On-Axis Alpha binicular shoutout including ranking (1 Viewer)

Just a very brief test...totally subjective...my eyeballs on this day. A specific test, most likely unrelated to the so so many other positive attributes of good binoculars.

So...This afternoon for a bit of fun I gathered together a few of my favourite binos for an on axis resolution shoutout at sunset then leading into early evening.

Fujinon fmtr-sx 7x50
Swarovski 8.5x42 SV
Canon 10x42 is L
Swarovski Habicht 10x40 GA

Oddly, I left out a couple of late model Habicht 8x30 which sat in a drawer instead. I've tested them with these before however so I know of their prowess.


As a platform I used my trusty junk shop mini tripod with the big grippy rubber fujis attached. Perfect!

I'm in an elevated spot but have a few subjects which I can especially focus on to test resolution. The tip of a tall pine tree 250M away..counting and resolving the new sprouts on its tiny tip.
The nasty test however is a 12-24 inch tall thin 'hypodermic' like lightening rod atop a spire atop a 60 or so story building exactly 5 km away. This thing is nasty to resolve. A cruel test. At certain times of day it is just impossible to see being so thin. Seeing it after sunset is a challenging task.

I acknowledge the varying magnifications, but everything is mounted...and to my eyes some stated magnifications are not what they seem.

So which binos could see this hypodermic rod latest into the evening?

-The winner today is the Habicht 10x40. It resolved beyond the others.
-The 8.5x42 SV in second place. Superb.
- The Fuji 7x50 was so close to the 8.5 SV it was astonishing for just 7x...and considering I was using the same focus setting as 50m away..astonishing.
-The Canon 10x42 were a great disappointment tonight. One of the most ruthlessly resolving binocular I have ever previously encountered wasn't up to the challenge. It was markedly better with IS Off but mounted. It was still very good. I'm wondering what's going on here. All my binos are in otherwise perfect condition. I'm concerned about my fat, heavy, fragile Cannons.

My iPad is running at 2% battery so bye for now...will update later regarding perceived brightness...something I also jotted down.

Regarding brightness this afternoon and this evening....at twilight, focusing on Fig tree roots in deep shady foliage 250m away...it was difficult to discern a difference between the three leading binos. The SV, Habicht and Fujinon all performed well. The fujis definitely have a fat juicy eye candy, no fuss, ease of view the others can't quite match. The SV and Habicht are difficult to seperate in very dim conditions...but the Habicht appeared to be slightly brighter in the not so quite dim conditions.

I'm not going to pretend to understand the science behind all of these findings...but my eyes are in good condition, and I trust my brain.

The interesting thing is that I've done these tests before under quite different conditions and the results can be different. Fascinating stuff.

. Hi Rathaus,
Needlelike objects for testing can be quite variable. Especially if someone has the slightest astigmatism. And also the lighting has to be exactly the same for each test.

It is possible to see a wire against the sky down to one arc second thickness or even less for those with the best eyesight.

Perhaps it would be fairer to also try reading car number plates at perhaps at a mile or so, or whatever distance is limiting for you.

I used to use a tower clockface at 7.5 km, and a friend used to use the guttering on a church tower at 17 miles, but these were for high-resolution telescopes at very high magnification both at night and during the day.

It is not surprising that the Canon 10×42 performs better on a tripod with the image stabilising off, this is normal. When the stabilisation was off, where the variable prisms centred at their rest position?

The 4 binoculars look precarious on the tripod.

P. S.
Thinking about it, although a mile might be suitable for reading car number plates with telescopes, a better distance for binoculars might be around a quarter of a mile.

Given the distances involved,
the haze filtering of some of those would give them a huge boost. TheFujis especially.

Check the Canons on fine print at 50ft. Mystery solved?

. The resolution of one arc second of a wire against the daylight sky is with unaided eyes, but this will be at a relatively short distance.
The astronomer Barnard, for example, was able to glimpse a wire suspended against the day sky when it's diameter was only 0.44 arc seconds.

Binastro said:

. Hi Rathaus,
Needlelike objects for testing can be quite variable. Especially if someone has the slightest astigmatism. And also the lighting has to be exactly the same for each test.

It is possible to see a wire against the sky down to one arc second thickness or even less for those with the best eyesight.

Perhaps it would be fairer to also try reading car number plates at perhaps at a mile or so, or whatever distance is limiting for you.

I used to use a tower clockface at 7.5 km, and a friend used to use the guttering on a church tower at 17 miles, but these were for high-resolution telescopes at very high magnification both at night and during the day.

It is not surprising that the Canon 10×42 performs better on a tripod with the image stabilising off, this is normal. When the stabilisation was off, where the variable prisms centred at their rest position?

The 4 binoculars look precarious on the tripod.

P. S.
Thinking about it, although a mile might be suitable for reading car number plates with telescopes, a better distance for binoculars might be around a quarter of a mile.

Click to expand...

