New Leica HD Ultravid PLUS (1 Viewer)

Binastro · Sep 20, 2014

. Actually in some cases the horsepower of small cars is going down although the drag coefficient is also going down. The reason is to improve the mpg and trying to reduce the CO2 levels so that no tax is paid currently in the UK. This is the case with the small Citroens, Toyotas and Peugeots that are apparently almost identical although they look a bit different.

From my point of view, if they weren't so very expensive and also not available to the general public, I would get the most efficient and up-to-date image intensifying binoculars for night use.
I don't know if these yet compete in optical quality with binoculars, but you will certainly see things that are totally invisible using regular binoculars.
I would also have no problem using the digital binoculars of the future if they were available now, including of course image stabilisation.
I find it a bit strange that cameras have 50 times or now 65 times optical zoom lenses with amazing image stabilisation, yet binoculars are still sold without this.

I suppose the nearest thing to 100% transmission is a simple Galilean glass with top-quality multi-coatings.
You could probably get a genuine 99% transmission.

Troubador · Sep 20, 2014

Binastro said:
. Actually in some cases the horsepower of small cars is going down although the drag coefficient is also going down. The reason is to improve the mpg and trying to reduce the CO2 levels so that no tax is paid currently in the UK. This is the case with the small Citroens, Toyotas and Peugeots that are apparently almost identical although they look a bit different.

Hi Binastro

Well, I should have specified that I was thinking of the car equivalents of top line alpha bins. But even Toyotas Aygo with its 1.0 litre engine and 68 hp is putting out what it took a 1.2 litre a few years back. And look at Ford's 3 cylinder 1.0 litre engine with outputs of 100 hp and 120 hp. Its a miracle of an engine but if you drive it normally you get mpg figures that a smoothly driven 1.4 can equal. But thats another discussion for another place :smoke:

Lee

Binastro · Sep 20, 2014

. Hi Lee,
the 1963 mini Cooper S had a standard 70 hp from its 1071cc engine, although Downton tuned ones probably reached 100 horse power.
So there is progress in 50 years but not that much considering the advances in metallurgy, tolerances and oil technology.
My mini Cooper S averaged 20 miles per gallon (British gallons) although I drove it hard. Any emissions were probably awful.
In fact my old pre-catalytic converter Saab 900 destroyed the coating on my 20 1/2 inch Newtonian mirror which I had in the garage within one week from the telescope's being new because of the sulphur I think from the exhaust. The car was backed into the garage and the exhaust was very close to the telescope mirror.
I got it recoated and then drove the car in the other way round. I don't think they could do a protective overcoat because the mirror was too large for them. So the coating was very vulnerable.
The mini Cooper S tank was I think 5 1/2 gallons.
I'm still trying to remember whether I fitted a second tank to double the capacity of the mini Cooper S but my memory fails me.

Troubador · Sep 20, 2014

Binastro said:
. Hi Lee,
the 1963 mini Cooper S had a standard 70 hp from its 1071cc engine, although Downton tuned ones probably reached 100 horse power.
So there is progress in 50 years but not that much considering the advances in metallurgy, tolerances and oil technology.
My mini Cooper S averaged 20 miles per gallon (British gallons) although I drove it hard. Any emissions were probably awful.
In fact my old pre-catalytic converter Saab 900 destroyed the coating on my 20 1/2 inch Newtonian mirror which I had in the garage within one week from the telescope's being new because of the sulphur I think from the exhaust. The car was backed into the garage and the exhaust was very close to the telescope mirror.
I got it recoated and then drove the car in the other way round. I don't think they could do a protective overcoat because the mirror was too large for them. So the coating was very vulnerable.
The mini Cooper S tank was I think 5 1/2 gallons.
I'm still trying to remember whether I fitted a second tank to double the capacity of the mini Cooper S but my memory fails me.

By heck, those were the days:t:

And you had 70 hp from your Mini: PAH!
We had 29 from our Citroen 2CV6 :-O

Lovely car it was too and took us all over the place including Orkney.

Lee

brocknroller · Sep 21, 2014

sako said:
I can't answer your question Brock as I'm not a birder, however, as an avid hunter I can throw in my 2c worth. I can see no tangible difference in light gathering going from an HT 10x42 to an 8x32 SV. I'm sure there is a measurable difference but my eyes can't detect it.

With its higher transmission, larger objectives, and higher magnification twilight factor, on paper, the 10x42 HT should be brighter than 8x32 SVEL, and that should be most noticeable on overcast days, twilgiht, and during the winter when light levels are low, but apparently not enough to make a difference in your case.

Btw, didn't somebody debunk the twilight factor? I seem to recall something about that.

I suspect that even when the difference is 3% or even 4%, a difference the human eye/brain is able to see, most people still won't notice the difference since it's subtle.

Now, going from a Swift 828's 75% light transmission to the HT's 95% should easily be noticeable on a cloudy day or in the winter since we're now talking about a 20% difference!

Still, some 828 owners insist that their Swift doesn't look dimmer than their much higher transmission premium bins. Go figure!

Brock

SteveTS · Sep 21, 2014

brocknroller said:
With its higher transmission, larger objectives, and higher magnification twilight factor, on paper, the 10x42 HT should be brighter than 8x32 SVEL, and that should be most noticeable on overcast days, twilgiht, and during the winter when light levels are low, but apparently not enough to make a difference in your case. Brock

The eye of the observer is the limiting factor here regardless of physics and the 'here, look it's like this' thrust of marketing ; if you don't see it you don't see it.

Like sako I'm just as happy using an 8x32 at dusk as I am using a larger bin.

ceasar · Sep 21, 2014

sako said:
I can't answer your question Brock as I'm not a birder, however, as an avid hunter I can throw in my 2c worth. I can see no tangible difference in light gathering going from an HT 10x42 to an 8x32 SV. I'm sure there is a measurable difference but my eyes can't detect it.

There is very little difference between the exit pupils (4.2mm and 4.0mm) of those two binoculars so your eyes are getting almost the same amount of light. Unless their transmission values are greatly different you probably won't see any difference.

Bob

ceasar · Sep 21, 2014

brocknroller said:
With its higher transmission, larger objectives, and higher magnification twilight factor, on paper, the 10x42 HT should be brighter than 8x32 SVEL, and that should be most noticeable on overcast days, twilgiht, and during the winter when light levels are low, but apparently not enough to make a difference in your case.

Btw, didn't somebody debunk the twilight factor? I seem to recall something about that.

I suspect that even when the difference is 3% or even 4%, a difference the human eye/brain is able to see, most people still won't notice the difference since it's subtle.

Now, going from a Swift 828's 75% light transmission to the HT's 95% should easily be noticeable on a cloudy day or in the winter since we're now talking about a 20% difference!

Still, some 828 owners insist that their Swift doesn't look dimmer than their much higher transmission premium bins. Go figure!

Brock

The 828 has an exit pupil of 5.17mm. That lets in a lot of light on a cloudy day. The transmission values make more difference in the evening hours.

Bob

ticl2184 · Sep 21, 2014

Lee... Just to clarify.

Compared to five years ago a far greater number of retailers stocked Leica sports optics compared to today...London Camera Exchange, Southampton, Portsmouth, Salisbury etc, just to name a few.
The retailers you stated do sell Leica bins, but its usaully the case that they will have to order a product in. So I doubt there going to order a pair of Plus in, just for you to test...

Cheers Tim

CloseFocus · Sep 21, 2014

Resolution improves as aperture increases, so assuming that two binoculars are of equal optical quality, the larger binocular will have better resolution even if its image is no brighter than the smaller binocular, and I think that would be true even in twilight conditions up to the point where the image is so dark that no significant detail can be seen. Even in daylight conditions, my 10x42 has better resolution than my 10x32, but not significantly so. But in dimmer conditions the difference becomes more noticeable, because image brightness obviously improves resolution as well, in the sense that you can't resolve what is too dim to be seen.

Troubador · Sep 21, 2014

ticl2184 said:
Lee... Just to clarify.

Compared to five years ago a far greater number of retailers stocked Leica sports optics compared to today...London Camera Exchange, Southampton, Portsmouth, Salisbury etc, just to name a few.
The retailers you stated do sell Leica bins, but its usaully the case that they will have to order a product in. So I doubt there going to order a pair of Plus in, just for you to test...

Cheers Tim

Yo Tim

That certainly seems to be the case with LCE. Our local branch in Chesterfield no longer has Zeiss or Leica on the shelves and the website refers to both these brands as being available for delivery from their 'fulfilment branch' which just means they have cut down on stocks and have a central stock of premium brands.

But of the other shops I mentioned Focus Optics, Clifton and Ace usually hold stocks but lending them out for testing might be an altogether different matter.

Lee

fugl · Sep 21, 2014

ceasar said:
There is very little difference between the exit pupils (4.2mm and 4.0mm) of those two binoculars so your eyes are getting almost the same amount of light. Unless their transmission values are greatly different you probably won't see any difference.

Don't know if I go along with this. A 9.4% (approximately) area-to-area difference isn't huge, admittedly, but it isn't chopped liver either.

ticl2184 · Sep 21, 2014

Lee

I'd agree with that...

The Mayfair Leica branch usually stock and have demo pairs of all models however...

Think I'll plan a trip to London..

PS. Does anyone know what the price of the Plus is coming in at???

Cheers Tim

Troubador · Sep 21, 2014

fugl said:
Don't know if I go along with this. A 9.4% (approximately) area-to-area difference isn't huge, admittedly, but it isn't chopped liver either.

Steady Freddie

That is almost English Humour :-O

Nice.

Lee

sako · Sep 21, 2014

fugl said:
Don't know if I go along with this. A 9.4% (approximately) area-to-area difference isn't huge, admittedly, but it isn't chopped liver either.

Yes, however it comes down to how much low light performance we actually can make use of. In my case there is not much point in having binoculars that see what my rifle scope can't.

This is quite a fascinating forum. Such scrutiny of the smallest details from very experienced users. The various binocular makers must benefit from this. That is once they sift through the common sense posts plus the usual human egocentric rants and squabbles and extract the nuggets of wisdom therein.

brocknroller · Sep 21, 2014

ceasar said:
The 828 has an exit pupil of 5.17mm. That lets in a lot of light on a cloudy day. The transmission values make more difference in the evening hours.

Bob

The 8,5x42 SV EL has a 5mm exit pupil, very close, but it has a much higher 87.8% light transmission than the 828's 75%, almost 13% difference, according to allbinos. If there's no difference in brightness between the two bins on an overcast winter's day, then modern optics makers are wasting their time with dielectric prism coatings, HT glass, and high transmission AR coatings. We've all been scammed!

Brock

ceasar · Sep 21, 2014

brocknroller said:
The 8,5x42 SV EL has a 5mm exit pupil, very close, but it has a much higher 87.8% light transmission than the 828's 75%, almost 13% difference, according to allbinos. If there's no difference in brightness between the two bins on an overcast winter's day, then modern optics makers are wasting their time with dielectric prism coatings, HT glass, and high transmission AR coatings. We've all been scammed!

Brock

Well, maybe they are and maybe they aren't and maybe the difference on an overcast day doesn't make that much difference?

I couldn't find a transmission chart for the 828 so we don't know in what range they peak or if it would be useful in unspecified "overcast" conditions but Allbinos did state that they had "average" transmission.

http://www.allbinos.com/Readers_ranking-binoculars_ranking-8.5x42.html

They cost about $1500.00 less than the SW does so they should be dimmer in low light conditions and they are. No one is being scammed.

Now, how dark is an overcast winters day? It can be bright and overcast and darker and overcast and looming a storm and overcast. And where in this range does it officially become low light where your pupils open to 5mm and you can positively see the difference to the point that it bothers you?

After all, people do not use either of these binoculars, for the most part, to test them against each other.

ceasar · Sep 22, 2014

fugl said:
Don't know if I go along with this. A 9.4% (approximately) area-to-area difference isn't huge, admittedly, but it isn't chopped liver either.

I know there is a difference between the "relative brightness" of binoculars with the same exit pupil and the "twilight factor" which comes into play when binoculars have different size objectives and I agree that a 10x42 and a 10x40 will be brighter in those conditions than an 8x32. This is something hunters should consider at that time of day. I don't know how much difference it makes under normal daylight conditions.

elkcub · Sep 22, 2014

ceasar said:
Well, maybe they are and maybe they aren't and maybe the difference on an overcast day doesn't make that much difference?

I couldn't find a transmission chart for the 828 so we don't know in what range they peak or if it would be useful in unspecified "overcast" conditions but Allbinos did state that they had "average" transmission.

http://www.allbinos.com/Readers_ranking-binoculars_ranking-8.5x42.html

They cost about $1500.00 less than the SW does so they should be dimmer in low light conditions and they are. No one is being scammed.

Now, how dark is an overcast winters day? It can be bright and overcast and darker and overcast and looming a storm and overcast. And where in this range does it officially become low light where your pupils open to 5mm and you can positively see the difference to the point that it bothers you?

After all, people do not use either of these binoculars, for the most part, to test them against each other.

Here are transmission charts for the Swift HHS, left and right. Not too impressive, actually. It peaks about 73% (at roughly 630 nm), but the ""day" and "night" values are lower.

Ed

ceasar · Sep 22, 2014

Troubador said:
Steady Freddie

That is almost English Humour :-O

Nice.

Lee

Lee,

If you will go back to post #87 you will see that I responded to Sako's "complaint" (if you will) that he could see "no tangible difference" in light gathering going from an HT 10x42 and a SV 8x32. I surmised that it might be because of the closeness of their exit pupils. I will admit that I could have been wrong.

Humor aside, what do YOU think the reason was that Sako could not see the difference?

Bob

New Leica HD Ultravid PLUS (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Attachments

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread