• 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.

New Product To Be Launched 4-Mar-2016 (1 Viewer)

I'm pretty sure thóugh that Swarovski will update the coatings in the Habicht range whenever there's a change. Doesn't make sense not to do so, in fact, it would probably be more expensive to keep on making the Habicht with "old" coatings.

As to none of the leading manufacturers making a new porro at some stage .... Well, I'm not so sure. From talking to people from those manufacturers I got the distinct impression that they do know that porros will always have advantages over roofs when it comes to optical quality.

And traditional porros also have distinct advantages when it comes to reliability. There are simply fewer things that can go wrong.



Hermann


Yeah, but can they charge $2500 for a new porro? Maybe, but no one would buy them....to the general public, roofs look sleek and modern - porro's clunky and distinctly old-fashioned.

I really can't see any rationale for Zeiss / Swaro et al to build a new uber-porro, now that roofs are as good optically, are completely water and dust resistant, work in all temperatures, are compact, extremely rugged and [generally] accepted by the buying public as superior in most ways. It would have to be more a labour of love than an economic decision, IMO.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure thóugh that Swarovski will update the coatings in the Habicht range whenever there's a change. Doesn't make sense not to do so, in fact, it would probably be more expensive to keep on making the Habicht with "old" coatings.

As to none of the leading manufacturers making a new porro at some stage .... Well, I'm not so sure. From talking to people from those manufacturers I got the distinct impression that they do know that porros will always have advantages over roofs when it comes to optical quality.

And traditional porros also have distinct advantages when it comes to reliability. There are simply fewer things that can go wrong.

Hermann

Hermann

I wouldn't disagree with any of that except that you could say the same about 7x binoculars and all the people from alpha manufacturers I have talked to say the same thing: 'everybody loves them but nobody buys them'. Good old Leica persists with their 7x roof and long may they do so but I don't see Zeiss or Swaro joining them.

Lee
 
As to none of the leading manufacturers making a new porro at some stage .... Well, I'm not so sure. From talking to people from those manufacturers I got the distinct impression that they do know that porros will always have advantages over roofs when it comes to optical quality.

And traditional porros also have distinct advantages when it comes to reliability. There are simply fewer things that can go wrong.

Hermann

Afaik, the Canon IS line of stabilized binoculars is the only modern porro design extant. There is surely a reason why Canon opted for a porro rather than a roof. Perhaps stabilization does not fit into a roof configuration. If so, porros may yet have a resurgence.

Separately, the reliability of porros has not been impressive at least in my limited experience. Over the years, the roofs I got from Ebay were generally ok, whereas a third or more of the porros were dirty inside or misaligned.
 
The very first Canon IS binocular (15x45) did use a roof prism. I think the Porro Type 2 they've used since is probably easier to work with. I doesn't intrude into the area occupied by the IS prism as much as a roof, or a Porro Type 1 would.
 
Hi Henry,
I didn't know that the 15x45 IS used roof prisms. I have never used one.
I have noticed, though, that they seem to have problems secondhand. Maybe age, first edition or roof prisms or a bit of each.

Doesn't Zeiss make Porros if you order one?
 
The new Swarovski "product" is now known to the public (it was known to me before its official release and I informed you guys of what it is about two weeks ago here in this thread). So, no new binoculars or spotting scopes this year. May be next year or in 2-3 years in the future. But, seriously, what do we expect to improve in the "new" binoculars to come from Swarovski? or from Zeiss? The image quality "for human visual use" is already superb. To me, any premium binoculars from late 90s on wards are quite satisfactory. I don't think it really matters if we add 2 degree more apparent field of view or 2% more transmission or 1/4 turn more or less turn in the focusing knob...

I joined bird forum in 2004. At that time, I lived in Toronto, Canada and loved the joy of owning and looking through my Swarovski or Zeiss binoculars. 12 years have passed and now I live in California ;) I still love my superb Zeiss, Leica, Nikon and Swarovski binoculars from late 2000s. I attend SHOT Show where new sporting optics are introduced almost every year but going to Zeiss or Swarovski booth doesn't make me excited anymore. My observation is that the premium binoculars have reached their performance apex in terms of image quality, resolution, etc. If binoculars and spotting scopes are to be improved, the improvement should be related to a different aspect.

Being a researcher and engineer, I kept thinking how we could make our beloved optics better and around 2007, I made my first "optics" invention! Since then I have made a few more "real" and "useful" improvements to sporting optics. If you care about creating "better" binoculars or spotting scopes (such as one that you don't need to put your eyes right on its exit pupil!), feel free to contact me. I would appreciate any help, advice or thoughts on how make/license/commercialize these new inventions. If you also want to join hands and invest, I welcome that too.

You can reach me via a private message here on the forum or via direct email : omid.jahromi 'AT' gmail DOT com

Sincerely,
Dr. Omid Jahromi
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 8 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