Call for contributions: Collecting Evidence for Lack of Progress in Sporting Optics (1 Viewer)

Omid · Oct 30, 2014

I wanted to name this thread "The feature Leica Super Ultravid HD Plus Plus" to attract more attention but I decided that a more direct headline might be good enough

I am an engineering scientist, a hunter and a big fan of sporting optics. I have been a member of this forum for nearly 10 years. I have owned and used many fine binoculars and scopes and I still own a few. My first top-level binoculars were a pair of Zeiss 8x56 B/T* Night Owl. After that I have owned many other great glasses including Swarovski 8.5X42 EL, Nikon 8x32 HG, Leica 12X50 BN, Fujinon 7X50 Polaris, Zeiss 15X60 BG/A Classic, Leica 8-12X42 Duovid, etc. Most recently, I have bought a pair of Leica Trinovid 10X50 BA binoculars which I have mentioned on a separate thread.

Over the past few years, I have lost my yearning for NEW binoculars that are being developed and marketed by Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski and Nikon. I attend SHOT Show regularly but I no longer feel excited to go and visit these companies "new products"

What I have seen in the past 10 years, is the trend towards cheaper material/packaging (e.g. no more chic leather cases), less customer choice (e.g., no more green and black armor colors, just black) and making a big hype over very superficial improvements (e.g., X coating vs Y coating).

It seems that we have reached the apex of binocular optical quality and there is little room left for any significant improvement in binoculars and spotting scopes optical performance as perceived and used by human eye. (Same is also true about rifle-scopes but that's not a topic to cover in this forum.)

I am opening this thread to collect evidence (test results, catalog publications, magazine articles, links to credible reviews, posts here on BirdForum, etc) that point to lack of significant progress in binocular performance in the past 20 or so years. This means I am setting the time origin for the "age of stagnant progress" to the era of Leica Trinovid BA models or Zeiss Design Selection (aka Night owl) models.

If you feel the same, please post your links, PDF files or original contributions here.

Thank you very much.

Dr. Omid Jahromi

Maljunulo · Oct 30, 2014

If we have reached the limit of the human eye-brain system, how do you suggest we "progress"?

Steve C · Oct 30, 2014

I tend to be pretty much in agreement with the OP. The more binoculars I look at anymore, more similarities and fewer real differences are what I see. I have come to the conclusion that viewer mindset is the primary driver of user like/dislike. I don't think we will benefit from any more resolution improvements as we are already approaching the Dawes limit in terms of what we can practically realize.

The Swiss were masters of watchmaking and tended to scoff at the first Texas Instruments digital watches. Look at what happened to Swiss watchmaking and digital watches. The alphas are king of the magnified view and we don't see any of them at the forefront of digital binoculars. I happen to think digital binoculars are where the real potential for significant engineering in presentation of a magnified image lies. I think that real potential will attract some real minds seeking new challenges.

Aside from purely digital binoculars, I think there still lies some significant potential for advancement with today's binocular technology. Digital camera sensors and GPS chips are getting smaller and better pretty fast. I don't think it would be out of reason to see somebody attach a really good small 12-15 MP camera sensor and a good GPS chip in a binocular and ...well, the point is improvements are ALWAYS possible.

Human perception variation from one individual to another will always exist. That human perception is at the base of a lot of discussion.

stereotruckdriver · Oct 30, 2014

Your list, the only binocular I haven't tried is the 15x60 classic!

I put a bid on one at that auction site from someone from Oregon! Wow, they are still sought after!

It went for more than a Swaro SLC neu!

I had a 8x30 and 8x40 classic, optics were ahead of there time but, damn.

Not willing to part with that kinda money on something that old!

10 years?

Yes I can see improvement in optics, build quality I would tend to agree with you though.

Bryce...

james holdsworth · Oct 30, 2014

The survey is unfairly biased by the phrasing of the question, ensuring that you will receive exactly what you want [supporting your view], rather than a cross-section of opinion.

