jan van daalen
Well-known member
It was also the favorite bin of Prins Bernhard of the Royal Family so he was in good company.
Jan
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Call for contributions: Collecting Evidence for Lack of Progress in Sporting Optics (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Omid
- Start date
It was also the favorite bin of Prins Bernhard of the Royal Family so he was in good company.
Jan
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
On the question of lack of progress in sporting optics, my perspective being that of a person who started paying attention in the very late 1980s, I disagree. Maybe, if you only use bins for slow-paced scanning of distant objects, you could think that little progress has been made. But if you are a birder (and/or butterflyer), who wears glasses, and who enjoys fast and furious close-range viewing in tricky dense brush and forest situations, then you'll know that the average bin off the shelf, and even the alphas, are far more capable today than they were 20 years ago. For example, average specifications for close focus, FOV, eye relief etc are quite different than they were back then. Except at the very bottom, it's hard to find a really bad binocular for birding these days. Back then, it was easy.
Most of the innovation has been in improving the quality and reducing the cost of manufacture of mid-priced roofs. Today's bread and butter (for the marketplace) waterproof, close focus, color correct, high eye relief, wide-field roofs didn't exist in the early 1990s. The wide-field part of that equation (i.e. budget 8x42 roof with 420 ft FOV rather than 330 ft FOV) didn't become available until very recently (for many years, the Bushnell 7x42 Discoverer was the only budget roof with long eye relief and a wide field).
Obviously, there is an upper limit to what can be accomplished with optics, so improvement in bins at the top has been more modest. But much progress has been made with respect to their overall functionality and ergonomics.
Porros like the Nikon 8x32 SE and 8x30 EII are among the best birding porros ever made, and their optics are very nice, but they are nothing very special optical engineering-wise, and they certainly don't represent all-out efforts at optimization of the entire package for birding, with their poor hang, lack of waterproofing, and relatively slow focus that stiffens in the cold. The only reason they stand out is because other companies didn't even try to execute even to the level that Nikon chose to for those products (presumably for marketing reasons, not for lack even of existing technology to do so). Dedicated butterflyers thank Pentax every day for the Papilio, which is based on old technology, but which is a unique design or at least conceived product actually deployed for manufacture. We didn't have anything like it in the 1990s--in fact, butterflying through binoculars hardly existed back then, for near lack even of bins that would focus closer than 12 feet or so,
Top-end roofs have definitely improved in the time I've been paying attention. Eye-relief and close-focus are much improved. Focus ratios also tend to be better for birding than in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Hang and handling characteristics are on average better (I like open hinge designs). And with respect to optical improvement, the brightness/contrast and color accuracy of today's best roofs tend to be much better than they used to be. Sure, Zeiss was doing quite well in those respects way back, especially with its 7x42 Classic, but check out the brightness and color correctness of the early production Leica BA Ultra Trinovids, the first iterations of the Swarovski SLCs, the original and second generation B&L Elites, and the best of Nikon's roofs from back then (i.e. the Execulite line, and the Classic Eagle). Even cheap and mid-priced roofs of today blow those early to late 1990s era alphas away when it comes to brightness and color accuracy. I'm not saying that the older alphas aren't great bins, even now (they tend to be very restful on the eyes because they tend to be well aligned and free of brain-tiring distortions and optical field idiosyncracies), but today's alphas are definitely even better. In fact, today's alphas like the Swarovski EL and upcoming Zeiss SF are pretty much exactly what I was hoping to find in a premium bin in the early 1990s but couldn't (though the Zeiss 7x42 was close, at least for birding). So I'll admit that I'm not concerned to see much improvement in (non-IS) alpha bins beyond them, except, of course
through the addition of variable-ratio focus.
--AP
Most of the innovation has been in improving the quality and reducing the cost of manufacture of mid-priced roofs. Today's bread and butter (for the marketplace) waterproof, close focus, color correct, high eye relief, wide-field roofs didn't exist in the early 1990s. The wide-field part of that equation (i.e. budget 8x42 roof with 420 ft FOV rather than 330 ft FOV) didn't become available until very recently (for many years, the Bushnell 7x42 Discoverer was the only budget roof with long eye relief and a wide field).
Obviously, there is an upper limit to what can be accomplished with optics, so improvement in bins at the top has been more modest. But much progress has been made with respect to their overall functionality and ergonomics.
Porros like the Nikon 8x32 SE and 8x30 EII are among the best birding porros ever made, and their optics are very nice, but they are nothing very special optical engineering-wise, and they certainly don't represent all-out efforts at optimization of the entire package for birding, with their poor hang, lack of waterproofing, and relatively slow focus that stiffens in the cold. The only reason they stand out is because other companies didn't even try to execute even to the level that Nikon chose to for those products (presumably for marketing reasons, not for lack even of existing technology to do so). Dedicated butterflyers thank Pentax every day for the Papilio, which is based on old technology, but which is a unique design or at least conceived product actually deployed for manufacture. We didn't have anything like it in the 1990s--in fact, butterflying through binoculars hardly existed back then, for near lack even of bins that would focus closer than 12 feet or so,
Top-end roofs have definitely improved in the time I've been paying attention. Eye-relief and close-focus are much improved. Focus ratios also tend to be better for birding than in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Hang and handling characteristics are on average better (I like open hinge designs). And with respect to optical improvement, the brightness/contrast and color accuracy of today's best roofs tend to be much better than they used to be. Sure, Zeiss was doing quite well in those respects way back, especially with its 7x42 Classic, but check out the brightness and color correctness of the early production Leica BA Ultra Trinovids, the first iterations of the Swarovski SLCs, the original and second generation B&L Elites, and the best of Nikon's roofs from back then (i.e. the Execulite line, and the Classic Eagle). Even cheap and mid-priced roofs of today blow those early to late 1990s era alphas away when it comes to brightness and color accuracy. I'm not saying that the older alphas aren't great bins, even now (they tend to be very restful on the eyes because they tend to be well aligned and free of brain-tiring distortions and optical field idiosyncracies), but today's alphas are definitely even better. In fact, today's alphas like the Swarovski EL and upcoming Zeiss SF are pretty much exactly what I was hoping to find in a premium bin in the early 1990s but couldn't (though the Zeiss 7x42 was close, at least for birding). So I'll admit that I'm not concerned to see much improvement in (non-IS) alpha bins beyond them, except, of course
through the addition of variable-ratio focus.--AP
Last edited:
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Nope. I needed eyedrops. I already have a tablet, an iPad.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Lee,
It seems to me the global Null hypothesis would be Improvement = 0, which means that it may be refuted, but, strictly speaking, not "proven." All evidence presented thus far supports the Alternate hypothesis that Improvement > 0. None has shown negative progress. So along with rejecting the Null hypothesis, we can also safely discount the second logical Alternative hypothesis that Improvement < 0.
Let the word go forth, therefore, that a consensus has been reached among the world's leading binoholics that man-made optical progress has occurred over the last quarter century. :brains:
Ed
WJC
Well-known member
Hi Omid:
I think you might have second-guessed my intentions. I was not castigating your work, just hoping to tweak your approach a bit. Further, I know even that can be a pain. The reason my De-MYTH-tifying Binoculars is an “ethereal” book, is because all the publishers I’ve approached want me to turn it into something it’s not, and I refuse to do that. Take Springer, for instance. They want a book of at least 10 chapters with at least 10 pages per chapter. [They would be great people to work with, but would water down the impact needed to get my points across.]
Yet, while some of my points take 18 pages, others take HALF of one page. So, instead of selling out for the badly needed dollar, I just wait and think. I’m not really being hard-nosed; if I thought their method would do what I want done, I would be glad to follow their lead. I just don’t see it.
You have received some sound council from good folks on BF. You may have been exposed to things you don’t believe or didn’t want to know. But, that is really a blessing. These guys are part of your potential audience. Thus, their opinions are golden. Dollars buy books; that’s the math. You don’t have to sell your soul. But remember, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
I’m sure there are folks all around you willing to counsel you on how to proceed. I am no different.
1. Let all know exactly what you are trying to do, and that the project has a projected end. Share with the forum what you intend to do to keep bias out of the picture; some of us question your direction. That’s not rudeness—just a realistic (read: profitable) reflection.
2. Specify EXACTLY the scope of your work.
3. Stay within those parameters.
4. Select data that will remian valid amid peer review.
5. Mentally, separate the sheep from the goats.
6. Say “thank you” . . . a lot.
Good luck!
Bill
I think you might have second-guessed my intentions. I was not castigating your work, just hoping to tweak your approach a bit. Further, I know even that can be a pain. The reason my De-MYTH-tifying Binoculars is an “ethereal” book, is because all the publishers I’ve approached want me to turn it into something it’s not, and I refuse to do that. Take Springer, for instance. They want a book of at least 10 chapters with at least 10 pages per chapter. [They would be great people to work with, but would water down the impact needed to get my points across.]
Yet, while some of my points take 18 pages, others take HALF of one page. So, instead of selling out for the badly needed dollar, I just wait and think. I’m not really being hard-nosed; if I thought their method would do what I want done, I would be glad to follow their lead. I just don’t see it.
You have received some sound council from good folks on BF. You may have been exposed to things you don’t believe or didn’t want to know. But, that is really a blessing. These guys are part of your potential audience. Thus, their opinions are golden. Dollars buy books; that’s the math. You don’t have to sell your soul. But remember, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
I’m sure there are folks all around you willing to counsel you on how to proceed. I am no different.
1. Let all know exactly what you are trying to do, and that the project has a projected end. Share with the forum what you intend to do to keep bias out of the picture; some of us question your direction. That’s not rudeness—just a realistic (read: profitable) reflection.
2. Specify EXACTLY the scope of your work.
3. Stay within those parameters.
4. Select data that will remian valid amid peer review.
5. Mentally, separate the sheep from the goats.
6. Say “thank you” . . . a lot.
Good luck!
Bill
Hi Bill,
Yes, of course I am using the forum for research! What's wrong with that? My intention is exactly as I stated in the topic of my post: "Collecting Evidence for Lack of Progress in Sporting Optics". I was hoping that, by help from experienced and well-versed users such as yourself, I/we would be able to put together a portfolio of reviews, magazine articles, test results and even older posts on this forum that would support the "lack of progress" claim.
If I could collect some strong evidence, then I wanted to put together a presentation to show to my hunting and optics friends when we meet at the next Shot Show. As a bigger step, I am also contemplating writing an article with this theme in one of the leading sporting journals (e.g. Sports Afield). But English is not my first language and I am not the most eloquent writer so this might not be the right idea. This is all on my own initiative. I am not commissioned by any manufacturer or interest group or anything.
I had a feeling that some established users here would be sympathetic with the cause and would help in the collection of evidence (if there is any). But so far, I have not gained much value except with some good help dating the start the product lines from Leica and Swarovski
Some users have pointed out that my question is unscientific because I am starting with a biased question (like asking "Why we love Coca Cola?"). This complaint is not valid here because we are doing a simple binary hypothesis test. It is either true that "Leica/Swarovski/Zeiss binoculars haven't improved much in performance during the past two decades" or not. Whether we ask it as a positive or negative question won't change it.
Why asking others to help collect evidence about progress in binocular performance a limb attempt? I have some experience and of course I have my own opinion but still I think I can learn a lot from hearing from other members. The "lack of progress" hypothesis could be wrong but I would like to see evidence in the form of magazine reviews or focus-group tests, etc. that shows that we have really had significant progress. For example, do you know of any such tests or reviews comparing the EL Swarovision to older ELs and showing significant improvement in some measurable way? That would be good to see and will close this topic very quickly!! Similarly, a review that shows Leica Ultavid 12X50 HD is significantly superior to Leica Triniovid 12X50 BA or a Zeiss 8X56 Victory HT is significantly superior to Zeiss 8X56 Nigh Owl in terms of optical performance. You see, Jerry, my aim was/is simply finding reviews that show significant progress -or lack thereof- in top-tire product lines of Z or S or L.
James,
There must be a confusion here. Gijs had made an assertion (he said "Fujinon is in my opinion certainly not the top of porro design"). I asked him if he believes some other binocular is on the top of the 7X50 class, please mention what it is. Gijs did not mention what "other" binocular is the top 7x50. Thus, he did not prove his case. As simple as that! Of course he is a very knowledgeable person and his opinions I respect.
I respect your opinion and Ron's opinion and Bill's opinion and Holger's opinion and Jerry's opinion and other users as well!
By the way, if you don't like your Zeiss night Owls and think they "have horrible CA, tiny sweetspot, weak contrast and average brightness", why do you still keep them? You can sell them and make good money. They sell well on ebay
Last edited:
Art
This reminds me of the guy that goes to see his doctor, sobbing that he is addicted to surfing the internet on his smartphone, that he is wasting his life. that he just can't keep off the thing, his marriage is in tatters, his career in ruins and all because he can't stay away from his smartphone and the internet.
'Don't worry', says his doctor, 'I can give you a tablet for that'......... :-O
Lee
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Omid,
Your statement was: LACK OF PROGRESS IN SPORTING OPTICS and you want us to give evidence for your statement/axioma. Although you present it as an hypothesis, it sounds very much as if you have already concluded that your statement is a fact. I will assume that your statement is really meant as an hypothesis. In science an hypothesis is not valid anymore if ONE experiment proves this hypothesis to be wrong.
Now let us look at the porro designs: Leica came with the brandnew design of Porro prisms: the Perger prisms, which certainly is a development of progress.
That alone is enough to show that your hypothesis is not valid, but what about the brandnew range finder binoculars form Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski and their excellent performances, which were unthinkable in the 1990's . I consider that as other data which fully undermine your hypothesis.
Gijs
Your statement was: LACK OF PROGRESS IN SPORTING OPTICS and you want us to give evidence for your statement/axioma. Although you present it as an hypothesis, it sounds very much as if you have already concluded that your statement is a fact. I will assume that your statement is really meant as an hypothesis. In science an hypothesis is not valid anymore if ONE experiment proves this hypothesis to be wrong.
Now let us look at the porro designs: Leica came with the brandnew design of Porro prisms: the Perger prisms, which certainly is a development of progress.
That alone is enough to show that your hypothesis is not valid, but what about the brandnew range finder binoculars form Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski and their excellent performances, which were unthinkable in the 1990's . I consider that as other data which fully undermine your hypothesis.
Gijs
bh46118
Well-known member
Attachments
WJC
Well-known member
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Bill,
Do you know of the mythological figure called Atlas and how he is bent over because of the heavy burden on his shoulders? If you would make a picture of me it would be similar, carrying so much wisdom, that I am almost crumbling to pieces but since I am a modest guy I never tell anybody.
Gijs
Do you know of the mythological figure called Atlas and how he is bent over because of the heavy burden on his shoulders? If you would make a picture of me it would be similar, carrying so much wisdom, that I am almost crumbling to pieces but since I am a modest guy I never tell anybody.
Gijs
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Bill, post 111,
I have emptied a number of posts from my mailbox, so there is room for messages. (I am sorry, but I had not looked into it for a while).
Gijs
I have emptied a number of posts from my mailbox, so there is room for messages. (I am sorry, but I had not looked into it for a while).
Gijs
WJC
Well-known member
I know how it is. People who think they know everything are especially annoying to those of us who . . . DO!
Of course, I once THOUGHT that I was conceited. But then, I realized that conceit is a FAULT, and I . . . don't have any!
Cheers,
Bill
Of course, I once THOUGHT that I was conceited. But then, I realized that conceit is a FAULT, and I . . . don't have any!
Cheers,
Bill
Last edited:
WJC
Well-known member
Gijs and Bill! Just a couple of wise guys!
Bob
Ooh! Ooh! Gijs, we finally got someone to notice! Do you suppose it was that billboard we rented?
Still, I think the neon was over the top!
Bill
On the question of lack of progress in sporting optics, my perspective being that of a person who started paying attention in the very late 1980s, I disagree. Maybe, if you only use bins for slow-paced scanning of distant objects, you could think that little progress has been made. But if you are a birder (and/or butterflyer), who wears glasses, and who enjoys fast and furious close-range viewing in tricky dense brush and forest situations, then you'll know that the average bin off the shelf, and even the alphas, are far more capable today than they were 20 years ago. For example, average specifications for close focus, FOV, eye relief etc are quite different than they were back then. Except at the very bottom, it's hard to find a really bad binocular for birding these days. Back then, it was easy.
Most of the innovation has been in improving the quality and reducing the cost of manufacture of mid-priced roofs. Today's bread and butter (for the marketplace) waterproof, close focus, color correct, high eye relief, wide-field roofs didn't exist in the early 1990s. The wide-field part of that equation (i.e. budget 8x42 roof with 420 ft FOV rather than 330 ft FOV) didn't become available until very recently (for many years, the Bushnell 7x42 Discoverer was the only budget roof with long eye relief and a wide field).
Obviously, there is an upper limit to what can be accomplished with optics, so improvement in bins at the top has been more modest. But much progress has been made with respect to their overall functionality and ergonomics.
Porros like the Nikon 8x32 SE and 8x30 EII are among the best birding porros ever made, and their optics are very nice, but they are nothing very special optical engineering-wise, and they certainly don't represent all-out efforts at optimization of the entire package for birding, with their poor hang, lack of waterproofing, and relatively slow focus that stiffens in the cold. The only reason they stand out is because other companies didn't even try to execute even to the level that Nikon chose to for those products (presumably for marketing reasons, not for lack even of existing technology to do so). Dedicated butterflyers thank Pentax every day for the Papilio, which is based on old technology, but which is a unique design or at least conceived product actually deployed for manufacture. We didn't have anything like it in the 1990s--in fact, butterflying through binoculars hardly existed back then, for near lack even of bins that would focus closer than 12 feet or so,
Top-end roofs have definitely improved in the time I've been paying attention. Eye-relief and close-focus are much improved. Focus ratios also tend to be better for birding than in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Hang and handling characteristics are on average better (I like open hinge designs). And with respect to optical improvement, the brightness/contrast and color accuracy of today's best roofs tend to be much better than they used to be. Sure, Zeiss was doing quite well in those respects way back, especially with its 7x42 Classic, but check out the brightness and color correctness of the early production Leica BA Ultra Trinovids, the first iterations of the Swarovski SLCs, the original and second generation B&L Elites, and the best of Nikon's roofs from back then (i.e. the Execulite line, and the Classic Eagle). Even cheap and mid-priced roofs of today blow those early to late 1990s era alphas away when it comes to brightness and color accuracy. I'm not saying that the older alphas aren't great bins, even now (they tend to be very restful on the eyes because they tend to be well aligned and free of brain-tiring distortions and optical field idiosyncracies), but today's alphas are definitely even better. In fact, today's alphas like the Swarovski EL and upcoming Zeiss SF are pretty much exactly what I was hoping to find in a premium bin in the early 1990s but couldn't (though the Zeiss 7x42 was close, at least for birding). So I'll admit that I'm not concerned to see much improvement in (non-IS) alpha bins beyond them, except, of course
--AP
Nice summing up Alex.
Lee
Ed,
There used to be a yearly contest in the fall of the year among the sports writers and editors of my local Sunday paper on who would pick the most winners of the weekend High School Football games. There was one mystery player who identified himself only as "Kid Consensus."
He (or she ?) won the highest percentage of those yearly contests.
Bob
There used to be a yearly contest in the fall of the year among the sports writers and editors of my local Sunday paper on who would pick the most winners of the weekend High School Football games. There was one mystery player who identified himself only as "Kid Consensus."
He (or she ?) won the highest percentage of those yearly contests.
Bob
Last edited:
