• 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.

Audubon HR/5 (1 Viewer)

Clear day here. I've just spent an hour putting the swifts through their paces alongside the Habicht, Ell and Zeiss BGATP 7x42. The swifts are doing very well at 'faint single web detection' - one of the most difficult tests that I know of as it seems to combine resolution, CA, contrast, brightness etc all in the one go. The excellent Ell can struggle at this web test sometimes. Ive only done a couple of hours of viewing at this stage, but I'd easily be putting the swifts into the above category of binoculars. What an extraordinary value.

Rathus,

What does single web detection mean? Does it refer to spider webs?

David,

The second multi-coated version had more multi-coated surfaces, but not all of them. The eyepiece reflections are clearly different, and the objectives are somewhat darker green. The fully multi-coated version that showed up in the late 1990s is even darker green. None disappoint.

Ed
 
Although slightly increasing in brightness, I also experience increased CA with more multi-coatings. This is my reason for thinking that the 804ED was introduced. It was very effective in correcting for CA. It's still the only binocular that allows me to appreciate subtle color variations in birds.

Ed
 
Last edited:
Rathus,

What does single web detection mean? Does it refer to spider webs?

David,

The second multi-coated version had more multi-coated surfaces, but not all of them. The eyepiece reflections are clearly different, and the objectives are somewhat darker green. The fully multi-coated version that showed up in the late 1990s is even darker green. None disappoint.

Ed

Ed and Binastro et al,

The only Japan sticker I have is on the bottom of the case and there is no number. I assumed that the coloured dot markers were a focus marker from the previous owner? Also, my swifts do not have the tripod mount beneath.

Re The single thread test - I look for a single thread from a spider or caterpillar a few inches long (6-12inches...sometimes longer) which is usually stretched between bark or twigs. The best thread is Very fine/barely perceptible. Sometimes it's also a waving piece of thread. Shaded or sunny, this is the most ruthless test I've come up with so far for binoculars. I usually view from 30-40 feet away. Some of my sharpest binoculars can struggle with the thread test. It's almost spooky and ghost like when the thread appears in some binoculars and not others.

I walked up to the piece of thread I was viewing yesterday to check it out, and it took me a minute or so to find it from just 12inches away with the naked eye. I knew where it was but still couldnt locate it for some time. Incredibly difficult to see. A couple of the binoculars gave me a better view from 30-40 feet away.

Cheers

Rathaus
 
Last edited:
These are the main stickers on the body.
The previous owner appears to have been fastidious. They had their name machine embroidered into the neck strap. Very nicely done.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    224.2 KB · Views: 180
Last edited:
Ed,

There is also a code written in black pen on the front plate and on the eye piece structure as seen here. DN22 7GF 19. Any idea what this might refer to?

Rathaus
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    218.4 KB · Views: 165
Last edited:
Hi Rathaus,
The code is the address In Doncaster of the binocular maker. No, actually the binocular previous owner.

It seems to be half a mile from Botany Bay.
 
Last edited:
...
Re The single thread test - I look for a single thread from a spider or caterpillar a few inches long (6-12inches...sometimes longer) which is usually stretched between bark or twigs. The best thread is Very fine/barely perceptible. Sometimes it's also a waving piece of thread. Shaded or sunny, this is the most ruthless test I've come up with so far for binoculars. I usually view from 30-40 feet away. Some of my sharpest binoculars can struggle with the thread test. It's almost spooky and ghost like when the thread appears in some binoculars and not others.

I walked up to the piece of thread I was viewing yesterday to check it out, and it took me a minute or so to find it from just 12inches away with the naked eye. I knew where it was but still couldnt locate it for some time. Incredibly difficult to see. A couple of the binoculars gave me a better view from 30-40 feet away.

Cheers

Rathaus

Very interesting! Did you make that procedure up yourself? The reason I ask is that, depending on how one defines acuity, the limit of human capability is about 0.5 arc seconds, which is well below commonly accepted grating acuity. See Wiki article, where this is discussed towards the end of the article and is doubtless based on the seminal work of Hecht & Mintz (1939) that I've attached.* So far, you are the first I've seen to incorporate this into binocular instrument evaluation. Congrats!

* Some astronomers and opticians on BF take issue with the article claiming that Hecht was old fashioned, or unfamiliar with classical optics, etc. However from his NAS obituary:
In 1941, Hecht was awarded the Frederick Ives Medal of the Optical Society of America. He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1944. A director-at-large of the Optical Society of America, he also served on the editorial boards of the Journal of the Optical Society, the Biological Bulletin, and Documenta Ophthalmologica.
 

Attachments

  • Hecht & Mintz The Visibility of Single Lines copy.pdf
    971.6 KB · Views: 326
Hi Ed.
I read the Visibility of single lines article. Thanks.

I don't think astronomers would disagree as it is astronomers who confirm the findings by observation.

However, I am not sure how accurately it tests binoculars optics, as poorer optics could expand wires to larger apparent sizes than top quality optics.
I am not sure of this, but maybe Typo commented on this.

Also illumination of beads on wires by sunliight will render them visible even when much less than 0.5 arcsecond wire diameter.

This is also why I object when people here talk of Dawes limits, when it is not Dawes limits they are seeing.
And the fact that resolution limits vary from 0.5 arcseconds to several arc minutes just shows how one cannot just talk about resolution without saying what you are measuring.

It is like pairs of binoculars, sets of binoculars compared to a binocular.
I am probably too pedantic as these terms are used in the venacular. I sometimes talk of binoculars myself when I mean binocular, but I try to be consistent.
Same with Dawes limit. Poor Rev. Dawes will be turning in his grave. He was not in the best of health when he actually made his observations. Good thing he didn't read this site.
 
Very interesting! Did you make that procedure up yourself? The reason I ask is that, depending on how one defines acuity, the limit of human capability is about 0.5 arc seconds, which is well below commonly accepted grating acuity. See Wiki article, where this is discussed towards the end of the article and is doubtless based on the seminal work of Hecht & Mintz (1939) that I've attached.* So far, you are the first I've seen to incorporate this into binocular instrument evaluation. Congrats!

* Some astronomers and opticians on BF take issue with the article claiming that Hecht was old fashioned, or unfamiliar with classical optics, etc. However from his NAS obituary:

Cheers for that. Yes I did come up with it myself...I would very much like to say that I came up with this idea following profound contemplation whilst utilising a deep understanding of physics and mathematics.....but, alas, I just stumbled upon it one day when an incredibly thin piece of thread was appearing and disappearing in my view depending on binoculars used - I never read about it. However, at the time I was quite excited - I was fully aware that a significant optical event was taking place. I look forward to reading the article. My thread viewing has become like an 'astronomy on the ground' type of viewing for me now.
One of the difficulties, obviously, is actually finding (seeing) an appropriate piece of thread in the first place! It took me half an hour yesterday to find one. Also, sometimes I trace a longer easier well lit piece of thread back to a shaded section where the thread disappears and use that section as my target....or a tendril from a larger web.
I do not profess to know or fully understand what is going on during this process but I have never come up with a test which can so ruthlessly seperate binoculars. Sure, It may not mean one binocular is 'better' than the other, but it does indeed seperate binoculars.

Cheers,

Rathaus
 
Last edited:
Hi Rathaus,
The code is the address In Doncaster of the binocular maker. No, actually the binocular previous owner.

It seems to be half a mile from Botany Bay.

Oh dear. Is it specifically revealing the address? If that is the case I will delete it. I was hoping it was a code to a bloated Swiss bank account :smoke:
 
There is also a code written in black pen on the front plate and on the eye piece structure as seen here.

Ps: perhaps not required, but I've deleted the address codes to ensure online privacy for the previous owner. I'd personally rather that our roles were reversed.
 
Last edited:
Admin,

Could you please delete my post #26. I posted it not knowing that the code written on the binoculars reveals the private address of the previous owner.
I attempted to delete too many times and it won't work for me.

Many thanks.

Rathaus
 
Last edited:
Hi Rathaus,
The fact that you cannot see fine thread with unaided eyes close is probably because your eyes don't achieve exact focus.
With a binocular at a distance exact focus is easy. With our unaided eyes we don't have control.
 
Hi Ed.
I read the Visibility of single lines article. Thanks.

I don't think astronomers would disagree as it is astronomers who confirm the findings by observation.

However, I am not sure how accurately it tests binoculars optics, as poorer optics could expand wires to larger apparent sizes than top quality optics.
I am not sure of this, but maybe Typo commented on this.

Also illumination of beads on wires by sunliight will render them visible even when much less than 0.5 arcsecond wire diameter.

This is also why I object when people here talk of Dawes limits, when it is not Dawes limits they are seeing.
And the fact that resolution limits vary from 0.5 arcseconds to several arc minutes just shows how one cannot just talk about resolution without saying what you are measuring.

It is like pairs of binoculars, sets of binoculars compared to a binocular.
I am probably too pedantic as these terms are used in the venacular. I sometimes talk of binoculars myself when I mean binocular, but I try to be consistent.
Same with Dawes limit. Poor Rev. Dawes will be turning in his grave. He was not in the best of health when he actually made his observations. Good thing he didn't read this site.

David,

Yeah, it always seemed to me that the word binoculars is curiously redundant. Bicycles, for example, refers to more than one bicycle; so why wouldn't binoculars refer to more than one binocular? I guess folks who use the word "maths" know how to explain it, ... I don't.
:king:
Ed
 
David,

Yeah, it always seemed to me that the word binoculars is curiously redundant. Bicycles, for example, refers to more than one bicycle; so why wouldn't binoculars refer to more than one binocular? I guess folks who use the word "maths" know how to explain it, ... I don't.
:king:
Ed

Yo, Eddie:

I threatened you with being back on the 10th!

The VERY LAST page in my book will have two photos. The one on the left will be of a binocular; the one on the right will be a PAIR of binoculars. :cat:

Bill
 
Yo, Eddie:

I threatened you with being back on the 10th!

The VERY LAST page in my book will have two photos. The one on the left will be of a binocular; the one on the right will be a PAIR of binoculars. :cat:

Bill

Welcome home, Billie boy.

Cool. Will that be a matched pair?

Ed
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 8 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