• 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.

diopter mechanisms - why all the complexity? (1 Viewer)

John Dracon

John Dracon
I have noticed over a half century of using binoculars the progression (perhaps regression) of the diopter mechanisms on binoculars. IF binoculars (which by design require only a screw in screw out movement to establish eye balance) have note changed.

The diopter mechanism of CF binoculars on the other hand have gone through many changes in location, practicality, and complexity. Why has this happened? The trend setter was of course Swarovski with its open hinges and what I call one-stop-shopping focusing, both barrels and one barrel at your finger tips.

But is the convenience and repeatability attributed to this kind of focusing mechansim really an advance for users? IMO it is not. The design people of course love challenges, particularly European manufacturers. Many of their designs, IMO, border on gimmickry. Then the other manufacturers follow the monkey see monkey do type of reaction to promote so-call new advances, and soon binocular focusing mechcanism, IMO, are unnecessarily complex and adding to higher costs. Where is or are the gains?

I recently visited a major sporting goods store where a myriad of binoculars were for sale. Low end to high end and everything in between. Even some of the low cost binoculars were trying to emulate the so called alphas with open bridges and complex center focusing.

The overwhelming number of binocular users are right handed. The diopter on the right hand barrel makes perfect ergonomic sense. Even Zeiss's new Conquest series uses the time-honored location. But then when one examiines the HT series. we are back to sheer complexity. Which part of the wheel do you engage? Do you push down or lift up on the center wheel to change the diopter? Is this all intuitive? Don't think so.

Then we have the Opticron WP and its Leupold & Minox clones. Which barrel does the diopter focus? If you haven't used one, you have flunked the test!
It is the left one of course. What genius made that decision?

John
 
This may fall in to the category of white peoples problems. You need more adversity in your life to really appreciate how minor a problem which eye focuses is. Just sayin.
 
I agree. I prefer the simplicity of a right-ocular diopter wheel. It worked fine, can´t understand why it needed changing. (Mind you, I´m right-handed).
 
I have noticed over a half century of using binoculars the progression (perhaps regression) of the diopter mechanisms on binoculars. IF binoculars (which by design require only a screw in screw out movement to establish eye balance) have note changed.

The diopter mechanism of CF binoculars on the other hand have gone through many changes in location, practicality, and complexity. Why has this happened? The trend setter was of course Swarovski with its open hinges and what I call one-stop-shopping focusing, both barrels and one barrel at your finger tips.

But is the convenience and repeatability attributed to this kind of focusing mechansim really an advance for users? IMO it is not. The design people of course love challenges, particularly European manufacturers. Many of their designs, IMO, border on gimmickry. Then the other manufacturers follow the monkey see monkey do type of reaction to promote so-call new advances, and soon binocular focusing mechcanism, IMO, are unnecessarily complex and adding to higher costs. Where is or are the gains?

I recently visited a major sporting goods store where a myriad of binoculars were for sale. Low end to high end and everything in between. Even some of the low cost binoculars were trying to emulate the so called alphas with open bridges and complex center focusing.

The overwhelming number of binocular users are right handed. The diopter on the right hand barrel makes perfect ergonomic sense. Even Zeiss's new Conquest series uses the time-honored location. But then when one examiines the HT series. we are back to sheer complexity. Which part of the wheel do you engage? Do you push down or lift up on the center wheel to change the diopter? Is this all intuitive? Don't think so.

Then we have the Opticron WP and its Leupold & Minox clones. Which barrel does the diopter focus? If you haven't used one, you have flunked the test!
It is the left one of course. What genius made that decision?

John


I think the HT diopter is actually simple, far more simple than the combo. focus on the FL/EL/EDG and harkens back to ''old school'' Zeiss style, when the dioptre was on the end hinge centre.

The HT diopter is a simple non-locking twist and turn dial, I can't see anyone having any problem figuring it out. It doesn't move, it is out of the way and doesn't get bumped accidentally like a right hand ocular diopter and [best of all] you can see the setting everytime you raise the bin to your eyes and you can easily make changes if need be. I can't think of a more logical and ergonomic diopter placement and design.
 
John,

I can not answer all your questions. The only thing I can say is that the best diopter I have used is the one on Nikon SE. It has no locker and it is not hidden. Very simple diopter which works great!
 
The best diopter I have used is on the Nikon HG/HG/Venturer/Premier.
It moves extremely smoothly, locks in place exactly where you want it without those annoying steps that never seem to be in the right place and it locks extremely firm.

There's no way to make a diopter better than that.

//L
 
Last edited:
I agree with Looksharp (again); the right eyepiece dioptre adjustment of my Nikon HG 8x32 is simple, smooth and accurate (and has hardly needed any adjustment in 9 years).

In contrast, I needed to make a minor dioptre adjustment to my Nikon EDG 7x42 recently. The dioptre adjustment is located beneath the centre focusing wheel. After phoning Nikon to ask them to repair the broken dioptre adjustment I realised I was trying to adjust the wrong eyepiece!

I have had two pairs of bins in recent years where the dioptre adjustment has (genuinely!) failed shortly after purchase; a Swarovski 8x32 EL (central dioptre adjustment) and Zeiss Conquest 8x32 (right barrel dioptre adjustment).
 
