When will the current alphas become 'obsolete' (1 Viewer)

Troubador · Dec 30, 2018

Its a good question VB, although I can see a kind of contradiction in Slany's use of the phrase 'best resolution' alongside 'average' human eye. This might mean the same thing as 'average eyesight' or it might mean something better than this.

And while I understand perfectly the point you are making I am not sure the shoe analogy is a good one: nobody can walk around in the wrong sized shoes but everyone can use binos whether they are $300, $900, $1500 or $2000 models, despite the differences in optical performance that they come with.

Anyway if a manufacturer wanted to provide binos with better resolution the next questions would be:

How much better resolution would the binos have to possess before anyone with better eyesight could see the difference while birding or observing nature?

Would other adjustments need to be made to the other parameters mentioned by Slany?

What would this cost to produce?

How many of the 50% of people with better than average eyesight (potential new customers), who would benefit, would be prepared to pay for this?

How many customers of average or below average eyesight (existing customers) would not buy the bino because it was too expensive.

All interesting questions.

Lee

NDhunter · Dec 30, 2018

The way I see it, is that the only real way to offer much in change over the highest optics in
sports optics is electronics. Digital, image stabilization, zoom and more.

Some are out there now, but what is important, is that over time all electronics will fail. That may
be a year or 2 or much longer.

We are in a throw away world now, with cell phones, televisions, etc.

Jerry

jremmons · Dec 30, 2018

Jerry: I am inclined to agree, and I'm not sure how I feel about using electronics in the manner I tend to use binoculars (rough and tumble), which is the #1 reason I've not yet bought the Canon ISL 10x42, a model which has always piqued my interest but has a very short warranty segment (in my opinion).

For the more technical minded: is it not currently possible to create wider field binoculars that handle and function as well as the current models?

Justin

PYRTLE · Dec 30, 2018

jremmons said:
For the more technical minded: is it not currently possible to create wider field binoculars that handle and function as well as the current models?

Justin

Yes, it's possible but you want the correct balance of panoramic or magnification of an object...which is why x 8 or x 10 is the compromise for seeing something " closer ". You could easily have a wide angle x2 optic eg. an old opera type glass but no joy for nature observation.

jremmons · Dec 30, 2018

PYRTLE said:
Yes, it's possible but you want the correct balance of panoramic or magnification of an object...which is why x 8 or x 10 is the compromise for seeing something " closer ". You could easily have a wide angle x2 optic eg. an old opera type glass but no joy for nature observation.

Yeah, that's sort of what I was implying by adding "that handle as well as current models".

Troubador · Dec 30, 2018

jremmons said:
Jerry: I am inclined to agree, and I'm not sure how I feel about using electronics in the manner I tend to use binoculars (rough and tumble), which is the #1 reason I've not yet bought the Canon ISL 10x42, a model which has always piqued my interest but has a very short warranty segment (in my opinion).

For the more technical minded: is it not currently possible to create wider field binoculars that handle and function as well as the current models?

Justin

Hi Justin & Jerry

I tend to agree with you both on this. When we are out on the hills and coasts of the Scottish islands we are frequently caught by sharp showers and heavier storms. A rainguard and a bit of care is all we need to protect our binos while still keeping the available at a seconds notice to view anything. I don't walk about in such weather with my camera exposed and I would feel compelled to protect electronic binos in the same way even if assured they are sealed.

I frequently do manic things like lay down on boggy ground or wet seaweed to take low-level photos and just have my binos underneath me having taken care the bins aren't in a puddle or something worse. Can't imagine feeling comfortable doing this if they were electronic.

Going back to your question about your question about whether wider field of view binos can be made with the same handling as current binos, to some extent I think the answer is 'no, not really', because to increase the fov substantially would require (as I understand bino design) monstrously wide eyepieces if they are to be usuable to spectacle wearers with generous eye relief at the same time. Big ER + Big fov= Big eyepieces and big weight.

As I understand it and I would be grateful to be put right if I am mistaken, all of those porros from way back with stupendous fields of view were before the era of spectacle-friendly binos with good eye relief.

Lee

henry link · Dec 30, 2018

Troubador said:
Here is what Milos Slany of Meopta Optika, Czech Republic, said about the ISO Standard (Norm) in my interview with him:

ISO standard governing high quality binoculars

T: It has been said that ISO 14133-2, governing the performance of high quality binoculars is not at all demanding. Do you agree with this, and in particular, do you think the resolution requirements are ambitious enough?

M: Strictly speaking the standard is not especially demanding but the fact is if you produce a binocular which exceeds the resolution requirement, the image which reaches the retina will not bring better resolution because the standard is already equal to the best resolution the average human eye can produce. BUT. While this standard is used by Meopta, resolution is really just one small part of the perception of optical performance. Contrast is really very important too and there are many other parameters which must be taken into account. In fact there is no single figure that can define or summarise optical performance so Meopta uses many and these include not only resolution but Modulation Transfer Function, Strehl Ratio, as well as measurements of several aberrations and of course light transmission.

