• 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 DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Alpen Wings ED 10x25 Binos - Review (3 Viewers)

At the moment I rarely do resolution tests. Not because I don't think they are useful, but because by doing them I discovered how unreliable my eyes are. If I had the hardware to standardise the light conditions, boost the image, regulate the exit pupil, and employ MTF then I would as it reveals a lot, not only about the binoculars but also how they would behave under different conditions.

Some of the things I learned about how my eyes deceive me.

One test I did was to see if I got the same resolution result with the target at different distances as I should. To simplify the results, they switched between 12 " and 15" repeatedly. That is more than enough to rank the resolution differently if they had been different pairs. It turned out that it was caused by clouds dimming the view and therefore increasing my exit pupil. I got the poorer result when the sun went in. It could have been that the smaller exit pupil meant I was using the better part of the lens as Ron and Henry suggest (and I've certainly seen), but I now have reason to believe it was my acuity changing. It gets progressively worse in poorer light, way before I realised it did.

I had a cheap 10x that I was convinced had poor resolution. Turned out stray light was the issue, reducing the contrast, the resolution was OK.

I can't measure the transmission spectrum, but I've noticed pairs with more blue in the appear brighter to me but seem to have lower resolution than those with a warmer balance. Nonsense!

In poor light I've confused the acuity drop with the scotopic switch for poor resolution.

I could go on. The point is that now I've figured out some of the false information my eyes and brain are telling me, in normal hand held use it is very rare above a fairly low price point for me to find a pair of 8x where optical resolution is limiting in any way. However there is a bunch of other stuff which I can begin to sort between quality and preference in choosing pairs to buy. In the mean time I'll treat any ranking on resolution that is not done under lab conditions with a degree of scepticism.

Ron, I'll try to get back to some of your points when I've had more caffeine and thinking time.

David
 
At the moment I rarely do resolution tests. Not because I don't think they are useful, but because by doing them I discovered how unreliable my eyes are. If I had the hardware to standardise the light conditions, boost the image, regulate the exit pupil, and employ MTF then I would as it reveals a lot, not only about the binoculars but also how they would behave under different conditions.

Some of the things I learned about how my eyes deceive me.

One test I did was to see if I got the same resolution result with the target at different distances as I should. To simplify the results, they switched between 12 " and 15" repeatedly. That is more than enough to rank the resolution differently if they had been different pairs. It turned out that it was caused by clouds dimming the view and therefore increasing my exit pupil. I got the poorer result when the sun went in. It could have been that the smaller exit pupil meant I was using the better part of the lens as Ron and Henry suggest (and I've certainly seen), but I now have reason to believe it was my acuity changing. It gets progressively worse in poorer light, way before I realised it did.

I had a cheap 10x that I was convinced had poor resolution. Turned out stray light was the issue, reducing the contrast, the resolution was OK.

I can't measure the transmission spectrum, but I've noticed pairs with more blue in the appear brighter to me but seem to have lower resolution than those with a warmer balance. Nonsense!

In poor light I've confused the acuity drop with the scotopic switch for poor resolution.

I could go on. The point is that now I've figured out some of the false information my eyes and brain are telling me, in normal hand held use it is very rare above a fairly low price point for me to find a pair of 8x where optical resolution is limiting in any way. However there is a bunch of other stuff which I can begin to sort between quality and preference in choosing pairs to buy. In the mean time I'll treat any ranking on resolution that is not done under lab conditions with a degree of scepticism.

Ron, I'll try to get back to some of your points when I've had more caffeine and thinking time.

David

It sounds like alot of your problems are you are trying to measure resolution outside under varying lighting conditions which of course is going to affect your accuity. Resolution should be measured in as close to a lab situation as possible inside with controlled lighting and avoiding any sources of stray light. I never try to measure resolution outside.
 
Dennis
I continue to be amazed that you decided to buy the 8x20 Alpens because of your continued and repeated disdain for these mini compacts. Generally you always alert us when you are expecting a bino in, but the night before yours mysteriously arrive, you are quizzing Ron if they are any good, and joking about Brocks advice on having to order 3 pairs to get a good one.

And then yours appear and were everything you anticipated - for one minute. The only thing that surprised me about your review is that the barrels weren't mounted upside down and backwards, and the focus knob didn't fall off. But what really surprised me is that you didn't mention having to hold them away from your eyes to avoid blackouts, and rail on about what a pain these little binos are. After all, you have never failed to mention this in the past, and this is inherent to this design with their tiny occulars and small eyecups. And I am curious what cheap bino feels like, and since these look identical to the Swaros, I am wondering how solid a 9oz bino could feel.

Oh, and Amazon only sells LXL's and not HG's.

When I posted how good I thought the 8x25 Trackers were, you disagreed and told us all how bad they were. I called you out on that and said I doubted you had ever tried them - and that turned out to be be true. And then you finally bought some.

When I posted how good the 7x26 Customs were, you railed on about how bad they were. When I called you out on that and posted some of your earlier previous comments praising them, then you changed your tune to the ER problem only.

Why is it when I think about your post on trying the Alpens that I find myself going HMMMMM?

Since I have not tried the 8x20's I am somewhat disappointed by Ron's experience with the pair he received. Since reading his post I have sent him some PM's and have spent quite a bit more time comparing my 10x25 against my Nikon 8x20 LXls, both handheld and tripod mounted, and I find the pair of 10x25's in my possesion to be quite extraordinary. I had previously wondered aloud if the 8x20's might show a little softer edges and field curvature due to the wider FOV.

I found your brief review of the 8x20's to be a little suspect, and when I think back, I find your review of some others to be a little suspect too, as there doesn't seem to be much consistency, and your positions seem to change like the wind, except for some of the Alphas that have had previous verification from many others.

Tom

If you think the Alpen's look identical to the Swaro's you are lacking judgement and that one statement causes me to discount any review you do. I had to try a pair after your positive review because they sounded like a good bargain. I found them to be the typical of alot of chinese binoculars with poor quality control and nothing exceptional optically that would make me want to own them. The focus wheel for one is very poorly designed, hard to use(especially with gloves) and cheap feeling and that alone would be enough for me to return them. I would recommend to anybody in the market for a compact to pay the additional money to get a top alpha for a big increase in build quality, an increase in the quality of the optics and way longer longevity down the road and less hassle with quality problems. Has anybody had loose hinges with the Nikon LXL when they received them. I don't think so. After receiving these it really makes me wonder if the Chinese will EVER be able to engineer and manufacture a binocular equal to the top alpha's in quality. I think it will be a long time coming if ever. That doesn't really sadden me either.
 
Last edited:
It sounds like alot of your problems are you are trying to measure resolution outside under varying lighting conditions which of course is going to affect your accuity. Resolution should be measured in as close to a lab situation as possible inside with controlled lighting and avoiding any sources of stray light. I never try to measure resolution outside.

Perhaps you could post resolution measurements of your current binoculars, along with a brief description of your methods.

I'll be away from my computer for a few days.
 
Ron, I'll try to get back to some of your points when I've had more caffeine and thinking time.

David

Hi David;

Don't worry about addressing the other points too much, they are only conjecture on my part, I have no proof to support it.

I thought of a better (simpler) explanation of better resolution. Aberrations cause the loss of resolution and related contrast; loss of resolution does not cause the aberrations. Resolution is really only noticeable close to the boundary of resolvable, unreasonable whereas the causal aberration is going to be present regardless of the object size or how well resolved the image is.

I won't get into the changing acuity now, suffice it to say that I track my acuity very closely, several times a day, by some pretty elaborate means, and a range of 105 to 160" is pretty typical for me, worse first couple of hours of the day, best around mid noon-evening, about mid range late evening.

Best
 
I think just line separation is not the only factor involved. There are aberrations involved to reduce the resolution of the system. The combined factors that cause the drop in resolution can combine to create more of an impact on the image other than technical resolution on objects fully resolved.

In the case being discussed, and note that not all binoculars, even of the same make and model, are created equal. The Alpen and the LXL I used may be very loosely described as a 0.3 and 0.6 wavelength error (a relative ratio, not a measurement) optic with a ¼ wave being indistinguishable from perfect but 0.6 having noticeable differences in views. IMO, the aberration, MTF, resolution all combine to degrade the image, hence the 3 or more times resolution limit (?wag?). If we are looking at objects larger than the smallest detail, such as a group on the flat field target, 7.5 cycles/degree, or 1 minute of angle or larger, then the contrast decrease may be about 45%, combined with curvature/astigmatism (say 1.8d), combined with resolving limit (8.5”) could make a visible difference in the image. Click the left image (center one in the post) of the Alpen 8x20 and note the 3 0’clock radial, starting 1° right of center. I think you will notice a visible difference, and then compare that to the same area of the LXL image. This tube in the Alpen has a measured resolution of 8.5” ± @ 80x.

Hi Ron,

Yes I had noticed the aberration you pointed out. I'll have to revise wavelength errors.

My wife's Pentax 9x28 appears to have detectable problems as well. In bright conditions the centre of both tubes resolve reasonably beyond my acuity though the left I think is a little better than right. However the radial pattern of the field curvature appears to have a slight wobble which I rarely notice in practice. I'm speculating that one of the lenses might have a slight tilt. The resolution also appears to drop off a little, quite quickly (about one step on the USAF chart) in about 50% of the view in different sectors of each tube but then is reasonably stable 'till almost the edge. Of course a boosted test might show something more dramatic. In conditions dull enough to dilate my pupils a bit (and decrease my acuity) the performance appears to be pretty good. Presumably the resolution to acuity ratio is restored. Just enough aberration to spoil the view for me in bright conditions. I suspect many wouldn't see it. We bought the pair on a cloudy day. A lesson learnt.

David
 
Perhaps you could post resolution measurements of your current binoculars, along with a brief description of your methods.

I'll be away from my computer for a few days.

Henry
You don't have to measure resolution in arc seconds. All you have to do is inside the house set a book or newspaper or something with fine print up about 20 feet away with consistent lighting on it and see how cleary you can read the print. Similar to the method used by Better View desired in there Needs Test except they used a twenty dollar bill. I can rank 5 binoculars in about 20 minutes from best to worst. It is easy to see which one resolves better. You can easily tell that porro-prisms like the Nikon 8x32 SE will outresolve most roof prisms. Your eyes are an excellent judge of resolution. You can do all the lab tests you want and in the end it is your eyes that are looking through a binocular and deciphering the information that is being fed to your brain. My results compare very well with the Mega-Review that was just posted on Bird-Forum and I would rank those binoculars almost the same as they ranked them.
 
Last edited:
If you think the Alpen's look identical to the Swaro's you are lacking judgement and that one statement causes me to discount any review you do. I had to try a pair after your positive review because they sounded like a good bargain. I found them to be the typical of alot of chinese binoculars with poor quality control and nothing exceptional optically that would make me want to own them. The focus wheel for one is very poorly designed, hard to use(especially with gloves) and cheap feeling and that alone would be enough for me to return them. I would recommend to anybody in the market for a compact to pay the additional money to get a top alpha for a big increase in build quality, an increase in the quality of the optics and way longer longevity down the road and less hassle with quality problems. Has anybody had loose hinges with the Nikon LXL when they received them. I don't think so. After receiving these it really makes me wonder if the Chinese will EVER be able to engineer and manufacture a binocular equal to the top alpha's in quality. I think it will be a long time coming if ever. That doesn't really sadden me either.

Other than the location of the diopter adjuster, length of the eyecup flare, and the raised bump behind the Swaro focuser(which makes it harder to turn if your finger hits it), if you don't see the similarities, then I doubt you have had an Alpen in your hand.

Since I mentioned the focuser not falling off on yours, I see you have now expanded your diss to include it. Tell us all the difference between the two. On my 10x25's, my focuser is rock solid, smooth as silk with no play or hesitation, and very easy to use with the additional scalloped recesses on each side that the Swaro doesn't have. I see you decided to paraphrase my comment on the possibility of a problem with heavy gloves, but that would be true of the Swaros and LXLs as well.

As far as my reviews, aren't you the one who bought the 8x25 Trackers based on my recommendation, and then proceeded to say that other than edge/edge sharpness and brightness at twilight, that the Trackers were as good as your new SV's?? Whereas I said the Trackers were only about 80% as good as an alpha, and my review covered things like CA, glare and contrast. And you want to diss me about discouting reviews?

At least I am willing to buy and try new binos and am not merely content to buy the top, and then parrot every observation other reviewers make.

But I will agree with you on the resolution testing, as its our eyes that ultimately tell us what we are seeing. I have always used a cobbled together test chart of $1,$5 &$20 bills as well as a 1951 resolution chart and some very fine printing to do my near resolution tests. However, after looking at some of Ron's pics, I have become a little more interested in some different ways to create verifiable and repeatable testing criteria and results.

Tom
 
Other than the location of the diopter adjuster, length of the eyecup flare, and the raised bump behind the Swaro focuser(which makes it harder to turn if your finger hits it), if you don't see the similarities, then I doubt you have had an Alpen in your hand.

Since I mentioned the focuser not falling off on yours, I see you have now expanded your diss to include it. Tell us all the difference between the two. On my 10x25's, my focuser is rock solid, smooth as silk with no play or hesitation, and very easy to use with the additional scalloped recesses on each side that the Swaro doesn't have. I see you decided to paraphrase my comment on the possibility of a problem with heavy gloves, but that would be true of the Swaros and LXLs as well.

As far as my reviews, aren't you the one who bought the 8x25 Trackers based on my recommendation, and then proceeded to say that other than edge/edge sharpness and brightness at twilight, that the Trackers were as good as your new SV's?? Whereas I said the Trackers were only about 80% as good as an alpha, and my review covered things like CA, glare and contrast. And you want to diss me about discouting reviews?

At least I am willing to buy and try new binos and am not merely content to buy the top, and then parrot every observation other reviewers make.

But I will agree with you on the resolution testing, as its our eyes that ultimately tell us what we are seeing. I have always used a cobbled together test chart of $1,$5 &$20 bills as well as a 1951 resolution chart and some very fine printing to do my near resolution tests. However, after looking at some of Ron's pics, I have become a little more interested in some different ways to create verifiable and repeatable testing criteria and results.

Tom

I already returned the Alpens. If I hadn't had so many QC problems and the ER worked they probably wouldn't be bad for the money but they are still a step down from the alphas. I really haven't found a compact I love and probably never will as I have had almost all of them. I am used to the optics on the Swarovision and I keep comparing them to it which is not even fair to compare a $135.00 binocular to a $2300.00 binocular! The compacts are just so finicky. Maybe I will get an 8x32 Zeiss fl or Leica 8x32 BN. Then again they would probably not measure up either and they are not that much smaller than the Swarovision. Actually your Olympus 8x25 Tracker for the money was optically one of the best compacts I tried although they are fragile if you drop them and now I worry about the melting problem with them and I like having a FOV of 400 feet or better or it seems restrictive. Well I guess I will continue my search.
 
"Resolution should be measured in as close to a lab situation as possible inside with controlled lighting and avoiding any sources of stray light. I never try to measure resolution outside."

You don't have to measure resolution in arc seconds.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion that, contrary to your first statement above, you don't actually measure anything.
 
"Resolution should be measured in as close to a lab situation as possible inside with controlled lighting and avoiding any sources of stray light. I never try to measure resolution outside."



Thanks for confirming my suspicion that, contrary to your first statement above, you don't actually measure anything.

I compare them with my eyes Henry. Sometimes that is better than instruments. I guess you really can't call it measure but it works quite well.
 
Last edited:
I measure it with my eyes Henry. Sometimes that is better than instruments.

The one thing that has impressed me about this thread is Ron's pics and measurement of the binos, and the discussion on resolution. I now have a much better understanding of how our eyes can so easily decieve us, and as they say - a picture is worth a thousand words.

Tom

Maybe what I thought you would see is not what you think you saw.
 
And I guess if I looked at a 2x12 board and my eyes told me it looked about 12'' wide, then I should not believe it when the tape measure proves it is not actually 12".
 
I measure it with my eyes Henry. Sometimes that is better than instruments.

Eye's are fine, as long as you understand the influence your eyesight has on the measurements, but for your "measurements" to be called measurements at all they first have to be quantified in some way. A cup of flour is a measurement. The "best amount of flour I've ever seen" is not.
 
Last edited:
Eye's are fine, as long as you understand the influence your eyesight has on the measurements, but for your "measurements" to be called measurements at all they first have to be quantified in some way. A cup of flour is a measurement. The "best amount of flour I've ever seen" is not.

Let's say I compare them with my eyes. Works quite well if you understand the limitations and possible variability of your eyes.
 
Once there are critical responses to a post it's bad form to go back and edit the original to make it appear more reasonable.

I didn't really explain myself well. You seem to like to criticize all my posts if I make the smallest error and use derogatory comments like "fanboy" which I find to be tiring and humiliating. If you don't like my form don't read my posts. Let's talk about binoculars and keep it positive. It's just a waste of time to criticize every little thing everbody says. You have made plenty of mistakes in your posts that I just let pass because it does no good to point out somebodies errors all the time. The one that really made me giggle was the other day in your post on the mega- review where you say quote.

"As far as I can tell from examining cutaway diagrams and the binoculars themselves there is virtually no difference in the optical designs of the objectives. The only real difference between these binoculars is the addition of a field flattener group in the SV eyepiece. So, what could cause the SLC-HD to lose points to the SV in purely axial performance categories like "sharpness"?"

Then Ivan proved you wrong with his reply quote.

"dont think so. Is not an addition of a field flattener group, is a completely different eyepiece design.
Eye relief change a lot between the SLC HD 10x42 (16mm) and the Swarovision EL 10x42 (20mm).
Looks here:
http://www.swarovskioptik.it/upload/...[2291].jpg
and here:
http://www.swarovskioptik.it/upload/...[2314].jpg

Lens have different thickness in every group and different position.

I love how you get out of it with your response quote:
"Thanks for the links. I'm aware that the SLC-HD uses a 2-2-1 eyepiece (similar to Zeiss Leica and others)."

Excuse me but if you were aware of it why didn't you say it had a 2-2-1 eyepiece. Gimme a break! But I didn't jump all over you and criticize your response. I let it go because it does no good to criticize everybody all the time. If you can't contribute to the thread in a positive way don't waste my time and everybodies elses with this kind of baloney!
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top