Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
:t:
-
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.
Swarovision Coatings... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ticl2184
- Start date
:t:
You can call Swaro USA and ask them. They'll probably tell you it would be a waste of time and money, since the coatings and glass haven't changed with the conversion to field pro designs.
Bwana1
Well-known member
Fair enough, there just seems to be a difference of opinion...some say slow changes, some say none
Hi,
while certainly not an optics pro, it should be enough for a handwaving argument - the fact that the MgF2 commonly used for anti reflection coatings is very transparent down to hard UV in the 100nm range makes any damage to it from near UV-A and -B found in sunlight at earths surface quite improbable.
There are some examples of bad coatings which deteriorated over time - but this probably was due to process problems rather than UV damage.
Dielectric mirrors in high power UV laser applications are known to be susceptible to damage from the UV, but this is a quite different situation.
Joachim
You are probably good then!:t:
Hi All.
I talked with the boss.
He thought it unlikely that UV radiation would affect AR coatings as they are inorganic normally.
Although he could envisage a situation where atoms are excited and change.
He lost me on the chemistry involved.
This morning I received a very long analysis from the boss of bosses.
Basically he says No.
But any lubricant or paint that smells should never be anywhere near optics.
A binocular in a hot window can cause so much internal damage as to render a binocular useless. It would need cleaning that might cost more than the binocular
Even military binoculars must have no smelly lubricants or paints near them.
Every optics shop window should be vacuumed daily. If not it could be death to optics if the window is Sun facing. England may be better than Texas.
He has further sent a very long message to the boss of boss of bosses.
I await the full analysis from THE AR coating MAN himself.
All involved have a lifetime in these matters.
My thoughts were that only the front and rear surfaces could be suspect as most glass absorbs UV, although there are simple lenses that can be used for near UV photography.
What will we do when these oldtimers cannot answer questions?
I talked with the boss.
He thought it unlikely that UV radiation would affect AR coatings as they are inorganic normally.
Although he could envisage a situation where atoms are excited and change.
He lost me on the chemistry involved.
This morning I received a very long analysis from the boss of bosses.
Basically he says No.
But any lubricant or paint that smells should never be anywhere near optics.
A binocular in a hot window can cause so much internal damage as to render a binocular useless. It would need cleaning that might cost more than the binocular
Even military binoculars must have no smelly lubricants or paints near them.
Every optics shop window should be vacuumed daily. If not it could be death to optics if the window is Sun facing. England may be better than Texas.
He has further sent a very long message to the boss of boss of bosses.
I await the full analysis from THE AR coating MAN himself.
All involved have a lifetime in these matters.
My thoughts were that only the front and rear surfaces could be suspect as most glass absorbs UV, although there are simple lenses that can be used for near UV photography.
What will we do when these oldtimers cannot answer questions?
Last edited:
ticl2184
Well-known member
Spent a good hour today at London camera exchange in Guilford today ....
Took some images through my Canon Powers shot SX200IS and used the Swarovski camera adaptor..
Exposure was 1/1000..F.3.4..ISO 160
See what you think ....The Church tower was my 10x42 SV vs 10x42 FP SV.....The pub was the my 8x32 SV vs 8x32 FP SV....
Tell me which image's seem better and I'll divulge which was which later ..
PS.
Thanks to the Manager at Guilford LCE for allowing free access to the your bino's. ..
Your a legend Martin....
Cheers Tim
Took some images through my Canon Powers shot SX200IS and used the Swarovski camera adaptor..
Exposure was 1/1000..F.3.4..ISO 160
See what you think ....The Church tower was my 10x42 SV vs 10x42 FP SV.....The pub was the my 8x32 SV vs 8x32 FP SV....
Tell me which image's seem better and I'll divulge which was which later ..
PS.
Thanks to the Manager at Guilford LCE for allowing free access to the your bino's. ..
Your a legend Martin....
Cheers Tim
Attachments
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Did you use Auto WB? If so, fixed color temp WB would be more suitable.
But anyway,
+ Color depth is probably to small in these type of camera/sensor to see any subtle differences.
+ limits in jpg/sRgb/computer screens etc. etc....
I don't say it's not possible to photograph any color differences, but it might be a bit more tricky than you might expect.
Last edited:
Hi.
The photos IMG_20170802_191637886.jpg and IMG_20170802_190208268.jpg have a color shift in a yellow-green hue, it is visible to the naked eye.
Maybe the Swar 10x42 SV and Swar 8x32 SV.
The photos IMG_20170802_191610699.jpg and _IMG_000000_000000.jpg have a smaller color shift, but also in a light warm shade.
Maybe the Swar 10x42 FP SV and Swar 8x32 FP SV.
Why is there strong vignetting at the edge of the field?
Did you properly to place the camera adapter to take the photos?
It looks abnormal.
Good Luck.
Last edited:
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
Contrast and sharpness "slightly" appear better in each of the 2nd scene pics- possibly the FP models (or just my imagination)!!?
Ted
How interesting those in the FP models the pictures was made hotter?
Color shift in the direction of Zeiss SF!
That's incredible!
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
Well Tim, through your camera's lens and my monitor, surprised I got 50% right (correct response for guessing, huh)! :h?:
Really, both the 8X32 FP and 10X50 FP models that I compared side-by-side gave a "slight hint" of higher contrast, richer colors and overall a darker image compared to my 2012 & 2015 Gen2 SV's. To be honest, even though the ergonomic improvements with the FP Gen3's are good (not great IMO), to my eyes the very close views don't offer enough substantial improvement for me to currently trade-up from my Gen2's. Maybe with a future EL Gen4!?! |8.|
Looking forward to more P&C (pics & comparisons)! :t:
Ted
ticl2184
Well-known member
One more ....
I noticed nobody from Swarovski has replied yet ....Be nice to borrow a couple of pairs of FP's for a few days if your listening....Got a friend at the University of Southampton with an Interferometer so we can get accurate measurements of optical performance ...
Cheers Tim
I noticed nobody from Swarovski has replied yet ....Be nice to borrow a couple of pairs of FP's for a few days if your listening....Got a friend at the University of Southampton with an Interferometer so we can get accurate measurements of optical performance ...
Cheers Tim
Attachments
Last edited:
Similar threads
