Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Wednesday 11th October 2017, 00:34   #1
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 10,738
Nikon WX 10x50 IF reviewed by Allbinos

https://www.allbinos.com/index.php?t...tki&test_l=328
ceasar is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 11th October 2017, 02:30   #2
PhilR.
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: TX
Posts: 573
Thanks for the H-U. I've been looking forward to reading a review of these very interesting binos that I will probably never purchase........
PhilR. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th October 2017, 02:34   #3
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 227
The Cloudy Nights forum has been carrying reviews and reports on the WX for some time now, for both models as I recall.
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th October 2017, 03:30   #4
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,938
Low transmission and poor colour-fidelity would be off-putting, for me, in such an expensive instrument.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th October 2017, 08:04   #5
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
Low transmission and poor colour-fidelity would be off-putting, for me, in such an expensive instrument.
Once again, I have my doubts about this allbinos review (not the first time).
Having been able myself to thoroughly test the 7x50 version, I don‘t understand the impression given by allbinos that the image shows a yellow-greenish hue.

This is also somewhat contradicted by allbinos‘ own transmission curve, which is a bit similar to the one of the Leica Ultravid, with the maximum in the long wave range.
I have to say that I rather will wait for somebody like Gijs van Ginkel to measure and document the WX transmission.

As Holger Merlitz points out, a transmission value below 90% shouldn‘t be a surprise, given the large amount of glass involved.

Looking personally through the WX is a revelation, especially if you are used to working with traditional premium binos, and I recommend to everybody.

Canip
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th October 2017, 16:01   #6
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,938
Reading through the long thread on Cloudy Nights seems to confirm both the transmission and yellowish tint. I have no skin in this game although I would think that such an expensive and obviously overbuilt / over-specced bin would be close to optical perfection.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th October 2017, 16:09   #7
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 3,286
The Zeiss 20x60S also has faults, such as a very curved field.

With military spec optics one could easily spend $1,000,000 and still find something to complain about.

The billion dollar Hubble scope also was initially pretty useless.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th October 2017, 19:45   #8
wdc
Registered User
 
wdc's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Moraga, California
Posts: 158
Interesting how 'purpose built' devices have such skewed specs. It makes a very impractical general purpose birding binocular! ;-0

As a mounted spotting scope, I can see it's unique appeal, though. I'm sure the wide field
views of the night sky, and any interesting landscape, would be lovely. Of course I'd love to look through one.


In terms of astronomical viewing, consider that a short tube triplet 80-100mm refractor at low power, with a good eyepiece will likely provide a much brighter view, albeit with a narrower field, for far less money. I wonder if they considered a single objective, larger aperture model, with a dedicated binoviewer, and swappable eyepieces. If you're viewing the night sky, the binocular approach can't provide an effective stereo view of objects outside of the earth's atmosphere, however I don't dispute the comfort of using two eyes to view. Also consider that when viewing the sky, the need for an erecting prism isn't necessary. The gains of more aperture would more than offset the light loss..... of course field of view would probably take a beating, and the exit pupil size might monkey wrench the whole thing. I guess I'm just puzzling why they made such a beast of a device. Perhaps the research value in correcting a wide field will trickle down into more accessible consumer optics.

Bill
wdc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th October 2017, 20:29   #9
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 3,286
Nikon already has 102 degree astro eyepieces.
I don't know how good they are.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 12th October 2017, 07:17   #10
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
.....
..... I would think that such an expensive and obviously overbuilt / over-specced bin would be close to optical perfection.
Optical perfection is a big word, and in practice no bino will ever be „optically perfect“.

The WX - as you can verify yourself by looking through one - may be as close to optical perfection as any bino that we may encounter during our lifetime.

Last edited by Canip : Thursday 12th October 2017 at 07:22.
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th October 2017, 18:41   #11
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,938
If it actually does have a noticeable colour-cast - that would make it a pretty flawed instrument in my books. I rejected a perfect looking specimen of the Zeiss 15x60 BGAT - as whites were a bit yellowish. At this level, I would expect perfect colour fidelity...of which is of great importance for either terrestrial or celestial viewing.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th October 2017, 19:23   #12
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 3,286
Perfect colour fidelity has very little if any impact on celestial viewing.
Birds plumage colours yes, but stars or planets no.

Planetary observers often use quite strong colour filters to bring out detail especially on Venus, but on all the others planets also.

Mk III and Mk II. This may seem weird, but here the III and II are black but on another site with maybe smaller letters these two numerals appear red to me although if I inspect them with a magnifying glass they are black.
Why, I don't know, and I would expect others to see similar effects but with different size numerals depending on an individual's eyes.

As to brightness variations, variable star observers and I could consistently see 10% brightness difference, but 5% probably not, except maybe sometimes. Some observers cannot estimate star brightness at all.
As an independent discoverer of Nova Cygnus 1975, I could see variations in brightness of small amounts almost in real time, using a telescope. These were not atmospheric changes. I just could not understand what I was seeing.

Meteor observers might notice 50% differences in brightness estimates in the streaking meteors, but some cannot estimate meteor brightness at all.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 15th October 2017, 23:56   #13
Mark9473
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: 51°N 4°E
Posts: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdc View Post
In terms of astronomical viewing, consider that a short tube triplet 80-100mm refractor at low power, with a good eyepiece will likely provide a much brighter view, albeit with a narrower field, for far less money. I wonder if they considered a single objective, larger aperture model, with a dedicated binoviewer, and swappable eyepieces.
Bill, the perceived brightness at the same exit pupil size will be higher in a binocular compared to a telescope. Did you perhaps mean that a telescope will show fainter objects due to being able to use higher magnifications?

As to using a scope with binoviewer, I think everybody who has used one will agree that a binoviewer decreases the brightness.
Mark9473 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 16th October 2017, 00:33   #14
Pileatus
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
Perfect colour fidelity has very little if any impact on celestial viewing.
Birds plumage colours yes, but stars or planets no.

Planetary observers often use quite strong colour filters to bring out detail especially on Venus, but on all the others planets also.

Mk III and Mk II. This may seem weird, but here the III and II are black but on another site with maybe smaller letters these two numerals appear red to me although if I inspect them with a magnifying glass they are black.
Why, I don't know, and I would expect others to see similar effects but with different size numerals depending on an individual's eyes.

As to brightness variations, variable star observers and I could consistently see 10% brightness difference, but 5% probably not, except maybe sometimes. Some observers cannot estimate star brightness at all.
As an independent discoverer of Nova Cygnus 1975, I could see variations in brightness of small amounts almost in real time, using a telescope. These were not atmospheric changes. I just could not understand what I was seeing.

Meteor observers might notice 50% differences in brightness estimates in the streaking meteors, but some cannot estimate meteor brightness at all.
Birds are amazing; stars profound.
Pileatus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 16th October 2017, 09:36   #15
Gijs van Ginkel
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: utrecht
Posts: 1,197
Mark 9743, post 13,
I do not agree that observing with a binoviewer decreases brightness, as I have learned when I used and tested the new Swarovski BTX binocular eypiece on the 95 mm objective module.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 16th October 2017, 17:30   #16
Mark9473
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: 51°N 4°E
Posts: 184
Gijs, I can only deduce from that, that you did not try them for astronomical viewing.
Mark9473 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 16th October 2017, 17:44   #17
maico
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Somerset UK
Posts: 204
I'm a bit bemused, a figure higher than 85% at 450-500 Nm makes an excellent twilight binocular but clearly Nikon had different design priorities like ultra-wide FOV

Comparison with the new Steiner and exceptional but discontinued Docter porros
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	13002_docter_nob_8_56_trans.jpg
Views:	39
Size:	52.6 KB
ID:	643312  Click image for larger version

Name:	195536_nikon_wx.jpg
Views:	37
Size:	44.0 KB
ID:	643313  Click image for larger version

Name:	182645_steinerNH.jpg
Views:	38
Size:	64.0 KB
ID:	643314  

Last edited by maico : Monday 16th October 2017 at 19:25.
maico is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 16th October 2017, 18:39   #18
wdc
Registered User
 
wdc's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Moraga, California
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark9473 View Post
Bill, the perceived brightness at the same exit pupil size will be higher in a binocular compared to a telescope. Did you perhaps mean that a telescope will show fainter objects due to being able to use higher magnifications?

As to using a scope with binoviewer, I think everybody who has used one will agree that a binoviewer decreases the brightness.
Mark, I'm basing my suppositions from using a variety of finder scopes and telescopes to view the night sky at different apertures. Larger aperture allowed greater magnification, and also showed a brighter image with more detail.

With regard to using a binoviewer, I suggested it for viewing comfort, not to make any claims about it being brighter.

My conjecture, and it could very well be wrong, is that an 80-100mm scope with a binoviewer, would yield a brighter image than a 50mm binocular, at the same exit pupil size.

Considering that if we close one eye, the perceived image does not decrease in brightness, at least in casual, broad daylight 'testing'. It therefore puzzles me why a binocular would be perceptibly brighter than a telescope of the same aperture and magnification, or for that matter, brighter than a telescope with a larger aperture and the same exit pupil. 8x32 binocular vs. 20 x 80 scope, for example.

Stereo vision, and enlarged field of view, seem to be the clear advantage of using both eyes, but it is not evident to me how the signal processing for brightness from 2 sources is sorted out, since there is no obvious change (for me) in light level with one or both eyes open.

Bill
wdc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 16th October 2017, 19:08   #19
Gijs van Ginkel
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: utrecht
Posts: 1,197
Mark9473, post 16,
No I did not use the BTX95 for astroviewing, but I did use it under a number of different light conditions and among them also low light conditions and loss of brightness due to the binoculair eyepiece was not what I observed.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 16th October 2017, 19:50   #20
jring
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,264
Hi,

talking about the WX as anything else than a technology demonstrator is a moot point. The aim was to make a pair of traditional binoculars as good as possible with todays technology and still fit into a small and light package.

Now you will say this guy's out of his mind talking about traditional, small and light in the same sentence as the WX.

But let me explain: The WX is a traditional pair of binoculars since it is has a straight through configuration, well known to conventional binocular users like birders, hunters, military personal or navigators. It also shows an upright and correct image - this also has to be remembered as it has some implications on the construction.
Astronomy aficionados, who love extra wide fields very much, on the other hand prefer instruments with a 90 degree angle and are used to mirrored or upside down images for best optical quality.

Regarding size and weight - given the design target of extra wide field and perfect correction, the WX is astonishingly small and light. Astronomy extra wide EPs in the 100 deg class like a 17 or 21mm Ethos weight between 1.5 and 2.3 pounds each and are usually too big for binoviewing due to minimum IPD and the fact that observers tend to have a nose which needs to go somewhere.
Add to that 50mm f4ish triplet objective lenses, field flatteners and oversized prisms dictated by the upright and correct image requirement and a hypothetical instrument built from astro components would be double the size and weight.

See this link for some DIY attemps - all are significantly larger and heavier (albeit with 70mm doublet objectives) and have no field flattening and show vignetting due to undersize prisms.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/5...-poor-mans-wx/

On the other hand, the 9 grand asked for the memorial edition would also buy an astronomy buff a 105 or 115 Binoptics big bin with superb russian LZOS triplet optics but still no field flattening or upright and correct image... don't ask about weight and size though plus 10x and 9 deg TFOV are not an option.

http://www.binoptic.de/web_us/index.html

The 6 grand for the normal version would easily get you a chinese made APM 120mm ED doublet big bin plus some nice extra EPs with the same lack of field flattening, upright/correct image and 10x@9deg field...

Joachim
jring is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 16th October 2017, 19:58   #21
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 3,286
Bill post 18.
At night it is thought that a scene is about 40% brighter using two eyes rather than one with unaided eyes.
With severe light pollution I cannot verify this now, but it was I think clearly visible to me in the past.
Also my eyesight has got worse over time.

As to 20x80 and 8x32 binoculars.
Much fainter stars are seen with the larger binocular, both because of aperture and magnification.
Also much fainter galaxies would be seen.
The FOV would be larger with the 8x32.
A rich field telescope showing the greatest number of stars is generally thought to be around 5 inch aperture, short focus wide angle refractor.
With night time objects it very much depends on the object.
M31 is probably best seen in a 7x50.
But the main factor by far is how dark the sky is.

With daytime objects all bets are off, as there is such a vast array of brightness, objects looked at, FOV stability etc.
I personally never used a binoviewer so cannot comment.

I see much more now with two eyes than one without optical aid and without my glasses, although the difference was less when I was younger.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 16th October 2017, 21:44   #22
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by maico View Post
I'm a bit bemused, a figure higher than 85% at 450-500 Nm makes an excellent twilight binocular but clearly Nikon had different design priorities like ultra-wide FOV

Comparison with the new Steiner and exceptional but discontinued Docter porros
Post #17, first image:
100% (!) transmission for the Nobilem at 570 nm ???
As mentioned a few days ago, I have my reservations about some of allbinos measurements. This shows why ...
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 16th October 2017, 22:59   #23
jring
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canip View Post
Post #17, first image:
100% (!) transmission for the Nobilem at 570 nm ???
As mentioned a few days ago, I have my reservations about some of allbinos measurements. This shows why ...
You're not alone... although I'm quite sure that the WX will have a lower transmission than the best roof examples (let alone the infamous Habicht) due to the number of optical surfaces and the long glass path. There might even be a certain decrease of transmission in the blue part of the spectrum - but I don't think it is going to be visible by looking through it and without comparing to another pair.

Joachim

Last edited by jring : Monday 16th October 2017 at 23:04. Reason: expanded
jring is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 17th October 2017, 03:57   #24
wdc
Registered User
 
wdc's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Moraga, California
Posts: 158
[quote=Binastro;3631171]Bill post 18.
At night it is thought that a scene is about 40% brighter using two eyes rather than one with unaided eyes.
With severe light pollution I cannot verify this now, but it was I think clearly visible to me in the past.
Also my eyesight has got worse over time.

Hi Binastro, My responses are in red. I think I'm in the same ballpark regarding age and eyesight, but can't claim to ever have been able to distinguish a difference between 1 and 2 eyes at night, even though, I can't deny that the logic and physics of it imply that there should be an increase in brightness. Please note that my comparison in the thread was an 8x32 Binocular vs. a 20x80 Monocular (telescope, and probably minus an erecting prism)

As to 20x80 and 8x32 binoculars.
Much fainter stars are seen with the larger binocular, both because of aperture and magnification.
Also much fainter galaxies would be seen.
The FOV would be larger with the 8x32.
A rich field telescope showing the greatest number of stars is generally thought to be around 5 inch aperture, short focus wide angle refractor.
With night time objects it very much depends on the object.

M31 is probably best seen in a 7x50.
But the main factor by far is how dark the sky is.


I agree with all of these comments, as they reflect my own experience


With daytime objects all bets are off, as there is such a vast array of brightness, objects looked at, FOV stability etc.


I think our image processing system strives for the most 'coherent' visual result, and so masks 'differences', hence why we don't notice a 50% reduction in brightness when we shut one eye, even if indeed there is a shift of that magnitude. I imagine that one pupil immediately opens up more if the other eye is shut, and that there is a massive processing scramble to even out the disparity in illumination. I'm pretty convinced the brain differentiates between external shifts in illumination vs. 'internal' shifts (driving from bright daylight with both eyes open into a tunnel, vs. shutting one eye in broad daylight).

If you want to really mess with your image processing system, keep one eye shut when you get up in the middle of the night, and require some illumination to get where you need to go...
When you've completed your task, open the closed eye, once you've suppressed your luminous navigational aids... The eye that was open the whole time is broadcasting a washed out signal of color and value, and the other eye has a wider pupil and has been less triggered... Sort it out. There is an enormous amount of noise from the 'illuminated' eye, and yet, both are 'broadcasting' contrasting signals to the brain...
wdc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 17th October 2017, 12:28   #25
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by jring View Post
You're not alone... although I'm quite sure that the WX will have a lower transmission than the best roof examples (let alone the infamous Habicht) due to the number of optical surfaces and the long glass path. There might even be a certain decrease of transmission in the blue part of the spectrum - but I don't think it is going to be visible by looking through it and without comparing to another pair.

Joachim
I agree with everything you say.

In his „Field Test“, without even measuring it, Holger Merlitz had estimated transmission to be slightly below 90% (the reason being the one you mention). This has in fact little effect on image quality.

On Sunday, I placed a 7x50 WX side-by-side with an 8.5x42 EL SV, an 8x42 SF and an 8x42 Noctivid to check color fidelity, using W. Schön‘s paper test.
To my eyes, none of the four shows a substantial tint or significant hue; if I want to find differences, the SF and the EL SV show a slightly „cooler“ image, the Noctivid and the WX a very slightly „warmer“ one. In fact, the WX and the Noctivid show colors very similarly, their color tone is almost undistinguishable (disclaimer: as perceived with my eyes; no measurements etc. made).

So I couldn‘t find any of allbinos‘ „green-yellow hue“ in the WX. This would also somewhat contradict their transmission curve, the shape of which is similar to the Ultravid (and the Noctivid?), and the Ultravid is known, if anything, for it‘s color saturated slightly warm image, if I am not mistaken.

Last edited by Canip : Tuesday 17th October 2017 at 20:30.
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
nikon 10x50 WX vs Swarovision 10x50 (and others) bockos Binoculars 5 Tuesday 6th June 2017 00:36
Allbinos, new Nikon binocular reviews NDhunter Nikon 25 Wednesday 11th March 2015 19:05
Allbinos review the Nikon M7 8x30 FrankD Nikon 7 Tuesday 25th March 2014 10:14
Nikon HG L, 8x32, Allbinos, Tests best. NDhunter Nikon 29 Sunday 22nd May 2011 20:31
Bushnell Legend 10x50 vs. Nikon ATB 10x50 turumti Binoculars 0 Wednesday 18th April 2007 19:39

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.29172897 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:06.