Unnecessary Binocular Technology

[trashbird]

I wonder about some of the new optics technology and whether it makes much difference to the birdwatcher.

First, FL, ED, or whatever you call chromatic correcting glass. Does this make a huge difference in the image? I have heard that at typical bino magnification, chromatic aberration really isn't much of a problem.

Second, aspherical technology. This is supposed to make the image you see "flatter". I see the benefit of this for astronomical viewing. You want a flat image of stars across the field of view. But for birdwatching, you are more interested in a subject that is in the center of the field. A curved field of view might actually be more natural for terrestrial viewing. Also, curvature of field brings closer objects in the outside field of view in better focus. This might actually help the appearance of better Depth of Field.

Some technology, though, I see as being a very positive development no matter what your viewing interests are, and whether you use a $200 bino or a $1500 bino.

Phase coating for roof prism binos. Improves the contrast and clarity of the view. This is now available on all but the least expensive binos.

High-resolution coatings on all optical surfaces, including prisms. These are like multi-multi-coatings. Sometimes a hundred coatings. Allows much more light to be passed through the bino to your eye. Brighter images. Better apparent resolution. Better color detail in shadow. Another important development in mid-priced to the most expensive optics.

Silver-coated prisms. Another image brightening technology. Available in mid-price to top-end binos.

Di-electric coatings. Available in the best current optics. Allows the maximum amount of light to reach the eye.

In conclusion, the best new development in binocular manufacturing are coating technologies that dramatically improve the brightness of the image, which in turn has the biggest pay-off for image quality and enjoyment.

Lens construction technologies like FL-ED glass and aspherical elements seem more dubious to me in how much they actually improve the image, especially given their expense.

[Mono]

It is all in the eye of the beholder. Like buying expensive hi-fi, if you can tell the difference (and you can afford the premium) then go with it. If you can't tell the difference then save your money for other things.

And I do mean "If you can tell the difference". All the test bench results and reviews help but if you can't see the difference in hand, in the real world then why waste your money.

[chartwell99]

It is all in the eye of the beholder. Like buying expensive hi-fi, if you can tell the difference (and you can afford the premium) then go with it. If you can't tell the difference then save your money for other things.

And I do mean "If you can tell the difference". All the test bench results and reviews help but if you can't see the difference in hand, in the real world then why waste your money.

Very good advice, indeed. You might even add a corollary that even if you can tell the difference, does that difference really matter in your actual use of the binocular.

[dantheman]

Second, aspherical technology. This is supposed to make the image you see "flatter". I see the benefit of this for astronomical viewing. You want a flat image of stars across the field of view. But for birdwatching, you are more interested in a subject that is in the center of the field. A curved field of view might actually be more natural for terrestrial viewing. Also, curvature of field brings closer objects in the outside field of view in better focus. This might actually help the appearance of better Depth of Field.




I may be wrong but I'm sure this is a good thing. I almost feel seasick when scanning with my binoculars - and they're expensive ones. With a flatter field of view, maybe I wouldn't feel like trees and things move towards and then away from me every time I scan around looking for stuff, or following something in flight. (Unless this is something else altogether of course!)

[Pinewood]

I may be wrong but I'm sure this is a good thing. I almost feel seasick when scanning with my binoculars - and they're expensive ones. With a flatter field of view, maybe I wouldn't feel like trees and things move towards and then away from me every time I scan around looking for stuff, or following something in flight. (Unless this is something else altogether of course!)

Danetheman,

I believe that your problem in not curvature of field but the rolling ball effect, which is eliminated by adding a little pincushion distortion. If there is too much distortion than the distortion becomes problematic.

Trashbird,

I do see the difference ED or Fl glass makes more in the colour quality and contarst rather than in resolution.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

[ghostrider]

It is all in the eye of the beholder. Like buying expensive hi-fi, if you can tell the difference (and you can afford the premium) then go with it. If you can't tell the difference then save your money for other things.

And I do mean "If you can tell the difference". All the test bench results and reviews help but if you can't see the difference in hand, in the real world then why waste your money.

This is so true. I've been through the whole HI-FI thing. Improving mains cables, speaker cables, interconnects etc... I stopped this nonsence because i realised i was listening to the "HI-FI" and not enjoying the music anymore. The same thing applies to optics, you end up looking for very slight faults in the image quality rather than enjoying the bird you're looking at.
The commercial world of "selling optics" can't afford to stand still. If one company brings out a "new improved" optic. The next company has to bring out a "newer, more improved" model. If it's more expensive a lot of people think it must be a lot better. That's human nature and keeping up with the Jonesy's. As with HI-FI, there is a noticable difference between "budget" equiptment and "expensive" equiptment. However, the difference between "expensive" equiptment and "very expensive" equiptment is often very slight and not always noticeable to the average listener. This goes for optics too. You end up being more concerned about how good your bins are and stop enjoying the bird you're looking at. The optics are never as good as the bird you're looking at. My bins cost me £300 and they have never prevented me from identifying a bird. They are waterproof, have good close focus. They've got 4 lenses which i clean very easily with a cloth.
Could i justify spending a £1000 more for the latest model?
NO.

[jacquot]

Good example, and the HiFi version is geometric compared to optics. What does it take to have you experience the object (birds, music) well? I'm a visual person and a musician and got caught up in both but realize limits. There's a purpose in all of this--observe the bird, appreciate/play the music--and the tools are a means to that, not the end. Like Pinewood, I truly appreciate the FL advantages, but each has to be tested and honestly evaluated for the intended purpose.

[njlarsen]

One more vote for you determining what makes the difference and what is important for you. About eight years ago when I bought my high price binoculars, I tested in the hand just about everything available in the well stocked store I visited. The first pair to leave the lineup was not the least expensive, because I based my decision on what was important for me. At the end of the day, I finalized my choise with the most expensive pair, in part for a greater depth of field; that was the biggest difference and it was important for me. When, two years later, I chose a telescope, the ½ priced one won out because I could not be bathered with what I saw as a difference in the view I got.

I have not given any brand names because the important thing was to go into the train of thoughts I used to decide.

Cheers
Niels

[Sancho]

Given that the latest "big" advance (and price hike) in a pair of top-end bins involves basically some water-repellent goo on the outer lenses (the point of which escapes me for reasons discussed on another thread), have we reached the End of Binocular History? I mean, have the manufacturers achieved the best that can be done already?

[henry link]

.... have we reached the End of Binocular History? I mean, have the manufacturers achieved the best that can be done already?

Sancho,

The answer is no. Good as the image quality through the best binoculars looks in isolation or compared to other binoculars, it is still a very obvious visible step or two below a perfect low power telescope. I use a 50mm Fluorite APO refractor at 8X as a reference image. It's surprising how dull and soft the image in high end binoculars looks compared to that. The main culprit appears to be undercorrected spherical aberration. The best daylight image I've seen in a binocular comes from the Zeiss 8x56 FL. That binocular benefits from being stopped down in daylight to a higher focal ratio than smaller 8x binoculars, but even its image is still visibly compromised.

Henry

[J. Moore]

Given that the latest "big" advance (and price hike) in a pair of top-end bins involves basically some water-repellent goo on the outer lenses (the point of which escapes me for reasons discussed on another thread), have we reached the End of Binocular History? I mean, have the manufacturers achieved the best that can be done already?

I think for practical purposes, in terms of sharpness of image, we are close to the end. I am sure there are some minor improvements (such as Henry references) that can be made, which binocular companies' will bring out their hype machines to promote, but I expect these will be barely perceptible (if perceptible at all) to all but optics enthusiasts.

But I would think in other respects there are lots of improvements that could be made in binoculars. I would really like to see more development of switch power or zoom binoculars. (And am looking forward to the release of the Leupold switch power binoculars scheduled for next month). Having a zoom scope is a lot of fun, and always looking at things at the same magnification can get boring. Why shouldn't we have similar options with binoculars? Also, it would be nice to have binoculars that offered both excellent eye relief and very wide fields of view.

Incidentally, I agree with the other posts in this thread comparing binocular technology to high fidelity equipment. In my opinion, in both areas, the extent of hype and expense for the high-end stuff greatly exceeds the extent of noticeable improvement over good midpriced stuff.

My two cents,
Jim

[henry link]

I too would be happy to see a no compromise 7-10x binocular, but it will be difficult to achieve a satisfactory (to me) FOV at the low end of the range. Nobody has done it so far, including the new Leupolds. The new wide field zoom for Leica scopes might point toward a design that could work if the resulting eyepiece is not too large. As for seeing improved image quality, in my experience any reasonably good optical image tends to look "perfect" until it's compared to a better one, but even then a pretty big difference will not be noticed by everyone. Besides spherical aberration another serious problem I see limiting the image quality of current high end binoculars is lateral chromatic aberration. That problem actually appears to be worse in expensive binoculars with complex optics than it is in very cheap ones. Finally, most expensive binoculars could have better off-axis performance. Currently only Nikon, Fujinon and Canon use sophisticated eyepiece designs to correct astigmatism and field curvature.

[J. Moore]

I too would be happy to see a no compromise 7-10x binocular, but it will be difficult to achieve a satisfactory (to me) FOV at the low end of the range. Nobody has done it so far, including the new Leupolds.
The new Leupold's pre-release specifications are for 7-12x binoculars, with a 376 foot field of view at seven power. That is a wider field of view than a lot of eight power binoculars; but I guess a mild compromise for a typical seven power. Personally, I am more willing to compromise on field of view than just about any other spec, so it is fine by me.

Best,
Jim