-
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.
Tried the new Trinovid today (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Torview
- Start date
temmie
Well-known member
yeah, but until recently Nikon and Meopta had a market share among birders of about 0.01% here in Western Europe (I actually never ever saw one in the field). So millions of birdwatchers did fine without field flatteners for decades. Ofcourse they have advantages, but to call it a hot thing...
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
And if you read my comment correctly, you'll see that I didn't disagree, I just expressed relief that the industry is catering to (even if for the wrong reasons) my minority interests.
I don't follow your claim about the merits of astigmatism for different users. As I understand it, astigmatism (in the way that it generally exists in binocular designs) is bad for everyone.
--AP
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
I would guess that the lack of popularity had more to do with ignorance, fashion, and marketing, not anything to do with the merits of correcting for field curvature and astigmatism in improving the quality and functionality of the view.
--AP
FrankD
Well-known member
Temmie,
I won't argue your point to a degree. Field flatteners aren't new though. It is just that one of the "big three" decided to put it in one of their flagship models and market it.
I guess the question we should be asking is "What is the benefit to a field flattener element?" This may seem like an obvious answer to some. The field is flat..ie, no field curvature. Does this automatically mean that the image is sharp all the way to the edge? From what I have seen of the SE, Swarovision and Meopta then my answer would be yes. Objects are in focus out to practically the very edge of the field of view.
I think the question you are trying to pose is whether or not having a sharp image at the edge of the field of view is essential for regular usage. Essential? No, probably not but I think one could argue that it is a nice "luxury" addition to the rest of the optical performance of the binocular. From personal experience I would say that it does provide a more natural, and relaxed image (temporarily ignoring the rolling ball issue with some models).
Is this going to be the next "hot thing" that all of the manufacturers are going to strive for? Possibly as we not only are now seeing it advertised in the Alpha European brands but also in two of the Chinese models (Hawke Panorama and Zen Ray Prime HD). Could it turn out the same way that ED glass has over the last four or five years with manufacturers offering models with this feature at almost every price point?
Possibly. I don't know how much it actually adds to the cost of manufacturing. If it is something that could be relatively easily implemented then why not start marketing it at various price points? Yes, it will most likely start with the high end products but then after a couple of years I would not doubt that you would see it in the $300-$400 offerings. Five years down the road it might even trickle down to a price point under that. Sure, manufacturers could then limit other aspects of optical performance on some of the less expensive models so as to not hurt their higher end sales. Maybe restrict the field of view while still allowing for a sharp image at the edges.
Lots to speculate on but, of course, that is all this is.
I won't argue your point to a degree. Field flatteners aren't new though. It is just that one of the "big three" decided to put it in one of their flagship models and market it.
I guess the question we should be asking is "What is the benefit to a field flattener element?" This may seem like an obvious answer to some. The field is flat..ie, no field curvature. Does this automatically mean that the image is sharp all the way to the edge? From what I have seen of the SE, Swarovision and Meopta then my answer would be yes. Objects are in focus out to practically the very edge of the field of view.
I think the question you are trying to pose is whether or not having a sharp image at the edge of the field of view is essential for regular usage. Essential? No, probably not but I think one could argue that it is a nice "luxury" addition to the rest of the optical performance of the binocular. From personal experience I would say that it does provide a more natural, and relaxed image (temporarily ignoring the rolling ball issue with some models).
Is this going to be the next "hot thing" that all of the manufacturers are going to strive for? Possibly as we not only are now seeing it advertised in the Alpha European brands but also in two of the Chinese models (Hawke Panorama and Zen Ray Prime HD). Could it turn out the same way that ED glass has over the last four or five years with manufacturers offering models with this feature at almost every price point?
Possibly. I don't know how much it actually adds to the cost of manufacturing. If it is something that could be relatively easily implemented then why not start marketing it at various price points? Yes, it will most likely start with the high end products but then after a couple of years I would not doubt that you would see it in the $300-$400 offerings. Five years down the road it might even trickle down to a price point under that. Sure, manufacturers could then limit other aspects of optical performance on some of the less expensive models so as to not hurt their higher end sales. Maybe restrict the field of view while still allowing for a sharp image at the edges.
Lots to speculate on but, of course, that is all this is.
temmie
Well-known member
I thought that 8x30 EII had a flat field? Now I am confused.
Anyway, FrankD, you are reading my mind!
What I need in a binocular is light/light/light.
I need a binocular that performs for birdwatching. I mostly watch in the tropics, and even in the middle of the day when it's raining, it can be very dark in there (not to mention night birding, early morning birding, etc.). I need to focus very quickly, sometimes with one hand (and the other holding an umbrella), before the Pitta/Antpitta/Antbird/... is gone. So I am very supportive for products that are very sharp, fairly light (I walk all day with bins around my neck, sometimes walking as much as 20 kms), idiot proof (they will bump into trees, rocks,... when going down steep slopes), with very good transmission and a very quick focus.
So when Swarovski releases a new product like this: http://www.allbinos.com/upload2/49905_svar_hd10x42.jpg, I am disappointed, but because of their good marketing, people buy it. But it doesn't even reach 90% transmission.
Why can't Swarovski get good transmission numbers on the HD and Swarovision for the enormous amount of money you pay for them? The Swarovision is now at 90% average transmission, and Zeiss will soon come out with something that has 95% transmission. Will Zeiss be rewarded for that? Not by the average joe I think...
I sound like I am bashing Swarovski, but I expect just a little more from them. They shouldn't think that, because everybody is praising them like crazy and buying their products, that their product is perfect. So I don't follow the stream that tells me to buy into that flat field. Let them first get some of the basics (transmission, weight, focus) right. Nothing against that flat field either.
I would by something that looks like a Swarovision on the outside, with the focus and transmission numbers of a Zeiss (or maybe transmission of a Docter Nobilem). But at the moment, I feel like too much praise is given for Swarovski while they could do already a better job (but probably for the sake of marketing, they only improve their products with very small increments). A little bit the story of the iPhone, me thinks.
Anyway, FrankD, you are reading my mind!
What I need in a binocular is light/light/light.
I need a binocular that performs for birdwatching. I mostly watch in the tropics, and even in the middle of the day when it's raining, it can be very dark in there (not to mention night birding, early morning birding, etc.). I need to focus very quickly, sometimes with one hand (and the other holding an umbrella), before the Pitta/Antpitta/Antbird/... is gone. So I am very supportive for products that are very sharp, fairly light (I walk all day with bins around my neck, sometimes walking as much as 20 kms), idiot proof (they will bump into trees, rocks,... when going down steep slopes), with very good transmission and a very quick focus.
So when Swarovski releases a new product like this: http://www.allbinos.com/upload2/49905_svar_hd10x42.jpg, I am disappointed, but because of their good marketing, people buy it. But it doesn't even reach 90% transmission.
Why can't Swarovski get good transmission numbers on the HD and Swarovision for the enormous amount of money you pay for them? The Swarovision is now at 90% average transmission, and Zeiss will soon come out with something that has 95% transmission. Will Zeiss be rewarded for that? Not by the average joe I think...
I sound like I am bashing Swarovski, but I expect just a little more from them. They shouldn't think that, because everybody is praising them like crazy and buying their products, that their product is perfect. So I don't follow the stream that tells me to buy into that flat field. Let them first get some of the basics (transmission, weight, focus) right. Nothing against that flat field either.
I would by something that looks like a Swarovision on the outside, with the focus and transmission numbers of a Zeiss (or maybe transmission of a Docter Nobilem). But at the moment, I feel like too much praise is given for Swarovski while they could do already a better job (but probably for the sake of marketing, they only improve their products with very small increments). A little bit the story of the iPhone, me thinks.
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Interesting proposition, Frank. There certainly has been a "Trickle Down Effect" in binoculars, with features such as phase coatings, silver coatings, dielectric coatings, open bridge designs, ED glass, twist up eyecups, etc. going from the top of the pops to the entry level over the past decade.
But I wonder how difficult it is to make field flatteners properly? And how much cost would it add?
I would imagine that the ED glass in the Bushnell Legend Ultra is of lower quality than that used by the Top Three and in the Nikon EDG. But it's still surprising to find ED glass in a roof for $279.
Back when some porros had ED glass, the difference btwn the ED version and non-ED version was at least $100. Cheap Chinese labor has lowered the costs of materials.
The ED glass has to be matched to the other optical elements, so you can just slap on any generic lens.
Similarly, field flatteners would have to be matched to the other optical elements in the compound lens. So one size could not fit all. But with so many clones on the market with the same or fairly close specs, they might fit more than one brand, which would lower costs.
However, the overarching question that Temme brings up is that even if it can be done, do buyers want it?
Do most hunters want field flatteners in their camo Monarchs and are they willing to pay extra ca$h for the upgrade?
Do most birders want field flatteners in their Bushnell Legend Ultra EDs? Would they be willing to pay more than $279 for the upgraded version?
The question is always what the market can bear (especially in a "bear market"
? At the alpha level, Lord knows, anything goes, but if the "trickle down" is too expensive at the lower price points, buyers might balk. I've always been a fan of bins with sharp edges, and many of Nikon's Japanese-made binoculars have VG edges w/out employing field flatteners. For example, the 8.8* 8x EII, 7* 8x36 Sporter I, 8.2* 8x35 Action WF, and 9.3* 7x35 Action WF porros.
Given the inherent issues in creating the right balance with distortion to avoid "rolling ball" (which both the SE and EDG manage to avoid despite their field flatteners), I think it would be preferable if optics companies just made better configured optics with sharper edges like the Japanese Nikons rather than adding field flatteners, which buyers might or might not like and might or might not be willing to pay extra for.
Brock
pimpelmees
Well-known member
I have recently bought a zeiss after a lot of thinking because i have heard bad things about their service, but i ordered me a zeiss victory fl .
I had received the zeiss and when looking in the barrels with a light (bad habbit of me), in the left barrel there was a big hair or a scratch and dust !!
So i returned the zeiss and when he gave me another victory fl , the rubber coating was not so nice as the first one; the seems between the parts where not closed (there was a huge gab) and the rubber where the victory name is on was loose (very loose )
So i was disappointed :-C and bought me a swarovision again and i am happy ! :t: (until now...)
So no more zeiss for me ! :C
the last control in the zeiss factory is very bad i reckon !!
Last edited:
temmie
Well-known member
Yeah Pimpelmees, you buy binoculars every month it seems....
I once bought a Nikon scope from you, excellent value. You know what? It also has a hair inside. You only see it when looking through it from the other side.
I never bothered about it and still happy watching birds with it.
About the flat field: You'll probably see it in a lot of binoculars in some years. Which is a good thing, I think. I actually like the flat field in the Swarovisions I looked through. But I would really not like it when other alpha brands feel the need to follow, just because Swarovski is dictating the way to go. Swaro is probably right about flat field and edge sharpness, but it seems like they get away with some of their design flaws (like the focuser) just because they have edge sharpness.
I like the stance of Zeiss. They are not just staring like rabbits in the headlights of an approaching car, but going their own way, as long as they proudness is not prohibiting them of actually copying some good ideas of other companies, like open bridge (I know they are at the moment not willing to do this, just to ignore the fact that Swaro has so much success with it). At one point they will have to improve on edge sharpness just to show that they can do it better, like Nikon has to improve on weight of their EDG series (then those would be the very best, I am sure), and Swaro should improve on weight, transmission and focusing speed...
I once bought a Nikon scope from you, excellent value. You know what? It also has a hair inside. You only see it when looking through it from the other side.
I never bothered about it and still happy watching birds with it.
About the flat field: You'll probably see it in a lot of binoculars in some years. Which is a good thing, I think. I actually like the flat field in the Swarovisions I looked through. But I would really not like it when other alpha brands feel the need to follow, just because Swarovski is dictating the way to go. Swaro is probably right about flat field and edge sharpness, but it seems like they get away with some of their design flaws (like the focuser) just because they have edge sharpness.
I like the stance of Zeiss. They are not just staring like rabbits in the headlights of an approaching car, but going their own way, as long as they proudness is not prohibiting them of actually copying some good ideas of other companies, like open bridge (I know they are at the moment not willing to do this, just to ignore the fact that Swaro has so much success with it). At one point they will have to improve on edge sharpness just to show that they can do it better, like Nikon has to improve on weight of their EDG series (then those would be the very best, I am sure), and Swaro should improve on weight, transmission and focusing speed...
pimpelmees
Well-known member
hello temmie, i have bought indeed a lot of binoculairs but not every month
But now its coming to an end , the swarovision is it for me !!
Yes that nikon scope is very good and mutch better than the newer edg versions i have heard from people.
would it be a good thing that all the great bino guys (swaro, zeiss and leica and maybe nikon also) would make a bino all together !!:t:
brocknroller
porromaniac
hello temmie, i have bought indeed a lot of binoculairs but not every month
But now its coming to an end , the swarovision is it for me !!
Yes that nikon scope is very good and mutch better than the newer edg versions i have heard from people.
would it be a good thing that all the great bino guys (swaro, zeiss and leica and maybe nikon also) would make a bino all together !!:t:
pimplenees,
You and Mark should start the Last Bino Buyers Club.
Here's the charter:
We, the undersigned, solemnly agree we will never again buy another full sized pair of binoculars, because the 8.5 (10x)x42 SV EL satisfies all our needs in full sized birding binoculars. If any member of the club violates this agreement, he or she will be tarred and feathered and excommunicated from the club and worst of all, be forced to read all of Dennis' posts on the SV EL.
N.B. This charter has an elastic clause. It allows you to buy a midsized or compact bin. So when the new 32mm SV EL comes out, you can still buy it w/out violating the bylaws of the club.
I can't imagine anyone buying the next gen EL for $2,800+ (typical upgrade cost is around $400 or more), however, according some participants in the Optics Consumer Index Poll, the skies the limit for some folks, so $3K here we come...
Brock
Last edited:
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Temmie:
It has been interesting to watch your recent posts, and I am wondering about
your posting all of this on the Leica subforum.
I am thinking you would not be pleased with anything but a Zeiss.
You do concede the effort of the latest and greatest bins, the Swaro. SV. and
the Nikon EDG. That does mean Zeiss does have work to do. I agree, as I have
had the Zeiss FL in 8x42, and recognize it as a nice binocular, but not to compare with the SV and the Nikon EDG.
You have quoted from the Allbinos site, and I agree with many of their findings.
With the Nikon EDG 10x42, # 1, and SV close in 2. They missed the boat with
the Swaro. rankings of the SLC HD 10x42, not sure what the reason.
As far as brightness, check the 2010 Ginkel, Europa 42mm tests. The Swarovski
SV and SLC HD were the match or better than the FL, in brightness.
As far as brightness goes, these binoculars are all very good, and that is not
all that most want in a highend binocular.
Your prediction of a big brightness improvement in the new Zeiss is amusing.
Have you been taken in with the advertising tease?
For me, the SV and the Nikon EDG, trump the Zeiss FL, in both better edge
performance, and handling, I like the open frame SV, and the focus and armor
of the Nikon.
I am looking forward to see what the new Zeiss FL has to offer. My hunch is it
will be adding to some improvements, as I just referenced above.
I suppose we will see.
Jerry
Last edited:
temmie
Well-known member
I am thinking you would not be pleased with anything but a Zeiss.
They missed the boat with
the Swaro. rankings of the SLC HD 10x42, not sure what the reason.
As far as brightness, check the 2010 Ginkel, Europa 42mm tests. The Swarovski
SV and SLC HD were the match or better than the FL, in brightness.
Your prediction of a big brightness improvement in the new Zeiss is amusing.
Have you been taken in with the advertising tease?
Jerry
Hi Jerry,
at the moment I am very pleased with my Zeiss. I have put my faith in their hands, as I have a lot of first-hand talks with Zeiss people. So you can call it amusing, but it's just exciting to hear about their new stuff before the rest of the world does, do you agree?
But I am very open towards the other competitors to convince me they make better binoculars. So how else can I express my wishes than to complain on a forum (which I hope they read?
It's just coincidence I am posting on the Leica sub forum. I should have commented a little more on the new trinovid I have tried, but honestly, that binocular is like most of the Leica stuff I tried: very good, but no 'wow' feeling. Probably, with years of use, like can truly give that feeling, but it doesn't give me the 'sensations' :eat:
About the HD brightness, I guess one reason could be that they didn't measure very well on the allbinos site? Their chart on e.g. the 8x32 EL is much better...
Because of slightly increasing field curvature towards the edge, Leicas don't have a flat field. But they managed to eleminate almost all the astigmatism even close to the edge. I think this is one reason why they give such an easy view. Eliminating field curvature and astigmatism alltogether result into an even more relaxed view. Among all aberrations, astigmatism is the worst because even young eyes don't have a chance to compensate. BTW, did you know that there are some really cheap and simple built binoculars on the market with otherwise very good transmission of roughly more than 90%? I've read a test report about 7x50 boating bins where some no name samples achieved surpring high results in light transmission. However, according to the testers they didn't give very satisfying views.
Steve
pimpelmees
Well-known member
truth or fiction :smoke: i think that a lot of these cheaper binoculairs with Ed glasses are build in the same factory in japan with a few smaller differences , and then the factory put a name on them from the designers (owners of the brandname).
brocknroller
porromaniac
No question about that! If we are living in the Golden Age of Optics, we are also in the Age of Chinese Sports Optics Clones.
When Astro-Physics, a U.S. manufacturer of high end APO refractor telescopes, puts its badge on a line of Chinese-made United-Optics IF EP binoculars, it created a big uproar in the amateur astronomy community even though the bins are one of the better lines of astronomy binoculars from China. I thought Roland Christen was going to be tarred and feathered.
For birders, it would be the equivalent of Leica branding a Vortex Viper spotting scope with its red dot.
I can just picture the reaction
: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Mhq62ak8ASU/TtBNALOfnwI/AAAAAAAAFTg/DeuKmS0N3KQ/s1600/large_zombies.jpg
But Chinese optics keep getting better and better, and I suspect when alphas pass the $3K mark and Chinese-made birding bins work their way up to the mid-tier along with Pentax, Meopta, Kowa, Nikon, Minox, and the CL, Trinnie and Conquest alpha lines, they may have the last laugh when those zombie heads explode.
Brock
I believe our current yearly rate of inflation is 2.4%. The rates for gasoline, home heating and food are probably higher. If the average rise in "take home" pay doesn't surpass those rates even the Chinese binoculars will be too expensive for the average family in a few years.
http://www.andertoons.com/sign/cartoon/6111/whats-with-terrence/
Bob
http://www.andertoons.com/sign/cartoon/6111/whats-with-terrence/
Bob
brocknroller
porromaniac
By then, the Chinese will have adopted automation to lower costs even further, being forced into automatic because of losing half their young workforce to enrollment in US graduate schools. About a third of those are already at Penn State. I kid you not! Ask Steve about Tudeki Park.
Brock
I know about the graduate school invasion. My son is a 3rd year graduate student in Physics at Boston University. There are about 100 students total enrolled in the Physics Grad progam at this time and about 30 are Chinese. I expect that this is typical of other colleges. Still a drop in the bucket compared to their population though. I read somewhere today, can't recall where now, that there are in China at present 125,000,000 females between the ages 18 and 25. They expect this number to go down by about 20,000,000 over the next 10 years. And thanks to their past 1 birth per family policy there are many more males than that.
China has a severe demographic problem. Too high a percentage of it's population is getting old too fast. Actually it has a higher percentage of people over 45 than the USA does. So it needs all those younger people working there to support the old ones. David Goldman, who writes a column on Asia Times under the pen name "Spengler" has written about this coming demographic disaster which will also hit Europe hard.
Here is a typical column: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/ML13Dj05.html
He has a book too. Not recommended reading when you can't get to sleep though.:-C
Bob
PS: Here is another one specifically about China: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MK22Ad01.html
More positive in outlook.
Last edited:
