• 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)

Good inof. Much appreciated.

It appears from the photos the fall off in sharpness on the outer ring on this 10x25 is greater than the Nikon LXL.

Can you comment on the edge sharpness based on your brief encounter.

Thanks
 
Good inof. Much appreciated.

It appears from the photos the fall off in sharpness on the outer ring on this 10x25 is greater than the Nikon LXL.

Can you comment on the edge sharpness based on your brief encounter.

Thanks

I just received a pair of Alpen ED 8x20 and it took me about 1 minute to decide to send them back to. My hinge tensions were also loose and the barrels were out of alignment. I would have to say these things have some serious QC problems. Pretty cheap feel to them also and the optics are definitely a step or two down from an alpha roof with nowhere the center resolution of an alpha roof or a good reverse porro. I don't feel they are even worth the $135.00 I paid for them. Mine are going back tonite.
 
Can you comment on the edge sharpness based on your brief encounter.

Thanks



Hi;

First some comments about the photos since it appears some do not know their purpose.

These photos are for testing purposes, they are not intended to be like a photo shopped bird picture made to look good, nor are they intended to make an optic look bad.

They are intended to put the whole field of view on a flat plane were all parts are at the same focal distance and focused at infinity, the optics design 0 diopter setting. This way you can measure, with various optical measuring tools, the geometric (grid) properties, focus errors throughout the image, FOV and other important parameters and their position in relation to the optical axis and focal plane.

These images will, by their nature, look worse than what we see since most optical instruments and cameras or CCD sensors either remove by magnification, or do not have any accommodation like the human eye.

Now, as to what I see:

First, I always center objects and very seldom pay any attention to the periphery. This comes from many years of looking through instruments with cross hairs in them where you center your target.

Secondly, a few months ago I had cataract surgery on both eyes and IOL’s put in and my accommodation is greatly reduced, not to mention changing randomly through the day, so I am not a good reference for others. What you will perceive will be based on your individual parameters. I doubt if any of us see exactly the same thing anyway.

FWIW, when I was looking at the flat field target I measured the curvature/astigmatism at about 3 o’clock, at 3° from center, at 1.8d, so if you have greater than 2d of accommodation, chances are the edge will look pretty good to you. Even for my lousy accommodation, I did not notice any real edge falloff, but then I may not have noticed it unless really looking for it.

Since a few have made mention of the LXL, I took a quick, rough photo so you can compare (forgot to change white balance from other light source).
 

Attachments

  • P6300001.jpg
    P6300001.jpg
    155.8 KB · Views: 102
I just received a pair of Alpen ED 8x20 and it took me about 1 minute to decide to send them back to. My hinge tensions were also loose and the barrels were out of alignment. I would have to say these things have some serious QC problems. Pretty cheap feel to them also and the optics are definitely a step or two down from an alpha roof with nowhere the center resolution of an alpha roof or a good reverse porro. I don't feel they are even worth the $135.00 I paid for them. Mine are going back tonite.

Dennis
Since you have always railed against the little minis, swore you would never own any more, and swore off buying any more compact binos, I have to wonder. All of a sudden a day after Ron's post. a pair mysteriously shows up on your door, and is the worst pair that Alpen has ever produced.

These binos are nowhere near as bad as you are trying to pile on.

ABSOLUTE RUBBISH
 
Dennis
Since you have always railed against the little minis, swore you would never own any more, and swore off buying any more compact binos, I have to wonder. All of a sudden a day after Ron's post. a pair mysteriously shows up on your door, and is the worst pair that Alpen has ever produced.

These binos are nowhere near as bad as you are trying to pile on.

ABSOLUTE RUBBISH

The pair I received were pretty poor. They definitely have some quality problems. Just reporting it as I see it.
 
Apologies to Surveyor, Henry and others who have covered this many times in the past and are much more knowledgeable than I am, but I think it's worth reiterating some of the basic parameters of eyesight and optics. Hope you guys will forgive a beginner and put right any errors on my part.

“Good” human acuity is often referred to as 20:20 vision. I'll leave out the math, but that corresponds to an angular resolution of 120 arcseconds. The theoretical limit of human acuity is said to be 72 arcseconds, but anyone doing better than 100 is pretty exceptional. If you divide these numbers by the magnification of the binos you will get the potential limit of resolution for your eyesight using binos. So 120/8 gives 15 arcsec for good eyesight and 12.5 for exceptional. The shake from hand holding a pair can make these numbers much worse. (For my eyesight my “best” result was 90arcsecs, but 100-105 more typical.)

The resolution of binoculars is primarily governed by the diameter of the objective. Again you can check the math but the theoretical limit of angular resolution is 3.29arcsec for a 42mm objective and 5.54 for a 25mm objective. In practice any binocular that is less than 2 time worse than this is a very good pair. The point is that they would need to be 3-4x worse before the average user would notice the loss of resolution, particularly if hand held. It also explains why the experts boost the view to determine the limits, it's way below where even the best eyes can detect.

Dennis, even if you had the best eyesight in the world, clamped down the binos and tested them under perfect conditions there is no way in the world that you could see the limit of resolution for 9arcsec pair. So please don't talk ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. There are plenty of reason to prefer one pair of binos over another and I welcome your opinion as much as anyone else. Please be careful with inaccurate statements someone might believe you.

As a side note I've seen somewhere that the Bushnell Elite 7x28 (which Dennis also thinks are rubbish) also has a resolution around 9arcsec. Yesterday I spent an hour in bright conditions comparing them to Zeiss 8x32, 8x42, 7x42 FLs and Nikon EDG 8x42. In the central portion of the view I could not distinguish any resolution differences between the Bushnell 7x26 and the Zeiss 7x42, or besides the magnification advantage, any real differences with the 8s, and my eyesight is pretty good. Of course low light, the edges, colour balance and FOV are different parameters. The money pays for something.

David
 
Hi David;

I agree mostly with the resolution part of your post, but will add a few caveats. In general, I have a problem with the notion that any resolution below your visual acuity is irrelevant. Several years ago, during one of his reviews, Kimmo noted that he noticed image degradation even below the limits of his visual acuity and postulated that, in his opinion, you needed about twice your visual acuity limit for best image. I suspect, from my observations, that this figure may be 3, or more.

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.

As to the last paragraph, check out Henry’s comments on stops in his 8x56 FL thread. In bright conditions, using only your eyes, you are essentially comparing four or five high quality 20 mm aperture binoculars since your eyes are limiting the light to only the center 20 mm±, most evenly illuminated, reduced aberration portion of the objective, the portion of exit pupil greater than your eye pupil diameter falling outside the pupil. This is a very stark contrast to an 8x20 or 10x25 with 2.5 mm exit pupil that is always operating at full aperture. BTW, my side-by-side comparisons were tripod mounted. I have no doubt that Tom had a better sample than I and besides; the 10x25 may be a completely different beast.
 
Ron,

I have to be brief as I have to go out now, but I wouldn't disagree with anything you say. I am generally quite aware when my vision is approaching the resolution limit of the bino, particularly with 10x and cheap pairs but in all but the worst cases in practice I need to mount the binos and look at test targets to start to see much of a difference with an 8x or lower on resolution, but I see plenty of other differences. Yes I'm guilty of a simplification, but it would seem that Dennis must perpetually be the recipient of very substandard pairs to condemn so many on the grounds of resolution, or he's describing something quite different.

I'll try to get back to the other points over the weekend.

David
 
Apologies to Surveyor, Henry and others who have covered this many times in the past and are much more knowledgeable than I am, but I think it's worth reiterating some of the basic parameters of eyesight and optics. Hope you guys will forgive a beginner and put right any errors on my part.

“Good” human acuity is often referred to as 20:20 vision. I'll leave out the math, but that corresponds to an angular resolution of 120 arcseconds. The theoretical limit of human acuity is said to be 72 arcseconds, but anyone doing better than 100 is pretty exceptional. If you divide these numbers by the magnification of the binos you will get the potential limit of resolution for your eyesight using binos. So 120/8 gives 15 arcsec for good eyesight and 12.5 for exceptional. The shake from hand holding a pair can make these numbers much worse. (For my eyesight my “best” result was 90arcsecs, but 100-105 more typical.)

The resolution of binoculars is primarily governed by the diameter of the objective. Again you can check the math but the theoretical limit of angular resolution is 3.29arcsec for a 42mm objective and 5.54 for a 25mm objective. In practice any binocular that is less than 2 time worse than this is a very good pair. The point is that they would need to be 3-4x worse before the average user would notice the loss of resolution, particularly if hand held. It also explains why the experts boost the view to determine the limits, it's way below where even the best eyes can detect.

Dennis, even if you had the best eyesight in the world, clamped down the binos and tested them under perfect conditions there is no way in the world that you could see the limit of resolution for 9arcsec pair. So please don't talk ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. There are plenty of reason to prefer one pair of binos over another and I welcome your opinion as much as anyone else. Please be careful with inaccurate statements someone might believe you.

As a side note I've seen somewhere that the Bushnell Elite 7x28 (which Dennis also thinks are rubbish) also has a resolution around 9arcsec. Yesterday I spent an hour in bright conditions comparing them to Zeiss 8x32, 8x42, 7x42 FLs and Nikon EDG 8x42. In the central portion of the view I could not distinguish any resolution differences between the Bushnell 7x26 and the Zeiss 7x42, or besides the magnification advantage, any real differences with the 8s, and my eyesight is pretty good. Of course low light, the edges, colour balance and FOV are different parameters. The money pays for something.

David


The problems I had with the Bushnell Elite 7x28 was not really resolution it was the ER which was too long so I had to hold my eyes back from the binocular. I can see differences in sharpness between different binoculars and I think most people can. I found the Alpen's a definite step down from the alphas in overall optics but mine were so out of alignment it was hard to judge fairly. I agree with Surveyor in that I didn't find anything exceptional about the Alpens and they seem to have some quality problems.
 
Apologies to Surveyor, Henry and others who have covered this many times in the past and are much more knowledgeable than I am, but I think it's worth reiterating some of the basic parameters of eyesight and optics. Hope you guys will forgive a beginner and put right any errors on my part.

“Good” human acuity is often referred to as 20:20 vision. I'll leave out the math, but that corresponds to an angular resolution of 120 arcseconds. The theoretical limit of human acuity is said to be 72 arcseconds, but anyone doing better than 100 is pretty exceptional. If you divide these numbers by the magnification of the binos you will get the potential limit of resolution for your eyesight using binos. So 120/8 gives 15 arcsec for good eyesight and 12.5 for exceptional. The shake from hand holding a pair can make these numbers much worse. (For my eyesight my “best” result was 90arcsecs, but 100-105 more typical.)


The resolution of binoculars is primarily governed by the diameter of the objective. Again you can check the math but the theoretical limit of angular resolution is 3.29arcsec for a 42mm objective and 5.54 for a 25mm objective. In practice any binocular that is less than 2 time worse than this is a very good pair. The point is that they would need to be 3-4x worse before the average user would notice the loss of resolution, particularly if hand held. It also explains why the experts boost the view to determine the limits, it's way below where even the best eyes can detect.

Dennis, even if you had the best eyesight in the world, clamped down the binos and tested them under perfect conditions there is no way in the world that you could see the limit of resolution for 9arcsec pair. So please don't talk ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. There are plenty of reason to prefer one pair of binos over another and I welcome your opinion as much as anyone else. Please be careful with inaccurate statements someone might believe you.

As a side note I've seen somewhere that the Bushnell Elite 7x28 (which Dennis also thinks are rubbish) also has a resolution around 9arcsec. Yesterday I spent an hour in bright conditions comparing them to Zeiss 8x32, 8x42, 7x42 FLs and Nikon EDG 8x42. In the central portion of the view I could not distinguish any resolution differences between the Bushnell 7x26 and the Zeiss 7x42, or besides the magnification advantage, any real differences with the 8s, and my eyesight is pretty good. Of course low light, the edges, colour balance and FOV are different parameters. The money pays for something.

David

If the eye can't see differences in resolution how did Better View Desired for years do a resolution test called a Needs Test where they looked at a twenty dollar bill at certain distances and determined the relative resolution of different binoculars and gave them a ranking based on what they saw. You can definitely see the difference in resolution in different binoculars. You are blowing wind with all those numbers!
 
If the eye can't see differences in resolution how did Better View Desired for years do a resolution test called a Needs Test where they looked at a twenty dollar bill at certain distances and determined the relative resolution of different binoculars and gave them a ranking based on what they saw. You can definitely see the difference in resolution in different binoculars. You are blowing wind with all those numbers!

Dennis is probably right on this. Arcseconds have always struck me as second best. USE the dumb things (binoculars) and you'll figure it out. The human eye is, although not comparable to a hawk's eye, quite good. USE them, eyes and bins, out there in the field, looking at birds, and you'll figure things out. The "gestalt" approach is as good as anything, provided the viewer has enough experience.

But that is not to say Dennis doesn't have a probem with hyperbole. Which he does. ;) Which is partly why I read this forum. Dennis, keep it up.

Mark
 
Dennis is probably right on this. Arcseconds have always struck me as second best. USE the dumb things (binoculars) and you'll figure it out. The human eye is, although not comparable to a hawk's eye, quite good. USE them, eyes and bins, out there in the field, looking at birds, and you'll figure things out. The "gestalt" approach is as good as anything, provided the viewer has enough experience.

But that is not to say Dennis doesn't have a probem with hyperbole. Which he does. ;) Which is partly why I read this forum. Dennis, keep it up.

Mark

I am getting tired of that word I think. Heh, it looks like the Mega Review agrees with me on the Swarovision. See I have had all those binoculars in there test at one time or another. You don't need no Megatest just ask me. Just kidding.
 
If the eye can't see differences in resolution how did Better View Desired for years do a resolution test called a Needs Test where they looked at a twenty dollar bill at certain distances and determined the relative resolution of different binoculars and gave them a ranking based on what they saw. You can definitely see the difference in resolution in different binoculars. You are blowing wind with all those numbers!

I have my doubts about that method especially if done only by one observer. The accumulation of a number of observations by a number of participants would make it more reliable. The human eye, being human, is fallible. I have on a few occasions seen different resolutions of the same object with the same binocular, then changed the diopter and seen more and then later had to change the diopter back. It happens for various reasons. Some are human failings and some are mechanical differences between the pieces of machinery you are using.

Typo is discussing precision measurements.

Bob
 
I am getting tired of that word I think. Heh, it looks like the Mega Review agrees with me on the Swarovision. See I have had all those binoculars in there test at one time or another. You don't need no Megatest just ask me. Just kidding.

What, "hyperbole"? Lovely word. If I wasn't accused of hyperbole what would I be? A statistician?

Mark
 
If the eye can't see differences in resolution how did Better View Desired for years do a resolution test called a Needs Test where they looked at a twenty dollar bill at certain distances and determined the relative resolution of different binoculars and gave them a ranking based on what they saw. You can definitely see the difference in resolution in different binoculars. You are blowing wind with all those numbers!


The spurious "resolution" differences in Stephen Ingraham's NEEDS test aren't that hard to understand. There were probably occasionally some defective binoculars tested, but the more fundamental problem was that he was attempting to make very tiny distinctions at the threshold of his eyesight acuity. That's an inherently unreliable way to test an instrument, highly dependent on the changing condition of the observer's eyesight. Essentially it measured his acuity at a given moment divided by the binocular's magnification. He did at least use a tripod, a consistent quantifiable test target and repeated the same test conditions every time. That's certainly a step up from hand held impressions of "resolution", using random unquantifiable targets under random conditions.
 
The spurious "resolution" differences in Stephen Ingraham's NEEDS test aren't that hard to understand. There were probably occasionally some defective binoculars tested, but the more fundamental problem was that he was attempting to make very tiny distinctions at the threshold of his eyesight acuity. That's an inherently unreliable way to test an instrument, highly dependent on the changing condition of the observer's eyesight. Essentially it measured his acuity at a given moment divided by the binocular's magnification. He did at least use a tripod, a consistent quantifiable test target and repeated the same test conditions every time. That's certainly a step up from hand held impressions of "resolution", using random unquantifiable targets under random conditions.

I find it easy using a test target and a tripod to see differences in binocular resolution and when I repeat the process with the same target at different times I get the same results so I don't think your eyes vary that much unless you have vision problems such as astigmatism. As long as lighting and distance are the same the results will be the same. If your eyes changed that much in visual acuity you would have to go the optometrist six times to make sure your eyes aren't varying when you get tested for glasses. Nope they test your eyes once under controlled conditions and write a prescription and you wear the glasses for a year. Granted your acuity can be off when your eyes are tired versus first thing in the morning when they are fresh but they don't vary by that much. Even handheld impressions of resolution are meaningful if done under controlled conditions.
 
Would you care to post some of your results?

Sorry, Henry I don't document my results like you do. I just use them to compare binoculars. My point is you can compare resolution of binoculars visually and come up with meaningful results. You are wrong thinking you can discredit Better Views Desired test results based on the fact that your vision varies. I have compared many binoculars using methods like they used and I had similar results on the same binoculars. They used a tripod and they controlled the lighting. I feel the NEED results are a good indicator of a binoculars resolution.
 
This thread with Dennis's responses is beginning to remind me of the advice my brother, the Lawyer, told me he received in Law School.

"If you have the Law but not the Facts, shout the Law. If you have the Facts but not the Law, shout the Facts. If you have neither the Law nor the Facts--just shout!

Bob
 
Last edited:
Dennis
Since you have always railed against the little minis, swore you would never own any more, and swore off buying any more compact binos, I have to wonder. All of a sudden a day after Ron's post. a pair mysteriously shows up on your door, and is the worst pair that Alpen has ever produced.

These binos are nowhere near as bad as you are trying to pile on.

ABSOLUTE RUBBISH

Posted by Denco@Comcast on 5/24/11
It did for me! That's shows you binoculars are a real personal thing. I even ordered the Nikon 10x25 HG from Amazon to compare them and the eye relief was to great making me hold the binoculars away from my eyes. That is a real deal killer for me I can't stand it. To me the Prostaff's are way less fussy with their 3.1mm exit pupil versus 2.5mm for the alpha roofs. I think the comparison is like the Nikon SE 8x32 compared to the alpha roofs like the Zeiss 8x32 FL's. A cheaper porro will perform ,as well as, a more expensive roof every time because they are way easier and cheaper to manufacture. Porro's also transmit more light generally than a roof so that's why I think the Prostaff's hold their own against the alpha compact roofs. I also preferred the feel of the Prostaff's in my hands versus the Nikon 10x25 HG's and I definitely liked the single hinge adjustment of IPD on the Prostaff versus the double hinge of the alpha roofs. I had a pair of Leica 8x20 Ultravids once that I bought on E-bay new for $380.00 and OH MY GOD I put them On E-bay for sale the next day I had so many blackouts with them and they were so FUSSY. Just a real PIA!

Posted by Denco@Comcast on 6/7/11
My wife brought up a good point. She said Dennis why are you messing around with those cheap binoculars when you have a Swarovision? I thought about it and you know she is right. I guess I just wanted to see if they were any good. No more cheap binoculars for me. The Nikon 8x25 Prostaff is a pretty good compact and I will keep it but it is not even close to the Swarovision.

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
 
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