Great new stuff from Zeiss (1 Viewer)

Bencw said:

Thanks Lee,

I did not know about the those differences, I had read that it was a cost issue somewhere, I think on a review singing the praises for those old trinovids. But as it was mentioned above that HT is no benefit in SP prisms due to wrong refraction index, I just wondered if the same would apply to Uppendhals, or if new HT glass would make enough difference in the uppendhal set up to make the extra cost/complication worth it now.

Click to expand...

ticl2184 said:

Sadly I don't think were going to be seeing a 32mm version of the HT's any time soon. 2015 probably.

Click to expand...

brocknroller said:

Thanks for those explanations even though some mystery still seems to remain about why HTs are superior to FLs. But that's what most eyeballs see.

After reading this interesting discussion, I can only wonder what Zeiss can do to its new midsize alpha line (whatever they call it) that can make it better than the 8x/10x32 FLs? To eek out another percentage point or two with uberduper coatings is not going to be different enough even if they design them with the sleeker body of the HTs. Sure there will always be buyers who will buy them simply because they are the latest, but smart buyers will want more for their money.

I think we might be approaching the Omega Point in sports optics (at least non-digital) where only more marketing mumbo jumbo is going to sell the 8x32 FLs successor.

I can't imagine Zeiss including innovations in their midsized line that aren't included in their HT line such as adding field flatteners.

I think the reason it's taking so long for them to come out with a new midsized model is that they've painted themselves into a corner with the HT glass in the A-K prisms. After touting their brilliance, they've got to come up with something equally impressive sounding to sell the 8x/10x32 FLs successors. There's probably a lot of head scratching going on in the research lab at Zeiss Sport Optics (and a lot of dandruff on the floor).

Brock

Click to expand...

Troubador said:

All good points Brock, apart from the dandruff references

One route Zeiss could go down (this is my speculation) is compactness and lightweight, which the overall HT-shape lends itself to.

Don't know quite how they would do this but this could be one direction that might be fruitful, along with coating improvements, as you say. Carbon-fibre tubes might deliver the weight targets but I'm not sure about the economics.

But the area of coatings could be interesting as there have been developments in photography like nano-coatings (anti-reflective) that could be applied and deliver an increase in performance. Perhaps such coatings would allow a 30mm to out-perform a 32mm and thus deliver on the compactness idea.

Just throwing ideas against the wall to see if any stick. All I can see is a heap under the wall :eat:.

Lee

Click to expand...

Holger Merlitz said:

I don't see major opportunities in terms of transmission - we have reached values above 90%, and for a 30mm binocular to top the light-throughput of a 32mm binocular, transmissions beyond 100% would be required

As Brock mentioned, the manufacturers have pretty much hit the ceiling, there is no much left for improvements. Except for - angle of view! The human eye has an angle of view of over 100 Deg, but most binoculars end at slightly above 60 Deg AFOV. There is still a long way to go until we have true wide-angle binoculars.

Cheers,
Holger

Click to expand...

Troubador said:

OK, bad idea, and actually if you add up all of the transmission improvements over the years they are probably at 105% already!

Super-wide angle could be an exciting development but wouldn't that mean bulkier bins?

Lee

Click to expand...

brocknroller said:

The 8.8* 8x30 EII is no bulkier than the 7.5* 8x32 SE. In fact, the diameter of the EP housing is the same and the eyecups fit either bin, but there is an increase in aberration and distortion with the EII. More field curvature, more pincushion. Not enough to prevent me from picking up the EII most of the time I walk out the door to watch birds, but I think if the FOV was increased much beyond 8.8*, the aberrations and distortion might be too much like it was with the ZR 7x36 ED2.

So my question would be can you increase the FOV and still keep aberrations and distortions to a reasonable level?

There's also the issue of decreased ER in EWA bins.

Brock

Click to expand...

Troubador said:

OK, I will really show my optics ignorance now and ask.

Doesn't ER reduce unless you increase lens diameters and aren't we then into a bigger bins spiral??

Lee

Click to expand...

ceasar said:

Holger,

"Yes, longer ER implies a larger diameter of the ocular's eye-lens"

So that explains why 7 x 42 binoculars have longer eye relief than 10 x 42 binoculars. The eye piece is bigger in the 7 x 42.

In 7 x 42 porro prism binoculars would it be necessary to use larger prisms if you wanted a wide field? I notice that the Swarovski 7 x 42 Habicht has a rather narrow real FOV compared to the 8 x 30 and 10 x 40.


I guess the larger eyepieces cost more too which may be another reason why we are seeing them disappear in top grade binoculars where the manufacturers are trying to save on the costs incurred from the new technological improvements.

Bob

Click to expand...