Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Thursday 5th October 2017, 03:43   #1
spiralcoil
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: North America
Posts: 83
the 92% compared with the 95%...

Good day to those have the compassion or knowledge about:

Comparing the Leica Noctivid 8x42 & the Zeiss HT 8x42, all specs are about the same, expect the light transmission of 92% vs 95%...

My question would be that - is the 3% more makes a visibly difference in a better way?

Do you think Leica is not capable of producing the same amount of transmission or it is a way of balance something else in the design?

Which one of those two 8x42 binoculars is a better user you may feel?
spiralcoil is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 5th October 2017, 04:03   #2
sbb
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Singapore
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiralcoil View Post
Good day to those have the compassion or knowledge about:

Comparing the Leica Noctivid 8x42 & the Zeiss HT 8x42, all specs are about the same, expect the light transmission of 92% vs 95%...

My question would be that - is the 3% more makes a visibly difference in a better way?

Do you think Leica is not capable of producing the same amount of transmission or it is a way of balance something else in the design?

Which one of those two 8x42 binoculars is a better user you may feel?
Depends what you want to see. High contrast or good colours. Noctovid for sure if you are birding :)
sbb is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 5th October 2017, 05:55   #3
Rathaus
Registered User
 
Rathaus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 714
An alleged 3% difference in spec would be the last thing Iíd be concerned about. Doesnít anybody trust their own eyes? Have a look through them. Initially, It took me between five and ten seconds to see the benefits of the Noctivid over other alpha roof bins. I spent another couple of minutes having a gawk and thatís it. If you canít see the benefits itís a good thing because you can be content and save money.

(The HT is good by Zeiss standards, but has never been an absolute benchmark in light transmission. There are a bunch of bins which have superior light transmission to the Zeiss HT. eg: various Fujinon and every Habicht...theyíve been around for decades)
Rathaus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 5th October 2017, 06:01   #4
Hermann
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathaus View Post
(The HT is good by Zeiss standards, but has never been an absolute benchmark in light transmission. There are a bunch of bins which have superior light transmission to the Zeiss HT. eg: various Fujinon and every Habicht...theyíve been around for decades)
Please note that these are all porros with relatively simple optical designs.

Hermann
Hermann is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 5th October 2017, 11:30   #5
PHA
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bariloche-Argentine Patagonia
Posts: 264
Hi,

Having compared, not 8x but 10x, this two binoculars, my HT 10x42 and the shop's Noctivid, for several hours, the LEAST thing I would be concerned, is the light transmission difference!! To me, the TRULY EXCEPTIONAL veiling glare control of the Noctivid is really a BIG step over the others first class binoculars, overlapping 2 or 3% of light transmission!!!
I read the GLOBETROTTER's Noctivid mechanical problems with some concern...I hope it would be an initial samples issues...the Noctivid will be my next binocular!!!

PHA
PHA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 5th October 2017, 11:45   #6
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 1,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiralcoil View Post
Good day to those have the compassion or knowledge about:

Comparing the Leica Noctivid 8x42 & the Zeiss HT 8x42, all specs are about the same, expect the light transmission of 92% vs 95%...

My question would be that - is the 3% more makes a visibly difference in a better way?

Do you think Leica is not capable of producing the same amount of transmission or it is a way of balance something else in the design?

Which one of those two 8x42 binoculars is a better user you may feel?
Zeiss HT have AK-prisms, I think that explains most of the difference in light transmission. AK-prisms are of longer physical length (compared to SP prisms) and would not fit in a compact design like the Noctivid.

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Thursday 5th October 2017 at 11:51.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 12th October 2017, 22:35   #7
dwever
African Fish Eagle Rwanda
 
dwever's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Dystopia
Posts: 309
Brightness:

"The brightness of a binocular is important to birders, especially if they like to go out owling or want to watch woodcocks displaying at dawn. To check out the brightness of our test binoculars in dim conditions, we took them outside and compared what we coud see on our resolution chart as the light diminished.

However, we found no perceptible differences in the brightness of Zeiss (SF), Swarovski (EL), and Leica (NVD) binoculars. This is what one would expect, considering they all have special glass and the most advanced coatings. They all have light transmission specifications over 90%. It would take expensive scientific instruments to objectively detect any difference this small. Your eye doesn't see it. Since we scored all three binoculars as perfect in brightness, brightness did not contribute to any difference in the overall scores.

Experts in vision say that the unaided human eye is not a reliable instrument for measuring small differences in brightness, because the brain is always involved in seeing, interpreting what we see.

For example, in the image below, it seems obvious that the right page is darker than the left. But as soon as you cover the fold with your thumb, you see they are the same shade of grey. Image by R.Beau Lotto.Ē birdwatching.com
__________________
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	8F045ABB-910E-4478-9D80-AC12E443C7EB.jpeg
Views:	83
Size:	90.6 KB
ID:	642859  
__________________
Leica NTV 8X42; UVHD+ 8x42; Zeiss Marines

Last edited by dwever : Friday 13th October 2017 at 05:37.
dwever is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 13th October 2017, 01:43   #8
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,942
All three of those should have [essentially] the same trans. figures, so of course they would appear nearly identical.

My FL's and HT's are reportedly within a few % but I can clearly see the difference in dim light....but these things are very individual-centric...and perception of brightness can be down to things like contrast or colour balance.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th October 2017, 11:55   #9
Gijs van Ginkel
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: utrecht
Posts: 1,223
Rathaus,
post 3,
Your remark about the transmission of the HT is not correct, you have to do more homework to see that you are wrong.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th October 2017, 13:32   #10
chill6x6
Registered User
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 839
Until a very short time ago I had the HT, FL, and Conquest HD 10X42s.....95%, 92%, and 90% respectively(using 8X42 data). Never could I tell any brightness difference whatsoever. Though a fine binocular I sold the HT because of redundancy. I DO notice the Conquest HDs increased FOV though. It is my belief that anything less than 5 or 6 % difference probably won't be noticed by the vast majority of users if one doesn't know binocular "A" has higher light transmission over binocular "B." Myself included.
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 13th October 2017, 13:38   #11
Rathaus
Registered User
 
Rathaus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gijs van Ginkel View Post
Rathaus,
post 3,
Your remark about the transmission of the HT is not correct, you have to do more homework to see that you are wrong.
Gijs van Ginkel
True....Perhaps not quite every Habicht ever made
Rathaus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th October 2017, 17:06   #12
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathaus View Post
An alleged 3% difference in spec would be the last thing Iíd be concerned about. Doesnít anybody trust their own eyes? Have a look through them. Initially, It took me between five and ten seconds to see the benefits of the Noctivid over other alpha roof bins. I spent another couple of minutes having a gawk and thatís it. If you canít see the benefits itís a good thing because you can be content and save money.

(The HT is good by Zeiss standards, but has never been an absolute benchmark in light transmission. There are a bunch of bins which have superior light transmission to the Zeiss HT. eg: various Fujinon and every Habicht...theyíve been around for decades)
Zeiss HT is the absolute benchmark (at the moment, until someone does better) for light transmission among modern roof prism binos and if you are often viewing during the 1st half hour or last half hour of light in the day then you would struggle to better it with another roof prism bino. Of course there are many other aspects of importance to a bino's performance but we are discussing light transmission here. Personally I wouldn't put extreme light transmission such as the HT's as the most important priority, but HT has a very nice transparancy of view and handles really well too.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th October 2017, 17:44   #13
Rathaus
Registered User
 
Rathaus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
Zeiss HT is the absolute benchmark (at the moment, until someone does better) for light transmission among modern roof prism binos and if you are often viewing during the 1st half hour or last half hour of light in the day then you would struggle to better it with another roof prism bino. Of course there are many other aspects of importance to a bino's performance but we are discussing light transmission here. Personally I wouldn't put extreme light transmission such as the HT's as the most important priority, but HT has a very nice transparancy of view and handles really well too.

Lee
HT may have one of the benchmark transmissions for roof, yes.
For Binoculars, no.

Itís probably a moot point anyway because Iím in the dubious camp re folk who think they can detect a 2 or 3% (depending on data source) difference between the HT and a NV or numerous other modern roof bins regarding brightness. I believe various other factors will present themselves long before the 2-3% transmission will ever be detected.

Rathaus
Rathaus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th October 2017, 18:36   #14
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,942
This discussion mirrors those on some sports car forums I inhabit. Those owning cars with lesser horsepower will contend an extra 25 bhp is ''invisible'', those with that horsepower are sure it makes a big difference....
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th October 2017, 18:41   #15
jgraider
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Texas
Posts: 1,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
This discussion mirrors those on some sports car forums I inhabit. Those owning cars with lesser horsepower will contend an extra 25 bhp is ''invisible'', those with that horsepower are sure it makes a big difference....

This example is as ridiculous as you claiming you can see a 1-3% difference in light transmission.
jgraider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th October 2017, 19:06   #16
dwever
African Fish Eagle Rwanda
 
dwever's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Dystopia
Posts: 309
Wow. Maybe West Texas is still really hot.
__________________
Leica NTV 8X42; UVHD+ 8x42; Zeiss Marines
dwever is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 13th October 2017, 19:25   #17
wdc
Registered User
 
wdc's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Moraga, California
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by chill6x6 View Post
It is my belief that anything less than 5 or 6 % difference probably won't be noticed by the vast majority of users if one doesn't know binocular "A" has higher light transmission over binocular "B." Myself included.
I'm not even sure what 100% actually means in terms of our ability to detect a light source at full strength, since even our own eyeballs are reflecting some percentage of light. Is our cornea not to be considered an 'air to glass' surface? Furthermore, if one is wearing glasses, you have to add 2 additional air to glass surfaces, which, I can attest, do play a role in affecting one's image, even when NOT using binoculars..

Chuck states that a 5-6 percent difference might not be noticed in a blind test. Consider that in comparative percentages, a difference of 85 to 91% in light transmission is actually 6.6% (85/91)

For the internet shoppers, the spec based approach can really play a frustratingly devious role in trying to find the right binocular. If you think of a binocular like an item of apparel that is built to a certain level of quality, then issues like weight, IPD, and eye relief are probably the most important one's to consider. The physical fit to your eyes, hands, and face are pretty crucial. I would include FOV in that, but I'm starting to even question some of the logic in that.

For example, the notion that a wider field confers a 'big' advantage at close range seems entirely rational until one starts to look at the numbers a bit.

Binocular 'A' has a 372' FOV at 3000'
Binocular 'B' has a 430' FOV at 3000'

That's a 58' difference..... at 3000' It looks BIG on paper until you realize that difference only exists over a half mile away.

Where I bird, I consider close range viewing to be around 100' or closer, at which point the relative difference is 1/30th of 58', or 23.2 inches. Consider that a highly caffeinated target warbler is centered in your view, and it jumps out of the field to another spot in the foliage. Since it can only exit one side of the image circle at a time, the difference at any point on the perimeter is less than 12", or a little over 2 warblers stacked end to end. The closer you get, the difference gets ever smaller. I'm not saying there is no practical advantage to a wider field, but the spec numbers can imply a gain much greater than what real world use might reveal.

Another point to consider is whether eye relief, whether wearing glasses or not, allows one to see the entire field, at which point there may be no wide field advantage at all to be had, even if the image quality is wonderful.

Just some food for thought.

Bill

Last edited by wdc : Friday 13th October 2017 at 19:56.
wdc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th October 2017, 21:02   #18
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,059
Quote:
...For example, the notion that a wider field confers a 'big' advantage at close range seems entirely rational until one starts to look at the numbers a bit.

Binocular 'A' has a 372' FOV at 3000'
Binocular 'B' has a 430' FOV at 3000'

That's a 58' difference..... at 3000' It looks BIG on paper until you realize that difference only exists over a half mile away.

For an 8x binocular, 'A' provides a 57.09 deg. AFOV at the retina.
Similarly 'B' provides a 65.65 deg. AFOV.

The additional 8.56 deg. in "apparent field" allows for greater depth cues and peripheral motion perception.

The widest Porro binocular I own has a 96 deg. apparent field, which is 30 deg. larger than 'B'. Unfortunately, eye relief trades off with FOV, making this one not suitable for use with glasses. Other than that, however, the huge extra field is very beneficial for birding. By comparison, the 57.09 deg. AFOV in 'A' borders on tunnel vision.

I'd think in terms of the eye rather than the physics of the binocular.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Friday 13th October 2017 at 21:08.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 13th October 2017, 22:15   #19
wdc
Registered User
 
wdc's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Moraga, California
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
For an 8x binocular, 'A' provides a 57.09 deg. AFOV at the retina.
Similarly 'B' provides a 65.65 deg. AFOV.

The additional 8.56 deg. in "apparent field" allows for greater depth cues and peripheral motion perception.

Ed
Thanks for the input. I've got plenty to learn. Are you saying that a larger apparent field of view projects an image on a larger area of the retina? Perhaps that is self-evident to many, but I just want to make sure I understand.

Bill
wdc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 14th October 2017, 00:34   #20
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgraider View Post
This example is as ridiculous as you claiming you can see a 1-3% difference in light transmission.
...and I see the future too...
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 14th October 2017, 04:17   #21
Rathaus
Registered User
 
Rathaus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
The widest Porro binocular I own has a 96 deg. apparent field
Nice. Which Porro is it?
Rathaus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 14th October 2017, 05:16   #22
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdc View Post
Thanks for the input. I've got plenty to learn. Are you saying that a larger apparent field of view projects an image on a larger area of the retina? Perhaps that is self-evident to many, but I just want to make sure I understand.

Bill
Correct.
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 14th October 2017, 05:24   #23
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathaus View Post
Nice. Which Porro is it?
Linet Imperial made by Hiiyoshi Kogaku (c. 1 980). Quite a beautiful binocular.

Ed
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1426.JPG
Views:	72
Size:	135.1 KB
ID:	642969  Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1427.JPG
Views:	58
Size:	150.5 KB
ID:	642970  
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 14th October 2017, 06:01   #24
Rathaus
Registered User
 
Rathaus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Linet Imperial made by Hiiyoshi Kogaku (c. 1 980). Quite a beautiful binocular.

Ed
Highly drool worthy. Just lovely. Are these related to the earlier Japanese FPO products?

Rat
Rathaus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 14th October 2017, 09:24   #25
pshute
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgraider View Post
This example is as ridiculous as you claiming you can see a 1-3% difference in light transmission.
In normal light, 3% more light reaching the eye should result in the pupils shrinking slightly, so one should never notice that the image is brighter.

But a smaller pupil means slightly more depth of field, doesn't it? And perhaps a reduction in the effects of eyesight aberrations like astigmatism?

Could those be noticeable?
pshute is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The 10X42 HT compared to the SF and SV SuperDuty Zeiss 144 Sunday 21st August 2016 23:14
E compared to EII Raybo Nikon 8 Thursday 29th January 2009 00:44
New Sigma 50-500 DG compared to old EX aligraham Sigma & Other Third Party Lenses 17 Tuesday 13th December 2005 16:47
Kowa TS 603 compared to TS 613 citreola Kowa 1 Sunday 23rd October 2005 07:32
Old T*P compared to new FL Kevin Mac Zeiss 15 Tuesday 26th July 2005 08:10

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.25169611 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:00.