• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Better views than Nikon EII/SE? (1 Viewer)

Sorry, where is the HT in EdZ‘s list?
I can‘t find it. I am pretty sure it was not even included in the tested binoculars. I have high respect for EdZ, but he doesn‘t say anything about the HT.
So what are you trying to prove ?
By the way: I think the transmission tests by houseofoutdoor.com appear generally reliable (Dr. G. seems to know what he is doing), but I have had my doubts about some from allbinos.
 
Sorry, where is the HT in EdZ‘s list?
I can‘t find it. I am pretty sure it was not even included in the tested binoculars. I have high respect for EdZ, but he doesn‘t say anything about the HT.
So what are you trying to prove ?
By the way: I think the transmission tests by houseofoutdoor.com appear generally reliable (Dr. G. seems to know what he is doing), but I have had my doubts about some from allbinos.
The HT is not on that list. I was just using that as an example of the relatively higher transmission values of porro's compared to roofs. The main point I was trying to make is as EdZ says is:

"While this is by no means an exhaust sampling, of the comparable roofs and porros that I've measured, porros generally have not only higher transmission, but also better illumination. "

I find it hard to believe houseofoutdoor.com's transmission's values on the SE of 85%. I have compared the Habicht 8x30, Nikon 8x32 SE and Nikon 8x30 EII and houseofoutdoor.com has a transmission of 95%, 85% and 75% respectively for each and I don't really see a 20% difference in transmission between the Habicht and the Nikon 8x30 EII. Here is Allbino's methodology in measuring transmission.

TRANSMISSION (15 points) - Currently we use spectophotometer to obtain the transmission graph in the range of wavelenghts from 380 to 900 nm. The method is very precise one and allows us to minimalize uncertainties to around 1%. In older tests we used three less accurate methods:

We mount a high level digital camera to an eyepiece (ocular lens) and we take a picture of diode. Then after standard procedure of data reduction, we carry out aperture photometry by comparing diode brightnesses (measured by eyepiece + camera configuration). Results depend only on lens diameter (which we know) and light transmission (which we can count).
We mount a high class CCTV video camera and record diverse luminosity star clusters (for example ‘Pleiades’) on a very starlit sky. The differences in range results from different transmission.
Another method rests on projecting intensive sunlight onto shaded white screen. A part of this screen is directly sunlit and to shaded part we glue a ruler. The screen is located in a specific distance to line up and cover screen surface brightness with projected image of sunlight surface brightness. Now we take a picture of this projected image of sun by camera. The ruler let us measure the scale of taken picture. A proportion of measured sun image in relation to actual lens area gives us the transmission.
How do we test binoculars? - Description of test methods and categories.
By doing many measurements and using independent methods, we estimate the precision of transmission estimate in range of 3-5%.
 
Last edited:
Dennis,
your statement that the SE „has 2 to 3% better transmission than the HT“ (post #33) remains as unproven and wrong as before, despite everything you say.
 
Dennis,
your statement that the SE „has 2 to 3% better transmission than the HT“ (post #33) remains as unproven and wrong as before, despite everything you say.
If you believe Allbino's transmission testing is valid it is true on the 10x42 SE and the 10x42 HT. They have the HT's transmission @ 93% and the SE's transmission @ 96%. 96% minus 93% is 3% correct? I am just using Allbino's tests. You are saying Allbino's testing is wrong then or invalid and that is fine but it usually is a pretty good source of objective testing. From Allbino's methodology:

"Currently we use spectophotometer to obtain the transmission graph in the range of wavelenghts from 380 to 900 nm. The method is very precise one and allows us to minimalize uncertainties to around 1%."
 
Last edited:
The Allbinos description of their test methods was written back in 2010, and I understand there has been two hardware upgrades and a change in protocol since then. When I asked Arek about it, he acknowedged that their earier data was possibly less reliable for maximum transmission than they would have wished and should be mainly read for relative transmission (colour). Their current machine has the necessary reference and calibration elements to ensure much more accurate absolute values.

David
 
Dennis, different posts,
When you talk about transmission data from house of outdoor, you talk about my/our measurements and instead of going to fast unfounded conclusions and statements based on believes only you better ask some questions about the methods used and how reliable they are and what pitfalls can occur. A number of statements in your different posts I find complete nonsense and they do not help the discussions in this forum one bit. For a better insight in the technological history of binocular quality you better apply for membership of the Binocular History Society, which has quite a bit of very well informed members also from well known binocular companies.
The brightness differences between binoculars which differ more than 3% in transmission can very well be observed by users and I can clearly see it. All our data do not give support that all porros have a better transmission than roofs. It is very much dependent on the type of prism used, the year of construction, the technological state of the art of the company etc. etc.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
The Allbinos description of their test methods was written back in 2010, and I understand there has been two hardware upgrades and a change in protocol since then. When I asked Arek about it, he acknowedged that their earier data was possibly less reliable for maximum transmission than they would have wished and should be mainly read for relative transmission (colour). Their current machine has the necessary reference and calibration elements to ensure much more accurate absolute values.

David

That would explain some of the dubious transmission data in the first couple of years after they began making measurements with a spectrophotometer. But, in 2010 when the Nikon 10x42 SE was reviewed they were still using some non-standard improvised methods, which they rightly came to realize were not adequate.

Read about them here: https://www.allbinos.com/2.1-article-How_do_we_test_binoculars_.html

That article should be required reading for anyone who assumes that Allbinos methods are "objective".

Henry
 
Last edited:
Dennis, different posts,
When you talk about transmission data from house of outdoor, you talk about my/our measurements and instead of going to fast unfounded conclusions and statements based on believes only you better ask some questions about the methods used and how reliable they are and what pitfalls can occur. A number of statements in your different posts I find complete nonsense and they do not help the discussions in this forum one bit. For a better insight in the technological history of binocular quality you better apply for membership of the Binocular History Society, which has quite a bit of very well informed members also from well known binocular companies.
The brightness differences between binoculars which differ more than 3% in transmission can very well be observed by users and I can clearly see it. All our data do not give support that all porros have a better transmission than roofs. It is very much dependent on the type of prism used, the year of construction, the technological state of the art of the company etc. etc.
Gijs van Ginkel
I really don't see a 20% difference in transmission between a Habicht 8x30(95%) and a Nikon 8x30 EII(75%) from your transmission results by comparing the two binoculars. In my opinion that would be a huge difference. Is that really the results you obtained? If it is I never realized a Nikon 8x30 EII had such poor transmission. If the EII's have only 75% transmission I am selling mine. Allbino's did the transmission testing on the EII's in October of 2013 so they would have had the hardware upgrades and changes in protocol by then and they would be using a spectrophotometer but yet they got an 89% transmission on the EII and said in the comments it had "Good Transmission." I am sure if they would have gotten a 75% transmission they would have commented on it.
 
Last edited:
Dennis, post 48,
I found a transmission of a little over 77% at 550 nm in a sample from 2013 , published on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor. After discussions about it on this forum I measured a newer sample in may 2016 and in that sample the transmission at 550 nm is 88,7% still quite a bit below the Swarovski Habicht 8x30 and the Zeiss Victory HT 8x42, which have a 95-96%transmission at that wavelength and, if your eyes are allright you should be able to observe that difference as a difference in brightness. That is extensively discussed on this forum, but if it is still confusing I will add that information.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Dennis, post 48,
I found a transmission of a little over 77% at 550 nm in a sample from 2013 , published on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor. After discussions about it on this forum I measured a newer sample in may 2016 and in that sample the transmission at 550 nm is 88,7% still quite a bit below the Swarovski Habicht 8x30 and the Zeiss Victory HT 8x42, which have a 95-96%transmission at that wavelength and, if your eyes are allright you should be able to observe that difference as a difference in brightness. That is extensively discussed on this forum, but if it is still confusing I will add that information.
Gijs van Ginkel

So Nikon has improved the transmission of the EII over the years?
 
Dennis, post 48,
I found a transmission of a little over 77% at 550 nm in a sample from 2013 , published on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor. After discussions about it on this forum I measured a newer sample in may 2016 and in that sample the transmission at 550 nm is 88,7% still quite a bit below the Swarovski Habicht 8x30 and the Zeiss Victory HT 8x42, which have a 95-96%transmission at that wavelength and, if your eyes are allright you should be able to observe that difference as a difference in brightness. That is extensively discussed on this forum, but if it is still confusing I will add that information.
Gijs van Ginkel
Still I find it strange that Allbino's tested the EII in October of 2013 and got an 89% transmission and you got 77%. Those two tested EII's would have to be pretty close in year of production. This is very illuminating!(Play on words). I never realized there was that huge of a transmission difference between a 2013 EII and a 2016 EII or could you have gotten a bad sample? Nikon must have made some big changes in coatings in those 3 years and you better make sure when you buy one that yours is the new improved version. Interesting! Now how do we date our EII's by the S/N? If your EII is older than 4 years you are saying it could be a dud.
 
Last edited:
Dennis, post 51,
I do not know how old the the sample was of which I measured the transmission spectrum in 2013 (or it may have been a lemon), the one measured in 2016 was probably younger looking at the lack of user traces on that binocular.
For your information: I am now measuring different types of Leitz Trinovids 7x35 and the transmission differences are quite a lot depending on the year of production, so that can also be the case for the EII, but I have not done a systematic study of the EII.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
So Nikon has improved the transmission of the EII over the years?

Here is what Nikon's transmission on their best binoculars is like now. They are doing pretty good. I don't know how far back it goes and the transmissions of Nikon's numerous binoculars will be different.

But it is helpful to know that over the years Nikon binoculars have generally had their highest transmission showing percentages in the high 80s and low 90s from the middle of the light spectrum through the red section. Over that time Swarovski has always tried to have their highest numbers showing percentages in the high 80s and low 90s from the beginning of the ultra-violet/violet end of the light spectrum into the middle.

You have to keep that in mind while discussing the comparative transmissions of their older Porro prisms.

A high transmission in the ultraviolet/violet range of the light spectrum is preferred by many people although over all the best transmission is a relatively straight line across the full color of the spectrum with percentages averaging from the high 80s through the low 90s.

Here are 2 Allbinos reviews of the top Swarovski and Nikon 10x42 binoculars showing their 2 different spectrums:

Scroll to the bottom of each review to see them.


https://www.allbinos.com/223-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_10x42_Swarovision.html


https://www.allbinos.com/215-binoculars_review-Nikon_10x42_EDG.html

When the line averages 90% straight across, they are all bright!:t:

Bob
 
Last edited:
Dennis, post 51,
I do not know how old the the sample was of which I measured the transmission spectrum in 2013 (or it may have been a lemon), the one measured in 2016 was probably younger looking at the lack of user traces on that binocular.
For your information: I am now measuring different types of Leitz Trinovids 7x35 and the transmission differences are quite a lot depending on the year of production, so that can also be the case for the EII, but I have not done a systematic study of the EII.
Gijs van Ginkel
What I would like to see is some transmission data on the new Leica 7x35 Trinovid and the new Swarovski 8x30 CL's when they become available. I am sure a lot of members would be very interested in how these newer binoculars with the improved coatings perform compared to the older Leitz Trinovids 7x35. My new Nikon 8x30 EII has a S/N 821025. I wonder when it was made? Good point Ceasar. Nikon's always favor the red spectrum and Swarovski's are in the ultra violet/ violet. Neither is wrong.
 
Last edited:
You can compare the transmission rates of the Nikon 10x42 SE and old Zeiss Victory FL taken from a German bird magazine here
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=180743&highlight=comprehensive+test+10x42

You can compare the resolution in arc sec. of the Zeiss HT 8x42 here from a German hunting magazine. Note the L/R barrel discrepancy ! (The lower the figure the better)

Zeiss HT 3.02 / 4.92
Leica Ultravid HD 3.33 / 3.33
Swarovski Swarovision EL 8.5 x 42 WB 3.81 / 3.81
Nikon EDG 4,29 / 4,29

http://translate.google.sk/translat...04042904/+&cd=1&hl=sk&ct=clnk&gl=sk&sandbox=1
 
Last edited:
You can compare the transmission rates of the Nikon 10x42 SE and old Zeiss Victory FL taken from a German bird magazine here
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=180743&highlight=comprehensive+test+10x42

You can compare the resolution in arc sec. of the Zeiss HT 8x42 here from a German hunting magazine. Note the L/R barrel discrepancy ! (The lower the figure the better)

Zeiss HT 3.02 / 4.92
Leica Ultravid HD 3.33 / 3.33
Swarovski Swarovision EL 8.5 x 42 WB 3.81 / 3.81
Nikon EDG 4,29 / 4,29

http://translate.google.sk/translat...04042904/+&cd=1&hl=sk&ct=clnk&gl=sk&sandbox=1

I think so many optical acuity surveys will really have some weight, just as soon as we have a way to factor in: cataracts, early onset glaucoma, wrinkles and tears in the macula/retina, mild strabismus, floaters, quantity placement and sensitivity of rods and cones, etc. Until then, we’re stacking BBs. :cat:

Bill
 
I think so many optical acuity surveys will really have some weight, just as soon as we have a way to factor in: cataracts, early onset glaucoma, wrinkles and tears in the macula/retina, mild strabismus, floaters, quantity placement and sensitivity of rods and cones, etc. Until then, we’re stacking BBs. :cat:

Bill
Your right. The acuity surveys just show what is possible with young, perfect eyes. Most of us aren't perfect so you don't want to select a binocular based solely on transmission and resolution tests. The surveys can help us choose a binocular but what really matters is how they work for your eyes. The L/R barrel discrepancy in a high end binocular like the Zeiss HT just shows you there can be a lot of sample variation even in expensive binoculars. Try before you buy and don't even assume an alpha level binocular is perfect from the manufacturer.
 
Last edited:
Dennis ...... Do you know your own corrected visual acuity? (20/20, 20/22, 20/18, etc). Is this from your own testing or from an eye exam? My distance vision has actually improved with age. Getting older is not all bad!
 
As we age, our irises lose their elasticity and won't open as wide as they once did. When the pupil is more constricted, the focal ratio of the eye gets larger. Larger focal ratios reduce aberrations and improve clarity ... barring the effects of so many other anomalies.

Bill
 
Last edited:
As we age, our irises lose their elasticity and won't open as wide as they once did. When the pupil is more constricted, the focal ratio of the eye gets larger. Larger focal ratios reduce aberrations and improve clarity ... barring the effects of so many other anomalies.

Bill
Just like an optical instrument such as a telescope? Interesting.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top