Brief encounter with the Kite Lynx HD 8x30 (1 Viewer)

ceasar said:

Now we have 3 different wide field 8/10x30 Roof Prism binoculars appearing at the same time, more or less. AFAIK there were none last year and in 2011, the last one, the Swarovski 8x30 SLC was discontinued.
I wonder if these companies compare notes, or do they just spy on one another?

Click to expand...

Or they listen to their customers. Quite a few people have been asking for true wide-angle binoculars for years. Look at the love afforded here to the Nikon EII, almost exclusively because it is a (reasonably) good true wide-angle binocular.

In addition, now that the manufacturers finally managed to get the performance of their roofs at least close to the performance of well-made porros, there aren't many things they can do to make their binoculars stand out among all those dozens of roofs with fairly similar optical performance. Increasing the field of view is the most obvious thing they can do. After all, not many "normal" users are as much into splitting hairs as many of the posters here (myself included).

And from what I heard, at least one of the makers of alpha binoculars got the message as well. Interesting times.

Hermann

[email protected] said:

They must have better baffling and blackening inside then. Interesting.

Click to expand...

I was lucky enough to try a 10x30 Kite Lynx HD today. There is much to commend it - a truly wonderful binocular.

In 'smokesceen' terms, though better than my wife's M7 10x30, the Lynx HD still does throw up the dreaded bloom. It's not as pronounced as with the M7 and, if you are not tuned into the phenomenon, might not even be an issue. Unfortunately I well and truly am tuned in; I saw it looking up into a conifer and at a denuded tangle of birch twigs.

Once again, lowering the Kite and looking at the same image through my Swaro CL-P 10x25, full clarity returned.

Pity as I really like everything else about the Lynx HD and indeed still might buy one as a backup. Pondering right now. True to say if it wasn't for the (mild) smokescreen I'd happily have one of these at going on twice the price.

I also had the pleasure of a peek through a Kite Bonelli 8x42 - Truly awesome first impression. Unfortunately I only had it in my hand for a minute or two but it did stand out as optically, mechanically, and ergonomically fantastic. Definitely one to investigate further.

If my own brief encounters are representative of their range of binoculars, Kite do seem to be worthy of of short-listing in most formats and at most price points.

Very nice.

Troubador said:

... I don't think the Kite 8x30 is the same design as Nikons as the FOV and close focus are different ... Lee

Click to expand...

Gijs van Ginkel said:

... The Kite Lynx HD binoculars are certainly not of the same design as the Nikon Monarchs ... Gijs

Click to expand...

Sorry, I misremebered and thought all their "vital stats" were nearly identical.

pompadour said:

Sorry, I misremebered and thought all their "vital stats" were nearly identical.

Click to expand...

No need to apologise Pomp, but thanks anyway.

Many years ago, when anybody referred to 'vital statistics' in the UK, they were referring to certain critical dimensions relating to a lady's figure, or 'la ligne' as they say in French places.

Perhaps, Pompadour, you have been trying to memorise too many 'vital statistics' ? :eek!:

Lee

crinklystarfish said:

I was lucky enough to try a 10x30 Kite Lynx HD today. There is much to commend it - a truly wonderful binocular.

In 'smokesceen' terms, though better than my wife's M7 10x30, the Lynx HD still does throw up the dreaded bloom. It's not as pronounced as with the M7 and, if you are not tuned into the phenomenon, might not even be an issue. Unfortunately I well and truly am tuned in; I saw it looking up into a conifer and at a denuded tangle of birch twigs.

Once again, lowering the Kite and looking at the same image through my Swaro CL-P 10x25, full clarity returned.

Pity as I really like everything else about the Lynx HD and indeed still might buy one as a backup. Pondering right now. True to say if it wasn't for the (mild) smokescreen I'd happily have one of these at going on twice the price.

I also had the pleasure of a peek through a Kite Bonelli 8x42 - Truly awesome first impression. Unfortunately I only had it in my hand for a minute or two but it did stand out as optically, mechanically, and ergonomically fantastic. Definitely one to investigate further.

If my own brief encounters are representative of their range of binoculars, Kite do seem to be worthy of of short-listing in most formats and at most price points.

Very nice.

Click to expand...

That "smokescreen" you
describe on the "denuded tangle of Birch twigs" sounds like fine contrast differences to me. You had the same problem as I recall on twigs or reeds when you first described the phenomenon. My question is why don't you notice it when you are looking at other things with varied coloration. Like colored flowers, green leaves, details in birds colors, architecture and things like that. Glare should affect all these things and should only affect your binoculars when the light is in a certain position to hit your objective lens just right. If it's there all the time when you compare the binoculars it has to be something else that is causing it.

Bob

ceasar said:

That "smokescreen" you describe on the "denuded tangle of Birch twigs" sounds like fine contrast differences to me. You had the same problem as I recall on twigs or reeds when you first described the phenomenon. My question is why don't you notice it when you are looking at other things with varied coloration. Like colored flowers, green leaves, details in birds colors, architecture and things like that. Glare should affect all these things and should only affect your binoculars when the light is in a certain position to hit your objective lens just right. If it's there all the time when you compare the binoculars it has to be something else that is causing it.

Bob

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure its veiling glare that is described and, as I have mentioned previously, it may not be readily apparent unless you have a good reference binocular to do a direct comparison.

james holdsworth said:

I'm pretty sure its veiling glare that is described and, as I have mentioned previously, it may not be readily apparent unless you have a good reference binocular to do a direct comparison.

Click to expand...

I agree. I didn't notice it that much on the M7 until I compared it with the Swaro 8x25 CL-P. It was almost like their was a film over the image in the M7 and when you looked through the Swaro somebody cleaned it off. Sounds like the Kite has the same problem. I am sure it is veiling glare also.

james holdsworth said:

I'm pretty sure its veiling glare that is described and, as I have mentioned previously, it may not be readily apparent unless you have a good reference binocular to do a direct comparison.

Click to expand...

James:

I agree with you on the glare observation. It is a hard thing to
score and it depends on several things. The skill of the observer
is important.

The 8x30-32's will need a careful adjustment of the IPD to get the
best view, and another important one is if you use eyeglasses or
not.

When designing small binoculars such as the recent models mentioned,
the quest for a small size, means you may give up some things, and
one of those is the glare issue.

This is where the larger 42mm sizes may offer an advantage over the
smaller types.

Jerry

I think the discussion of Nikon vs Kite versions of this binocular would be advanced by the introduction of some hard evidence of differences in the optical formulas or internal baffling. It's really not that hard to do if you have access to both. The closest thing we've seen to that so far are the photos of the eyepiece reflections on another thread. The same kinds of photos could be made from the front ends to compare the objective designs. If there is different baffling that should be visible by examining the interiors with a magnifier and could be photographed.

Some examples that are not the kind of evidence I mean are things like the differences in the specifications for FOV and close focus, which could be explained by purely mechanical tweaks, claims of higher glass quality in marketing materials and subjective observations of differences in image quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crinklystarfish View Post at 12:41 today.


"I was lucky enough to try a 10x30 Kite Lynx HD today. There is much to commend it - a truly wonderful binocular.

In 'smokesceen' terms, though better than my wife's M7 10x30, the Lynx HD still does throw up the dreaded bloom. It's not as pronounced as with the M7 and, if you are not tuned into the phenomenon, might not even be an issue. Unfortunately I well and truly am tuned in; I saw it looking up into a conifer and at a denuded tangle of birch twigs.

Once again, lowering the Kite and looking at the same image through my Swaro CL-P 10x25, full clarity returned.

Pity as I really like everything else about the Lynx HD and indeed still might buy one as a backup. Pondering right now. True to say if it wasn't for the (mild) smokescreen I'd happily have one of these at going on twice the price.

I also had the pleasure of a peek through a Kite Bonelli 8x42 - Truly awesome first impression. Unfortunately I only had it in my hand for a minute or two but it did stand out as optically, mechanically, and ergonomically fantastic. Definitely one to investigate further.

If my own brief encounters are representative of their range of binoculars, Kite do seem to be worthy of of short-listing in most formats and at most price points.

Very nice."


Responded to by me (ceasar) at 14:48 PM


"That "smokescreen" you
describe on the "denuded tangle of Birch twigs" sounds like fine contrast differences to me. You had the same problem as I recall on twigs or reeds when you first described the phenomenon. My question is why don't you notice it when you are looking at other things with varied coloration. Like colored flowers, green leaves, details in birds colors, architecture and things like that. Glare should affect all these things and should only affect your binoculars when the light is in a certain position to hit your objective lens just right. If it's there all the time when you compare the binoculars it has to be something else that is causing it.

Bob"

-------------------------


Allow me to follow up on this please. I've placed the original discussion above for reference.

--------------------

I'm wondering if this has anything to do with the light transmission in the 400 to 500 violet range of the light spectrum and how it might affect the contrast in resolving these "denuded tangles of birch twigs."

OP is using a Swarovski 10x25CL which, if it is like many Swarovski binoculars has high transmission numbers in this range. He also used it previously in an earlier post in a different thread to compare what he saw with the Nikon M7 8x30 and that is where the origin of the term "Smoke screen glare" came from.

I did a cursory review of Allbinos transmission tests on 8x32, 8x42 and 10x42 made by both Swarovski and Nikon. It appeared that the Swarovskis peaked higher very quickly in the 400 to 500 range than did the Nikons which had steeper climbs up to their peaks around the 600 transmission range. That also seems to be the general consensus of opinion here on Bird Forum. There are exceptions to this in Nikons EDG range of binoculars but overall Nikon seems to have lower numbers in the violet end of the spectrum and higher peaks around 600.

I've noticed these "denuded tangles" of twigs like OP discusses under the canopy of the woods off my deck during winter weather and I've also noticed that some binoculars of the same power make the tangles show more detail in them than others do. Yet when I compared them on other objects, like metal identification tags on telephone poles, they appear have equal sharpness. Perhaps it's because their higher transmission in the Violet range of the visible spectrum makes the contrast among the tangles easier to see?

I haven't noticed much discussion on issues about contrast in the past so jump right in here if you have any ideas on this.

NDhunter said:

James:

I agree with you on the glare observation. It is a hard thing to
score and it depends on several things. The skill of the observer
is important.

The 8x30-32's will need a careful adjustment of the IPD to get the
best view, and another important one is if you use eyeglasses or
not.

When designing small binoculars such as the recent models mentioned,
the quest for a small size, means you may give up some things, and
one of those is the glare issue.

This is where the larger 42mm sizes may offer an advantage over the
smaller types.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Your right ND. The even bigger objectives like the Zeiss 8x56 FL offer even greater improvements over glare control. With the big 56mm I could look almost next to the sun with no glare. It is because of the bigger exit aperture.

[email protected] said:

Your right ND. The even bigger objectives like the Zeiss 8x56 FL offer even greater improvements over glare control. With the big 56mm I could look almost next to the sun with no glare. It is because of the bigger exit aperture.

Click to expand...

What is more important than the size of the exit pupil is the length of the objective tubes. Longer tubes make effective baffling far easier.

Hermann

Hermann said:

What is more important than the size of the exit pupil is the length of the objective tubes. Longer tubes make effective baffling far easier.

Hermann

Click to expand...

That makes a lot of sense.

It is way beyond my expertise to even speculate upon the cause(s) for the phenomenon referred to - probably most universally it would seem - as veiling glare.

The explanation offered here:http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2882767&postcount=76 does however seem very plausible starting point.

It describes, in the 'low light' explanation, exactly the phenomenon I'm witnessing. Not sure if objective lens size or tube length do, in themselves, offer any correlation with the problem. I recently saw the phenomenon to a very debilitating degree through a Zeiss Conquest 15x45 when I was looking to fill my 'big eyes' binocular requirement. Conversely I also own a Leica 8x20 Monovid and that controls both low-light veiling glare and near-sun flare extraordinarily well. In fact it is optically incredible - but that's another story...

Anyway, The 10x30 Kite Lynx HD threw up the veiling glare / smokescreen issue, not terribly, but it was there.

In trying to understand, I have, incidentally, tried tweaking IPD, ER, angle of bin to face etc. Some of these do, unsurprisingly, change the nature of the phenomenon but at the end of the piece part of a genuinely useful binocular's appeal is just being able to 'instinctively' bring it up to the face to capture that fleeting scene. I don't want to be having to go through a mental checklist of how to grip and position the thing before I can use it; I don't like optics that put up a struggle.

I am utterly sold on the 10x30 roof format, if anyone out there would care to make truly top-of-the-range one, I'd happily pay proper high-end cash.

NDhunter said:

When designing small binoculars such as the recent models mentioned,
the quest for a small size, means you may give up some things, and
one of those is the glare issue.

This is where the larger 42mm sizes may offer an advantage over the
smaller types.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Hermann said:

What is more important than the size of the exit pupil is the length of the objective tubes. Longer tubes make effective baffling far easier.

Hermann

Click to expand...

Thanks chaps. I don´t understand the causes of glare, and the two mid-size models I´ve used that control it best are the EII and SE (with the former a little behind the latter). The EDG 7x42 is also superb, but has larger objectives and longer tubes, as you describe. Do the EII and SE have seriously good baffling, and is that why they seem (to my eyes anyway) to control glare so well?

crinklystarfish said:

I am utterly sold on the 10x30 roof format, if anyone out there would care to make truly top-of-the-range one, I'd happily pay proper high-end cash.

Click to expand...

These might be the bins for you, starfish! In UK too.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=273022

henry link said:

differences in the specifications for FOV and close focus, which could be explained by purely mechanical tweaks

Click to expand...

Henry

Wouldn't it be nice if all manufacturers woke up one morning and decided to add this purely mechanical tweak to all their bins and give them all the 8.63 deg FOV that the kite has? :t:

Lee

The tweak I meant would be a 4% increase in the diameter of the Kite's eyepiece field stop compared to the Nikon, no change in the optics required.

henry link said:

The tweak I meant would be a 4% increase in the diameter of the Kite's eyepiece field stop compared to the Nikon, no change in the optics required.

Click to expand...

I'm showing my ignorance here (as usual) but if it was so simple Henry, how come we don't have more examples of expansive FOVs?

Lee

Lee,

Every design has its own particular set of constraints for field width. I was thinking only of the Nikon M7 vs the Kite Lynx HD where the optical designs are already nearly, if not completely, identical and the field widths are only 4% different.

Henry