Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Resolution vs Sharpness

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Tuesday 12th February 2019, 15:27   #26
jremmons
Wildlife Biologist

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,213
Beth,
This thread goes to show just how different each person's eyes are when it comes to binoculars. I really like the Ultravid HD 7x42 I bought recently, but have never been a fan of the 8x30 CL Companion (original version), as I found it not particularly sharp, weak against the light, and narrow ("tunnel-vision"). Resolving power may be fine but to me, that generally doesn't mean as much in the field as apparent sharpness (which is a personal issue based upon resolution, control of astigmatism, color bias, perception of CA, hand/eyes of the user, etc.).

Justin
jremmons is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 12th February 2019, 17:05   #27
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by jremmons View Post
Beth,
This thread goes to show just how different each person's eyes are when it comes to binoculars. I really like the Ultravid HD 7x42 I bought recently, but have never been a fan of the 8x30 CL Companion (original version), as I found it not particularly sharp, weak against the light, and narrow ("tunnel-vision"). Resolving power may be fine but to me, that generally doesn't mean as much in the field as apparent sharpness (which is a personal issue based upon resolution, control of astigmatism, color bias, perception of CA, hand/eyes of the user, etc.).

Justin
Hi Justin,

Of course my 7x42 HD+ is clearly on another level optically, but I have no issues with the old CL. I certainly don't ever think it sucks or is unsatisfactory in comparison to the Ultravid. I see a clear difference, yes, but I think it still has a nice view in its own right. Do wish the FOV could be wider, but I also don't experience the type of tunnel-like constricted view you saw in it. I think the huge sweet spot helps. I noticed when trying 10x42 couple years back, the models with larger sweet spot felt more comfortable since the true FOV is narrow in 10x42's. For example Nikon SE 10x42 was more a comfortable view than Vortex Razor 10x42 which has a much wider FOV. The Nikon has a huge sweet spot and I think has field flatteners in it. CL doesn't have a flat field, but I find the it has a large area of focus.

The CL suffers a bit at long range with sharpness, but I find closer and middle distances good with the CL and colors and overall image pleasing. It's really a more casual binocular for me and will be used for walks in the neighborhood, lunch breaks in my car at the local park and that type of thing. I don't see significant CA in the CL (I do seem some degree of CA at times) and find the colors to be towards neutral and quite bright for 30mm.

Reading old reviews of the original CL it seems a polarizing bino. Lots of users not at all happy with the view while others like it or even love it. Reading back to 2011 posts, members seemed to like it quite a bit when it was first introduced and then slowly it turns sour over time with different users it seems. There's quite a range of opinion on it and obviously I think it's pretty good. It's not top tier view, but it's pleasing to me. I'll get more time with it this weekend.
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 12th February 2019, 17:43   #28
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,645
p.s. I had my eye exam on Sunday and have a new prescription (minor change), but thinking both binos should look even better when I get the new glasses.

Getting new, thinner titanium frames which should make the view through the 8x30 a little more comfortable compared to my current thicker plastic frames.
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 12th February 2019, 18:04   #29
jremmons
Wildlife Biologist

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilmore Girl View Post
p.s. I had my eye exam on Sunday and have a new prescription (minor change), but thinking both binos should look even better when I get the new glasses.

Getting new, thinner titanium frames which should make the view through the 8x30 a little more comfortable compared to my current thicker plastic frames.
Funny, I just did the same. My prescription changed and I got thinner frames as well. I've often wondered how much the ergonomics and lens qualities effect the view through binoculars. I know my old ornithology professor would always push his glasses up when using his Trinovids.

Re: your comments on the CL, it again just shows the differences we all see. I thought the CL was clearly inferior to the mid-range options such as the Meostar and Conquest HD as well as even the Viper HD. This is why I preface all my reviews/reports/comments on optics with "to my eyes...".

Justin
jremmons is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 12th February 2019, 18:24   #30
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by jremmons View Post
Funny, I just did the same. My prescription changed and I got thinner frames as well. I've often wondered how much the ergonomics and lens qualities effect the view through binoculars. I know my old ornithology professor would always push his glasses up when using his Trinovids.

