• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

What binoculars do you think have the most WOW factor! (1 Viewer)

As I mentioned on this thread or another, what sometimes leads to confusion (and frustration) is the way that the terms "sharpness" and resolution are used interchangeably on these forums. In photography, they mean something different from each other, and I posted a link to those definitions.

"Sharpness" is the clarity and quality of the image the eye sees, in this case looking through a bin, which is more inclusive than resolution and includes characteristics such as apparent contrast, flaring, color saturation, aberrations, distortions, and even distortions and imperfections in your own eyes, IOW, the "big picture". Whereas resolution is a precise measurement of the bin's ability to distinguish fine details, usually tested with a booster and a resolution chart.

So if Jerry is referring to the broader definition of "sharpness" then his statement is true: sharpness is hard to measure, subjective....

<B>
 
As I mentioned on this thread or another, what sometimes leads to confusion (and frustration) is the way that the terms "sharpness" and resolution are used interchangeably on these forums. In photography, they mean something different from each other, and I posted a link to those definitions.

"Sharpness" is the clarity and quality of the image the eye sees, in this case looking through a bin, which is more inclusive than resolution and includes characteristics such as apparent contrast, flaring, color saturation, aberrations, distortions, and even distortions and imperfections in your own eyes, IOW, the "big picture". Whereas resolution is a precise measurement of the bin's ability to distinguish fine details, usually tested with a booster and a resolution chart.

So if Jerry is referring to the broader definition of "sharpness" then his statement is true: sharpness is hard to measure, subjective....

<B>
I am referring to resolution then.
 
Personally, I had thought "sharpness" meant resolution - as far as it's possible for the observer to separate it from other parameters like contrast - and "clarity" if at all was the wider term (hence my question/s some way above). If this uncertainty causes problems (in regrd to bins, unlike, as Brock indicates, photography) maybe "sharpness" could be use to mean just resolution. Seems it matches ordinary English usage better, and is easier to use, e.g: "X is sharper" vs "X has better resoln." or "X resolves better"; "It's really sharp!" vs "It has really good resoln!" Seems also "sharp" is presently not that often used in the wider sense for bins, to describe the overall quality of the image, e.g. in comparison one would often say the image is simply "better" or use other words.
 
As I mentioned on this thread or another, what sometimes leads to confusion (and frustration) is the way that the terms "sharpness" and resolution are used interchangeably on these forums. In photography, they mean something different from each other, and I posted a link to those definitions.

"Sharpness" is the clarity and quality of the image the eye sees, in this case looking through a bin, which is more inclusive than resolution and includes characteristics such as apparent contrast, flaring, color saturation, aberrations, distortions, and even distortions and imperfections in your own eyes, IOW, the "big picture". Whereas resolution is a precise measurement of the bin's ability to distinguish fine details, usually tested with a booster and a resolution chart.

So if Jerry is referring to the broader definition of "sharpness" then his statement is true: sharpness is hard to measure, subjective....

<B>

Brock

Actually most photographers use sharpness to express the resolving power/resolution of a lens. I'm thinking about biting the bullet and picking up a full frame DSLR to fit my plethora of Nikon F mounts and checked around to see how some of my older lenses stacked up against some of the new. I checked out several websites and they still test for the sharpness of a lens just as they always did--doing a resolution test on a chart .

I included a test for sharpness on one of the new Nikon lenses that interests me and like all the other sites their test for sharpness is a resolution test pure and simple. If you took a poll of pro and serious amateurs I think you would find most would tell you the sharpest lens is the lens that resolves more detail, i.e. has the greatest resolution. You can go to this site and click on sharpness test to see what I'm talking about. Most sites check for sharpness/resolution in a similar manner.

http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-14-24mm-f2-8g

Sharpness is also used to describe the clarity of an image as Brock said but this usually refers to viewing a chrome on your light box with a loupe or a print. In this instance sharp usually equates to being in precise focus. Fresh Kodachrome on a light box looking through a Scheidner Loupe and if your exposure was off by even just a third of a stop the highlights were washed out.....those were the days.

Steve
 
Last edited:
Brock

Actually most photographers use sharpness to express the resolving power/resolution of a lens. I'm thinking about biting the bullet and picking up a full frame DSLR to fit my plethora of Nikon F mounts and checked around to see how some of my older lenses stacked up against some of the new. I checked out several websites and they still test for the sharpness of a lens just as they always did--doing a resolution test on a chart .

I included a test for sharpness on one of the new Nikon lenses that interests me and like all the other sites their test for sharpness is a resolution test pure and simple. If you took a poll of pro and serious amateurs I think you would find most would tell you the sharpest lens is the lens that resolves more detail, i.e. has the greatest resolution. You can go to this site and click on sharpness test to see what I'm talking about. Most sites check for sharpness/resolution in a similar manner.

http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-14-24mm-f2-8g

Sharpness is also used to describe the clarity of an image as Brock said but this usually refers to viewing a chrome on your light box with a loupe or a print. In this instance sharp usually equates to being in precise focus. Fresh Kodachrome on a light box looking through a Scheidner Loupe and if your exposure was off by even just a third of a stop the highlights were washed out.....those were the days.

Steve

I can't find the link i posted, mooreorless, our archivist might pick it up, but here is another photography Webpage on "sharpness" - less technical, no MTF graphs -- What You Get May Not Be What You See...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharpness.shtml

Here's another "tutorial":that says mooreorless the same thing.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm

You'll find many others very similar if you do a Web search.

This is the definition I learned in my photography classes, so people with a photography background do you use the term differently, but what I was referring to above is that some people on these forums use the term "sharpness" more liberally as I indicated in my previous post, and some use it synonymously with "resolution". Trying to figure out which definition a person means can sometimes be difficult.

I usually put quotes around the word "sharpness" when I'm referring to it more broadly, as in my 8x30 EII looked "sharper" than my 505 8x32 SE on overcast days, and it also looked "brighter" (here "brighter" means apparent brightness, not light transmission).

Usually, you don't have to define your terms with nth degree precision when talking about your observations, because most people usually get that you are talking in the vernacular, but as is obvious from the discussion on this thread, and from debates I've had with the experts, more technically minded folks have narrower definitions of some terms, so for them, when you say "brightness" they read "light transmission" and when you say "sharpness" they read "resolution". So you end up getting into a debate that is more semantic than substantive.

Which might be the case above, I don't know, Jerry hasn't clarified his statement.

But when you see me refer to "sharpness" you know I'm talking broadly. If I mean it beats another bin by an element on a resolution chart or it splits doubles better than another bin, then I use the term "resolution".

<B>
 
I can't find the link i posted, mooreorless, our archivist might pick it up, but here is another photography Webpage on "sharpness" - less technical, no MTF graphs -- What You Get May Not Be What You See...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharpness.shtml

Here's another "tutorial":that says mooreorless the same thing.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm

You'll find many others very similar if you do a Web search.

This is the definition I learned in my photography classes, so people with a photography background do you use the term differently, but what I was referring to above is that some people on these forums use the term "sharpness" more liberally as I indicated in my previous post, and some use it synonymously with "resolution". Trying to figure out which definition a person means can sometimes be difficult.

I usually put quotes around the word "sharpness" when I'm referring to it more broadly, as in my 8x30 EII looked "sharper" than my 505 8x32 SE on overcast days, and it also looked "brighter" (here "brighter" means apparent brightness, not light transmission).

Usually, you don't have to define your terms with nth degree precision when talking about your observations, because most people usually get that you are talking in the vernacular, but as is obvious from the discussion on this thread, and from debates I've had with the experts, more technically minded folks have narrower definitions of some terms, so for them, when you say "brightness" they read "light transmission" and when you say "sharpness" they read "resolution". So you end up getting into a debate that is more semantic than substantive.

Which might be the case above, I don't know, Jerry hasn't clarified his statement.

But when you see me refer to "sharpness" you know I'm talking broadly. If I mean it beats another bin by an element on a resolution chart or it splits doubles better than another bin, then I use the term "resolution".

<B>

Now that we have the semantics straightened out let me ask you about your new SE in comparison to your older version. I've noticed in an earlier post that you commented that your newer version was sharper and showed more contrast. I assume in this case you were "talking broadly"?

I ask because I can discern no difference in my older(leaded glass) and newer(latest eco-glass version) as far as the ability to resolve fine detail. I do however prefer the image in the eco-glass version for its contrast and and slightly warmer color balance.

Steve
 
I really appreciate your input here Steve. I am also an amateur astronomer and I know splitting double stars is a good test of on-axis sharpness. I feel sharpness is one of the easier attributes of a binocular to test and one of the most important characteristics that I look for in a binocular. I have found the Nikon SE and EII porro's to be sharper on-axis than even the alpha roofs. I bought a Swarovski 8x30 Habicht so when I get it I will do a comparison between my Nikon 8x32 SE and Nikon 8x30 EII's. It will be called "The battle of best porro's in the world."



Dennis

If you enjoy the night sky you will love the little Habicht. I have never seen tighter star images at 8x and I really like the Habicht's smaller exit pupil when viewing here in town.

I'm eager to hear your first impressions as well as more detailed thoughts after you've used the Habicht for a while. When I first handled the 8x30 Habicht I was surprised by both its diminutive dimensions and its mechanical ruggedness--the little bino exudes robustness.

The optics really are stunning and the light transmission level seems very, very high--to my eyes as bright as some of my 8x32 binos. I've got two very sensitive light meters (Sekonic) and I've often thought about trying to use them to measure through light transmission in an accurate and repeatable fashion.


Steve
 
In that regard the astro boys here in Holland are begging Swarovski to come up with an 10x50 Habicht because of the fact the little 8x30 and also the 7x42 performes so great. I'm also very curious about your findings Dennis.

Jan
 
Too bad the Fujinon FMTR-SX 8x30 is rare and out of production. Mine seems remarkably sharp to me, but I haven't tried the others being discussed here. Being IF would put it out of the running as a daily user for most folks I guess. But I wonder how it would stack up optically.

It certainly produces the tiniest most perfect star images I've ever seen, but I expect all 8x30/32 excel in this respect more or less. The small exit pupils agree with most people's eyes, there is so little light that aberrations are not very apparent, and the low magnification does not bring out optical flaws very badly.
Ron
 
Now that we have the semantics straightened out let me ask you about your new SE in comparison to your older version. I've noticed in an earlier post that you commented that your newer version was sharper and showed more contrast. I assume in this case you were "talking broadly"?

I ask because I can discern no difference in my older(leaded glass) and newer(latest eco-glass version) as far as the ability to resolve fine detail. I do however prefer the image in the eco-glass version for its contrast and and slightly warmer color balance.

Steve

Yes, that's what I mean about the 550 SE being "sharper" - the image has more contrast, more color saturation, and greater apparent brightness, not that it's resolution is better.

However, I don't think that difference should be underplayed, that "sharper" image under difficult lighting in particular helps "pull out" the birds" from the bushes and trees easier than the older models despite them having the same resolution.

Hence, why I think there should be some generally agreed upon shorthand term, be it "sharpness" or "crispness" (which the Brits are fond of) to describe the combination of factors that give one bin a more pleasing image over another.

<B>
 
Last edited:
Steve, could this be what you remember: at http://www.stjohnsrasc.ca/mirror-grinding/feb-2001-talk.html search for word "mimic".

Thanks Pomp, but this isn't the link I was thinking about. But that doesn't matter because at the site you found they come to exactly the same results regarding the meaning of hand work than at the source I saw. That was a film made in a National Geographic style where a lady employed by NASA was interviewed. The interview was interrupted by short film sequences where the production of the mirror was demonstrated.

Steve
 
Too bad the Fujinon FMTR-SX 8x30 is rare and out of production. Mine seems remarkably sharp to me, but I haven't tried the others being discussed here. Being IF would put it out of the running as a daily user for most folks I guess. But I wonder how it would stack up optically.

It certainly produces the tiniest most perfect star images I've ever seen, but I expect all 8x30/32 excel in this respect more or less. The small exit pupils agree with most people's eyes, there is so little light that aberrations are not very apparent, and the low magnification does not bring out optical flaws very badly.
Ron

I think the reasons you outlined above might be why a member recently wrote that in the various series of bins he has including the SE series, the "eights are better" like mooreorless' retired mentor from Outdoor Life Magazine used to say.

I find the 12x50 SE offers very 'punctiform" stars (as our old friend Claudio from CN would say) while also providing more detail on DSOs. I have compared them side by side, and for me, at least, the 8x doesn't appear to offer more perfect star images. AFAIK, all three SEs use the same EPs, so that might be why. But for terrestrial use, the "eights are better" because of their more stable image, better DOF and less CA.

<B>
 
I yesterday tried a Japan Bausch and Lomb 10 x 42 Elite phase coated 1994 maybe and it outresolves a very recent highly thought of binocular.
Also it has less chromatic aberration.
It is well used but with perfect optics.
The transmission is less than a modern equivalent even though I see no sign of haze.
The modern binocular is brighter despite the Elite having nice multicoats.
I cannot make up my mind if the objectives are doublets or triplets as there seem to be two cemented surfaces.
Jupiter looked perfect in it and the moons were if anything better seen than with the modern comparison.

Is that the one with the focus wheel near the objectives?
 
The focus wheel is about 40% of distance from the front of the binocular to the back.
It is in front of the hinge.
The beauty of the design is that the dioptre is on the right eyepiece.
I find with well worn or cheap roof prism binoculars that the dioptre does not hold when focussing because of backlash maybe because they are interlinked.
I am amazed at the lack of ghosts even directly into bright lights.
It is a really nice binocular.
 
The focus wheel is about 40% of distance from the front of the binocular to the back.
It is in front of the hinge.
The beauty of the design is that the dioptre is on the right eyepiece.
I find with well worn or cheap roof prism binoculars that the dioptre does not hold when focussing because of backlash maybe because they are interlinked.
I am amazed at the lack of ghosts even directly into bright lights.
It is a really nice binocular.

Like
b-l-elite10x42-large.jpg
this?
 
No sorry,
It is completely different to your photo.
It looks longer than the binocular in your photo.
I wonder if it might even have a quadruple objective i.e. two doublets, perhaps one being the focussing element.
In fact it is unlike anything I have met before.
It is maybe like a slippery looking smooth rubbery old Trinovid.
But it handles well.
The optics are very impressive but not as bright as a modern 10 x 42.
The field is shown as 5.6 degrees but I measured it as 5.65 degrees.
It is a joy to use although normally I would prefer a modern 6.5 degree field.
 
No sorry,
It is completely different to your photo.
It looks longer than the binocular in your photo.
I wonder if it might even have a quadruple objective i.e. two doublets, perhaps one being the focussing element.
In fact it is unlike anything I have met before.
It is maybe like a slippery looking smooth rubbery old Trinovid.
But it handles well.
The optics are very impressive but not as bright as a modern 10 x 42.
The field is shown as 5.6 degrees but I measured it as 5.65 degrees.
It is a joy to use although normally I would prefer a modern 6.5 degree field.

Binastro,

I think that Renze concluded that this model had Uppendahl prisms, as did Leitz bins of the day.
 
No sorry,
It is completely different to your photo.
It looks longer than the binocular in your photo.
I wonder if it might even have a quadruple objective i.e. two doublets, perhaps one being the focussing element.
In fact it is unlike anything I have met before.
It is maybe like a slippery looking smooth rubbery old Trinovid.
But it handles well.
The optics are very impressive but not as bright as a modern 10 x 42.
The field is shown as 5.6 degrees but I measured it as 5.65 degrees.
It is a joy to use although normally I would prefer a modern 6.5 degree field.

Maybe like this
attachment.php
then?
 
The 10 x 42 Elite looks exactly like Henry's link photos from Holland I think.
Except the covering is black smooth fairly shiny rubber not pebble finish.
The case is identical except the one here is black leather I think, not brown.
The strap and eyeguard are the same as in the photos.
It says P I think for phase coated.

Yes like photo in 179.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top