GT
All addictions are hard to stop
I prefer the Zeiss view because both subtle tones and detail are there. You prefer the punchy high-contrast view. This is why ranking binoculars doesn't make sense: we all have different preferences.
Lee
-
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 SF and HT in latest Norwegian test10x (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter filipek
- Start date
GT
All addictions are hard to stop
I prefer the Zeiss view because both subtle tones and detail are there. You prefer the punchy high-contrast view. This is why ranking binoculars doesn't make sense: we all have different preferences.
Lee
GLOBETROTTER
Well-known member
GT
All addictions are hard to stop
I prefer the Zeiss view because both subtle tones and detail are there. You prefer the punchy high-contrast view. This is why ranking binoculars doesn't make sense: we all have different preferences.
Lee
And thats the reason that everybody adjust different settings on his TV for color and contrast
I share the SF 8X42, 10X42 SV and 10x50 ultravid plus with my father and brother and everytime when we go out we discuss about binoculars........
Now we don't use to go out together.....
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
GT
All addictions are hard to stop
I prefer the Zeiss view because both subtle tones and detail are there. You prefer the punchy high-contrast view. This is why ranking binoculars doesn't make sense: we all have different preferences.
Lee
Lee, you mention the ''Zeiss'' view as being low contrast. My HT's have some of the highest contrast of any bin I have used - micro and macro. This is part of what gives the lively and dynamic images that seem to jump out of the background. Are you saying your HT's have low contrast or just the SF's? I don't recall you ever mentioning lower contrast when discussing your HT.
Do you see big differences in contrast between the two?
Hya James
You are reading between the lines there James and not what I posted. I didn't actually say the Zeiss view is low contrast but I did refer to other views as being higher contrast than Zeiss.
Do you remember me saying that my wife's Ultravids don't separate so many different tones of browns/golds/reds on Scottish autumn hillsides as my HTs? In the past I put this down to some attribute of colour transmission but actually I am now convinced its because the Ultravid (and btw Swaro's EL) has higher contrast. Through the U'vids the autumn scene at first looks very alive and rich but look closer and some darker tones are merged together and the same for some lighter tones too.
To my eyes the Zeiss view has quite enough contrast thank you and while other views may make road signs (and dvd cases
) easier to read and give an illusion of greater sharpness, I prefer to see the full range of subtle tones on bird plumage, mammal pellage and vegetation. BTW folks when I say 'illusion of greater sharpness' I am not saying Leica or Swaro aren't really sharp because of course they are, but I am saying that the greater contrast can make them appear sharper than they really are.So to answer your question: HT and SF have the right amount of contrast to my eyes and some other views seem a bit overly contrasted, almost 'photoshopped', but its not a case of right or wrong, just my personal preference.
Lee
Last edited:
GLOBETROTTER
Well-known member
Hya James
You are reading between the lines there James and not what I posted. I didn't actually say the Zeiss view is low contrast but I did refer to other views as being higher contrast than Zeiss.
Do you remember me saying that my wife's Ultravids don't separate so many different tones of browns/golds/reds on Scottish autumn hillsides as my HTs? In the past I put this down to some attribute of colour transmission but actually I am now convinced its because the Ultravid (and btw Swaro's EL) has higher contrast. Through the U'vids the autumn scene at first looks very alive and rich but look closer and some darker tones are merged together and the same for some lighter tones too.
To my eyes the Zeiss view has quite enough contrast thank you and while other views may make road signs (and dvd cases
So to answer your question: HT and SF have the right amount of contrast to my eyes and some other views seem a bit overly contrasted, almost 'photoshopped', but its not a case of right or wrong, just my personal preference.
Lee
Very very interesting.....but did you notice this difference HT vs Ultravid during a bright sunny day or overcast day ?
Hi GT
In both bright and overcast days and it applies to both SF and HT.
And also to Swaro EL as well as Uvid.
Both a valid optical choices and its nice that we have such different choices available.
Lee
henry link
Well-known member
I guess I'm going to have to introduce a contrarian view about contrast. I can't think of any mechanism that could cause visual optics to have too much contrast (except in a special case I'll describe later). Even the highest contrast binoculars never have contrast equal to the scene being viewed because aberrations and light scattering in the optics always transfer some photons from the bright areas where they are supposed to be into the dark areas, where they become a thin fog of non image forming light. Unlike electronic displays, there is no way to dial up the bright areas while simultaneously dialing down the dark areas to create an exaggerated appearance of high contrast.
The only limited way I can see to introduce any sort of false contrast in visual optics is to manipulate the spectral curve so that wavelengths of one color are transmitted at a much higher level than the wavelengths of another color, in other words employ a color filter. The transmission might be 95% at 650 nm (red), for instance, compared to 70% at 450 nm (blue). That would be the equivalent of a mild red filter and would create a false increase in contrast between red and blue objects, but only in one direction. If a red object is inherently brighter than a blue object the contrast would be artificially increased, but if a blue object is brighter than a red object the contrast would be artificially suppressed. In any case the image would have an obviously red bias.
