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
jkevn
sage
Reged: 03/02/06
Posts: 211
Loc: Tucson, Arizona
|
|
With two different binoculars with the same aperture, magnification and similar quality and under dark skies with good seeing conditions, could you tell the difference if one was multicoated and the other fully multicoated if they were hand held, with respect to seeing the faintest possible stars? Example could be Nikon Action Extreme 10x50 and Pentax PCF WP II 10x50.
My guess is that if the binouclars were hand held, it would be impossible to tell the difference in a few tenths of a magnitude the coating differences would make, and it would take mounting on a tripod to tell a difference.
I realize that the coating differences do make a difference with stray light.
I am still deciding about what binoculars to buy with funds I have available. I recently sent back Swift Audubon 8.5x44 poros because I personally didn't like the eye cups and eye relief (although optically they were really good!). I am leaning toward buying two binoculars for less than the price of the single Swift Audubon 8.5x44, the Nikon AE 8x40 and 12x50. The Nikons are multicoated; they probably have a single layer of MgF on their prisms faces, and not all fully multicoated on some lens surfaces.
I borrowed pairs of Nikon AE 10x50, multicoated, and 10x50 Pentax PCF WP II, fully multicoated to try out. Looking at very faint M1 under ideal conditions, at the zenith in 4:30 AM, I can't tell the difference in brightness. Globular clusters such as M22 look similar. Background light from light pollution looks about the same to me in both binoculars.
|
hallelujah
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 07/14/06
Posts: 2154
Loc: Rocky Mt. High Colorado
|
|
I found that brighter objects such as the moon, or certain planets, prove less problematic with FMC. Ghosting is less likely with FMC also.
-------------------- 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
|
charen
Pooh-Bah
  
Reged: 05/28/05
Posts: 1083
Loc: New Zealand
|
|
What you have stated I believe is basically correct. Any difference would be incremental and difficult to detect. I guess however every extra light photon that gets through does count. However I do second what hallelujah says re. reducing secondary ghostings - I do see a reduction when going from 'coated' to 'fully coated' to 'multi coated' to 'FMC' coatings. I aslo believe it does help with image contrast and color fidelity with FMC coatings being superior - however again it is incremental between MC and FMC. Of course there are other influences with Q. and A. collimation, build and optical qualities that have to be taken into account.
I rather have an excellent 'M.C.' bino then a poorly built 'F.M.C.' one.
Just my humble thoughts.
Chris
35 binos.
90mm Cat.
WO66ED
Meade 8in.LX90
Skywatcher Equinox ED120 / Goto HEQ5.
Edited by charen (10/16/09 11:51 PM)
|
DJB
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/23/05
Posts: 1589
Loc: Lisle NY
|
|
Hi folks,
I agree that the contrast is better with FMC lenses.
However, it is sometimes difficult for me to see the difference when switching between a FMC and a surperbly coated WWII binocular.
Mainly, this is because it is difficult for me to "remember" what I most recently saw with a previous binocular. All-in-all, I'll opt for the FMC. Just my opinion.
Best regards, Dave.
|
Man in a Tub
Not Retired!, But a little cranky!!!
Reged: 10/28/08
Posts: 2037
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
|
Quote:
Of course there are other influences with Q. and A. collimation, build and optical qualities that have to be taken into account. I rather have an excellent 'M.C.' bino then a poorly built 'F.M.C.' one.
This is precisely the reason for the current popularity of the Nikon Action Extreme model.
-------------------- Todd
Brunton Eterna 15x51 ° Garrett Optical Signature Series 15x70
Nikon Action EX 12x50 ° Oberwerk 15x60 and 20x80 Standard
Orion Paragon Plus Mount and Paragon XHD Tripod
Garrett Optical Series 2000 Grip-Action Monopod
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
   
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14731
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
The difference from multi-coated to fully multi-coated can be negligable regarding limiting magnitude.
Lets's start with the worst possible case (leaving out non-coated lenses).
Binoc A is FMC = fully multi-coated
Binoc B is FC = fully single layer Magnesium Flouride coated on every surface
assume 12 surfaces
the FC lenses will reflect more light and it will not pass thru to the eye. The difference in light throuput is the amount of reflected light, which is the difference between reflected by FMC (0.25%) and reflected by FCMgF (1.5%)compounded for the number of surfaces.
(1+(.015-.0025)) ^ 12 = 16% difference in light throuput.
Now this you might be able to see, it represents a difference of about 0.15 magnitudes. However, it is not very likely you would be able to detect this in handheld use, *BLEEP* handheld use lowers your ability to reach limiting magnitude by anywhere from 0.5 to a full magnitude.
But more often than not, what we find, for example in a comparison of FMC to MC such as in the case of the Nikon Action Extreme, is that only the prisms are FC rather than FMC, and all other surfaces are FMC. So this may represents only 4 surfaces. So, the difference becomes
(1+(.015-.0025)) ^ 4 = 5% difference in light throuput. This represents a difference of only 0.05magnitudes
This is nearly impossible to notice. Even the most practiced variable star observers have some difficulty identifying differences of less than 0.2 mag, and many cannot identify a difference of 0.1mag. You would be able to test on a deep magnitude star field and document the differences, but the differences would be at the 5%-10% vision level, meaning objects that faint would be observed only by averted vision for 10% of the time.
Glass figure is probably the predominat indicator of color cast. Glass can be figured to be apochromatic or achromatic. Almost all binoculars are achromats. However, achromatic correction can be figured towards the red end of the spectrum, or towards the blue end of the spectrum. This figure may add factors of 10s times more influence to color cast than would the few percent difference in transmission due to coatings.
Contrast is affected by some various combinations of scatter, spherical aberration, chromatic aberration, etc. Lens quality determines degree of aberrations. A reduction in transmission due to coatings would have an equal effect on object and background and would not change the contrast ratio. Lens aberrations are the primary determinant of contrast.
Even a half moon, (let alone a full moon) can exhibit a reflection that is brigher than the brightest stars, so reflections of the moon are not unexpected at all, even in fully multi-coated binoculars.
edz
-------------------- Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Luigi
Post Laureate
   
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 4940
Loc: MA
|
|
>>> This figure may add factors of 10s times more influence to color cast <<<
Only at the edges or for objects smaller than the color blur. For objects larger than the color blur, the color is independent of chromatic aberration...except 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: 14731
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
None-the-less, a difference from FMC to MC of even a high 10% difference in transmission, would have a negligable affect on color cast. That is not to say that overall selection of coating materials wouldn't have some affect on color rendition. That may be the case. But a difference of a few percent in light throughput due to level of coatings, probably not.
Properly applied multi-coatings have numerous layers, each layer attuned to a specific wavelength of light. If the coatings are controlled properly, transmission across all visable wavelengths will be relatively similar, generally with a concentration of optimization towards the visible wavelengths to which the eye is most sensitive. However, if the coatings are not controlled as well, certain wavelengths may be attenuated greater than others, leading to a perceptible color cast.
Since we have already established the difference in FMC to MC on several surfaces is nearly imperceptible, it stands to reason, that inability of the eye to distinguish total light differences will also result in the inability to detect partial total light, or specific wavelength differences.
Color cast is not a function of differences between FMC & MC, it is more a funtion of choice of coating material OR not optimizing the selection of coating materials to the index of the glass OR lack of control in the coating process.
edz
-------------------- Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
DJB
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/23/05
Posts: 1589
Loc: Lisle NY
|
|
Hi Ed,
Right on. Great specs.
I believe that you are saying that we would all like to own FMC, regardless, even tho the cost comes out of our back pockets, i.e., our pocket books. Thanks Ed.
Best regards, Dave.
|
|
8 registered and 17 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: EdZ
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 263
|
|
|
|
|
|
|