[ceasar]

Thank you Henry. Your comments are always welcome.

Bob

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by ceasar

Brock,
I'm not disputing CA's existence. I've seen it myself with a 9 x 36 Vortex Diamondback (and others also) under perfect conditions (again also) for it while looking at Turkey Vultures and Crows. I suspect that it can be seen in any binocular under certain conditions if one looks hard enough for it. That is the problem with the whole debate over it. It can be seen, easier by some and not so easily by others, and it isn't going to go away completely. Why should those who are not as troubled by it have to pay the prices that are required to get rid of it completely for those who see it all the time? Especially in a 2nd line binocular like the Premier has become?

And why, all of a sudden, are there all those complaints about the Premiers having CA while, when they were known as the old LX Ls and HG Ls, they weren't particularly heavily condemned for it? My theory on that is that UBLs start easier with 2nd line binoculars than they do with 1st line binoculars. It is human nature to snob off the putative 2nd rate status symbols. Curious how quickly it happened in this instance. Sociologists might be interested in studying "Binocular Culture!"

You could also get a Camera from Nikon with the 42's which were also discounted but there weren't many of them left. I could have picked up a 7 x 42 for $1399.00 then. It was the last one and it came with a Camera too. There weren't any 8 x 32s left either; they went real fast. The 10 x 32s were the last to go. For a price comparison here I note that I recently purchased one of Eagle Optics last discontinued Swarovski 7 x 42B SLCs for under $1400.00.

As for the eyepieces, you can do the same thing that Henry did. I believe there is a cutaway view of the EDG eyepiece in the Nikon website. Apparently, the only thing Nikon did was make the interior radius of the new eyecups on the 32s wider than the interior radius of the eyecups of the LX Ls to accommodate the longer focal length of the EDG and keep the same FOV.

And don't forget, when talking of getting rid of rolling ball in the 42s, that the EDG 42s also have wider FOVs than the LX L/Premier did/does. That is a significant change.

Bob

Bob wrote: Why should those who are not as troubled by it [CA] have to pay the prices that are required to get rid of it completely for those who see it all the time?....

In the abstract, I'd have to agree with you. What you're saying above echoes Holger's comments about why pay for extras that are not needed by the majority of users such as the super close focus for butterfly watchers on full sized bins.

However, if more than average CA is repeatedly reported in a particular series of bins, and it has with the LX right through to the Premier, but I think more so with the LXL and Premier (same bin, different nameplate), that's a different story. Haven't gotten Frank's name in a post in a while. Just ask Frank. :-)

I'm not sure where you got the idea that complaints about CA in the Premiers suddenly emerged and were not mentioned with the LX or LXL. They were.

However, I do think that people are now more aware of the issue since it's been talked about for 15 years. Plus, binocular buyers are better educated today than they were 15 years ago, thanks to forums such as this one, reviewer sites such as BVD, Optics4birding, allbinos, binomania, experts such as Holger and Henry, and chronic complainers like myself. :-)

Because of all this, the average bin user today is more sophisticated than he/she was 15 years ago. But none-the-less, the reports of CA in the Venturer LX and LXL, including my own comments, can be found if you go back and search for them.

As Henry once speculated, internal focus elements may have also contributed to the increase in reports (which didn't start with the Premier, but actually in the late 90s/early 2000s as internal focusers became the norm in roofs).

I once speculated that the increase in CA reports was due to the introduction of lead free glass during that time frame, and while I still reserve judgement about the quality of lead free glass used in some roofs during that time based on Ohara's report of its early lead free glass being inferior to its lead glass, I can say that today, judging by the latest SE series, the 550 8x SE and 050 10x SE, which show no more CA to my eyes than did the lead versions, that well made lead free glass shows no more CA than the lead glass it replaced.

So if it was an issue, it's no longer an issue and it can't account for the continued reports of CA in the Premier, which has the latest lead free glass.

Bob also wrote: ....Especially in a 2nd line binocular like the Premier has become?

Ah, "has become". I think you answered your own question. If Nikon does, as you think they will do, upgrade to dielectrics and ED glass in the Premier, it will have two alphas like Swaro.

