The Future SV (1 Viewer)

PeterPS · Nov 7, 2015

Hi Ed:

Your comment is spot on: I was indeed thinking of detection vs classification/resolution vs
identification/super-resolution.

Some interesting figures from DV's paper: the estimated Japanese bins production in 1977 was about 3.7 million (p338), out of which....200 thousand were roofs (p345)--times have changed.....

Best, Peter

kabsetz · Nov 7, 2015

I also think that the future is fully digital, but at present the image quality presented to the eye is not as good in EVF:s or the current digital binoculars as it is in conventional binoculars, with or without IS. Once they get there, though, the advantages of fully digital binoculars will be so great that they will quickly (or not, taking into account how conservative birders are) take over.

There are considerable possibilities opening up when going fully digital. In addition to stabilization, there can be both automatic and manual adjustment for contrast, image brightness and even color balance to suit the eye optimally. I would also speculate that it would be possible and perhaps beneficial to make a trinocular, with a large objective in the center to provide high detail resolving power, brightness and contrast, with a smaller diameter binocular lens pair on either side providing the stereopsis information. Digital processing would then produce the optimal binocular view from these three inputs by combining their output for the two eyes.

But in the interim, among the available options, for me the Canon works the best.

Kimmo

PeterPS · Nov 7, 2015

Etudiant:

Sony DEV-50 set is a first attempt and will go down in history as being just that. Unfortunately those who bought/tried it have not been happy at all with its optical performance, weight and bulkiness. Digital bins with excellent performance are already available (to governmental users) but they are way too expensive for mass consumption. IMO the well know adage "the future is digital" will also apply to the bins world, sooner or later.

Peter.

Vespobuteo · Nov 13, 2015

I don't see any reason for "digital" (SV) bins,
just making things complicated doesn't make them any better or more useful,
and I don't see a solid use case for digital bins, no value added, just weight, and battery drain.
on the other hand, a lot of useless stuff is sold, that you really don't need...
"digital" spotting scopes for example, but they don't sell much,
and I won't buy, thats for sure.

Kowa tried at least, but no digital EVF in that sense:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._td_1_combination_spotting_scope_digital.html

Troubador · Nov 13, 2015

Chosun Juan said:
* Ergonomics ........................... Open frame, with SF style rearward weight bias, but should not be achieved by cheating and placing the focus wheel way forward a' la HT/SF

Chosun :gh:

Hey! Its the Thunder from DownUnder!

Regarding the ergonomics of HT and SF, I think you could have chosun a better word than 'cheating' considering Zeiss never claimed a rearward weight shift for HT and as you mention, SF does have the glass components shifted to achieve this.

Yes, you don't like the focus wheel position, fair enough.

Lee

ceasar · Nov 13, 2015

pesto said:
Etudiant:

......................... IMO the well know adage "the future is digital" will also apply to the bins world, sooner or later.

Peter.

Will they be able to help the seriously visually impaired?

Bob

etudiant · Nov 13, 2015

ceasar said:
Will they be able to help the seriously visually impaired?

Bob

Challenging to implement, but certainly feasible.
A digital bin could have a headset screen, akin to the Oculus Rift virtual reality headset, which would provide a zoom view of the bird on request and a normal view otherwise. Brightness, color and contrast could be enhanced as needed.

More broadly, a lot of the issues we fuss about today would simply disappear, with very few shedding tears.
CA for instance or eye relief or color tone, along with collimation and hand tremor.

The downside is that you would be seeing an electronic image of the bird, rather than an optical one.

Theo98 · Nov 14, 2015

etudiant said:
The downside is that you would be seeing an electronic image of the bird, rather than an optical one.

BINGO! :h?:

ceasar · Nov 14, 2015

Collimation wouldn't be a problem if it only used one objective tube like the electronic finders on those little bridge cameras use. Would DOF be a problem in finding and following close in birds without binocular vision? Focusing on them with those little cameras can be a problem if the aperture is small.

Bob

Gregore · Nov 14, 2015

The downside is that you would be seeing an electronic image of the bird, rather than an optical one.[/QUOTE]

I am sure hundreds of years ago some one said the same thing about optics .

"Your not seeing the real bird only an optical version of it ."

The camera industry went through this too I remember when every one was saying why do we need digital when film works perfectly well.

Then when it got as good as film all the other advantages killed film . Same happened a few years back in movie film .

The same will happen in optics we can only speculate what will make it a no brainier to use but when it happens it will be amazing

Film looks quaint now , some day optics will look the same .

etudiant · Nov 14, 2015

ceasar said:
Collimation wouldn't be a problem if it only used one objective tube like the electronic finders on those little bridge cameras use. Would DOF be a problem in finding and following close in birds without binocular vision? Focusing on them with those little cameras can be a problem if the aperture is small.

Bob

Presumably the image would be analogous to that we currently see on camera displays, with similar target based focusing. So binocular vision should not be serious concern.
Imho, the challenge is the engineering economics more than the technical specification.
Sony's DEV 50 is the nearest analog to date, but still falls short of what is really wanted, as pesto has pointed out. Unfortunately, Sony is not as wealthy as it once was and consequently may be reluctant to invest here, especially given the slow sales of the DEV 50 and the earlier Canon stabilized optics.

mfunnell · Nov 14, 2015

Gregore said:
etudiant said:

The downside is that you would be seeing an electronic image of the bird, rather than an optical one.

Click to expand...

I am sure hundreds of years ago some one said the same thing about optics .

[..]

The camera industry went through this too I remember when every one was saying why do we need digital when film works perfectly well.

Then when it got as good as film all the other advantages killed film . Same happened a few years back in movie film .

As a keen photographer (digital and film) I can assure you that film is still alive and kicking (although more a niche market these days) for stills and for movie film (in fact it would be much harder to support still film if movie film wasn't being sold and used).

Gregore said:
The same will happen in optics we can only speculate what will make it a no brainier to use but when it happens it will be amazing

Film looks quaint now , some day optics will look the same .

I'm not so sure. While I do a lot of digital photography I find I can't really use an electronic viewfinder (at least none of those I've tried so far, and I've tried a lot). I find an optical viewfinder far superior for both SLR and so-called "mirrorless" cameras. While I'm sure it is possible to produce an EVF that's as good as an optical view, I find all the current offerings so very far from adequate that I sure wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for the technology - especially for binoculars, where IMHO the view is far more important than it is in photography (and I find it important enough there that I won't yet use an EVF).

...Mike

Chosun Juan · Nov 16, 2015

Troubador said:
Chosun Juan said:

* Ergonomics ........................... Open frame, with SF style rearward weight bias, but should not be achieved by cheating and placing the focus wheel way forward a' la HT/SF

Click to expand...

Hey! Its the Thunder from DownUnder!

Regarding the ergonomics of HT and SF, I think you could have chosun a better word than 'cheating' considering Zeiss never claimed a rearward weight shift for HT and as you mention, SF does have the glass components shifted to achieve this.

Yes, you don't like the focus wheel position, fair enough.

Lee

Leeroy! :storm: :storm:

Are you still smarting from your last *ss whoopin'?! (judging from your British Parliment - I thought you guys really went in for that sort of thing!

3

)

What an odd snippet to have chosen to pull out of that post?! (#22) .... and unsurprisingly Zeiss focused! (see what I did there

)

Whilst the HT's hand is forced (along with the user!

into forward hand positioning due to it's A-K prisms, (and strangely the vast and expensive Zeiss marketing department missed blowing it's trumpet on this one! :h?: ), the SF has been purposely designed like this (I mentioned no such thing about shifted glass - which is a just a marketing smokescreen), and the trumpet blown long, hard, and expensively $$$ on that one!! However, there is a failure by the faithful to acknowledge that this comes at a cost - forward positioning of the hands increases turning moment loads on the shoulder muscles ...... :eek!:

So yes it is 'cheating' ...... I can achieve the same sleight of hand (see what I did there again, huh, huh!

with my Zens by gripping well forward of the focusing bridge, with my pinkies over the front of the objective bridge, and using the front of the large focus wheel to focus with --- it makes the bins seem lighter due to the turning moment induced by the c of g being rearward of the centre of the support structure (my mits!

, but by crikey, tie me kangaroo down sport, and paint me wallaby black, - jack!! ...... does it ever hurt my dodgy (dodgier than an MP in fishnets!

shoulders after a while, and that's in a bin that is lighter than the SF to start with! :cat:

Now had this been achieved not only by an objective redesign (tick!), and lightweight Ultra-FL glass (tick!), but by a revolutionary lightweight carbon chassis as I suggested, then I would have been much more mightily impressed! The opportunity is there now for Swarovski to pick up the ball and run with it, since Zeiss has missed the boat! :brains:

Anysways, the main point was where is my 9x50 ?????

Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan · Nov 16, 2015

Calling all Mavens !! )

mfunnell said:
....While I do a lot of digital photography I find I can't really use an electronic viewfinder (at least none of those I've tried so far, and I've tried a lot). I find an optical viewfinder far superior for both SLR and so-called "mirrorless" cameras. While I'm sure it is possible to produce an EVF that's as good as an optical view, I find all the current offerings so very far from adequate that I sure wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for the technology - especially for binoculars, where IMHO the view is far more important than it is in photography (and I find it important enough there that I won't yet use an EVF).

...Mike

Yes, this is why all top spec DSLR's still use optical viewfinders, although I believe that one day an economic, lightweight, fully digital bin will arrive, along with all the zoom, and exposure benefits, etc that confers, but that won't be for quite a while yet ..... the displays just aren't anywhere near there yet -- in terms of resolution, dynamic range, or lag response among others (and you guys think 'Rolling Ball' is bad!

The last time we visited this subject a few years ago, I posted a then current, best prototype EVF module (4MP or thereabouts). Many years from now when they finally develop up to snuff (particularly the lag response {image pixel ghosting and artifacts upon movement}), then I will have to cross the bridge of do I really want my eyeballs bombarded by electrons and EMF? :eek!: ...... I think I will stick with photons thanks very much! :t:

One for the Mavens:

Which brings me to the part about what are the limits of transmission with an optical device ???????? Given that we use the most incrementally beneficial HT and Ultra-FL glass, as well as yet to be fully developed unobtanium spec glass, how high can the transmission go ??????????

Say with PorroII prisms, and roughly 16 multicoated surfaces (of over 99.9% tr), then we should be up around 96.5% + transmission ..... is progress beyond that possible with upcoming technology on the drawing boards ?????? (increased transmission limits of multicoating, cold fusion, perfect surface finish vacuum joining, etc). Surely the brightness gains, and reduction in stray light is worth it ...... :cat:

Chosun :gh:

Troubador · Nov 16, 2015

Chosun Juan said:
the SF has been purposely designed like this (I mentioned no such thing about shifted glass - which is a just a marketing smokescreen)

Anysways, the main point was where is my 9x50 ?????
Chosun :gh:

Well CJ you did mention SF's rearward weight bias, which is achieved by the distribution of glass within the instrument. There is no marketing smokescreen here (unlike the instrument's name SF for smart focus, which is mostly hot air) as anyone who has seen the cutaway sectioned optical tubes (illustrated on BF with photos) can verify. Sorry to hear about the trouble your shoulder is giving you what with having to move your fingers an inch. Have you tried Pilates?

Meanwhile your 9x50 is an interesting proposition and although a few years back the carbon body might have been too expensive, I keep reading about new and cheaper ways to manufacture carbon products including recycling off-cuts from bigger products.

As for my *ss smartin' it don't get smartin' from smart *ss remarks LOL, but I am smilin' at your fan-gurl love-in with HT-glass and FL-glass and all that stuff. Seems like the Zeiss marketing dept doesn't only blow hot air :king:

Lee

Vespobuteo · Nov 16, 2015

the SF is aprox. 60-70 grams lighter than the SV,
it's very noticeable using them,
so Swaro have something to work on there,
but not everyone prefer lighter weight,
and the solid and robust feel of the current SV:s I think is a major selling point.

when it comes to carbon fiber,
magnesium is already very light,
I'm a frequent cyclist and super light bike frames
made by magnesium or carbon fiber,
are about the same weight,
those high end 2-2.5 pound road bike frames are very expensive,
and can cost more than any single Swaro bin does,
and not realistic for ordinary people like me.

The housing of a binocular is only part of the weight,
perhaps 250-300 grams for a 42mm?, it's a lot of other stuff in there to,
And don't forget that the FL:s where CF reinforced polymer,
and the 42mm:s where not much lighter than the SF.

BUT Minox manages to make an 8.5x52 mm bin with a weight of 775 grams
in magnesium. The APO HG 8x43 model weigh only 660 grams.
Are they any good? Unfortunately no HD glass in the 52mm version.

"The second and the last drawback of the Germany manufactured Minox HG 8.5x52 is too high level of chromatic aberration. It can also be, at least partially, an effect of slimming the device down. The shorter the binoculars are, the shorter their focal length is. With a given diameter you have to use fast lenses and these are more difficult to correct when it comes exactly to that aberration."

http://www.allbinos.com/211-binoculars_review-Minox_HG_8.5x52_BR_MIG.html

http://www.minox.com/fileadmin/media/Anwenderberichte/MINOX_APO_HG_8x43_translated.pdf

http://www.minox.com/index.php?id=hg_technical_data1&L=1

For the 42mm Swaros the weight is not much of a problem,
but a lighter future 50mm would definitely make it more interesting for me.
optimal bin weight I think is around 800 grams IMO,
but since the 50mm is 999 g today, 20% weight reduction with same optical performance
is probably not realistic,

Troubador · Nov 16, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
the SF is aprox. 60-70 grams lighter than the SV,
it's very noticeable using them,
so Swaro have something to work on there,
but not everyone prefer lighter weight,
and the solid and robust feel of the current SV:s I think is a major selling point.

when it comes to carbon fiber,
magnesium is already very light,
I'm a frequent cyclist and super light bike frames
made by magnesium or carbon fiber,
are about the same weight,
those high end 2-2.5 pound road bike frames are very expensive,
and can cost more than any single Swaro bin does,
and not realistic for ordinary people like me.

The housing of a binocular is only part of the weight,
perhaps 250-300 grams for a 42mm?, it's a lot of other stuff in there to,
And don't forget that the FL:s where CF reinforced polymer,
and the 42mm:s where not much lighter than the SF.

BUT Minox manages to make an 8.5x52 mm bin with a weight of 775 grams
in magnesium. The APO HG 8x43 model weigh only 660 grams.
Are they any good? Unfortunately no HD glass in the 52mm version.

http://www.allbinos.com/211-binoculars_review-Minox_HG_8.5x52_BR_MIG.html

http://www.minox.com/fileadmin/media/Anwenderberichte/MINOX_APO_HG_8x43_translated.pdf

http://www.minox.com/index.php?id=hg_technical_data1&L=1

For the 42mm Swaros the weight is not much of a problem,
but a lighter future 50mm would definitely make it more interesting for me.
optimal bin weight I think is around 800 grams IMO,
but since the 50mm is 999 g today, 20% weight reduction with same optical performance
is probably not realistic,

That interesting info about the bike frames VB, but looking at some prices of carbon fibre photographic tripods compared with aluminium (not magnesium) there isn't a big difference in price, although it is hard to be sure you are comparing exactly the same design tripod.

I think the FL polymer was reinforced with glass fibre rather than carbon.

Lee

Vespobuteo · Nov 16, 2015

Troubador said:
That interesting info about the bike frames VB, but looking at some prices of carbon fibre photographic tripods compared with aluminium (not magnesium) there isn't a big difference in price, although it is hard to be sure you are comparing exactly the same design tripod.

I think the FL polymer was reinforced with glass fibre rather than carbon.

Lee

For "consumer" bikes I would say that CF frames are at least
40-50% more expensive, but it depends, on quality.

Manfrotto have the same tripod model in ALU and CF that differ about 60% in price, so it's not insignificant, going Chinese there are of course cheaper ones. Gitzo's are still quite pricey, but superior IMO.

yep, correct, FL:s are made of GF not CF reinforced polymer, probably because it's quite a bit cheaper

magnesium vs CF in car industry (see attached diagram)

the difference is just to small between MAG and CF to make any significant difference,
(if any)
if we assume that the binocular "body/frame" is only a part (30%) of the total weight,

Troubador · Nov 16, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
For "consumer" bikes I would say that CF frames are at least
40-50% more expensive, but it depends, on quality.

Manfrotto have the same tripod model in ALU and CF that differ about 60% in price, so it's not insignificant, going Chinese there are of course cheaper ones. Gitzo's are still quite pricey, but superior IMO.

yep, correct, FL:s are made of GF not CF reinforced polymer, probably because it's quite a bit cheaper

magnesium vs CF in car industry (see attached diagram)

the difference is just to small between MAG and CF to make any significant difference,
(if any)
if we assume that the binocular "body/frame" is only a part (30%) of the total weight,

VB

Any idea if carbon fibre composites have advantages or disadvantages compared with magnesium with regard to dimensional changes in response to changes in temperature??

Lee

Vespobuteo · Nov 16, 2015

Troubador said:
VB

Any idea if carbon fibre composites have advantages or disadvantages compared with magnesium with regard to dimensional changes in response to changes in temperature??

Lee

the thermal expansion coefficient for CF is in the same range as glass, or even lower, but it varies, there are different CF types,
magnesium have a higher coefficient, about the same as aluminium,
under normal (Earth) temperature variations the effect is probably rather marginal, at least I haven't noticed that my scope gets out of focus in cold weather,
but for large telescopes in space, with large temperature differences, it might be more significant,

The Future SV (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-known member

Well-Known Member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Registered User

Eurasian Goldfinch

Well-known member

Active member

Registered User

Registered Confuser

Given to Fly

Given to Fly

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Attachments

Moderator

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread