best low light bino 10x (3 Viewers)

[ailevin]

This thread reminds me of audio forums where discussions of A/B blind or even double blind tests are banned except in very limited discussion areas. The typical scenario is that someone or some group is certain of the improvement in sound that they get when using particular cables or power cords. Then there is a meet up with some sort of blind testing and these preferences turn out to be exceeding difficult to demonstrate beyond randomness. This leads to an endless discussion of how the listening environment is not exactly the same as at home and on and on.

I actually participated in something like this having to do with my ability and the ability of others to detect differences in fidelity due to sampling rate. I was certain I could hear the difference until I did the detailed controlled tested where I had no idea what sampling rates were being used. It was music of my choice, and I could listen to any passage I liked again and again, but I never knew what the sampling rate would be and I had to choose A or B. Kind of like the optometrist with the "better or worse" business.

The moral of the story or basis of the policy for banning discussion of A/B comparison is that the empirical data does not seem to inform the subjective experience. If the gold cables sound give you greater joy, then buy them. I still over-sample though my hearing is declining. There is no use debating someone else's first person experience. This is particularly true when debating specifications vs. experience with high end optics or sound equipment.

Alan

 

[ceasar]

The Zeiss SF has a FOV of 444 feet and Transmission of 92% , whereas, the HT has a FOV of 405 feet and Transmission of 95%.

The measurements you are giving are for the 8x42s; specifically the SF and the HT.

If you check with Allbinos rankings of the 8x42s you will see that the old, now replaced Zeiss 8x42 Victory FL T* has a FOV of 404.25' and a Transmission graph of 95% which is virtually the same as the HT. Not very much improvement there with the HT.

https://www.allbinos.com/238-binoculars_review-Carl_Zeiss_Victory_8x42_T*_FL.html

 

[elkcub]

The Zeiss SF has a FOV of 444 feet and Transmission of 92% , whereas, the HT has a FOV of 405 feet and Transmission of 95%.

A brighter binocular should physiologically contract the observer's pupil more than a darker one. Since the SF has a 20% greater adapting field area (i.e., AFOV) than the HT, under conditions of equal luminance its corneal flux density should be greater and, hence, appear brighter. However, there is a 3% difference in transmission favoring the HT, so the luminance is not equal and there is a trade-off. Based on this rough analysis, it shouldn't be too surprising that naive observers would be inconsistent as to which instrument was brighter, and might be more or less evenly split if forced to make an A/B choice.

Ed

 

[huronbay]

First I want to say that I am interested in learning more and have enjoyed most of the discussion.

For the record, my initial post to the OP was about the view, not which was brighter. Have about 20 hours in, comparing them in low light--there are differences noted that probably are a sum, rather than a result of a single attribute. Have been comparing good glass since the mid- 90's and for me at least, brightness does not to appear to be as big an issue as all the print it receives. I know...heresy.

While provided data regarding physical attributes from manufacturers is helpful for guidance in glass purchases and maybe online dating, actually comparing contenders side by side will eventually yield a preference--but that is just my experience.

Buy both...sell one.

 

[chill6x6]

Something some of you may find interesting....or not...

Almost exactly two years ago I got out the 10X42s I owned at the time which were a Leica Trinovid(before the HD), Zeiss HT, and Swarovski SV. I then set up my Snellen eye chart in the back yard probably about 40 yards away or so. Set the binoculars up so I wouldn't have to touch them while reading the chart. Started reading the chart and then every 10 minutes seeing how far down the chart I could read with the decreasing evening light.

Conclusions? Probably no surprise to most of you that the HT and SV were essentially EQUAL at least to my eyes and on that evening. At one point, 7:14PM the SV looked as if it had the advantage but the next three viewing times showed no difference. Actually none of those three were able to separate themselves at all.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Dear all,
The discussion about observed brightness comes back over and over again and since that was the case I had in 2013 glued together a review of scientific papers which are of relevance to this matter and among them quite a few text books in the field of optical sciences, monographs, relevant publications etc. The title of it is "Color vision, brightness, resolution and contrast in binocular images"; it is published on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor and it is in English.
Basically there are two measurable paramaters which determine brightness: exit pupil and the amount of light entering the eye because of the light transmitted by the binocular. Since our brain is not a computer, but fuctions as a type of "psycho-physical weighing" device the color distribution of the transmitted light (color temperature if you wish) is also of importance for observed brightness, since our brain decides that some colours are considered brighter than others. For that reason the shape of the transmission spectrum is of importance as the binocular producers know very well and they take that into account. I once had a long discussion with one of the leading optical scientists of Zeiss who convinced my that FOV does not have any effect on perceived brightness.
If you want to read some text books/studies which give some light on the matter: "Die Fernrohre und Entfernungsmesser" by König und Köhler, third edition, 1953 ; Harry Rutten and Martin van Venrooij, "Telescope optics", 2002; Carl Zeiss, "Handbuch für Augenoptik, 4th edition, 2000 ; Kurt Nassau, "The physics and chemistry of color" 2-nd edition, 2001 ; Paul Yoder and Daniel Vukobratovitch, "Field guide to binoculars and scopes", 2011.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Dorian Gray]

Holger Merlitz has written a couple of fairly detailed posts comparing the two (in German) on the popular German binoculars site which is the most informative comparison between the two I have come across. Regarding low light performance specifically - one of Holger's observations that really impressed me was that he found that both binoculars were able to show him details on horses in a paddock (spots on their coats, etc) when it was too dark for him to see them by the naked eye. Highly recommended.

Do you have a link to this?

 

[WJC]

Dear all,
The discussion about observed brightness comes back over and over again and since that was the case I had in 2013 glued together a review of scientific papers which are of relevance to this matter and among them quite a few text books in the field of optical sciences, monographs, relevant publications etc. The title of it is "Color vision, brightness, resolution and contrast in binocular images"; it is published on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor and it is in English.
Basically there are two measurable paramaters which determine brightness: exit pupil and the amount of light entering the eye because of the light transmitted by the binocular. Since our brain is not a computer, but fuctions as a type of "psycho-physical weighing" device the color distribution of the transmitted light (color temperature if you wish) is also of importance for observed brightness, since our brain decides that some colours are considered brighter than others. For that reason the shape of the transmission spectrum is of importance as the binocular producers know very well and they take that into account. I once had a long discussion with one of the leading optical scientists of Zeiss who convinced my that FOV does not have any effect on perceived brightness.
If you want to read some text books/studies which give some light on the matter: "Die Fernrohre und Entfernungsmesser" by König und Köhler, third edition, 1953 ; Harry Rutten and Martin van Venrooij, "Telescope optics", 2002; Carl Zeiss, "Handbuch für Augenoptik, 4th edition, 2000 ; Kurt Nassau, "The physics and chemistry of color" 2-nd edition, 2001 ; Paul Yoder and Daniel Vukobratovitch, "Field guide to binoculars and scopes", 2011.
Gijs van Ginkel

Doggoneit Gijs:

We were about to put this conundrum to bed, at least for a few ... hours. Then, you come along to throw wavelength into the picture. I’ll bet because the average human eye is most sensitive in the .580m region, you’re saying that it provides a greater illumination than in the .404m region. This would, of course, throw a wrench into the works as we have so far screwed it up to be.

The solution? Don’t worry; be happy. Now, go out and observe some birds ... if you can remember what they look like. :-O:t::cat:

 

[Maljunulo]

"In most instruments of similar aperture, magnification, and quality, observers aren't going to SEE the difference."

That is not true. I can see the difference in brightness in a Zeiss 8x42 SF and a Zeiss 8x42 HT and I think 95% of birders would notice a small difference. When a binocular is designed for high transmission there is a difference.:t:

There are also people who claim they can hear the difference between two audio cables, one larger than the other, or one silver plated.

I remain unconvinced.

 

[Maljunulo]

Do you have a link to this?

I have been able to identify ducks on a seasonal puddle far enough into dusk that I just barely detected that something was there with my bare eyeballs

"Something" turned out to be quite a number of Wood Ducks. I was greatly astonished.

(Swarovski EL SV 10X42)

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Hello Bill,
How are you, glad to see that you are very active on this forum. As a unversity teacher I could not resist to react on the ongoing discussion. After all I have to face the questions and remarks by my colleagues and they are much more demanding/critical than this forum.
All the best,
Gijs

 

[ailevin]

I have been able to identify ducks on a seasonal puddle far enough into dusk that I just detected that something was there with my bare eyeballs

"Something" turned out to be quite a number of Wood Ducks. I was greatly astonished.

(Swarovski EL SV 10X42)

I am more familiar with studies of night vision, but I expect that many of the same principles would hold. This Roger Clark link refers to his book The Visual Astronomy of the Night Sky. Basically, your ability to detect something depends on both differences in surface brightness, and image scale. With a fixed size instrument, increased magnification reduces surface brightness but increases image scale, so when observing an extended object, there is an optimal magnification. Anyway, the binocular is not making things brighter (yes it gathers more light, but it spreads it over a larger area-- surface brightness can only go down). However, you are able to detect contrast differences due to the increased scale.

 

[WJC]

Hello Bill,
How are you, glad to see that you are very active on this forum. As a unversity teacher I could not resist to react on the ongoing discussion. After all I have to face the questions and remarks by my colleagues and they are much more demanding/critical than this forum.
All the best,
Gijs

Hi Gijs:

Things are going well and I can be vertical ... at least when I want to be. When I moved here, I was told that people in Twin Falls don’t were sweaters; they wear short-sleeved shirts or parkas. As my 3rd winter approaches, I’m seeing that’s true.

Threads like this are wonderful for my overblown ego. I see in it, proof of so many of the assertions I made in my book. “Which is better?” rated the first vignette, and it never ceases. Then we have the individual who honestly and humbly asks a question thinking is has a SIMPLE answer when no definitive answer is really available. Next, we have the individual who thinks that the perception of ONE observer (him) should be the same for ALL observers and that that ONE observer’s visual receptors, nerves, and brain are equal (at all wavelengths) to the equipment in a metrology lab and that all posted data from a supplier is accurate and unwavering (B: F&F page 20).

Fig. 27.1 CLEARLY illustrates that the right side of the image (attached) is considerably darker than the left. At least until one puts his or her finger on the fold in the middle. Then we see that BOTH sides are EQUALLY dark (Those PhDs at MIT must think they’re hot stuff). :cat:

Cheers,

Bill

 

[[email protected]]

Your making this too complicated. Zeiss designed the HT for low light with higher transmission Schott Glass and AK prisms and they designed the SF with a bigger FOV and SP prisms and as an all-around birding binocular. They even say that themselves. It is logical that the HT is brighter than the SF. Instead of coming up with all kinds of theories why it isn't true just go compare yourself and you will see that under low light conditions that the HT is little brighter. Think about it. Why would Zeiss come out with two different models of binoculars if they performed in exactly the same way. Enough said.

 

[ceasar]

Your making this too complicated. Zeiss designed the HT for low light with higher transmission glass and AK prisms and they designed the SF with a bigger FOV and as an all-around birding binocular. They even say that themselves. It is logical that the HT is brighter than the SF. Instead of coming up with all kinds of theories why it isn't true just go compare yourself and you will see that under low light conditions that the HT is little brighter. Think about it. Why would Zeiss come out with two different models of binoculars if they performed in exactly the same way. Enough said.

The biggest complexity for those who care about these things is determining where they should they go to get both of these binoculars at the same time so they can compare them for brightness rather than asking other people which ones they think are the brightest. :smoke:

Did you ever consider that the HT is just the old Zeiss Victory FL in a new suit? They have the same prisms, FOV and transmission measurements.

 

[[email protected]]

The biggest complexity for those who care about these things is determining where they should they go to get both of these binoculars at the same time so they can compare them for brightness rather than asking other people which ones they think are the brightest. :smoke:

Did you ever consider that the HT is just the old Zeiss Victory FL in a new suit? They have the same prisms, FOV and transmission measurements.

I have compared the older FL's to the HT's. The HT's are brighter and they are improved but the older FL's can be a real bargain if you find a used pair. Here is what Allbino's had to say about the FL's and the newer HT's.

"The graph looks nice indeed – the maximum transmission is able to get to 94% and, what’s important, that result is reached in the middle of the visible spectrum. The red and blue light transmission levels are good as well – the Victory HT should render colors properly. Unfortunately we can’t compare this graph to the one of the Victory FL 10x42 as that set of binoculars was tested by us without measuring the transmission across the whole visible spectrum. Still we can use here the transmission graph of the Victory FL 8x42 model which contains the same number of optical elements. It’s clear that in the middle of the visible spectrum both pairs of binoculars have results on almost the same level but the new Victory HT fares better for blue light so the overall amount of light delivered to your eye is higher."

 

[Chosun Juan]

Your making this too complicated. Zeiss designed the HT for low light with higher transmission glass and AK prisms and they designed the SF with a bigger FOV and as an all-around birding binocular. They even say that themselves. It is logical that the HT is brighter than the SF. Instead of coming up with all kinds of theories why it isn't true just go compare yourself and you will see that under low light conditions that the HT is little brighter. Think about it. Why would Zeiss come out with two different models of binoculars if they performed in exactly the same way. Enough said.

Dennis, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that Zeiss could not put the appropriate HT glass in the SF without charging a single cent more. With retuned T* coatings to suit, the resultant SF+ would have both higher light transmission AND a more balanced transmission curve with more colourful, more vibrant blues and reds, AND a more neutral colour rendition - finally getting rid of that 'green ham' colour cast ...... of course then they would have to fleece their customers less, but the SF has been out for quite a while now - surely they have made some cost saving productivity increases that they could share with the customer? :cat: :brains:

As for all those theories - sorry if pesky physics is getting in the way of a good game of opinion table tennis!

PS. Bob was only partly correct about the FL -> HT changes ..... yes, the optical train is the same, but the HT glass and coatings retune give a small % gain in light transmission - moreso in the blue part of the spectrum - correspondingly required for low light mesopic and scotopic vision :cat: ..... interestingly this works equally as well for BirDers as well as HunTers !! 3



Chosun :gh:

 

[WJC]

Your making this too complicated. Zeiss designed the HT for low light with higher transmission glass and AK prisms and they designed the SF with a bigger FOV and as an all-around birding binocular. They even say that themselves. It is logical that the HT is brighter than the SF. Instead of coming up with all kinds of theories why it isn't true just go compare yourself and you will see that under low light conditions that the HT is little brighter. Think about it. Why would Zeiss come out with two different models of binoculars if they performed in exactly the same way. Enough said.

Dennis:

I really don’t know why you have singled me out for “making this too complicated.” I guess I’m just an easy target, what with being only a screw turner and all. But, there have been others, including PhDs in physics and NASA senior scientists who have tried to tell you the same thing. Yet, you still base your opinion or your own seemingly infallible perceptions and the advertising rhetoric of Zeiss. Apparently, the graphic didn't do the trick.

I have been a Zeiss fan since many participants on this thread were pooping green and can tell you two things with certainty. First, I support you in whatever you want to believe, just as I have told you—more than once—before. But, secondly, I stopped believing in Santa when I was six. Consequently, I think you should support your stance by boldly stating all the learned folks who have tried to reason with you are out of their tree and only you have the knowledge and experience to pass judgment on the subject at hand. Or, maybe, if it is THAT important to you, you could petition Zeiss to issue you a memo to share with us saying all who have counselled you here are nuts. Be sure he gives his legible signature—I’ll take it from there.

In addition, I believe such a bold comment would say much more about yourself than those you would be maligning.

That’s just a thought. I’m not your enemy, nor do I believe all holders of advanced degrees are infallible or are paragons of wisdom. I’m just wearing low tops and am not prepared to continue traipsing through a field littered with such unsubstantiated—except by your eyes and others not familiar with the physics of the matter—male bovine excrement.

It’s just I don’t want the honest and trusting truth seeker to come away with something less when something more is readily available. :cat:

Bill

 

[[email protected]]

"Dennis, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that Zeiss could not put the appropriate HT glass in the SF without charging a single cent more. With retuned T* coatings to suit, the resultant SF+ would have both higher light transmission AND a more balanced transmission curve with more colourful, more vibrant blues and reds, AND a more neutral colour rendition - finally getting rid of that 'green ham' colour cast ...... of course then they would have to fleece their customers less, but the SF has been out for quite a while now - surely they have made some cost saving productivity increases that they could share with the customer."

True. But if they did they would be cannibalizing the sale of their own HT model. If you can get it all on the SF why buy the HT. They have to differentiate their products in some areas.The HT has the low light market and the SF has the big FOV market. So to get it all you have to buy both.

 

[elkcub]

Dear all,
The discussion about observed brightness comes back over and over again and since that was the case I had in 2013 glued together a review of scientific papers which are of relevance to this matter and among them quite a few text books in the field of optical sciences, monographs, relevant publications etc. The title of it is "Color vision, brightness, resolution and contrast in binocular images"; it is published on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor and it is in English.
Basically there are two measurable paramaters which determine brightness: exit pupil and the amount of light entering the eye because of the light transmitted by the binocular. Since our brain is not a computer, but fuctions as a type of "psycho-physical weighing" device the color distribution of the transmitted light (color temperature if you wish) is also of importance for observed brightness, since our brain decides that some colours are considered brighter than others. For that reason the shape of the transmission spectrum is of importance as the binocular producers know very well and they take that into account. I once had a long discussion with one of the leading optical scientists of Zeiss who convinced my that FOV does not have any effect on perceived brightness.
If you want to read some text books/studies which give some light on the matter: "Die Fernrohre und Entfernungsmesser" by König und Köhler, third edition, 1953 ; Harry Rutten and Martin van Venrooij, "Telescope optics", 2002; Carl Zeiss, "Handbuch für Augenoptik, 4th edition, 2000 ; Kurt Nassau, "The physics and chemistry of color" 2-nd edition, 2001 ; Paul Yoder and Daniel Vukobratovitch, "Field guide to binoculars and scopes", 2011.
Gijs van Ginkel

Hi Gijs,

I can't help but think that this post was partly responding to my post 43, because it specifically addresses the field-of-view (FOV) issue. I've also studied the topic for quite a few years, and after retiring from NASA as a senior research psychologist in 2005 started on the development of an Excel model called "Elkcub's Binocular Brightness Stimulation" (EBBS). I abandoned the effort under the weight of criticism that my limited optical background could not defend against at the time. The key idea behind the model, that no one else was willing to accept, was that "perceptual" brightness, should be a function of the total mount of retinal stimulation; and that, in part, would necessarily involve the retinal projection area of the binoculars, otherwise known as the AFOV. That notion was shot down by superior knowledge of the same kind of 'leading optical scientists' you now mention, and sadly I buckled under. But it didn't sit well ('caus altho I may not be right, I'm never wrong!). :king:

We differ on only one point. So let me ask this question. When you say brightness is determined by: "... the exit pupil and the amount of light entering the eye because of the light transmitted by the binocular...," would you not also agree that a binocular with a larger field of view must pass more photons through the exit pupil in order to cover its larger projection area on the retina, i.e., the AFOV? The wider the field stop the more light enters the eye to accomplish this, although the size of the exit pupil remains unchanged.

The question then switches to: what evidence exists that the size of the retinal stimulation area is positively related to brightness? Back in 2005 I struggled with that question, partly because my texts were dated and also because Google Scholar hadn't been invented. By 2012, however, Watson and Yellott published "A unified formula for light-adapted pupil size," which basically answered the question in a curious way. The eye's pupil size can be regarded as a measurable surrogate for brightness, in that it constricts as brightness increases. Accordingly, the factors influencing pupil constriction also tell us indirectly what effects perceived brightness. The factor of interest here is the "adapting field area," which corresponds to the binocular's AFOV.

You probably have the article, but I've attached it anyway. We can discuss further.

Regards,
Ed