Call for contributions: Collecting Evidence for Lack of Progress in Sporting Optics (1 Viewer)

[WJC]

The very top tier may not have advanced their performance greatly but the mid range certainly has, just look at the Conquest HD.

This segment is the area to look at for exciting opportunities IMO.

Ya know, if everyone had an 8x32 SE like we do, they wouldn't have to sit around worrying about which is better or best. Would they?

Excuse me, I must go remove my tongue from the hole in my cheek!

Bill

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Omid, post 75,
My test data with regard to the Fujinon 10x50 FMTR-X:
Weight: 1470 grams
Close focus: 15 m
FOV: 114m/1000m
Individual eyepiece focussing, 0,5 revolutions from close focus to infinity
Light transmission 500 nm=81,4%, 550 nm=84,8%
Eyerelief; 20 mm
Eyecups: foldable rubber
Edge sharpness: ok
Color reproduction: not perfect
Color dispersion: yes, both in the central image as outside the optical axis
Handling comfort; OK for sailors and for astronomers if supported.
I know other porros'which I find more attractive and have a better optical performance and a far better handling comfort. However, I am a birder-naturewatcher and not a sailor.
Gijs

 

[Omid]

Omid, post 75,
My test data with regard to the Fujinon 10x50 FMTR-X:
---
Light transmission 500 nm=81,4%, 550 nm=84,8%
---
Gijs

Hi Gijs,

Wrong binoculars! I was referring to 7X50 SMTR-SX Polaris model (I know, Fujinon makes several models which look very similar and have similar names). According to official Fujinon product brochure, they have transmission in excess of 95% and are brightest binoculars in the world (see Page 13).

You did not prove your claim so you owe me a beer B

 

[WJC]

Hi Gijs,

Wrong binoculars! I was referring to 7X50 SMTR-SX Polaris model (I know, Fujinon makes several models which look very similar and have similar names). According to official Fujinon product brochure, they have transmission in excess of 95% and are brightest binoculars in the world (see Page 13).

You did not prove your claim so you owe me a beer B

Don't believe everything in print. As William Dean Howells once told Mark Twain:

"Paper never shuns ink."

There's more to THIS story, but I must keep silent. I'm short and don't look good in stripes.

Omid: I'm not the only one who thinks you are working on a book (or section of a book), and using the forum for research. If you hope not to be shredded, mercilessly, by peer review, you will need to burrow deeper and not take everything you see at face value. I have an OFFICIAL ad from Fujinon on the Internet that says the APPARENT field of the FMT series is 7.5 degrees. When, in fact, 7.5 degrees is the REAL field! Most of the people writing these ads wouldn't know optics if it bit them in the butt.

Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see! :t:

Bill

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Omid, post 83,
I have seen claims in other brochures that were not true whhen we investigated the models, so I do not believe the Fujinon brochure until we can conform their claim. You have to wait for the beer, I took one already...
Gijs

 

[WJC]

While culling some of my bino photos, I came across a couple of photos I thought some might like to see. For those who like the NEW ergonomics of the Nikon SE, we have the late 40s Wallensak 6x30 and 8x30.

And then we have 3 photos of the Swift Audubon 8.5 x 44. Three units, all with the same specs and model number. Yet, all are very different. Was the most modern the best?

Bill

 

[james holdsworth]

Hi Gijs,

Wrong binoculars! I was referring to 7X50 SMTR-SX Polaris model (I know, Fujinon makes several models which look very similar and have similar names). According to official Fujinon product brochure, they have transmission in excess of 95% and are brightest binoculars in the world (see Page 13).

You did not prove your claim so you owe me a beer B

So, forum reviews are to be discounted [mine or Gijs etc.] if they don't support your view, or accepted [Ron] if they support your view? Alternately, ad copy from the manufacturers is used a ''proof.''

This is one of the most flawed, biased ''scientific poll'' [or whatever this thing is supposed to be] to grace these pages.

 

[NDhunter]

Omid:

After reading James and Bill's recent posts, I agree with them.

I am finding your thread a limp attempt to find old posts on Birdforum, and your own lack of
experience to build a case for your idea of a lack of progress.

The storehouse of experience on BF is valuable here, so pay attention.

Jerry

 

[ceasar]

Where is Brock when you need him?

Bob

 

[NDhunter]

Where is Brock when you need him?

Bob

Bob:

Silence is golden.

Jerry

 

[Omid]

Omid: I'm not the only one who thinks you are working on a book (or section of a book), and using the forum for research. If you hope not to be shredded, mercilessly, by peer review, you will need to burrow deeper and not take everything you see at face value.

Hi Bill,

Yes, of course I am using the forum for research! What's wrong with that? My intention is exactly as I stated in the topic of my post: "Collecting Evidence for Lack of Progress in Sporting Optics". I was hoping that, by help from experienced and well-versed users such as yourself, I/we would be able to put together a portfolio of reviews, magazine articles, test results and even older posts on this forum that would support the "lack of progress" claim.

If I could collect some strong evidence, then I wanted to put together a presentation to show to my hunting and optics friends when we meet at the next Shot Show. As a bigger step, I am also contemplating writing an article with this theme in one of the leading sporting journals (e.g. Sports Afield). But English is not my first language and I am not the most eloquent writer so this might not be the right idea. This is all on my own initiative. I am not commissioned by any manufacturer or interest group or anything.

I had a feeling that some established users here would be sympathetic with the cause and would help in the collection of evidence (if there is any). But so far, I have not gained much value except with some good help dating the start the product lines from Leica and Swarovski The thread has become a place for people writing whatever they like "triggered" by the original post or other posts on the thread. I guess that's natural. In a big popular forum such as this, it would be hard to keep focus.

Some users have pointed out that my question is unscientific because I am starting with a biased question (like asking "Why we love Coca Cola?"). This complaint is not valid here because we are doing a simple binary hypothesis test. It is either true that "Leica/Swarovski/Zeiss binoculars haven't improved much in performance during the past two decades" or not. Whether we ask it as a positive or negative question won't change it.

I am finding your thread a limp attempt to find old posts on Birdforum, and your own lack of experience to build a case for your idea of a lack of progress.

Why asking others to help collect evidence about progress in binocular performance a limb attempt? I have some experience and of course I have my own opinion but still I think I can learn a lot from hearing from other members. The "lack of progress" hypothesis could be wrong but I would like to see evidence in the form of magazine reviews or focus-group tests, etc. that shows that we have really had significant progress. For example, do you know of any such tests or reviews comparing the EL Swarovision to older ELs and showing significant improvement in some measurable way? That would be good to see and will close this topic very quickly!! Similarly, a review that shows Leica Ultavid 12X50 HD is significantly superior to Leica Triniovid 12X50 BA or a Zeiss 8X56 Victory HT is significantly superior to Zeiss 8X56 Nigh Owl in terms of optical performance. You see, Jerry, my aim was/is simply finding reviews that show significant progress -or lack thereof- in top-tire product lines of Z or S or L.

So, forum reviews are to be discounted [mine or Gijs etc.] if they don't support your view, or accepted [Ron] if they support your view? Alternately, ad copy from the manufacturers is used a ''proof.'' This is one of the most flawed, biased ''scientific poll'' [or whatever this thing is supposed to be] to grace these pages.

James,

There must be a confusion here. Gijs had made an assertion (he said "Fujinon is in my opinion certainly not the top of porro design"). I asked him if he believes some other binocular is on the top of the 7X50 class, please mention what it is. Gijs did not mention what "other" binocular is the top 7x50. Thus, he did not prove his case. As simple as that! Of course he is a very knowledgeable person and his opinions I respect.

I respect your opinion and Ron's opinion and Bill's opinion and Holger's opinion and Jerry's opinion and other users as well! But a performance number mentioned in a prestigious manufacturer's official catalog and used as an advertising point (clearly not a typo as Bill mentioned) carries a much stronger weight. You can legally sue the manufacturer for false advertising so we can presume the numbers they mention are correct. Here in the forum we are expressing our opinions and often agree or disagree with each other.

By the way, if you don't like your Zeiss night Owls and think they "have horrible CA, tiny sweetspot, weak contrast and average brightness", why do you still keep them? You can sell them and make good money. They sell well on ebay

 

[Troubador]

Some users have pointed out that my question is unscientific because I am starting with a biased question (like asking "Why we love Coca Cola?"). This complaint is not valid here because we are doing a simple binary hypothesis test. It is either true that "Leica/Swarovski/Zeiss binoculars haven't improved much in performance during the past two decades" or not. Whether we ask it as a positive or negative question won't change it.