Lee

If posting the ISO 14133-2 Table 2 is a violation of copyright would a moderator please remove it. I'll try to make this post work without it. (This has been removed for the reasons Henry gave. Lee, Moderator).

I'm perplexed by the ISO 14133-2 resolution standards. The standard for binoculars with exit pupils equal to or less than 4.5mm is 240/D. If D is the diameter of the objective lens 240/D is an extremely low standard. Any design should easily exceed that although individual units might fail from very poor quality control.

On the other hand the standard for binoculars with exit pupils above 4.5mm is stated as 60/R. "R" here would appear to mean Radius (why the change from Diameter to Radius?). If I'm reading it correctly that is an extremely high standard, which only a few cherry binoculars will meet.

Can somebody explain it?

Henry

Pinewood · Dec 30, 2018

Hello,

Some posters, whom I respect in many matters, seem to think that there is a bright future for digital binoculars. I just cannot perceive how viewing a digital screen can be superior to an image projected on the retina. Using the screen on a digital camera is already a chore for me, as I have to remove my specs just to look at the screen. If one wants true binocular vision would one need two screens?

Binocular manufacturers are able to offer very long term guarantees because they are selling a relatively unsophisticated device both optically and mechanically, at high enough price to cover long term customer service. Lee has put his finger on the problem regarding reliability of all consumer electronics. I have even had trouble with quartz watches more than three decades old: they start needing new batteries every three months. Avoiding catastrophic damage, my binoculars have been good for decades.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

Troubador · Dec 30, 2018

henry link said:
If posting the ISO 14133-2 Table 2 is a violation of copyright would a moderator please remove it. I'll try to make this post work without it.

I'm perplexed by the ISO 14133-2 resolution standards. The standard for binoculars with exit pupils equal to or less than 4.5mm is 240/D. If D is the diameter of the objective lens 240/D is an extremely low standard. Any design should easily exceed that although individual units might fail from very poor quality control.

On the other hand the standard for binoculars with exit pupils above 4.5mm is stated as 60/R. "R" here would appear to mean Radius (why the change from Diameter to Radius?). If I'm reading it correctly that is an extremely high standard, which only a few cherry binoculars will meet.

Can somebody explain it?

Henry

Good question Henry and hopefully someone will respond.

The standard says that these requirements are as a minimum so companies are free to exceed these if they see a competitive advantage. Presumably this is how Leica differentiates between Trinovid HD and Noctivid and how Nikon separates Monarch from EDG.

Lee

elkcub · Dec 30, 2018

henry link said:
If posting the ISO 14133-2 Table 2 is a violation of copyright would a moderator please remove it. I'll try to make this post work without it.

I'm perplexed by the ISO 14133-2 resolution standards. The standard for binoculars with exit pupils equal to or less than 4.5mm is 240/D. If D is the diameter of the objective lens 240/D is an extremely low standard. Any design should easily exceed that although individual units might fail from very poor quality control.

On the other hand the standard for binoculars with exit pupils above 4.5mm is stated as 60/R. "R" here would appear to mean Radius (why the change from Diameter to Radius?). If I'm reading it correctly that is an extremely high standard, which only a few cherry binoculars will meet.

Can somebody explain it?

Henry

Henry,

I don't have a copy of the ISO standard, so I don't know what the symbols refer to. However, it appears to me that the "R" you mention is the Greek letter Gamma. That's what it looks like on my screen, anyway.

Ed

typo · Dec 31, 2018

henry link said:
If posting the ISO 14133-2 Table 2 is a violation of copyright would a moderator please remove it. I'll try to make this post work without it.

I'm perplexed by the ISO 14133-2 resolution standards. The standard for binoculars with exit pupils equal to or less than 4.5mm is 240/D. If D is the diameter of the objective lens 240/D is an extremely low standard. Any design should easily exceed that although individual units might fail from very poor quality control.

On the other hand the standard for binoculars with exit pupils above 4.5mm is stated as 60/R. "R" here would appear to mean Radius (why the change from Diameter to Radius?). If I'm reading it correctly that is an extremely high standard, which only a few cherry binoculars will meet.

Can somebody explain it?

Henry

Henry,

Ed is right, it is the Greek letter gamma. As used here it is the symbol for magnification.

David

P.S. the ISO standard was revised in 2016. Instead of the exit pupil diameter being <= to 4.5mm it was changed to <=4.0mm. The second criteria was changed to >4.0mm as well.

typo · Dec 31, 2018

Troubador said:
Its a good question VB, although I can see a kind of contradiction in Slany's use of the phrase 'best resolution' alongside 'average' human eye. This might mean the same thing as 'average eyesight' or it might mean something better than this.

Anyway if a manufacturer wanted to provide binos with better resolution the next questions would be:

How much better resolution would the binos have to possess before anyone with better eyesight could see the difference while birding or observing nature?

Would other adjustments need to be made to the other parameters mentioned by Slany?

What would this cost to produce?

How many of the 50% of people with better than average eyesight (potential new customers), who would benefit, would be prepared to pay for this?

How many customers of average or below average eyesight (existing customers) would not buy the bino because it was too expensive.

All interesting questions.

Lee

Lee,

Quite an easy one. To guarantee it, the existing ISO criteria would need to be changed from 240/D to 116/D, but that would be prohibitively expensive. In fact it would be sufficient just to meet that resolution standard for the central area of the objective that corresponds to the image formed on the retina under optimal viewing conditions.

I've found several, including budget and mid-range models, that do that meet that criteria and many times more that evidently don't. I can't say how widely this is understood, but as far as I can tell the big names are now aware of it and using effective resolution as one of the parameters to distinguish their top of the range models from their second tier offerings.

David

henry link · Dec 31, 2018

typo said:
Henry,

Ed is right, it is the Greek letter gamma. As used here it is the symbol for magnification.

David

P.S. the ISO standard was revised in 2016. Instead of the exit pupil diameter being <= to 4.5mm it was changed to <=4.0mm. The second criteria was changed to >4.0mm as well.

Thanks David and Ed. That certainly makes a lot more sense.

So the reason for the division appears to be to give larger/lower magnification binoculars an even easier ride. The resolution of an 8x42 only needs to be 7.5" or 315/D, an 8x56 only 420/D. The only challenge the manufacturers face is how to make a binocular that wouldn't meet such a standard.

Henry

Troubador · Dec 31, 2018

typo said:
Lee,

Quite an easy one. To guarantee it, the existing ISO criteria would need to be changed from 240/D to 116/D, but that would be prohibitively expensive. In fact it would be sufficient just to meet that resolution standard for the central area of the objective that corresponds to the image formed on the retina under optimal viewing conditions.

I've found several, including budget and mid-range models, that do that meet that criteria and many times more that evidently don't. I can't say how widely this is understood, but as far as I can tell the big names are now aware of it and using effective resolution as one of the parameters to distinguish their top of the range models from their second tier offerings.

David

Thank you David.

Lee

paddy7 · Dec 31, 2018

Pinewood said:
Hello,

Some posters, whom I respect in many matters, seem to think that there is a bright future for digital binoculars. I just cannot perceive how viewing a digital screen can be superior to an image projected on the retina. Using the screen on a digital camera is already a chore for me, as I have to remove my specs just to look at the screen. If one wants true binocular vision would one need two screens?

Binocular manufacturers are able to offer very long term guarantees because they are selling a relatively unsophisticated device both optically and mechanically, at high enough price to cover long term customer service. Lee has put his finger on the problem regarding reliability of all consumer electronics. I have even had trouble with quartz watches more than three decades old: they start needing new batteries every three months. Avoiding catastrophic damage, my binoculars have been good for decades.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

Nicely put, Arthur! Once again this year, i agree with you wholeheartedly.
Paddy

etudiant · Dec 31, 2018

paddy7 said:
Nicely put, Arthur! Once again this year, i agree with you wholeheartedly.
Paddy

Interesting, as I disagree entirely.
Binoculars are tools. When a better tool comes along, the old design is retired.
In this case, we are still in the transition, so it is still not clear that the imaging system will displace direct observation, but imho the handwriting is on the wall.
Expect binocular collectors to join mechanical film camera enthusiasts shortly....

james holdsworth · Dec 31, 2018

etudiant said:
Interesting, as I disagree entirely.
Binoculars are tools. When a better tool comes along, the old design is retired.
In this case, we are still in the transition, so it is still not clear that the imaging system will displace direct observation, but imho the handwriting is on the wall.
Expect binocular collectors to join mechanical film camera enthusiasts shortly....

Shortly? Like 20 years shortly?

NDhunter · Dec 31, 2018

Cameras are used by many, and cell phones have now taken a lot of that market.

Binoculars are not at all like cameras, this is an entirely different, much smaller market.

Jerry

etudiant · Jan 1, 2019

james holdsworth said:
Shortly? Like 20 years shortly?

Probably so.
The display quality is almost there, but the market size is small, so it will be an incidental/accidental development, somebody makes a superior long range imager that serves as a super alpha binocular.

dries1 · Jan 1, 2019

So some are waiting for an accidental/incidental development?

Andy W.

When will the current alphas become 'obsolete' (1 Viewer)

Moderator

Experienced observer

Wildlife Biologist

Old Berkshire Boy

Wildlife Biologist

Moderator

Well-known member

New York correspondent

Moderator

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Registered User

Consulting Biologist

Experienced observer

Registered User

Member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread