• 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.

Swarovski Focusers: facts at last. (1 Viewer)

elkcub said:
Nice experiment, Barshnik. :t:

According to the Weber-Fechner laws of psychophysics, the just-noticeable difference (jnd) between two stimuli is proportional to the magnitude of the stimuli. Hence, it becomes easier to perceive a force difference of 1/10 oz. if the overall turning force requirement is reduced. Ironically, this may plague Swarovski's new focusers simply because they succeeded in designing them to turn with a lighter touch.

No good deed goes unpunished. 3:)

Ed
Click to expand...

Oh, no! Not another plague upon us! Hopefully, Weber and Fechner did their ciphering wrong and the new Swaro focusers (which I didn't realize were redesigned until you mentioned it, where did you find that information?) will turn smooth as a baby's bottom in both directions (including the SLC's focusers).

I'd like to see John measure the directional resistance in about a dozen other Swaro focusers, both old and new, because from my experience and from the experience of many others on BF, it's apparent they are not all created equal, having tried three new samples and found differences among them, and the fact that some developed problems over time (only after a few months in Lee's sample).

One EL focuser took a lot of force with two fingers to turn in one direction (I'd bet way more than 1/10 oz,), and a new SLC took took just a little more work to turn in one direction, which sounds like John's sample.

Given the numerous complaints about the directional stiction difference, there are probably a lot of Swaro focusers with more than 1/10 oz. difference, either out of the box or after being used for a while. Plus, others are "ratchety," "coarse," or "stiff," throughout the focus range, not just in one direction.

If, indeed, Swaro has redesigned their focusers with a "light touch," it means that my effort to raise awareness of this issue (despite heavy flak from The Defenders) and the comments from other birders who have expressed dissatisfaction with Swaro focusers have managed to get heard above the buckshot of the company's 2/3 hunting customer base, for whom the dual stiction focusers were designed, as peatmoss was told by Swaro.

Even if the redesgin didn't completely solve the problems, it at least shows that Swaro is finally paying attention just as they did with turning up the level of pincushion distortion with the SV ELs.

Of course, I'm not so naive as to believe these changes were made solely to satisfy a minority of customers, but rather out of concern that they and other potential customers might migrate to Zeiss or other brands if they did not make the changes.

And now the rebuttal....

Brock
 
brocknroller said:
Oh, no! Not another plague upon us! Hopefully, Weber and Fechner did their ciphering wrong and the new Swaro focusers (which I didn't realize were redesigned until you mentioned it, where did you find that information?) will turn smooth as a baby's bottom in both directions (including the SLC's focusers).

I'd like to see John measure the directional resistance in about a dozen other Swaro focusers, both old and new, because from my experience and from the experience of many others on BF, it's apparent they are not all created equal, having tried three new samples and found differences among them, and the fact that some developed problems over time (only after a few months in Lee's sample).

One EL focuser took a lot of force with two fingers to turn in one direction (I'd bet way more than 1/10 oz,), and a new SLC took took just a little more work to turn in one direction, which sounds like John's sample.

Given the numerous complaints about the directional stiction difference, there are probably a lot of Swaro focusers with more than 1/10 oz. difference, either out of the box or after being used for a while. Plus, others are "ratchety," "coarse," or "stiff," throughout the focus range, not just in one direction.

If, indeed, Swaro has redesigned their focusers with a "light touch," it means that my effort to raise awareness of this issue (despite heavy flak from The Defenders) and the comments from other birders who have expressed dissatisfaction with Swaro focusers have managed to get heard above the buckshot of the company's 2/3 hunting customer base, for whom the dual stiction focusers were designed, as peatmoss was told by Swaro.

Even if the redesgin didn't completely solve the problems, it at least shows that Swaro is finally paying attention just as they did with turning up the level of pincushion distortion with the SV ELs.

Of course, I'm not so naive as to believe these changes were made solely to satisfy a minority of customers, but rather out of concern that they and other potential customers might migrate to Zeiss or other brands if they did not make the changes.

And now the rebuttal....

Brock
Click to expand...

I'm thinking you need to work on finger strength.
 
brocknroller said:
Oh, no! Not another plague upon us! Hopefully, Weber and Fechner did their ciphering wrong and the new Swaro focusers (which I didn't realize were redesigned until you mentioned it, where did you find that information?) will turn smooth as a baby's bottom in both directions (including the SLC's focusers).

I'd like to see John measure the directional resistance in about a dozen other Swaro focusers, both old and new, because from my experience and from the experience of many others on BF, it's apparent they are not all created equal, having tried three new samples and found differences among them, and the fact that some developed problems over time (only after a few months in Lee's sample).

One EL focuser took a lot of force with two fingers to turn in one direction (I'd bet way more than 1/10 oz,), and a new SLC took took just a little more work to turn in one direction, which sounds like John's sample.

Given the numerous complaints about the directional stiction difference, there are probably a lot of Swaro focusers with more than 1/10 oz. difference, either out of the box or after being used for a while. Plus, others are "ratchety," "coarse," or "stiff," throughout the focus range, not just in one direction.

If, indeed, Swaro has redesigned their focusers with a "light touch," it means that my effort to raise awareness of this issue (despite heavy flak from The Defenders) and the comments from other birders who have expressed dissatisfaction with Swaro focusers have managed to get heard above the buckshot of the company's 2/3 hunting customer base, for whom the dual stiction focusers were designed, as peatmoss was told by Swaro.

Even if the redesgin didn't completely solve the problems, it at least shows that Swaro is finally paying attention just as they did with turning up the level of pincushion distortion with the SV ELs.

Of course, I'm not so naive as to believe these changes were made solely to satisfy a minority of customers, but rather out of concern that they and other potential customers might migrate to Zeiss or other brands if they did not make the changes.

And now the rebuttal....

Brock
Click to expand...
Your rant has probably sold more Swaros than any other poster. :t::t:
 
Sanjay Naithani said:
I don't think transmission is such a big thing beyond a point.

Any more brightness beyond this point may have impact on colour redention

Sanjay
Click to expand...

Interesting point Sanjay, but consider this.
Imagine a bin which only transmits 80% of light and the missing 20% was lost from all colours equally. If you were to look through it I think you would say it was not bright and that the colours looked 'washed out'. But this is because of a lack of light, not too much of it.

With bins that transmit 90% of light like most good quality modern bins there is still 10% of light lost and if this is lost from the red colour then you may think that the reds in a view (and other colours that contain red) look washed out, but again this is due to a lack of light (or a lack of brightness of red) not too much. So I think it true to say that in any bins that show any washed-out colours it is because the bins are not transmitting all of the light of that colour.

I think that the closer bins get to transmitting an impossible 100% of light the more likely that all colours will be seen in their full glory and all this is thanks to more light.

Lee
 
Troubador said:
Interesting point Sanjay, but consider this.
Imagine a bin which only transmits 80% of light and the missing 20% was lost from all colours equally. If you were to look through it I think you would say it was not bright and that the colours looked 'washed out'. But this is because of a lack of light, not too much of it.

With bins that transmit 90% of light like most good quality modern bins there is still 10% of light lost and if this is lost from the red colour then you may think that the reds in a view (and other colours that contain red) look washed out, but again this is due to a lack of light (or a lack of brightness of red) not too much. So I think it true to say that in any bins that show any washed-out colours it is because the bins are not transmitting all of the light of that colour.

I think that the closer bins get to transmitting an impossible 100% of light the more likely that all colours will be seen in their full glory and all this is thanks to more light.

Lee
Click to expand...

Gotta disagee here, Lee. My 8x32 FL (what is it 95%+ according to Allbinos?) just gets washed out in seriously bright conditions. And my creaky old eyes can't even get big pupils anymore. Near as I can tell, less is more for lots of folks.

I think brightness may be seriously overrated, for many users anyway. Same with FOV.

And there's nothing left that transmits 80% anyway. 90-92% sounds about right.

Mark
 
Last edited:
Troubador said:
Interesting point Sanjay, but consider this.
Imagine a bin which only transmits 80% of light and the missing 20% was lost from all colours equally. If you were to look through it I think you would say it was not bright and that the colours looked 'washed out'. But this is because of a lack of light, not too much of it.

With bins that transmit 90% of light like most good quality modern bins there is still 10% of light lost and if this is lost from the red colour then you may think that the reds in a view (and other colours that contain red) look washed out, but again this is due to a lack of light (or a lack of brightness of red) not too much. So I think it true to say that in any bins that show any washed-out colours it is because the bins are not transmitting all of the light of that colour.

I think that the closer bins get to transmitting an impossible 100% of light the more likely that all colours will be seen in their full glory and all this is thanks to more light.

Lee
Click to expand...
Without sunglasses, bright sunny days are a sure bust for color vibrancy. Excessive brightness is also why people use darkening filters on telescopes when viewing the earth's moon.
 
Kammerdiner said:
Gotta disagee here, Lee. My 8x32 FL (what is it 95%+ according to Allbinos?) just gets washed out in seriously bright conditions. And my creaky old eyes can't even get big pupils anymore. Near as I can tell, less is more for lots of folks.

I think brightness may be seriously overrated, for many users anyway. Same with FOV.

And there's nothing left that transmits 80% anyway. 90-92% sounds about right.

Mark
Click to expand...

Isn't your SV making something like 92%? Does 3% really turn a bin from sensational [your SV] to washed out [FL]?

I don't think there is a person here that could see 3% differences outside of a lab. I don't buy into the ''washout'' thing either as the HT is around 95% and no one that has one would ever say it washes out. Are you sure you are not seeing veiling glare instead? I have some classic bins that probably don't exceed 75% transmission and, sure, they are too bright in some conditions too, like bright snow and over water etc.
 
Last edited:
james holdsworth said:
Isn't your SV making something like 92%? Does 3% really turn a bin from sensational [your SV] to washed out [FL]?

I don't think there is a person here that could see 3% differences outside of a lab. I don't buy into the ''washout'' thing either as the HT is around 95% and no one that has one would ever say it washes out. Are you sure you are not seeing veiling glare instead? I have some classic bins that probably don't exceed 75% transmission and, sure, they are too bright in some conditions too, like bright snow and over water etc.
Click to expand...

James, I actually don't know what the 8x32 SV transmits. I seem to recall 92% or something like that.

And yes, it might be veiling glare instead. Not sure. The 8x32 SV has some spectacular flares now and again, but it doesn't wash out like the FL can do. I remember some episodes, particularly over water into the sun, when that little 8x32 FL was painful to look through it was so bright. I wear glasses with dedicated clip-on sunglasses and they typically punch a hole through the eye relief--meaning I often can't use them and binos at the same time.

Had the little 8x32 Sightrons kayaking on the river today. Crazy bright conditions, very nice results. So who needs 95% transmission? ;)

OK, I like owls too, Sightrons not the first choice for that,
Mark
 
Troubador said:
Interesting point Sanjay, but consider this.
Imagine a bin which only transmits 80% of light and the missing 20% was lost from all colours equally. If you were to look through it I think you would say it was not bright and that the colours looked 'washed out'. But this is because of a lack of light, not too much of it.

With bins that transmit 90% of light like most good quality modern bins there is still 10% of light lost and if this is lost from the red colour then you may think that the reds in a view (and other colours that contain red) look washed out, but again this is due to a lack of light (or a lack of brightness of red) not too much. So I think it true to say that in any bins that show any washed-out colours it is because the bins are not transmitting all of the light of that colour.

I think that the closer bins get to transmitting an impossible 100% of light the more likely that all colours will be seen in their full glory and all this is thanks to more light.

Lee
Click to expand...

.
It's worse than that - he's dead Jim! :eek!:

I will broadly agree with you here, and also with James, in that every time I've looked through it, I've found the HT with "up to and more than 95%transmission" (*teehee - never fail to get a giggle out of that one! :) to have wonderfully saturated colours (even if seeming a bit cartoonish at times) in even the brightest of conditions - even if they do lack that last bit of sparkle arkle of the SV's - particularly of the 10x50SV.

Not only does the light (and information it contains) in the environment "get lost" with anything less than 100% transmission, but each frequency of the spectrum doesn't get lost evenly (same quanta) or in the same physical spot of the binoculars construction......

ie. That light from the sun (and space - ie. other suns and gas clouds, etc - no matter how infinitesimally small) that passes through the atmosphere, and directly and indirectly (after bouncing around off other subjects) lights our target subject and then further passes through haze, smog, atmospheric turbulence, glare etc before reaching the outer coating of the objective lens we can regard as 100%. From that point the losses start - different wavelengths are affected to different degrees by mechanisms of reflection and transmission, absorbtion, heat dissipation etc. It's not like your 80, or 92% transmitting binocular transmits that as a Nullabor Plain flat spectral graph nice and neatly right from the front without any effects occurring throughout the binocular along the way before hitting your eyeball (and the process from there btw until final interpretation by tha grey stuff in ya noggin' is a whole 'nuther story -- suggest peeps look up Gij's excellent treatise on the subject for further info :) ....... NoSiree! Each coating layer slightly modifies the raw data that is sent to it, and only in concert as an overall integral (along with all the other losses) transmute that original target subject image that reaches the outer extremitities of the objective into the one that forms at the exit pupil. All of those losses add up to 'visual junk' that leads to degradation (no matter how small) of the original image :cat:

Designers and manufactures go to great lengths (or not :) and spare no expense (or do :) in an effort (or not :) to minimize this degradation. They also 'block' certain frequencies such as the Ulta Violet range to protect our eyesight, seek to balance colour representation, and overcome physical limitations with transmission etc. Thus they each arrive at a different (though broadly the same) 'Flava' of the actual view represented according to the economic, knowledge, design, and manufacturing limitations of the ideal or practical criteria laid down. What we actually want is more transmission -- not less! :t:3:)

Bring on the 100% transmission binoculars with deep space nanocarbon black coated internal tube surfaces ........ :clap:

Of course you won't be able to look directly at intense reflected sunlight off bright chrome surfaces (it's been quite a while since I've seen a chrome bird anyways :), water etc, but I would much rather choose not too, or elect to wear sunnies etc, rather than have the bin limited by 20 -10% inherent transmission loss (along with it's associated image degrading crudola) which at other times is most inconvenient!


Chosun :gh:
 
HT:s and FL:s have higher transmission in the green/yellow spectrum,
thats why they can look a bit washed out in bright daylight,
(just point your binos to a blue sky, and you will notice that it looks a bit paler than without bins)
they are optimized for maximum contrast in dimmer/low light and on great distances,
filtering that blue haze away, thats why zeiss binoculars are so excellent in long distance viewing
under difficult conditions...this is a FEATURE not a flaw....
only looking at USAF test charts at 30 feet you won't see these kinds of zeiss super powers.

"Haze is caused by dust particles in the air. These particles reflect shorter wavelengths more than the longer ones. Thus, UV is affected the most, followed by blue, followed by green and red, and the recorded images will be not very sharp and look hazy. Haze filters are designed to reduce haze and are yellowish to counter the excessive blue. For example,"

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/filter/filter-UV.html
 
Last edited:
The new EL models seem to have an updated focuser (dealer info),
it's faster, only 2 turns, vs the previous 2.5 turns,
so the mechanics would not be the same,

Sound like good news, right Brock!

:t:
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 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.

Similar threads

David N
Very few Swarovski dealers in the uk according to the website
Replies
6
Views
1K
Paskman
Paskman
matt green
Swarovski el 8.5x42 fp bag suggestions?
Replies
19
Views
2K
John A Roberts
John A Roberts
Popeyethesailor
Swarovski ATX blurry image
Replies
19
Views
2K
Will K
Will K
G
Is it just me?
3 4 5
Replies
99
Views
8K
Paultricounty
P
G
My Swarovski EL 8.5x42 Review
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
14K
Captain Dave
C

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top