What if...... (1 Viewer)

Rico70 · Jan 22, 2020

jan van daalen said:
If you would read it, you will read how it was done.
BTW, Swarovski did gave accurate explanations.
Read it again.

Jan, as you may have guessed from my answers, I had already read everything.

Referring to how you do the tests, I was asking broadly which instrumentation you use, in addition to the polarizing filter. Do you only use the eye and light you have in the office (neon, led, etc.)? Do you use your phone's camera or some special capture equipment with maybe the telecentric lens? If you use a commercial camera, which one? Do you use a normal, wide-angle lens, or which one? Have you profiled the sensor and the lens for the light you use or do the test without control?

I'm not here to tell you are "quack" (don't worry :t

, I just wanted to understand the general method and level of your phase tests.
Even Swarovski was not complete in the description (at least in the part you reported), and for me it says nothing about the tests. He only mentions some typologies (e.g. MTF) and some regulations that nobody knows about, if he doesn't have the opportunity to read them in full.

Simply this ... my friend!

PS:
forgive me if I'm asking you too complex questions.

Gijs van Ginkel · Jan 22, 2020

Rico70, post 281,
The data you ask form Jan van Daalen can only be obtained from a specialized research laboratory, which has the possibilities to measure thickness and composition of ultrathin layers. From your questions I get the impression that you have no experience whatsoever with thin layer research etc. Is that correct?
Gijs van Ginkel

Gijs van Ginkel · Jan 22, 2020

Rico70,
In addition to my previous post: there is a very good paper about phase coatings which is worthwile to read:
Adolf Weyrauch and Dr. Bernd Dörband, "P-coating: optimized image quality for binocuars using phase-corrected roof prisms", Deutsche Optikerzeitung nr4, 1988.
By the way: you make the owner of this forum very rich by your posts: every click is an addition to his bank account.
Gijs van Ginkel

jan van daalen · Jan 22, 2020

henry link said:
Thomas,

Thanks for sending me back to the drawing board. Once again I had to delete a post with incorrect information. My latest mistake resulted from second guessing something I thought I knew, which is that the roof can be in either the Schmidt or the Bauernfiend prism in what we call a Schmidt-Pechan prism. When the roof is in the Schmidt prism the Bauernfeind prism requires mirror coating and when the roof is in the Bauernfeind prism the Schmidt requires mirror coating.

Almost all illustrations I found of S-P prisms show the roof in the Schmidt, but I finally found one with the roof in the Bauernfeind from a diagram of an old Swarovski 7x42 SLC. As you can see below it's a much better match for what we can see of the Retrovid prism in Jan's photo. It's in good agreement with your interpretation of the light from the objective entering the left prism (Schmidt, mirror coated with no roof) and exiting the right prism (Bauernfreind, roof with no mirror coating).

Jan's cutaway of the Swarovski EL SV below shows that the prism arrangement from the old SLC has been abandoned in favor of a Bauernfeind entrance prism (mirror coated with no roof) and a Schmidt exit prism (roof, no mirror coating).

Henry

OK, find the difference SLC/SF/ELSV

Jan

jan van daalen · Jan 22, 2020

Rico70 said:
Jan, as you may have guessed from my answers, I had already read everything.

Referring to how you do the tests, I was asking broadly which instrumentation you use, in addition to the polarizing filter. Do you only use the eye and light you have in the office (neon, led, etc.)? Do you use your phone's camera or some special capture equipment with maybe the telecentric lens? If you use a commercial camera, which one? Do you use a normal, wide-angle lens, or which one? Have you profiled the sensor and the lens for the light you use or do the test without control?

I'm not here to tell you are "quack" (don't worry :t, I just wanted to understand the general method and level of your phase tests.
Even Swarovski was not complete in the description (at least in the part you reported), and for me it says nothing about the tests. He only mentions some typologies (e.g. MTF) and some regulations that nobody knows about, if he doesn't have the opportunity to read them in full.

Simply this ... my friend!

PS:
forgive me if I'm asking you too complex questions.

Hello Rico,

One can never ask to much questions:king:
Can it be answered, that is the question.
Photo's are taken with a Canon 5D Mark IV, macro 100mm F2.8.
On the attached pic you see our test facility which is very, very secret

Jan

Rico70 · Jan 22, 2020

Gijs van Ginkel said:
From your questions I get the impression that you have no experience whatsoever with thin layer research etc. Is that correct?

Is having experience with soap bubbles inherent?

Gijs van Ginkel said:
The data you ask form Jan van Daalen can only be obtained from a specialized research laboratory, which has the possibilities to measure thickness and composition of ultrathin layers.

Honestly, I too I don't have a specialized "soap bubble" (ultrathin layers) lab either.
But you instead, yes?

Gijs van Ginkel said:
there is a very good paper about phase coatings which is worthwile to read:
Adolf Weyrauch and Dr. Bernd Dörband, "P-coating: optimized image quality for binocuars using phase-corrected roof prisms", Deutsche Optikerzeitung nr4, 1988.

Thanks for the advice.

Gijs van Ginkel said:
you make the owner of this forum very rich by your posts: every click is an addition to his bank account.

You're right, and I should get paid for this 3

Rico70 · Jan 22, 2020

jan van daalen said:
Photo's are taken with a Canon 5D Mark IV, macro 100mm F2.8.
On the attached pic you see our test facility which is very, very secret

Thanks, Jan. Let's go back to the Trinovids ... :t:

Gijs van Ginkel · Jan 22, 2020

Rico, post 286,
-1- Soap bubbles: yes I do have experinece with them, but mostly in our bathtub, do you have the same experimetal set-up?
-2- I personally don't have such equipment but the research institute I am connected with does, interesting kind of sport and needs special skills and knowledge to operate it.
-3-It s a pleasure.
-4-We could share the streams of money coming in, just as in Italy scientists are very very poor in the Netherlands.
Gijs van Ginkel

Rico70 · Jan 22, 2020

Gijs van Ginkel said:
I personally don't have such equipment but the research institute I am connected with does, interesting kind of sport and needs special skills and knowledge to operate it.

I understand perfectly. I don't have all those competence, I know I could have them, but I also know that competence often has high costs and few earnings.

Gijs van Ginkel said:
We could share the streams of money coming in, just as in Italy scientists are very very poor in the Netherlands.

Maybe it's a technique to bring out the best ideas to exploit faster and more completely.

PS:

I usually take the shower, not the bathroom.

henry link · Jan 22, 2020

jan van daalen said:
OK, find the difference SLC/SF/ELSV

Jan

Hey Jan,

Which model SLC is that? It looks like the prism design is the same as the diagram I posted, but the eyepiece and objective designs are different from the full diagram of the 7x42 SLC below.

If the 7x42 diagram is accurate then the eyepiece in that model was a 5 element Erfle and the focusing was done by moving the objective doublet behind a fixed cover glass like the 8/7x30 SLCs. I wonder if only the 50/56mm models used an internal focusing lens behind the objective doublet?

I also notice that in the 7x42 diagram (which must be post 2002 since it includes SWAROBRIGHT mirror coating) all the prism glass to air surfaces are coated with SWAROTOP multi-coating. Is that just a mistake or had something changed since Seil's article in 1991?

BTW, how many of those sawn in half binoculars do you have around?

Henry

dries1 · Jan 22, 2020

"You're right, and I should get paid for this"

There are a few things in life I am absolutely sure of,... a few, and the probability of this not happening is one of them.

Andy W.

jan van daalen · Jan 22, 2020

henry link said:
Hey Jan,

Which model SLC is that? It looks like the prism design is the same as the diagram I posted, but the eyepiece and objective designs are different from the full diagram of the 7x42 SLC below.

If the 7x42 diagram is accurate then the eyepiece in that model was a 5 element Erfle and the focusing was done by moving the objective doublet behind a fixed cover glass like the 8/7x30 SLCs. I wonder if only the 50/56mm models used an internal focusing lens behind the objective doublet?

I also notice that in the 7x42 diagram (which must be post 2002 since it includes SWAROBRIGHT mirror coating) all the prism glass to air surfaces are coated with SWAROTOP multi-coating. Is that just a mistake or had something changed since Seil's article in 1991?

BTW, how many of those sawn in half binoculars do you have around?

Henry

Hi Henry,

To start with the last question,
Top shelf first pic is:
Swarovski EL 10x42, Swift riflescope?, Swarovski SLC 7x50, Leica Televid 77, Swarovski SLC 7x50, Swarovski SV 8.5x42.
Bottom shelf:
Swarovski EL 10x42, Zeiss HT 10x42, Zeiss SF 10x42.

Second pic top shelf:
Leica Trinovid 12x50, Leica Geovid 8x42, Leica Trinovid 10x42, Leica Ultravid 10x42, Swarovski SV 10x42, Swarovski companion 8X30.
Bottom shelf:
Opticron Oasis 10x42 (thanks Chris:t

Swarovski ATM80 25-50,

Jan

jan van daalen · Jan 22, 2020

henry link said:
Hey Jan,

Which model SLC is that? It looks like the prism design is the same as the diagram I posted, but the eyepiece and objective designs are different from the full diagram of the 7x42 SLC below.

If the 7x42 diagram is accurate then the eyepiece in that model was a 5 element Erfle and the focusing was done by moving the objective doublet behind a fixed cover glass like the 8/7x30 SLCs. I wonder if only the 50/56mm models used an internal focusing lens behind the objective doublet?

I also notice that in the 7x42 diagram (which must be post 2002 since it includes SWAROBRIGHT mirror coating) all the prism glass to air surfaces are coated with SWAROTOP multi-coating. Is that just a mistake or had something changed since Seil's article in 1991?

BTW, how many of those sawn in half binoculars do you have around?

Henry

Hi Henry,

The cut a way is the SLC 7x50.
Next month I'll be at Swaro's and will ask if a 7x42SLC durchschnitt is still available in their collection.

The 50/56 have a focus lens behind the doublet objective lens and it's reach is 8mm.

I can't give you a accurate answer regarding Seil's article.

Jan

henry link · Jan 22, 2020

Thanks Jan,

An amazing collection you have there.

Maybe we could start a new thread devoted to just cutaways. I've collected some I could add and John Roberts must have dozens.

Henry

Thomas_M · Jan 22, 2020

Jan, Henry,

thanks a lot for all the interesting information!

Thomas

jan van daalen · Jan 22, 2020

henry link said:
Thanks Jan,

An amazing collection you have there.

Maybe we could start a new thread devoted to just cutaways. I've collected some I could add and John Roberts must have dozens.

Henry

Good idea and we could swap the doubles:t:
I bought the Trinovid 12x50 at the Leica store in Wetzlar during the Noctivid launch for 300,00 euro and saw a similar one going on Catawiki for 1.000,00 euro. Auch....

Open the thread and I'll follow you.

Jan

John A Roberts · Jan 22, 2020

Firstly, Jan what a fabulous collection you’ve amassed! (post #292)

Secondly, as Henry indicates (post #290) both the original series x50 and x56 SLC’s have the more usual objective construction of a fixed doublet and a moving focusing lens,
see the following from two seperate eBay listings by canadiansportsoptics:

- a 7x50 SLC (one image clearly shows the marking on the focuser; and it’s marked on the hinge where there is usually just the serial number: ‘D6739 94079 • TEST’, so work done by Swarovski)

- a x56 SLC (the magnification is not specified; the display mount indicates the work was done by Swarovski)

Additionally:
A) All the x50’s (7x50, 8x50 and 10x50) have 7 lenses per side, with similar pattern objectives and eyepieces (per various images that I’ve seen)

B) Both the 8x56 and 15x56 are listed as having a 3 piece objective, but the 15x56 is listed as 50gm (around 2 oz) heavier with 2% less transmission (at 88%)

I too have been thinking for a while of a seperate thread for each major brand with a compilation of cross-section and cutaway images
(currently images are scattered across a variety of threads)

John

p.s. And an image of the 7x42 and 10x42 construction (there was no 8x42 original series SLC), from Elkcub at: https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2216154&postcount=242
Both the x42's and the Mk II x30's have the same pattern objective of a single glass at the front and then a dual lens focuser
- with the x30's the front element is a planar piece of glass that seals the objective but has no optical function, see the image and details at: https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3890119&postcount=9

jan van daalen · Jan 24, 2020

The Retrovid is back from our technician and will go to Gijs for a transmission chart.
I traded a Leica 7x35GA Trinovid from 1986 so this makes a 1966, 1967, 1982, 1986 and a 2020 model available for comparison.
Jan

wdc · Jan 24, 2020

Thanks Jan, for all your continued effort to analyze the 'specimen'. I appreciate you would take the time to do all this and share it with the forum. And thanks to everyone else for contributing to an 'illuminating' thread.

-Bill

jan van daalen · Jan 24, 2020

wdc said:
Thanks Jan, for all your continued effort to analyze the 'specimen'. I appreciate you would take the time to do all this and share it with the forum. And thanks to everyone else for contributing to an 'illuminating' thread.

-Bill

You're welcome Bill..........how is the scope treating you?

What if...... (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread