Oh yes, I agree. I was just making the pedantic point that the difference in light-gathering power between the 2 specifications was appreciably greater than the tiny difference in diameter might suggest.
-
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.
New Leica HD Ultravid PLUS (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter binomania
- Start date
Oh yes, I agree. I was just making the pedantic point that the difference in light-gathering power between the 2 specifications was appreciably greater than the tiny difference in diameter might suggest.
Thanks Ed,
That's a bit less than Brock noted.
I've often wondered how important "dimness" is as a factor of a binoculars usefulness. Allbinos gives the Porro prism Swift 820 8.5x44 a transmission value of 85% which is more than 10% over the 828 but ranks it below the 828 in it's ratings. And the 820 ED which has 90% transmission isn't ranked much higher than the 828 is.
http://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-8.5x45.html
I recall an older couple, perhaps in their mid 60s, on the Deck at Cape May Lighthouse this past spring being guided by a lady who was using a large Swarovski CL. They were both using Swift 828s. And to tell the truth I was surprised to see two of these binoculars being used at the same time! It was a lightly overcast day but I don't think they were at any disadvantage by using them.
Bob
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Bob:
Which Swaro. CL was the guide using ? The largest CL is the 10x30.
That would not be a very bright binocular.
I have the 8x30 CL, and it is very bright for an 8x30, and could suffice as the main binocular for many users. Great ergos, and I like and recommend
it.
I have not used any of the Swifts mentioned, and as this is a Leica thread,
seems a bit off topic.
Jerry
Last edited:
You're right. I meant the SLC. It might have been a 12x50.
As for being off topic: It will happen often when another binocular is introduced into a thread for use as an horrible example.
Bob
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Bob:
That's what I thought, and if it was the larger SLC, it may have been
the 10x50 SLC. They did not make a 12x50.
I have a 10x50 SLC Neu, and it is a very nice binocular, and the view
is addicting, very big and bright. These big ones put the smaller objectives
to shame in many ways, and the only drawback is weight.
Jerry
brocknroller
porromaniac
Totally Fuggly! Swift's 962 Ultralite Porro has an overall transmission of 91%! That's a whopping 16% more light transmission than the 828.
Swift_Optics_962_Ultra_Lite_10x42l
I think something must have been lost in translation when Arek wrote "average transmission" in the Cons list at the end of his Swift 828 review. That probably should have read "below average," considering what he wrote below that:
"The transmission was the thing that disappointed me the most. A weak result in this category was obvious as soon as I looked through the binoculars – you could immediately notice this device gave the darkest image of all group of binoculars, tested at the same time."
Maybe "average" for a bin made in the late 1980s/early 1990s before the changeover to FMCs by optics companies, but not average for a bin made today.
Brock
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
As to the comment about relevance by Jerry, who joined us late, I think discussing other bins' light transmission is relevant since the OP spawned a discussion about how much light transmission boost is significant?
My point in drawing Bob into this was to show that if some people can't see a difference in 13% more light transmission, I wonder how many or if any will see the 2-3% difference between the UV HD and UV Plus? Arek already has the 10x42 UV HD @ 89%.
Three percent is supposed to be the minimum threshold at which people can see a difference in brightness, but not everybody will even see that difference. So is the difference in brightness between the UV HD/UV Plus touted by Leica more marketing than performance?
I think Omid's terse post sums it up quite nicely:
Omid's post
Brock
My point in drawing Bob into this was to show that if some people can't see a difference in 13% more light transmission, I wonder how many or if any will see the 2-3% difference between the UV HD and UV Plus? Arek already has the 10x42 UV HD @ 89%.
Three percent is supposed to be the minimum threshold at which people can see a difference in brightness, but not everybody will even see that difference. So is the difference in brightness between the UV HD/UV Plus touted by Leica more marketing than performance?
I think Omid's terse post sums it up quite nicely:
Omid's post
Brock
Last edited:
Bob,
My own experience regarding your question goes back to the first good birding binocular in my house, a late model non-SV Swaro EL. I was humping my individual focus 7x50 around at the time, and oh man the Swaro was so nice in comparison that being a tad less bright than my allegedly 95% transmitting Fujinon FMT was scarcely noticed.
Enough I said, I gotta get me one of these things, and bought myself an 8x42 Trinovid BA. It was a great birding tool, but when compared to my wife's EL it was disappointingly dull. The best I can determine as far as transmissions go is that the BA was mid 80%s, while that EL was about 90%. That looked like a big difference to me.
Almost solely because of this shortcoming in the BA, I replaced it with a Zeiss FL, which usually measures about 93% in the tests I've seen. The FL controlled color better than the EL, although it was not as sharp off axis. But the difference between 90% and 93% was, if noticeable at all, certainly not an issue. Mainly the image difference was off axis, also the FL felt nice and light in comparison.
More recently, when the original EL was stolen and insurance came through handsomely, we replaced it with a Swarovision, about 93% transmitting like the FL. I do like the SV better than the original EL, but its main advance is in its color correction, about as good as the FL. Its very slightly improved weight and physical form, and its even better edge correction don't especially impress me. It wasn't at all like, at last a Swaro that's as bright as an FL, that was not an issue at all.
So FWIW, my complaints about a binocular being dim cease at 90%, and that is with my luxury of comparison to brighter binoculars and a passion for the best. Physical usability and other image qualities dominate the comparison if binoculars are at least that bright. But if you never looked through anything brighter, I think a dimmer binocular that was well suited for birding in every other way, like the BA or even the Swift 828, would serve well. How low you could go I cannot say, but many a person has been happy with an uncoated Porro, about 65% transmitting. I think it's only when you look through something better that you start to worry.
Ron
My own experience regarding your question goes back to the first good birding binocular in my house, a late model non-SV Swaro EL. I was humping my individual focus 7x50 around at the time, and oh man the Swaro was so nice in comparison that being a tad less bright than my allegedly 95% transmitting Fujinon FMT was scarcely noticed.
Enough I said, I gotta get me one of these things, and bought myself an 8x42 Trinovid BA. It was a great birding tool, but when compared to my wife's EL it was disappointingly dull. The best I can determine as far as transmissions go is that the BA was mid 80%s, while that EL was about 90%. That looked like a big difference to me.
Almost solely because of this shortcoming in the BA, I replaced it with a Zeiss FL, which usually measures about 93% in the tests I've seen. The FL controlled color better than the EL, although it was not as sharp off axis. But the difference between 90% and 93% was, if noticeable at all, certainly not an issue. Mainly the image difference was off axis, also the FL felt nice and light in comparison.
More recently, when the original EL was stolen and insurance came through handsomely, we replaced it with a Swarovision, about 93% transmitting like the FL. I do like the SV better than the original EL, but its main advance is in its color correction, about as good as the FL. Its very slightly improved weight and physical form, and its even better edge correction don't especially impress me. It wasn't at all like, at last a Swaro that's as bright as an FL, that was not an issue at all.
So FWIW, my complaints about a binocular being dim cease at 90%, and that is with my luxury of comparison to brighter binoculars and a passion for the best. Physical usability and other image qualities dominate the comparison if binoculars are at least that bright. But if you never looked through anything brighter, I think a dimmer binocular that was well suited for birding in every other way, like the BA or even the Swift 828, would serve well. How low you could go I cannot say, but many a person has been happy with an uncoated Porro, about 65% transmitting. I think it's only when you look through something better that you start to worry.
Ron
Last edited:
Hi Bob
Its an interesting question. I will make one suggestion as to why Sako might not see a difference but first, some background.
I know that my HT 8x42 transmits better than my old FL for one good reason. I used to do surveys for the presence of Water Voles (a threatened UK species) and very regularly walked along certain stretches of local streams and rivers. One of these in particular has many undercut banks with hollows behind tree roots where the Voles or their droppings might be, and I scanned these with my FLs more times than I can count and some of them never, ever have light falling into them and they became known to me as black holes.
Along came my HTs and now I can make out vague shapes of things inside those black holes that were previously impenetrable. I don't say I could make out a stationary Vole but if one moved I am sure I would be able to see it. Some of these shapes I can just about tell are more tree roots and rocks but mostly theyare just shapes where there were no shapes visible through the FLs.
OK, what is the relevance of this to your question? Because when I am in other habitats with the HTs and just lift them up to my eyes without the FL there to compare, I couldn't tell you whether the HTs are brighter or not. However, given dark enough conditions, there are times when I am confident I can just make out stuff, at the limits of perception, that my FL wouldn't have shown. I am sure I am able to do this only because of my eyes and brain having been trained by the experience of doing the surveying time after time.
So, I would think for Sako to detect a difference (this is assuming an awful lot of 'all other things being equal' about his eyes etc) I would say he needs dark enough conditions with both bins together at the same time or in a habitat that he knows better than the back of his hand in a dark room. From my experience I don't think one should expect just to pick up a pair of bins at any time of day and perceive a brightness difference.
But the killer question here is how Sako's eyes and brain react to differences in light levels and that is something we don't know.
Lee
pimpelmees
Well-known member
this " improvement " of the leica HD ultravids is small, very small......
That's very interesting Lee and I think you've hit the nail on the head. The more someone uses something then the more likely that they'll see what it is capable of.
The subtle variations in late evening light and the particular landscape being observed, with all of its hues and contrasts, makes me now question my earlier post. In other words, in certain situations it is entirely possible that I could see a difference in light gathering between my 8x32 SV and my 10x42 HT. I need to spend more time peering through these masterpieces of optical design side by side.
Of course I'm no spring chicken and my pupils may only dilate to 4mm for all I know.
The subtle variations in late evening light and the particular landscape being observed, with all of its hues and contrasts, makes me now question my earlier post. In other words, in certain situations it is entirely possible that I could see a difference in light gathering between my 8x32 SV and my 10x42 HT. I need to spend more time peering through these masterpieces of optical design side by side.
Of course I'm no spring chicken and my pupils may only dilate to 4mm for all I know.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
I think it's worth noting, to the best of my knowledge, almost no women join these binocular minutia discussions on this forum... I suspect they are out birding instead.
:
Well Mac although you say almost no women join these discussions I can't let you get away without reminding you of the inimitable Chosun Juan and of the calm and measured views of Annabeth2, who enliven and grace these pages regularly.
Lee
Swarovski has a 12x50 now but it could have been a 10x50.
http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/swarovski/swarovski-swarovision-12x50-binocular
They both cost a ton of money and they are on sale till the end of the month so act now! As you can see Eagle Optics will also take a trade of your old Swarovski. You will want to get that last little bit of extra transmission to increase your satisfaction and pleasure while you are using your new, up to date binocular!:-O
Bob
Last edited:
Right Brock,
Maybe I should have advised that couple I saw on the deck who were using those 828s while taking a Birding tour at the Cape May lighthouse last spring that they might not be getting near enough pleasure from their experience because of the dimness of the binoculars they were using? As I recall the day was lightly overcast and somewhat windy.
After all, they probably could have afforded much better. I think they drove up in a late model Acura.
Bob
dalat
...
How much do the eye pupils dilate in a overcast day? I guess they are still rather small and far from maximum dilation. As long as eye pupils are smaller than the exit pupil of the binocular, it is difficult to compare brightness as the eye can simply compensate dimness by dilating the pupil a bit and let in more light. How much the eye really compensates, who knows? But surely transmission differences can only really be compared in twilight conditions, once the eye pupil is larger than the exit pupil and any compensation effect of the eye can be excluded.
You would think so Florian but there are questions would could ask.
For example does the eye react instantaneously to 0.5% more photons or 1% and close down a bit or what? Or does it work like a thermostat that doesn't turn off or turn on until several degrees warmer or cooler than the set temperature? In otherwords is there a threshold of more photons that has to be reached before the eye closes and similarly a threshold below which the photon count has to drop before the pupil dilates?
If it works via thresholds (and so avoids incessant and flickering opening and closing of the pupil) then there could be a certain increase of light input that is tolerated and utilised for vision but which does not prompt a closing of the pupil.
Lee
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Lee, post 119,
That is an interesting topic: how many photons are necessary for the eye to generate a signal for the optical nerve. I touched that topic in my review paper on "Color vision etc. and from what I remember from the literature two photons are necessary for the optical system of the eye to generate an observation signal. It was already established in 1946 if my memory is still correct by investigations of Dr. Maarten Bouwman, who died recently. If you are really interestd I can probably find the data.
Gijs
That is an interesting topic: how many photons are necessary for the eye to generate a signal for the optical nerve. I touched that topic in my review paper on "Color vision etc. and from what I remember from the literature two photons are necessary for the optical system of the eye to generate an observation signal. It was already established in 1946 if my memory is still correct by investigations of Dr. Maarten Bouwman, who died recently. If you are really interestd I can probably find the data.
Gijs
Similar threads
