Optical Quality vs. Field-Worthiness

[FrankD]

Since it has been rather slow on this forum lately I thought I might introduce an interesting topic for discussion. I remember reading in one of Mr. Ingraham's articles ( http://www.betterviewdesired.com/NewLandB.html ) of a curious way in which he evaluated each binocular he tested based on optical quality and what he called "Field-Worthiness". I believe the latter was a reflection of not only the instrument's durability in the field but the overall handling as well.

My recent experiences with the Nikon EII 8x30 brought this article to mind. I must say that I have become quite pleased with the optical performance that this little gem provides yet I still feel a bit of apprehension in keeping it due to the reports of the rubber peeling off and the instruments lack of true waterproofing. In which case, if I had to rate it using the BVD method then it would probably be something like 95% BITHV (nearly perfect but for the distortion around the outermost edges of the FOV) with a 75% field-worthiness rating due to the waterproofing and rubber issues.

On the flip side, I am just about to sell a Zeiss Conquest 8x30 that I have been quite fond of. Ergonomics are great. It is lightweight. The focus is very precise and it is completely waterproof, nitrogen purged, etc... Based on that I would have to give it a 99% field worthiness score (no binocular is perfect). The optical performance is quite good as well. The image is extremely crisp, probably due to Zeiss's exceptional coatings. However, the image lacks some contrast and there is noticeable distortion around the outer 1/3rd of the field. Chromatic aberration is also noticeable but not excessive on high contrast objects. The field of view is also relatively narrow at 360 feet when compared to other roofs of this configuration. Because of this I would probably give it an 85% BITHV rating.

Just for discussions sake and based on the system on the BVD link I posted, how would you rate your binoculars? In addition, why would you put more emphasis on one quality over the other?

[Tero]

This guy has similar ideas
http://www.betterviewdesired.com/501/

Oops, no wonder, it is the same guy. Are those really the current E II? I don't like the looks of the eye cups.

My two main pairs are the two that are the most field worthy: 10x36 as I have the most experience with, and 8x40 for a wider field of view. Both are also useable with either glasses on or off. And the 8x40s, porros, are in fact water proof.

By the way, does Nikon make both an E2 and E II? I'm confused.

[FrankD]

Oops, I thought I was in the main bin forum when I posted this. Must have been reading that Swaro thread and forgot. I will ask one of the mods to move it.

Thanks for the response Tero.

The E2 and E II are the same bin. Just different ways of typing it.

[bradshrike]

Frank D, interesting you should bring this up as I was having this discussion only yesterday.

I have a pair of Leica 8x32 BN's... they're about as durable as an M1 tank. Previously I had a pair of 7x30 Swaro SLC's. The imag quality of the Leica is better, no doubt. Leica has a better reputation in these parts for durability, no doubt. However, I find myself missing the Swaro's! I liked the fact the bin was an overall "package" with a great strap, objective and ocular covers. The Leica has had to be retrofitted to make it acceptable. The Swaro's felt/feel better in my hands in spite of the fact that the focus wheel is on the "wrong" end. Franky, I've never developed a "warm bond" with he 8x32 Leicas in spite of their wonderful view and may sell them and get the now discontinued Swaro 8x30's... I'd be sacrificing a little visually I know but it may be worth it to me. One thing I knowfor sure is Swaro's customer service and attitude here in the US is BETTER than Leica and I believe, at least as far as the Trinovids go, the Swaro "mid" lineup is better thought out in spite of a better image (to my eyes) of the Leica Trinovids. Buying a bin is a lot of little facts and prejudices thrown together and is more than just the view.

[Curtis Croulet]

This guy has similar ideas
http://www.betterviewdesired.com/501/

Oops, no wonder, it is the same guy. Are those really the current E II? I don't like the looks of the eye cups.

My new EII looks identical to the one on the right in that photo. Some of the vendors call it "E2" on their websites, but the packaging says "EII" (i.e. Roman numeral two).

[Pinewood]

I think that the biggest advantage of roof prism glasses is not sure waterproofing, but rather sealing against dust. Everytime one focusses a Porro, the motion of the oculars are pushing air out and sucking it in. The Zeiss Classics 7x42, 10x40 and 8x30 also suffer from this while the new Minox Porros, with internal focussing do not. My kind of bird watching involves little risk of water damage but I do have a roof glass, even though I am more likely to use a Porro.
Therefore the question of field worthiness has much to do with the observer's habits and applications. In my case, neither waterproofing nor shock resistance is an overwhelming consideration.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :egghead:

[FrankD]

Arthur,

Good points. In reference to your waterproofing comments, I agree. Not only moisture but dust are probably the primary concerns. At the moment I cannot think of an appropriate term to describe the difference (sealed vs. non-sealed?).

Therefore the question of field worthiness has much to do with the observer's habits and applications.

Excellent point and exactly what I was looking for. An explanation of why one bin may be more "perfect" for an individual based on their particular experiences.

[denco@comcast.n]

Frank D, interesting you should bring this up as I was having this discussion only yesterday.

I have a pair of Leica 8x32 BN's... they're about as durable as an M1 tank. Previously I had a pair of 7x30 Swaro SLC's. The imag quality of the Leica is better, no doubt. Leica has a better reputation in these parts for durability, no doubt. However, I find myself missing the Swaro's! I liked the fact the bin was an overall "package" with a great strap, objective and ocular covers. The Leica has had to be retrofitted to make it acceptable. The Swaro's felt/feel better in my hands in spite of the fact that the focus wheel is on the "wrong" end. Franky, I've never developed a "warm bond" with he 8x32 Leicas in spite of their wonderful view and may sell them and get the now discontinued Swaro 8x30's... I'd be sacrificing a little visually I know but it may be worth it to me. One thing I knowfor sure is Swaro's customer service and attitude here in the US is BETTER than Leica and I believe, at least as far as the Trinovids go, the Swaro "mid" lineup is better thought out in spite of a better image (to my eyes) of the Leica Trinovids. Buying a bin is a lot of little facts and prejudices thrown together and is more than just the view.


I was talking to an optical engineer and he said the main difference between medium cost binoculars and high end binoculars was not so much the quality of the optics but the durability and build quality. The majority of the cost goes into making the more expensive binocular more durable.
It is interesting that you said you like the total package on Swarovski's. I agree on this point. I have had Zeiss, Swarovski and Nikons and although Swarovki's don't have the best optics they do have excellent ergonomics and they come with a good strap and they have the best tethered lens covers. They fit and they are not too tight and the eyepiece covers with the little ratcheting mechanism that remembers the position they were in is great. It is sometimes the little things that adds to the overall enjoyment of your binoculars. Nikon and Zeiss(although excellent optics for the money) should look closely at these little details. It does make a difference!

Dennis

[elkcub]

Frank D, interesting you should bring this up as I was having this discussion only yesterday.

I have a pair of Leica 8x32 BN's... they're about as durable as an M1 tank. Previously I had a pair of 7x30 Swaro SLC's. The imag quality of the Leica is better, no doubt. Leica has a better reputation in these parts for durability, no doubt. However, I find myself missing the Swaro's! I liked the fact the bin was an overall "package" with a great strap, objective and ocular covers. The Leica has had to be retrofitted to make it acceptable. The Swaro's felt/feel better in my hands in spite of the fact that the focus wheel is on the "wrong" end. Franky, I've never developed a "warm bond" with he 8x32 Leicas in spite of their wonderful view and may sell them and get the now discontinued Swaro 8x30's... I'd be sacrificing a little visually I know but it may be worth it to me. One thing I knowfor sure is Swaro's customer service and attitude here in the US is BETTER than Leica and I believe, at least as far as the Trinovids go, the Swaro "mid" lineup is better thought out in spite of a better image (to my eyes) of the Leica Trinovids. Buying a bin is a lot of little facts and prejudices thrown together and is more than just the view.

I have a feeling that you may have experienced some sample variability, or your SLC may have been pre-SWAROBRIGHT. Not everyone would agree that the BN's image quality is better than the SLC's. The BN, of course, has a slightly larger objective and focuses closer. In other respects you mentioned the SLC has the edge, IMO. After selling mine I realized how much I missed it and repurchased one within 6 mos. During that time a returned two BNs because I couldn't stand to use them.

Now, indeed, is the time to buy the closeout SLC with the older style. (But, I don't think so-called demos are a good deal because of their 3 yr. warranty. Still, they are better than Leica demos with 1 yr. warranty.) Again, personally I don't think the 8x30 SLC takes second place to the 8x32 BN. Steve Ingraham also acknowledged that difference of opinion in his famous BVD reviews.

Go for it!

[bradshrike]

Elk, My eyes and those of others have compared the Leica 8x32 BN and Swaro 8x30 SLC (with Swarobright) side by side on optical charts, etc... the Leica tested had very slightly better resolution, was a smidge brighter and was more color neutral. The Swaro's have better edge to edge clarity... overall, it was the concensus the Leica had a better overall image.

However, that's just ONE ASPECT of a bin... Swaro customer service is second to none and, as I said, the 8x30 SLC is a complete "package." Leica has, without doubt, the finest reputation for durability. Swaro has, around here, the worst. That may be changing however.

