A question about the Nikon Premier 8x32 Roofs (1 Viewer)

Kammerdiner said:

Brock,

Indeed I did not reach your "Conclusion." You do go on a bit.

And I can agree with it, in general. But you tend to cherry pick your facts and that's not good science.

I lean towards holism myself, although often it's just shorthand for, "Well, we haven't figured that out yet." Hence, it quickly becomes a matter of faith.

M

Click to expand...

Mark,

Who hasn’t “cherry picked” at one time or the other? Even George Washington, the father of our country!

Could your “glass house” withstand scrutiny if someone were to go back through all your old posts with a fine toothed comb?

Or since you keep eluding to religion: Let he who is without sin cast the first “cherry”.

The examples you quoted from my post about the usefulness of bench testing to uncover specific anomalies in binoculars came off the top of my head.

If I really thought long and hard about it (and realized I was going to get nitpicked again), instead of using the "veiling glare" and "waving mustache effect," I might have used an example where I did not agree with an expert’s results. Oh, wait, I did, the “brightness” of the EII vs. SE.

Sometimes the experts pick up issues first because optics companies give them samples before they introduce the bins to the public. For example, Steve Ingraham’s comment on the uncomfortable strap lugs on the original Zeiss Victory, for which Zeiss made a “fix”. OTOH, experts noted the loose focuser knob on the EDG I, but Nikon ignored them.

Other times it's the users who find anomalies before the experts (like me seeing "rolling ball" in the full sized HGs). Sometimes the experts are able to use their methods and devices to confirm a user's observations, sometimes not.

I remember one member of another forum who got his eye's examined after the resident expert said what he was seeing did not exist, according to his tests. Turns out there was nothing wrong with guy's eyes, the "anomaly" didn't come up on the expert's radar because it was perceptual.

So here was a guy who had so much "faith" in science (and the expert who represented that Weltanshuuang), he didn't believe his own eyes.

Another example. In college I had a buddy who was a classical musician. One day we were walking with some other students after seeing Beckett's "Waiting for Godot".

This was a few years after the first Earth Day, but concepts like global warming and "peak oil" were not even part of the vernacular.

We were talking about the world running out of oil and growing problems with the environment. My friend, who by coincidence is named Mark, said that "they" will find solutions, don't worry.

By "they" he meant scientists. This was 30 years ago, scientists had only an inkling about the impact of emissions on climate compared to today, and China wasn't an industrial giant so peak oil was a concern very far away. But Mark had "faith" that science would solve all our problems. If only....

Brock, founder, Fellowship of the Rolling Ball

Ah yes, the meaning of existence. That's exactly where science comes in, grasshopper. If we can get people to confirm one another's observations, it supports the illusion of reality. More than, like, if they can't. But, hey, you never know. Excuse me, I gotta go smoke some dope now.
Ron

It is hard to remember, amid the billowing clouds of Brock's essays and the constantly shifting grounds of his arguments, what this thread used to be about. I'm struck by Brock's effort to denigrate, really bury, Henry's compelling representation of relative brightness/luminosity/transmittance in three familiar instruments. I am particularly troubled by the argument that, because it was a form of scientific demonstration, it was and always will be a partial and inadequate demonstration. Henry never made such grand claims, but merely suggested using the resulting visual scales that what we believe we see might not always be what instruments can show we do see if most variables are eliminated. Was it a perfect demonstration? No, but I think it was a game-changer in how we ought to think about representing (in words and otherwise) what we think we see. The efforts to obliterate its significance are, I think, a good measure of its significance. I expect this comment, too, will invite yet another cloud of words to adjust the contrast between Brock's beliefs and any broader consensus.

David

Pileatus said:

For the record...

Newer Nikon 8X32 SE's (7381) with serial number 550nnn appear brighter than older 8X32 SE's with serial numbers 504nnn/505nnn. In a side-by-side comparison, the increased "apparent brightness" was immediately evident.
I confirmed my observation with several samples during the past year. My guess is Nikon upgraded the coatings on the 550's, resulting in a marginally brighter image.

In normal daylight I could detect no image difference. In extreme low light the 550's appeared slightly brighter, showing a bit more color and detail. The improvement, however, is almost imperceptible and would probably go unnoticed by most observers.

If Brock compared a new E2 (with the latest coatings) to an older SE his observation is probably accurate.

PS
My 504nnn SE is my primary bin. A 550nnn remains in storage. The SV waits for rain, snow and salt water.

To the original poster...
The 8.5X42 SV is the only SE-like binocular I could find. Other SE owners often say the same thing.

Click to expand...

Pileatus:

I agree fully with your post, as I also have both an older SE (504), and a 550.
When comparing the coatings to the EII, the 504, has a bluer tint
when looking at the objective lenses. The newer 550, has a more greenish
reflective look to the coatings, much like the EII, that I have.

On this thread I earlier reported my findings as you described above, the older SE, did not have as much "apparent" brightness as the EII, in very low light.

Coatings make a difference, I have also seen the increase in apparent brightness, from a 2001 Swaro. EL. to a 2009 model. I was able to
compare them side by side, easy to see more of a pop, in the newer one.

Jerry

Pileatus said:

For the record...

Newer Nikon 8X32 SE's (7381) with serial number 550nnn appear brighter than older 8X32 SE's with serial numbers 504nnn/505nnn. In a side-by-side comparison, the increased "apparent brightness" was immediately evident.
I confirmed my observation with several samples during the past year. My guess is Nikon upgraded the coatings on the 550's, resulting in a marginally brighter image.

In normal daylight I could detect no image difference. In extreme low light the 550's appeared slightly brighter, showing a bit more color and detail. The improvement, however, is almost imperceptible and would probably go unnoticed by most observers.

If Brock compared a new E2 (with the latest coatings) to an older SE his observation is probably accurate.

PS
My 504nnn SE is my primary bin. A 550nnn remains in storage. The SV waits for rain, snow and salt water.

To the original poster...
The 8.5X42 SV is the only SE-like binocular I could find. Other SE owners often say the same thing.

Click to expand...

Except that my EII is new and my SE is old (501xxx), and I'm on Henry's side.

Ron, are you the guy who planted all the pot that was found near the Las Conchas burn?

I guess I am puzzled by the apparent discrepancies in the reporting of brightness. In many different posts on many different forums, it has long been stated that the human eye cannot distinguish a 3% difference in brightness between different instruments.

If that is the case, I wonder how a minor change in coatings would increase the brightness in different binos to become so readily apparent to different users??

Tom

I'm not dismissing Henry's results, but he was dismissing mine. He said I had some 'splain' to do, so I did (at many levels).

After all that 'splain,' anyone who still thinks I'm dismissing Henry's results rather than putting them in context of the "bigger picture" either hasn't been paying attention or isn't interested in listening.

Brock

brocknroller said:

He said I had some 'splain' to do, so I did (at many levels).

Click to expand...

Fair enough! I apologize for the cranky, pre-coffee comments. I do read all your posts, although I'd repeat my comment on your signal/noise ratio.

Drizzly, gloomy day here in Mass., but after work I try to chase warblers for a bit before picking up the kids. EIIs are my only glasses, and they continually impress me with their vivid, bright views into deep foliage. Marvelous glass.

Keep the faith.

David

lilcrazy2 said:

I guess I am puzzled by the apparent discrepancies in the reporting of brightness. In many different posts on many different forums, it has long been stated that the human eye cannot distinguish a 3% difference in brightness between different instruments.

If that is the case, I wonder how a minor change in coatings would increase the brightness in different binos to become so readily apparent to different users??

Tom

Click to expand...

Not much of a puzzle once you accept that the highly adaptive "sensor" behind the eyepiece is ALWAYS the weakest link in the optical chain. Not only does vision differ markedly between individuals, it also varies within the individual through out the day and moreso over time! Astrogeeks even have a special term for "seeing" objects at the edge of visual detection, "averted imagination...err vision"!8-P

I think the only lesson that can be taken from this thread is that while objective testing can guide us as to what to expect from an optic, in the end our satisfaction relies on our own individual subjective Brockovision®.

RJM said:

Not much of a puzzle once you accept that the highly adaptive "sensor" behind the eyepiece is ALWAYS the weakest link in the optical chain. Not only does vision differ markedly between individuals, it also varies within the individual through out the day and moreso over time! Astrogeeks even have a special term for "seeing" objects at the edge of visual detection, "averted imagination...err vision"!8-P

I think the only lesson that can be taken from this thread is that while objective testing can guide us as to what to expect from an optic, in the end our satisfaction relies on our own individual subjective Brockovision®.

Click to expand...

Rick:

Not sure about the point you are trying to make here, but the
"most important" link in the optical chain is what is viewed by the user.

Jerry

I thought I saw some steam coming out of the dead horse's nostrils when I read this comparative review of the 10x42 HGL vs 10x42 SE on birdwatching.com.

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/roof_vs_porro.html

Here you have Diane and Michael Porter testing the "truism" that given equal quality, porros should be brighter than roofs, but finding that 'taint necessary so.

Note they were comparing the HG (two generations behind from the EDG in terms of AR coatings and a generation behind in prism coatings) vs. a 10x42 SE presumably made around the same time (review was written in 2000).

The results?

"Although we expected the Porros to be brighter, no one could see any difference in brightness or contrast between the two. We repeated the test on a dark, overcast day, with the same results. However, all the judges reported they saw slightly more detail through the Venturer roofs than through the Superior E Porros. In this individual case, roof bested Porro."

They then go on to give the disclaimer that this was just through one sample of each bin, and that a better test would have been comparing several samples of each.

True enough. So let's add two more samples to the test. Having compared the same models myself for a month under various lighting conditions, I came to the same conclusion. I could see more detail with the HG. Had I not been susceptible to "rolling ball," the 10x42 HG would be my preference over the 10x42 SE.

Let's run the numbers and see if these subjective observations correspond with the two bins' light transmission values.

Allbinos' light transmission numbers put the SE ahead of the HGL by 5 percent (96% vs. 91%), enough that discerning eyes should be able to see the difference in low light.

As a caveat, we know Henry doesn't adhere to Allbino's light transmission numbers, but neither he nor anyone else has published light transmission values for these bins, so this is what we have to work with.

In this particular instance, I'm a bit leery about their numbers myself since they rate the silver coated prism 10x42 HGL 2.5% higher than the dielectric coated prism 10x42 EDG.

All other things being equal (which they may not be, for example, the number of lens elements), that doesn't add up. However, Allbiinos declares a +/- 3% margin of error, so 2/5% is within that margin.

So for argument's sake, I'll accept their figures on the HGL since it still makes the point that the Porters, their fellow reviewers, and I see more detail with the roof than the porro even on overcast days.

I did differ from their observations in that I saw more contrast in the HG than I did the SE. My latest sample 10x42 SE has more contrast than the earlier sample SE I had used to compare the roof and porro so doing an A/B now with the HG vs. the 050xxx may look different, at least in terms of contrast.

However, even if I matched the HG against my latest sample SE, it wouldn't surprise me if still saw more detail with the HG since the most noticeable difference btwn the two bins was their color saturation.

The HG had more color saturation than the SE and more than any other bin I had tried at that point, and it's still up there near the top even today. It's remarkable how advanced Nikon's coatings were for their time.

Subjectively, more vivid colors translates to "more detail". I'm not sure if this also accounted for the greater detail seen with the HG by the Porters & Company, but I think it explains the difference I saw.

So again, there's a greater synergy involved in users' observations of apparent brightness and apparent resolution than what is revealed in light transmission photographs and resolution chart measurements.

That's NOT to say that "bench tests" aren't valid or useful, but rather don't expect them to always match what you see with your own two eyes.

If anyone still doubts this after all the supportive observations both on this thread and elsewhere, all I can say is take a pipe cleaner, stick it up your nostrils, and clean out the cobwebs!

David, I hope you had our dbx filter on.

Brock

Here's another comparison to add to mine and the Porters & Company above. Note this sentence in particular....

"On axis sharpness was very good for both, and after repeatedly switching back and forth among the two, I decided the contest was too close to call. I probably should pick up a chart and quantify the resolution of these binoculars, but for now they are equally fine, in my extremely humble opinion. With respect to contrast and color fidelity, the LX was clearly superior with views of the landscape appearing more deeply colored and with stronger contrast that brought out a bit more detail."

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbarchive/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/955993/page/4/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all

Brock

The "hits" just keep on coming...

Here's yet another comment on how color saturation/bias can affect one's impression of brightness and detail vs. measured values.

These comments are from our own seasoned observer Frank D. re: the new ZR ED3:

"The colder color representation certainly gives the impression of a brighter overall image. It also give the impression of slightly greater detail. Direct resolution comparisons between the ED2 and ED3 though do not reveal any measurable difference."

If you missed the start of these comparisons scroll up to post #191.

Brock

brocknroller said:

David, I hope you had our dbx filter on.

Click to expand...

8-P

David

ps how often do the Porters get cited as authorities?

I never tried the Venturers but for sure my 8 x 32 SE is brighter than my 8 x 32 LX L although my SE might be newer than my LX L as far as coatings go. They are both post Pb

Bob

ceasar said:

I never tried the Venturers but for sure my 8 x 32 SE is brighter than my 8 x 32 LX L although my SE might be newer than my LX L as far as coatings go. They are both post Pb

Bob

Click to expand...

Bob:

What is post PB ? Not sure I understand?

Jerry

You probably already know this by now, Pb, from the latin plumbum, is our element Lead.

I knew the element symbol, but I wondered the origin. Simple lookup to find it is from a scholastic language.

David Swain said:

8-P

David

ps how often do the Porters get cited as authorities?

Click to expand...

PPS: How often does Frank D. get cited as an "authority"?

I never said they were "authorities," but it doesn't surprise me that you would raise this question since you obviously have a "expert fetish".

If you really had read what I wrote, you'd get the simple idea I'm trying to put forth, which I think is very important because this scenario keeps getting repeated again and again on different threads.

Somebody makes an observation. An "expert" declares it "null and void" through some "bench test" and the bobble heads nod in agreement and dismiss the observer's comments instead of keeping an open mind and realizing that human perception is more complex and synergistic than one isolated measurement in a scientific test.

To continue to ignore people's observations because they don't agree with an expert's "data set" or what you see is hubris.

It gets frustrating, and if I was unkind to Henry, I apologize. From Ed's original post and more civil rewrite, it appears I'm not the only one who gets frustrated with this.

The point about the Porters (and the others who looked through the same samples with them, who were probably seasoned observers like the half dozen or so birders they've used for other comparisons published in Bird Watcher's Digest), is that it wasn't one person's opinion but many, and none agreed with what the "hard data" would lead them to expect.

I'm sure if I had more time, I could find dozens upon dozens of examples of seasoned observers making observations that don't mesh with what the experts say they should be seeing through their binoculars.

Ed has also lent his expertise about Brightness vs. Luminescence for those who need a scientific explanation to accept these differences.

If after all this information, you still think that people's observations are rubbish and that only expert test results count, then I suggest that you turn up your dbx to "10" and only read posts by those you consider experts and put the other 98% of us who are not on your Ignore List and filter out the "noise".

Brock

Perception is some tricky business. Look at this photograph for example. It's made of red and white pixels ONLY: clickety-click.

Question: where did the greens come from?

It's a colour version of the well-known astonishing shadow illusion.

What is dbx