:t::t: :-O
Not sure if this should be a separate thread:
CA:
Got to test them some more on a huge & mostly dead oak tree against a cloudy sky. Very little CA in the middle 25+ % of FOV or so. Just barely visible green on a few select branches, and even then it kind of went in and out of view. Per an allbinos style, I'd rate it negligible to vey low in center.
This also doesn't seem to one of those bins that go from almost no CA to a lot just a little off center. It increases fairly slowly and just on the outer 70-80 percent, I'd say medium. Didn't look for a slight blue rim because I don't care if it's that hard to see!
I had a sample of an SLC HD that did nowhere this good (it was just a touch less than the Minox) and had high CA past that 25-30 percent mark.
Of course, these are all non technical and personal observations, but at least it was the same day and roughly the same object/eye position (and same abnormal brain?). :eek!:
YMMV, for sure, but still good news on the CA front. I've seen a fair number of ED bins at this point, and I found that they vary in their ability to suppress color aberration even at the same magnification and even at the top tier, as you mentioned as I've seen myself.
Which, like Marvin Gay, makes me wonder: What's Going On?
I know all ED glass is not created equal, but "how comes" (to use Bradford, Pa. slang) a $400 Celestron 10x50 ED porro can suppress CA better than a $2,000 10x42 EDG roof? Surely the ED glass must be as good if not better at the top tier.
Same thing with the 7x42 Ubervid HD vs. the 7x36 ED2. How can cheaper bins outperform much more expensive ones in terms of CA control when both have ED glass? I haven't tried the the ubers but read reports of CA even in the HD model (in fact, most reports state that the HD didn't do much if anything in regard to CA control).
For example, on this thread:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=108416
What other factors affect CA besides how low the dispersion of the glass?
Distortion:
As far as the rolling 8 ball of doom, doubt you'll see it in the Euro HD. Distortion is pretty high, I'd say it starts about 30-35 percent off axis.
But it's not just where the distortion starts, it's how mild it is or isn't. My Minox has some too starting from around 45ish, but it's far, far more gradual and hard to notice. Even of outer margins look reasonably straight with just a touch of curving lines. The Euro HD in the outer 70-80 makes things look somewhat like Cupid's bow.
Interesting point. I thought where the bowing started was an indication of how severe the pincushion is since it gets worse near the edges. So if straight lines start bending at 33% out, you know that at 70% its going to be much worse. If it starts at 45% out, it's not going to be as bad as the 33% bin at 70% out.
The distortion level in the Cabela/Meopta is a "red flag" for me, because it might bother me like the way the distortion in the ZR 7x36 ED2 did.
Edge Sharpness:
Well, it's not as sharp on the edge as the Minox. I'd say the outer 33 percent or so starts showing some darkening, loss of sharpness, blur, compression of vertical lines, etc. Hard to tell them all apart... The Minox is sharp to about 70 some and it's more of a gradual fall off.
I was comparing very textured tree trunks in the yard, and corduroy objects in the house and feeling in a picky mood. But wondering if the Minox Aspheric lenses make a difference...
Which Minox model are you referring? Some of their models have very conservative FsOV, so it would be easier to make the edges sharp on those models.
I prefer bins whose sharpness falls off at the edges gradually so it's hardly noticeable when panning. Sounds like the Meopta stays sharp to a good way out but then fall off sharply at the edges from the way you described it, with a combination of distortions, even though allbinos rates the edge sharpness as a 7 out of 10 with the first blur occurring at 87% out! 7 out of 10? I wonder how many bins are still sharp at 87% out?
To get a "10" you might have to go so low on pincushion distortion, it could create the "rolling ball effect," at least for those of us who are sensitive to it.
Colors man:
No yellow tint here! And also not cold like the Ziess FL. I'd say it looks pretty neutral, although once I thought reds looked a tiny bit pink on a few trees, but maybe they were really pink in real life. It wasn't as scientific as my white (whitefish?) testing e.g. looking at a piece of paper, or my tuxedo cat, etc.
Also, not seeing the 10 percent difference in transmission between barrels that Allbinos saw in the 10x42 Meostar. Very little difference.
Glad to hear they got rid of the tint in the full sized models. They are apparently looking to reach out to buyers beyond the hunting community.
You'd notice a difference of 10% in brightness. It could be that allbinos had a defective sample.
I noticed a difference in brightness and contrast btwn the two barrels in the 10x42 HG I bought. When I looked down the objectives, I saw one surface that was coated on one side wasn't on the other. The HG was returned to the store for a refund.
Brightness:
Still trying to think of a good test for this as I have no other 10X and my Minox's are very, very bright so hard to compare.
Cloudy days are the best test unless you plan to use the bins at twilight. That's when differences in brightness will show up.
Resolution
Still need to properly test, but so far I don't see obvious issues.
... snipped....
Feel/Karma:
The bins are quite nice to hold, with thumb indents underneath that are wide so you don't have to steal a pair of elf thumbs like you normally would.
Focus was a bit stiff and hard in 1 direction at first, but that went away pretty fast. The travel takes around 1.5 turns, which isn't bad.