Anyway, I'm still on the fence... and just today looked through a Zeiss FL...

[Pileatus]

Since it has been rather slow on this forum lately I thought I might introduce an interesting topic for discussion. I remember reading in one of Mr. Ingraham's articles ( http://www.betterviewdesired.com/NewLandB.html ) of a curious way in which he evaluated each binocular he tested based on optical quality and what he called "Field-Worthiness". I believe the latter was a reflection of not only the instrument's durability in the field but the overall handling as well.

My recent experiences with the Nikon EII 8x30 brought this article to mind. I must say that I have become quite pleased with the optical performance that this little gem provides yet I still feel a bit of apprehension in keeping it due to the reports of the rubber peeling off and the instruments lack of true waterproofing. In which case, if I had to rate it using the BVD method then it would probably be something like 95% BITHV (nearly perfect but for the distortion around the outermost edges of the FOV) with a 75% field-worthiness rating due to the waterproofing and rubber issues.

On the flip side, I am just about to sell a Zeiss Conquest 8x30 that I have been quite fond of. Ergonomics are great. It is lightweight. The focus is very precise and it is completely waterproof, nitrogen purged, etc... Based on that I would have to give it a 99% field worthiness score (no binocular is perfect). The optical performance is quite good as well. The image is extremely crisp, probably due to Zeiss's exceptional coatings. However, the image lacks some contrast and there is noticeable distortion around the outer 1/3rd of the field. Chromatic aberration is also noticeable but not excessive on high contrast objects. The field of view is also relatively narrow at 360 feet when compared to other roofs of this configuration. Because of this I would probably give it an 85% BITHV rating.

Just for discussions sake and based on the system on the BVD link I posted, how would you rate your binoculars? In addition, why would you put more emphasis on one quality over the other?

Frank,

I have a simple checklist.
1. Optical satisfaction.
2. Everything else.

John

[xenophobe]

My checklist is almost as simple.

1) Can I hold it steady and comfortably for long periods of time?
2) Optical quality

My Leica 10x42 BL is perfect for me, the BR is not. All other bins? Do not have the feel I instantly found with the BL.

[mrmarklin]

To the extent fieldworthiness translates into ergonomics, I'm very fond of my Zeiss 8x42FLs. But this part is very subjective and YMMV. Even the simple act of raising the bin to ones eyes I find easier with the Zeiss. I also liked my previous Victorys for the same reason

Also for me water and dust proofness are a very big consideration, and I wouldn't have a bin that didn't have those features. Again, YMMV. You may not need those features.

And ruggedness is also a paramount feature for me, as I tend to be very hard on equipment. It would seem that this could be tested objectively, along with waterproofness etc. Although what bin maker would allow someone to do this is subject to speculation, as this would presumably lead to the destruction of the instrument.

[FrankD]

Frank,

I have a simple checklist.
1. Optical satisfaction.
2. Everything else.

John

John,

That is pretty much what I was looking for in my original post and explains your choice of the SE.

My checklist is almost as simple.

1) Can I hold it steady and comfortably for long periods of time?
2) Optical quality

My Leica 10x42 BL is perfect for me, the BR is not. All other bins? Do not have the feel I instantly found with the BL.

Same comments as what I had for John, Xenophobe. I think this is the question that allows others to see why we specifically choose, and continue to use, the bins we are. I think many folks might come on to these forums and just see this bin or that bin mentioned as being highly recommended and yet they might not necessarily have the same set of criteria in terms of their intended use.

Also for me water and dust proofness are a very big consideration, and I wouldn't have a bin that didn't have those features. Again, YMMV. You may not need those features.

So, this begs the question of why one individual would prize optical quality above all else while another might sacrifice a bit of optical quality (a small bit in some cases) for a more rugged design in the field?

I guess to partially answer my own question I am sure some folks buy a bin just to watch their feeders each day while others may take it through tropical rain forests. Yet, I am still left with the feeling that there is more to it than just intended usage. I feel as if it is almost an intuitive issue.

[ceasar]

I think I would have to agree that it is a largely intuitive (instinctive?) thing. Also, I don't think it is necessary to sacrifice optical quality for design, at least in a roof prism design. My favorite binocular was and still is Leica's old model 7 x 42 Trinovid BA. I got it about 1982 or so. It is an ergonomic masterpiece. It balances well in the hand and hangs gracefully from it's neck strap. It is very rugged and it is also one of the most handsomely designed binoculars ever made, sleek and, dare I say it?, even sexy with a style and panache never before or since attained by a binocular. Especially in it's non-rubberized version. It
did not have phase coating but it should not have been necessary to redesign the binocular to add that improvement.

Sometimes it is best to leave well enough alone.

Bob