Re: your comments on the CL, it again just shows the differences we all see. I thought the CL was clearly inferior to the mid-range options such as the Meostar and Conquest HD as well as even the Viper HD. This is why I preface all my reviews/reports/comments on optics with "to my eyes...".

Justin
You're not alone in your views of the original CL. I've seen more than a few bad reviews of it. But, I've seen some good ones too by some respected members here, but you have to sort of go back a way to find those on the forum. Main issues seems to be the pricing which should have been a bit lower from the start, FOV and some users finding the image not sharp enough. Like I mentioned, I think resolution is high, but edge contrast which renders an image sharp a little lower. I still think it's sharp enough for me, but the UVid+ I consider very sharp and there's an obvious difference. I think my expectations of it are just not as high as others.

I'm more impressed with its ergonomics, design and build which are all up to Swaro standards (excellent). I think it gets the job done good enough optically for my purpose (casual observation). Ergonomics, size and weight are high priority in this case, as I needed a small/light, alternative to the Lecia 42mm. It won't be used quite as much as the 7x42. I'll see how I like it as I continue using it.
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 12th February 2019, 18:44   #31
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,645
When trying to decide between FL and CL recently, some posts by Gijs helped me to place the order for the CL and at least see if I could still be pleased with it. I bought my first one in 2013 and never had any issues with the view:


https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=361839

wachipilotes, post 14,
The new CL is better than the former one in a number of aspects, see my test reoprt on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor. If you can get an old one for a reasonable price: do not hesitate, since it is small, light weight and of enough optical quality to enjoy it.
Gijs van Ginkel


In this thread Gijs confirmed, in a few posts, what I always thought about the CL 8x30 (pretty bright):

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread...=300771&page=2
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 12th February 2019, 23:16   #32
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 3,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilmore Girl View Post
When trying to decide between FL and CL recently, some posts by Gijs helped me to place the order for the CL and at least see if I could still be pleased with it. I bought my first one in 2013 and never had any issues with the view:


https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=361839

wachipilotes, post 14,
The new CL is better than the former one in a number of aspects, see my test reoprt on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor. If you can get an old one for a reasonable price: do not hesitate, since it is small, light weight and of enough optical quality to enjoy it.
Gijs van Ginkel


In this thread Gijs confirmed, in a few posts, what I always thought about the CL 8x30 (pretty bright):

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread...=300771&page=2
GG:

You are not alone in your respect for the CL. I have had one from the start,
June, 2011 and while I don't use it often, I have posted like Torview did in your link above.
It is a quality Swarovski binocular, and it is bright, and offers a very nice view.

It is one of the smallest of any quality 8x30 available, and still is today.
I have tried the new CL, and it seems larger in size to me, but I could not
see much in a store setting.

That is why it may be a better choice than any of the new pocket binoculars
available today. By pocket binoculars I mean 8x25 or smaller. It certainly gives a better an easier view.

Jerry
NDhunter is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th February 2019, 00:43   #33
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDhunter View Post
GG:

You are not alone in your respect for the CL. I have had one from the start,
June, 2011 and while I don't use it often, I have posted like Torview did in your link above.
It is a quality Swarovski binocular, and it is bright, and offers a very nice view.

It is one of the smallest of any quality 8x30 available, and still is today.
I have tried the new CL, and it seems larger in size to me, but I could not
see much in a store setting.

That is why it may be a better choice than any of the new pocket binoculars
available today. By pocket binoculars I mean 8x25 or smaller. It certainly gives a better an easier view.

Jerry
Hi Jerry,

When I was searching old comments and reviews about the original CL, I saw a couple from you about how you liked it.

Yea, the new CL seems like it has slimmer barrels, but longer. I prefer the look and size of the original CL. I didn't want to spend 1200 or so for the new one and I really liked the original when I had it back in 2013, so I decided to go with it again. I bought it from a store I stumbled upon while searching online, Nichols Outfitters in Alabama. The guy there, Parker, was helpful and had it laying around for a good price still new in box. The focus is better than my previous one. The old one had a couple gritty spots, but the new one is smoother and has no issues. Previous one was 2012 production date while the one I have now is 2015.

Yes, agree about easier view going up to 8x30. I didn't want to go any smaller than this.
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 13th February 2019, 01:25   #34
Maljunulo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 736
Topics like this make my brain hurt, because I just cannot grasp such a concept as "low resolution (but) high sharpness".
__________________
All behavior offends someone.
Intellectual curiosity is as rare as common sense.
Maljunulo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th February 2019, 01:42   #35
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 3,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maljunulo View Post
Topics like this make my brain hurt, because I just cannot grasp such a concept as "low resolution (but) high sharpness".
Don't be troubled, much of this is personal opinion. Just remember that.

Jerry
NDhunter is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th February 2019, 02:09   #36
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maljunulo View Post
Topics like this make my brain hurt, because I just cannot grasp such a concept as "low resolution (but) high sharpness".
You're not alone. I've read about this subject online before and my pea brain hurt, but the article I referenced in this thread simplifies it with pictures. I need pictures to understand this stuff :) As Jerry says, our assessment of image quality in binoculars is ultimately subjective/opinion anyway.
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 13th February 2019, 02:11   #37
aCuria
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: sg
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Conville View Post
Thanks for that David.
I am a little familiar with MTF charts and how they can be useful for analyzing both camera lenses and sport optics.

My point is that with photography there is a product, digital file or print, and this is where the pixels, or lines, or DPI (print) comes in.

No pixels or dots with a live view.
Our eyes perceive in terms of dots too, there are a finite number of cones/rods (biological pixels) in your eye.
aCuria is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th February 2019, 08:16   #38
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 8,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maljunulo View Post
Topics like this make my brain hurt, because I just cannot grasp such a concept as "low resolution (but) high sharpness".
I am guessing this means the bino has high contrast making the separation of light and dark markings easy to see even if under a critical examination they do not reproduce the finest details.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th February 2019, 09:07   #39
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,399
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by NDhunter View Post
Don't be troubled, much of this is personal opinion. Just remember that.

Jerry
Jerry,

I think you're going to have to science the sh*t out of this !
https://www.google.com/amp/s/strongl...t-of-this/amp/




Chosun
Chosun Juan is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 13th February 2019, 10:32   #40
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,226
I use the expression 'unaided eyes' as the alternative can lead to trouble on some internet sites.

My brain also hurts sometimes.

My head also hurts sometimes, and Migraleve pink seems to have vanished because of some licensing dispute.
I don't know if it is available anywhere?
Buclizine?
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th February 2019, 16:11   #41
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 8,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
I use the expression 'unaided eyes' as the alternative can lead to trouble on some internet sites.

My brain also hurts sometimes.

My head also hurts sometimes, and Migraleve pink seems to have vanished because of some licensing dispute.
I don't know if it is available anywhere?
Buclizine?
David
Some websites can't face the 'naked' truth.

Buclizine?
I think you mean Bunnahabhain or Bruichladdich....

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th February 2019, 16:24   #42
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,226
Lee,

They make headaches worse. (:
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th February 2019, 17:00   #43
Pinewood
New York correspondent
 
Pinewood's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 3,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
David
Some websites can't face the 'naked' truth.

Buclizine?
I think you mean Bunnahabhain or Bruichladdich....

Lee
Hello Lee,

I rather enjoyed Port Charlotte from the Bruichladdich distillery but Bunnahabhain might be enjoyed by more.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood
__________________
Bread is not enough. Give us circuses!
Pinewood is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th February 2019, 17:31   #44
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 8,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinewood View Post
Hello Lee,

I rather enjoyed Port Charlotte from the Bruichladdich distillery but Bunnahabhain might be enjoyed by more.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood
Arthur

The Bruichladdich distillery also produces a superb fine gin called The Botanist.
Well worth try with a good quality tonic and lime slice.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th February 2019, 18:50   #45
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls, Idaho
Posts: 2,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maljunulo View Post
Topics like this make my brain hurt, because I just cannot grasp such a concept as "low resolution (but) high sharpness".
And just when you think things couldn’t get worse, there goes Bill rearing his ugly head. There are things that can be SEEN that cannot be RESOLVED. There, that might keep things lively for a while.

EXAMPLE: A discussion came up on an optical engineering forum I frequent in which one of the super geeks (spoken with much admiration) noted that a certain guy wire could be SEEN near a conference location that was considerably too thin to be RESOLVED, based on Rayleigh and Dawes findings. It was determined that diffraction of the wire against the blue-sky background is what made it NOTICEABLE along its length.

You may try this wherever you are. Hold your thumb and index finger at arm’s length and bring them together slowly, against a bright or moderately bright background. You will notice that they APPEAR to touch before the really do.

You may note that the top half of the image attached is considerably darker than the lower half. That is until a couple of fingers are placed on the dividing line. Then, it becomes plain both are exactly the same shade. We don’t always SEE what we think we do.

A SIDE NOTE, ALTHOUGH RELATED: That’s why it’s foolish to claim that one AR coating provides noticeably better light transmission than in another binocular of the same aperture, magnification, and care in production. People love to jump to that conclusion while ignoring several other optomechanical realities and the wide variance in physiologies that play a large role in the comparison.

Bill
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2019-02-13 at 11.13.15 AM.jpg
Views:	50
Size:	248.0 KB
ID:	687129  
__________________
“Teaching high school today requires the skills one would need to pilot a bus full of chickens backward, with no brakes, down a rocky road through the Andes while providing colorful and informative commentary on the scenery.” — Franklin Habit
WJC is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th February 2019, 21:17   #46
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,725
Bill,

If you were fortunate enough to have 20/10 eyesight you can resolve a letter of line pattern with periodicity of 60 arcseconds. When you look at the night sky, a large star like betelgeuse is about 0.06 arcseconds or about 1000 times smaller. Just imagine how bright it would appear if you could actually resolve it?

David
typo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th February 2019, 22:49   #47
dries1
Registered User
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,431
Thanks for the figure Bill, it is worth a thousand words.

and 20/10 vision will not last forevah.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 14th February 2019, 18:47   #48
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls, Idaho
Posts: 2,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
Thanks for the figure Bill, it is worth a thousand words.

and 20/10 vision will not last forevah.

Andy W.
Thanks, Andy. I have used that and other things to illustrate what people often claim to see ... they really, medically, scientifically, can’t. But as long as people would rather spend days beating their chests in pontification than 15 minutes in researching a topic they CLAIM to be interested in .... And it is why those who REALLY know what they’re talking about wouldn’t touch one of these bino forums with a ten-foot pole. For them, peeing up a rope is not an attractive hobby.

Bill
__________________
“Teaching high school today requires the skills one would need to pilot a bus full of chickens backward, with no brakes, down a rocky road through the Andes while providing colorful and informative commentary on the scenery.” — Franklin Habit

Last edited by WJC : Thursday 14th February 2019 at 18:51.
WJC is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th February 2019, 19:55   #49
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,725
Bill, you might find 15 minutes on this a useful place to start.
http://www.yorku.ca/eye/psf.htm

David

Last edited by typo : Thursday 14th February 2019 at 20:08.
typo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th February 2019, 22:26   #50
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls, Idaho
Posts: 2,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
Bill, you might find 15 minutes on this a useful place to start.
http://www.yorku.ca/eye/psf.htm

David
Ah, PSF, MTF, not to mention my favorite OPD. I have two hard keys for Zemax-EE but not only have I not turned it on for more than 10 years, I now use the iMac, exclusively, a platform on which Zemax won't run.

Thanks, David. That was helpful.
__________________
“Teaching high school today requires the skills one would need to pilot a bus full of chickens backward, with no brakes, down a rocky road through the Andes while providing colorful and informative commentary on the scenery.” — Franklin Habit
WJC is online now  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sharpness and resolution, one subject or two ? Torview Binoculars 71 Thursday 26th February 2015 17:31
Swarovision EL 10x50 vs. Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX Sharpness/Resolution ? tlb Swarovski 20 Sunday 18th January 2015 14:31
About the need for edge sharpness looksharp65 Binoculars 58 Thursday 27th February 2014 00:50
resolution/sharpness compromise in 32mm objective binoculars?? matt green Binoculars 26 Thursday 21st September 2006 10:17
Sharpness Rhizanthella Technique 10 Monday 6th February 2006 12:29

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.37102509 seconds with 40 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:24.