. The Canon 18 x 50 I set the dioptre adjustment about 10 years ago and despite using it most days it has held its setting and I have not had to change it.

I also think that many modern dioptre adjustments are unnecessarily complicated and inaccurate.
 
I thought that it was Leica that was the leader in this area--smooth as silk diopter control for left and right sides from the center drive that locks firmly, introduced with the Ultra Trinovid BA in ~1988 and continued unchanged to today's Ultravid HD. I don't think the design has any deficiencies despite its complexity, and I don't think any other design, simple or complex, has matched or surpassed it.

--AP
 
Last edited:
But then when one examiines the HT series. we are back to sheer complexity. Which part of the wheel do you engage? Do you push down or lift up on the center wheel to change the diopter?
John

Crikey John, nothing could be simpler than the dioptre adjuster on the HT:
there is a ring and you turn it. That's it.

James has summed it up already but I was so perplexed by your notion that it was complex on the HT I just had to get this off my chest.

Lee
 
Gentlemen - I am a self-professed fossil who values simplicity over complexity.
Some of my Zeiss binoculars are approaching a half century. No problem with the right barrel diopter where it is. James, you paid many, many extra dollars for the location of the HT diopter, which contribute little, if any, to the optical quality of the HT. One hard bump on the focusing wheel may create issues.

But no one including me can forcast whether it will stand the test of time. Proven designs ought not be abandoned for more complex designs, IMO. But opinions are what they are. Pleased to read that you find the HT diopter to your liking. It does have terrific optics.

John
 
Gentlemen - I am a self-professed fossil who values simplicity over complexity.......Proven designs ought not be abandoned for more complex designs, IMO.

John

Again, I agree. I don´t even think kitchen or microwave timers need to be digital. The old "analog" timers (turn the timer to required no.of minutes, and go) was far simpler than the modern digital version (press the stupid buttons about ten times to get the required no. of minutes, then start, then cancel when you´re finished, etc.). But they must be better because they have shiny number displays and they use electricity, no? No.
Modern centre-focus wheel diopters fall into the same category IMO. So do complicated straps (wacky adjustment designs), overly-complicated and bulky bino-cases, and optics packaging that requires a degree in architecture to figure out how to open the box. Much as though I like my new EDG 7x42, the box is quite the silliest I´ve ever seen. There are so many compartments I think it may be a portal to Narnia.
 
. Dear Alexis,
Unfortunately, the 12×50 early Ultravid that I use has an imprecise dioptre control.
In the dark it is very difficult to get this right especially for somebody who has little accommodation and is very sensitive to focus settings.
the binocular is very good but the dioptre control isn't.
it is not nearly as good as some simple dioptre controls where you can turn the right eyepiece backwards and forwards to get a perfect setting.
 
Some of my Zeiss binoculars are approaching a half century. No problem with the right barrel diopter where it is.

Same here. My oldest Zeiss is an 8x30 dating back to 1957. The diopter adjustment works perfectly well after all those years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

James, you paid many, many extra dollars for the location of the HT diopter, which contribute little, if any, to the optical quality of the HT. One hard bump on the focusing wheel may create issues.

It contributes *nothing* to the optical quality. Nothing at all. Just pushes the price up, just like ultra-close focussing, open bridge designs and so on.

But no one including me can forcast whether it will stand the test of time. Proven designs ought not be abandoned for more complex designs, IMO.

Absolutely right. Many of these highly questionable "innovations" are solutions to non-existing problems.

Hermann
 
Here are the instructions for setting the "complex" diopter on my glorious, wonderful, fantastic, ideal, waterproof, idiot-proof, and agreeably pricey 8x42 SLC HD with lifetime warranty service, including zero-cost repairs and occasional upgrades to compensate for having to wait a few days with a loaner, binoculars.

The sheer simplicity and elegance of the integrated system should be self-evident. :smoke:

Ed
 

Attachments

  • Swarovski instructions-2.jpg
    Swarovski instructions-2.jpg
    193 KB · Views: 135
For all those that are hankering for simple designs such as right hand barrel diopter's, I would say that most of these types [have for me] been problematic. I find that they can rub against your chest [or the strap] when carrying the binocular and move.

Also, this design is OK as long as the adjustment is firm. If it becomes loose, then even bringing them up to your eyes can move them. My 8x30 Oberkochen is like this - the diopter adjustment is loose enough that it moves just through normal viewing.

Zeiss moved the diopter to the end of the central hinge with the Classic series, as well as the Design Selection - great move as it is out-of-the way and immune to accidental bumping. Only bad thing is you cannot easily see your adjustment without flipping the bins over. So, Zeiss just moved the adjustment on the HT's to the top, where you can see it - and it is also immune to accidental bumping. Nothing complex about and I sure didn't pay extra for this simple design, I paid for the best view I have ever seen.

I don't understand the grousing over a proven design that has existed on Zeiss binoculars [in a slightly altered form] for decades, and [as far as I know] has not produced any problems for users and [should] produce a far more stable setting than any ocular or combo. focus design.
 
... and furthermore, for those who are cost conscious, the Model 828 HHS Swift Audubon sells for about $350 USD and has had an integrated diopter mechanism since the early 2000s that's very similar and works about as well as the SLC HD. :brains:
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 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