Eyecups twist out, but don't seem to have intermediate stops on them. Considering they are fairly stiff and don't go that far because of 15mm eye relief, doubt it's much of an issue. I'd say the effective eye relief is about 11mm, though.
I really, really like the lack of strap lugs intruding on my focusing finger. They are about as high as the top of the focus wheel, so they are out of the way. The lugs are also recessed a lot which is good, but makes it take a bit longer to get the strap on.
Other thoughts:
Coatings - not sure how they are supposed to look, but seems Purple/Pink/Orange on the objectives, Yellow on prisms and Green/Pink/Orange on the eyepieces. Don't quote me on this, though.
It doesn't seem like there's any rain repellant "Nano" coating or whatever on these. But I've seen lenses that are a fair amount harder to clean than the Euro HD's.
They also have a good, hearty smell... But not as yummy as the Minox ones. Much better than the cheap deals I've bought and returned, though...
Overall:
I'm still thinking of if I should keep them. I guess the only concerning thing is edge sharpness, which I really looked hard for in testing. But maybe with 15mm eye relief, I'll never see the edges. But they certainly deliver on their most advertised quality of less CA! :t: Nice to see ED glass in sub $1000 euro bins... o
P.S. As this is a somewhat abbreviated and non technical review, if you want to know anything else, please ask! Pictures will follow, perhaps tonight/tomorrow as the ones on Cabela's site as difficult to see.
As you, JB, Roadbike and I have said in different ways: A bin is more than the sum of its parts.
Your example of the different things going on at the edges of the Meopta shows that measuring an isolated factor and putting a value to it in terms of how favorable or not favorable it is doesn't give you the "big picture" of what's going on, and can even be misleading.
So what to do? Don't measure edge sharpness, CA, distortion, etc? Add the multiple effects that effect edges together for a total? That wouldn't work if one of those effects was field curvature since that varies depending on the user's eyes.
Now review will tell you more than trying a bin for yourself, but not everyone lives in a big city or has a big store like Cabela's within driving distance. And not everybody has a $4,000 credit line on their credit cards or even if they do would use it for purchasing two or more binoculars to compare. So many people rely on expert reviews and other users' opinions to make their purchase decisions.
More experienced and knowledgeable users can "read in between the lines" of reviews and pick out prejudices that the reviewer might have. For example, with allbinos, edge sharpness and low distortion are two "ideals" that everyone might not share equally.
Even if a bin is sharp to 87% out, it's only going to get a 7 out of 10 pts. Even if a bin's low distortion makes panning look like a view in a carnival "Funhouse" mirror, the bin is going to score high in that category.
It's fair to give opinions at the end of the review in the commentary section, but inevitably reviewers' biases enter into the values they assign the results of each of the characteristics they evaluate.
So how do you remove the "human factors" from reviews? A better question: Is it even desirable to do remove the "human factors" in a review?
I used to think so but don't anymore. I'm not looking for an abstract list of numbers from some robotic reviewer. I want informed opinions but opinions none-the-less. Real people looking through the tubes and telling you want they think.
What I would like to see, however, is some standardization in testing methodologies. Henry's questioning of allbinos methodology, Kevin's questioning of Stephen Ingraham's methodology, and the "Tech Wars" BF thread where three experts squared off against each other debating results in arc seconds suggests to me that "objective" tests might not be as objective as we think.
Having some international standard might help make the numbers more honest, and the reviews can still insert their interpretation of those numbers with "points" they give each of those factors based on what they think are the most desirable characteristics. IOW, give their opinions about the standardized results. Otherwise, why would you bother to read the review if all it contained were number values you could get in any review?
Given such standardization does not currently exist, and that the point values are weighted on the biases of each reviewer's personal likes and dislikes, those of us who read reviews to influence our purchase decisions, would be well advised not rely on any one reviewer or any one user opinion, but collect as many opinions as possible, find areas of agreement, and knowing what your own likes and dislikes are, make a personal "pros and cons" list, giving each a point value based on how important each characteristic is for YOU.
Armed with that personalized perspective, you will be in a better position to make a purchase decision. However, you might still get a surprise as I did the first time I looked through a full sized Nikon HG. I read every review I could find, but none warned about the now infamous "rolling ball effect".
Thanks to users reporting this effect, more reviewers are aware of it now and some reviewers such as Holger Merlitz make mention of it in their reviews when binoculars have very low distortion.
Similarly, chromatic aberration, which was rarely mentioned years back is now a regular staple of most reviews.
I think users reporting what they see through binoculars also helps companies get feedback on their bins so they can make adjustments when certain features are found lacking.
The "slow" EL focuser, the "veiling glare" in the first gen. 7x36 ED2, the rough Ultravid focusers, and the original Zeiss Victory's "meat hook" strap lugs.
This is why, for example, I keep harping on the uneven smoothness in Swaro focusers and posting links to others who have found the same issue with their samples. I know Swaro can do better, for $2K, it
should do better.
It
must do better if the company expects me and other "picky" users who have spoiled by the smooth focusers of the Nikon HG or EDG or Zeiss FL to "join the Swaro family of optics".
Brock
