• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Is it me, my eyes, or what? (1 Viewer)

giosblue

Well-known member
After nearly 30 years with my old bins I decided to sell the old stuff and buy what will be my my last pair bins. Like you do, you trawl the forums and try to get an idea of what's hot and what's not. We all know that a lot of what is said on the internet is absolute rubbish, with no foundation whatever. But it's not all rubbish, there is some really useful information out there is you are able to sift out the crap.

Anyway, lot's of forum members claim to be able to the difference in the resolution of different bins of about the same price. They see massive difference between them. Unfortunately or fortunately my eyes can't do this.

I do see a difference, but I can't detect any difference in resolution with the bins I've tried. And believe you me I have tried. They all look razor sharp to me. When I move the bins a way the view just looks smaller.
I'm 64, but I reckon my eye sights pretty good. I don't wear glasses, I only need glasses for reading even then only in poor light or poor print. The diopter setting is about central, maybe a touch +

I can see all the other things, brightness, contrast, colour saturation etc. But not resolution.

Come guys, help me out here.

Ron
 
Then you just need a decent pair, none of the Alpha ones for sure.

I am like you and have just bought Meopta meostar B1 10x4 HD, brilliant I think but I would probably say that about any good quality pair.
 
The difference from an optical perspective is that there are many good mid priced glass out there, and while years ago one could discern the optical difference between premium and low/mid priced quite easily, today with the wider selection, not so much. Build quality however, is a whole other matter when it comes to many mid priced glass.

Andy W.
 
For me, it's all about the quality of the light. Been out today and nothing looked good because the light was poor. Not just the fact that it was was dull, the light quality was poor. It reminds me of my hi-fi days when I spent a fortune on equipment, but it still sounded bad because the recording was poor, Similar thing with the optics. No mater how much you spend on the gear if the lights not good, neither is the view.
 
GB,

Out of curiosity, what format glass have you been using and did you use today during the poor lighting conditions.

Andy W.
 
The difference from an optical perspective is that there are many good mid priced glass out there, and while years ago one could discern the optical difference between premium and low/mid priced quite easily, today with the wider selection, not so much. Build quality however, is a whole other matter when it comes to many mid priced glass.

Andy W.

The 27 year old Bausch and Lomb Elites Phase Corrected 10x42 I had were just as sharp as anything I've tried recently. Not quite as contrasty or clear.

I'm starting to think it's the improvement in coatings that are are the biggest improvement over the years.
 
GB,

Out of curiosity, what format glass have you been using and did you use today during the poor lighting conditions.

Andy W.


I had my Pentax 65ED scope with the the Pentax XW20 EP and the Opticron HDF EPs And my new Vortex Razor 8x42 bins I'm sure you know what I mean when the lights right, Everything pops out and sparkles, wasn't happening today though
 
For me, it's all about the quality of the light. Been out today and nothing looked good because the light was poor. Not just the fact that it was was dull, the light quality was poor. It reminds me of my hi-fi days when I spent a fortune on equipment, but it still sounded bad because the recording was poor, Similar thing with the optics. No mater how much you spend on the gear if the lights not good, neither is the view.

I'm not sure I agree with that statement.

"Nothing looked good" is not my experience when light is poor. Better optics will still produce decent images under not so good conditions.

I am constantly amazed at what an alpha will show under all conditions except too dark, or too much haze or fog.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I agree with that statement.

"Nothing looked good" is not my experience when light is poor. Better optics will still produce decent images under not so good conditions.

I am constantly amazed at what an alpha will show under all conditions except too dark, or too much haze or fog.


Not to confuse, decent with good. the view was today was decent, but not good. If the light is poor and your bins are giving an accurate representation of the view you will get a decent view, if the light is better you will get a good view. If viewing condition a excellent you will get an excellent view.

I think we can all agree that when the light is right the views you can get from a good scope and bins are stunning. Like I said, today was not not one of those days. Funnily enough I think the Zeiss Conquest might have been a better option. They tend to add a bit of punch to the view.
 
Last edited:
You are correct in that most binoculars are not going to look as good under poor lighting even alpha's which will look better than lesser binoculars will not look as good as they will on a nice, clear sunny day. The binoculars can't create something that isn't there already. I would imagine in the UK you probably get a lot of hazy foggy days also. Most of the time when I really just want to get wowed by my binoculars I wait for a nice sunny day. Resolution can be a hard thing to see. Just looking around you probably won't notice it. You need a resolution chart set at a set distance to compare resolution or better yet a booster to boost the image scale. Find the smallest print you can at a distance even if it is a license plate and compare your binoculars that way. I agree with you that coatings like phase coatings and dielectric coatings on the prisms and probably better ED glass have been the major improvements in binoculars in the last 10 years although field flattener technology such as in the Swarovsion's has changed things quite a bit also with the FOV now sharp to the edge. Your right that color saturation, contrast and brightness have been some of the big improvements in modern binoculars due to improved coatings and better glass. Contrast is one area that I really notice the newer binoculars have improved over the older binoculars even though many of the older binoculars were very sharp in resolution. You mentioned the Zeiss Conquest adding punch to the view. Many manufacturers like Zeiss manipulate the color transmission so they will look better in low light. Some of the older Swarovski's had a pronounced yellow tint to help hunters in low light.
 
Last edited:
Ron,

Sharpness perception is a complex issue which involves a number of factors and it's not always clear what an individual means. Colour and contrast at different spatial frequencies are important in how we judge binocular performance, but ultimately it's how the binocular's effective resolution compares to the individual's visual acuity that appears to really matter. There have been notable mid priced binoculars like the previous Swarovski CL where a significant proportion of user found it to be soft in brighter conditions. There are several others where only small minority report a difference. The primary factor appears to be reported visual acuity. Unfortunately that is just one of the visual parameters that deteriorates with age. On average, at 65 VA will be about 50% worse that it was when we were 20.

David
 
I've tired everything, bank notes, fence posts. tree bark, everything I can possibly think of.
However, a few years ago when I was looking to change my scope I had a few at home to try. In the end it was between the Pentax PF80 and the Kowa TSN884. could the the differences in these. Just can't see it in bins.
 
I have the opposite reaction - I love using my good bins in really poor light - it's here that brightness, lack of CA, colour fidelity and whiteness fidelity [as well as low glare] all come into play. In bright light, most anything looks good and I would never try to do a comparo in such conditions, as it isn't really taxing on the optics....IMO.

It's a delight using the HT's in the gloom and grayness of an Ontario fall / winter - the images are sublime!
 
Ron,

If we assume an 80mm scope is optically perfect and your eyesight is 20/10 then the maximum useful magnification is 41.4x, any more is redundant. If your eyesight is 20/20 you would need 82.8x magnification to see the same level detail and for the optics to become limiting. The In other words, the eye would be limiting, not the scope at 60x. Binoculars are rarely as good as scopes, but with perfect optics, the eye would be limiting for both those with 20/10 and 20/20 vision. If the optics are less than perfect, as they usually are, they may be limiting for those with 20/10 vision, but very rarely for those with 20/20.

Sorry if that was a bit complicated. The take home message is that someone with average eyesight will frequently see differences in scope resolution, but rarely spot it in binoculars.

David
 
I have the opposite reaction - I love using my good bins in really poor light - it's here that brightness, lack of CA, colour fidelity and whiteness fidelity [as well as low glare] all come into play. In bright light, most anything looks good and I would never try to do a comparo in such conditions, as it isn't really taxing on the optics....IMO.

It's a delight using the HT's in the gloom and grayness of an Ontario fall / winter - the images are sublime!

You said it better than I did.

MY EL SV 10X42 still amaze me every time I look through them, and I have had them for four years now.

I was out once at dusk, and looked across a field to where I knew there was a large puddle in a low spot at least 100 yards away. I could barely see the puddle, but my binoculars showed the puddle to be almost covered with what were easily identified as Wood Ducks.

Such performance can be routinely expected from an alpha.
 
... Like you do, you trawl the forums and try to get an idea of what's hot and what's not. We all know that a lot of what is said on the internet is absolute rubbish, with no foundation whatever. But it's not all rubbish, there is some really useful information out there is you are able to sift out the crap.
Ron

The best antidote is experience. Then there is knowing someone who HAS the experience and is someone you can trust. You say "sift out the crap." No truer words were ever spoken. Just realize there are GOOD people out there who are promoting some of the same useless crap that has been floating around ... and embellished for 70 years. They just don't know what they don't know.

Good advertising need not be accurate or even meaningful; it need only be believed. There is a big difference between 20 years of experience and one year of experience 20 times. :cat:
 
Hi,

I don't think one can discern differences in center field resolution in good or better quality birding bins at your usual 7 to 10x magnification without using:

a) a good object with lots of small texture

b) a tripod to mount the bins

c) a strong magnifier

Joachim
 
I have the opposite reaction - I love using my good bins in really poor light - it's here that brightness, lack of CA, colour fidelity and whiteness fidelity [as well as low glare] all come into play. In bright light, most anything looks good and I would never try to do a comparo in such conditions, as it isn't really taxing on the optics....IMO.

I agree James and when I was interviewing Milos Slany from Meopta and we were discussing the usefulness or otherwise of testing binoculars with them stopped-down, his closing remark was that testing at full aperture especially in twilight conditions is very revealing of binocular performance.

Lee
 
Hi,

I don't think one can discern differences in center field resolution in good or better quality birding bins at your usual 7 to 10x magnification without using:

a) a good object with lots of small texture

b) a tripod to mount the bins

c) a strong magnifier

Joachim

Sorry, but you are mistaken. Some individuals definitely can, and do so easily hand held.

David
 
Last edited:
I agree James and when I was interviewing Milos Slany from Meopta and we were discussing the usefulness or otherwise of testing binoculars with them stopped-down, his closing remark was that testing at full aperture especially in twilight conditions is very revealing of binocular performance.

Lee

I discussed this subject in some detail with Milos a couple of years ago. He did argue that twilight performance was particularly important for their hunting and military customers. In fact they run MTF profiles at multiple wavelengths and optimise the contrast at lower spatial frequencies to aid target detection in low light. Given the relatively poor acuity of users in low light, the resolution is not the most critical factor. He did acknowledge that the situation was very different in bright conditions where magnified visual acuity can approach or even exceed the resolution of the instrument. That Meostar 12x50HD I reviewed, was one of the sharpest binoculars I've tested. It was diffraction limited when stopped down which shows they don't overlook this aspect. Unfortunately there were details of there methods and standards that Milos wouldn't disclose. Trade secrets I guess!

David
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top