Resolution sharpness and contrast. (1 Viewer)

[Paultricounty]

I think contrast has more to do with coatings (as in that MC-or-not Voigtländer lens), while resolution involves minimizing aberrations in the optical design (glass types as well as lens grinding).


I've wondered how the connotations might differ in German. But isn't your photo just an example of shallow depth of field, rather than any quality of a Zeiss lens? (Sorry, I'm more of an Enlightenment than Romantic thinker.)


Well put. This discussion becomes frustrating because few examples actually exist to examine of high resolution with low contrast, or vice versa, at least without going back to historic instruments few have access to (can anyone comment on those?).

All we can do is describe the more subtle differences we do see. Somewhat higher contrast (which can suppress shadow detail) has been noted in SFL and EDG, while there are occasional complaints of a more washed-out look in recent Swaros (which could make colors harder to distinguish?). And Zeiss fans maintain that the central resolution of their top models is second to none, while it doesn't seem such a priority for Leica. But all this falls within a fairly narrow range of more than satisfactory performance that isn't much help in developing a gut feeling for the role of each factor.

Good read Tenex. It is frustrating that’s why I posted the discussion to see if the three optical character traits could be clearly quantitatively categorized.

And of course part of the frustration is the fact that when we’re discussing high-quality optics, all of them have high levels of those characteristics. Add in the fact that reviewer‘s here and elsewhere are misusing or possibly Misunderstanding those characteristics, so we’re kind of splitting hairs, but that’s what we do here which occupies much of our discussion.

The Zeiss and Leica examples were perfect and I would agree with the comment about Zeiss center resolution. Not only does this come down to individual preference of the optical image but it also comes down to individual preference for which is a better tool for the job. An example would be if my dedicated mission is birding, then I might choose the Zeiss for that center resolution over the Leica for its better contrast and color saturation, which I really enjoy. But if birding is just one of the things that I enjoy using binoculars for I may choose the Leica. Because of the fact that they’re all so good in all areas those preferences come down to a balance of use and enjoyment.

Paul

 

[Binastro]

Low contrast, high resolution.

I had several Zeiss Telikon Survey lenses. 75cm f/6.3.
These are unusual lenses with the rear larger than the front for 30cm x 30cm film.
Using positive or negative pressure.
I cannot recall, although I had the complete massively heavy camera.
Lenses 1930s/1940s.
Uncoated.

There was a similar lens in a HW English skip.
The front of the lens had deep channels cut out by metal girders in the skip.
The lens may have been there for years and was filthy.
Half of the front of the lens was missing.
I was given it free.

I cleaned it thoroughly.
Sometimes thick dirt and grease actually preserves lenses.

I tested it visually and despite the contrast being the worst I have ever seen in a lens, the superb Zeiss survey lens quality showed through.
The resolution was still high despite minimal contrast.

As to all binoculars being equal in resolution centrally.
I have found otherwise.
Because of aberrations, design and manufacture.

Regards,
B.

 

[Ted Y.]

Oh, sorry, didn't think we were on quite that level of academics here..

It is not about academics.

A lot of websites in this domain are just noise. With few errors or many errors and rich in hearsay/marketing.
Same for binoculars test/features analysis/reviews.
I trust a good book, I cannot trust websites (in binoculars domain). With exceptions, like this forum.

It is about clarity, even Hyper-Clarity (second part is a joke, )

 

[Trinovid]

Resolution...is how much detail I can see...

Contrast is more a difference in luminance or color.

Sharpness is how crisp the image is or appears.

That's literally what these terms mean!!

You're spot on, but I'll read through the thread and see if anyone has anything meaningful to add to that.

 

[Vespobuteo]

All we can do is describe the more subtle differences we do see. Somewhat higher contrast (which can suppress shadow detail) has been noted in SFL and EDG, while there are occasional complaints of a more washed-out look in recent Swaros (which could make colors harder to distinguish?). And Zeiss fans maintain that the central resolution of their top models is second to none, while it doesn't seem such a priority for Leica. But all this falls within a fairly narrow range of more than satisfactory performance that isn't much help in developing a gut feeling for the role of each factor.

Less nuances in the shadows suggest that the transmission is lower, at least in some spectral range(s).
Like putting on a pair of sunglasses.

 

[Troubador]

I am as guilty as other members for getting into the business of comparing and contrasting different models of binoculars on here. But when I am looking at an otter, or a heron, a hare or a Sea Eagle, I couldn't care less which of my binos I am looking through....

Lee

 

[Paultricounty]

I am as guilty as other members for getting into the business of comparing and contrasting different models of binoculars on here. But when I am looking at an otter, or a heron, a hare or a Sea Eagle, I couldn't care less which of my binos I am looking through....

Lee

Hi Lee,

I get hung up in the comparisons as a hobby. But when out observing wether it’s birding or just out taking in all of nature and I have a nice pair of binoculars, I never say, oh I wish I had the NLs or the Leica’s.
Paul

 

[Vespobuteo]

I am as guilty as other members for getting into the business of comparing and contrasting different models of binoculars on here. But when I am looking at an otter, or a heron, a hare or a Sea Eagle, I couldn't care less which of my binos I am looking through....

Lee

I bet you would if it were one of my binos....

 

[Troubador]

I bet you would if it were one of my binos....

Sorry to hear all of your binos are so bad........

Lee

 

[Trinovid]

Contrast applies to a black and white photo also..

Absolutely, and he covered it already since black and white are also...colors.

 

[Trinovid]

Elseswhere there have been occasional references to 'too much contrast' which I found difficult to imagine but at last, I might have begun to understand how there could be such a thing as excessive contrast.

I see excessive contrast every time I take pictures with my cell phone, but get a much more balanced look through all of my binoculars. Excessive contrast is easy to understand when you look at a scene in the woods and have bushes brightly lit by the sun, and shaded areas beneath the tree canopy, where it can be very dark even on a bright, sunny day. Take a picture and all the view you were able to enjoy gets lost between a blindingly bright foreground and indiscernible shaded portions.

Everyone knows their own desire for contrast. There is for each one a sweetspot for contrast that will help it maintain a sharp image but at the same time not to lose details in shaded and bright areas due to too strong a contrast. It is a sweetspot different for everyone's subjective view

You just hit the sweet spot for this portion of the discussion, but it also varies dependent on the particular situation and ideally all binoculars are formulated with the balancing act between too much and not enough contrast in mind.

 

[Maljunulo]

I see excessive contrast every time I take pictures with my cell phone,

Especially if it says “Samsung” somewhere on the phone.