10x42SE vs Zeiss 10x42FL (1 Viewer)

spyglass said:

Dean, right now on ebay, there are a goodly # of really fine binos on auction.....2 10x42 FL's ($1195 & $1565), 2 10x42SE's (both at $600, one from a regular poster to BF), 2 10x42HG ($755 & $1120), a 10x42SLC ($710 current bid)....also for anyone else interested, 2 8x30EII's ($450 & $495) 2 8x32FL's ($1395 &$1600), and an 8x32LX L ($859). You really can't go wrong with any of these, tho' some may be a little optimistically priced....

I've had a 10x42SE since Jun 01 (have the 8x & 12x as well), and I have 2 FL's and several other brands, so I have no real preference. The only advantage I can see in the FL is a little wider field & twistups. I don't consider waterproofing an advantage, tho' some do. But the view.....the SE will hold its own with anything out there.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Spyglass. I've been watching some of the bins that you mentioned on e-bay. If I didn't have a pair of 12X50 SEs on order, I'd probably be trying to bag a pair of used FLs, though I certainly don't need them. However, if Zeiss produced a 12X50 FL T, I might be tempted to take out a second mortgage.

I do consider the FLs to have the most natural view of any bins I've ever used, though the samples I've tried seemed to have considerably greater edge distortion than I've ever seen in any SE. My Canon 10X42Ls are every bit the equal of my 8X SEs in this regard, and actually have even less CA than my SEs.

This issue of contrast is interesting to me. In my perception of things, it isn't unusual to have the perception of less contrast and color saturation when you have greater brightness, and to my eyes, the FLs have the brightest image of all, if only by a small margin. I do consider Swaros to have greater contrast (more punch) than the FLs or the SEs, but to my eyes, colors appear slightly exaggerated and as such not as accurate in their color rendition. I'm certain Swaro advocates would disagree. We all seem to perceive differently.

So far, the bottom line for me has been that the European Alphas, while wonderful, do not provide such a clear cut superiority to all else to warrant an investment of two to three times the cost of some of the better Japanese glass (like the SEs). YMMV.

Dean

Fireform said:

I'm pretty sure I could pick the SE from the FL in a double blind A/B test 100% of the time.

Click to expand...

By what methods? Color cast is one I'm sure. Tell me more about the differences and you're thoughts on them if you don't mind.

How about clarity? Do they provide that realer than real clearness the FL's do?

Nessus said:

By what methods? Color cast is one I'm sure. Tell me more about the differences and you're thoughts on them if you don't mind.

Click to expand...

Look at the edge of field. Both are flat but the Zeiss has more astigmatism at the edge of field. The SE is "sharper to the edge".

Kevin Purcell said:

Look at the edge of field. Both are flat but the Zeiss has more astigmatism at the edge of field. The SE is "sharper to the edge".

Click to expand...

I assume they're both super sharp? One thing I love about great bins is the image you get is better focused better looking and realer and sharper looking then your own eyes.

Both are only limited by acuity of your own vision.

Search around here for comments I and others have made on the SE (and other porros) and Zeiss (and other roofs). There is a slightly different feeling of clarity with porros that isn't there with roofs. It's one of those things I can see but it doesn't match up with a simple property (like resolution or lack of CA).

Nessus - Kevin describes the view of a top porro "there is a slightly different feeling of clarity with porros that isn't there with roofs..." I sense the same thing. Yet I am unable to articulate what the difference is. I believe this is analogous to another visual reference I have. Montana has seven Indian reservations representing different tribes. Over the years I have discovered subtle physical differences between the tribes which identify one from the other. But I cannot in words describe what I see.

John

I think the "feeling of clarity" that Kevin, John, and others describe in porros vs. roofs might be attributed to the greater 3-D effect in porros.

Now that phase coatings have been perfected (or at least advanced) on roof prisms, which had been roofs' chief liability, given a porro and a roof of comparable optical quality (glass, AR coatings, etc.) and configuration, the only significant difference between the two designs is the greater offset of EPs vis-à-vis objectives in porros, which results in an enhanced 3-D effect.

When I look through roofs, especially midsized and compact roofs, the views look compressed and unnatural, because the image seems almost two dimensional.

I think the images in roofs can be confusing to the brain, because of this compression.

For example, I have a harder time finding birds that easily blend in with the background with the 8x32 LX compared with the 8x32 SE, and those two bins have the same configuration, are made by the same manufacturer, and in the case of my newer SE and older LX, were made around the same time (2002).

The perception of 3-D doesn't match what I see naked eye in roofs (though less so with full sized roofs). When I look through porros, the views look much closer to what I see naked eye.

The 3-D effect in porros enhances the images, which I think is what people are describing as "clarity". Porros' enhanced ability to separate foreground from background allows the user to see his target more clearly and provides a more natural view of the environment.

What led me to this conclusion was comparing the LX vs. SE, with two eyes and then with one eye. When I looked through the SE with one eye, the views looked similar to what I saw through the LX with both eyes.

Of course, the stereopsis from using two eyes with the LX did enhance the views, not only the depth perception but enhanced contrast, but there was not nearly as much 3-D effect as when I looked through the SE at the same landscape with two eyes.

Take a roof and a porro of the same configuration and of similar quality and you will probably see the same differences I did. I say "probably" because visual perception varies from individual to individual.

Some people have greater ability to perceive 3-D effect, "globe effect," pincushion, chromatic aberration, etc., but there's a fairly good consensus on the enhanced 3-D effect in porros.

The question is whether or not this is the factor that contributes to their greater "feeling of clarity". For me, it is.

Perhaps our resident visual psychophysicist has some objective data on this matter.

I think the "feeling of clarity" that Kevin, John, and others describe in porros vs. roofs might be attributed to the greater 3-D effect in porros.

Click to expand...

For me it's not that. My Canon IS 10x30 with "roof-like" objective spacing and roof-like (absence of) 3D effect gives me the same feeling.

I suspect it's to do with the image erector and that the roof even with an excellent phase coating is not quite the same in some "hand waving way". I find it odd I can't put it into words.

And its not just a hankering for porros. I'd really like the roofs to look exactly that way. But the current top end roofs are very, very close. And if I don't think about it I can ignore it.

Here's my one-dimensional techie view of the difference.

The 3-D effect looks the same as to the eyes, as viewed in a roof binocular having objectives the same separation as the eyes. This is easy to understand. If you are brought 8x closer, by walking or by magnification, and your viewers, be they eyes or bino lenses, are a natural eye spacing apart, the same convergence of the eyes is required. A Porro, with its wider spacing, artificially exaggerates the 3D effect.

But there is something about any magnified view that is badly screwed up. Relative distances appear compressed, compared to how it would look if you just walked over 8x closer. You see this all the time in photos taken through strong telephoto lenses--this altered perspective is often referred to as "flattened".

I think Porros might work to beat the flattening, with their exaggerated 3-D. They make it easier to pick things out, by giving back some distance separating power that the flattening takes away. These two unnatural things sort of compensate, to give a view that seems actually more natural than in a roof, to many people

As an aside, one of our members described to me his rather unique objection to the Porro. He spends a lot of time in very close cover, and often can only get a view with one eye, through a small opening in the foliage. The offset of the Porro line of sight from the eye means you have to move around to find that opening with a Porro, but with a straight-through roof, you just put it up to your eyes, and there it is.
Ron

I compared my then new 10x42SEs to a new 10x42FL for a long time. I really picked up on that difference in contrast with the SE being noticably better than the Zeiss. Now after reading this thread, I wonder if the Zeiss doesn't give up some contrast for greater brightness, though my SEs seem plenty bright to me. I actually thought the 10x42 Trinovid BN beat the Zeiss in contrast, but was much dimmer to the point that I prefered the Zeiss overall.

I do notice the 3-D effect of the SE porro, but it is the contrast, sharpness and color that really knock my socks off with the SEs.

John

It's not "low frequency" contrast either (I think).

contrast == white level / black level == brightness / scattered light

The brightness (transmission) of the bin sets the maximum white level.

The scattered light in the black parts of the image sets the black level.

If you make the bin brighter and have the same fraction of scattered light you get the same contrast. If you can control (minimize) the scattered light then you improve the contrast.

If you turn down the brightness then the scattered light will drop and perhaps it ceases to be detectible by you. That might be perceived as high contrast.

It might be a change in contrast with spatial frequency (i.e. what an MTF measures) where the measured contrast decreases as the spatial frequency increases and eventually you get no contrast at the limit of resolution of the binoculars (you can see no detail in the features at or below the resolution limit). The shape of that curve may be different between the two bins and that's what we are perceiving.

Color biases in between bins can have an effect here. In the same way that a flat audio system sounds "less real" after you've been adding some bass enhancement. In this case the SE is warmer and the Zeiss more neutral. Or bluer as most people say having been biased by warmer/redder bins or even slightly (blue?) greener I think as Henry described them.

The effect I'm talking about is not sharpness (the perceptual version of resolution) as both of these bins have sharpness below that of your eye. And the FLs actually control longitudinal and lateral CA better than the SEs which probably contributes to sharpness in the FL.

The effect is something oddly different. I bet you the German's have a word for it

To me I think it's more in the prism construction. Just a feeling I get.