xenophobe said:^^^ agreed!
I bought my Ultravid 10x42s to replace my 10x40B. Guess what.... they didn't completely. I still sometimes grab my Zeiss instead and they have become a somewhat frequently used backup pair. On the random day that I do take them, I don't miss my Leicas.
I'm a bit surprised to read that !xenophobe said:^^^ agreed!
I bought my Ultravid 10x42s to replace my 10x40B. Guess what.... they didn't completely. I still sometimes grab my Zeiss instead and they have become a somewhat frequently used backup pair. On the random day that I do take them, I don't miss my Leicas.
jcbouget said:I'm a bit surprised to read that !
Could you explain why the Ultravids didn't completely replace the Classics ?
xenophobe said:Wow... this is a tough question.
Optically there really isn't much difference, the Ultravids only offer a bit more resolution. Contrast is comparable,
xenophobe said:Contrast? As in a observation tower along side a celluar telephone antenna array perched high atop a neighboring mountain with powerlines and the towers that hold them, aproximately 6 miles away.
[snip]
So please explain how this is a matter of pure contrast? I'd really like to hear this. lol
xenophobe said:Contrast? As in a observation tower along side a celluar telephone antenna array perched high atop a neighboring mountain with powerlines and the towers that hold them, aproximately 6 miles away.
With the Ultravids I can clearly see the legs and the staircase leading up to the observation deck of the tower and can make out the outline and internal support members of the powerline towers. There are mulitple antennas in the cellular array, one of which is a two mast pole holding 5 different round dishes. Another antenna is two poles seperated by numerous horizontal beams distinctly visible with the Ultravids.
With the Zeiss, I cannot discern the staircase going around the legs of the obersvation tower, but I can see the tower itself, though the legs and staircase do not have any noticable structure or shape. The two mast pole holding 5 round dishes only appears to be one mast. The vertical antenna with horizontal crossmembers are visible, but the horizontal bars are not distinguishable.
How is this a display of contrast? If that is not a display of visible resolution, what is it then? Sharpness is not an issue, the Zeiss still shows the treelines, text at various colors sizes and distances, shaded underbrush, leaf edge sharpness and contrast at tested distances of approximately 45y, 70y and around 200y. Blah blah blah...
Mind you the yards I mention are only generalized, and I can laze them for the record, as well as show you dozens of reference points I use from my spot at work from where I judge binoculars for sometimes hours a day.
So please explain how this is a matter of pure contrast? I'd really like to hear this. lol
henry link said:I have to agree with Walter about this. Both of these binoculars should be able to resolve much finer detail than the eye can see at 10X, even tripod mounted. If you see less detail through the Zeiss there must be something wrong with that particular pair.
Leif said:Zenophobe: What do you find if you perform a dollar bill test or similar? (Find out how close you have to be to read some text with each binocular.) I've always been suspicious of the idea that because the objective provides more detail than the eye can use, all binoculars of a given magnification must provide the same amount of useable detail. The introduction of phase coatings demonstrates that the amount of useable detail (naked eye, not boosted) depends on the coatings. I'm sure that contrast and optical quality (which are linked) are significant factors.
One point to watch is that you might be able to hold the Ultravid more steady and hence the perceived resolution is higher. Try and use a tripod if you can, or at least rest your elbows on a hard surface while viewing.
Leif
NB: I edited this post to replace 'resolution' with 'useable detail' i.e. the resolution as perceived by the human eye.
xenophobe said:3 different pairs of Zeiss 10x40B Classics both did not show this detail.
I agree that usable detail is correct when there is more than enough detail to view, that the eye is overwhelmed with detail when scoping or viewing an object closer. I would disagree with long range viewing in the fact that you're trying to view the smallest area of the binocular image looking for the greatest amount of detail, that at one point you will not be able to resolve images farther than the optics will allow. Certainly this is due to a combination of sharpness, aberrations and contrast, but I certainly doubt that contrast is a major factor and isn't as responsible for such issues as aberrations and sharpness and even design limitations. At least with these two test subjects. Throw in some garbage glass and there might be a valid point in that.
Actually, I use a free standing monopod with a binocular mount when veiwing this object.
Wehr:
Resolution The fineness of detail that can be distinguished in an image
Is that too adult a puzzle for you? Perhaps you should stop driving your beetle in wind tunnels and start looking through some binoculars? :t:
xenophobe said:With the Ultravids I can clearly see the legs and the staircase leading up to the observation deck of the tower and can make out the outline and internal support members of the powerline towers. There are mulitple antennas in the cellular array, one of which is a two mast pole holding 5 different round dishes. Another antenna is two poles seperated by numerous horizontal beams distinctly visible with the Ultravids.
With the Zeiss, I cannot discern the staircase going around the legs of the obersvation tower, but I can see the tower itself, though the legs and staircase do not have any noticable structure or shape. The two mast pole holding 5 round dishes only appears to be one mast. The vertical antenna with horizontal crossmembers are visible, but the horizontal bars are not distinguishable.
Wehr said:Resolution isn't an issue. How should an Ultravid offer more resolution? It cannot. An Ultravid offers noticeable more contrast - and this is the point.
xenophobe said:but I certainly doubt that contrast is a major factor and isn't as responsible for such issues as aberrations and sharpness and even design limitations.
xenophobe said:Wehr:
Resolution The fineness of detail that can be distinguished in an image
xenophobe said:Leif, I'm talking about long range observable detail, with the Zeiss Classic, magnifying the image will only magnify the lack of detail that is observable with the Ultravids.
Yes, I DO have a Zeiss tripler, and no, the extra "missing" detail is not observable.
If this were viewed in the daytime or visible at night where contrast plays a much less significant role, the Ultravids would still see what the Zeiss cannot resolve.
*shrug*
Leif said:Zenophobe: What do you find if you perform a dollar bill test or similar? (Find out how close you have to be to read some text with each binocular.)