I still disagree with Henry that this would make the Premier and EDG too similar. One has "rolling ball," the other does not, the FsOV are different, the body design is different, the focuser speed is different, the eyecups are different. The specs may be different too, I'd have to check.

In body design alone, the Premier and EDG appear more different than the Zeiss Conquest HD and Victory HT and the Leica Ultravid HD and new Trinovid.

I also dispute Henry's argument, because the same could be said of the view through the Nikon SE and EII, which offer similar views. Not the same, just as the Premier and EDG are not the same. The EII has a larger FOV and more pincushion, the SE has sharper edges.

There are differences, but the overall view is very similar in terms of resolution, apparent brightness, contrast, and color saturation. The color balance is slightly different. I've even read posts by some users that said the view was the same.

So one could make the same argument there. The SE and EII are too similar to compete in the same market. Well, I guess Nikon agreed with that, because they refuse to sell the EII in the US!

Brock

[dwatsonbirder]

I still own a pair of 10 year old HGL's, which I have used every day as my main pair since the day I bought them. Ive often toyed with selling them, but if I'm honest I'll probably hang onto them. The image is great, though CA is evident in certain scenarios its unlikely to bother you that much, particularly if you've just seen a funny looking phyllosc disappear into the sueda! If you can pick up a pair for under £500 go for it, well worth the money. Ill still be using mine even after Ive got my ultravids/Fl's!
I did do a review in the section here on BF, if its of any use to anybody.

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by henry link

Bob and Brock,

Here are some cutaway views of eyepieces from the original Venturer LX (1999 Nikon catalogue, left) and the current EDG (screen shot from Nikon website, right). Both show eyepieces from unspecified 42mm models. As you can see the basic design is unchanged, however, characteristics like pincushion distortion and AFOV can be tweaked without radically altering the design.

Henry

Henry,

They look similar (in terms of the larger elements matching concave and convex surfaces), but I don't see the smaller element at the bottom in the LX housing (there appears to be a bracket for a lens, but there's none there) whereas there is a bottom element in the Premier housed in a bracket with what look like "hands" holding it in place.

Perhaps that's the last element is the ED glass? Some roofs have the ED glass in the EP.

In any event, adding pincushion to get rid of the "rolling ball" and ED glass may not require a radical redesign but the view is radically different for those who are bothered by "rolling ball" and CA.

Also, the midsized LX's EPs were designed differently than the full sized models, with pincushion added to minimize the roll (it's there but not distractingly so, at least for me, one BF member got nauseated by the "rolling ball" in the 8x32 LX).

Also, the sweet spot in the full sized models was mooreorless round. I did not notice astigmatism at the top or bottom of the view like I did in the 8x32 model.

So if I looked through an 8x32 EDG, I should still see that lopsided sweet spot if the EPs basic design is unchanged.

Brock

[henry link]

Brock,

If you're talking about the HG/Premier cutaway in the online Nikon Sports Optics Catalog, I didn't include that one because it's confusing. The mechanical parts are cut in half, but the lenses are uncut so you're looking at lens edges that don't show the optical surface curves very well, but you can see that there's a field singlet in the same place as the Venturer and the EDG eyepieces.

If you're talking about the Venturer vs EDG images I posted, look closer. The same negative field element is in both eyepieces. Don't be misled by the differences in the way the "cut" is done in the two illustrations. The EDG is a computer generated image, simulating a longitudinal slice right through the middle of the lenses. The Venturer is a photo of an actual binocular that has been sliced closer to the near edge. Light does not strike all the lens edges in the same way. Slight differences in distortion are not unusual when an eyepiece design is scaled to different focal lengths.

Telescopes don't have lopsided sweet spots unless the optics are misaligned, and then the sweet spot center will be off-axis in a random direction. A binocular sweet spot appears as a centered oval with apparently better horizontal performance when off-axis vignetting is affected by differences in vertical and horizontal eye movements. I believe that's a user induced phenomenon, one I've seen myself many times, not an instrument characteristic.

