-
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.
The Future SV (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter SuperDuty
- Start date
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Build It Now !!!!
Here we go again!
........ :cat:
* 9x50 .................................. an all-round magnification, with a decent real field in a WA design, with an importantly low light EP of 5.6mm, b*tch*n' 50mm objectives for luscious light gathering, and a reasonably light weight (with advanced materials)
* 72° AFov ............................ a useful 8° real field, giving 140m@1km (420ft@1000yd). The field should be Canon-type flat without excessive 'moustachio' convolutions. Field curvature should be able to be accommodated by a 60 year old person, and there should be ever so slight pincushioning increasing toward the periphery so that AMD is nearly corrected, suggest a k value of around 0.75, so that 80%+ of the population has absolutely no issues with it. The field should 'appear' flat, only with an 'enhanced 3-D' type view
* 20mm ER .............................. the current suitability for glasses wearers is fine. Maintain that wonderful 'slap 'em to yer face' margin of error to the view, "Randpupille" et al .....
* Best Glare Performance ever! ... along with that gloriously luxurious EP, should be the best ever glare handling. Whether this is achieved with a fractal internal surface finish, NASA nano carbon black or whatever - it must be the best in history
* Best CA Performance ever ....... should best current benchmarks comfortably, and show no CA.
* 97.5% transmission ................ Or better!
* Clarity ................................ that elusive 'just like being closer' quality
* HT and Ultra FL glass ............. to achieve that high, clear transmission, and with a neutral tabletop flat wavelength curve. Go bananas! - lens, prisms, the worx! ..... use the best of the best glass
* Sharpness ............................ Should be the sharpest binoculars ever produced, and should smash the ISO standard. Resolution, contrast, mico-contrast, dynamic range, and MTF curves should be best of the best.
* Optical Design ....................... Whatever it takes - PorroII, or Perger prisms etc - just achieve those targets! Aspheric, or Gradient Index lens design, cold fusion zero spacing - nothing is off the table!!
* Weight ................................ Sub 850grams - yes that's right sub 30Oz for a full glass spec 50mm - that's going to take some doing, but the opportunities are there.
* Materials .............................. Carbon Fibre, Kevlar, Aramid fibres, CFRP, Titanium, you name it - it's all on the table to hit those weight targets!!!
* Focus .................................. A fast fixed ratio focus. Smooth. Precise. Zeiss FL - HT type speeds, and smoother, better than either. The focus wheel is to be large diameter, and long (Zeiss seems to have it just about right), the finish should be hard knurled - no rubber to dampen the feeling. This will have to be a major step up for Swarovski. No need to go crazy on the minimum focus distance for this 9x50 ..... 2m will be close enough
* Ergonomics ........................... Open frame, with SF style rearward weight bias, but should not be achieved by cheating and placing the focus wheel way forward a' la HT/SF
* Armouring ............................ proper lightweight dual density internal conical impact absorbing - but without the looseness and bubbling of the SF!. Emu egg green would be a lovely colour! Could also do a high end perforated leather model.
* sub $2500 RRP ..................... every other industry in the world provides better and better products for less coin - it's about time bino world did the same!
* Marketing ............................. Get rid of that American style hoopla, acronym laden, and expensive celebrity endorsed fluff. Ditch the expensive junkets, and just simply list the binoculars performance points. Since it will be head and shoulders above the rest, then all of that saved expense can be used to reduce the sale price AND at the same time increase profitability. This binocular will be so good it will sell itself.
Other suggested formats are 7.5x43, 8.5x43, and 6x33. All with 72° AFov's.
No need for any IS in these low power models in order to minimise the weight.
Now get cracking Swaro !!
Chosun :gh:
Here we go again!
........ :cat:* 9x50 .................................. an all-round magnification, with a decent real field in a WA design, with an importantly low light EP of 5.6mm, b*tch*n' 50mm objectives for luscious light gathering, and a reasonably light weight (with advanced materials)
* 72° AFov ............................ a useful 8° real field, giving 140m@1km (420ft@1000yd). The field should be Canon-type flat without excessive 'moustachio' convolutions. Field curvature should be able to be accommodated by a 60 year old person, and there should be ever so slight pincushioning increasing toward the periphery so that AMD is nearly corrected, suggest a k value of around 0.75, so that 80%+ of the population has absolutely no issues with it. The field should 'appear' flat, only with an 'enhanced 3-D' type view
* 20mm ER .............................. the current suitability for glasses wearers is fine. Maintain that wonderful 'slap 'em to yer face' margin of error to the view, "Randpupille" et al .....
* Best Glare Performance ever! ... along with that gloriously luxurious EP, should be the best ever glare handling. Whether this is achieved with a fractal internal surface finish, NASA nano carbon black or whatever - it must be the best in history
* Best CA Performance ever ....... should best current benchmarks comfortably, and show no CA.
* 97.5% transmission ................ Or better!
* Clarity ................................ that elusive 'just like being closer' quality
* HT and Ultra FL glass ............. to achieve that high, clear transmission, and with a neutral tabletop flat wavelength curve. Go bananas! - lens, prisms, the worx! ..... use the best of the best glass
* Sharpness ............................ Should be the sharpest binoculars ever produced, and should smash the ISO standard. Resolution, contrast, mico-contrast, dynamic range, and MTF curves should be best of the best.
* Optical Design ....................... Whatever it takes - PorroII, or Perger prisms etc - just achieve those targets! Aspheric, or Gradient Index lens design, cold fusion zero spacing - nothing is off the table!!
* Weight ................................ Sub 850grams - yes that's right sub 30Oz for a full glass spec 50mm - that's going to take some doing, but the opportunities are there.
* Materials .............................. Carbon Fibre, Kevlar, Aramid fibres, CFRP, Titanium, you name it - it's all on the table to hit those weight targets!!!
* Focus .................................. A fast fixed ratio focus. Smooth. Precise. Zeiss FL - HT type speeds, and smoother, better than either. The focus wheel is to be large diameter, and long (Zeiss seems to have it just about right), the finish should be hard knurled - no rubber to dampen the feeling. This will have to be a major step up for Swarovski. No need to go crazy on the minimum focus distance for this 9x50 ..... 2m will be close enough
* Ergonomics ........................... Open frame, with SF style rearward weight bias, but should not be achieved by cheating and placing the focus wheel way forward a' la HT/SF
* Armouring ............................ proper lightweight dual density internal conical impact absorbing - but without the looseness and bubbling of the SF!. Emu egg green would be a lovely colour! Could also do a high end perforated leather model.
* sub $2500 RRP ..................... every other industry in the world provides better and better products for less coin - it's about time bino world did the same!
* Marketing ............................. Get rid of that American style hoopla, acronym laden, and expensive celebrity endorsed fluff. Ditch the expensive junkets, and just simply list the binoculars performance points. Since it will be head and shoulders above the rest, then all of that saved expense can be used to reduce the sale price AND at the same time increase profitability. This binocular will be so good it will sell itself.
Other suggested formats are 7.5x43, 8.5x43, and 6x33. All with 72° AFov's.
No need for any IS in these low power models in order to minimise the weight.
Now get cracking Swaro !!
Chosun :gh:
SuperDuty
Well-known member
Everything about my 10X50 suits me to perfection except a little to much CA. At this price level it's a damn shame it can't be all but eliminated even for us that see it the worst.
Omid
Well-known member
Why the big three (Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica) have not yet made an image-stabilizer binoculars has been a question for me too. A few months back in a discussion with Mr. Stephen Albercht (Leica Business Development Manager for Sports Optics) he mentioned to me that the less-than-perfect optical quality of an stabilized binocular is a concern for Leica. I am guessing the feedback control systems and the electronic actuator mechanisms are too complex for an optics-only company to make. There could also be issues with patent protection by the Japanese companies.
The Zeiss 20X60 is an entirely different mechanism. It doesn't use electronic feedback control but rather a mechanical suspension trick. I have read its patents but I admit that I didn't quite figure out its mechanism.
Omid
Well-known member
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
You're welcome. It's the single most informative article I've ever read about binocular design and performance.
Ed
Omid
Well-known member
Yes, It is. I learned a lot by reading it. In Section 6 the article mentions research by R. Home that indicates that the optimal angle between a binoculars' barrels may not be parallel but slightly convergent. This is very interesting since I realized this myself a while back and mentioned it in this thread here on Birdforum. Do you happen to have this paper too?
Thanks again,
-Omid
Ed,
Thanks for linking the full Vukobratovich article. It really is excellent and contains a wealth of interesting information.
The section on tremor in hand-held binoculars mentions Schober's measurements of hand tremble with the surprising (to me) finding that people belong to two distinct groups regarding the type of tremble they have. One group has three characteristic tremble frequencies centered between 1-2 Hz, 6-9 Hz, and 10-12 Hz with a sharp maximum between 7-9 Hz. The other group had either no distinct tremble frequencies or a flat maximum between 6-10 Hz. In the studied sample, the two groups of people were nearly equal size.
If this is true, then we all belong into one of two types of tremblers, and may accordingly have different experiences of hand-held viewing. The type of trembler you are may also influence your experience with stabilized binoculars. I have tried to subjectively evaluate which type I may be, but cannot say that it would have been successful yet.
In an article by Nolting and Kiesel, Verwackelt? Bestimmung der Sichtlinienstabilität stabilisierten Ferngläser (Fachhohschule Aalen), there are measurements that show the effect of IS on image shake with different stabilized binoculars. The Canon in this test, an 18x50 IS, damps less than half of the shake amplitude at under 3 Hz, but above about 4 Hz the damping is very good and consistent, keeping the shake amplitude consistently below 0.05 degrees. Fujinon is better between 2-3 Hz, but worse at all other frequencies. Zeiss 20x60 has significant damping of shake between 3-6 Hz, but not very much at other shake frequencies.
It is quite possible that the widely varying experiences people report with image-stabilized binoculars are at least party attributable to viewers' different characteristic tremble frequencies and amplitudes. Testing this would be quite a task, and trying out for yourself is the easiest way to go.
The other comment I'd like to make about Vukobratovich's article concerns the efficiency estimates. Based on my testing, I firmly believe that top-level modern binoculars when supported come significantly closer to their theoretical maximum efficiency than what was suggested in the article. Instead of an 8.8 efficiency rating for a 10x binocular, I'm quite sure the best ones get over 9.5 or 95% when well supported.
Also, at least in my tests, with a hand-held but image-stablized Canon 10x42, I get well over 90% (about 95%) of the efficiency I get with the same binocular tripod-mounted. I don't know if I'm a particularly lucky trembler, but that is my mileage and the primary reason I'm such a strong advocate for image stabilization as an essential feature of hand-held binoculars.
Kimmo
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Omid,
I don't have the R. Home article, but it can be purchased Here. Quoting from the abstract:
I would say that Home's tenuous implication is based on the so-called "dark focus" or resting focus of the eye, which obtains in the absence of a retinal image, — such as darkness. Without reading the article, however, it's not intuitively clear how any fixed convergence angle of the tubes would allow the "vergence mechanism of the observer's eyes to match their accommodative state," except at some fixed distance, since the accommodative state necessarily varies with working distance. No doubt that's partly why Vukobratovich says "The actual error tolerable in binocular alignment is controversial."
It should also be pointed out that although accommodation and convergence are coupled, i.e., through an involuntary feedback control mechanism, that relationship can be overridden voluntarily. Moreover, there is ample evidence that the neural feedback parameters are subject to adaptation. For example, sustained fixation at a distant target produces adaptation that shifts the resting level outward, and visa-versa.
Ed
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
leica works close with panasonic making image stabliized camera lenses,
and zeiss works with sony,
so the technology is not the problem,
If they wan't they can build IS bins,
the market for IS bins is limited,
probably why they won't bother,
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Hi Kimmo,
I have followed your penchant for stabilised optics for some time time, but the planets have never aligned with enough spare time for me to comment in reply to your various threads or posts ..... until now!
)I can understand your fondness of the Canon optics ..... among other qualities:-
1) They have that wonderful Porro clarity
2) They have a lovely bright, neutral colour rendition, and well controlled CA
3) They have flat fields without any moustachio contortions, that is truly sharp to the edge (although, as per Ed's general stance - maybe they appear too flat {clinical} in this case)
4) They have the option of turning IS on if so desired
I have only ever tried the 15x50 model for far too brief a time (I would have liked longer to see if the heavy weight fatigue set in ....)
Wow - what a nice view
) :t:Remembering all of your recommendations and test results, I was very keen to pay particular attention to the IS system and the view (effect on thereof ...)
Firstly I should say, that for such a heavy bin, I was able to hold it remarkably steady (the caveat here though is that I was at a wetland viewing shelter with a table to periodically put the bins down on) - maybe I'm getting stronger, but I found the grip, and resultant view very steady for the hour or two of intermittent viewing I had with them. Perhaps it may have been a different story if I had them suspended around my neck (or in a chest harness) and was constantly aware of the weight, and had them held up long enough for fatigue, and arm shake to set in...... :cat:
My takeaway from this experience, was that I had a distinct preference for the plain view with NO IS on. Every time I engaged the IS I could detect visible movement of the viewing picture which was most unpleasant, and even detected 'artifacts' to the view, which I did not like at all. I found this somewhat surprising, given all that has been said, the fact that magnification was 15x, and my own experience with stablised photographic equipment. However, my preference to have IS off was quite clear in this instance.
Trying to analyse and quantify my own tremor response /frequency profile is difficult. As a teenager I distinctly remember a low speed shake when holding heavy magnum pistols out at arms length which progressively worsened with time held. Later, I was to break and dislocate my right shoulder, leaving me with nerve damage - and the strength of a 3 year old girl! With binoculars I know that in general lighter weight is best for me (mostly in terms of the carrying far afield, but also holding to my eyes for lengthy periods), and my tremor profile can range from low to high frequency and all or anything in between depending on the situation. I usually try to brace on a tree or something to get the last bits of detail, and if the exertion and breathing is under control, roughly get that sort of 85 - 90% efficacy.
So for me, the jury is still out on IS, and I remain open to some advanced, lightweight, stellar design and implementation. I don't feel that for the up to 9x formats I recommended for a new SV that IS is necessary, and in fact would like to see it omitted to truly bring the weights down to a new paradigm. 10x and up, I remain open to considering the possibility.
Zeiss has certainly left the door open with the many shortcomings of the SF (weird distortion mechanations, warm greenish? colour bias, and myriad early production quality problems), so Swarovski certainly has opportunities to implement the designs I described and kick butt. :king:
It will be interesting to see what they do.
Chosun :gh:
PS. A great big +1 :t: to Ed for the Vukobratovich article --- Thanks!! and well done - liked! :t:
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Kimmo,
I was also somewhat surprised by Schober's reported results, but the skeptic in me tends to suspend judgment about there being two distinct population types: one multimodal, and the other not. The Abstract (below) leaves me with several technical questions, but, unfortunately, not compelling enough to fork over $35 for a .pdf copy. Leaving aside spectral classification, it makes sense to me that the spectrum was found to be characteristic of the individual. However, that is said in the context of only N=22 individuals, all below age 36, all with perfect eyesight (emmetropic), and in all likelihood, male. How representative is that?
Do you have any more information on the Nolting et. al. article? I'm particularly interested in how they measured image vibration, sample sizes, experimental controls, etc.
Ed
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Kimmo,
I believe the data used in the article were from times past, when coatings and transmissions were not as good as they are today, so the graph is really out of date. But it is useful on a notional basis.
Fortunately, in 2011 Daniel Vukobratovich and Paul Yoder, Jr. authored the handy "Field Guide to Binoculars and Scopes," which is really worth getting if you don't have it. The subject of handheld-binocular efficiency is presented in reorganized form, with direct comparisons made between tripod supported and handheld instruments. Formulas are provided that should be quite useful. There is also a section on Image Stabilization Techniques. There they simply state that the techniques provide "... image quality comparable to that of the equivalent nonstabilized tripod-mounted instrument."
My extremely limited exposure to a stabilized Canon 10x42 gives me some pause for doubt, and apparently Chosun is also less than convinced by a 15x. There seems to be more than just aided acuity involved, although that could be due, in part, to lack of familiarity with the instrument.
Ed
Last edited:
dalat
...
I'm not an optics geek and not particular keen on learning all about the insides of binoculars, my brain got enough challenge learning about bird IDs and stuff. I got quickly through that Vukobratovich paper anyway, and it is interesting indeed.
One thing that caught my attention is the second last parapgraph on page 348. This talks about "spherical aberrations of the exit pupil" that causes the kidney bean effect and that can be corrected by design of the eyepiece.
I think it's the first time I read that kidney beaning can be clearly corrected by design choices.
And it's quite interesting how users (at least BF members) obsess about certain effects and defects like rolling ball, edge sharpness, etc., but simply accept others like kidney beaning as some sort of mystery abberations that are just there or not, probbably down to individual perception, and not of further relevance when assessing binoculars.
The same of course is true for the marketing of the binocular makers. If kidney beaning can be avoided by a certain eyepiece design, why no one touts this advantage?
One thing that caught my attention is the second last parapgraph on page 348. This talks about "spherical aberrations of the exit pupil" that causes the kidney bean effect and that can be corrected by design of the eyepiece.
I think it's the first time I read that kidney beaning can be clearly corrected by design choices.
And it's quite interesting how users (at least BF members) obsess about certain effects and defects like rolling ball, edge sharpness, etc., but simply accept others like kidney beaning as some sort of mystery abberations that are just there or not, probbably down to individual perception, and not of further relevance when assessing binoculars.
The same of course is true for the marketing of the binocular makers. If kidney beaning can be avoided by a certain eyepiece design, why no one touts this advantage?
PeterPS
Well-Known Member
Hi Florian:
It is a well known fact that spherical aberration of the EP causes kidney beaning---this aspect has been discussed in detail on the BF, e.g., in the case of Nikon SE 8x32. Furthermore I believe that almost any optical distortion/ aberration can be eliminated by proper design but there are trade-offs, a major one being the ratio performance/cost. Finally I think that for most people, myself included, kidney beaning or blackouts are among the first aspects that are checked when trying any bins.
Best,
Peter.
It is a well known fact that spherical aberration of the EP causes kidney beaning---this aspect has been discussed in detail on the BF, e.g., in the case of Nikon SE 8x32. Furthermore I believe that almost any optical distortion/ aberration can be eliminated by proper design but there are trade-offs, a major one being the ratio performance/cost. Finally I think that for most people, myself included, kidney beaning or blackouts are among the first aspects that are checked when trying any bins.
Best,
Peter.
Chosun, Ed,
On the efficiency graph, I also thought that the reason the tripod-mounted efficiencies were that far from theoretical efficiencies was because of what binoculars mostly were like in the 1980s. A good modern binocular, especially a sample close to diffraction limited in its optics and in situations where possible stray light issues do not mess things up too much is what I had in mind when speaking about 95% or better. The SLC HD 8x42 is a good example of what I mean.
On IS and Canon in particular, I'm actually not in disagreement with Chosun. The 15x50 is stretching the abilities of the IS system, and I'm yet to see a sample that did not show at least some visible artifacts. There is also probably quite a wide range of sample variation. That said, unless the sample is really quite bad, you will be able to see much smaller detail with IS on than with it off.
The 10x42 words much better, for two reasons. Firstly, with much lower magnification, the residual image movement on the retina is much reduced, and secondly, since the optics are better the artifacts can do more of their thing before the compound aberrations become visible. But there are sample differences among these as well, and they can also suffer from weak batteries.
Kimmo
On the efficiency graph, I also thought that the reason the tripod-mounted efficiencies were that far from theoretical efficiencies was because of what binoculars mostly were like in the 1980s. A good modern binocular, especially a sample close to diffraction limited in its optics and in situations where possible stray light issues do not mess things up too much is what I had in mind when speaking about 95% or better. The SLC HD 8x42 is a good example of what I mean.
On IS and Canon in particular, I'm actually not in disagreement with Chosun. The 15x50 is stretching the abilities of the IS system, and I'm yet to see a sample that did not show at least some visible artifacts. There is also probably quite a wide range of sample variation. That said, unless the sample is really quite bad, you will be able to see much smaller detail with IS on than with it off.
The 10x42 words much better, for two reasons. Firstly, with much lower magnification, the residual image movement on the retina is much reduced, and secondly, since the optics are better the artifacts can do more of their thing before the compound aberrations become visible. But there are sample differences among these as well, and they can also suffer from weak batteries.
Kimmo
dalat
...
Ok, thanks. This is why I wrote my first sentence, just to make clear from the start that I'm pretty ignorant of many well known facts of binoculars
My impression was that yes, certain bins are known to be more prone to kidney beaning than others. But usually it was rather put down as a result of a personal interaction with the bin, rather than a general characteristic of the bin. And kidney beaning or sperical abberations seem never to be mentioned in comparisons of modern top bins. Is this because it's standard now to have these abberations properly corrected?
PeterPS
Well-Known Member
Hi Ed:
The simple equation in the paper that defines binocular efficiency can be questioned on the grounds that "target detection" is a somewhat vague notion that may not be that easily defined.
Holger Merlitz wrote a more recent (2015) paper on these aspects that you might find interesting---- I can send you his paper, and any other paper you want (by R Home etc), just let me know.
Regarding adding the IS feature to SV, I do not believe that's going to happen. My speculation is that the next big step will be an alpha digital bin set, but it will not come from Swaro but rather from Zeiss or possibly Leica.
Cheers,
Peter.
The simple equation in the paper that defines binocular efficiency can be questioned on the grounds that "target detection" is a somewhat vague notion that may not be that easily defined.
Holger Merlitz wrote a more recent (2015) paper on these aspects that you might find interesting---- I can send you his paper, and any other paper you want (by R Home etc), just let me know.
Regarding adding the IS feature to SV, I do not believe that's going to happen. My speculation is that the next big step will be an alpha digital bin set, but it will not come from Swaro but rather from Zeiss or possibly Leica.
Cheers,
Peter.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Hi Peter,
Binocular Efficiency, E, is defined slightly differently in the 1989 paper than in the recent 2011 "Field Guide to Binoculars and Scopes." In the former, it's expressed as the ratio of detection ranges, i.e., R(opt)/R(eye), and in the latter the ratio of limiting resolutions, i.e., V(opt)/V(eye). This might or might not account for differences is the graphics, but I suspect that the original data were garnered from human engineering studies dealing with the broader topic of Visual Target Acquisition. By way of definitions, the following is taken from the Abstract of a recent book by J. M. Lloyd devoted to that subject.
I would like to take advantage of your kind offer and will PM you shortly about the references I'm most interested in.
Many thanks,
Ed
So the Sony DEV-50 exemplifies the future direction of binocular technology in your view. I share that opinion, but thus far the marketplace has not. Hence the lack of motion/interest by the alpha firms.
Sony now has financial issues, so they too have slowed their efforts here.
My guess is that some Chinese firm will eventually break the logjam.
