Optimize for size and weight at expense of optical performance? (1 Viewer)

[[email protected]]

"I feel the same - Leica seems to be optimizing nowadays for small size and weight, combined with sleek design and handling. The optics are good, but not outstanding."


This excellent post by Jring got me thinking about if some manufacturers like Leica optimize their binocular design for size and weight at the expense of the optics. The Zeiss SF and HT and Swarovski Swarovision models are much bigger than the Leica's Ultravid Plus in most apertures. Will a BIGGER, LONGER binocular outperform a smaller one of equal quality because it has a longer focal length and bigger prisms or can a compact binocular perform just as well if they have the SAME aperture?

 

[Steve C]

Personally I do find better optical performance with longer binoculars, to my eye the most apparent improvement is dof. I know that increasing dof is supposed to be a function of decreasing magnification.

However I can't quite come to grips with the bold assessment Dennis quotes. I have a very hard time seeing Leica as sacrificing optics.

I would agree that they do seem to be optimizing smaller size. However that seems to be a purposeful decision on Leica's part. I think having a smaller size true alpha to contrast with larger competition is a good idea.

 

[Alexis Powell]

"I feel the same - Leica seems to be optimizing nowadays for small size and weight, combined with sleek design and handling. The optics are good, but not outstanding."


This excellent post by Jring got me thinking about if some manufacturers like Leica optimize their binocular design for size and weight at the expense of the optics. The Zeiss SF and HT and Swarovski Swarovision models are much bigger than the Leica's Ultravid Plus in most apertures. Will a BIGGER, LONGER binocular outperform a smaller one of equal quality because it has a longer focal length and bigger prisms or can a compact binocular perform just as well if they have the SAME aperture?

Leica sacrifices eye relief and FOV a bit for compact size. I don't think the other qualities of the optics are compromised by size. If you or others don't like the view through Leica bins it probably has more to do with those characteristics or their lack of field flatteners. Otherwise, the latest generation appears to be comparable with respect to glass and coatings. I find all of the last generation or two of alpha bins to be optically and physically outstanding. Sure, they've improved a bit recently, and the difference between alpha and lesser optics is smaller, but when it comes to doing the job they meet very high thresholds for acceptable performance of conventional (i.e. non-IS) binoculars.

--AP

 

[John Cantelo]

As I've observed before the binoculars you actually have with you because they're an ergonomic delight will always outperform the ones you left at home because they're too large, too heavy and don't handle so well!

 

[mfunnell]

As I've observed before the binoculars you actually have with you because they're an ergonomic delight will always outperform the ones you left at home because they're too large, too heavy and don't handle so well!

:t::t:

...Mike

 

[birdrousta]

I read the context of the observation as the Trinovid line.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3370033

If the new Trinovids, which are available as low as 850, are the context - yes, I'd expect Leica would want something that performed very well optically and did extremely well, better than the competition, on handling.

I'd think they would want the ultravid to be able to go head to head optically with the top models across the board and meet or beat them on handling, though.

And of course, everyone's take on handling is different.

 

[[email protected]]

Leica sacrifices eye relief and FOV a bit for compact size. I don't think the other qualities of the optics are compromised by size. If you or others don't like the view through Leica bins it probably has more to do with those characteristics or their lack of field flatteners. Otherwise, the latest generation appears to be comparable with respect to glass and coatings. I find all of the last generation or two of alpha bins to be optically and physically outstanding. Sure, they've improved a bit recently, and the difference between alpha and lesser optics is smaller, but when it comes to doing the job they meet very high thresholds for acceptable performance of conventional (i.e. non-IS) binoculars.

--AP

So it just for increased eye relief and FOV that Zeiss makes their binocular bodies so much bigger than Leica. Doesn't the bigger AK prism used in the HT model take more room hence a bigger binocular. So they could be seeking more light transmission also because the AK prism is supposed to be more light efficient.

 

[Hermann]

So it just for increased eye relief and FOV that Zeiss makes their binocular bodies so much bigger than Leica. Doesn't the bigger AK prism used in the HT model take more room hence a bigger binocular. So they could be seeking more light transmission also because the AK prism is supposed to be more light efficient.

Better eye relief and maximum transmission are certainly reasons to use a longer focal length and AK prisms, even though the dielectric coatings on SP prisms have become a lot more efficient over the past few years. But no matter how good they are, AK will always be more efficient, even if that advantage has become a lot smaller over the past few years. BTW, another advantage of a longer focal length is that it also makes controlling CA easier, especially in binoculars with internal focusing.

But things aren't that simple. There's also the issue of stray light. In a longer body it's easier to get rid of stray light efficiently.

Hermann

 

[[email protected]]

Personally I do find better optical performance with longer binoculars, to my eye the most apparent improvement is dof. I know that increasing dof is supposed to be a function of decreasing magnification.

However I can't quite come to grips with the bold assessment Dennis quotes. I have a very hard time seeing Leica as sacrificing optics.

I would agree that they do seem to be optimizing smaller size. However that seems to be a purposeful decision on Leica's part. I think having a smaller size true alpha to contrast with larger competition is a good idea.

You find DOF increasing with the body length of the binocular. That is interesting. It just make me wonder why Zeiss builds them so big and Leica builds them so small. A smaller binocular like the Leica is going to have better ergonomics than the Zeiss right or do some people prefer the bigger size of the Zeiss?

 

[Hermann]

A smaller binocular like the Leica is going to have better ergonomics than the Zeiss right or do some people prefer the bigger size of the Zeiss?

It depends. People are different, and size may be important for some applications but not for others. It's the same with cameras: Some people prefer small, compact cameras, others like large, professional DSLR bodies. I myself like smallish, light binoculars, but I prefer using large DSLRs anytime. I only use small cameras when hiking long distances.

Hermann

 

[Steve C]

You find DOF increasing with the body length of the binocular. That is interesting. It just make me wonder why Zeiss builds them so big and Leica builds them so small. A smaller binocular like the Leica is going to have better ergonomics than the Zeiss right or do some people prefer the bigger size of the Zeiss?

While I do personally find a dof increase with focal length, not everyone sees it like I do. That has been gone around before and I seem to be in the minority. But the prime example is the quite long ZEN ED 2 7x36 compared to the much shorter Swift Eaglet 7x36. Being 7x they should have the same dof. In actual viewing the ZEN is far better.

Remember Zeiss has been primarily a user of Abbe-Koening prisms in their full size models which make for longer binoculars. The FL x32 models were SP and shorter, likely a deliberate design decision for a small glass for Zeiss to offer as companion to their full size FL. The 9x45 Maven B2 is another example of a very long (in this case also AK prism) binocular in which I find a marked increase in dof over the similar SV EL 8.5x42. I offer that purely as a dof comparison.

Ergonomics is another pretty personal consideration. That length in the B2 is a prime reason for what I find to be superior to anything ergonomics. So I'd say it is a fair assumption that some will like smaller and vice versa. I wouldn't call the ergonomics better or worse, just different.

 

[mfunnell]

Ergonomics is another pretty personal consideration. [..] So I'd say it is a fair assumption that some will like smaller and vice versa. I wouldn't call the ergonomics better or worse, just different.

Very true. I'm not sure "ergonomics" is the right word, but ease of packing or carrying is just as (or more) important to me as ease in use. That's why I agreed with John, above: the binoculars I have with me give a much better view than the ones sitting on the shelf at home. Eventually (all too eventually! ||) I realised I'd be better off with my best binoculars as the ones with me, rather than investing skull-sweat and dollars determining the very best binoculars I could buy but then leave at home.

...Mike

 

[jring]

I read the context of the observation as the Trinovid line.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3370033

If the new Trinovids, which are available as low as 850, are the context - yes, I'd expect Leica would want something that performed very well optically and did extremely well, better than the competition, on handling.

I'd think they would want the ultravid to be able to go head to head optically with the top models across the board and meet or beat them on handling, though.

And of course, everyone's take on handling is different.

Hi,

actually I thought of both current trini and ultravid lines when stating this - they seem to be roughly the same size for comparable models with the trinis being a tad lighter.
I also mentioned that this is an attractive package for many, which is fine.
Optical design always is a series of compromises (quoting some famous optics designer here - but I forgot whom - does sb know the name?) and portability is certainly one of the contradictory design goals.

Small size means fast objective lenses and thus short eyepiece focal length which leads to short eye relief and/or smaller field of view. Also CA control gets tricky with fast optics so you might have to use ED glass to get away with it at all instead of using it to get an almost apochromatic image.
As has been mentioned thin and short tubes mean less room for baffles and thus it's harder to get glare and/or reflections under control.
Schmidt-Pechan prisms are small & lightweight but have disadvantages in transmission and sometimes contrast as compared to Abbe-Koenig or even Porros.

Regards,

Joachim

 

[Rathaus]

While I do personally find a dof increase with focal length, not everyone sees it like I do. That has been gone around before and I seem to be in the minority. But the prime example is the quite long ZEN ED 2 7x36 compared to the much shorter Swift Eaglet 7x36. Being 7x they should have the same dof. In actual viewing the ZEN is far better.

Remember Zeiss has been primarily a user of Abbe-Koening prisms in their full size models which make for longer binoculars. The FL x32 models were SP and shorter, likely a deliberate design decision for a small glass for Zeiss to offer as companion to their full size FL. The 9x45 Maven B2 is another example of a very long (in this case also AK prism) binocular in which I find a marked increase in dof over the similar SV EL 8.5x42. I offer that purely as a dof comparison.

Ergonomics is another pretty personal consideration. That length in the B2 is a prime reason for what I find to be superior to anything ergonomics. So I'd say it is a fair assumption that some will like smaller and vice versa. I wouldn't call the ergonomics better or worse, just different.

Depth of field is a big thing for me and adds to viewing pleasure. The fujinon fmtrsx 7x50 have everything of mine beat. Set it to twenty metres and forget the focusers. The Zeiss 7x42 are good but nowhere near the fujinon re dof. The Zeiss 8x56 are not as good as the Zeiss 7x42. The Bushnell 7x35 range master are better than the 8x56 Zeiss. The military IF 8x30 habicht is superb too. They aren't hard to rank, and I can go on and on, but I'm still uncertain as to why they aren't simply following a magnification and Appeture formulae. Narrow Width of objectives could partly explain the Zeiss 8x56 pork hunting bins otherwise comparative lacklustre dof. They have great glass, low power, big objectives , super long, and have a narrow fov...but struggle to compete with some ancient stumpy ultra wide fov Bushnell 7x35? (Still, those pig hunting Zeiss are the craziest and most absurdly good looking bins ever imo)

Rathaus

 

[birdrousta]

Small size means fast objective lenses and thus short eyepiece focal length which leads to short eye relief and/or smaller field of view. Also CA control gets tricky with fast optics so you might have to use ED glass to get away with it at all instead of using it to get an almost apochromatic image.
As has been mentioned thin and short tubes mean less room for baffles and thus it's harder to get glare and/or reflections under control.
Schmidt-Pechan prisms are small & lightweight but have disadvantages in transmission and sometimes contrast as compared to Abbe-Koenig or even Porros.

I'm not sure how much faster the Leica objectives are versus the Zeiss or Swaro. In another setting a few months back I realized that while telescope manufacturers do break the information on focal lenth of their instruments out, binocular manufacturers don't give the information and you can find folk who think that because the information isn't given,there is no f ratio for binocular lenses.

I get the feeling that the objectives would all be considered fast if they were in use in telescopes, though. Does that seem fair?

I haven't had the pleasure of trying a set of the new Ultravids yet, so I don't have an opinion on how good they are. I wish we had Cabelas in this state, or that I had tried to get back over to the one I visited in November a second time. I may be able to get up to a place in Mendocino which had an awesome selection of binoculars last time I was there, though.

 

[perterra]

Ergonomics is another pretty personal consideration. That length in the B2 is a prime reason for what I find to be superior to anything ergonomics. So I'd say it is a fair assumption that some will like smaller and vice versa. I wouldn't call the ergonomics better or worse, just different.

I'll choose ergonomics every time over optical perfection.

 

[A2GG]

I'll choose ergonomics every time over optical perfection.

Me too.

 

[[email protected]]

Very true. I'm not sure "ergonomics" is the right word, but ease of packing or carrying is just as (or more) important to me as ease in use. That's why I agreed with John, above: the binoculars I have with me give a much better view than the ones sitting on the shelf at home. Eventually (all too eventually! ||) I realised I'd be better off with my best binoculars as the ones with me, rather than investing skull-sweat and dollars determining the very best binoculars I could buy but then leave at home.

...Mike

So you would prefer the Leica Ultravid over the Zeiss HT even though it might not be as bright?

 

[[email protected]]

Depth of field is a big thing for me and adds to viewing pleasure. The fujinon fmtrsx 7x50 have everything of mine beat. Set it to twenty metres and forget the focusers. The Zeiss 7x42 are good but nowhere near the fujinon re dof. The Zeiss 8x56 are not as good as the Zeiss 7x42. The Bushnell 7x35 range master are better than the 8x56 Zeiss. The military IF 8x30 habicht is superb too. They aren't hard to rank, and I can go on and on, but I'm still uncertain as to why they aren't simply following a magnification and Appeture formulae. Narrow Width of objectives could partly explain the Zeiss 8x56 pork hunting bins otherwise comparative lacklustre dof. They have great glass, low power, big objectives , super long, and have a narrow fov...but struggle to compete with some ancient stumpy ultra wide fov Bushnell 7x35? (Still, those pig hunting Zeiss are the craziest and most absurdly good looking bins ever imo)

Rathaus

I wonder why the Fujinon 7x50 FMTRSX beat the Zeiss 7x42 in DOF. Is it objective spacing or is it something to do with the Fujinon being a porro and the Zeiss being a roof. I know what you mean because I had the big Fujinon and once you focused it it seemed like you never had to focus again. My Habicht 8x30 W also has excellent DOF. At first the stiff focus kind of bothered me. Now it it not a big deal because you don't have to focus it that much.

 

[mfunnell]

So you would prefer the Leica Ultravid over the Zeiss HT even though it might not be as bright?

Not the HT. I considered the 8x32 UV HD+ but went elsewhere. Lots of things would have been in the mix if I were after a larger-format bin, but I wasn't. Note also that I wasn't after an "alpha-level" bin, per se, I just couldn't find what I wanted without going there. I would have "settled" for "less" if what I wanted were available, at considerable cash saving.

...Mike