Gijs and Ron
I am not sure either but AFAIK the first S-P Zeiss was the 1964 8x30B Dialyt.
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.
Leica Trinovid 10x50 BA (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Omid
- Start date
Gijs and Ron
I am not sure either but AFAIK the first S-P Zeiss was the 1964 8x30B Dialyt.
Lee
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
I am fairly sure that the 7, 8 and 10x42 Trinovid Ultra BA were introduced in 1990. The x32 and x50 came later.
I think the BN versions were released in 2001.
The Ultravids showed up in early 2004, I think, because I got one soon after their release.
--AP
Last edited:
Omid
Well-known member
Thank you for the information Ron! I agree that Leica reached the summit by introducing the BA. The brochure says that Leica 10X50 BA focuses to as close as 4.8m. The BN focuses to 3.35m. As a hunter I couldn't care less.
Thank you Alex, Lee and Gijs as well.
Holger Merlitz
Well-known member
Not really. According to the unified pupil formula, http://www.journalofvision.org/content/12/10/12.full, the pupils of young guys (about 20 y) exceed 5mm at an ambient luminance of about 1 cd/m^2, which is 'civil twilight', under which reading a newspaper is still possible without effort. With elder guys (60 y), this threshold moves down to about 0.07 cd/m^2, still well insight twilight conditions (night viewing conditions are covering a luminance range below 0.01 cd/m^2). Therefore, a 5mm exit pupil defines the standard for any twilight observations.
The depth of field is actually decreasing with increasing (effective) exit pupil size (the effective exit pupil being the smaller one of both: eye pupil or exit pupil).
Cheers,
Holger
I think we can compare that to the difference between resolution and magnification. Even the sharpest high end 7x bino can't compete to a budget 10x model(providing stable image). While exit pupil size rules when it comes to image brightness, magnification rules when it comes to resolution. At least at hand hold magnifications.
Still we see the high end binocular manufacturers claiming new fantastic coatings which makes the image much brighter than the predecessor and the competition. That's really a selling gimmick. The claims of 95% light transmission has been around since years, and now Zeiss claims 92 and 95% of their newest models. But as you say about the perceived brightness: we don't perceive the brightness linearly. So an improvement of 2-3%(if it's possible) likely isn't noticeable. Even a 100% light transmission would result in a marginal improvement of the perceived brightness!
Last edited:
Hermann
Well-known member
Not, it isn't. Improved transmission across a wide spectrum also improves contrast and colour reproduction.
Such claims by well-established manufacturers were pretty rare before the latest round of improvement of coatings. In fact, I can't think of any. Care to share some examples?
Go and make a comparison between a binocular with below 90% transmission and one with >93% transmission. I'd be surprised it you don't see some clearcut differences.
Hermann
Hermann,
I remember Fujinon claimed 95% light transmission several years ago, and over 90% I have read since long time among manufacturers.
Yes, you are right that increased contrast as a result of higher transmission and less reflections is to count with. Still the few percents improvement which may have been achieved the last years hardly can constitute a startling difference.
If so, a 10x42 should be significantly brighter than a 10x40 with same light transmission. I would say the added 10% is a subtle difference. Not a useless difference but still small.
About the difference between a binocular with <90 and >93% light transmission I would like to compare. Maybe you are right... I just know that an improvement of a few % is small. For example: if a certain LED flashlight with 200 lumen becomes updated with a newer more efficient emitter which puts out 220 lumen. That 10% improvement is a selling argument mainly to ignorant persons. You actually need to compare 220lm to 200lm side-by-side to even notice the difference, and it's very subtle.
But yes; when it comes to optics there are issues like contrast and color reproduction included. So it may not be exactly the same as comparing to flashlight brightnesses.
I still think that the advertising of the staggering brightness compared to the already very bright >90% predecessor is excessive. The more we approach 100% light transmission the less will be the noticeable improvement. I don't believe even a 100% light transmission should be staggering compared to the best today. If so the naked eye would be perceived as much brighter than the brightest optics...
I remember Fujinon claimed 95% light transmission several years ago, and over 90% I have read since long time among manufacturers.
Yes, you are right that increased contrast as a result of higher transmission and less reflections is to count with. Still the few percents improvement which may have been achieved the last years hardly can constitute a startling difference.
If so, a 10x42 should be significantly brighter than a 10x40 with same light transmission. I would say the added 10% is a subtle difference. Not a useless difference but still small.
About the difference between a binocular with <90 and >93% light transmission I would like to compare. Maybe you are right... I just know that an improvement of a few % is small. For example: if a certain LED flashlight with 200 lumen becomes updated with a newer more efficient emitter which puts out 220 lumen. That 10% improvement is a selling argument mainly to ignorant persons. You actually need to compare 220lm to 200lm side-by-side to even notice the difference, and it's very subtle.
But yes; when it comes to optics there are issues like contrast and color reproduction included. So it may not be exactly the same as comparing to flashlight brightnesses.
I still think that the advertising of the staggering brightness compared to the already very bright >90% predecessor is excessive. The more we approach 100% light transmission the less will be the noticeable improvement. I don't believe even a 100% light transmission should be staggering compared to the best today. If so the naked eye would be perceived as much brighter than the brightest optics...
Last edited:
Omid
Well-known member
Yes, sometimes it does. But in many occasions, such as during daylight in California where I live or when you are skiing in the Swiss Alps, you get BETTER contrast with LESS less transmission. That's why we wear "sunglasses". The specific task of sunglasses is reducing transmission
Fujinon has made that claim (more than 95% transmission) for their Polaris 7X50 FMTR-SX models. I don't know when this model was introduced though (?)
This is very easy to simulate: You can stick a small piece of paper (3 to 5mm in diameter) to one of the front lenses of your binoculars and test the brightness vs full-aperture
Attachments
Last edited:
in many occasions, such as during daylight in California where I live or when you are skiing in the Swiss Alps, you get BETTER contrast with LESS less transmission. That's why we wear "sunglasses". The specific task of sunglasses is reducing transmission
This is very true. I have a couple of pairs of polarised binoculars where the transmission is clearly reduced and the polarisation improves contrast, increases visual perception and the view can seem more ‘intense’, colours are natural and definition improved. Glare, eyestrain and visual tension are removed and distraction from nearby reflective surfaces is eliminated. My first choice for viewing in high light intensity.
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Yes, sometimes it does. But in many occasions, such as during daylight in California where I live or when you are skiing in the Swiss Alps, you get BETTER contrast with LESS less transmission. That's why we wear "sunglasses". The specific task of sunglasses is reducing transmission
Fujinon has made that claim (more than 95% transmission) for their Polaris 7X50 FMTR-SX models. I don't know when this model was introduced though (?)
This is very easy to simulate: You can stick a small piece of paper (3 to 5mm in diameter) to one of the front lenses of your binoculars and test the brightness vs full-aperture
Omid,
I trust the measures from Gijs (made by the University of Utrecht and confirmed by measures from Zeiss and Swarovski in measures of their bins) more that the marketing ads from Fujinon in this case.
The Polaris is the current FMTR-SX and it reaches 82% in 500nm; 83% in 550nm; 85% in 600nm and 90% in 650nm.
Perhaps the Fuji marketing boys mixed the reflection figure with the transmission figure
Jan
Hermann
Well-known member
But in many occasions, such as during daylight in California where I live or when you are skiing in the Swiss Alps, you get BETTER contrast with LESS less transmission. That's why we wear "sunglasses". The specific task of sunglasses is reducing transmission
Let's suppose you wear sunglasses because it's very bright outside: Which image is better - that provided by a pair of binoculars with low contrast or one with high contrast?
You believe everything manufacturers claim in their brochures? Gijs van Ginkel's analysis showed that Fuji's claim is plainly wrong.
This is very easy to simulate: You can stick a small piece of paper (3 to 5mm in diameter) to one of the front lenses of your binoculars and test the brightness vs full-aperture
Not really, as the improvement isn't just an increase in brightness, but rather improvements in contrast and colour balance.
Hermann
Omid
Well-known member
Hi Hermann,
It is reasonable to believe that technical data provided by a reputable manufacturer is correct until it is proven otherwise. If test results by Gijs have shown the opposite, then I would start to doubt the manufacture.
I wonder why Fujinon had quoted false transmission rates? They are a reputable manufacturer of marine binoculars, they don't need to use false advertising to gain market share. Anyhow, it is a crazy word, anything is possible (?)
Regarding contrast, I give in, you win!
Last edited:
mooreorless
Well-known member
I hope you don't mind I copied an old post of mine from Cloudy Nights about the Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX compared to the Nikon 10x42 SE in low light. Henry might remember this thread on Cloudy Days on Cloudy Nights. I hope this helps some. I could post a link of the whole thread if someone wants it.This is just something I did and your results might be different. I saw a difference then, not sure if I would now 7 yrs. later. To be fair I had tested both of these with just a 2 1/2 booster and got the same resolution and it could be that the Fuji might of tested better with more magnification. I think they were close enough to make this comparison ok, but what do I know.
Patrik might remember that thread, he replied a few times.
Posted 12 July 2007 - 08:32 PM
Hi Kenny "From what I hear , moore or less the whole of Europe eagerly awaits your further reports ."
You are so funny!!
Knowing that you Kenny J wanted a report on low light use of these two binoculars. I used my resolution test target in the evening about 7 different evenings. What I found is as the light level went down the Fujinon would still "see" two whole elements smaller than the Nikon 10 SE and still be able to "see" the largest element 2 and 1/2 min. later moore or less before it winked out about 9:35 PM . I had my "target" set up 25 steps away, I also found that I could still see group -1 element 5 or so when I walked up and viewed the target directly. I viewed deer in my fields in the evening comparing the Fuji and 10 SE. The Fuji had better contrast in these low light views of deer etc. and really wasn't surprised that the Fuji did better in the target low light "test".
I talked to my brother about this and he said that it really wasn't fair to compare a 10x50 against a 10x42 in this low light settings. What do you people think?
When the big dipper was pretty high in the sky, I searched out M81,M82 [also M51] and found I could see these targets better with the 10x50 Fuji , it wasn't a lot but it was there. I also had the little Leupold 6x30 Sam and I could see these two galaxies with the 6x30. I layed out a piece of plastic, put my sleeping bag on it and layed down. I rested my arms on two pillows to help hold the binoculars and enjoyed myself.
I guess this low light test is no surprise to a lot of you, but I thought it would be interesting to use test targets to see the difference for myself and with these two binoculars being optically so close it would be a good test. I wish I could of been able to have my coworker let me use my old Pentax PCF V 10x50 binocular to test to.
Regards,Steve M
To be fair I had tested both of these with just a 2 1/2 booster and got the same resolution and it could be that the Fuji might of tested better with more magnification. I think they were close enough to make this comparison ok, but what do I know.Patrik might remember that thread, he replied a few times.
Posted 12 July 2007 - 08:32 PM
Hi Kenny "From what I hear , moore or less the whole of Europe eagerly awaits your further reports ."
You are so funny!!
Knowing that you Kenny J wanted a report on low light use of these two binoculars. I used my resolution test target in the evening about 7 different evenings. What I found is as the light level went down the Fujinon would still "see" two whole elements smaller than the Nikon 10 SE and still be able to "see" the largest element 2 and 1/2 min. later moore or less before it winked out about 9:35 PM . I had my "target" set up 25 steps away, I also found that I could still see group -1 element 5 or so when I walked up and viewed the target directly. I viewed deer in my fields in the evening comparing the Fuji and 10 SE. The Fuji had better contrast in these low light views of deer etc. and really wasn't surprised that the Fuji did better in the target low light "test".
I talked to my brother about this and he said that it really wasn't fair to compare a 10x50 against a 10x42 in this low light settings. What do you people think?
When the big dipper was pretty high in the sky, I searched out M81,M82 [also M51] and found I could see these targets better with the 10x50 Fuji , it wasn't a lot but it was there. I also had the little Leupold 6x30 Sam and I could see these two galaxies with the 6x30. I layed out a piece of plastic, put my sleeping bag on it and layed down. I rested my arms on two pillows to help hold the binoculars and enjoyed myself.
I guess this low light test is no surprise to a lot of you, but I thought it would be interesting to use test targets to see the difference for myself and with these two binoculars being optically so close it would be a good test. I wish I could of been able to have my coworker let me use my old Pentax PCF V 10x50 binocular to test to.
Regards,Steve M
Last edited:
I don't necessarily believe what Fujinon claims, but I believe my eyes. The FMT-SX seems to me a mighty bright binocular, about like the Zeiss FL. I do think a somewhat objective indication of transmission is the reflectivity of coatings, and the 10x50 FMT I had was in this way every bit as good as the FL.
We were talking about the Leica BA here, which I have seen reported in the low 80% range. I love the design of the BA/BN, but the FMT-SX simply murders it on brightness.
I really respect and appreciate Gis's measurements, which, with this single exception, agree with my experiences. I can only guess he got a bad one. Look through one, and tell me it's 82%.
For what it's worth I did a careful comparison between a 10x42 SE and 10x50 FMT under excellent Colorado skies. My eyes open to about 6mm. The 10x50 won handily, if not hugely, which I attribute to its larger aperture.
Ron
We were talking about the Leica BA here, which I have seen reported in the low 80% range. I love the design of the BA/BN, but the FMT-SX simply murders it on brightness.
I really respect and appreciate Gis's measurements, which, with this single exception, agree with my experiences. I can only guess he got a bad one. Look through one, and tell me it's 82%.
For what it's worth I did a careful comparison between a 10x42 SE and 10x50 FMT under excellent Colorado skies. My eyes open to about 6mm. The 10x50 won handily, if not hugely, which I attribute to its larger aperture.
Ron
henry link
Well-known member
I hesitate to wade into this kind of debate, but I have in my possession a scrap of paper that might be considered evidence to back up Fujinon's claim. The graph is from a test of 7x50 binoculars done in 1985 (conducted by the Jet Propulsion Lab I was told at the time). Equipment and methods would certainly have been different from the current ISO standard tests, or of course, maybe the whole thing was a big lie concocted to sell a few more binoculars. I can't say for sure (I don't have any evidence to back up the evidence), but like Ron I've been impressed by the brightness of Fujinon binoculars over the years. Certainly, when I first bought a 10x70 MT-SX in 1985 it did appear to outclass everything else for light transmission.
Attachments
Last edited:
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Attachments
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
If Fujinon was achieving 95% in the 80's, how is it almost no one is achieving it today?
Did they loose the recipe for the special sauce?
Did they loose the recipe for the special sauce?
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Dear all,
As far as I know the Fujinon we investigated was new out of the box. And the data we found: that is the way it is.
We have investigated and measured many binoculars the past years and it was striking that only recently we observed very high light transmissions from 94-95% and that was in the 8x30 and 7x42 Habicht porro binoculars from Swarovski (older ones have a lower transmission) and the 8x42 Zeiss HT and 8x56 SLC Swarovski roofs with a transmission also of 95%.
We are now speaking about 2013-2014, all older binoculars we have investigated have lower light transmissions, we can not help it.
Gijs
As far as I know the Fujinon we investigated was new out of the box. And the data we found: that is the way it is.
We have investigated and measured many binoculars the past years and it was striking that only recently we observed very high light transmissions from 94-95% and that was in the 8x30 and 7x42 Habicht porro binoculars from Swarovski (older ones have a lower transmission) and the 8x42 Zeiss HT and 8x56 SLC Swarovski roofs with a transmission also of 95%.
We are now speaking about 2013-2014, all older binoculars we have investigated have lower light transmissions, we can not help it.
Gijs
Hello Gijs,
I agree about the transmission (not measured but "tested" VERY EXTENSIVELY) of my new S Habicht 10x40 and my HT 10x42. At dusk or down in the grassland and forest looking at Red Deer, Wild Boars, and other smaller mammals, until no light situation, NO ONE OF THE SEVERAL OBSERVERS, can detect ANY differences between this two binoculars. Period. I repeat, ANY!!!! There are differences in the kind of view of a Porro vs. a roof. But none about the clarity of the view in the condition described. This two binoculars were various steps above others 10x40/42 compared at the same time....
Thank you for your posts full of objective data!
PHA
I agree about the transmission (not measured but "tested" VERY EXTENSIVELY) of my new S Habicht 10x40 and my HT 10x42. At dusk or down in the grassland and forest looking at Red Deer, Wild Boars, and other smaller mammals, until no light situation, NO ONE OF THE SEVERAL OBSERVERS, can detect ANY differences between this two binoculars. Period. I repeat, ANY!!!! There are differences in the kind of view of a Porro vs. a roof. But none about the clarity of the view in the condition described. This two binoculars were various steps above others 10x40/42 compared at the same time....
Thank you for your posts full of objective data!
PHA
Similar threads
