the point. Amateur astronomers don't typically go for premium binoculars (no small reason why the top brands are built for daytime use). Imagine yourself on the refractor forum, though, suggesting the view through a Tele Vue, Takahashi, TMB, or AstroPhysics APO refractor doesn't seem worth the extra money over your budget achromat.
Pretty funny, huh?
Or try dropping in on the eyepiece forum and opining that Tele Vue Nagler's don't seem like a worthwhile investment. $600 for a single eyepiece?? Are you kidding??
The difference between budget and premium binoculars is no less significant. Seriously. Some premium binos aren't good choices for astronomy, but that doesn't mean none of them are. How does Fujinon produce an outstanding view for 1/3rd the premium bino price? They weigh a ton and don't have central focusing.
If you want a binocular that is comfortable to hand hold for extended periods, delivers excellent optical quality, performs well in daylight and at night, and will work reliably for years (not to say decades), guess what? You have to pay for it. Saying premium bionculars don't seem worth the price just means you don't value what they deliver.
Frankly, I'm not going to spend $8,000 or more on a 6-inch APO refractor. But that doesn't mean they aren't worth the money. If you want that level of performance and aperture in a refractor, that's what it costs.
I think that this is the best post I have ever seen on the subject-worth repeating.
edj
--------------------
n w arkansas
|
Wes James
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 3450
|
|
Gee... next time you come down to Florida, would love to buy you guys a cup of coffee if you're near the Jacksonville area! Whereabouts were you guys at?
You know- this discussion has been as educational as the testing and reviews themselves. Frequently the comments and opinions on testing- what is relevant and what is not, the discussions as to the differences between birding and astro bino's, etc. are more revealing and educational to others than those making the comments realize. For instance, EdZ's comments on the comparisons between the Ultravids and the Regal's make me feel that- since I have a pair of the Regals, I have a reference to comprehend what the Ultravids are like, even though I've never had the pleasure of looking through them. (Jacksonville is a wasteland for premium optics) So this in depth, sometimes heated discussion is very educational indeed. The expertise and experience here is incredible, and following these discussions helps educate those of us with lesser experience. Thank you all for the time, effort and thought you all put into your comments. When people like Brock and Fiske challenge EdZ, it brings out the very best in him, I think~ and keeps him alert and brings him out of his sometimes stuffy technical shell! EdZ- I meant that in the kindest possible manner! You know you are highly regarded and appreciated for all you do for all of us here.
Quote:
Btw, Wes, if you were wondering what gear Fiske and I were wearing while stalking the ivory-billed woodpeckers, here’s a photo:
Looks like Big Bird has indeed gotten grey over the years following his Sesame Street engagement!
Wes
|
StarStuff1
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 04/01/07
Posts: 971
Loc: South of the Mason-Dixon Line
|
|
Great comments! Keep 'em coming. I appreciate the higher level of "Binocular 301" education being presented here.
--------------------
Tools that make objects very far away appear much closer than they actually are.
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Quote:
I think that this is the best post I have ever seen on the subject-worth repeating.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
I'm still trying to recover from the crushing disappointment of NOT seenig Ivory Billed woodpeckers! Thanks goodness I have the CN Bino forum for consolation...
I didn't intend to imply any criticism of EdZ's bino reviewing technique, which I think is outstanding and a model for others to follow. Also, I have to say my impression of this forum is that it has always been intended to discuss the use of binoculars for astronomy, whether or not a particular bino was designed with astronomy in mind. It seems to me the evaluation of binoculars for birding is more appropriate on a birding forum.
I have to confess I don't use the same sort of quantitative measures that EdZ uses for binocular evaluation. On the other hand, my assessments have generally been inline with EdZ's conclusions. One reason for this, I think, is a firm insistence on limiting comparative statements concerning various binoculars to what I have observed in actual side by side testing. I have been tempted more than once to purchase a particular instrument solely to be able to evaluate the darn thing. So far I have resisted the temptation to do so, but I feel my will power weakening and, alas, I fear madness lies in that direction... (My wife has VERY strong opinions on the subject, which is probably what has saved me so far.)
As an example of what I am referring to by the results of side by side testing, I have come down very firmly against the use of x30mm and x32mm binoculars for astronomy. I realize some participants on this forum advocate such instruments. My response is simply that I have tested a number of the instruments in question (8x32 SEs, 8x32 LXs, 10x32 LXs, and 10x30 Canon IS binoculars) side by side with x42 and x50mm binos and found the smaller instruments do not stand up to the comparison, excellent as they are for daytime use. The obvious problem is that aperture has been sacrificed for compactness and low weight. Too little aperture for reasonable night time performance. I have full confidence quantitative evaluations of these instruments by EdZ would bear out my conclusions because, at this point, I have spent enough time looking through binoculars to understand what I am seeing, even if my descriptions are frequently qualitative rather than quantitative. Does this mean x30 and x32mm binos can't be used for astronomy? Nope. It's just that using them involves trade-offs most hobbyists won't find acceptable.
I had a lot of fun with the 12x50 SEs last night. One of the best parts of participating here again is that I have started spending more time looking at the night sky with my binoculars.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
Edited by Fiske (09/05/08 07:44 PM)
|
hallelujah
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/14/06
Posts: 2148
Loc: Rocky Mt. High Colorado
|
|
Quote:
I'm still trying to recover from the crushing disappointment of NOT seenig Ivory Billed woodpeckers!
You're not the only one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOqNJP8y7Ek&feature=related
--------------------
Celestron Traveler 8x25 & B. & H. 8x40 FC JAPAN & Revue 10x50 CF Porro FC JAPAN &
Pentax 12x50 PCF WP II FMC & Pentax 16x60 PCF WP FMC &
Pentax 20x60 PCF WP II FMC & Orion 12x63 Mini Giant FMC JAPAN &
SPECTRUM I 20x65 FC JAPAN &
Orion 15x70 Little Giant II FMC JAPAN & Orion 20x70 Little Giant II FMC JAPAN
Orion 16x80 Giant FMC JAPAN & Orion 30x80 MEGAView FMC JAPAN
Barska 30x80 X-Trail LW FC & Burgess Optical Series II 20x90 FMC
Hallelujah! For the LORD God Omnipotent Reigneth
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12885
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< Too much aperture for reasonable night time performance. >
Fiske , I'm sure you MEANT to type too LITTLE aperture !
Reading these last few posts today to this thread has given me tremendous pleasure , as few things disappoint me more than seeing knowledgable , passionate and well - meaning binocular enthusiasts behaving disrespectfully toward one another in public forums .
There is room for and different purposes to be served by all types of binocular reviews and reports , be they three line summaries from nervous newcomers or thirty page dissertations from insomniac professors of optical theory !
Long may the current sense of harmony and common purpose continue !
Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Quote:
Fiske , I'm sure you MEANT to type too LITTLE aperture !
And so I did! Thanks for pointing this out. I corrected the original post.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1274
|
|
I had a hard, although barely successful, time with 61 Oph last night with my 7x50, so I thought I'd try my 8x bino, which is an 8x42 Leica Trinovid BA.
Stars look good in this binocular, and it handled this one very nicely. Two neatly separated points could be seen, not steadily, but most of the time. For extra points, I observed that I could split it cleanly out to 50% of the way to the edge. That's a true 1.88 deg off axis, which ties the Nikon SE 12x50. Ed has argued that that this measure has little to to with the field's appearance. I think it demonstates that the Leica has a very nice sweet spot.
A 30 degree wide apparent region of truly critical sharpness is more than ample for a handheld binocular. If there is any optical compromise to the field center in improving the edge more, or any expense in doing so, it seems like a bad idea to me. I can't see why anybody would strain their eyes to look at the edge of the field of a widefield handheld binocular, instead of pointing it at the object of interest.
Ron
|
richtea
sage
Reged: 02/01/05
Posts: 241
Loc: UK Yorkshire
|
|
Re:
Quote:
But if it makes you feel better, the Ultravid 10x42 roof so far as I can tell does not provide much optically over the 10x42 Celestron Regal LX roof. Perhaps it's more rugged, I won't drop it to find out. Early on in the comparisons I can tell you, size is exactly the same, focus is better on the Celestron, they weigh the same, the Ultravid has 3% wider fov, but the Regal has 10% wider usable fov (sweet spot), the Regal LX has slightly better resolution, light transfer (brightness) is about equal, and they have about the same depth of field and ergonomically they seem identical.
edz
Hi Edz
Just catching up skim reading CN after the recent password thing and saw your comments ref the Ultravid and Regal
I found this quite astonishing and can only assume from the measurements the Celestron Regal must be an amazingly high value and performing binocular
Any folk who bought these at $169 on close out i recall must be in seventh heaven with their purchase
With the exception of the small fov difference on the 10 x 42 i cannot quite understand the outcomes here
Are we to believe the "top guns" of the optics world can be emulated for a great deal less outlay ?
I fully understand optics is a diminishing return with cost as quality lifts up and also warranties and re-sale value come into play but the price differential here is enormous even if the Celestrons were at the higher $260 discounted price or even at full pops
Strikes me you could buy a 10 x 42 or 8 x 42 Celestron Regal and hold it up against many other binoculars
Are they really this good ?
thinking i could be headed for another "hit" on the wallet if any stores are still stocking them at heavy discount
Regards
RichT
--------------------
Carl Zeiss MC Jenoptem 10 x 50 Nikon SE 10 x 42 Nikon E11 8 x 30/10 x 35 Meade 10 x 50 (40) Pentax Papilo 6.5 x 21 Minolta Activa WPFP 8 x 40 Praktica WA Lanthanum (x 2) 8 x 25 Swift Audubon 804 FMC 8.5 x 44 Fujinon CDPC Roof 7 x 42 Opticron Minerva Porro 9 x 35 Smith Wesson PC MC Roof 8 x 32 Bushnell Discoverer PC3XTR 8 x 42 Swift 10 x 42 Ultralite Hawke WP 10 x 42 porro
|
Wes James
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 3450
|
|
Quote:
Any folk who bought these at $169 on close out i recall must be in seventh heaven with their purchase
Yep!!! 
--------------------
Wes
Atlantic Beach, FL
Some bino’s from Miyauchi 5x32 Binon's up through Garrett 20x110 Signature's,
Some telescopes from a Stellarvue 80mm NHNG up through a couple of 8” reflectors…
And a wonderful 4.25" Delmarva Shiefspiegler!
Some good friends, made here on C/N.
Oh- several cats and a wonderful wife!
Anyone want a cat???? :-O
"When your work speaks for itself- Don't Interrupt" -Gamble Rogers
|
richtea
sage
Reged: 02/01/05
Posts: 241
Loc: UK Yorkshire
|
|
Hi Wes
Nice one !! well done did you get 8 x 42 0r 10 x 42 ?
I am in Florida in just over a month for approx 20 nights
As ever will visit our good friends in Jacksonville for a few days and who knows i might even try track down one of these intriguing Celestron roofs if any are still to be found
These must be one of the best value intruments on the block if they stack up to Leica Ultravids
Edz does seem impartial to brand and pretty much on the money with his measures as far as i have seen and whilst this may not mean ergonomics and user preference are guaranteed for all it does tend to suggest image quality is right up there
But why such a massive cost differential ?
Regards
RichT
--------------------
Carl Zeiss MC Jenoptem 10 x 50 Nikon SE 10 x 42 Nikon E11 8 x 30/10 x 35 Meade 10 x 50 (40) Pentax Papilo 6.5 x 21 Minolta Activa WPFP 8 x 40 Praktica WA Lanthanum (x 2) 8 x 25 Swift Audubon 804 FMC 8.5 x 44 Fujinon CDPC Roof 7 x 42 Opticron Minerva Porro 9 x 35 Smith Wesson PC MC Roof 8 x 32 Bushnell Discoverer PC3XTR 8 x 42 Swift 10 x 42 Ultralite Hawke WP 10 x 42 porro
|
RHoward42
member
Reged: 01/13/08
Posts: 52
Loc: Jacksonville, Florida
|
|
Quote:
If there is any optical compromise to the field center in improving the edge more, or any expense in doing so, it seems like a bad idea to me. I can't see why anybody would strain their eyes to look at the edge of the field of a widefield handheld binocular, instead of pointing it at the object of interest.
Ron, you hit the nail on the head in my mind. As a novice lurking here for awhile, i have seen much to-do made about clarity out to the edge. Maybe im missing something, but who purposely views a target off center to the edge? When i try this, it causes image black out. Perhaps an indicator of quality optical design and manufacture, but to me in my little mind, not that important. Much more important to me to have good contrast, clarity and resolution (sometimes i confuse these) toward the center of field. When i started this thread a while back, i had no idea it would continue on this long. I am still in posession of the my friend's swar 10x50 SLCs as well as my own Fuji 10x50 FMTs. After comparing the two side by side in every possible scenario i can think of, i still contend the Swaros are superior. I say wow when looking through the Fujis, but i say Holy when i look through the Swaros (real scientific i know). The two largest differences i notice is that the Swaros focus down to finer detail and the color seems much more natural. The fujis cast a yellowish color on everything whereas the Swaros do not. I never noticed this with the Fujis until i looked through the Swaros. Not sure if this was comparing apples and oranges, but seemed to be comparing two top tier binoculars in their respective category (roof and porro). Rick
--------------------
Richard Howard
12x50 Bushnell Legend Roof
10x50 Fujinon FMTR-SX
10x50 Swarovski SLC NEU
Edited by EdZ (09/09/08 09:38 AM)
|
Wes James
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 3450
|
|
Quote:
Nice one !! well done did you get 8 x 42 0r 10 x 42 ?
Yep! Both! Got the 8x new at the close-out price, and the 10x from Tom Trusock when he sold his for what he paid for them.
Quote:
I am in Florida in just over a month for approx 20 nights
As ever will visit our good friends in Jacksonville for a few days and who knows i might even try track down one of these intriguing Celestron roofs if any are still to be found
These must be one of the best value intruments on
the block if they stack up to Leica Ultravids
Well, can't attest to any comparison's with the Leica's- unfortunately, I've never had the pleasure of viewing through any Leica's or Swar's... or newer Zeiss. Sure would like to! But I know that EdZ's certainly not one to exaggerate at all...
Quote:
Edz does seem impartial to brand and pretty much on the money with his measures as far as i have seen and whilst this may not mean ergonomics and user preference are guaranteed for all it does tend to suggest image quality is right up there
But why such a massive cost differential ?
The Celestron Regal LX's that were bought at that absurdly low price were supposedly being closed out by a dealer or two... odd, I guess they just quit stocking them, as month's later, they're still listed with other dealers with a list price of $688.95, and a selling price of between $310-$450.00! That's a huge swing in pricing. Not sure what that says. But several of us thought that at that kind of a close-out price of $169.00, it'd be hard to go wrong- and we discovered we were right. Until they came out at that close-out price, I don't think anyone really realized how good they were.
Wes
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Quote:
Maybe im missing something, but who purposely views a target off center to the edge? When i try this, it causes image black out. Perhaps an indicator of quality optical design and manufacture, but to me in my little mind, not that important.
Rich:
Typical astronomy newcomers are not using premium binos from Swaro, Fujinon, etc. Instead, they often have binoculars costing less than $200, which may be good as far as they go, but in which design compromises have been made to control the price of the instrument.
One place this shows up very obviously is in off-axis sharpness. And by off-axis, I'm not talking near the edge of the FOV. The issue starts becoming obvious in most economy binos beyond the central 25% of the field. By the time you get near the edge, you're typically looking at stellar seagulls. People new to the hobby, and to binoculars, often don't notice this at all, which seems strange but happens so frequently as to be almost a truism. Now, when I look through my first pair of binoculars, Nikon Lookout IV 10x50s, the quality is so poor compared to my LX and SE binoculars it's hard to believe I thought they were terrific when I first started observing. But I did.
There may be a tendency to over-emphasize edge performance at the expense of other factors for astronomy use, and I would hold the Fujinons up as a possible example. I can't speak from experience, not having tried Fujinons myself, but it doesn't surprise me to learn that you prefer the Swaro 10x50s. They aren't quite as sharp at the edge, but probably offer superior performance in most other categories. I assume you are basing your comparisons on astronomy use, not daytime use. I mean, the Fujinons are intended for astronomy, primarily, so stating that you prefer the Swaro 10x50s for day time use doesn't really tell the whole story. If you are stating you prefer them for astronomy, that is a different claim, really.
If you have the opportunity to compare the Swaros side by side with a Leica binocular, observing the night sky, you will probably get a better idea regarding concern for off-axis sharpness. Leicas do not perform well in this category. Their off axis-sharpness is no better than relatively inexpensive binoculars, a few of which actually outperform them in this area.
Another performance characteristic, which is typically of less concern to astronomers than birders, etc. is CA, which manifiests itself as purple or yellow fringing near the edge of high contrast objects. I was surprised to find that avid daytime binocular users, who have used binoculars for years, frequently don't notice the problem. I once spent about 20 minutes with an expert birder teaching him how to see the problem. He was so stunned when he started noticing it that he actually called up another birding friend to describe it. After a few weeks he stopped mentioning it, I think because he had gone back to not seeing the problem. I didn't bring it up again because he is obviously happy with binoculars that exhibit the characteristic (though, admittedly to a small extent) and one way or another has trained himself to ignore it.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
This issue of experience, really training yourself to see celestial phenomena more effectively, is not limited to binoculars. William Herschel famously commented it would be surprising, in fact, if he were not able to see more through his telescopes, considering the constant use he made of them, than people who used a telescope rarely.
It is often difficult for people to believe that special skills are involved. After all, seeing is seeing. Right?
On one occasion a gentleman who was going to buy a 14-inch StarMaster was visiting one of our club observing sites where he was checking the scope out (with its original owner) and preparing to take it with him. We looked at some different objects with the scope. I picked out the Blue Snowball, centered it in the FOV, a perfectly beautiful bright blue ball, and let him take a look. He looked for a few moments, and then told me the scope must have moved because he couldn't see the object. I took another look. There it was in the center of the field. I said, nope, it's right there in the center of the FOV. He took another look, and then looked at me like I was trying to pull his leg.
I had to try hard not to laugh. Not at him, but at the situation. I well remembered the first DSO I found, with binoculars, which was M3. So very non-stellar it just about leaps out of the field even at low power. BUT, the first time I observed it, I had to check my atlas and the star field multiple times to convince myself I was actually seeing a globular cluster. I just hadn't trained myself to differentiate between stars and relatively small non-stellar objects.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1945
Loc: Vallée des nuages
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If there is any optical compromise to the field center in improving the edge more, or any expense in doing so, it seems like a bad idea to me. I can't see why anybody would strain their eyes to look at the edge of the field of a widefield handheld binocular, instead of pointing it at the object of interest.
Ron, you hit the nail on the head in my mind. As a novice lurking here for awhile, i have seen much to-do made about clarity out to the edge. Maybe im missing something, but who purposely views a target off center to the edge? When i try this, it causes image black out. Perhaps an indicator of quality optical design and manufacture, but to me in my little mind, not that important. Much more important to me to have good contrast, clarity and resolution (sometimes i confuse these) toward the center of field. When i started this thread a while back, i had no idea it would continue on this long. I am still in posession of the my friend's swar 10x50 SLCs as well as my own Fuji 10x50 FMTs. After comparing the two side by side in every possible scenario i can think of, i still contend the Swaros are superior. I say wow when looking through the Fujis, but i say Holy when i look through the Swaros (real scientific i know). The two largest differences i notice is that the Swaros focus down to finer detail and the color seems much more natural. The fujis cast a yellowish color on everything whereas the Swaros do not. I never noticed this with the Fujis until i looked through the Swaros. Not sure if this was comparing apples and oranges, but seemed to be comparing two top tier binoculars in their respective category (roof and porro). Rick
Rick
I'd say it's more like comparing yellow Delicious apples to green (unripe) oranges. :-)
"I say wow when looking through the Fujis, but i say Holy when i look through the Swaros (real scientific i know)"
This tells me much MORE than I would gather from reading how many arc seconds sharp to the edge it is. In fact, I posted a comment to that effect on Cloudy Days last month, but I think I left out the expletives. :-)
I don't know why anyone would strain his eyes to look at the edge of the field of a wide field hand held binocular either. Or how they could manage it without getting blackouts.
I experience black outs when I do this with most WF binoculars. This was particularly noticeable with the Nikon 10x35 E2. Though it had an unusually wide FOV for a 10x bin (7*), darned if I could see the edges! The second I moved my eyes toward the edge, the image would blackout.
During the day if I crept up on the edges slowly, I could find them. In fact, the bottom edge was beyond my peripheral vision when looking straight forward. Felt like I was spacewalking with those bins since I was not aware of the edges.
But to get Andy Rooney here for a minute, the thing that REALLY BUGS me, folks, about FUZZY EDGES is not that I can't see stars to the edge or make out details on birds (a shape is good enough for spotting birds), but because when I pan with the binoculars, I pick up the BLURRED IMAGES in my peripheral vision. And that stinks.
See Patric's comment on this re: the 6x32 Katmai on Cloudy Days.
While our central vision is better for resolving details, our peripheral is excellent for catching movement. So that's what I think is going on with my aversion for fuzzy edged binoculars and hence why I prefer binoculars with a gradual fall off at the edges. If it's too steep, even if the bin has a decent sweet spot, I'm going to be distracted by the blurred edges while panning.
--------------------
B'rock, son of Grilka
Member of the House of Kozak
Klingon Poet-Warrior
----------------------------------------------
"The character of a Klingon poet-warrior is measured not only by the metal of his blade--but also by the mettle of his words."
Edited by EdZ (09/09/08 09:47 AM)
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1945
Loc: Vallée des nuages
|
|
Quote:
...There may be a tendency to over-emphasize edge performance at the expense of other factors for astronomy use, and I would hold the Fujinons up as a possible example.
Nah. Do you think so, really? :-)
I've read so many posts on this forum that either start off or end up discussing edge sharpness (which for me, is misnomer since I consider "sharpness" to consist of resolution + contrast, but that's a day side thing).
I was going to drop a note in the suggestion box that the bin forum being renamed "Cloudy Edges" :-)
Quote:
I can't speak from experience, not having tried Fujinons myself, but it doesn't surprise me to learn that you prefer the Swaro 10x50s. They aren't quite as sharp at the edge, but probably offer superior performance in most other categories. I assume you are basing your comparisons on astronomy use, not daytime use. I mean, the Fujinons are intended for astronomy, primarily, so stating that you prefer the Swaro 10x50s for day time use doesn't really tell the whole story. If you are stating you prefer them for astronomy, that is a different claim, really.
Yes. The summarily dismissed point that I made earlier. Birders evaluate bins from a different perspective than astronomers. Even if you measure most of the same qualities, how you EVALUATE those qualities in terms of the intended purpose of your bins is different.
(don't mean to get all Kenny on you with the CAPS, but it's very late, it's been a long day, and I'm too tired to cut and paste codes from the bottom. this is one of the things i like about BF, you can set the formating right in the text).
Quote:
If you have the opportunity to compare the Swaros side by side with a Leica binocular, observing the night sky, you will probably get a better idea regarding concern for off-axis sharpness. Leicas do not perform well in this category. Their off axis-sharpness is no better than relatively inexpensive binoculars, a few of which actually outperform them in this area.
Fiske, I assume you are referring to the Ultravids? Have you tried a Leica 10x50 Trinovid BA? I'll try to look up the reviews, but I've read that it's very low in distortions even at the edges, including pincushion, which I've read many users, including Ingraham, say is excessive in the lower power models.
Quote:
Another performance characteristic, which is typically of less concern to astronomers than birders, etc. is CA, which manifiests itself as purple or yellow fringing near the edge of high contrast objects. I was surprised to find that avid daytime binocular users, who have used binoculars for years, frequently don't notice the problem. I once spent about 20 minutes with an expert birder teaching him how to see the problem. He was so stunned when he started noticing it that he actually called up another birding friend to describe it. After a few weeks he stopped mentioning it, I think because he had gone back to not seeing the problem. I didn't bring it up again because he is obviously happy with binoculars that exhibit the characteristic (though, admittedly to a small extent) and one way or another has trained himself to ignore it.
As Steve Ingraham once said on BVD, and I paraphrase very liberally, NEVER look for CA unless you are prepared to keep seeing it for the rest of your life!
I'm surprised this birder went back to ignoring it. Once you see it, it often becomes hard to ignore.
When I used to be obsessive about testing binoculars, I'd see the CA, and sell the bin. After awhile, I would buy only ED binoculars even though they had other issues that bugged me. But at least they didn't have as much CA!
Took me awhile to realize that I only see CA in extreme contrast situations, and particularly in the winter.
So I decided NOT to look for it anymore. In the winter, I can't ignore it with my LX, because I can see it on-axis, but with my porros, I stopped noticing it.
And after writing this, I HOPE I will NOT be tempted to go look for it again! Fortunately, tomorrow it's going to rain. :-)
--------------------
B'rock, son of Grilka
Member of the House of Kozak
Klingon Poet-Warrior
----------------------------------------------
"The character of a Klingon poet-warrior is measured not only by the metal of his blade--but also by the mettle of his words."
|
Wes James
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 3450
|
|
Brock-
I like what you quoted-
Quote:
"Mathematics is a crutch we use when
intuitiveness and visualization fail us."
You see- I was just thinking, as I was reading your post, that sometimes the sum of how we feel about a particular binocular can't be summed up in either numbers- or individual characteristics... sometimes it's a sum of things that just makes you say "Man, I really like these"- or conversely, the ones you find you just don't pick up very often- and don't know why. I recently had a pair of Minox HG's, 10x43's, IIRC... I liked the build quality, loved the case , but just wasn't that knocked out by the views. I got them cheap, the opportunity arose to sell, so I did. I can't tell you why I didn't like them. Sometimes even the numbers don't always tell the tale. So then, when I got to the bottom of your post and saw the quote, it was like you knew what I was thinking as I was reading!
Wes
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Quote:
I can't ignore it with my LX, because I can see it on-axis, but with my porros, I stopped noticing it.
Brock:
You're no neophyte, so slap me if this is TOO obvious. One thing I have found with the LX and SEs is that inter-pupilary distance and eye position makes a big differenece in minimizing CA issues. Properly held and adjusted, it is minimal even off axis. I'm a bit surprised to hear you are troubled by it on-axis, but I presume you mean in high contrast situations like snow.
My LXs are 8x42s, the older model. I'm not sure how they compare with the newer and higher power LXs on this characteristic. If only I owned MORE binos...
I have pondered whether using wider AFOV eyepieces and placing a premium on resolution also makes CA more difficult to control. I realize CA reduces resolution, a frequent topic of conversation amongst APO refractor enthusiasts, but binos are far more complex instruments than APO refractors, and it seems to me that binos which are said to exhibit less CA (Leica and Zeiss?) are also said to have lower resolution (sharpness?) off-axis than Swaro and Nikons, which exhibit more CA. Is CA more of a problem with your Nikons than with the Swaros?
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1274
|
|
Could it be that the edge effect that bothers Brock when panning is not blur, but the "globe effect" (edge and center of field appearing to lie at different distances from the observer)? I have some cheapies in which the edge is not so unsharp really, but the globe effect is not corrected, and the effect in panning is quite woozy. In their product literature, Leica does a song and dance about vanquishing the evil globe effect, at the cost of sharpness at the edge. But, it works. Panning the Leica is completely relaxed, with no disturbing or distracting effects.
Yes friends, buy Leica! Seriously, there is just so very much to this business of understanding what the heck you are looking at, it is really interesting and fun, isn't it? And expensive, yeah.
Of course the new Swaro will get everything perfect all at once, and happiness will be as simple as scraping up the necessary cash for it, and forgetting everything else. Then, all our troubles will be over, and all our arguments and fun too. Enjoy these last days of flawed binoculars while you can.
Ron
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2132
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Quote:
Of course the new Swaro will get everything perfect all at once, and happiness will be as simple as scraping up the necessary cash for it, and forgetting everything else. Then, all our troubles will be over, and all our arguments and fun too. Enjoy these last days of flawed binoculars while you can.
So cynical, and so young...
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1945
Loc: Vallée des nuages
|
|
Wes,
Ah, yes, the old reductionism vs. holism debate that I'm famous or perhaps infamous for debating. :-)
But first, I want to clarify an earlier point you made about Fiske and I challenging Edz. I do not possess the technical skills in optics to challenge the z-man's methodology.
However, you can read a debate about testing methodology authored by Edz, Henry Link, and other experts on this Birdforum thread (I've read it three times, and I'm still trying to digest it with the help of Pancreatin -- it's a very "meaty" discussion :-) - also note that the beginning of this discussion started on another thread, which I posted to):
Evaluating Binoculars at High Magnification
To reiterate an earlier point, it's not the methodology so much (I qualify that with "so much," because astronomers don't always look at the same optical qualities as birders, though many overlap, and even when they do measure the same quality, they might give it a different "weight" depending on how important it is for their purpose).
For example, how much does an amateur astronomer care about his bin's close focus ability or how much does a birder care about the edge performance of a wide field bin as long as it has an ample sweet spot?
It's what the birder or the amateur astronomer takes away from a technical report or review that matters most to them.
As an analogy, consider a woman's foot. Three men can examine it from top to bottom and side to side, even take x-rays and photos, and come away with three different impressions.
The doctor is going to examine her foot from an anatomical and physiological perspective. Hammer toes? Fractures? Are her nails too long and cutting into her adjacent toes? Foot fungus? Is the circulation normal? How about enervation? Can you feel THIS? Ouch! Sorry.
The shoe salesman is going to take that same foot and ask himself what kind of shoe does this woman want? And how can I make her feet look the most flattering so she'll come back again and I can make my commission even if I have to squeeze her | | |
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 