Could you speak a bit about your canon prism comment? I feel they are varying on me and not up to what they used to be. Definitely the IS. I used to put the cannons on par with the SV, at least. I have lithium batteries in there. It could be they are exceeding the acquity of my eyes which all these instruments no doubt do. Many times I've had a could of glasses of wine while observing and initially blamed a mystery haze (or light condition) decending in the air B

My eyes are good, but not perfect, (most likely deteriorating) and not quite as good as when I purchased the cannons a few years back. I have some reading glasses only to be used when my eyes become fatigued to avoid migraine. Otherwise I read fine with no glasses. When I use these glasses with the cannon IS it does appear to snap into crispness. Out of IS the difference is not as much.
Are the cannons essentially diagnosing my eyes?

Am I using the IS correctly?

The precarious stack was for the photo only

. Hi Rathaus,
I have also suffered some migraines, which only developed in middle age. They can have many triggers, but I would certainly not use binoculars or even my eyes when having a migraine, although they can vary in awfulness.

Have you checked, that the batteries on your Canon 10×42 are new, and also that the contacts are clean. If the full current is not reaching the binocular then the image stabilisation will not be very good.

It could be that the binoculars are dependent on your eyesight at any particular time, but only you can really know that.

When the image stabilisation is on, even mounted on a tripod, it will try to make corrections which will disturb the image slightly.
Normally I think that if the stabilisation is off, the position of the variable prisms should be neutral. As they move from the centre position there are slight prismatic effects, which are at a maximum with the maximum displacement of the prisms.
If you look at a bright star with your unaided eyes and get good circular images, then you should get good circular images at the centre of the field with the Canon 10×42 binocular. You may see with the image stabilisation that the star images become slightly noncircular and may be slightly prismatic. This is when you move the binocular around a bit.

It could be of course that the image stabilisation is not as good as it used to be. Perhaps you could compare it with another Canon 10×42 binocular.

However, it is likely even if you have good eyesight that a bright star will be slightly non-circular, especially if you defocus it a bit.

Perhaps a trip to a good ophthalmologist would reveal any slight problems, but as I say if migraine is involved it is likely your vision will be affected.

Binastro said:

. Hi Rathaus,
I have also suffered some migraines, which only developed in middle age. They can have many triggers, but I would certainly not use binoculars or even my eyes when having a migraine, although they can vary in awfulness.

Have you checked, that the batteries on your Canon 10×42 are new, and also that the contacts are clean. If the full current is not reaching the binocular then the image stabilisation will not be very good.

It could be that the binoculars are dependent on your eyesight at any particular time, but only you can really know that.

When the image stabilisation is on, even mounted on a tripod, it will try to make corrections which will disturb the image slightly.
Normally I think that if the stabilisation is off, the position of the variable prisms should be neutral. As they move from the centre position there are slight prismatic effects, which are at a maximum with the maximum displacement of the prisms.
If you look at a bright star with your unaided eyes and get good circular images, then you should get good circular images at the centre of the field with the Canon 10×42 binocular. You may see with the image stabilisation that the star images become slightly noncircular and may be slightly prismatic. This is when you move the binocular around a bit.

It could be of course that the image stabilisation is not as good as it used to be. Perhaps you could compare it with another Canon 10×42 binocular.

However, it is likely even if you have good eyesight that a bright star will be slightly non-circular, especially if you defocus it a bit.

Perhaps a trip to a good ophthalmologist would reveal any slight problems, but as I say if migraine is involved it is likely your vision will be affected.

Click to expand...

Yes thanks for that...something needs checking.

Three years ago I would have confidently backed the cannons to outdo the others in this test. Handheld, They used to split the new pine shoot tips (I could count them) on the tree top 250m away...the 8.5SV struggled to compete even mounted...magnification no doubt, but it also shows how good the cannon is.

Similar test Under totally different (more favourable) conditions about a week ago the other binos were viewing the same Lightning conductor with ease as the late sun lit the top half of the building. Great contrast. Even then, only the cannons could clearly (under the same focus setting as on axis) resolve this needle like conductor at the absolute extreme of its fov. I'm talking - a fragment of the needle intentionally kept out of the fov, yet the rest of this tiny tiny object was razor sharp as it exited 100% fov. I've never seen edge performance like this.

Which makes me think there's a consistency issue here. I will indeed be checking the contacts etc. they are fresh new lithium batteries, but I'll try others just in case.

However, The 10x40 Habicht is a new addition and I can say that it's resolving punch is as mysteriously good as the little habichts. Somebody around here described its resolving power as 'monstrous' and I would have to agree with that. ive had some moments where I've looked through them at an object and been in awe, only to realise I'm Not fully focused yet.

Many thanks

Last week I was "comparing" a pair of Fujinon FMT-SX 16X70 with my EL SV 10X42, looking at buildings just over 2.5 miles away, to the west, with the sun low in the sky.

While the Fujinons, rather obviously, "showed more" and "out resolved" the Swarovski glasses, there was no comparison between the other attributes of the two images.

No "wow!" for the Fujinons, even though they are every impressive, especially on a clear, dark night.

Faced with a choice, the Fujinons would go.

Maljunulo said:

Last week I was "comparing" a pair of Fujinon FMT-SX 16X70 with my EL SV 10X42, looking at buildings just over 2.5 miles away, to the west, with the sun low in the sky.

While the Fujinons, rather obviously, "showed more" and "out resolved" the Swarovski glasses, there was no comparison between the other attributes of the two images.

No "wow!" for the Fujinons, even though they are every impressive, especially on a clear, dark night.

Faced with a choice, the Fujinons would go.

Click to expand...

Yes I've considered the 16x70 fujis but I've heard they're not exactly the sweet spot in the Fuji range....that going to the 10x50 and the 7x50.

In terms of pure and easy instant eye candy I can't think of much to challenge the fmtr-sx 7x50. Even my semi blind 90yr old granny can get a decent view.

Having said that, the 16x70 are still on my shortlist for a terrestrial power bino. Great value.

Those Fujinon and Swaro models are in my household, and I agree with your impression of them, so I also will trust what you say about the other two. Thanks for your comparison. The finding that more magnification reveals greater detail is expected, but other aspects are interesting. I have often extolled/championed/defended that Fujinon so these remarks will be no surprise.

Much of its advantage is in the big lens/low power specification of 7x50. In daytime conditions, the small eye pupil accepts only the central portion of the exit pupil, effectively isolating the central and best part of the objective lens and increasing the focal ratio, which suppresses all aberrations as well as preventing light scattered from the internal structures from entering the eye. This is all well understood here and often mentioned, and was first explained by Henry Link in his review of the 8x56 Zeiss FL, perhaps his, nay, perhaps THE greatest single contribution to the understanding of the binocular view.

In addition, the military style offers the severe alignment constraints of heavy construction and individual eyepiece focusing, and the huge prisms provide essentially uniform illumination over the field of view. The final coup de grace is Fujinon's coatings, which in most of the models (but not the 16x70 nor 8x30) extend to the prisms as well as the lenses. Fujinon advanced these coatings about 1980, to the eternal shame of all other manufacturers, the best of whom are only now catching up.

The result is a view that is curiously immediate and easily acquired, and free from the little unnatural viewing artifacts that we become accustomed to in using typical small binoculars.

All that said, for birding just gimme a 8x42 roof. But from an optics freakery standpoint, you NEED to look through a great 7x50. I brought mine through the canyon on my walk to work this morning and enjoyed a few views along the way. Carrumba, what a monster!

Ron

Just another mundane example.

The other evening, while driving around with my Fujinon FMT-SX 16X70 along, I came upon a deer, feeding in a field a bit over200 yards away. I grabbed the Fujis, and took a look.

I looking it over, it turned out to be a young buck, with his little antler knobs about 6" high, so I thought that was pretty impressive, although it took me a few seconds to be sure of what I saw.

Then I looked with my EL SV 10X42, and while amazed at how much smaller the image was, I was totally blown away by the fact that I could almost "feel" the texture of the velvet on his antlers, the subtle color shadings, between the antlers, his ears, and all was truly stunning, and totally beyond the Fujis.

So once again, a big Wow! for Swarovision. (And I didn't even think once about how many lenses are in the oculars, or the objectives.)

Maljunulo,

I agree that the Fujinon 16x70 is not a good daytime binocular. I found the images rather soft and rife with color error. I wasn't even that crazy about it for astronomy, as I was always fighting for truly sharp star images. The Docter Nobilem 15x60 is better and even has the convenience of center focusing.

Ron

ronh said:

Maljunulo,

I agree that the Fujinon 16x70 is not a good daytime binocular. I found the images rather soft and rife with color error. I wasn't even that crazy about it for astronomy, as I was always fighting for truly sharp star images. The Docter Nobilem 15x60 is better and even has the convenience of center focusing.

Ron

Click to expand...

Ron

How do you rate the Docter Nobilems for daytime viewing?

Rathaus,

I believe that it is nearly impossible to build a large high magnification binocular that competes in image quality with small lower powered models, because aberrations of all kinds are fundamentally worse and the magnification reveals them well. Just look at the price of a good single barrel telescope of the same aperture, and ask yourself if two can be properly made and aligned for half that cost.

Anyhow, after struggling with my 16x70 Fujinon for a couple of years, I decided to try the 15x60 Docter Nobilem, and although I had given it a lot of thought and was in hope of an improvement, I was surprised at how large a difference it actually turned out to be. I'd rate it good even by the standards of small binoculars, and outstanding for its size and magnification. By day, I hardly notice any color error, and the color presentation, contrast and sharpness are very good. At night star images are nice and tight. The field is wide, with moderate off axis blurring and pincushion distortion.

I think Docter's "secret" is simply that the design of the Nobilem is so conservative and old fashioned, which controls the price, although it is still more expensive than the Fujionon. Apparently zero effort has been spent on niceties like extreme ruggedness, ergonomics, eyecups, waterproofing, or accessories. It is amusing how their advertising implies the contrary! In reality, they must put everything into the coatings and precise optical adjustment. It is a clunky binocular, but the view is good.

Ron