BTW - if you are using the Night Owls [and this period] as a start point, I completely disagree with your premise. The HT's [and SLC's / SV's etc.] are clearly and plainly brighter, more contrasty, better stray light control, better CA control, much better white rendering.

The difference between my 10x56 Night Owls and my HT's is quite amazing - anyone with decent vision could see it.

cnick6 · Oct 31, 2014

james holdsworth said:
The survey is unfairly biased by the phrasing of the question, ensuring that you will receive exactly what you want [supporting your view], rather than a cross-section of opinion.

I'd have to agree with James. I also think you're not asking another fair question -- which is -- could it just be you getting older and thus less interested in the subtle changes in the new products?

As we age, we get less and less excited about things we (think) we know very well. I'll use myself as an example.

I grew up being on the cutting edge of all of this computer technogoob that exists today. I reveled in the technology for many years and spent (correction: wasted) a lot of $$$ in playing with new technologies.

Over the years, however, I've learned to be more disciplined in what I spend money on. [Now I just waste money on sport optics! Hah!] I've also felt that a lot of "new" technologies are just a re-hash of older technologies. A great example here is "smartwatches." I grew up at the dawn of the "calculator watch" and it had a very similar following. While it did prove useful at random times (usually during high school math tests) -- it really wasn't all that exciting. In fact, the best part and most useful part was just knowing the time in Tokyo!

Technology will always be like this thanks to human psychology.

In terms of binoculars (like most other complicated devices) these devices are a "system" of parts. The trick is getting the system work in perfect harmony. Anyone with a smartphone realizes that this rarely happens. Recently, though, as Apple can happily prove, people believe in the Apple system. Does this mean they stop adding new features or stop taking risks in new technologies? Heck no. Will Apple get it right every time? Heck no.

Like others have mentioned, there are specific models of binoculars that everyone agrees are "near perfect" ... does this mean they have the latest technology? Nope. Does it mean that the "system" worked? Heck ya!

Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of companies are more focused on X or Y technology and not the "system" of their product. Case in point: Microsoft Windows 8

Microsoft failed to listen to customer feedback early on and was dealt a major wake-up call when customers said "No thanks" and didn't buy their product. Microsoft was "shocked" by this experience and is now going a significant change in company philosophy.

I don't think the sport optics industry is as volatile as the tech industry so change isn't quite as forthcoming. I'm also not surprised it's very hard to get "good" sport optics as the manufacturers regulate production levels to a strict degree to save on costs.

I understand what you're asking for but I fail to see any relevance. There will always be "lulls" in technology advancements. Until someone is will to break that barrier (usually with loads of ca$h) then it will likely stay that way for years to come.

PS. I'm shocked at the lack of digital binoculars. I think that will be the biggest future development. I don't know if the technology is quite up-to-speed as yet to make this leap forward. Just imagine what you could do with purely digital binoculars. Almost endless new features for users.

Omid · Oct 31, 2014

Thank you for your interest gentlemen! :t: Here are some contributions to the topic:

1- Article from a German hunting magazine comparing Leica 10X42 Triniovid binoculars from 30 years ago to Leica Ultravid's from 2005

2- Review from Allbino's comparing Leica Ultravid 10X50 with Leica 10X50 HD

3- Post on Birdforum By Brock, Saturday 7th November 2009:

Is it true that decades ago porros achieved equal if not greater light transmission than current roofs, because manufacturers didn't have to deal with the inherent light loss in roof prisms?

From what I can tell, these incremental improvements in roofs, particularly in terms of prism coatings, have been mostly about catching up to porros.

And it's been a very costly effort (just look at prices on alpha bins today - but sit down first, you might get "sticker shock").

The p-coatings technology has trickled down to lower cost models, thanks largely to the industrialization of China.

For example, Swift's Horizon roofs have silver coated prisms, here-there-to the realm of top roofs, and they also have a magnesium alloy frame, ditto in terms of being employed on more expensive models (the Horizons cost $199).

They are also Waterproof, Fogproof & Shockproof, have a close focus of under 4 ft., etc.

I don't know how they compare to top models, but the point is that just as the Honda's VTEC engine trickled down from its sports cars to the economical Honda Fit, top bins' innovations have trickled down to lower cost roofs.

Here's the ad:

http://www.opticsplanet.net/swift-8x...inoculars.html

In a few years, we'll probably see lower cost roofs with dielectric coatings and the Top Three/Four/Five will come up with "nano-coatings" of some such thing.

So while there has been "trickle down economics" in roof prism bins, it was the Big Three (and Nikon) that made most of these innovations, and buyers paid through the nose for the R & D (and perhaps some profit padding) for those incremental improvements, and they are still paying dearly for them with the latest $2K bins from Leica, Zeiss, Swaro (new EL), Nikon EDG, and now Minox with its $1,800 APO HGs.

Could bin manufacturers have gone another way and simply given porros the two things they lacked over roofs - WP/FP?

Now with the Leupold Cascades and Minox BPs, WP/FP with an internal focuser to make it "submersible" at reasonable, not astronomical prices, the gap has been closed.

But it remains to be seen if any other manufacturers follow suit and make such porros with wider fields of view.

Not sure if the Leupold is submersible, but Minox claims that the Minox BP is:

http://www.minox.com/index.php?id=1917

What's your take on all this?

1. Could we have arrived at the point where are in optics now more quickly and much less expensively if bin manufacturers hadn't tried to make porros out of roofs, so to speak, and instead put their innovations into porros?

2. Do you think we are reaching a point of diminishing returns in binocular optics whereby, short of going digital, we've nearly achieved the best light transmission possible, the best contrast and color contrast possible, and all the "bells and whistles," and that from here on in, it will be more about marketing than about innovation?

4-Post by Henry Link, Monday 14th December 2009:

95% transmission, at least across wavelengths from about 550nm to 650nm is old news, accomplished nearly 25 years ago in Fujinon and Nikon multi-coated Porros and I'm sure other brands of Porros as well. It's the Schmidt-Pechen roof prism bins, especially with complex objectives and silver mirror coatings, that have been pulling up the rear and still are.

Nikon is said to have prototype coatings with 0.05% reflectivity. Coatings that good across a broad band would eliminate any significant accumulation of light loss from multiple surfaces in complex optics. Then the final frontier will be glass transparency which is still no better than about a 0.5% loss per 25mm thickness (worse at short wavelengths). For my eyes 97% across the visual spectrum would be truly indistinguishable from 100% and that should eventually be possible except maybe for the blue/violet.

ceasar · Oct 31, 2014

On the matter of digital binoculars I am more interested in what I as a human see than what a machine sees for me. I find this kind of reliance on technology to "improve" what is clearly a complex human activity a bit uncomfortable. It reminds me of one of Wendell Berry's comments in one of his essays: "It is easy for me to imagine that the next great division of mankind will be between people who want to live as creatures and people who want to live as machines."

Holger Merlitz · Oct 31, 2014

Omid said:
Thank you for your interest gentlemen! :t: Here are some contributions to the topic:

1- Article from a German hunting magazine comparing Leica 10X42 Triniovid binoculars from 30 years ago to Leica Ultravid's from 2005

2- Review from Allbino's comparing Leica Ultravid 10X50 with Leica 10X50 HD

3- Post on Birdforum By Brock, Saturday 7th November 2009:

Is it true that decades ago porros achieved equal if not greater light transmission than current roofs, because manufacturers didn't have to deal with the inherent light loss in roof prisms?

From what I can tell, these incremental improvements in roofs, particularly in terms of prism coatings, have been mostly about catching up to porros.

And it's been a very costly effort (just look at prices on alpha bins today - but sit down first, you might get "sticker shock").

The p-coatings technology has trickled down to lower cost models, thanks largely to the industrialization of China.

For example, Swift's Horizon roofs have silver coated prisms, here-there-to the realm of top roofs, and they also have a magnesium alloy frame, ditto in terms of being employed on more expensive models (the Horizons cost $199).

They are also Waterproof, Fogproof & Shockproof, have a close focus of under 4 ft., etc.

I don't know how they compare to top models, but the point is that just as the Honda's VTEC engine trickled down from its sports cars to the economical Honda Fit, top bins' innovations have trickled down to lower cost roofs.

Here's the ad:

http://www.opticsplanet.net/swift-8x...inoculars.html

In a few years, we'll probably see lower cost roofs with dielectric coatings and the Top Three/Four/Five will come up with "nano-coatings" of some such thing.

So while there has been "trickle down economics" in roof prism bins, it was the Big Three (and Nikon) that made most of these innovations, and buyers paid through the nose for the R & D (and perhaps some profit padding) for those incremental improvements, and they are still paying dearly for them with the latest $2K bins from Leica, Zeiss, Swaro (new EL), Nikon EDG, and now Minox with its $1,800 APO HGs.

Could bin manufacturers have gone another way and simply given porros the two things they lacked over roofs - WP/FP?

Now with the Leupold Cascades and Minox BPs, WP/FP with an internal focuser to make it "submersible" at reasonable, not astronomical prices, the gap has been closed.

But it remains to be seen if any other manufacturers follow suit and make such porros with wider fields of view.

Not sure if the Leupold is submersible, but Minox claims that the Minox BP is:

http://www.minox.com/index.php?id=1917

What's your take on all this?

1. Could we have arrived at the point where are in optics now more quickly and much less expensively if bin manufacturers hadn't tried to make porros out of roofs, so to speak, and instead put their innovations into porros?

2. Do you think we are reaching a point of diminishing returns in binocular optics whereby, short of going digital, we've nearly achieved the best light transmission possible, the best contrast and color contrast possible, and all the "bells and whistles," and that from here on in, it will be more about marketing than about innovation?

4-Post by Henry Link, Monday 14th December 2009:

95% transmission, at least across wavelengths from about 550nm to 650nm is old news, accomplished nearly 25 years ago in Fujinon and Nikon multi-coated Porros and I'm sure other brands of Porros as well. It's the Schmidt-Pechen roof prism bins, especially with complex objectives and silver mirror coatings, that have been pulling up the rear and still are.

Nikon is said to have prototype coatings with 0.05% reflectivity. Coatings that good across a broad band would eliminate any significant accumulation of light loss from multiple surfaces in complex optics. Then the final frontier will be glass transparency which is still no better than about a 0.5% loss per 25mm thickness (worse at short wavelengths). For my eyes 97% across the visual spectrum would be truly indistinguishable from 100% and that should eventually be possible except maybe for the blue/violet.

Interesting thread. I have the same impression: The high end binoculars of the top manufacturers are amazingly similar (almost exchangeable) in formats and features. This has been quite different 50 years ago, when Zeiss and Leica did still experiment with new ideas (like mirror/prism combinations) and formats (super wide 6x24 or 10x50, Porros as well as roofs).

Today, engineering has turned very conservative and cautious, with tiny, incremental improvements. The transmission has hit the ceiling - whether 93% or 95% - not much to gain any longer, edge sharpness is improving to a level that makes one wonder what to do next, and the weight reduction cannot be pushed any further without compromising stability and durability. The run for the nearest close-focusing point and for a faster and faster transmission has actually led to a diminishing accuracy of the focusing devices in the latest generation binoculars.

There are still things left for improvements:

1) Field of view: Has already been wider in earlier times, and then somewhat narrowed down to reduce weight, improve eye-glass compatibility and image quality. There is room left for improvements, and the Zeiss SF seems to make the first step toward this direction.

2) New features like image stabilization: Zeiss added it to the 20x60, but nobody since then tried to shrink that technology for application to smaller devices.

3) Modularity: Exchangeable objectives or eyepieces

Of course, the digital binocular is on the horizon, it will change the way we observe nature.

Cheers,
Holger

perterra · Oct 31, 2014

This should be an interesting thread, good stuff

Sandy Leng · Oct 31, 2014

I think that binocular advances aren't just optical. A modern roof is waterproof and can be used safely in all conditions.

My first birding binocular was a Swift Audubon model 804, really good optically, but at the first sight of rain the glass would mist up and it was game over for birding.

My current bin is a Zeiss Victory HT 8x42, and I love the fact that I can use it in all conditions without worrying about water damaging it. Superb optically, and the rain just runs off the lenses with the special coating.

Even low priced Chinese made binoculars are light weight and waterproof nowadays.

Sandy

ceasar · Oct 31, 2014

cnick6 said:
I'd have to agree with James. I also think you're not asking another fair question -- which is -- could it just be you getting older and thus less interested in the subtle changes in the new products?

As we age, we get less and less excited about things we (think) we know very well. I'll use myself as an example.

I grew up being on the cutting edge of all of this computer technogoob that exists today. I reveled in the technology for many years and spent (correction: wasted) a lot of $$$ in playing with new technologies.

Over the years, however, I've learned to be more disciplined in what I spend money on. [Now I just waste money on sport optics! Hah!] I've also felt that a lot of "new" technologies are just a re-hash of older technologies. A great example here is "smartwatches." I grew up at the dawn of the "calculator watch" and it had a very similar following. While it did prove useful at random times (usually during high school math tests) -- it really wasn't all that exciting. In fact, the best part and most useful part was just knowing the time in Tokyo!

Technology will always be like this thanks to human psychology.

In terms of binoculars (like most other complicated devices) these devices are a "system" of parts. The trick is getting the system work in perfect harmony. Anyone with a smartphone realizes that this rarely happens. Recently, though, as Apple can happily prove, people believe in the Apple system. Does this mean they stop adding new features or stop taking risks in new technologies? Heck no. Will Apple get it right every time? Heck no.

Like others have mentioned, there are specific models of binoculars that everyone agrees are "near perfect" ... does this mean they have the latest technology? Nope. Does it mean that the "system" worked? Heck ya!

Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of companies are more focused on X or Y technology and not the "system" of their product. Case in point: Microsoft Windows 8

Microsoft failed to listen to customer feedback early on and was dealt a major wake-up call when customers said "No thanks" and didn't buy their product. Microsoft was "shocked" by this experience and is now going a significant change in company philosophy.

I don't think the sport optics industry is as volatile as the tech industry so change isn't quite as forthcoming. I'm also not surprised it's very hard to get "good" sport optics as the manufacturers regulate production levels to a strict degree to save on costs.

I understand what you're asking for but I fail to see any relevance. There will always be "lulls" in technology advancements. Until someone is will to break that barrier (usually with loads of ca$h) then it will likely stay that way for years to come.

PS. I'm shocked at the lack of digital binoculars. I think that will be the biggest future development. I don't know if the technology is quite up-to-speed as yet to make this leap forward. Just imagine what you could do with purely digital binoculars. Almost endless new features for users.

The technology required to bring digital binoculars up to speed to pass binoculars with the top current technology may never be reached. The following article (mostly about the economic problems coming to Silicon Valley) states that the predicted limits of Moore's Law could be reached by 2019. See the last 4 paragraphs of the following article.

http://www.prudentbear.com/2014/10/the-bears-lair-silicon-valley-is-now.html#.VFMB1Ye5Q7D

Bob

WJC · Oct 31, 2014

Maljunulo said:
If we have reached the limit of the human eye-brain system, how do you suggest we "progress"?

Would someone please carve that in stone!

There seems to be a million times more TALK of improvements discovered in magazine ads, articles, and side-of-the-box verbiage, than in actual, scientific, practical advances.

Yes, some optics are better than others. Still, much of what the average speculator wants to talk about is well below the threshold of actual recognition for humans, anyway.

We can categorize many elements of a physical binocular but, owing to atmosphere, temperature, water or chemicals in the body, elements of fatigue and other transient conditions, people's opinions will differ wildly and remain subjects of contention unless they choose to study some of the realities that exist between the subject and the cerebral recognition.

Bill

bh46118 · Oct 31, 2014

Yes:t:

james holdsworth said:
The HT's [and SLC's / SV's etc.] are clearly and plainly brighter, more contrasty, better stray light control, better CA control, much better white rendering.

peatmoss · Oct 31, 2014

Material science moves very slowly, so it's hard to say whether any perceived technological lull is genuinely a lull, or if it's just the system working as usual. Moreover, even if a novel material did become available, it's not a guarantee that it would be used in a way that everybody would agree is an improvement.

Suppose for example that a good, cheap glass type were developed that could improve a binocular's CA characteristics. Suppose, then, that three different manufacturers decided to use it. One wants to make a binocular that's lighter and more compact, so he cuts the objectives from f/4 to f/3.5, and designs a new model that, thanks to the new glass, has CA characteristics no worse than the old model. The second wants a binocular that's the same size and weight as the old model, so he incorporates the new glass into newly designed f/4 objectives and designs a new model that has slightly better CA characteristics than the old one. The third wants to eliminate CA altogether, so he extends the objectives from f/4 to f/6, adds in the new glass, and designs a new model that's larger and heavier than the old model, but had noticeably improved CA characteristics. So who made a "better" binocular? The one that's a commercial success?

On the other hand, something I'd like to see across the board is better control over stray light. A few months ago, a forum member linked to a news story about a new material developed from carbon nanotubes which could offer a substantial improvement over the "matte black" paint typically used in binoculars today. I'd be very interested to see what this material could do for our binoculars.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...ial-so-dark-that-you-cant-see-it-9602504.html

Chosun Juan · Oct 31, 2014

peatmoss said:
Material science moves very slowly, so it's hard to say whether any perceived technological lull is genuinely a lull, or if it's just the system working as usual. Moreover, even if a novel material did become available, it's not a guarantee that it would be used in a way that everybody would agree is an improvement.

Suppose for example that a good, cheap glass type were developed that could improve a binocular's CA characteristics. Suppose, then, that three different manufacturers decided to use it. One wants to make a binocular that's lighter and more compact, so he cuts the objectives from f/4 to f/3.5, and designs a new model that, thanks to the new glass, has CA characteristics no worse than the old model. The second wants a binocular that's the same size and weight as the old model, so he incorporates the new glass into newly designed f/4 objectives and designs a new model that has slightly better CA characteristics than the old one. The third wants to eliminate CA altogether, so he extends the objectives from f/4 to f/6, adds in the new glass, and designs a new model that's larger and heavier than the old model, but had noticeably improved CA characteristics. So who made a "better" binocular? The one that's a commercial success?

On the other hand, something I'd like to see across the board is better control over stray light. A few months ago, a forum member linked to a news story about a new material developed from carbon nanotubes which could offer a substantial improvement over the "matte black" paint typically used in binoculars today. I'd be very interested to see what this material could do for our binoculars.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...ial-so-dark-that-you-cant-see-it-9602504.html

Exactly! Until we are getting 97-98%+ transmission over the visible spectrum, and making use of materials science to reduce weight (there's maybe ~100 or so grams still in it) /increase performance (with things such as glare), and hitting those resolution limits (well beyond what the best of best of eyes can see - there is still an active debate around those tangible benefits) - then there's more to come for the optical instrument.

Yes it's like a frog hopping half way to a wall :frog: and the gains get diminishingly smaller - but, they are still there for the taking.

Folks will say that the expense is not worth it, and that costs will just go up and up and up. Bunkum! In every facet of human existence and endeavour improvements and gains in productivity are being made. Naysayers always ignore the economic benefits of the knowledge and experience curve, and scale economies. The price will not go up - it will come down! :cat:

Once the physical limits of the glass itself are hit, then it becomes a matter of other factors - innovation, features, formats, luxury, customisation /personalisation, quality, consistency, etc - but largely cost down drivers. ie. just about all the cutting edge performance becomes available at the mid-tier, and even entry level, leaving the big dawgs to fight it out in the fashion, and service stakes, etc.

I for one, don't want my precious eyes bombarded with flashing electronic jiggerypoo - giving only an approximate facsimilie of reality ......

Chosun :gh:

cnick6 · Oct 31, 2014

ceasar said:
On the matter of digital binoculars I am more interested in what I as a human see than what a machine sees for me. I find this kind of reliance on technology to "improve" what is clearly a complex human activity a bit uncomfortable. It reminds me of one of Wendell Berry's comments in one of his essays: "It is easy for me to imagine that the next great division of mankind will be between people who want to live as creatures and people who want to live as machines."

ceasar said:
The technology required to bring digital binoculars up to speed to pass binoculars with the top current technology may never be reached.

Yes it's not going to be easy Bob. It'll take someone with deep pockets to really have the motivation to push the engineering envelope.

Even with digital binoculars there will be some kind of optical path that's necessary (at least initially) and that will be just as important as the rest of the system. The obvious downside to a digital binocular is electrical power. That'll be a big challenge as well. (What good is a super-duper digital binocular if its battery only lasts for 30 minutes!)

Hermann · Oct 31, 2014

Holger Merlitz said:
There are still things left for improvements:

1) Field of view: Has already been wider in earlier times, and then somewhat narrowed down to reduce weight, improve eye-glass compatibility and image quality. There is room left for improvements, and the Zeiss SF seems to make the first step toward this direction.

2) New features like image stabilization: Zeiss added it to the 20x60, but nobody since then tried to shrink that technology for application to smaller devices.

3) Modularity: Exchangeable objectives or eyepieces

I agree on the first two points. An AFOV of ~70 degrees should be possible without too many sacrifices with regard to eye glass compatibility and image quality. Image stabilization would arguably be the most interesting improvement, even for binoculars in the 8-12x magnification range. I don't really understand why Zeiss didn't pursue this line of development after the introduction of the 20x60S and the 20x60S Mono many years ago.

Modularity - well, I'm not sure whether that's the way forward. Modularity makes perfect sense in scopes, sure. But I think it would be a bit over the top in binoculars, really. I think a much more interesting development would be improved zoom binoculars, along the lines of the Leica Duovid. Given the advances of zoom eyepieces over the past 10 years or so, it should be possible to design e.g. an 8x+12x binocular with a wide field of view that can compete with the optics of conventional binoculars.

Another aspect is stray light control. Having used a pair of conventional porros with essentially perfect stray light control recently, I think there's still a lot of scope for improvement, much more than most people realize. The HT is from what I've seen one step in that direction, it seems me to be very, very good in that respect, but virtually no other roofs I know (including the Ultravids and the Swarovisions) come close to the HT.

Hermann

perterra · Oct 31, 2014

Most of this is over my head, but as for improvements in image we may be at the apex of conventional development and most improvements now will be on the manufacturing side. Plastics in the chassis and prism and even then it may not fly, carbon fiber or polymers for a chassis may be rejected by buyers of high end glass because people think it must be magnesium. Would you pay $2,000 for a bin made of plastic?

bh46118 · Oct 31, 2014

Also, without the big three doing what they do at the top, there would be no Zen Prime, Endeavor EDII, etc. You can't copy what hasn't been made. Question is, will the Chinese ever innovate? I'm sure they could, but will they ? Economics would dictate not I would say.

Call for contributions: Collecting Evidence for Lack of Progress in Sporting Optics (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Consulting Biologist

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread