Which binoculars are less stressfull for the eyes? (1 Viewer)

[tenex]

I have a possible candidate, Zeiss SF, and I need at least another one before going to the shop for testing.

The good thing is that you have a shop, since an easy view ("less stressful") is somewhat subjective and you'll have to try for yourself. In general one would suspect you may prefer 8x over 10x, and 42mm (or larger) over 30/32, but I'd look at everything they have at least toward the higher end of your price range, just to see what you like best, since even high quality bins can seem quite different in use -- including used older models like FL or SLC if available, given the excellent level of service if needed.

 

[Peregrine Took]

Just a fact Jack. A glass factory in Japan and China so they are not giving up their trade secrets as far as the glass goes.

Do you think any trade secrets are secure within the walls of any factory in China? I rather think not.

 

[hopster]

I find the Leica Noctivid 8x42 very easy to use with glasses once you get the eye cup positions just right, and an easy, crystalline view to enjoy over a period of time without eye strain from glare or other irritants. There is very occasionally a little CA on very high contrast object edges if you don't get the eye position right, but I think this is the price that needs to be paid for the exceptional contrast and colour saturation.

 

[Conndomat]

There is very occasionally a little CA on very high contrast object edges if you don't get the eye position right, but I think this is the price that needs to be paid for the exceptional contrast and colour saturation.

I still don't understand this connection, how can a negative visual criterion contribute to a visual improvement, it defies all logic.

CA lowers contrast and does not promote it, otherwise achromats would be better than apochromats.

Andreas

 

[hopster]

I still don't understand this connection, how can a negative visual criterion contribute to a visual improvement, it defies all logic.

CA lowers contrast and does not promote it, otherwise achromats would be better than apochromats.

Andreas

There was a quote from an optical designer in this very forum, not sure I can find it now but others may know the source. A paraphrase (which may not be 100% accurate) is "the first thing that a new optical designer discovers when they create the sharpest possible optic is that CA increases"...

 

[Conndomat]

A paraphrase (which may not be 100% accurate) is "the first thing that a new optical designer discovers when they create the sharpest possible optic is that CA increases"...

What are we talking about exactly, sharpness or contrast?

According to some tests, the Noctivid is not sharper than the SF and why does Zeiss have less CA?

At high magnifications in the sky and high-contrast objects you will see that every apo clearly exceeds an achromatic scope in terms of sharpness and contrast, at the latest when achromatic CA creeps in and then the apo is far from finished.

Andreas

 

[Paultricounty]

I still don't understand this connection, how can a negative visual criterion contribute to a visual improvement, it defies all logic.

CA lowers contrast and does not promote it, otherwise achromats would be better than apochromats.

Andreas

I don't think Hopster is saying that CA is increasing exceptional contrast and colour saturation. I believe he referring to the image quality of the Noctivid itself. Like all binoculars there is CA under certain circumstances and Id think we all agree CA will not improve anything in optics.

Paul

 

[Paultricounty]

LOL, maybe I spoke to soon, Hopster might very well be saying that. He's a little new.

 

[Binastro]

It depends.

At 420x with a 6 inch long focus top quality achromat detail is great in excellent Seeing.

An Apo helps but isn't essential.

My 120mm refractors are great at 300x, non Apo.

It depends more on how good the optics are.

Regards,
B.

 

[Paultricounty]

What are we talking about exactly, sharpness or contrast?

According to some tests, the Noctivid is not sharper than the SF and why does Zeiss have less CA?

At high magnifications in the sky and high-contrast objects you will see that every apo clearly exceeds an achromatic scope in terms of sharpness and contrast, at the latest when achromatic CA creeps in and then the apo is far from finished.

Andreas

I think thats your opinion and on those tests Id like to have a break down how the sharpness test was done. Ive had over half dozen people do side by side under different lighting conditions and the majority thought the Nocs were sharper than the SF. Could be because of the slight green tint SF, don't know. But were all different and have different visual sensitivities.

 

[hopster]

What are we talking about exactly, sharpness or contrast?

According to some tests, the Noctivid is not sharper than the SF and why does Zeiss have less CA?

At high magnifications in the sky and high-contrast objects you will see that every apo clearly exceeds an achromatic scope in terms of sharpness and contrast, at the latest when achromatic CA creeps in and then the apo is far from finished.

Andreas

There was another test done on this forum by one of the technically proficient people here who compared the lines on a test chart between SF and NV and decided that the lines had higher contrast on the NV. Again, I can't remember who or where but maybe someone else can. Someone also suggested that the NV had been optimised for a lower frequency MTF which may be a nice match to the human visual system and daytime nature subjects - I can't remember if this was in the same thread.

Having looked through NV, SF, NL 8x42s quite a bit recently I can say that nothing else is subjectively as sharp, as contrasty or as colour saturated as the NV in the sweet spot, but NL and SF have less CA or at least it is more difficult to trigger it. I'm sorry if this does not match your knowledge about optics which I'm sure is better than mine - but it is fairly clear for me to see it. Perhaps some of the above observations are relevant?

 

[hopster]

LOL, maybe I spoke to soon, Hopster might very well be saying that. He's a little new.

I was simply relaying the quote from the optical designer about the relationship between sharpness and CA. I suspect they know something about their field and real world optical trade-offs.

 

[Conndomat]

It depends.

At 420x with a 6 inch long focus top quality achromat detail is great in excellent Seeing.

An Apo helps but isn't essential.

My 120mm refractors are great at 300x, non Apo.

It depends more on how good the optics are.

Regards,
B.

Do you think that a good 102/f8 achromat has a chance against a TSA 102/f8...really?

I think thats your opinion and on those tests Id like to have a break down how the sharpness test was done. Ive had over half dozen people do side by side under different lighting conditions and the majority thought the Nocs were sharper than the SF. Could be because of the slight green tint SF, don't know. But were all different and have different visual sensitivities.

Paul here there is the test from Canip, in the German Jülichforum and I myself did the test with a Noctivid, SF, and NL, partly with boosting and partly without, your imaginary test subjects are no more informative either.

Andreas

 

[Paultricounty]

I was simply relaying the quote from the optical designer about the relationship between sharpness and CA. I suspect they know something about their field and real world optical trade-offs.

It more probable that you misunderstood what was being said, as you admitted some limited experience. Nothing wrong with that, its fun to learn. Just to clarify , CA does not ad anything positive to an image. The review or test your referring to may very well have come to the conclusion that the Nocs are sharper with more contrast than the SF’s , but that has nothing to do with slightly more CA in the Leica.

 

[Paultricounty]

Do you think that a good 102/f8 achromat has a chance against a TSA 102/f8...really?

Paul here there is the test from Canip, in the German Jülichforum and I myself did the test with a Noctivid, SF, and NL, partly with boosting and partly without, your imaginary test subjects are no more informative either.

Andreas

So a group of people in the field with multiple binoculars side by side , in difference lighting conditions and a consensus of opinions is imaginary, maybe in the world you live in. Most normal people will go by what they like better with their eyes, and what feels better in the hands. You can play with your booster all day long, don’t hurt yourself.

 

[hopster]

It more probable that you misunderstood what was being said, as you admitted some limited experience. Nothing wrong with that, its fun to learn. Just to clarify , CA does not ad anything positive to an image. The review or test your referring to may very well have come to the conclusion that the Nocs are sharper with more contrast than the SF’s , but that has nothing to do with slightly more CA in the Leica.

That sounds a little patronising Paul. I know what I read, and what I meant. I should find the direct quote when I have time. I don't claim that CA improves an image - quite the opposite in fact - but an optical designer has said that it can be an inevitable by-product of going all out for sharpness in a real optical design.

 

[Maljunulo]

Has anyone here defined “sharpness” yet?

 

[Paultricounty]

That sounds a little patronising Paul. I know what I read, and what I meant. I should find the direct quote when I have time. I don't claim that CA improves an image - quite the opposite in fact - but an optical designer has said that it can be an inevitable by-product of going all out for sharpness in a real optical design.

Didn’t mean to be patronizing, was just pointing out that you might’ve misunderstood. If you knew what you read then you would’ve quoted it accurately and we would all understand what you were saying. I think you’re stating it wrong, but Ill admit when I’m wrong , if you can supply the info and it’s determined it’s accurate.

 

[Conndomat]

So a group of people in the field with multiple binoculars side by side , in difference lighting conditions and a consensus of opinions is imaginary, maybe in the world you live in. Most normal people will go by what they like better with their eyes, and what feels better in the hands. You can play with your booster all day long, don’t hurt yourself.

Paul, that was your question!

I think thats your opinion and on those tests Id like to have a break down how the sharpness test was done.

All experienced binocular users like Kimmo, Henry or Canip will tell you that binocular tests with boosters and test boards are more informative than a bunch of people running around with their binoculars hand-held.

It was also about sharpness, that was your question and not which binoculars were the most impressive in the overall package.

Andreas

 

[Paultricounty]

Paul, that was your question!

It must’ve been my question because you recognized it as a question and then you answered the question.

All experienced binocular users like Kimmo, Henry or Canip will tell you that binocular tests with boosters and test boards are more informative than a bunch of people running around with their binoculars hand-held.

There’s no argument for me that more accurate testing of certain optical levels can be determined boosted. And the imaginary bunch of people you describe we’re not running around with their binoculars, they were all seated in front of imaginary tripod mounted binoculars.

It was also about sharpness, that was your question and not which binoculars were the most impressive in the overall package.

What exact test are you referring to that tested for sharpness , please explain.

Paul

Andreas