Zeiss Colour Cast (1 Viewer)

henry link · Mar 19, 2004

"I shall be using it alongside a Swaro in an hour's time so will report back, but my memory is that if it has any cast at all, it veers towards the yellow, wheras the Swaro veers towards the blue; the Nikon, to my eyes, is as faithful as can be achieved."

I agree with Steve about the color neutrality of Nikon coatings. Perhaps a tiny bit pink, but closer than anything else to the colors I see without optics.

BTW I notice a slight but consistant difference in color perception between my left and right eyes. The left eye sees things warmer,the right eye cooler. I guess it's the ultimate in subjectivity when the left and right sides of the same brain can't agree. Has anybody else noticed that?

jad29 · Mar 19, 2004

I was only using my scope for the first time 2 days ago, and switching to my left eye the view seemed much greener and darker every time, wasn't sure the reason, I know in scuba diving when at depth what at first looks dark, begins to brighten up as your eyes adjust, wondered if it was something along those lines, since I was using primarily my right eye. decided i'll experiment agian next time.

scampo · Mar 19, 2004

I've read before that each eye is different - it might well be a typical feature of human vision for some useful evolutionary reason?

I managed to compare the Zeiss 85T* with the Swaro 65HD this afternoon. Neither scope has an obvious colour cast - two people's opinion. The Swaro offers a rather "cold" image compared to the rather "warm" image of the Zeiss. At a real push we both labelled the colour cast of the Zeiss slightly yellow-green and the Swaro more obviously blue in comparison. The result of this difference is that the Swaro appears a touch more contrasty - but seemed, because of the relative coolness, rather less comfortable and inviting.

The sharpness of both scopes, looking at a cooling tower about twelve miles distant (what a clear afternoon it was), was outstanding. It was easy to see the individual blocks and even the marks upon them that make up the towers.

Compared to the Zeiss the Swaro zoom's 20x setting is noticeably narrower with the edges of the fov very obvious; in contrast, the Zeiss provides a quite amazingly wide angle of view for a zoom eyepiece.

The extreme edges of the fov in the Zeiss, at 20x, showed some mild softening compared to the almost sharp edges Swaro - but if you compare the same FOV, the Zeiss equals the Swaro for sharpness - and, of course, offers a significantly larger area of view in total.

At magnifications above 40x both scopes offered very similar views but at all magnifications the view from the Zeiss was wider and noticeably brighter. This extra brightness did not, however, in the exceptionally clear afternoon light, result in any more detail being visible. At 60x both scopes were entirely useable and the sharpness and clarity of each was a delight in the clear light.

Two buzzards were playing games in the air and a peregrine soared into view before stooping in an amazing 45o plummet to earth

normjackson · Mar 19, 2004

Apologies if this has been suggested elsewhere. Could conduct a survey of what Birdforum members find when they look at a sheet of white paper (under whiteish light) down their scopes with one eye while t'other is looking directly at the paper and comparing. Could then swap eyes or, easier, move the scope from one eye to the other.
It's more than possible, though, that folks won't wish to participate as they sense a dangerous path to a new neurosis 8-P

postcardcv · Mar 19, 2004

When looking to change my scope last year I spent a lot of time testing the Leica, Zeiss and Swaro scopes. I did feel that the Zeiss was distinctly yellow and could not get on with it at all.

That said a friend looked through the Zeiss and was instantly taken by it and has since said that his Leica has a definite blue cast... so I guess it's a matter of personal preference. the scopes we like are just right and the ones we don't are the ones with the colour cast?

scampo · Mar 20, 2004

I can't say any of them would put me off owning them because of their colour cast, but I do know a local birder who has swapped to Nikon as he feels it gives such a neutral view. The Zeiss 85 has a slightly warmer view than the Swaro, for sure, but unless I am comparing, I don't notice it especially - and, in fact, tend to prefer the less cold image of the Zeiss.

william j clive · Mar 20, 2004

I am left eyed when using a scope. A group of us were discussing scopes last year when one suggested comparing one eye with another on our scopes. I was astonished to find that my right eye gave a much brighter view than my left. For a while after that I forced myself to use the right eye when scoping. However, I found this so uncomfortable that I eventually reverted to the left eye. So comfort outweighed brightness in my case.

scampo · Mar 20, 2004

I think, in the end, Clive, comfort always wins out. There are enough problems when using a scope - the weather (wind, rain) and haze - that an uncomfortable view is likely to be the last thing we would want.

iporali · Mar 20, 2004

Thanks Steve, Henry, postcardcv et al! I am relieved to see some consistency.

Re the difference of the eyes: considering how many individually coordinated cell divisions lead to two functional eyes (during development of the embryo), it amazes me how similar their vision is. Probably the brains do some heavy adjustments. But yes, my eyes too have a slightly different colour balance.

Ilkka

Leif · Mar 20, 2004

iporali said:
Thanks Steve, Henry, postcardcv et al! I am relieved to see some consistency.

Re the difference of the eyes: considering how many individually coordinated cell divisions lead to two functional eyes (during development of the embryo), it amazes me how similar their vision is. Probably the brains do some heavy adjustments. But yes, my eyes too have a slightly different colour balance.

Ilkka

Having read this thread, last night I was using my new scope, and found that I could not get a good image through my left eye with the 32 xw eyepiece. I don't know why since as far as I know the eye is fine, apart from a fair bit of short sight.

scampo · Mar 20, 2004

If you'd been looking for a long time with your right eye, that might be the reason?

waynewallace · Mar 23, 2004

I guess the debate about colour casts will rage on but if you check out the March edition of the Bird Watching magazine, there is a survey of all the more expensive scopes and against the Zeiss 85T FL they say and I quote " The image appeared yellow, which gave a milky or soft feel" Certainly, when I tested the Zeiss against the Swarovski ATS80 HD, it screamed yellow but saying that, I reckon that if I used it enough, I wouldn't notice the cast after a while. I am still crunchy/chewy over which scope to purchase and will have another trip to Pagham soon to do another comaprison before making a decision...

scampo · Mar 23, 2004

That magazine review has been so roundly criticised and even denounced by many posters to this forum that I have filed it in the wpb - the only place for it.

(-:

I know these things are supposed to be subjective, but I have to say that I don't know how you can use the description "screamed yellow" about one of the world's top birding scopes and expect to be taken seriously.

I am lucky in being able to look through Nikon, Zeiss and Swaro scopes on a very regular basis: the Swaro has a somewhat blue/cool cast; the Zeiss has a somewhat yellow/warm cast; the Nikon is near neutral. But, these "casts" are only really noticeable, however - and none are intrusive - in a direct comparison of the scopes. A yellow cast has some advantages in certain lights, a blue cast in others - it is a technical design decision, not a fault. Pre EL Swaros were distinctly "yellow", but were, quite rightly, highly regarded by many top birders.

Yesterday and today I also had the chance to compare the Zeiss with a Leica 77 Apo with 32x - the Zeiss was noticeably brighter and less "yellow" than the Leica, despite having a zoom eyepiece.

If I were buying a new scope, and I could afford the best, I would look very closely at these four top scopes. The Swaro is very expensive but excellent, the Zeiss is far better value and has a truly practical birding claim to fame in that it offers an incredibly wide angle zoom (you see almost 50% more area than even the next "widest", the Swaro - if that were the case with binoculars, they would walk the floor). The Leica is one of the most highly regarded scopes available but is rather long and heavy by modern design standards. The Nikon offers a marvellous view and is very compact.

The Birdwatching magazine review you mention claimed the fov of the Zeiss was average - that just about says all there needs to be said about that very third-rate review. It also said the Zeiss was not the brightest scope tested - compared with what? The Leica? The Nikon? Hmm. I wonder.

dogfish · Mar 23, 2004

Arguing about colour casts is a futile exercise because it surely must be clear from contributions to this forum that 'casts' are open to individual interpretation, even by the best reviewers. Some see a reddish tone in Nikon; I don't. Others regard the Leica 77 as being close to neutral; to me it's disturbingly yellow-brown. And even if an instrument is 'one of the world's top birding scopes' it's no bar to constructive criticism.

Oh, and my ATS80HD is supposed to be strikingly violet, according to Alula. Haven't quite spotted that yet. But I'm sure the reviewer saw it, as did the birder who mentioned the yellow cast in Zeiss.

Sean

Leif · Mar 23, 2004

dogfish said:
Arguing about colour casts is a futile exercise because it surely must be clear from contributions to this forum that 'casts' are open to individual interpretation, even by the best reviewers. Some see a reddish tone in Nikon; I don't. Others regard the Leica 77 as being close to neutral; to me it's disturbingly yellow-brown. And even if an instrument is 'one of the world's top birding scopes' it's no bar to constructive criticism.

Oh, and my ATS80HD is supposed to be strikingly violet, according to Alula. Haven't quite spotted that yet. But I'm sure the reviewer saw it, as did the birder who mentioned the yellow cast in Zeiss.

Sean

I think some people tend to exaggerate. To me colour cast in top scopes are subtle and only obvious when comparing competing products. Seems I agree with Steve/Scampi.

Secondly our eyes change as we age, and we see colours differently. A demonstration of this was given by several famous painters (Turner and Renoir?) whose pictures became more red as they aged. Obviously they were seeing less red due to changes in their eyesight and this was compensated for by adding red when painting a remembered scene.

Thirdly the colour of the light changes throughout the day. It is more blue - cooler - at noon and more yellow - warmer - at dawn and esp. at dusk. (At dawn and dusk the sunlight has to travel through more atmosphere to reach us, and yellow light is absorbed less than other wave lengths.) So if you use one scope at noon, and another in the early evening, your judgement might well be influenced by the nature of the ambient light. I also suspect that the transmission characteristics of a scope might change subtley according to the colour temperature of the daylight. Thus two instuments might change their relative cast between noon and dusk. (I can't say that I'm at all sure of that.)

There are one or two other factors, one of which Mak alluded to, and which I can't say I understood (because it was complex and I'm getting lazy with age).

scampo · Mar 24, 2004

dogfish said:
And even if an instrument is 'one of the world's top birding scopes' it's no bar to constructive criticism.

Sean

My point was, of course, not that anything can be beyond criticism, but that the use of the description "screamed yellow" was more than excessive and unfair to apply to a top optical instrument.

I'd be surprised if we differ as much as you suggest. The owner of the Leica the other day had never noticed the colour cast until he looked through the Zeiss and compared. These things are visible to each of us, I believe - but not easily without a comparision as they are very subtle (words like "disturbing" also surprise me, really). Individual sensitivites might well exaggerate the effect, but without a degree of colour blindness, I can't see how they can change it. Colour is straight forward enough - and is a feature of the design.

I've been using photographic lenses since I was a teenager and have never noticed the differences on those lenses that some report on scope lenses. Odd. Only Sigma had a reputation once for a slight yellow cast.

dogfish · Mar 24, 2004

I think some of us get used to a certain type of colour cast, and when we try another scope with a different cast, we find it disturbing. Perhaps distracting is a better word. I think I'm used to the cold, slightly blue end (eg Swarovski) which is why I found the Leica APO to be too warm and yellowy brown for my taste. I that agree these casts, though subtle, should be perceptible to all, but they don't seem to be.

Sean

scampo · Mar 24, 2004

Leif said:
I think some people tend to exaggerate. To me colour cast in top scopes are subtle and only obvious when comparing competing products. Seems I agree with Steve/Scampi...

My son loves scampi, Leif!

I think you are right - scope manufacturers have to compromise in many areas and some choose a certain colour cast for various reasons. A slight yellow will be better in certain conditions, a slight blue in others. When I blew up some test shots using Nikon and Swaro, there was a slight blue CA on the edge of objects with the Swaro and a slight yellow on the edge with the Nikon. I'm not sure if that is relevant - and I was massively enlarging a section of the image to see this.

I am sure we get used to whatever we have - in fact, I know we do - it is a vital aspect of the brain's function.

Adey Baker · Mar 24, 2004

Everything's relative, as well

When I bought my Leica I was using old Zeiss Dialyt bins so the Leica looked distinctly blue to my eyes!

I've used this scope for seven years but when Steve and I compared each other's kit on Monday, although I agree with his comments above on the differences between the Leica and Zeiss, I have to say that once you had been looking through either for just a few seconds your eyes adjusted and there was no issue at all about it.

Lets face it, our eyes adjust automatically to much greater differences in light colour every day without our being aware of it

scampo · Mar 24, 2004

Agreed. Also yesterday, having got over the amazement of some excellent second views of the r-r swallow (joke) a few of us were left twiddling our fingers in the cold wind wondering what to do, so we twiddled focus wheels instead.

The Leica gave a sl. yellow, the Zeiss a bit less, the Swaro a sl. blue, the Nikon, well - we couldn't decide it was so neutral. But they were all so very good except at attracting that darned swallow - you'd think it would have done a victory roll for us all!

Zeiss Colour Cast (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Active member

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Super Moderator

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

New member

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Member

Steve Campsall

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread