[henry link]

I notice that it's possible to extract a little more information from the mysterious web page.

http://www.zeiss.com/zeissexperience

Bring up the 01/12 circle. Notice the two tiny circles at the center. Click on the right one and a new bit opens which says: "HD - New lens system for neutral colour rendering."

So, presumably the Conquest replacements will have ED glass.

[ceasar]

How about a low cost 4th line called "Unconditional Surrender?"

No phase coating, aluminum coated prisms, kellner eyepieces, and rubber fold down eyecups, and multicoated objectives.

Bob

[James Bean]

Bob: Now that's more like it, for a nation not known for winning wars for over 100 years!
Notwithstanding, and seriously folks, Germany is now the most powerful nation in Europe and makes some jolly fine binoculars, as well as owning famous names like Rolls-Royce and Bugatti. I reckon "Neu ClassiC" has a certain cachet, although "Uber ClassiC" has a more modern ring to it. Whenever I look through my Zeiss 10x40BGAT* (mid-1980s) I have to admit it's really as good as I'll ever need, despite being a quarter of a century old...

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by henry link

I notice that it's possible to extract a little more information from the mysterious web page.

http://www.zeiss.com/zeissexperience

Bring up the 01/12 circle. Notice the two tiny circles at the center. Click on the right one and a new bit opens which says: "HD - New lens system for neutral colour rendering."

So, presumably the Conquest replacements will have ED glass.

They really want us to work hard to find the clues, don't they? :-) Good catch!

So they are going to one up the CL with ED glass. I wish they had a third circle that when clicked said "wider FOV than the CLs". And a fourth circle that said "competitively priced with the CLs".

Do the Conquests have the same level of astigmatism as the FLs? That is, does it start 15-20% off axis and culminate in a ring of fuzziness at the edges?

Brock

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by James Bean

Bob: Now that's more like it, for a nation not known for winning wars for over 100 years!
Notwithstanding, and seriously folks, Germany is now the most powerful nation in Europe and makes some jolly fine binoculars, as well as owning famous names like Rolls-Royce and Bugatti. I reckon "Neu ClassiC" has a certain cachet, although "Uber ClassiC" has a more modern ring to it. Whenever I look through my Zeiss 10x40BGAT* (mid-1980s) I have to admit it's really as good as I'll ever need, despite being a quarter of a century old...

Mmm... what was that snide remark about me being fired for suggesting an updated ClassiC line, Tom?

You're not alone, James. I'm sure there are plenty others who like their old ClassiCs and many who would like to see an updated ClassiC line.

It would be economical to make since they already have the design, they just need to update the coatings. Swaro did this with their "traditional" Habicht porros, though Zeiss would need to change the prism coatings too with the roofs.

But it looks like we're getting an Zeiss HD CL/Conquest.

Brock

[Nixterdemus]

Sounds great and exciting, but at what cost? I bought the 8x30 demo for 4 bills and the 10x40 for 7 1/4. So, this new and improved line short of the home run Victory, yet promises third base in the balcony is going to cost 1500 clams?

I'm all for improvement, but I'm already shopping the bargain bin of the better line(s) snagging discontinued models being wholesaled to make room for the new and improved.replacements.

The new Vortex HD Viper 8x42 6.6* $590/10x42 6.1* $600 should present a fair amount of competition from a well recognized name that offers more than a lot of value though somewhat FOV challenged.

Now, if only Italy would bring in a line, Il Duce we'd have the battle of the Axis

[Omid]

Well very few people paid any attention to the pictures I posted in my previous post in this topic (# 42) so I gather that "bending" one of the fundamental laws of telescope optics was not as exciting as I'd first thought. Fair enough. Let's get back to our pettite concerns. How about Zoom ? Do you guys not like to have zoom in your fancy next gen Zeiss binoculars?

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by Omid

Well very few people paid any attention to the pictures I posted in my previous post in this topic (# 42) so I gather that "bending" one of the fundamental laws of telescope optics was not as exciting as I'd first thought. Fair enough. Let's get back to our pettite concerns. How about Zoom ? Do you guys not like to have zoom in your fancy next gen Zeiss binoculars?

Omid,

No, it's very exciting, even revolutionary. That was a huge exit pupil for a rifle scope.

However, your comments got buried in the thread. Why not start a new thread about this innovation so people can ask questions and understand it better? I'm particularly interested to hear what Henry has to say about it.

If this innovation could be applied to binoculars, just think of the possibilities. Imagine a compact bin whose image doesn't black out with just a slight movement of the head?

Brock

[Renze de Vries]

Originally Posted by Omid

Well very few people paid any attention to the pictures I posted in my previous post in this topic (# 42) so I gather that "bending" one of the fundamental laws of telescope optics was not as exciting as I'd first thought. Fair enough. Let's get back to our pettite concerns. How about Zoom ? Do you guys not like to have zoom in your fancy next gen Zeiss binoculars?

Omid,

No zoom for me. A binocular is a very compromised optical instrument already so I don't don't like extra complexities - i.e. distortion - get in the way. Same with scopes, where I'd rather choose a 30x eyepiece over a 20-60x zoom.

Renze

[Omid]

Originally Posted by brocknroller

If this innovation could be applied to binoculars, just think of the possibilities. Imagine a compact bin whose image doesn't black out with just a slight movement of the head?

Thanks Brock. I might start a new tread and post a few more pictures of this phenomenon but I prefere not to get into technical details much at this time. Yes, if my idea works then it can make instruments with small exit pupil such sa pocket binoculars much more comfortable to use. It can also make high-powered binoculars and spotting scopes more easy to use. I still have to work out some design comprromises to make sure that it is really usable.

Originally Posted by Renze de Vries

Omid,

No zoom for me. A binocular is a very compromised optical instrument already so I don't don't like extra complexities - i.e. distortion - get in the way. Same with scopes, where I'd rather choose a 30x eyepiece over a 20-60x zoom.

Renze

You see, from a user point of view, zoom will be very useful in a binoculars but from a technical point of view it is very difficult to make. Zoom is a rather distacting feature in a riflescope. From a technical point of view, it is very easy to make though. That's why we have all kinds of zoom riflescopes but not zoom binoculars. If binoculars were using len-based errecting systems - like riflescopes do- we would have had all kinds of zoom binoculars and everybody would compete to provide more zoom.

[FrankD]

Omid,

I checked out your pics when you first posted them. I like the idea but am confused a bit by what I am seeing in the pic. Is that noticeable field curvature/edge distortion and/or uneven illumination of the image or does it just appear that way because of how far away we are viewing the eyepiece?

[Omid]

Here are a few more experimental results using a different setup. We are looking towards a vase about 20m away. The pictures are taken from about 30 cm behind the eyepiece. The eyepiece lens is 36mm in diameter. As you can see the exit pupil is as large as the eyepiece lens.
Another major feature is that you can still see a full image (although different part of the field of view) when looking through the eyepiece from an off-axis angle. There will be aberrations in the off axis image but the image is still visible. In standard binoculars a) the exit pupil is much smaller b) the image is not visible when you look off-axis.

[FrankD]

Now you have me interested.

Out of curiousity, have you found reflections off of the eyepiece glass to interfere with the practical nature of the design?

[Kammerdiner]

Two questions, Omid:

1) when you spread the photons out like that, so they are everywhere, what happens to the brightness?

2) At this point, why not go digital?

What you've done is pretty cool, but I wonder if it's real application is riflescopes and not binoculars.

Mark

[Omid]

Originally Posted by FrankD

Now you have me interested.
Out of curiousity, have you found reflections off of the eyepiece glass to interfere with the practical nature of the design?

The eyepiece used here is a very cheap one (taken out of a chinese riflescope). It doesn't have best coating material and shows external reflections. I think this can be fixed if a better eyepiece is used or designed specifically for this kind of application. These refelection are not a result of mydesign. The are there in normal binoculars too.

Originally Posted by Kammerdiner

Two questions, Omid:
1) when you spread the photons out like that, so they are everywhere, what happens to the brightness?
2) At this point, why not go digital?
What you've done is pretty cool, but I wonder if it's real application is riflescopes and not binoculars.
Mark

1: The britness is reduced. The law of conservation of energy applies so when the light flux going into the scope is spread over many directions you will have reduced brightness.

2: This is a purly optical solution. No batteries and no electronics. Sure, you can simulate or replace this with digital capture and playback on an LCD or something like that but that's a different thing.

[JabaliHunter]

Originally Posted by henry link

I would happy enough to see several incremental improvements in the optics.
First, a different design choice in the off-axis characteristics of the eyepieces. I wouldn't object to SV like performance, but as others have said perfectly sharp edges are not really necessary. The weakest thing about the current FL's is astigmatism beginning at 12-15 degrees off-axis.
Second, better control of lateral color.
Third, an increase in the bandwidth of the T* coatings, which have good peak transmission at green/yellow wavelengths, but roll off too quickly in both the red and the blue.

Originally Posted by Kammerdiner

Henry's right. [...]
A suggestion for something radical? Super-lightweight with some real space-age materials. Imagine a 23 ounce full-field (400'+) 8x42.

That would do it for me! Especially in a large field of view (like in the 7x42) 8/8.5x50 or 10x56

[ceasar]

Omid,
Is this anything (in concept) like the old Galilean binoculars which have no exit pupils? When I was about 12 years old my father gave me a 4 x 40 Galilean binocular for my birthday which I still have. I inquired here a while back whether it had a 10mm exit pupil but was informed that these binoculars do not have exit pupils.
Bob

[Omid]

Originally Posted by ceasar

Omid,
Is this anything (in concept) like the old Galilean binoculars which have no exit pupils? When I was about 12 years old my father gave me a 4 x 40 Galilean binocular for my birthday which I still have. I inquired here a while back whether it had a 10mm exit pupil but was informed that these binoculars do not have exit pupils.
Bob

You mentioned an interesting point about the Galilean design. But, no, this is not a Galilean design. The eyepice is a positive lense as used in the standard Keplerian design. I am not fully clear on where exactly the exit pupil -if there is one- will be in my design. One way to explain this is that we have an exit pupil which is as wide as the eyepiece lens and is located right where the lens itself is. This is to say, the system has zero eyerelief in theory. But, in practice, the eye can be anywhere behind the eypice and see an image comfortably. See the attached image.

[NDhunter]

Originally Posted by Omid

You mentioned an interesting point about the Galilean design. But, no, this is not a Galilean design. The eyepice is a positive lense as used in the standard Keplerian design. I am not fully clear on where exactly the exit pupil -if there is one- will be in my design. One way to explain this is that we have an exit pupil which is as wide as the eyepiece lens and is located right where the lens itself is. This is to say, the system has zero eyerelief in theory. But, in practice, the eye can be anywhere behind the eypice and see an image comfortably. See the attached image.

Omid:
This is an interesting idea, but with a riflescope you are steadying the optic
with the shoulder and foreman in a brace position, and so the eye is a couple of inches behind the ocular.
With a binocular the view is braced with both hands and to the eye sockets. I don't use eyeglasses so that makes it easier. Try observing through your binoculars held 2" away, not very steady.

[Omid]

Originally Posted by NDhunter

Omid:
This is an interesting idea, but with a riflescope you are steadying the optic
with the shoulder and foreman in a brace position, and so the eye is a couple of inches behind the ocular.
With a binocular the view is braced with both hands and to the eye sockets. I don't use eyeglasses so that makes it easier. Try observing through your binoculars held 2" away, not very steady.

Yes, the stock helps steady the view but think about the following scenaro rather than shooting from a benchrest:

A hunter is walking in the field and all of a sudden he sees a deer at 150 yards. He quickly mounts his rifle and tries to find the deer in his riflescope. Given your own experince

a) How many seconds does it take for an average hunter to properly position his head and find the deer in the scope?

b) Imagine that our hunter finaly finds the deer, aims and fires his weapon. Recoil jerks the gun and makes the shooter to loose his view through the scope. How many seconds does it take for him to re-position his head behind the scope and find the -now running- deer for a potential second shot?

c) How easy is it to follow and aim at a running deer using a traditional riflescope with say 4mm exit pupil?


Now, replace your traditional riflescope with one that has 36mm exit pupil and never blacks out when you look through it from an off-axis position. If you answer the same questions using the new scope you appreciate that there is some merit in using this new design for riflescopes too

[NDhunter]

Originally Posted by Omid

Here are a few more experimental results using a different setup. We are looking towards a vase about 20m away. The pictures are taken from about 30 cm behind the eyepiece. The eyepiece lens is 36mm in diameter. As you can see the exit pupil is as large as the eyepiece lens.
Another major feature is that you can still see a full image (although different part of the field of view) when looking through the eyepiece from an off-axis angle. There will be aberrations in the off axis image but the image is still visible. In standard binoculars a) the exit pupil is much smaller b) the image is not visible when you look off-axis.

Omid:

I'm still studying these pictures, and am wondering what power X
you are demonstrating here? How many lenses are needed and how is
the quality of resolution? I suppose the handheld limit is similar to
binoculars 12 X ?

Jerry

[Pileatus]

Birdforum Main Policy
BirdForum is about the enjoyment and appreciation of WILD birds and other WILDLIFE. Please help us keep BirdForum wild. Please - no discussions relating to hunting, pigeon racing, the keeping of caged birds, captive birds or falconry.

[perseid28]

I subscribed to the newsletter on the "Zeiss Experience" site recommended in the 2nd post on this thread. Received an email this morning that was a little less cryptic than the site itself but did not give much new information:

"
Concentrated innovation. Made light.

The argument for this innovation is the only heavyweight aspect of it. As a hunter and nature watcher, everything else makes your decision for our newest development especially light and easy. For example, the compact size for maximum freedom of movement. Or the low weight thanks to the use of ultra-light, high quality materials. With this new compact lightweight, your walks through the wild will be even longer and more pleasant, because with Carl Zeiss, you're entering a new dimension.
"

And:

"
Nature in high-definition.

Imagine a whole new level of experience. Watch in high definition. Our most recent development once again sets a new standard for this class. With a technology that makes observation optics the most natural thing in the world. The colour reproduction is especially neutral and clear thanks to the tried and tested T*-multi-layer coating and optimised light transmission, so you're guaranteed extraordinary viewing experiences, even in twilight.
"

From that first bit, it seems as though Zeiss is making a new compact bino. But the 8x20 Victory already rates very highly among compacts in reviews, and I am not sure what improvements to that model would warrant this amount of hype they are generating. Once a binocular weights under 10 oz, it would seem pointless to reduce the weight further. The only meaningful advanced I could see are increasing the aperture without increasing size too much, and/or increasing the field of view.

The second part is too much for me; I can't even guess at what new feature this predicts for the binoculars. There are many binoculars on the market that already have faithful color reproduction, so I am not sure what this is all about.

Well, there's my two cents; hopefully others can give a bit more insight.

[michaelboustead]

I got the email also. The email left me confused not curious-not very effective. If Zeiss has something to tell me then tell me- if not then not- pretty close to SPAM.

Mike

[Omid]

Originally Posted by NDhunter

Omid:

I'm still studying these pictures, and am wondering what power X
you are demonstrating here? How many lenses are needed and how is
the quality of resolution? I suppose the handheld limit is similar to
binoculars 12 X ?

Jerry

The first pictures I posted in this thread (post # 42) are 10X. The second set (post # 62) I am not sure about the exact focal length of the eyepice and objective lenses I used. Power could be about 3X.

OK, It is probably not the best place to continue the discussion on this design here. This is a topic on Zeiss rumors and new products. So, lets get back to its standard path and leave major departures from the norm aside. My intention wasn't to hjack the topic. I just wanted to make a point here and show that the age of major changes in binocular design is not over yet. After over 100 years of its initial design, it is still possible to make major changes and improvements. Let's not be content with another 2% refinement in this or that factor. Let's ask for and suggest real innovation.