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.

Nikon Premier Se Binoculars

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 25 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Tuesday 12th April 2011, 04:46   #26
brocknroller
Registered User
 
brocknroller's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central PA
Posts: 5,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
John,

Several interesting points here, but I'd like to comment about your attempted transition from lined to lineless trifocals. In particular, you stated that "...the optic brain has a memory stored to accommodate the lines. That memory has some permanancy."

Yes, indeed! As you probably know, the process is called visual adaptation and falls into a family of behaviors that include adaptation to CA. One of the characteristics of this adaptation is the presence of long duration "aftereffects," which can persist for quite a while. In the case of CA, the process is ongoing, and after-images can involve fringes of opposite hue. In the case of curved lines the opposite curvature. The classic laboratory study of these phenomena involved the the use of prisms. See: http://www.csic.cornell.edu/201/prism_adaptation/. (I can't help but mention that M. M. Cohen is my good friend and lunch buddy, although Richard Held at MIT did most of the systematic work on CA adaptation.)

So, when you say that you don't "see" CA it really means that your 75 yr. old brain is quite good at the adaptation, — and mine too, incidentally. That doesn't mean that our brains don't have to work at processing the visual information, and probably harder if the CA (fringing) is more visible.

With regard to preferences, therefore, I tend to think that those instruments placing less adaptation demand on the user tend to be preferred. Of course, tasks are different as well as individuals. However, adaptation to a new instrument is highly influenced by what was adapted to before, and in some cases the new adaptations can conflict with previous ones.

I'd better quit before I turn into a puddle of butter.

Ed
Good stuff! John and Ed. Many of the things I like best and least about binoculars are perceptual and cannot found in the specs and some not even in "bench tests".

Rarely do I have the empirical evidence to back up my observations, so when I present them and others don't see what I see, they are sometimes met with disbelief or even disdain.

This is nothing new for me, it happens even at home. My dad lives with me now, and although old age has taken some toll on his senses, his senses have always been dull.

Many years ago, I was visiting my parents in NJ and my mom gave me some milk. Before I could get it to my mouth, the foul odor of spoiled milk made me "dry heave". I told her it was spoiled, and my dad took the container, stuck his nose inside it, and said, "There's nothing wrong with the milk, you're nuts." He then poured the milk into his coffee and it curdled.

Unfortunately, not all phenomena are so easily verified. For example, yesterday the living room TV was "sizzling". It sounded like someone was frying bacon inside the TV. Shut off the sound, the sizzle was still there and quite LOUD. I told my dad about it, and he couldn't hear it even while standing right in front of the TV! Of course, there quickly came the usual denial, "There's no sound coming from the TV, you're nuts!". :-)

My friend Steve and I also don't see "eye to eye" on many things. Almost after every post where I make an observation about bins we've both tried or owned, he will write "I don't see this" or "this doesn't bother me" or something to that effect.

I am bothered by too much CA, pincushion, "rolling ball," field curvature, astigmatism, and also decentered "sweet spots," the 2-D Effect of midsized roofs, and I need to reset the diopter on midsized roofs and 10x+ bins. Steve is not bothered by these things or in some cases doesn't see them.

I am not advocating relativism as a standardless standard or denying scientific evidence, but in some instances, there is no "right" or "wrong," there are just observations made with our amazingly different senses.

While it's understandable that people are skeptical about that which they cannot detect with their own senses, the irony is that their very existence depends on "invisible corpuscles".

As Missouri Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver once declared, "I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs...., and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me."

How can you show someone what they can't see or establish credibility with someone who assumes his or her personal instruments (eyes, ears, nose, skin, taste buds) are the standards by which all is to be judged?

You cannot. If I've learned one thing from my dad, it's that.

Brock
brocknroller is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 12th April 2011, 06:26   #27
ronh
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Los Alamos, NM
Posts: 1,961
Adaptation to bad stuff is in many cases an admirable human talent. One has to eat what's available if poor or stranded in the wilderness, kill if sent to war, etc. These are necessary matters of survival. Becoming blind to optical flaws is different: you have a choice.

"Adaptation" to CA clearly means that the problem is not that something is wrong with the eyes. Rather, one learns not to see it, or adapts to it.

Adapting to a visible feature that is undesirable, but big enough and contrasted enough to be plainly visible, to the point where it is simply not seen, seems to me like morality in microcosm. A talented visual adapter may work his way up to an elephant in the living room, or a naked emperor.

For some it is too late already, and CA adaptation is complete. For the rest of us, I implore, for the love of optics and truth, resist such adaptation. Don't just turn away from optical flaws and go about your business. See and report. The credibility of the entire sub-forum is at stake.
Ron
ronh is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 12th April 2011, 07:50   #28
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,458
Huh?

Did I understand that to mean that I should I believe your lying eyes over mine or the reverse?

Maybe we now need an "Optical Ethicist?"

Bob
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 12th April 2011, 08:08   #29
kabsetz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,474
I'll throw two suggestions into the pot concerning why there would have been a rise in complaints about CA "around the time" eco-glass came into use. Both are consistent with Henry's solid argument that binoculars are currently no worse in this respect than they were before.

Firstly, the awareness among the binocular buying and using public of something called chromatic aberration was not all that widespread until BVD started talking about it in the early-mid nineties. Even then, general understanding caught on only slowly. What you don't know about, you don't see.

The second suggestion concerns eye-glass use with binoculars. The types of high-index crack-resistant plastics used for modern varifocal lenses seem to have much more prominent CA than the harder materials or optical glass used back when bifocals were the norm and trifocals were emerging. I have a new pair of high-quality varifocals (my first), and although I'm glad to see that the adaptation process that Ed talked about above work even in my case, I'm still surprised how some hues of blue simply do not come to focus with these glasses, and by how narrow the useable viewfield is sideways. In general use one's brain rather quickly adapts to the need to turn one's head instead of one's eyes to see clearly to the side, but with binoculars this does not work - even with ample eye-relief it is not possible to turn one's head relative to the binocular to view off-axis, and consequently the high level of lateral color in the glasses gets combined with the lateral color in the binocular, with the sum of the two being really obvious.

Kimmo
kabsetz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 12th April 2011, 09:15   #30
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
Speaking as the guinea pig who tried to conduct a controlled test of some of brock's ideas about CA in low power binoculars I feel it's my duty to warn the innocent that I was NOT able to see any effect whatever on CA that could be attributed to the removal of lead from optical glass.

I should mention that I can see plenty of lateral color in my test set-up. Its white against black pattern of bars is specifically designed to maximize the appearance of color fringes. The binoculars are compared tripod mounted next to each other and the CA target's white bars are placed at 2 degree intervals, so I can be certain I'm comparing CA at exactly the same spots in the field. I reported a VERY tiny difference in lateral CA between an old single coated Nikon 8x30E and a later 1992 multi-coated version. Between that 1992 binocular with lead and a 8x30 EII with Eco-glass that I purchased in 2006 I saw no difference in lateral color at all. I mixed and matched eyepieces and objectives between the E and the EII and still found no difference.

Today, after reading the posts above I decided to repeat the test between the single and multi-coated E's. This time, I couldn't even repeat the tiny difference I reported earlier and that's between binoculars with perhaps 15-20% differences in light transmission. How much tinier would the difference in CA be between slightly tweeked multi-coatings with only a few percent difference in light transmission?

I know nothing I can say or do on this subject will matter to the true believer. Besides, I don't have anything new to add and I'm reading the same stuff I've read many times before from brock, so I'll just withdraw now and take my licks.
Hmmm. I guess one could also make a good case for your method not addressing the relative visibility of lateral fringing. Since the design is the same in your Nikons I would expect the growth function with field angle to be essentially the same, which is what you found. Spectral content and intensity I would think are two critical variables that might be different.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 12th April 2011, 11:12   #31
wingersheek
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New England
Posts: 8
Hello, Everyone.
Thanks, Again, For The Response To My Question. I Have Another Regarding The Zeiss Victory 7x42 T*fl: Is There A Better 7x Wide-field Binocular ? Is This One Of The Best ?
Thanks For Your Reply.
Wingersheek
wingersheek is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 12th April 2011, 12:24   #32
James Bean
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chester, England.
Posts: 733
You can certainly pick 'em, can't you? Yes, it's one of the best! Some say a 7x42 is the ideal specification: reasonable magnification, good light gathering and quite compact. The Zeiss 7x42 BGAT*P ClassiC is one of the most famous binoculars ever made, and the more modern Victory FL model is also highly regarded, known for its bright image. Is there a better 7x binocular? I'll leave others to answer that one!
James Bean is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 12th April 2011, 14:21   #33
John Dracon
John Dracon

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: White Sulphur Springs, Montana
Posts: 908
Sheek - If Nikon made an SE 7x42 porro, it would be better than the Zeiss 7x42. Nikon could do it but hasn't. I enjoyed the use of the Zeiss 7x42 for a number of years. It is a great glass, probably in its class unsurpassed with P coatings. But I didn't like its ergonomics - hard to balance and the focusing mechanism gets sticky. But they are robust and do hold their value. A users gets some years behind them, they come to appreciate the value of 7 power. John
John Dracon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 12th April 2011, 16:28   #34
Kammerdiner
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 1,767
Well, I seem to be one of those who can't adapt to CA. I see it, and I always see it. I tried high-index plastic eyeglass lenses once and couldn't take it. They told me to try them for a week or two and I'd get used to it. Never happened. I felt like I was looking out a fishbowl, the whole world framed in silly color fringes. After 2-3 weeks I took them back and said no dice.

My wife says I'm stubborn. I guess even my brain is stubborn.

Oh, and thanks to all for trotting out the SE superlatives again. I had resolved to sell the SE and just live with the SV. Ain't gonna happen now. I had the SE's out this morning. God, they're good!

Wingersheek, prepare to surrender to them.

Mark
Kammerdiner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 12th April 2011, 16:35   #35
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDhunter View Post
Henry:

Good information as usual, but for many here, give us some examples of some binocular models with the objective types you are referring to.

For example, I would like to know about the Nikon and other porro construction, and also about the roofs and how they are different.

I suppose this could be put into the Binoculars 202 class as far as
studies go.

Jerry
Jerry,

I hesitated to say anything. FWIW, that design is used in many, but not all, roof prism binoculars. A possible connection between those designs and CA is at the confidence level of a hunch, no more. I haven't found enough corroborating evidence, so I've left it hanging in my mind as an interesting coincidence waiting for better information. Still, I do believe it would be possible to assemble some dribs and drabs of "evidence" and present it as the latest internet myth about binocular optics. With enough repetitions I'm sure it could go viral and wind up established as absolute truth in a few years. ;-))

Henry
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 12th April 2011, 17:57   #36
John Dracon
John Dracon

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: White Sulphur Springs, Montana
Posts: 908
Mark - That is what I experience every time I'm playing around with another binocular.
What ever the SEs have seems to approach a consensus among users.
John
John Dracon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 12th April 2011, 18:30   #37
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by brocknroller View Post
Good stuff! John and Ed. Many of the things I like best and least about binoculars are perceptual and cannot found in the specs and some not even in "bench tests".

Rarely do I have the empirical evidence to back up my observations, so when I present them and others don't see what I see, they are sometimes met with disbelief or even disdain.

This is nothing new for me, it happens even at home. My dad lives with me now, and although old age has taken some toll on his senses, his senses have always been dull.

