Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Ultravid 7x/8x 42 pre-HD, HD, HDplus transmission figures

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Monday 18th June 2018, 08:28   #76
mulligatawny owl
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 265
I definitely perceive the slight green colour cast or bias on the SF, it was quite noticeable coming straight after the more neutral bluish HT. Strangely though I don't find it objectionable at all, I found the HT almost too bright and a little straining on the eyes on occasions.
I suspect that if the ultravid hd+ colours were transplanted into the view of the SF though I would like it even more.
mulligatawny owl is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 18th June 2018, 12:51   #77
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 446
David, others: Human spectral sensitivity, as I gather, is maximum about green, ranging from being max. at green-yellow in daylight to max. at blue-green at night. Until a couple years ago much was said in this forum about "brightess washout" in the Zeiss FL 7x42, vs the Leica Uv. 7x42, and by itself. Can a green emphasis in its transmission cause that, or conversely, can that arise from whatever other reason and cause a green cast? Thanks! If the question is not structured logically or is trivial please ignore.
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 18th June 2018, 13:49   #78
SeldomPerched
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Frink View Post
Tom,

Three highly subjective points of comparison -
1. I have both 7X and 8X UV HD+, and I can detect no differences between them in terms of sharpness, glare/flare control, etc. Both are superb instruments, in my opinion.
2. I also have a late Dialyt 7X42 T*P*, and while I feel it can still compete with the best, I find that either HD+ can pull just a bit more detail out of the shadows.
3. It was a direct comparison between the HD+, SF, HT, and Dialyt some time ago that convinced me to buy the Leica, primarily because of its ability to work the shadows.

Curiosity question: Have you tried another example of the 8X42 HD for comparison to yours?

John
John,

Do you have a link to that review by any chance? Or was it your own comparison?

I have to say I'm happy again with my UVHD 8x42 - and it handles like a dream.

Tom
SeldomPerched is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 18th June 2018, 18:06   #79
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by adhoc View Post
David, others: Human spectral sensitivity, as I gather, is maximum about green, ranging from being max. at green-yellow in daylight to max. at blue-green at night. Until a couple years ago much was said in this forum about "brightess washout" in the Zeiss FL 7x42, vs the Leica Uv. 7x42, and by itself. Can a green emphasis in its transmission cause that, or conversely, can that arise from whatever other reason and cause a green cast? Thanks! If the question is not structured logically or is trivial please ignore.
I've not see the "brightness washout" you refer to in the limited time I've used the various FLs models, so can't really say. There have been other comments on colour too where individuals described the cast as anything between steely blue and red, which takes some understanding as well. Seems perception is a fickle beast.

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 19th June 2018, 13:11   #80
John Frink
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Delaware, USA
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeldomPerched View Post
Or was it your own comparison?
Tom,

It was my own comparison, conducted over the space of a couple hours at the Cape May Bird Observatory's optical shop. The shop faces Lake Lily, a 13-acre freshwater pond surrounded by varied vegetation; I would take two binos at a time and step outside and scan the far shore, looking for resolution in the foliage and detail in the shadows.

John
John Frink is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 19th June 2018, 22:07   #81
SeldomPerched
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Frink View Post
Tom,

It was my own comparison, conducted over the space of a couple hours at the Cape May Bird Observatory's optical shop. The shop faces Lake Lily, a 13-acre freshwater pond surrounded by varied vegetation; I would take two binos at a time and step outside and scan the far shore, looking for resolution in the foliage and detail in the shadows.

John
Thank you, John. Sounds like a good practical test.

Tom
SeldomPerched is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 23rd June 2018, 12:35   #82
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,121
When I first viewed through an FL 8X32, I noticed a slight blue hue...This was after I was viewing with a glass that had an overly red/brown bias for a while. It is amazing how the human eye adapts, I do not notice it anymore.

Andy W.
dries1 is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 24th June 2018, 23:05   #83
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 3,789
I have been reading this thread with interest. The question asked by the original poster, was the
transmission levels of the various Ultravids.

I am not able to view Gijs reports, so maybe someone can post those results, in a simple form for
some of us wondering. Include the 10x42 if able.

Thanks, Jerry
NDhunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 25th June 2018, 08:29   #84
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 8,093
Ultravid transmission graphs by Gijs

Hi Jerry

Here are the ones that I have been able to find. No 10x though.

Measured transmissions are the average of a number of measured spectra, error margin is +/- 0,5%.

Many thanks to Gijs van Ginkel for making his test results available and to Jan van Daalen of House of Outdoor, for hosting the test results and reviews on his website: http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/verrek...n-vergelijken/

Lee
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Gijs Ultravid&Uvid+ 8x42.jpg
Views:	131
Size:	27.0 KB
ID:	666848  Click image for larger version

Name:	GijsDialyt7x42 UvidHD+, SLC, SwaroHabicht.jpg
Views:	135
Size:	36.8 KB
ID:	666849  

Last edited by Troubador : Monday 25th June 2018 at 08:44.
Troubador is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 25th June 2018, 22:34   #85
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 3,789
Lee:

Thanks for the chart, I find it very useful. Look at the transmission of the 7x42 Habicht on the 2nd
chart. That binocular is special, very bright and quite a view. The color is very even, one of the
best it seems.

Jerry

Last edited by NDhunter : Tuesday 26th June 2018 at 17:45. Reason: Color
NDhunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 26th June 2018, 12:03   #86
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 4,878
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
CJ,

One of the intriguing aspects of my browsing on colour perception is the role of a common amino acid substitution in the L-opsin pigment of the long wavelength (red) receptor. The gene for it is carried on the x-chromosome. The two variants have slightly different absorbance profiles and therefore sensitivities. It means women have two copies and men only one. There is some conflicting data on what this means for colour perception, but at least some experimental designs show that women who have both gene variants have better colour discrimination in certain parts of the spectrum.

David
David,

That's interesting - thanks for that. All the other members of the exec were male, and I was the youngest by far. In those days I didn't know as much about colour reception other than the age related Monet style red shift, and the technicalities of chromacity, and white balance (I certainly didn't know of the different colour perception in each of my eyes, or even if it was in evidence then - I only discovered it scrutinizing binoculars about half a dozen years ago). I always put our differences of opinion down to age related factors. There are a few folk I know in my parents age group who are now post cataract surgery - they say the new vibrancy of colour in their worlds is a mini revelation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adhoc View Post
David, others: Human spectral sensitivity, as I gather, is maximum about green, ranging from being max. at green-yellow in daylight to max. at blue-green at night. Until a couple years ago much was said in this forum about "brightess washout" in the Zeiss FL 7x42, vs the Leica Uv. 7x42, and by itself. Can a green emphasis in its transmission cause that, or conversely, can that arise from whatever other reason and cause a green cast? Thanks! If the question is not structured logically or is trivial please ignore.
It might help to look at these references for:-
short, medium, and long cone types (used in normal daytime photonic vision colour discrimination - compare that to Gijs measured transmission graph)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision
and also the transmission standard, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity_function

I don't think you can get a binocular that is 'too' bright. Of course with your naked eye you wouldn't go looking at bright sunlight reflections off water, snow, or shiny metal objects either.
'Washout' etc is more related to flare and glare.



Chosun
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 26th June 2018, 15:25   #87
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 1,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post

I don't think you can get a binocular that is 'too' bright.
'Washout' etc is more related to flare and glare.

Chosun
That seems to be a valid point,
high transmission would rather decrease the risk of flare (and perhaps to some extent glare) by minimizing the amount of reflected light from every surface of the lens elements in the binocular.

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Tuesday 26th June 2018 at 15:30.
Vespobuteo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 26th June 2018, 16:29   #88
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 8,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post
That seems to be a valid point,
high transmission would rather decrease the risk of flare (and perhaps to some extent glare) by minimizing the amount of reflected light from every surface of the lens elements in the binocular.
The idea about a bino that is so bright it washes all the colours out seems to me to stem from an imagined connection with what over-exposed photographs look like. This notion ignores that most binos pass only 90% of light (plus or minus a few percent) which means looking through binos is like looking through very weak sunglasses as around 10% of the light doesn't reach the eyes.

Lee
Troubador is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 27th June 2018, 06:55   #89
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 446
Maybe I need to go back, e.g. to Wikipedia as detailed by Chosun, and digest/review a bit on some subjects!

But the "brightness washout" I cite as written about on here was not due to glare or flare. I may be using the wrong words in quoting that, sorry: Googling now for "birdforum brightness washout", to check, did not get me too far.

There is such a thing as a binocular being too bright in a given situation. E.g., looking within the foliage of a tree near its edge with an 8x20 and an 8x42 of comparable optical quality the smaller binocular may give a clearer image of the subject because the sky behind is too bright for the user's eyes with the larger model. (I have experienced this.) Whether it can be described as "washout" (in whatever degree) I do not know.

Last edited by adhoc : Wednesday 27th June 2018 at 07:45.
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 27th June 2018, 09:48   #90
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 8,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by adhoc View Post
Maybe I need to go back, e.g. to Wikipedia as detailed by Chosun, and digest/review a bit on some subjects!

But the "brightness washout" I cite as written about on here was not due to glare or flare. I may be using the wrong words in quoting that, sorry: Googling now for "birdforum brightness washout", to check, did not get me too far.

There is such a thing as a binocular being too bright in a given situation. E.g., looking within the foliage of a tree near its edge with an 8x20 and an 8x42 of comparable optical quality the smaller binocular may give a clearer image of the subject because the sky behind is too bright for the user's eyes with the larger model. (I have experienced this.) Whether it can be described as "washout" (in whatever degree) I do not know.
That seems odd because your pupils will close down to their minimum in light as bright as this no matter which bino you are looking through.

Lee
Troubador is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 27th June 2018, 10:30   #91
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 446
It does not happen with a bright image. It happens when there is contrast as described.
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 27th June 2018, 13:32   #92
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 8,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by adhoc View Post
It does not happen with a bright image. It happens when there is contrast as described.
I expressed myself badly adhoc, apologies for not being clear. I was referring to the way you blamed the problem on the brightness of the sky affecting your eyes:
Quote: "the sky behind is too bright for the user's eyes with the larger model".

Lee
Troubador is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 27th June 2018, 14:29   #93
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 446
Lee, apology not needed! Maybe I did not describe the "given situation" thoroughly enough. You are looking through the binocular at or within the fairly dense foliage of a tree, say at a bird/s. Your pupils have had enough time to dilate a bit. You now look at or into the foliage near its boundary with the brightness beyond... BTW, "blaming the sky" sounds like something out of an ancient Chinese poem or proverb, so thanks!
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 27th June 2018, 15:29   #94
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 8,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by adhoc View Post
Lee, apology not needed! Maybe I did not describe the "given situation" thoroughly enough. You are looking through the binocular at or within the fairly dense foliage of a tree, say at a bird/s. Your pupils have had enough time to dilate a bit. You now look at or into the foliage near its boundary with the brightness beyond... BTW, "blaming the sky" sounds like something out of an ancient Chinese poem or proverb, so thanks!
OK I get it now but it still sounds odd because I am sure that other more knowledgable members have posted that your pupil closes down almost instantaneously given a burst of light.
And you are right about 'blaming the sky', it does indeed sound like a sage oriental saying

Lee
Troubador is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 27th June 2018, 16:52   #95
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,116
My HT is purported to have 95% transmission and I can directly compare it to something with a much smaller aperture and lower transmission - Terra 8x25 and Conquest HD 8X32 - and the HT beats both clearly for retaining better contrast and detail in heavily back-lite situations, so that theory is a non-starter for me.

This whole brightness wash-out thing is something I have never seen in a quality binocular before, as higher transmission suggests less lost light through reflection.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 28th June 2018, 00:17   #96
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 446
I describe what I have experienced. It was not in a more usual situation of backlighting but as described. I am afraid I do not remember the models of binocular. The smaller would actually have been an 8x25 though as I have not viewed through an 8x20 for a long time, and I used 8x20 in that example because the difference should be still more. Presently I have only 25 mms so cannot try this right now, but will again when I have access to a 42 and an opportunity.
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 28th June 2018, 05:54   #97
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 8,093
I am more inclined to think that shifting cloud thicknesses in the far distances and randomly moving tree leaves closer-by led to a burst of brighter light just as the bigger binos were used giving the false impression that this was something to do with the binos.

Lee
Troubador is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 30th June 2018, 05:43   #98
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 446
Pl. see this post by Henry Link 2 days ago in another thread.
Also by Binastro a few posts below that.
If your pupil is at 5 mm
the effective aperture of an
8x20 is 20 mm, of an
8x42 is 40 mm.
If your pupil is at 4 mm then of an
8x20 is 20 mm, of an
8x42 is 32 mm.
A bright sky is (effectively) a light source, rather than a lit surface.
I reported my experience, and others can easily try that.
The theory applicable is not simple.
I did not need, nor wish, to get into it!

Last edited by adhoc : Sunday 1st July 2018 at 01:47.
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 30th June 2018, 06:11   #99
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 8,093
Ad hoc I was certainly not questioning your experience but trying to make sense of it. We are visiting a nature reserve with some mature woodland this weekend and I will have several binos with me and I will give this a try.

Lee
Troubador is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 30th June 2018, 06:22   #100
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 446
Thanks Lee that of course is the best thing.
Almost certain the binoculars I used were 8x25 and 8x42.
32 vs 42 might possibly not be different enough.
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Whar are the resolution figures for ED/HD? OPTIC_NUT Binoculars 15 Friday 13th June 2014 13:04
EL and SLC sales figures Omid Swarovski 3 Saturday 13th September 2008 13:18
Eye Relief figures lucznik Binoculars 4 Tuesday 7th February 2006 15:55

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.26180696 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:36.