Omid

No amount of hypotheses and questions can change the truth, that is certainly correct.

But if you want to discover the truth then your question needs to be neutral. Gathering nothing but negative comments doesn't prove there are no positives out there, it just means you didn't ask for them.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

Omid

IMHO there has been a marked and significant progress in quality from Zeiss Design Selection to Victory Mark 1, to Victory FL, to Victory HT/SF. This progress can be seen through the bins themselves and is evidenced by the move to thinner lens systems, the use of Fl doped glasses and the optical system for SF which is a radical change for Zeiss. Other manufacturers like Swaro and Nikon used field flatteners first and Leica came up with the innovative Perger Porro.

But the question you have asked doesn't allow you to take notice of this does it?

I sympathise with you developing a premise as the basis for writing but perhaps a more usable concept for your article might be not to postulate failure to progress but to define and explore areas where this has not happened.

Principally I can think of weight reduction in the alpha brands. Zeiss's FL with GRP body was a fine instrument but the body material was viewed with suspicion by some. Magnesium alloy is now favoured. Why no move into carbon-based materials such as are used for tripods?? Some might say cost is a barrier but tripods are available and there are now many different materials giving some of the benefits of carbon at different price levels.

Another area might be nano anti-reflection coatings which have appeared in photographic lenses but have yet to appear in bins.

Perhaps these might be a fruitful areas for you to research.

Lee

 

[dalat]

Please define "much".

... and performance

 

[Maljunulo]

Not to beat on the OP, but I agree that the question is biased, in order to elicit a particular response.

This is not the same as "testing a hypothesis".

The question is more appropriate to a sociology survey, or political questionnaire.

At least, that's my opinion.

 

[Hermann]

Regarding your observation that these binoculars "have horrible CA, tiny sweetspot, weak contrast and average brightness", I would request that you please provide some external evidence to support your statement. The evidence can be in the form of product review or comparison tests in sporting magazines or on credible websites. (see my post #37)

Insisting on "external evidence" won't get you anywhere. There is (most probably) none, at least not any hard evidence (like published independent tests by reputable testing facilities). Besides, what makes you think a product review published in some more or less obscure hunting magazine or whatever is more reliable than the personal experience of people who've been using high-quality optics for a long time?

By the way, I had a long look at the Nightowl 7x45 at the time. My conclusion was that it certainly wasn't any better than the Zeiss 7x42BGAT*P at the time - which had a much better focuser and weighed far less. I didn't get it.

Hermann

 

[jurek]

Zeiss representative told me that the new optics have '11% improvement in the poor light'.

I think there is lots of room to improvement in binoculars, especially in terms of weight, ergonomy (ease of handling) and performance in low light. In particular there must be many materials which can make significantly lighter tubes.

Binoculars are type of optics used hand-held in outdoor conditions. In the field, increased weight equals lower optical performance (wind, tireness etc). Here optics people wrongly concentrate mostly on optical system in ideal lab conditions.

 

[Troubador]

Insisting on "external evidence" won't get you anywhere. There is (most probably) none, at least not any hard evidence (like published independent tests by reputable testing facilities). Besides, what makes you think a product review published in some more or less obscure hunting magazine or whatever is more reliable than the personal experience of people who've been using high-quality optics for a long time?

By the way, I had a long look at the Nightowl 7x45 at the time. My conclusion was that it certainly wasn't any better than the Zeiss 7x42BGAT*P at the time - which had a much better focuser and weighed far less. I didn't get it.

Hermann

Hermann

I had a look through a perfect unused 7x42BGAT*P recently and my goodness it was a nice view.

I have heard that this model was a personal favourite of Gerhard Swarovski.

Lee

 

[SteveTS]

Hermann

I had a look through a perfect unused 7x42BGAT*P recently and my goodness it was a nice view.

I have heard that this model was a personal favourite of Gerhard Swarovski.

Lee

Was that something else Gerold Dobler told you that you believed ?

 

[Pinewood]

Hermann

I had a look through a perfect unused 7x42BGAT*P recently and my goodness it was a nice view.

...

Lee

Hello Lee,

Its longevity is proof that it was one of the best binoculars of the last century: wide field, good ergonomics [if a bit long], 6 mm exit pupil, good control of chromatic aberrations and the AK prisms provide a touch of stereopsis.
Improvements on it, took a fair bit of effort.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
:t: