Nikon SE binoculars and ED lens (1 Viewer)

Nice one, Kevin! (still in a State of Confusion).

Where is Robert from Seattle when we really need him, and don't tell me he's in Seattle, I'll shoot myself.

John

Kevin - The thread has meandered as bit since I started it. Sorry. John

Pinewood said:

Absolutely! That is why CA is important in black and white photography. However, those purple or green bands are seen by some and not seen by others.

Click to expand...

Especially when using panchromatic film and no filters As for some folks not seeing CA, I can only think that they are likewise unaware of other detail, and so I can't regard that as a fortunate condition.

Kevin,
I follow your point about resolution, and I thought about it when I wrote my post, but I went with the sloppy usage intentionally because when most folks test bino "resolution" they use line charts with white light illumination, which is the sort of issue/situation to which I wanted to refer. That kind of fine-scale deterioration of sharpness caused by CA is quite different from other contrast-robbing problems (like veiling glare) that play a huge role in determining a bins' overall sharpness (and which, for cheap bins, are usually the bigger issue).

--AP

brocknroller said:

Chromatic Aberration Rankings in 12.1 Binoculars

ABSTRACT: The above chromatic aberration binocular tests were conducted over a 10-year-period, from 1999 to 2009, using a power cable to test for vertical CA and the edge of a matte black power transformer to test for later CA. The binoculars were mounted for the test in the same location for all tests. More than one binocular was used for each test, with up to 10 binoculars during one test (since this report is limited to ZR and Nikon binoculars, some of the binoculars were excluded from the sample group). Test results were recorded in a notebook and bins were rated from 1-5 (low to high CA) with + or – when ratings fell in between whole numbers. These tests were not intended to be definitive, scientific, or analytical, but were designed for comparative purposes only. The author is an uncredentialed, unlicensed, self-trained observer, who has spent an average of 6 hours a week looking through binoculars over the past 10 years, as well as reading 10,563 binocular forum posts, numerous binocular reviews, and contributing 543 posts to one binocular forum and 1,951 posts to another. To at least feign scientific legitimacy for naysayers, nitpickers, and nerds, for one session the author used a “double blind” test, but the subjects found it difficult to judge CA whilst looking through the two blindfolds. Readers of this report are asked to take the results cum granis salis, and to conduct their own tests since one’s sensitivity to CA can vary from eye to eye, from brain to brain, and even from “expert” to “expert”.

INTRODUCTION. See Abstract.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. See Abstract.

RESULTS. See post # 6.

DISCUSSION: See this thread.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The author would like to thank the following individuals for contributing binoculars for testing: Steve (mooreorless), Walter Locke (MIA), Jerry (NDHunter), Ron (Surveyor). Thanks also to Steve for taking photos of these binoculars individually and collectively. Also a shout out to Ed (elkcub) for inspiring this "paper".

LITERATURE CITED: 10,563 posts on Cloudy Nights and Birdforum binocular forums.

APPENDIX. Still intact, though sometimes it's hard to tell with IBS.

DISCLAIMERS: The author does not work for Zen Ray or Nikon, though he wished he did and is available for consulting work at very reasonable rates.

Click to expand...

Brock:

Thanks for the reply to the question of your testing. It seems you've done
a thorough job and have saved some people the dreaded task of looking for
the defect you call "CA".

Your reporting and evaluation is appreciated.

Jerry

Alexis Powell said:

Especially when using panchromatic film and no filters As for some folks not seeing CA, I can only think that they are likewise unaware of other detail, and so I can't regard that as a fortunate condition.

Kevin,
I follow your point about resolution, and I thought about it when I wrote my post, but I went with the sloppy usage intentionally because when most folks test bino "resolution" they use line charts with white light illumination, which is the sort of issue/situation to which I wanted to refer. That kind of fine-scale deterioration of sharpness caused by CA is quite different from other contrast-robbing problems (like veiling glare) that play a huge role in determining a bins' overall sharpness (and which, for cheap bins, are usually the bigger issue).

--AP

Click to expand...

Jerry, Glad you enjoyed my journal article parody. I didn't want to post it yet, because it's still out for peer review with Moe, Larry, and Curly.

I hope it did not offend BF techies who either do this stuff for a living or for the sheer fun of it. I used to edit medical journal articles and turn doctor's technical notes into journal articles, much of which involved turning passive sentences into active ones and eliminating pedantic phrases such as "In point fact".

To address Alex's points:

I have often wondered about the same thing. If a bin user can't see CA, does that mean he can't see subtle shadings of red on a male Cardinal or the goniochromism on a Mourning Dove's neck?

Even though "bench testing" put the 8x32 LX only an element behind the 8x32 SE (or half element, I forget which, Steve recorded the test results), in actual practice in high contrast situations, the LX falls farther behind in resolution of fine details.

Matched against an ED glass bin with a longer FL, the difference becomes even more noticeable.

For example, I compared the 8x42 Promaster Infinity ED to the 8x32 LX at a park on a bleak, winter's day, watching two back lit hawks on a tree branch.

Looking at the park lawn and shrubs and the caretaker's John Deere tractor, the view through the bins looked almost indistinguishable. Both bins not only had similar contrast, color rendition, and color saturation, but while well braced, I could resolve small print equally well on the tractor and the park rules sign.

However, when I trained the bins on the back lit hawks (also while braced), the 8x Promaster "clearly" resolved more detail because the LX's CA created color fringing (on the tree limb and the birds), which diminished the amount of detail I could see on the hawk's talons and feathers.

This is why I take "bench tested" CA resolution results with a grain of salt including my own.

The true test of a bin's CA control is best evaluated "in the field" under adverse conditions. That's where CA and other aberrations are more likely to rear their ugly heads.

Having said that, in fair weather, the views through the 8x32 LX are very impressive.

I get "niggly" about the astigmatism on top of the field, the shallow depth of focus, and the "poor" ergonomics (for my big hands), but these are idiosyncrasies that others will ignore, or in the case of ergonomics, might see as an asset.

Regardless, come winter, I would prefer an ED bin even if it's only "good" rather than "great" bin.

Alexis Powell said:

... As for some folks not seeing CA, I can only think that they are likewise unaware of other detail, and so I can't regard that as a fortunate condition.
...
--AP

Click to expand...

(Brock)... I have often wondered about the same thing. If a bin user can't see CA, does that mean he can't see subtle shadings of red on a male Cardinal or the goniochromism on a Mourning Dove's neck? ...

Click to expand...

If you mean that people who are unaware of CA also tend to be unaware of other visual details, AP, I would have to disagree. In general, people suppress their consciousness of (i.e., habituate to) sensory signals that carry no useful information, i.e., redundant information. The negative physical effects of redundant signals, however, doesn't disappear. So, when axial or lateral CA is reduced optically, by using ED glass, for example, all observers benefit equally. The benefit is realized in improved visual discrimination, be it of line separations (acuity), target detection (range), or subtle color gradations. Of course, all these benefits generally work together, so the gestalt is simply "a better view" — the holy grail.

Ed

Following up on Ed's comments, since I'm one of an unknown percentage who doesn't see CA (I see it on photographic reproduction examples, but not when I take my binoculars outside under the conditions cited as CA producing), perhaps this is analogous to the absolute or perfect pitch ability of some people. Some have it, and some don't. I don't. I still enjoy music in spite of my lack of tonal sensitivity. And the same may be true for using binoculars even if my ulitmate acuity can't take advantage of alphas best. The 8x32 SE still (for me) has the best image.

I knew a fellow who used a poorly collimated binocular - so bad that my eyes begain to cross when I looked through it. I told him he needed to get it collimated. Yet he claimed it was OK. It was some time later that I learned he was blind in one eye. John

I am not bothered that much by CA and while not quite up to Alexis P's 20/10 it is close to 20/14[better than 20/15] or some such. I can see excellent detail using binoculars.

Regards,Steve

Yo Steve!
The blizzard is over! The sun is coming out! Wade out there and test them again and see if you can see it. Be careful about "snow blindness." Consult with Brock first!
Bob

I live in snow for at least four months of the year, and we have black horses in our pasture, so I have a pretty severe test of CA right in my backyard. Of the bin's I use regularly the worst are my 8x42 Ultravid BRs and the best are my 8x32 SEs, though still visible. I also have 20-10 vision and as I work in design, I am very tuned into colors, so CA does bug me. That said, in normal, no snow viewing against a background of foliage, my Ultravids seem exceedingly sharp to me, and in the rare instance I see CA out in the field, I can pretty much null it out by centering the object.

BTW, my 10x42 SEs are much worse with CA than the 8x32s, about 60% toward the Ultravids from the 8x32 SEs.
John

Hi Bob, I am off today, wife's birthday. We are going out later. I did try my new Swaro 8x30 SLC and CA was well controlled in this, even in these conditions. I was able to see some on the shed roof with sun to the left. Other than that I am very happy so far. BTW the focuser is a dream even using my ring finger. Just so I am not off topic I took out my Nikon 12x50SE to check it out under these conditions and at 12x the 12SE could use ED glass. I saw more CA but it wasn't really bad with all this snow. I could do one thing I couldn't with the 8 and that is read the neighbors truck license plate with ease. I thought I was going to get blown off my back porch though.
Regards,Steve

Hi Steve,
Quite a coincidence! My wife's birthday is today! Yesterday, (2/11) was bright and cold but I had a dental appointment and couldn't get much else done. I almost bought that Swaro 8 x 30 years ago but decided to get a Nikon 8 x 32 LX L instead. Of all my Nikon's it is my least favorite.
Bob

Hi Bob, Yes, that is a coincidence. We ended up at Red L and I got the Peach Bourbon BBQ Shrimp & Bacon Wrapped Scallops and it was excellent. Sorry you had to go to the dentist.

I really like the 12SE and I think it would be a lot better to use in the daytime with some more control of CA.

Regards,Steve

mooreorless said:

I really like the 12SE and I think it would be a lot better to use in the daytime with some more control of CA.

Regards,Steve

Click to expand...

Hmmmm, all this talk of CA with respect to the 12X50 SEs has me nervous. Why? Because I have a new pair on order from Amazon, and I loathe CA! I have a pair of 8X32 SEs, and find them to be acceptable, but I wouldn't want to put up with significantly more.

I live on a small man made lake in Arizona and use my bins mostly for observing water fowl on the lake, so I am viewing in high contrast situations a great deal of the time. I ordered the 12X to get a little more reach as so many of the birds are often 200 yds. or more distant. However, if I'm going to be looking at red and/or green outlined birds, I'd rather pass. Can anyone give me a better sense of how much CA the 12X SEs are going to exhibit, perhaps in relation to some other well known models? Is noticeable CA going to be a fact of life in any of the 12X or higher powered binos currently available?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Dean

Dean L said:

Hmmmm, all this talk of CA with respect to the 12X50 SEs has me nervous. Why? Because I have a new pair on order from Amazon, and I loathe CA! I have a pair of 8X32 SEs, and find them to be acceptable, ................................................................... Can anyone give me a better sense of how much CA the 12X SEs are going to exhibit, perhaps in relation to some other well known models? Is noticeable CA going to be a fact of life in any of the 12X or higher powered binos currently available?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Dean

Click to expand...

You must be VERY susceptible to CA if you only find the 8 x 32 SE
"acceptable." I can barely see it with them even while looking for it on white straight edges on the corners of houses in bright sunlight. The same goes for my 10 x42 SE.

Maybe you would be better off getting a top of the line spotting scope or a small telescope with a longer focal length and ED glass objectives for looking at waterfowl on your lake.

Bob

Dean, I have to agree with Bob, you can buy one of the astro 66mm-80mm ED scopes for about $300 or get a ED WP spotting scope. I have a Celestron 80 ED astro/spotting scope and have never seen CA during the daytime. I don't want to highjack this thread, but here is an excellent thread by Paul Corfield on here showing what these scopes [80ED] can do, notice lack of CA.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=151732

Regards,Steve

Bob and Steve,

Thanks for your assessment. Yes, I am very sensitive to CA, and because of it, I only own two pairs of bins: The Nikon 8X32 SEs and the Canon 10X42Ls. Both of these have very well controlled CA, with the Canon being slightly superior to the Nikon in this parameter. "Acceptable" CA to me is the virtually non-existent variety. Strangely (to me), my eyes seem to be more sensitive to it on some days than others.

I've never used a spotting scope, so perhaps I should check them out. I guess I've been resistant to it due to concerns regarding FOV, feeling the need to use a tripod, and my affinity for using both eyes.

Thanks for the feedback.

Dean

Hi Dean, There is snow everywhere here right now and one reason to have more trouble with CA in the 12SE. I consider this extreme conditions. You can get binoviewers for these astro scopes, I have never tried that.The big Kowa Prominar Highlander binocular would be a good buy for you.

Dean we are always glad to help you spend your money er I mean help.


Regards,Steve

Dean L said:

Hmmmm, all this talk of CA with respect to the 12X50 SEs has me nervous. Why? Because I have a new pair on order from Amazon, and I loathe CA! I have a pair of 8X32 SEs, and find them to be acceptable, but I wouldn't want to put up with significantly more.

I live on a small man made lake in Arizona and use my bins mostly for observing water fowl on the lake, so I am viewing in high contrast situations a great deal of the time. I ordered the 12X to get a little more reach as so many of the birds are often 200 yds. or more distant. However, if I'm going to be looking at red and/or green outlined birds, I'd rather pass. Can anyone give me a better sense of how much CA the 12X SEs are going to exhibit, perhaps in relation to some other well known models? Is noticeable CA going to be a fact of life in any of the 12X or higher powered binos currently available?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Dean

Click to expand...

Let's put it this way, if you have never seen a purple-tailed hawk, you are in for a treat with the 12x50 SE.

I've seen much worse CA. The 1999 Obie 15x70 made a soccer player's red, white, and blue jersey look like his mother forgot to separate the colors from the whites when she did the wash, because the red "bled" into the white, with some green and yellow leaking in from some other laundry. Fortunately, the Obie's have gotten better over the years, but 15x is still challenging for a fast optical system like binoculars. High powered bins can greatly benefit from the addition of low dispersion glass.

Having said that, the 12x50 SE is one of the best binoculars ever made, IMO. However, I prefer to use them for stargazing where they really "shine," partly because of the daytime CA, but also because their balance point is between the seam and prism housing (unlike the 8x and 10x SE, which balance on the housing), so it's not as comfortable to hold and harder to hold steady than the 8x and 10x SE.

So for daytime use, I found the 12x50 SE to be "neither fish nor fowl" and if I'm going to mount a bin for long distance observing, why limit myself to 12x?

Even though they are great bins, for your situation and your eyes, I wouldn't recommend them.

There are a number of 12x-15x ED bins out there now that would be more suitable.