Henry

Edit: Here's a small cutaway of the current HG/Premier LX-L. It's sliced the same way as the Venturer LX in the 1999 catalogue.

http://www.nikon.com/products/sporto...rade/index.htm

[Steve C]

Brock,

I align myself with ceasar on this one. If you have some evidence that those that are bothered by CA are in the majority I would appreciate a link to an article or some data . I have never in my life encountered another binocular user in the field who was bothered by it. That in and of itself really means nothing I suppose, but it it what it is, FWIW. I also think you are skating on the thin ice taking forum participation, reviews etc very far. I have also never encountered another user who used internet forum, or for that matter even know they exist. I may well concede the point among the more educated users of forums like this one. I bet users of this forum fall short of encompassing even a fraction of a percent of binocular users. I could be wrong, but I have to think that CA sensitivity and the extreme expressed desire for edge sharpness do not constitite the complaints or wishes of most binocular users.

[Pileatus]

http://betterviewdesired.com/chabletter.php

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by Steve C

Brock,

I align myself with ceasar on this one. If you have some evidence that those that are bothered by CA are in the majority I would appreciate a link to an article or some data . I have never in my life encountered another binocular user in the field who was bothered by it. That in and of itself really means nothing I suppose, but it it what it is, FWIW. I also think you are skating on the thin ice taking forum participation, reviews etc very far. I have also never encountered another user who used internet forum, or for that matter even know they exist. I may well concede the point among the more educated users of forums like this one. I bet users of this forum fall short of encompassing even a fraction of a percent of binocular users. I could be wrong, but I have to think that CA sensitivity and the extreme expressed desire for edge sharpness do not constitite the complaints or wishes of most binocular users.

Uh, oh. The Immunie Axis Powers are lining up against me! Or as Chhayanat would say there have been: "Prompt challenges from votaries". :-)

Wow! It surprises me that after all the HG/HGL reviews, both formal and informal, not just on BF, but other forums and Website reviews, that mention the CA in the HG/HGL that my comment would even be challenged.

I may have overstepped if I said "majority" are "bothered" by CA, but I don't think I said that. I said a majority of birders see CA in non-ED bins.

What I did say in regard to the CA in the HGL is that there have been "numerous" reports about it and at least some owners ended up selling their bins because of it. Could be a majority, maybe not, be hard to total them all up unless Bob did a statistical survey.

What I'm primarily interested in is if they see "more than average CA in the HGL for a bin at its price point".

It's going to be tough to find reviews and particularly comments just about CA in the HGLs let alone "more than average" or some such phrasing, because such comments tend to get buried in threads sometimes only obliquely related to the topic of CA or not at all, like these comments are (who would think to look in "The Emperor has aberration" for info on CA in the HGL/Premier series???), and then search the Way Back Machine for the past 15 years to find all such references. It might turn into a part-time job. If I work a job, I need to get paid!

Speaking of which, I have a job deadline to meet now (uncanny how these controversies always seem to happen when I have a deadline and Henry is usually involved, it's like deja vu all over again).

I don't think it will matter much even I produce a dozen such comments, because someone will always say that they are all anomalies and find a dozen immunies to counter them. Then I'd have to find another dozen "chromatics" to counter, and so on and so forth.

I know Bob won't be happy with anything short of a statistical survey!

Anyway, I don't have time to dig them out, so what I will do is post a separate thread to see if I can ferret out those who like me, see more than average amount of CA in the HGL. It won't be definitive proof that a lot of people see "more than average" CA in the HGLs, but it's as close to a statistical survey that we're going to get.

In regard to the BVD reference, it's not that I see a lot of CA in every bin or even in every sample of the same bin.

The SE series has low CA. It's there in high contrast situations, but even then, not that bad compared to the HGL or even to the EII.

In defense of the HG series, I must say that the 10x42 HG I had gave stunning views. It blew away my old 501 8x32 SE in terms of color saturation, contrast, and apparent brightness. It gave a very strong "WOW! effect" for me.

Beyond birding, I was fascinated with looking at architectural details on buildings on campus and even with the duct work, A/C, and other metal pipes and structures on the tops of the buildings. The detail was remarkable.

If not for the "rolling ball," I could live with the CA. Didn't like it, but outside of high contrast situations, it wasn't too bad. But in high contrast situations it was. So not my favorite for winter birding.

It didn't have the worst CA I've ever seen in a bin, but for that price point, I expected better CA control.

Anyway, let's give Bob his statistical survey and see if the "immunies" or "chromatics" come out on top.

I'll post that thread next week after I put this newspaper issue "to bed".

Brock

[ceasar]

http://web.archive.org/web/200806300...i/GB/index.htm

Brock,
Above is a link from the First 2004 issue of ALULA comparing a number of "Alpha" 10x binoculars including the Nikon 10 x 32 HG. (Click on "Published reviews of Optics" 1-2004) This appears to be one with the old Lead glass. There is a comment about the perceived CA in each of the binoculars rated. Their respective CA was not given a numerical rating so it is not found in the comparison chart at the bottom. I assume that this is because the subjective nature of individual reactions to CA are different from person to person.

To summarize, the binocular deemed best in controlling CA was the only Porro Prism in the group; the Nikon 10 x 42 SE. The one deemed best in controlling it among the Roof Prism binoculars was the Swarovski 10 x 42 EL. The worst was the Zeiss 10 x 40 Victory. The remaining 3 were rated about equal as far as I could tell.

I want to make one clarification of your comment that I said complaints about CA "were not mentioned with the LX and LX L." What I said was "they weren't particularly heavily condemned for it."

And finally, thanks to Henry's input, it is quite instructive to find out that changes in AFOV and pincushion distortion can be tweaked without radically altering the design of the eyepieces.

Bob

[David Swain]

Originally Posted by brocknroller

I may have overstepped if I said "majority" are "bothered" by CA, but I don't think I said that. I said a majority of birders see CA in non-ED bins.

What I did say in regard to the CA in the HGL is that there have been "numerous" reports about it and at least some owners ended up selling their bins because of it. Could be a majority, maybe not, be hard to total them all up unless Bob did a statistical survey.

Good example of false consensus and over generalization. But lots of noise on a subject does not mean it has a strong signal.

In the field I have met one, exactly one, birder who ever used the term (CA) or announced a preference; this birder had apparently done some reading on the internet, for he claimed to see CA in every bin and scope ("they all show tints of green") he tried on that particular birding trip. He owned an old pair of single-coated 10x50 marine bins that were terribly yellow and hazy, so he was making a good faith (if misguided) effort to learn about the limitations of his own equipment.

David

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by brocknroller

What "the majority of binocular users are not immune to CA" means is that unlike you, most users do see CA. The point was to distinguish it from "rolling ball," which most users don't see or quickly adapt.


Being a regular reader of bin forums, I don't know how you could dispute "a known fact" (as my Aunt would say) like that, other than perhaps because you don't see it yourself, you might tend to ignore comments on CA.

Brock

Brock,

I refer you to your post #23, partially quoted above. I added the boldface and included the post # so if anybody is so inclined they can reread the whole post. Quoting the whole thing seems a waste of bandwidth. .

If that is not enough I quote you from another post (#20) in this thread... "For CA non-immunies (which are in the majority), the Premiers could use ED glass".

If this post doesn't say that a majority of users don't see CA, and if you are not presenting that as a fact, then you'll have to forgive me. I'm wondering if you are angling toward a gig as a political speech writer where your politician is bound by the mores of the profession into saying things like "I never said that!". Now, I'm not trying to diss you or start an argument here, but I think it needs to be pointed out that it seems you are stretching reality quite a ways too far here, without some more supporting evidence that CA is something seen by most users, I say not... until somebody can actually prove otherwise.

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by Steve C

Brock,

I refer you to your post #23, partially quoted above. I added the boldface and included the post # so if anybody is so inclined they can reread the whole post. Quoting the whole thing seems a waste of bandwidth. .

If that is not enough I quote you from another post (#20) in this thread... "For CA non-immunies (which are in the majority), the Premiers could use ED glass".

If this post doesn't say that a majority of users don't see CA, and if you are not presenting that as a fact, then you'll have to forgive me. I'm wondering if you are angling toward a gig as a political speech writer where your politician is bound by the mores of the profession into saying things like "I never said that!". Now, I'm not trying to diss you or start an argument here, but I think it needs to be pointed out that it seems you are stretching reality quite a ways too far here, without some more supporting evidence that CA is something seen by most users, I say not... until somebody can actually prove otherwise.

Steve,

By partially quoting me and bold facing portions of your choosing, you not only took what I wrote out of context but skewed its meaning to your own ends (hey, but you saved bandwidth!:-).

Here's what I wrote with my own boldface to show my emphasis:

"What "the majority of binocular users are not immune to CA" means is that unlike you, most users do see CA. The point was to distinguish it from "rolling ball," which most users don't see or quickly adapt.

The purpose of that distinction being that Nikon could leave the "rolling ball" and take the cannoli, I mean CA, away.

I don't think anybody likes CA ("Yeah, I just love it, give me some more!"), but how bothered they are by it in any particular bin is another matter, as you indicated with your suggested statistical survey (maybe Nikon will use it in the focus groups to test market a Premier ED)."

The point of the post you quoted, which was in reply to Bob's implied question about what I meant, was simply to distinguish two issues in the HG/Premier series, not to wage a campaign against those who don't see CA or who aren't bothered by it.

Here's a question for you. If so many people don't see CA then why are ED bins selling like hotcakes? And why are the Big Three and Nikon putting ED and FL glass in their top bins? Would they do this if only the minority of birders can see CA? Doh.

Binoculars are achromats. They display CA. Most people see it in high contrast situations. A few never see CA in any situation, but that is rare. How do I know? Did I survey birders in the field like David didn't? No, birders are looking for birds, they aren't going to talk about CA or SA aberration of the exit pupil or "rolling ball" or pincushion.

Optics junkies, OTOH, like to nitpick optics and do talk about these issue ad nauseam. A quick browse through these forums will easily demonstrate that. The last half dozen posts on this thread alone will demonstrate that.

Very few people have written here or on the other bin forums I read that they wouldn't know CA if it hit them between the eyes, but there are some. Even an alleged immunie like Bob admitted to seeing CA in the Pentax 9x25 in high contrast situations.

Do you see CA in bins yourself? Never? If so, then you are the exception rather than the rule. Do we need to do TWO polls now? One to find out the obvious, that non-ED bins display CA and that a majority of users see it in high contrast situations?

No. I won't bother wasting my time with something that obvious and trivial. It would be like surveying BF members to ask them what color the sky is.

The other question that Bob troubled, that is, whether or not people see a higher than average amount of CA in the HGL/Premier series is a legitimate one.

Being someone who sees more than average CA in that bin, I would naturally focus on such posts that agree with my opinion whereas Bob, who doesn't think it has more than average CA (and he uses a 10x32 LXL, which is probably the worst CA offender in that series!) wouldn't pay as close attention to the same issue on various forums or in reviews.

So we could both be suffering from selective memory. I don't think I am, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt because I am not infallible.

The important caveat to keep in mind, which I mentioned earlier, is that people on forums such as these are not your typical birders (I hope like David, you're not going to dispute that too). They are for the most part optics junkies except those occasional visitors who stop in once or twice to ask for advice on which bins to buy and then disappear.

Would we even be having this picayune discussion if that weren't true?

Ipso facto, optics junkies are more likely to LOOK for CA and other aberrations (including the Emperor's) and also know more about them than David's birding buddies who are focusing exclusively on the birds not the optics.

And if those birders had seen something obviously bothersome about the birding bins they bought, they would have sent them back or sold them and not be using them in the field. So they've already vetted their optics.

However, even then, if someone who was an optics junkie, had them to look at a crow against a high contrast, bright gray sky and move the bird slightly off center (in their non-ED bins) and asked if they see any color fringing around the silhouette of the bird, I'd bet most of them would say, "Yes."

Then nonplussed quickly go back to looking for an ivory-billed woodpecker or whatever it is they are trying to add to their life lists.

But... as Steve Ingraham had warned, once you go looking for CA, you might start to see it more often than you used to. So some of those birders might start to see CA which they were previously able to either ignore or at least not be bothered by.

So when you call attention to something you heighten your awareness of it. I'm sure Ed knows the technical term for that.

This my last post on the subject. I'll leave the last word to you and to those interested in reading it. :-)

Brock

[Steve C]

Brock,

The simple fact is plain...that you believe that the majority of people who use binoculars suffer from CA. I fail to see justification from you for that stance . You are welcome to your belief, just don't expect me to buy into it. You still sound like a political speechwriter too. I'm not going to get into further argument with a politician who is trying to deny saying something. .

My point is you said it, and failed to prove it to me you are anywhere close to right. CA is obviously a problem if you are sensitive to it. I am not at odds with that, I just don't think that CA is an issue with a majority of users.

Why does ED glass sell? Same reason quad core computers with multi terrabyte hard drives do. Same reason super smart cell phones do. As a species we are suckers for the latest and greatest doo dad, and we want to believe we got the best deal regardless of what we spent on it. ED glass is equally acclaimed for having brighter images with better color, and it is getting cheaper too. ED glass is a marketers lever, and they are expert in making us think that buying their stuff is our idea.

[Pileatus]

Minimizing CA improves the whole image and that's a very good thing. If you don’t “see” CA, count your blessings. It’s there...degrading the image.

The only advantage the Nikon HG/LX/LXL (I owned an 8X42 HG) has over the current Chinese offerings is edge sharpness and that's changing with every new iteration. Why would someone spend >$1000 for the Nikon when you can get a brighter bin with less chromatic aberration and a wider field of view for around $400?

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by Pileatus

Minimizing CA improves the whole image and that's a very good thing. If you don’t “see” CA, count your blessings. It’s there...degrading the image.

The only advantage the Nikon HG/LX/LXL (I owned an 8X42 HG) has over the current Chinese offerings is edge sharpness and that's changing with every new iteration. Why would someone spend >$1000 for the Nikon when you can get a brighter bin with less chromatic aberration and a wider field of view for around $400?

I assume the optics laws apply irrespective of manufacturer nationality or price.
While I recognize binoculars are a technological backwater at Nikon, an area where the firm invests little, it is hard to understand how a brighter, wider field glass with less CA than Nikon's premier line can be made barring some substantial advance in optics glass that Nikon has neglected.
Henry or some other expert, please help.

[NDhunter]

Originally Posted by etudiant

I assume the optics laws apply irrespective of manufacturer nationality or price.
While I recognize binoculars are a technological backwater at Nikon, an area where the firm invests little, it is hard to understand how a brighter, wider field glass with less CA than Nikon's premier line can be made barring some substantial advance in optics glass that Nikon has neglected.
Henry or some other expert, please help.

Nikon makes that very glass you are wondering about, its called the "EDG".

Jerry

[etudiant]

Thanks, Jerry,

Clearly my mistake to have assumed that Premier meant 'premier', as in first or preeminent, or that HG meant 'High Grade', as it once did, rather than 'middle of the line', as it apparently now does .

[ceasar]

The US prices for the LX L/Premier have not changed greatly in 5 or 6 years. Maybe even longer. The 32s always moved up and down between $900.00 and $1100.00. I got lucky one year when the 8 x 32 sold for about $850.00. The 10 x 32 is no longer made and I'm glad I got mine when I did for under $1000.00.

I never paid much attention to the 42s but they usually sold for about $300.00 more. They are selling for a bit less than that now at Camera Land.

Essentially these Premiers, the same binoculars as the LX L, are selling for about the same price but are now relegated to 2nd level status. And their costs are in about the same price range that the 2nd level binoculars from Zeiss, Swarovski and Leica sell for.

And Nikon did not have to come up with a costly redesign with the resultant marketing of it to remain competitive in that market.

Bob

[steve@37n84w]

Originally Posted by Pileatus

Minimizing CA improves the whole image and that's a very good thing. If you don’t “see” CA, count your blessings. It’s there...degrading the image.

The only advantage the Nikon HG/LX/LXL (I owned an 8X42 HG) has over the current Chinese offerings is edge sharpness and that's changing with every new iteration. Why would someone spend >$1000 for the Nikon when you can get a brighter bin with less chromatic aberration and a wider field of view for around $400?

Probably because the Nikon will still be functioning years from now but the Chinese binocular......who knows. I think when you use the words Chinese and quality control together it's the perfect example of an oxymoron.

I'm a builder/contractor and I've seen so many proven power tool designs so screwed up when the manufacturer started outsourcing to the Chinese that I avoid anything made in China when at all possible. ANYTHING made in China is suspect when it comes to durability/longevity if it's small enough to fit in/on a cargo ship. I only mention the size stipulation because I must grudgingly admit that they did a pretty damn good job on their wall.

Steve

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by ceasar

http://web.archive.org/web/200806300...i/GB/index.htm

Brock,
Above is a link from the First 2004 issue of ALULA comparing a number of "Alpha" 10x binoculars including the Nikon 10 x 32 HG. (Click on "Published reviews of Optics" 1-2004) This appears to be one with the old Lead glass. There is a comment about the perceived CA in each of the binoculars rated. Their respective CA was not given a numerical rating so it is not found in the comparison chart at the bottom. I assume that this is because the subjective nature of individual reactions to CA are different from person to person.

To summarize, the binocular deemed best in controlling CA was the only Porro Prism in the group; the Nikon 10 x 42 SE. The one deemed best in controlling it among the Roof Prism binoculars was the Swarovski 10 x 42 EL. The worst was the Zeiss 10 x 40 Victory. The remaining 3 were rated about equal as far as I could tell.

I want to make one clarification of your comment that I said complaints about CA "were not mentioned with the LX and LX L." What I said was "they weren't particularly heavily condemned for it."

And finally, thanks to Henry's input, it is quite instructive to find out that changes in AFOV and pincushion distortion can be tweaked without radically altering the design of the eyepieces.

Bob

Bob,

I'm not finding a link to "Published reviews of Optics" 1-2004. I'm just getting a list of the articles in that issue and one link to Leica 10x42 review, but it's not active.

I do agree with him on the 10x42 SE. I did compare the 10x SE to the 10x42 HG both terrestrially and celestially. The SE was the "clear" winner in CA control.

Despite the CA and the "rolling ball" and fast focuser, I really liked the 10x42 HG. If the demo sample I bought off eBay hadn't had uneven coatings, I would have kept it. Instead I bought the 10x42 HGL and was disappointed.

I was that <> close to buying an old stock new pair of 10x42 HGs on eBay a couple years ago that sold for $550. I'd need to use a binoharness with it now, and my right shoulder would get sore from lifting them again and again, but you have to suffer for your "art". :-)

A few years back I mentioned the review you cited and remarks that Steve Ingraham and others had about the "more than average" CA in the Zeiss 10x40 Victory and immediately (if not sooner) Victory I and II fans dragged their old roofs out of mothballs and defended its honor and some denied that it had any CA.

So there you go. Not the first time this battle of perceptions has gone down on these forums. People disagree over the same binoculars. Different eyeballs and brains, same optics.

However Kimmo rated the 10x32 HG, Alula is one person's opinion albeit "expert," and I need a statistical 51% majority to please you! :-)

Actually, I used the word "majority" loosely, didn't think anyone would take it literally, I just meant that there were more people who see CA than there are not.

I see that Steve C. is still trying to bend my words around. I think he's just mad at me because I promised to send him a pair of Field Optics light shields and haven't. I need to pick those up from mooreorless, who has my extra pair but didn't like them. With PT and work, it's been difficult to get together, since he doesn't stay late at work on Mondays and Fridays, and I have PT on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so that just leaves Weds because he lives in another county.

But we will get together eventually, and I will send them to Steve, as promised.

Geez, bins are fast f/3, f/4 optical systems, why someone would deny that many people see CA is beyond my keen.

I think I made my case about this very clearly and logically in my previous post. No more to add.

And as Pilateus pointed out, even under normal conditions when CA is not obvious, CA is still muddying the image. So even those who don't know what they are missing are missing it. :-)

Most importantly, as I stated repeatedly, seeing CA and being annoyed by it are two entirely different things and should not be confused with one another.

In regard to the latter, we shall find out next week how the Premier/HGL CA stacks up.

IMMUNIES VS. CHROMATICS IN THE "PREMIER" BATTLE OF THE CENTURY.

Stay tuned....

Brock

[ceasar]

Brock,

The link works for me and the comments are found in the article about the Leica 10 x 42 Ultravid. I assume you clicked on the word "optics" and then went to the 1/2004 issue for the article in it.

You are right about CA in f3 and f4 refractors. It has to be there. It is very offensive to some people and not so much to others. Henry and others have discussed the varieties of ED glass used in trying to control it. The best kind can't be cheap I would venture to say.

I don't think that Nikon uses different glass in the SE objectives than it does in their Roof Prism objectives so there must be other reasons for the apparent differences.

Personally I have always had doubts about the presence of unseen CA affecting the image. Something to do with "Liein' eyes" I guess.

Bob

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:
The National Weather Service reports that the CA Index for Pennsylvania today will be 7 point 3. It will become progressively higher the closer one approaches the Boston, New York, Washington corridor. People living within the corridor should use Swarovski Swarovison eye wear for protection and stay inside on bright but overcast days.

[Chhayanat]

Originally Posted by brocknroller

Bob,
I'm not finding a link to "Published reviews of Optics" 1-2004. I'm just getting a list of the articles in that issue and one link to Leica 10x42 review, but it's not active.
Brock

http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/...ravid_GB.shtml

The link above works intermittently. Perhaps it might work if you try it after a goodish interval.
Chhayanat

[Pileatus]

Originally Posted by steve@37n84w

Probably because the Nikon will still be functioning years from now but the Chinese binocular......who knows. I think when you use the words Chinese and quality control together it's the perfect example of an oxymoron.

I'm a builder/contractor and I've seen so many proven power tool designs so screwed up when the manufacturer started outsourcing to the Chinese that I avoid anything made in China when at all possible. ANYTHING made in China is suspect when it comes to durability/longevity if it's small enough to fit in/on a cargo ship. I only mention the size stipulation because I must grudgingly admit that they did a pretty damn good job on their wall.

Steve

We heard the same about Japanese goods post WWII.
See http://www.birdwatchersdigest.com/bw...rs-reviews.php for a different perspective.

[Steve C]

Brock,

You are a real piece of work my man. So I'm twisting your words huh? I have referenced two of your posts in this thread where you state CA affects a majority of users. There are two more posts of yours I can still reference, but it is pointless. Twisting words requires words to twist. Words which you seem to supply in super abundance .

So here is your chance to set your record straight. Do you think the majority of users are affected by CA? A simple one word answer is all you need to post. Just one word. Yes or no. Keep in mind the question does not deny the fact of the existence of CA, just whether or not you think the majority of users are affected by it. Yes or No. The use of one word leaves no "words" to twist. One simple word. Can you do it or not?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Steve C

Brock,

You are a real piece of work my man. So I'm twisting your words huh? I have referenced two of your posts in this thread where you state CA affects a majority of users. There are two more posts of yours I can still reference, but it is pointless. Twisting words requires words to twist. Words which you seem to supply in super abundance .

So here is your chance to set your record straight. Do you think the majority of users are affected by CA? A simple one word answer is all you need to post. Just one word. Yes or no. Keep in mind the question does not deny the fact of the existence of CA, just whether or not you think the majority of users are affected by it. Yes or No. The use of one word leaves no "words" to twist. One simple word. Can you do it or not?

No he can't its impossible, however if he mentions anything SLIGHTLY political for instance the words republican, washington, democrat, Obama, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Lincoln, White house, senate, or JFK (even the Airport) the fat lady will start singing.