I can't explain reports of subtle color tones being better presented by Zeiss binoculars, but I don't think it has anything to do with other binoculars having too much contrast.
The only limited way I can see to introduce any sort of false contrast in visual optics is to manipulate the spectral curve so that wavelengths of one color are transmitted at a much higher level than the wavelengths of another color, in other words employ a color filter. The transmission might be 95% at 650 nm (red), for instance, compared to 70% at 450 nm (blue). That would be the equivalent of a mild red filter and would create a false increase in contrast between red and blue objects, but only in one direction. If a red object is inherently brighter than a blue object the contrast would be artificially increased, but if a blue object is brighter than a red object the contrast would be artificially suppressed. In any case the image would have an obviously red bias.
I can't explain reports of subtle color tones being better presented by Zeiss binoculars, but I don't think it has anything to do with other binoculars having too much contrast.
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
higher transmission of green-yellow (i.e. filtering away blue) will probably increase the perceived brightness and contrast, just like in glasses:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10701805
"The detriment in color vision caused by yellow-colored lenses enhances contrast when viewing bright objects against a blue-based background, such as the sky. Contrast of overlying objects is enhanced is due to the selective reduction of short-wavelength light by the yellow lenses."
dynamic range will probably increase with transmission, but is the differences big enough to be relevant in bright light? I doubt it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10701805
"The detriment in color vision caused by yellow-colored lenses enhances contrast when viewing bright objects against a blue-based background, such as the sky. Contrast of overlying objects is enhanced is due to the selective reduction of short-wavelength light by the yellow lenses."
dynamic range will probably increase with transmission, but is the differences big enough to be relevant in bright light? I doubt it.
Henry and James
Thanks for your intervention Henry, looks like I was talking out of the back of my pants ascribing Zeiss's extra tones to excessive contrast elsewhere. Thanks for not putting it as brutally as that Henry:t:.
Looks like the explanation might be down to coatings and colour transmission then.
I'll have to look up what Binomania has said about this (as referred to by Globetrotter).
Lee
henry link
Well-known member
Ha! Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I must have been feeling angelic, not a characteristic for which I am known.
But if you can't explain the separation of tones that I see (and apparently Binomania also reports) then I am more than struggling too.
I continue to have higher hit rate through my HTs and SFs at spotting dark brown otters amongst dark brown seaweed than Troubadoris through her Uvids which to me make most dark brown seaweeds one dark tone along with any lurking Otters. It seems to me this corroborates my impression of better tone separation.
Is it possible that there is an optimum level of contrast that allows this separation rather than my perhaps crude explanation of other models having simply too much contrast? Or is it just a case of T* being a bit more clever than I thought?
Lee
LanceSaintPaul
Member
Better tonal separation, micro-contrast, dynamic range. This is where the money is. Lee's experience demonstrates the value in these differences. There may be some semantic confusion as to what to call it & what it is that produces it, but in these borderline situations, on the edges of readability is where the subtle important distinctions we attempt to verbalize are shown & value assessed between products, manufacturers. Our perceptual systems are each unique & we may prefer certain kinds of inputs, if you will; that is, they are personal, subjective. And here only the anecdotal matters - as in, to each his own.
If I cheer for your input it sounds a bit like patting myself on the back.
But since Henry has been egging me on (he must be having a quiet day) then YAY! Lance! Well said :king:
Lee
looksharp65
Well-known member
Using the human vision for reference will never allow for the degree of accuracy needed to determine fine differences between instruments.
But since the instruments in questions are meant to be used by humans, and the differences at times may be coarse enough to detect with the eyes, I'm fine with that.
But I'm not fine with not using the same set of reference eyes when comparing two binoculars. The correct way to perform that test would be to swap binoculars with her and compare the hit rates.
//L
LanceSaintPaul
Member
"But I'm not fine with not using the same set of reference eyes when comparing two binoculars. The correct way to perform that test would be to swap binoculars with her and compare the hit rates."
Agreed! That fine point occurred to me only after I went out to the back yard to do some observing myself.
So Lee, do you ever mix it up that way? OR are you & your wife so familiar with each other's perceptions that you can make a reasonable guess based on what you know of the way she finds things? That could be enough for you to feel confident in making a conclusion for yourself about this.
Agreed! That fine point occurred to me only after I went out to the back yard to do some observing myself.
So Lee, do you ever mix it up that way? OR are you & your wife so familiar with each other's perceptions that you can make a reasonable guess based on what you know of the way she finds things? That could be enough for you to feel confident in making a conclusion for yourself about this.
perterra
Well-known member
I see red, my wife sees orange. Could be more about eyes than optics. I had a bro-inlaw who could pick out eagles with his eyes faster than I with optics, familiarity I guess. Many explanations.
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Henry, thank goodness you have finally put all this bunkum from the apologists about Zeiss contrast /resolution to bed! :t: :gn:
It started with the x54 HT's, and continues on with the x42 SF's, and the willingness of the faithful and the flag bearers to swallow :eat: and trot out (*smacks head rolls eyes smilie*) whatever spin the expensive marketing department decides to dish out. :scribe:
There is no doubt Zeiss makes some fine glass, but fair suck of the sav ('bois) ..... enough of the gushing already! :storm: ..... lest we start to think we should be looking for moles as well as feather detail amongst the birds, and odd otter! :cat:
David (Typo) has said before that the Zeiss "explanation" of maximizing "coarse" contrast at the expense of fine detail resolution in the x54 is baffling, and I agree -- it just doesn't ring true. Never in my life have I ever seen an MTF (Modular Transfer Function) chart where the coarse contrast curve lies above the fine resolution curve. Never! The claims of the SF offering superior subtle tones or whatever, from lower contrast are similar fluff! For a great explanation of MTF curves, resolution, contrast, and sharpness etc, see here: https://photographylife.com/how-to-read-mtf-charts
Everybody's eyes are different, and all viewing conditions are different, though broadly, we are all genetically human and function largely the same, and are living on the same planet at the same time. Your eye may just happen to be stopped down (effectively increasing the f number) at a particular time, giving a better view through the same bin than at other times, .... or not, etc, etc. However if one MTF chart is superior to another, and corresponding sets of other optical design compromises (distortion, longitudinal CA, transmission, colour balance, Fov, ER, and flare control etc,) are better than another, then there is no arguement -- one is better than the other -- no matter what rose coloured spin you might like to gloss over it with.
Higher contrast, "dynamic range", and resolution will yield greater sharpness, acutance, detail, and subtlety.
Given that the human eyeball and brain form part of the viewing system, and as Lance, LS, and Perterra have said, introduce their own peculiarities, I may begrudgingly acknowledge that this could account for reported views, provided nothing more than unbridled enthusiasm is at play ..... I know that as an afternoon draws to a close that one of my eyes has a distinct blue-green color cast when looking through bins, the other a golden brownish-orange ...... WooHoo!! my own inbuilt contrast enhancement mechanism (ICEM) |
|All we really want from manufacturers is as close as possible to the 100% view coming in, made in a technologically advanced lightweight, ergonomic, quality, value for money package. Put your money into that Z, S, L, N, C, others, and for gawd sakes save on all the marketing bunkum, fluff, and fan boi BS ....... Thanks! :t:
Chosun :gh:
CJ
The claims of subtle tone reproduction are nothing to do with the 'faithful' sucking up marketing fluff (AFAIK Zeiss have never claimed this), they are just from me (and according to Globetrotter, from Binomania too) trying to make sense of what I see, and almost certainly making a poor job of it.
Maybe its a case of my eyeballs and brain making the difference.
I am going to try an experiment with Troubadoris and myself both using Terra ED 8x32s for a couple of days and see what our strike rate is when using the same model bins.
In the meantime do try to remember that unbridled sarcasm is about as useful as unbridled enthusiasm
Leo
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Lee! :eek!: If I had a trusty sarcasm steed she would be under firm reign ......
Nooooooo, what you see is Just me performing my usual community service and backing the side with the facts on it ..... did you read that article I linked? Not to give too much away, but there's a handy little ah-ha! surprise in there ........ :cat:
As far as the Terra x32ED idea goes ........ Arrrrghhhh! and Egad!!! There's no need to go that far! We don't expect you to slum it!!
As LS, and Lance suggested, Just swap bins with TDoris - you could do worse than the Leica's :king:
Chosun :gh:
Nooooooo, what you see is Just me performing my usual community service and backing the side with the facts on it ..... did you read that article I linked? Not to give too much away, but there's a handy little ah-ha! surprise in there ........ :cat:
As far as the Terra x32ED idea goes ........ Arrrrghhhh! and Egad!!! There's no need to go that far! We don't expect you to slum it!!
As LS, and Lance suggested, Just swap bins with TDoris - you could do worse than the Leica's :king:
Chosun :gh:
Lee! :eek!: If I had a trusty sarcasm steed she would be under firm reign ......
Nooooooo, what you see is Just me performing my usual community service and backing the side with the facts on it ..... did you read that article I linked? Not to give too much away, but there's a handy little ah-ha! surprise in there ........ :cat:
As far as the Terra x32ED idea goes ........ Arrrrghhhh! and Egad!!! There's no need to go that far! We don't expect you to slum it!!
As LS, and Lance suggested, Just swap bins with TDoris - you could do worse than the Leica's :king:
Chosun :gh:
LOL. You may not have meant this but your sarcasm steed is certainly not trusty. :-O
No I haven't read the article yet but I will certainly do this. In fact I might do it today if the present gale and lashing rain doesn't ease off.
Troubadoris hates carrying and handling 42s so we will give it a go with us both using the little Terras which BTW are fun. There are super low tides over the next few days so we will be indulging in precarious rock and seaweed clambering and the Terra 32s will be our choice for this from now onward so we don't risk our pricier instruments.
If the strike rate of otter spotting and other stuff remains the same then I shall have to admit its not down to the bins but to other factors, most likely eye/brain related.
Leo