Many years ago, I was visiting my parents in NJ and my mom gave me some milk. Before I could get it to my mouth, the foul odor of spoiled milk made me "dry heave". I told her it was spoiled, and my dad took the container, stuck his nose inside it, and said, "There's nothing wrong with the milk, you're nuts." He then poured the milk into his coffee and it curdled.

Unfortunately, not all phenomena are so easily verified. For example, yesterday the living room TV was "sizzling". It sounded like someone was frying bacon inside the TV. Shut off the sound, the sizzle was still there and quite LOUD. I told my dad about it, and he couldn't hear it even while standing right in front of the TV! Of course, there quickly came the usual denial, "There's no sound coming from the TV, you're nuts!". :-)

My friend Steve and I also don't see "eye to eye" on many things. Almost after every post where I make an observation about bins we've both tried or owned, he will write "I don't see this" or "this doesn't bother me" or something to that effect.

I am bothered by too much CA, pincushion, "rolling ball," field curvature, astigmatism, and also decentered "sweet spots," the 2-D Effect of midsized roofs, and I need to reset the diopter on midsized roofs and 10x+ bins. Steve is not bothered by these things or in some cases doesn't see them.

I am not advocating relativism as a standardless standard or denying scientific evidence, but in some instances, there is no "right" or "wrong," there are just observations made with our amazingly different senses.

While it's understandable that people are skeptical about that which they cannot detect with their own senses, the irony is that their very existence depends on "invisible corpuscles".

As Missouri Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver once declared, "I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs...., and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me."

How can you show someone what they can't see or establish credibility with someone who assumes his or her personal instruments (eyes, ears, nose, skin, taste buds) are the standards by which all is to be judged?

You cannot. If I've learned one thing from my dad, it's that.

Brock
That was a good read, Brock.

If you review comments I've made on other threads you will probably find that I never actively disagreed with your statements about eco-glass or coating improvements. I merely questioned your interpretation of the evidence, and the fact that a lot depended upon your own visual sensitivity. In other words, I wasn't persuaded enough to endorse your conclusions. That's different from piling on and disagreeing.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 12th April 2011, 18:56   #38
mooreorless
Registered User
 
mooreorless's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntingdon,Pa.
Posts: 3,460
"Unfortunately, not all phenomena are so easily verified. For example, yesterday the living room TV was "sizzling". It sounded like someone was frying bacon inside the TV. Shut off the sound, the sizzle was still there and quite LOUD. I told my dad about it, and he couldn't hear it even while standing right in front of the TV! Of course, there quickly came the usual denial, "There's no sound coming from the TV, you're nuts!". :-)"

Brock I would of agreed on this esp. if wearing my hearing aids.

"I am bothered by too much CA, pincushion, "rolling ball," field curvature, astigmatism, and also decentered "sweet spots," the 2-D Effect of midsized roofs, and I need to reset the diopter on midsized roofs and 10x+ bins. Steve is not bothered by these things or in some cases doesn't see them."

Brock for me 90% of what I look for in any optics is center resolution> how sharp the binocular etc. is. Without that IMO what good is the rest. There is such a thing as "looking" too much for every fault. The diopter resetting has me scratching my head. I could see that in cheap stuff but? I have seen what you are talking about astigmatism towards the edges, rolling ball, well one bounce for me.

I do think ergonomics are important and wish the Nikon 8x32SE didn't kidney bean sometimes and yes there is astimatism in edges on the 8SE while looking at the stars.

Last edited by mooreorless : Tuesday 12th April 2011 at 19:02.
mooreorless is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 12th April 2011, 19:38   #39
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by kabsetz View Post
I'll throw two suggestions into the pot concerning why there would have been a rise in complaints about CA "around the time" eco-glass came into use. Both are consistent with Henry's solid argument that binoculars are currently no worse in this respect than they were before.

Firstly, the awareness among the binocular buying and using public of something called chromatic aberration was not all that widespread until BVD started talking about it in the early-mid nineties. Even then, general understanding caught on only slowly. What you don't know about, you don't see.

The second suggestion concerns eye-glass use with binoculars. The types of high-index crack-resistant plastics used for modern varifocal lenses seem to have much more prominent CA than the harder materials or optical glass used back when bifocals were the norm and trifocals were emerging. I have a new pair of high-quality varifocals (my first), and although I'm glad to see that the adaptation process that Ed talked about above work even in my case, I'm still surprised how some hues of blue simply do not come to focus with these glasses, and by how narrow the useable viewfield is sideways. In general use one's brain rather quickly adapts to the need to turn one's head instead of one's eyes to see clearly to the side, but with binoculars this does not work - even with ample eye-relief it is not possible to turn one's head relative to the binocular to view off-axis, and consequently the high level of lateral color in the glasses gets combined with the lateral color in the binocular, with the sum of the two being really obvious.

Kimmo
Hi Kimmo,

If Henry were saying that binoculars are currently no worse in CA than they were before I would have no reason to disagree. However, the issue is not the CA inherent in the design, but rather the increased visibility or conspicuousness of lateral fringing, which I maintain is a necessary consequence of improved coatings. The adaptive ability of the eye is excellent, but like everything else can be exceeded. Lateral fringing becomes conspicuous when reflections are eliminated. Similarly, the globe effect becomes conspicuous when distortion is eliminated.

I don't understand why it would be more acceptable to concoct an explanation of what's been happening in the industry by reference to internal focusing than by understanding the complex nature of the human observer. Well, on the other hand, I probably do understand it.

I think your discussion of varifocal glasses is an excellent case in point. The topic was mentioned in an earlier post and is an important teaching aide, not only to understand the course of perceptual adaptation, but also the role of aftereffects. I've been using trifocals so long it's basically impossible to make the switch.

Regards,
Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Wednesday 13th April 2011 at 02:50.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 12th April 2011, 20:39   #40
brocknroller
Registered User
 
brocknroller's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central PA
Posts: 5,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by kabsetz View Post
I'll throw two suggestions into the pot concerning why there would have been a rise in complaints about CA "around the time" eco-glass came into use. Both are consistent with Henry's solid argument that binoculars are currently no worse in this respect than they were before.

Firstly, the awareness among the binocular buying and using public of something called chromatic aberration was not all that widespread until BVD started talking about it in the early-mid nineties. Even then, general understanding caught on only slowly. What you don't know about, you don't see.

The second suggestion concerns eye-glass use with binoculars. The types of high-index crack-resistant plastics used for modern varifocal lenses seem to have much more prominent CA than the harder materials or optical glass used back when bifocals were the norm and trifocals were emerging. I have a new pair of high-quality varifocals (my first), and although I'm glad to see that the adaptation process that Ed talked about above work even in my case, I'm still surprised how some hues of blue simply do not come to focus with these glasses, and by how narrow the useable viewfield is sideways. In general use one's brain rather quickly adapts to the need to turn one's head instead of one's eyes to see clearly to the side, but with binoculars this does not work - even with ample eye-relief it is not possible to turn one's head relative to the binocular to view off-axis, and consequently the high level of lateral color in the glasses gets combined with the lateral color in the binocular, with the sum of the two being really obvious.

Kimmo
Kimmo,

Thanks for sticking your neck out by presenting some new ideas.

The first reminds me of UFO history. Since cave drawings, humans have been reporting in one form or another unexplained flying objects, including the "Foo Fighters" during WWII.

However, it wasn't until after the war in 1947 when those objects were given the name "flying saucers" in a Hearst newspaper article, and then a year later, on July 7, 1948, when a "flying saucer" reportedly crashed in Roswell, New Mexico, that the number of UFO sightings "skyrocketed".

It also reminds me of the publication of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," which prompted the environmental movement as other people began to investigate the various impacts of environmental pollution.

Once something is publicly recognized by an expert (or someone who has access to the media), word gets out that a certain phenomenon exists and suddenly there is a rash of reports about that phenomenon.

Over on the dark side (Cloudy Nights), when I mentioned Ingraham, hardly anybody had heard of him, and yet amateur astronomers too were reporting "color fringing" in their latest upgraded MC lead free glass bins.

One particular example that comes to mind is the Fuji 16x70 FMT-SX 2, which has lead free glass and upgraded coatings. The increased CA bothered some people to the point where they sold the "SX-2" version and bought the older version even though they never heard of "what's his name". They knew about "chromatic aberration" from Edz, and although I can't be certain, I don't think he learned the term from Ingraham.

Also interesting is that there was the same kind of amateur observation vs. expert denial on that forum as there has been between Henry and me over this issue on BF (I should add that Rusty isn't the only user who has reported this difference between the old and new 16x FMTs).

Check out the "debate" btwn Rusty and Edz:

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbarchi...l/fpart/2/vc/1

Another idea to throw into the mix is the fact that in the US, birdwatching has become the second fastest growing hobby in America. CBS estimates that there are 48 million birdwatchers in the US and climbing (another source puts the number at 51.3 million):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6870200.shtml

So more eyes looking through bins means more poor CA "adapters" who see what's always been there in "fast" achromatic optical systems and report it.

According to this report, birdwatching is largely dominated by middle aged folks, and in middle age, eyesight starts to deteriorate and eye lenses begin to form cataracts. I'm starting to see some "purple haze" around lights at night and notice more glare around backlit objects during the day, which my eye doctor attributed to the beginnings of cataracts.

http://www.onecaribbean.org/content/...eMarkets-2.pdf

So while one factor alone might not explain the uptick in CA sightings, if you add the four together - wider and more accessible education about optics, more birdwatchers, the age of the average birdwatcher, and more eyeglass wearers using polycarbonate lens glasses - it might all add up to explain the increase in reports in CA in modern bins.

Yet, when I read reports of increased CA in newer versions of the same bins such as the 16x70 FMT-SX 1 vs. 2 or Leica Trinovid BA vs. BN, Nikon HG vs. HGL, newer SEs vs. old, etc., a mix of roofs and porros where the only optical differences are upgraded multicoatings and lead free glass, I wonder if there's something else going on that experts might have missed.

Brock

Last edited by brocknroller : Wednesday 13th April 2011 at 04:25.
brocknroller is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 12th April 2011, 21:32   #41
Hermann
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
I don't have enough information for a theory, but if my feet were placed to the fire I'd point the finger at widely spaced 4 element objectives with negative focusing elements, another innovation that came along in the 90's. Binoculars using that design are the only ones in my experience with really excessive lateral color. Binoculars with simple doublet objectives have never been very bad no matter what the glass or coatings.
When the Leica Trinovid BA first appeared on the market, they exhibited noticeably more colour fringing than many older binoculars with simpler optical systems. This was quite obvious in direct comparisons, for instance between the Trinovid 10x42 BA and the Zeiss 10x40 BGATP. Both the Leica and the Zeiss used leaded glass at the time, and their coatings were of roughly similar quality. Interestingly, later versions of the Trinovids seemed to be somewhat better than the first production run, prompting speculation among some birdwatchers here that Leica had quietly introduced some changes to the Trinovids.

When Zeiss switched to complex objectives around 2000 with the original Victory range, one of the problems people noted was that the Victory exhibited too much colour fringing. It was this criticism more than anything else that lead to the introduction of the Victory FL a few years later. Everything else like the problems with flare, the slightly sticky armouring or the design of the eyecups could easily have been rectified without introducing a new range. In fact, the flare problem was rectified quite quickly by better baffles in the so-called "Victory II", and even binoculars from the first production run were modified in Wetzlar when people turned them in for repair.

I'd really like to know what the Zeiss people might have to say about this. I'm quite sure they know exactly what caused the problems with increased CA. My guess is it had nothing to do with changed coatings and/or the use of unleaded optical glass.

Hermann

Last edited by Hermann : Tuesday 12th April 2011 at 21:40.
Hermann is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th April 2011, 00:58   #42
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,341
Well, I don't have much more time to discuss this interesting topic, but it's not like nothing relevant was happening on the Porro front during the last two decades. Arguably the first hi-grade birding binocular with full multi-coating and ED glass was the Swift 804ED introduced about 1990. To my eyes this instrument provided an absolutely extraordinary view that overcame evident color fringing in the standard fully multi-coated HR/5 model of the same era. Again to my eyes, the multicoated 804R that preceded it in 1985 had an easier and more relaxed view, possibly because of the difficulty in adapting to the HR/5's more evident fringing. Indeed, I've always been somewhat surprised by the greater similarity of the 804R to the 804ED than to the latest HR/5 with deep green full multi-coating. Audubon mavens like Renze or others might follow what I'm trying to express. Gotta go.

The point is, internal focusing was not involved.

Regards,
Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Wednesday 13th April 2011 at 07:20.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 13th April 2011, 10:38   #43
hinnark
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,141
Hi,
I'm not sure to ask this here or in a new thread. But now that there is quite a bit of a discussion ongoing here I would like to ask those who own a Nikon Premier SE bin: If you take a look into the tubes of this binoculars via the objetive, do you see some kind of baffles behind the lenses or not? Also, if you examine the exit pupil on the other side of the tube, is it of perfect circular shape or slightly oval?

Steve

Last edited by hinnark : Wednesday 13th April 2011 at 11:15.
hinnark is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th April 2011, 12:34   #44
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,223
Steve,

There's a photo of the 8x32 SE objective baffling cone in post #17 of this thread:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=176151

The interior of the cone is ribbed. The exit pupils appear circular to me. I can photograph them later today.

Henry
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th April 2011, 13:26   #45
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Well, I don't have much more time to discuss this interesting topic, but it's not like nothing relevant was happening on the Porro front during the last two decades. Arguably the first hi-grade birding binocular with full multi-coating and ED glass was the Swift 804ED introduced about 1990. To my eyes this instrument provided an absolutely extraordinary view that overcame evident color fringing in the standard fully multi-coated HR/5 model of the same era. Again to my eyes, the multicoated 804R that preceded it in 1985 had an easier and more relaxed view, possibly because of the difficulty in adapting to the HR/5's more evident fringing. Indeed, I've always been somewhat surprised by the greater similarity of the 804R to the 804ED than to the latest HR/5 with deep green full multi-coating. Audubon mavens like Renze or others might follow what I'm trying to express. Gotta go.

The point is, internal focusing was not involved.

Regards,
Ed
Ed,

Can you determine if those models show differing amounts of lateral color? That's the only form of chromatic aberration I compared in the Nikon tests and the only one I had in mind when speculating about the effects of complex objectives with internal focusing.

Henry
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th April 2011, 21:08   #46
mooreorless
Registered User
 
mooreorless's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntingdon,Pa.
Posts: 3,460
Henry on your link to the pictures in post #17 the housing for the SE the screw looks rusty looking. I didn't notice that before.
mooreorless is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th April 2011, 21:26   #47
hinnark
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,141
Thanks Henry for the link.
The reason why Im asking is that I found some distinctive differences in baffling when I compared an 8x32 SE with a 10x42 SE. Now I wonder if this is a difference between these two - 8x32 and 10x42 - models or if there was a general change with all SE-models in building quality sometimes during the years of production. The 8x32 (S/N 500xxx) was baffled in a clearly more elaborate way than the 10x42 (S/N 008xxx). The most noticeable difference was a multi-baffle element behind the objective of the 8x32 which wasnt there in the 10x42. Your photos in the other thread were taken from an angle where this element isnt visible. It is visible from an angular front view into the objective. In the result, comparing these two samples, I would rate the optical performance of the 8x32 higher because of a clearly better contrast and less stray light.

Steve
hinnark is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th April 2011, 23:02   #48
wingersheek
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New England
Posts: 8
Hello, Everyone.
I Have Been Following Your Replies. Honestly, Most Of The Technical Discussion Has Been Far Beyond My Experience. I Have A Lot To Learn.

I Have Received My First Pair Of Nikon 8x32 Se.cf Binoculars. The View Is Great. So Good That I Have Purchased A Second Pair As A Gift. The Serial #'s Of The Bins Begin With 503... And 501... Does Anyone Know If These Would Contain The Eco-glass Or The Original Leaded Glass ? The Owner / Seller Of The 501... Bins Is Certain That These Are Made With The Leaded Glass. What About The 503... Bins ? Would These Still Contain The Leaded Glass ? The 503... Bins Came With The Original Sales Slip From The Year 2000.

These Bins Feel Good In The Hand, Are Light-weight, And Deliver A Great View. I Am Glad To Have Them.

Thanks To Everyone For Your Posts.
wingersheek is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th April 2011, 01:05   #49
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,458
You have been a good sport about all this wingersheek and we are glad you are pleased with your new SE's. Clearly, what you lack in experience you more than make up for in perception so do not feel inadequate about it.

Enjoy your new SE's and use them often!

Bob
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 14th April 2011, 01:12   #50
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
Ed,

Can you determine if those models show differing amounts of lateral color? That's the only form of chromatic aberration I compared in the Nikon tests and the only one I had in mind when speculating about the effects of complex objectives with internal focusing.

Henry
Hi Henry,

Yes, I understand, and in fact it may be very true that CA is more of a design problem when using some types of internal focusing lenses. I would think that a ray tracing program could establish that, as well as help with another question we have about increased magnification at near working distances.

Using my simple methods I can not establish reliable differences in the amount or spectral composition (apparent color) of CA fringes. I have an 804R and an 804 HR/5 to work with, made in '86 and '95, respectively. Both are marked Muli-Coated Optics, but the coatings are obviously quite different. My '93 804ED's coatings appear about the same as the '95 HR/5, so I assume that either Swift/Hiyoshi wasn't too careful about cover plate markings, or there was more than a single stage of development before they reached fully multicoated models.

Whatever the case may be, if I observe a back-lit window frame (it's pretty dismal in California today) a purple halo becomes readily apparent as a vertical edge is moved to the right, and a green halo to the left. I estimate the 804R and HR/5 models grow fringes at the same rate with field angle, which is consistent with having the same optical design. I can't distinguish any difference in magnitude or color, except that they both become stronger and more vivid at the edges. By contrast, the 804ED's fringing begins at a larger field angle and never gets quite as vivid near the edge. Again, I can establish no color differences in any of the fringes themselves.

Although my set up (if one could call it that) is not as good as yours, I'm not inclined to believe that either is adequate to address the kinds of visual adaptation I've suggested. These must occur in the normal course of viewing. Back-lit or high-contrast situations represent extreme cases, so subtle differences are essentially swamped. It would be like judging the difference in weight between a feather and a quarter with each attached to a ten pound weight.

Some conjectures are difficult to turn into testable hypotheses. Most testable hypotheses are not easy to study with modest means.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Thursday 14th April 2011 at 06:29.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

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
Nikon re-introduced the Premier binoculars at the SHOT Show 2009 Kevin Purcell Nikon 11 Wednesday 21st January 2009 01:47
Nikon 8x42 Premier LX Binoculars 7502 zykcon Nikon 8 Wednesday 18th July 2007 13:51
Nikon 8x30mm Premier E2 Binoculars? Sid Post Nikon 3 Tuesday 1st November 2005 02:16

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.24774599 seconds with 36 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:18.