-
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.
Why don’t binocular manufacturers use something like this ? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Robert Moore
- Start date
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
These super black materials have been around for a while now.
I presume cost is a factor and maybe the fear this stuff will suck the photons right out of your eyes! :eek!:
I presume cost is a factor and maybe the fear this stuff will suck the photons right out of your eyes! :eek!:
How durable is that stuff?
Binoculars usually have a life measured in decades, so any new product needs life testing in the abusive conditions binoculars get exposed to.
I think there is no question that binoculars could be considerably improved simply by tightening the quality standards. Unfortunately, no manufacturer has thus far been willing to commit to any level of quality that can be objectively verified. It may be that it will be a Chinese supplier who breaks the ice and sets a new standard.
In that context, it is disappointing that the new Swaro NL again offers nothing objective about quality standards, just more hype.
Binoculars usually have a life measured in decades, so any new product needs life testing in the abusive conditions binoculars get exposed to.
I think there is no question that binoculars could be considerably improved simply by tightening the quality standards. Unfortunately, no manufacturer has thus far been willing to commit to any level of quality that can be objectively verified. It may be that it will be a Chinese supplier who breaks the ice and sets a new standard.
In that context, it is disappointing that the new Swaro NL again offers nothing objective about quality standards, just more hype.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
etudiant, post 4,
What are your standards for quality standards and which instruments fulfill according to your analysis to such standards?
Gijs van Ginkel
What are your standards for quality standards and which instruments fulfill according to your analysis to such standards?
Gijs van Ginkel
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
The durability would need to be absolute over the decades long or more lifespan of the binocular.
The material/paint/treatment couldn't degrade by any amount under the normal light spectrum it would be exposed to, or any of the mechanical shocks throughout the life of the binocular, otherwise the resultant shedding of fine black dust/specks defeats the purpose.
Do we know if any of these virtually total light absorbing blacks meet those durability requirements ? :cat:
Chosun :gh:
The material/paint/treatment couldn't degrade by any amount under the normal light spectrum it would be exposed to, or any of the mechanical shocks throughout the life of the binocular, otherwise the resultant shedding of fine black dust/specks defeats the purpose.
Do we know if any of these virtually total light absorbing blacks meet those durability requirements ? :cat:
Chosun :gh:
Gijs, there are none that I can find.
Most amateur telescopes have some basic specs, such as mirror quality, usually simplified to a 1/8th wavefront or similar, no Strehl ratio obviously, as the system is incomplete without the eye piece. Same with cameras, the lenses get great reviews and outfits such as Lens Rentals
( https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/ ) do serious evaluations of the MTF performance, but there are no end to end evaluations.
That notwithstanding, binoculars should get a common set of performance data as a matter of course. They are self contained and integrated opto mechanical devices, so they can be tested and characterized fully.
I'd think your transmission charts would be a core component, along with an Airy disk image, plus some guaranteed collimation level. A uniform eye relief measure and a stray light rejection test would be nice to have, along with a measure of focusing uniformity.
Resolution standards would also be welcome, along with reasonable durability specifications.
Note that right now one gets none of the above, just blather about brightness and sharpness, with no verifiable standards at all.
I believe that Swaro's success is largely because they recognized that this is a wild west kind of market, where there are no meaningful standards. Here people will pay more for reasonable assurance that they will get reliable quality.
If there were objective standards, Chinese lowcosts would meet them, after an adaptation period.
Ergo, there can’t be standards.
This is what happened to the camera market: as soon as the mythology got debunked the lens market got commoditized. I have a $100 Tokina mirror 500mm that is perfectly fit for purpose, and a $100 50mm Canon 1.8 that is very decent. I also have a 20 year old Canon 200mm F1.8 which costs a bit more. The $100 mirror is perfectly adequate for the local park, and the 50mm as a travel lens. I expect Chinese $100 binoculars would quickly test as adequate as well.
Full disclosure: I took the Imatest lens measurement course.
Edmund
Ergo, there can’t be standards.
This is what happened to the camera market: as soon as the mythology got debunked the lens market got commoditized. I have a $100 Tokina mirror 500mm that is perfectly fit for purpose, and a $100 50mm Canon 1.8 that is very decent. I also have a 20 year old Canon 200mm F1.8 which costs a bit more. The $100 mirror is perfectly adequate for the local park, and the 50mm as a travel lens. I expect Chinese $100 binoculars would quickly test as adequate as well.
Full disclosure: I took the Imatest lens measurement course.
Edmund
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Who do you suggest would do all this performance testing, — like a trade association? Surely the manufacturer's can't be required to do it themselves unless there's an underlying public safety concern. Lawyers and litigation ... nah.
Ed
Elkcub,
You are quite right that the legal implications of public standards are quite a substantial deterrent to embracing them.
That said, there are ISO standards afaik, only that they were so lax that better firms are not relying on them when determining optical performance.
I believe the applicable ISO standard is ISO 14133-2:2016, for better quality optical gear. It addresses environmental resilience along with optical performance, but does not appear to set a very high bar.
My hypothesis is that a new competitor, China or perhaps India, will see the opportunity to make top quality gear at low cost and use documented minimal performance as a tool to break into the market.
Imho the idea that one should buy a $1-2000 dollar item with no idea of whether one is getting a cherry or a lemon is well past its 'sell by' date. Obviously I've been wrong thus far, but reality will creep in, it always does.
Hi,
well I prefer this one... it really shows how to get the stuff on to some surface (40 layers spray painted - make sure you have proper protection as this stuff is kinda dangerous), how to heat-treat the surface afterwards and after that handling the surface is not really recommended.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5Ypt-P10zs
After all the technology is rather old - it's called soot...
This stuff makes things a little more resistant to touch than a sooty surface and a bit more predictable to apply, but getting the stuff into a binocular objective tube without ruining either optical or the blackened surfaces sounds like an interesting exercise - maybe a removable inner objective tube like in some old CZJ bins would be easiest.
And then there remains the question how this stuff reacts over time to dust or oil vapors coming out of the grease used to lubricate the mechanics and trap specks of dust...
Pricing seems quite ambitious and not really geared at industry... a 20ml sample is $75 and the larger packages (250, 500 or 1000ml) are fixed at 1$ per ml and 1ml is quoted to be enough for 1 cm² of surface...
Joachim
NDhunter
Experienced observer
I have put a torch into many binocular objectives to see what they are made of. I have found
that Swarovski does the poorest job of blackening that I have seen. They seem to like a semi-gloss
black paint inside the barrels. Most makers use a flat black paint, which I think is better....
Jerry
that Swarovski does the poorest job of blackening that I have seen. They seem to like a semi-gloss
black paint inside the barrels. Most makers use a flat black paint, which I think is better....
Jerry
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
It seems kind of funny when I read some of the posts above : all binocular companies I have visited in the past years and who allowed me to look at their measuring and testing macihnery do fairly everything that is asked for in this topic, so to accuse them of neglecting this is not correct.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel
Hi Gijs,
since I had not yet the privilege of visiting a sports optics company - did you ever see optics there routinely tested in a laser interferometer (e.g. from Zygo) as is standard for better astro optics (where you often get the test results along with your expensive piece of glass)?
I'm still trying to understand how some not so great examples of alpha spotters could ever leave the factory... and some of them were nearly new...
Joachim
Gijs,
I've no doubt that the manufacturers have a pretty exact idea of what they are producing.
Unfortunately they do not share this knowledge with their customers.
So the buyer is left to whims of the supplier and random chance.
There has to be a better way. Tighter specs would be a good start, but I think full disclosure is the best.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Jring-Joachim, post 17 and Etudiantpost 18,
The top companies use a variety of measUring equipment to establish the performance of their products. Among them: mechanical strenght measurements, interferometry, transmission measurements, check of curvature etc. etc. That they only share the data which are of importance for the average user seems quite understandable to me. Everybody who wants to now more has the choice:
Buy the appropriate equipment to do the desired measurements or hire somebody in a laboratory who has access to such facilities. To much technical information would probably help us nerds, but it is a waste of energy for large groups of users.
Gijs van Ginkel
The top companies use a variety of measUring equipment to establish the performance of their products. Among them: mechanical strenght measurements, interferometry, transmission measurements, check of curvature etc. etc. That they only share the data which are of importance for the average user seems quite understandable to me. Everybody who wants to now more has the choice:
Buy the appropriate equipment to do the desired measurements or hire somebody in a laboratory who has access to such facilities. To much technical information would probably help us nerds, but it is a waste of energy for large groups of users.
Gijs van Ginkel
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Gijs, I can understand the reluctance of manufacturers to divulge too many commercial in confidence measurements from the 'secret sauce' recipe to the general public, thus allowing competitors easy access to that information.
To your knowledge/ in your experience, are manufacturers buying or otherwise sourcing competitor's products, and then measuring /testing them on either their own equipment, or via third party labs? etc.
Perhaps then ? do they also do some reverse engineering, or run some computer simulations /or even confidential staff surveys/ feedback from there on the competitor's products ?
Just tell us what you can without endangering your life :eek!: - we wouldn't want you taken away in a windowless black van by men in black suits !
Chosun :gh:
