angelo225544 said:
Thank you, Mr. Ingraham, for your thoughtful response. I think we are all in agreement that Zeiss has succeeded in expanding the optical envelope with its use of FL glass - at least in terms of controlling chromatic abberation - and that the 7x42 is the finest of the FL's. I think my use of the term "flare" may have led to some confusion, so I will attempt to define the problem more accurately. The phenomenon I refer to is light spilling into dark areas of the image - specifically in backlit situations - where there is a loss of contrast in the relatively dark subject. I am always aware of light polluting the shaded (blackest) portion of the image produced by Zeiss binoculars. This phenominon simply does not occur with Leica's Ultravid, and happens far less with Swarovski's EL and SLC Neu. As a photographer, I am keenly (perhaps overly) sensitive to this, because it is one of the hallmarks of a poorly designed camera lens (optical system). Even those binoculars that have slightly more chromatic abberation than the FL, have significatly less of this contrast destroying light spillage. So while the FL does provide the finest image currently available - it can only do so under ideal circumstances - which is most unfortunate in real-world applications.
Secondly, my $10 Casio wristwatch is more accurate than my $10,000 Rolex - but the Rolex displays a level of engineering and craftsmanship that makes it a tactile and esthetic joy to use - while the Casio is simply a molded hunk of plastic. It is an equivalent tactile and esthetic step from an Ultravid or Swarovski EL or SLC to a Zeiss FL. Since the 7x42 FL is so superior to the 10x42 FL, I concluded that the envelope that Zeiss is using is simply not capable of providing the greater precision necessary in a 10x binocular. Specifically, the diopter control - which is satisfactory in the 7x42 - feels unacceptably coarse and crude in the 10x42.
Again, thoughtful and well stated.
I see perhaps the issue with flare.
What you see as a fault, I see as a benefit, and attribute to a different source. Because the shadowed areas of the image are "lighter", you can see more detail in the shadows in the FL image (to my eye)...that does, however, decrease the apparent contrast between the shadowed areas and the background. The image though other binoculars has more "snap" than the image through the FLs, and apparently higher contrast.
However, I don't think the brightness in the shadows in the FLs is the result of "false light" (flare in your terms). I think it is the result of an overall brighter image and an extended contrast range. The image in other binoculars, after using the FLs for 2 years, looks "compressed", artificially darkened, with a restricted contrast range. It looks "stopped down". The shadows are blacker (with less detail) and the highlights and lights are suppressed.
The image through the competition is, perhaps, initially easier on the eye, and it certainly looks more "binocular-like", but I have come to appreciate the full contrast range and the extra brightness of the FLs, especially in back-lit and low light situations. To my eye, nothing opens shadow, and nothing penetrates dusk and dawn and gloom, like the FLs.
It is a very different image, and one that can take some getting used to, but, to my eye, it is a superior image, even under, especially under, the worst lighting conditions.
As to the quality feel issue, I know what you mean. Personally I rate performance over feel, functionality over absolute precision. That does not mean that I don't appreciate a product that supplies both, but, as I said in the first post, any product will always be a study in cost/benefit analysis. To me the FLs provide the level of performance and functionality (unbeatable optics and functional mechanics) that make them the best of the currently available binoculars (and that by a good margin).
Then too, I can understand and support the use of GFRP in the body, since I know its benefits (bounce vs bend, weight, thermal stability, etc.) far outweigh its its pedestrian "feel factor".
But that's just me...and a growing number of satisfied (dare we say delighted) FL users.
By the way, I am copying all of this discussion, negative and positive, to my colleagues in Germany, and will make each issue a topic of discussion at our next design and innovation meetings.
Thank you for being concerned enough with overall quality to have started this thread.
S. Ingraham
