Bargain new Habicht (1 Viewer)

Thanks David and Henry.
Apart from resolution tests, contrast does play a significant part.

But also the optical design.
The Canon 18x50 that I use has very small tight star images, down to tiny sizes when the stabilizer is on and centred. This translates to me into an immediate gain of 1 magnitude in faintest star seen, i.e, 2.5x fainter.
I think that it is the attention to design that produces tiny star images, as well as surface accuracy and choice of glass.
The Russian selected 12x45 has much larger star images, based on old Zeiss designs I think, and old glass types. But I think that the surface accuracy at least for the prisms is high.

In actual use for me the 12x45 outresolves the 10x35 EII.
A good c.2001 old stabilizer system Canon 10x30 IS easily outresolves the 12x45.

Do I use stabilized binoculars?
Yes, but only when I want maximum resolution or performance, particularly resolving and identifying Jupiter's moons close to Jupiter or each other.
Otherwise I usually use standard binoculars such as the 8.5x44 HR/5.

But stabilizers certainly now are about as good as tripod mounting.

Incidentally, following a moving person at 15 yards with the 8x23 Minolta AF gives amazing facial detail almost instantly in good light. I don't think anyone can follow focus manually as well.

Technology is bringing gains in some areas.

I would think that bracing a binocular well may be more important to a person with 20/10 vision than 20/20 vision.
I get a 10% gain by simply resting my head against a lamppost with unaided eyes.

The SE has slower objectives than the EII, even more so when stopped down to 30mm.
I don't know the focal ratio of the Habicht or if it is slower than the EII.

Some modern binoculars, medium to low price, are described as 'High Resolution'.
They are anything but that, as many old binoculars easily outresolve them.

Personally, I don't wear glasses when using binoculars, as I don't need them with binoculars.
I need them without binoculars.
The glasses are imperfect in one way or another.

As to a lack of ghost images, nothing comes close to my unaided eyes, as I get no ghost images with them, only glare from enormously bright lights such as car headlamps pointing at me.

henry link said:

Hi David,

I had to look back at that 2005 review to confirm that I had really measured 4" for those two binoculars. I don't think that was accurate and I'm going to pass along the blame to the odd "Sky & Telescope" resolution chart I used at the time. It was a fan shaped affair that always left some doubt about where the increasingly fine lines at the small end finally grayed out.

As it happens I've just recently re-measured the SE and EII from that review along with two versions of the Swarovski 8x30 Habicht, this time using an Edmund glass slide of the USAF 1951 chart. The results were no surprise since I've used that slide to measure the SE, EII and one of the Habichts a few other times.

The two Habichts are quite consistent over the four telescopes as to aberrations in a star test and resolving power, about 4.5" (135/D). The EII is not quite as good, around 4.75" (142/D). In this group the SE has the lowest spherical aberration and highest resolution, about 4" when stopped down to 30mm (120/D). I haven't gotten around to doing 20mm stopped down resolution measurements, but I'm sure they will all be bunched up closer.

Henry

Click to expand...

Henry,

Many thanks for the update. I know you have posted a number of very good results for various Nikon poros over the years and was a bit of a surprised that the 2005 post came out top of my search list for the 8x30. Perhaps not quite perfect afterall, but 4.5" and 4.75" are really very good and might be typical for a modern (post 2006) alpha x42 I've been informed. I look forward to seeing the 20mm results.

David

henry link said:

Hi David,

I had to look back at that 2005 review to confirm that I had really measured 4" for those two binoculars. I don't think that was accurate and I'm going to pass along the blame to the odd "Sky & Telescope" resolution chart I used at the time. It was a fan shaped affair that always left some doubt about where the increasingly fine lines at the small end finally grayed out.

As it happens I've just recently re-measured the SE and EII from that review along with two versions of the Swarovski 8x30 Habicht, this time using an Edmund glass slide of the USAF 1951 chart. The results were no surprise since I've used that slide to measure the SE, EII and one of the Habichts a few other times.

The two Habichts are quite consistent over the four telescopes as to aberrations in a star test and resolving power, about 4.5" (135/D). The EII is not quite as good, around 4.75" (142/D). In this group the SE has the lowest spherical aberration and highest resolution, about 4" when stopped down to 30mm (120/D). I haven't gotten around to doing 20mm stopped down resolution measurements, but I'm sure they will all be bunched up closer.

Henry

Click to expand...

I don't really believe your resolution numbers. I have really good vision and I definitely see more detail with the Habicht than the SE. Especially fine detail on-axis. The SE has better edge sharpness but it also has a smaller FOV than the Habicht. The SE is dark and reddish to me also compared to the Habicht probably due to the differences in light transmission.

I don't really believe your resolution numbers.

Click to expand...

The procedure involves Henry's instrument-aided acuity. Assuming his acuity remains constant, the numbers reflect the relative resolutions of the instruments. Under the same test conditions, you or I might get different numbers, although the order would probably remain the same. That's what I believe.

I have really good vision and I definitely see more detail with the Habicht than the SE. Especially fine detail on-axis.

Click to expand...

That's what you believe in the perceptual domain. No standard chart was used, and no one else has any basis for knowing what you consider to be 'seeing fine detail.'

The SE has better edge sharpness but it also has a smaller FOV than the Habicht.

Click to expand...

Whatever "better" refers to, the edge of the Habicht is further from the center than the SE's. The statement, therefore, is meaningless unless this is corrected. A way to do it would be to mask the Habicht's FOV to match the SE's, and then make comparisons.

The SE is dark and reddish to me also compared to the Habicht probably due to the differences in light transmission.

Click to expand...

True, keeping in mind that the shape of the distribution controls color contrast of the image.

Henry is referencing the image domain; you are referencing the perceptual domain. Unfortunately, there isn't a psycho-physical function that maps directly from one to the other. In the past I've owned both instruments, but did not come away with the same perceptions you have. Be that as it may, I for one have no basis for questioning the validity of Henry's relative resolution measurements.

Ed

A few years ago I bought a £17/$25 10x42 roof. It had been recommended as a bargain by a couple of people on the forum and curiosity got the better of me. At a pinch it's surprisingly usable but unsurprisingly, colour, brightness, contrast etc. are not very good. It also has the worst resolution and more importantly effective resolution of any binocular I've tested by some margin. It might supprise some, but someone with 20/20 vision will see as much detail with this horror as an Habicht, SE or anything else. However they might notice deficiencies in other characteristics including perceived sharpness though.

David

elkcub said:

The procedure involves Henry's instrument-aided acuity. Assuming his acuity remains constant, the numbers reflect the relative resolutions of the instruments. Under the same test conditions, you or I might get different numbers, although the order would probably remain the same. That's what I believe.



That's what you believe in the perceptual domain. No standard chart was used, and no one else has any basis for knowing what you consider to be 'seeing fine detail.'



Whatever "better" refers to, the edge of the Habicht is further from the center than the SE's. The statement, therefore, is meaningless unless this is corrected. The way to do it would be to mask the Habicht's FOV to match the SE's, and then make comparisons.



True, keeping in mind that the shape of the distribution controls color contrast of the image.

Henry is referencing the image domain; you are referencing the perceptual domain. Unfortunately, there isn't a psycho-physical function that maps directly from one to the other. In the past I've owned both instruments, but did not come away with the same perceptions you have. Be that as it may, I for one have no basis for questioning the validity of Henry's relative resolution measurements.

Ed

Click to expand...

Henry, to his credit, also stated that his original tests were erroneous.

I'll readily admit that my findings about binoculars mostly end at the exit pupil. I'm happy to leave it to others to explain why individuals see or fail to see things which are there in the performance of the instrument.

Why did Dennis fail to see all the detail provided by a properly functioning SE? Maybe an undiscovered defect in the optics of that particular SE or miscollimation or poorly adjusted diopter correction or maybe he just wasn't careful enough.

henry link said:

I'll readily admit that my findings about binoculars mostly end at the exit pupil. I'm happy to leave it to others to explain why individuals see or fail to see things which are there in the performance of the instrument.

Why did Dennis fail to see all the detail provided by a properly functioning SE? Maybe an undiscovered defect in the optics of that particular SE or miscollimation or poorly adjusted diopter correction or maybe he just wasn't careful enough.

Click to expand...

No, everything was properly adjusted on all the binoculars. I just see more fine detail in the Habicht 8x30 W than I do in either the Nikon 8x32 SE or 8x30 EII. I realize the SE is a very sharp binocular but for some reason I can pick up more detail in the Habicht. It is little things like pine needles, dust on cars, spider webs. Anything really small and intricate. Maybe it has something to with the transmission, or neutral color or contrast. Maybe it is just my eyes. Anybody else see more detail in the Habicht that have compared them? I have had several SE's so I don't think it was a defective binocular either.

There is a whole lot more to viewing than a simple resolution chart can explain. What about using various levels of faded resolution charts, on various angles, in odd lighting or the shade? What if we replaced printed lines with translucent web at various spacing?

The Simple Resolution chart? - useful on the most basic level, but a fairly clumsy tool imo.

It reminds me of those who scientifically measure just the distortion and loudness of hifi to ascertain and rank its excellence.

Rathaus said:

There is a whole lot more to viewing than a simple resolution chart can explain. What about using various levels of faded resolution charts, on various angles, in odd lighting or the shade? What if we replaced printed lines with translucent web at various spacing?

The Simple Resolution chart? - useful on the most basic level, but a fairly clumsy tool imo.

It reminds me of those who scientifically measure just the distortion and loudness of hifi to ascertain and rank its excellence.

Click to expand...

I agree. A simple resolution chart not describe the beautiful images the Habicht produces. As you say it goes beyond resolution. From the very first time I tried the Habicht I was wowed by it but I didn't like the tight focus or the eyecups. I have grown used to the focus and I fixed the eyecups by switching them to the bigger green GR models. I think it is the most transparent binocular I have ever looked through porro or roof. Be it the high transmission or the beautiful natural colors without any color added like the red the SE adds it goes beyond mere analytical tests. It is also one of the better porro's for up close viewing. Much better than the SE or EII. I think the porro design is similar in the SE and Habicht but the difference lies in the glass and the coatings. The Habicht probably because of it's price has better glass and coatings than the SE hence it's much better transmission and contrast. The Habicht has high end glass coupled with top Swarovski coatings in the best binocular design there ever was the simple porro and the result is probably the best optics you can buy in a birding binocular.

Rathaus said:

Henry, to his credit, also stated that his original tests were erroneous.

Click to expand...

Could be, but what I recall is that he later improved the quality (and expense I should say) of his test chart. So the original results may not have been as accurate, but the tests themselves were absolutely not "erroneous." It's a well-documented, standard, visual instrumentation procedure. What the results portend relative to subjective experience is another matter. That's in a different domain.

Ed

Rathaus said:

There is a whole lot more to viewing than a simple resolution chart can explain. What about using various levels of faded resolution charts, on various angles, in odd lighting or the shade? What if we replaced printed lines with translucent web at various spacing?

The Simple Resolution chart? - useful on the most basic level, but a fairly clumsy tool imo.

It reminds me of those who scientifically measure just the distortion and loudness of hifi to ascertain and rank its excellence.

Click to expand...

Do I detect distain for those who measure audio/optical instruments using scientific methods? For as long as I've read Henry's comments I don't recall him ever saying anything about "the view" from a subjective perspective, or that objective measurements can be used to predict overall perceived excellence.

You are correct, however, in that standardized test charts are somewhat arbitrary, altho well thought out. They serve a good purpose by giving opticians and scientists a standard frame of reference, but it's all too easy not to comprehend that grating resolution is only one form of visual capability. Wire resolution and vernier resolution are others, which yield different results. And no mention has been made of color effects, or procedural contaminants such as chromatic aberration that can lead to false positives.

Ed

It's true a resolution test only determines the ability to resolve, that is, separate close objects and is one measure of the optical accuracy. It's the same process the optician uses to test your eyesight using a letter chart, but you get the sme answer if you used lines, stars, Landolt C, Tumbling E or any of the more sophisticated analytical tools like MTF or inteferometry. If the opthalmologist tells you that you have 20/20 vision then it means that a specific light level (and sometimes contrast level) your eyes can distinguish features down to an angle of 120 arceconds. If it's 20/10 then it's 60 arcseconds. It's not the only test they do, and eye hospitals can do a whole lot more, but it's the one that really tells you how good your eyes are working. Size of letter and distance translates to an angle of view which is a limit for your eyesight.

You would hope that an 8x binocular will allow to see the limiting detail at 8 times greater distance. It cannot do better than that, but it can be worse. So for those with 20/20 vision the angle will be 120/8 = 15 arcseconds and for those with 20/10 it will 7.5". Providing the effective resolution of a binocular is better than those numbers, your eyes will limit the detail you see. A very simple comparison. Do a regular eye test with any kind of chart, and the with a binocular on a tripod, compare the result at 8 times the distance. There is a complication, if the light levels change between reading the results won't match, but otherwise with good binoculars it works every time. If the binocular effective resolution is worse than your magnified acuity, it won't. For that individual that's a bad binocular. Simple! Unfortunately your eyesight is going to be different to mine so your result or is worthless to me (and hand held just makes it a total nonsense). Why would I have the remotest interest in the result (or opinion) of someone with 20/20 vision if I had 20/10 eyesight? I would need a binocular to be twice as good. Someone with 20/10 eyesight would need a binocular to have an effective resolution better than 7.5 arcseconds not to be limiting but anything better than 15 arcseconds would be fine for 20/20.

I've tested quite a few binoculars now for effective resolution. The diffraction limit means that the best resolution possible for an optically perfect lens is around 5.8 arcseconds (20mm). The good news is that many are better than 7.5 arcsecond, though my results range from 5.84 to 14.5 arcseconds. At least if I report a value better than 7.5 arcseconds you can be sure that for everyone any limit to the detail you can see will be down to eyesight.

We have yet to see Henry's effective resolution (20mm stopped down) results are for the Habicht, EII and SE. The last x32 I tested was a fairly cheap Hawke Frontier ED. The full aperture resolution was 5.8" which looks pretty abysmal compared to Henry's results of 4.75" or better. However the effective resolution of 6.8" which should keep everyone happy. For comparison, Tobias Mennie told me the best he got in his mega-shootout with the alphas was 6.6".

I've already said that there are many aspects that contribute to the quality of the view so perceptions are likely to differ according to who, where and when the comparison was made. I've only compared the Habicht and EII briefly on a hot sunny day. I could see absolutely no difference in detail as I would expect for binoculars of this quality (and my eyesight is very good). However the glare made the view through the Habicht look rather washed out and the contrast suffered. The EII looked perceptually sharper under those conditions. A different time and place and I quite accept the results might be reversed. But the effective resolution won't change.

David

David,

I found this readable and comprehensible, putting resolution into context. Thank you

Nicely put, David. :t:

Ed

elkcub said:

Do I detect distain for those who measure audio/optical instruments using scientific methods?

Ed

Click to expand...

Somewhat yes...I have mixed feelings, but it does have its place. I believe in trusting your eyes and ears, so long as you have them functioning as well as they can.

unlike vision impairment, hearing loss isn't usually rectified gradually...its usually dealt with in one hit once it is really quite degraded. Listening to hi end hifi piped through to your ears via hearing aids is a slightly bizarre concept to me, but many do it, and many (young folk with hearing loss) persevere without hearing aids listening (unknowingly) to terribly shrill and bright systems to compensate for their hearing curve. The main thing is that they enjoy it.
I have a 40yo friend who can't hear above 10,000 Hz (too many live concerts and loud headphones). He had no idea until I piped an iPhone frequency Hz app through the hifi...he sat there blissfully unaware while others writhed in pain at the various piercing hi frequencies.

elkcub said:

Do I detect distain for those who measure audio/optical instruments using scientific methods?
Ed

Click to expand...

Wow, this thread has created a long discussion, I only intended to give my personal feeling on which I have found to be the best 8x30 Porro, judged by me looking through them, For me it is the E11, no doubt in my mind. Not knocking the Habicht, but I prefer the E11, as I said , to my eye, better color depth and oustanding FOV. I dont think it's a disdain for scientific measurement, it is useful information, but more of a recognition that, unless you have scientifically constructed eyes, that match the precise specs of the instruments used, many, not all, but many, of the minute differences they find are not noticeable to most people, and probably more so for oldies like me.

I think they are both nice and one would have to try them both personally in order to decide ones preference..though I do like the waterproof claim of the Habicht........but what would I know ,,I still listen to 70s vintage Marantz....

Bencw said:

Wow, this thread has created a long discussion, I only intended to give my personal feeling on which I have found to be the best 8x30 Porro, judged by me looking through them, For me it is the E11, no doubt in my mind. Not knocking the Habict, but I prefer the E11, as I said , to my eye, better color depth and oustanding FOV. I dont think it's a disdain for scientific measurement, it is useful information, but more of a recognition that, unless you have scientifically constructed eyes, that match the precise specs of the instruments used, many, not all, but many, of the minute differences they find are not noticeable to most people, and probably more so for oldies like me.

Click to expand...

Rathaus and Bencw,

One's eyes and ears obviously put limits what can ultimately be seen or heard, but instrument performance determines what signals the sensory organs are given in the first place. Personally, I don't think enough emphasis is given to the issue of what's "necessary and sufficient," since better optics can and do perform beyond any human's needs. But once that criterion is met, does it really matter which instrument exceeds the criterion more?

Ed