-
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.
10-40 classics 800$ good deal (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter robert s
- Start date
Robert Ellis
Larus marinus
I think you would find the Steiners becoming backups to those ClassiCs. There really is no comparison between the two, the 10x40 Zeiss is one of the best binoculars ever made and at $800 are better than just about anything else under $1000.
Otto McDiesel
Well-known member
xenophobe said:
True, the difference is not huge.
I'm a bit surprised to read that !xenophobe said:
Could you explain why the Ultravids didn't completely replace the Classics ?
Personally, since I have the Zeiss FLs, I use them as often as I can. The Classics are stored in another place, so I always have a good pair near me, but I prefer by far the FLs. Optically, the Classics are very good, but they are handicapped by colour rendition, eye relief, minimum focus distance, and above all outdated ergonomics. I think that manufacturers have made important advances in ergonomics, and that the Classics cannot compete with the recent FLs, ELs, Ultravids, or HGLs.
Jean-Charles
xenophobe
Well-known member
jcbouget said:
Wow... this is a tough question.
Optically there really isn't much difference, the Ultravids only offer a bit more resolution. Contrast is comparable, with the edge going to the Ultravids for more dynamic color, while the Classic is just a tad flatter, but still rather vivid compared to most other binoculars I've tried. CA is not an issue for me with either binocular, the Zeiss shows very slight fringing in the sweet spot, and the Ultravid shows practially none (which may be partially responsible for the Ultravid's higher long range resolution and slightly better sharpness). Edge CA is maybe more noticable in the Ultravids for some odd reason, (possibly because of less CA in the sweet spot) and something one doesn't normally do is view off-axis, so this isn't an issue. Side by side, they're both absolutely stunning to view through, with similarly sized sweet spots. Anything I've mentioned in this paragraph is definite nit-pic territory and sounds much worse than observed.
(I've mentioned CA in the sense of normal viewing, not scouting only for objects that will obviously produce greater than normal CA and focusing attention on the effects of such.)
Ergonomics are another thing completely. It is true that the Classics are a bit outdated here. The rubber eyecups are stiff and thin, and some people may not like them one bit. I couldn't stand the 7x42 because of this, but I don't have this problem with my 10x40's. Go figure. Weight? Not a problem. Sure the Ultravids are lighter by what... 17 grams. Size? They're both comparable. Both suit my ideal size. The Leicas have more girth which aides me in stabilizing. Handling? They both handle exceptionally well. Both balance well, swing well, and feel good in my hands, even though the Zeiss is slightly front heavy compared to the Ultravids.
To address your other points.... Eye relief and close focus aren't issues for me. I don't wear glasses and I generally don't need to focus closer than the 10x40 Classics will let me.
The more I compare the two, the less I am convinced that I really needed the Ultravids at more than twice the price. Are the Ultravids better overall? Yes, If you must have magnesium tubes instead of aluminum, waterproofing, twist out eyecups, larger focuser, closer focus ability, locking diopter, sure the Ultravid does win pretty easily in this regard. If these matter little to you, then these binoculars are more optically on par than their age or price tags may suggest. Both have superior build quality and fantastic optics that any high-end connoisseur should respect.
Until I felt the Ultravid BL, I thought the Zeiss 10x40b was perfection. Maybe it's my high regard for the Classic that keeps them with me. Perhaps my Ultravids are a lemon and my Classics a cherry, but both offer extremely incredible views that have wowed numerous people, and continue to do so. I know I'm amazed every time I look through either of them.
Well, I hope that makes some sense to you. lol
Yes it makes sense to me, thank you. :t:
Obviously, I had forgotten for a while that binocular preference is highly subjective.
A part from some drawbacks your have listed, which can be considered as minor by many users, I agree that the Classic remains without any doubt an excellent binocular, especially if the coatings have been improved since I bought my pair, what I believe more and more.
Jean-Charles
Obviously, I had forgotten for a while that binocular preference is highly subjective.
A part from some drawbacks your have listed, which can be considered as minor by many users, I agree that the Classic remains without any doubt an excellent binocular, especially if the coatings have been improved since I bought my pair, what I believe more and more.
Jean-Charles
xenophobe
Well-known member
No problem!
In comparing an older pair of T*P* to 2 newer ones, I'd have to agree. The veiw in the two recent production units were clearly better than one that was nearly 10 years old. Perhaps an advancement in coatings, or higher quality control.
The newer ones from Cabelas are current production, and would probably have the same T* and P* coatings that even the Victories and FLs would have.
The older pair did view quite nice, but wasn't on par with the 10x42 SLCold. The two newer ones were slightly better overall than the SLCs.
In comparing an older pair of T*P* to 2 newer ones, I'd have to agree. The veiw in the two recent production units were clearly better than one that was nearly 10 years old. Perhaps an advancement in coatings, or higher quality control.
The newer ones from Cabelas are current production, and would probably have the same T* and P* coatings that even the Victories and FLs would have.
The older pair did view quite nice, but wasn't on par with the 10x42 SLCold. The two newer ones were slightly better overall than the SLCs.
Wehr
Well-known member
xenophobe said:
Resolution isn't an issue. How should an Ultravid offer more resolution? It cannot. An Ultravid offers noticeable more contrast - and this is the point.
With the quantitative analysis of optical differences one should be a little more careful. What means "much difference"?
You can drive from coast to coast with both a 1.000$ car and a 100.000$ car. So, would you say there isn't much difference?
Walter Wehr
xenophobe
Well-known member
Contrast? As in a observation tower along side a celluar telephone antenna array perched high atop a neighboring mountain with powerlines and the towers that hold them, aproximately 6 miles away.
With the Ultravids I can clearly see the legs and the staircase leading up to the observation deck of the tower and can make out the outline and internal support members of the powerline towers. There are mulitple antennas in the cellular array, one of which is a two mast pole holding 5 different round dishes. Another antenna is two poles seperated by numerous horizontal beams distinctly visible with the Ultravids.
With the Zeiss, I cannot discern the staircase going around the legs of the obersvation tower, but I can see the tower itself, though the legs and staircase do not have any noticable structure or shape. The two mast pole holding 5 round dishes only appears to be one mast. The vertical antenna with horizontal crossmembers are visible, but the horizontal bars are not distinguishable.
How is this a display of contrast? If that is not a display of visible resolution, what is it then? Sharpness is not an issue, the Zeiss still shows the treelines, text at various colors sizes and distances, shaded underbrush, leaf edge sharpness and contrast at tested distances of approximately 45y, 70y and around 200y. Blah blah blah...
Mind you the yards I mention are only generalized, and I can laze them for the record, as well as show you dozens of reference points I use from my spot at work from where I judge binoculars for sometimes hours a day.
So please explain how this is a matter of pure contrast? I'd really like to hear this. lol
With the Ultravids I can clearly see the legs and the staircase leading up to the observation deck of the tower and can make out the outline and internal support members of the powerline towers. There are mulitple antennas in the cellular array, one of which is a two mast pole holding 5 different round dishes. Another antenna is two poles seperated by numerous horizontal beams distinctly visible with the Ultravids.
With the Zeiss, I cannot discern the staircase going around the legs of the obersvation tower, but I can see the tower itself, though the legs and staircase do not have any noticable structure or shape. The two mast pole holding 5 round dishes only appears to be one mast. The vertical antenna with horizontal crossmembers are visible, but the horizontal bars are not distinguishable.
How is this a display of contrast? If that is not a display of visible resolution, what is it then? Sharpness is not an issue, the Zeiss still shows the treelines, text at various colors sizes and distances, shaded underbrush, leaf edge sharpness and contrast at tested distances of approximately 45y, 70y and around 200y. Blah blah blah...
Mind you the yards I mention are only generalized, and I can laze them for the record, as well as show you dozens of reference points I use from my spot at work from where I judge binoculars for sometimes hours a day.
So please explain how this is a matter of pure contrast? I'd really like to hear this. lol
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
I have to agree with Walter about this. Both of these binoculars should be able to resolve much finer detail than the eye can see at 10X, even tripod mounted. If you see less detail through the Zeiss there must be something wrong with that particular pair.
xenophobe said:
Zenophobe: What do you find if you perform a dollar bill test or similar? (Find out how close you have to be to read some text with each binocular.) I've always been suspicious of the idea that because the objective provides more detail than the eye can use, all binoculars of a given magnification must provide the same amount of useable detail. The introduction of phase coatings demonstrates that the amount of useable detail (naked eye, not boosted) depends on the coatings. I'm sure that contrast and optical quality (which are linked) are significant factors.
One point to watch is that you might be able to hold the Ultravid more steady and hence the perceived resolution is higher. Try and use a tripod if you can, or at least rest your elbows on a hard surface while viewing.
Leif
NB: I edited this post to replace 'resolution' with 'useable detail' i.e. the resolution as perceived by the human eye.
Last edited:
Wehr
Well-known member
xenophobe said:
The combined performance of light transmission, contrast and sharpness let you see or let you not see details through binoculars. Nobody is capable to judge their performance in respect of resolution by simply looking through them.
Naturally it is possible to check even the resolution capability, but this makes as much sense as to check the aerodynamics of a VW Beetle at a speed of 500 miles per hour.
Walter
Last edited:
xenophobe
Well-known member
henry link said:
3 different pairs of Zeiss 10x40B Classics both did not show this detail.
Leif said:
I agree that usable detail is correct when there is more than enough detail to view, that the eye is overwhelmed with detail when scoping or viewing an object closer. I would disagree with long range viewing in the fact that you're trying to view the smallest area of the binocular image looking for the greatest amount of detail, that at one point you will not be able to resolve images farther than the optics will allow. Certainly this is due to a combination of sharpness, aberrations and contrast, but I certainly doubt that contrast is a major factor and isn't as responsible for such issues as aberrations and sharpness and even design limitations. At least with these two test subjects. Throw in some garbage glass and there might be a valid point in that.
Actually, I use a free standing monopod with a binocular mount when veiwing this object.
Wehr:
Resolution
The fineness of detail that can be distinguished in an imageIs that too adult a puzzle for you? Perhaps you should stop driving your beetle in wind tunnels and start looking through some binoculars? :t:
Last edited:
Wehr
Well-known member
xenophobe said:3 different pairs of Zeiss 10x40B Classics both did not show this detail.
I agree that usable detail is correct when there is more than enough detail to view, that the eye is overwhelmed with detail when scoping or viewing an object closer. I would disagree with long range viewing in the fact that you're trying to view the smallest area of the binocular image looking for the greatest amount of detail, that at one point you will not be able to resolve images farther than the optics will allow. Certainly this is due to a combination of sharpness, aberrations and contrast, but I certainly doubt that contrast is a major factor and isn't as responsible for such issues as aberrations and sharpness and even design limitations. At least with these two test subjects. Throw in some garbage glass and there might be a valid point in that.
Actually, I use a free standing monopod with a binocular mount when veiwing this object.
Wehr:
Resolution
Is that too adult a puzzle for you? Perhaps you should stop driving your beetle in wind tunnels and start looking through some binoculars? :t:
Blah, blah, blah.
Better you start to be more precise, otherwise further discussions make no sense.
If you would like to have a hamburger, you won't order marshmellows!?
Walter
Last edited:
xenophobe
Well-known member
lol.
Professor, instead of repetitively dodging the question, you still haven't explained how long-range observable detail is a primarily a matter of contrast?
I'm asking a genuine question, if you wish to be a snob about it, good for you. Hope it makes you feel better.
Please explain how my observations are directly related to contrast... and if not, what am I witnessing here?
Please, entertain yourself and educate me.
Professor, instead of repetitively dodging the question, you still haven't explained how long-range observable detail is a primarily a matter of contrast?
I'm asking a genuine question, if you wish to be a snob about it, good for you. Hope it makes you feel better.
xenophobe said:
Wehr said:
Please explain how my observations are directly related to contrast... and if not, what am I witnessing here?
Please, entertain yourself and educate me.
Last edited:
xenophobe said:
Not so. It is far from obvious, but contrast is central to a binoculars performance. Optics are often characterised by means of MTF charts. (These do not provide a complete description, but they are not so far off.) In simple terms these plot the contrast across the image plane. There is an excellent and clear description of MTF charts on the Luminous Landscape web site. In general aberrations decrease contrast.
xenophobe said:Wehr:
Resolution
I'm with Walter here, and I have to admit that I should have known better than to use the term resolution (subsequently edited). Resolution refers to the resolving ability of the optics (independent of the human eye) and can be measured precisely. One way to do that - advocated by Henry and others - is by placing a 'booster' in front of the eyepiece and examing the image visually. But as Henry rightly points out, we cannot see all of the detail in the image provided by an 8x binocular i.e. we do not have sufficient visual acuity. What you and I mean is how much detail we can see with the binocular. That is not the same thing as the resolution of the binocular. If the image is dim, or flat (low contrast), we will have more difficulty seeing fine detail. If the image is bright, and crisp (high contrast), we will easily see fine detail. In other words, transmission and contrast are important.
I remember having this kind of discussion on numerous occasions on BF, and part of the problem is the lack of a term to represent 'the amount of detail that can be seen through a given binocular'. Stephen Ingraham has his NEED value which is the sort of thing that we need.
Leif
xenophobe
Well-known member
Leif, I'm talking about long range observable detail, with the Zeiss Classic, magnifying the image will only magnify the lack of detail that is observable with the Ultravids.
Yes, I DO have a Zeiss tripler, and no, the extra "missing" detail is not observable.
If this were viewed in the daytime or visible at night where contrast plays a much less significant role, the Ultravids would still see what the Zeiss cannot resolve.
*shrug*
Yes, I DO have a Zeiss tripler, and no, the extra "missing" detail is not observable.
If this were viewed in the daytime or visible at night where contrast plays a much less significant role, the Ultravids would still see what the Zeiss cannot resolve.
*shrug*
xenophobe said:
So you have also performed your comparison test with the booster/tripler? How much extra detail is revealed by use of the booster? I am intrigued by this. (My problem in discussing this with you, Henry, Walter etc is that I do not own a booster/tripler, and hence I am to some extent relying on second-hand information.)
According to another thread, a typical resolution for a binocular (measured with a booster) is ~7". Now if that is magnified 8 times, looking through the binocular that 7" becomes roughly 56". I seem to recall someone (Henry?) stating that the human eye can typically resolve ~60". So if my back of an envelope figures are correct, they imply that an 8x40 binocular provides about the same amount of detail as the eye can use. Of course some people have greater visual acuity, and hence they will perceive some image softness. I am sure someone will correct my figures if they are wrong.
I am certain that contrast always plays a significant role, though the reason is far from obvious. I recommend that you check out MTF charts. (But don't take them too seriously. There's too many MTF nerds on this planet!) I have seen significant differences in contrast between so-called premium binoculars esp. in the 8x30 and 8x32 class.
Leif
xenophobe
Well-known member
Leif, I have tried the booster on the long range target I'm talking about, but I did not seriously compare them side by side with the intent of writing about it in detail. That's something that I'll do next time I'm at work.
At 15' 4'' with the Zeiss, and 17' with the Ultravid I can still read "Treasurer of the United States" and "Secretary of the Treasury" and clearly see the spaces in the "e,a and o"
At 26' 6" (as far as I can test inside at night), I can easily read:
"THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER, FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE"
With both binoculars, with either objective from either eyes, from the dark into the bill being luminated by a 60w incandescent bulb.
Leif said:
At 15' 4'' with the Zeiss, and 17' with the Ultravid I can still read "Treasurer of the United States" and "Secretary of the Treasury" and clearly see the spaces in the "e,a and o"
At 26' 6" (as far as I can test inside at night), I can easily read:
"THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER, FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE"
With both binoculars, with either objective from either eyes, from the dark into the bill being luminated by a 60w incandescent bulb.
Last edited:
