Jerry,
As Bruce and CJ have pointed our differences in eyesight might be just one reason why opinions will differ. Visual acuity is possibly the most important parameter, but colour, contrast and CA discrimination, to name a few, will all be in the mix.
When I fist joined the forum I'd never tried a high end binocular and was quite ignorant of the technicalities, and when I started posting that one binocular appeared sharper or had higher resolution than another various indignant owners would claim I was wrong. I've tried over a 1000 binoculars since and learned a lot more about eyesight as well as binoculars, and done quite a bit of resolution testing. Turns out I was right. My eyesight is not as good as it was back then, and certainly not as good as it was when I was 20, but if the light is right, and that's important these days, I can still pick out the best resolving binocular in seconds. Many times I've invited to others to check them out and most can't, but a significant minority can. More youngsters than oldies as you might expect.
I've looked through several scientific studies on visulal acuity. At least for the 20 to 60 year old range the average is about 20/15 with the youngsters doing better than oldies. My eyesight vaies a bit but is generally 20/12 for individual eyes with my current glasses. That's relatively common in twenty year olds but rare in the over sixties. Just as I can't resolve the level of detail those with better eyesight mine can, someone with 20/15 or 20/20 can't match what I see. I. (Of course effective resolution and other technical measurements take variations in eyesight out of the equation.)
As I said, I thought there was much to like about the MHG, but I would want sharper at that price (and have found it for less). I presume there must be an acuity threshold beyond which the sharpness/resolution difference becomes undetectable but I don't have a fix on what that might be for the MHG or if it might possibly relate to you. I'm glad you like the MHG but it wold be very rash to assert that because you do everyone else should as well.
David
Very interesting test results.
Perhaps the industry needs a tighter standard, as a good fraction of the population has better than 20/20 vision.
...I think there have been at least 4 versions of the ELSV 8.5x42, and this was when the second, and to my mind the worst version was around...
David,
.......
Just out of interest, and for reference, what Typo score would your Zen-Ray Prime HD 10x42 get? , and do you have resolution numbers for it as well? Thanks.
Chosun :gh:
.........
If go to Birdfair or a retailer I'll normally take my ZenRay Prime 10x42 or Vanguard EDII 8x42 for reference. I would score those as an 8 and 8.5 respectively though I need a tripod for the decimal points. These were very good for the money when I got them, but the market is improving all the time and I would certainly look for better with newer, more expensive models (if I had the money).
David
Jerry,
I mostly use binoculars for birdwatching and being able to discern every last detail in seconds is important (specially with my level of skills ). So yes, if one binocular can give me more detail or more distance it's my first consideration. Of course with 20:20 eyesight it's relatively unimportant to you. Your eyesight will be the limiting factor. You won't see any more detail with a Leica Noctivid than you would with that $25 I mentioned. Sure, other parameters are going to be more important to you than resolution. When I write a review I spend at least a couple of weeks checking out that stuff too because it's important to me too, just less important.
20:20 is the threshold for normal vison, but the large majority of visitors to the forum will have better eyesight than that and will be increasingly demanding on effective resolution. For those my comments on the topic may be valuable. Sorry to be blunt about it Jerry, yours will not.
I don't know if your 20/20 acuity is an accurate measurement or not but I took it at face value. Here's a little tale to think about. I started to need reading glasses in my mid forties which increasingly included a astigmatism correction. I complained to my optician that my distance vision was deteriorating as well and he told me I didn't "need" glasses as my eyesight was still 20:20 (well 6:6, we are metric) but he could improve it if I wanted. It pretty much doubled my acuity. I thought wearing glasses was a price worth paying. For sure, not everyone would get that kind of benefit but it might be worth asking the question?
David
Re Post #31: Is the contrast of the objects used for testing and comparing two or more binocular's sharpness taken into consideration?
My question is based on the comparison test made from ... ."different sized shingle on a Suffolk beach......"
Bob
Jerry,
How many days or weeks do you spend in the optometrist's chair deciding which lens is sharpest? ;-)
Just want to point out a little morsel of information that might put things in perspective. The ISO resolution standard that all the major players work by is 240/D. I'll skip the maths, but if that level or resolution was uniform acoss the objective it would translate effectivelyas 20/16 acuity cut off. Fortunately most come out a bit better than that, but not every sample, or every model.
I've resolution tested about 30 binoculars that I either own, or have had for at least a couple of weeks to review. The stopped down values (20mm for an 8x) range from an amazing 5.8" to the pretty miserable 14.5". That approximates to 20/7.7 and 20/19. That will give you a pretty good idea if a binocular will look soft for your eyesight. Even that $25 roof have sufficient resolution for those with 20/20 vision but differences in microcontrast or sharpness with better binoculars might still be evident. You will have to take my word for it that I can see such differences in resolution, but it was easier a couple of years ago when my acuity was 20/11or 20/9 with two eyes... on a good day!
To keep things simple, rather than use arcsecond or VA values I'll just use a 'Typo score' of 1 to 10 for the rest of this post and roughly cover the arcsecond equivalent of equivalent of 20/20 to 20/8, so even 1 will be quite acceptable for some. These are visual estimates in most cases are based on comparison with my own binoculars and others available when the light is close to optimal for visual acuity. I don't rate resolution in poor light. If go to Birdfair or a retailer I'll normally take my ZenRay Prime 10x42 or Vanguard EDII 8x42 for reference. I would score those as an 8 and 8.5 respectively though I need a tripod for the decimal points. These were very good for the money when I got them, but the market is improving all the time and I would certainly look for better with newer, more expensive models (if I had the money). What follows are some memorable comparisons.
UK launch day for the Zeiss Terra.
Terra
S1: 3
S2: 6
S3: 5
S4: 9
Conquest HD
S1: 8
S1: 7
S3: 7
S4: 8
HT 8X42:
S1: 9
S2: 9+
S3: 8+
HT 8x54: 5
About 4 or 5 years ago on the Swarovski stand. I think there have been at least 4 versions of the ELSV 8.5x42, and this was when the second, and to my mind the worst version was around.
CL
S1: 3
S2: 3
S3: 3
S4: 4
ELSV 8x32
S1: 9
S2: 9
ELSV 8.5x42
S1: 7
S2: 7
SLC
S1: 9
S2: 8
Vortex Razor HD
8x42: 8
10x42: 8
10x50: 9+
Meopta Meostar
8x42: 8
10x42HD: 9
12x42HD: 10
Kowa Genesis 8.5×44: 10
KITE Bonelli 2.0: 10
Nikon EDG: 9+
Nikon Monarch HG: 7
Opticron DBA VHD: 7
The following is acompilations from different occations
Leica
UV: 8
UV: plus 9
Noctivid: 10
Trinovid HD: 8
Trinovid: 6
I think this illustrates that not only is there variation between models there is variation between samples. That is particularly evident at lower price points as the Terra samples show. I've seen samples of amongst the cheaper models from Vortex, Kowa, Opticron, Kowa, Minox, Celestron, Hawke and Nikon that would score 8 or occasionally 9, but that wouldn't represent the model as a whole. The Fujinon KF 8x32W, a Sightron clone I reviewed, scored a 10 (confirmed by testing) but I would be very surprised if that was representative of the model. I now have measured results of '10' for the Meostar HD12x50 and Kite Bonelli 2.0 as well.
I've now tried 4 samples of the Monarch HD on three separate occasion and I'd score them all a 7 for apparent resolution. I've said twice already I like the ergonomics and other characteristics, so I find that a disappointment. It's no surprise to me, as I have explained that others might judge it differently
Now Jerry, over to you. What's your acuity, and what are your resolution scores for those models? Obviously we need them backed up by resolution testing, "you should have the skills". In arcseconds please, I can take it.
David
All seems quite subjective - like what are the differences between ''9'' and ''9.5'' [measurable] and is a 10 at a level that cannot be bettered?
What are your units of measure that would define the difference in a ''6'' as opposed to an ''8''? You say these are ''visual estimates'' but, by using a numerical scale you are imposing your own inherent subjective opinions into the score - what looks sharp to you.
And a large majority of viewers here have better than 20:20 vision, is
another farcical statement of your imagination. How in the world could you
come up with that ?
Jerry