Dee-dubbya, maybe not! See below.....Man, I had thought the 10X54's HT's would be my grail glass. Sigh.
So, I am no longer waiting to place an order with B&H Photo for 10x54's based on this thread. Do you think Zeiss will correct this? Do I keep waiting? Go for the 10X42? Another sigh.
I have a great pair of Zeiss 7X50 Marine, so I wanted the extra reach of the 10X54's. So, I'll be just as happy with the 10X42 HT's right (except at the break of dawn and the end of dusk)? Those HT 42's are free of the problems described here in the 54's?
Thank you.
......And finally, I went back to look at my notes on the star-test of the 8x42 HT I had reviewed in early 2013 for the Linnut magazine. I checked two units, and both had exhibited unusually high levels of spherical aberration, more in one barrel than the other, with the worse sides having a very similar look to the patterns seen in Henry’s photos for the 8x54 HT. An unusual thing was that in both of these 8x42’s, the weaker side showed in best focus through the booster three rather bright diffraction rings around the central dot, meaning that the barrel was not able to bring light to anything like a focused point.
Looking at the resolution targets, the 8x42 HT visually and unboosted, showed slightly weaker resolution than a Swarovski 8x42 SLC HD, but the difference was considerably more subtle than that between the 8x54 and 8x56 Zeiss.
Kimmo
I hade a few minutes with the 8x54 HT:s today,
I can agree they are very sensitive to eye placement,
saw a lot of CA and a soft image, but it seemed to decrease when positioning eye perfectly,
very strange phenomenon, and very confusing,
perhaps you could adapt your brain/binocular handling to this?
I'm not sure why anyone would want to try to adapt to the hypercritical pupil position demanded by the 8x54 HT. So many other binoculars better it for central sharpness and don't require any special effort. Previously I had thought one of the advantages you could reasonably expect from any large exit pupil binocular was an easy relaxing view, uncritical of pupil position.
....Like Clyde Crashcup and Leonardo, it's time for Zeiss engineers to go back to the drawing board after a failed experiment. They should also hire Henry to help them redesign it.
Brock
...... There was a couple shopping for 10x binoculars for the wife (husband has Swarovision 12x50) trying out Swaro SLC 10x42 and SV 10x42, and they both thought (as did I) that the image of the 10x42 SLC was distinctly better than that of the Zeiss 10x54 HT. The difference was a bit like that between a top-quality scope and medium-tier 80 mm ED scope at 40-50x. A difference in purity, contrast, color rendition and snap. Or, thinking of binoculars, like the difference between a Swarovski and a mid-prized roof. I'm being harsh here, but I was expecting much better.....
Kimmo
It probably would be a good idea test the 10x54. What if it passes the tests?
Bob
Bob, the 10x54 HT didn't fare too well in the trusty old MarkI eyeball test .....
Chosun :gh:
Bob, the 10x54 HT didn't fare too well in the trusty old MarkI eyeball test .....
Chosun :gh:
Who is MarkI?
Bob
Bob! seriously ..... |^|
MarkI, MrkI, MkI, unaided, naked eye, version1.0 even, but not to be confused with MachI |8.|
In this case Kimmo "I was surprised and disappointed by the image quality of this sample", etc, etc, etc ..... you can read the exact copy in Kimmo's post(s) above - paraphrased = basic lack of 'snap', crackle n 'pop' ! ..... and too much mush! :smoke:
A circa $250 image ..... NOT one costing 10x more (ah, that's independent of whether it's an 8x, or 10x 54 HT !! ||
Chosun :gh:
I don't wish to minimise the concerns expressed about the HT 54s, but regarding the 42s, I think we can rest assured.
I have personally spent extended periods with 4 units of the 8x and James and Eddy both have 10x, and optically they are all peaches: which means very, very good.
The 42s have been out on the market for a good time now and if there was really an optical problem with them it would have surfaced by now.
The 54s are recent arrivals and the findings of Henry and Kimmo are indeed cause for concern and we have already heard from Mike Jensen that this concern is shared by Zeiss.
In a perfect world we should expect that all manufactured items should do the job for which they are intended without faults or shortcomings and with a life-span in keeping with their purchase price.
In the imperfect world in which we live we have vehicles from that paragon of reliability, Toyota, being recalled, cars from those paragons of expensiveness, Ferrari, being recalled and Porsche replacing the engines in all of the current GT3s.
It's not what we expect, its not what we want, but it happens.
Lee
I'm not sure why anyone would want to try to adapt to the hypercritical pupil position demanded by the 8x54 HT. So many other binoculars better it for central sharpness and don't require any special effort. Previously I had thought one of the advantages you could reasonably expect from any large exit pupil binocular was an easy relaxing view, uncritical of pupil position.
Chosun
Thanks for the clarification. Seriously!
That was a "brief encounter" on 2 separate occasions not on a tripod or with a booster. I'm talking about a test like Henry did.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3003198&postcount=7
Bob
Henry, David,
This Zeiss episode is having the useful effect of highlighting the usefulness of stopped-down testing with binoculars. To make things more consistent and to make findings more easily comparable, What do you guys think would be a sensible "standard" stopped-down aperture we could maybe start using? Henry used 22 mm for the 8x54, giving a 2.75 mm exit pupil with 8x. That sounds a bit high to me, assuming that 2-2.5 mm is a typical eye pupil diameter for bright light and optimum visual acuity. I would offhand suggest 2.5 mm, but am open for other suggestions. I'm thinking that if we come up with some kind of an agreement, I'll make myself a series of masks to give a standard stopped-down exit pupil with the most common 8 & 10x objective sizes, and will try to gradually built up a reference set of somewhat carefully conducted resolution tests.
My main objective would be to gain a more precise understanding of what does the instrument resolution need to be for it not limiting the visual resolution seen through it. David had some pretty good estimates for himself in the posts above, and I recall Henry doing similar experiments with a progressively stopped-down scope some years back. It would be highly interesting to gather more data from a larger number of individuals who have different visual acuity. The last I tested mine, I got readings between 65.5-73.4" (line-pair formula), but that was a few years back when I did not need glasses for that yet. Now, I'd have to use an instrument (either glasses or a binocular or a scope) to reach focus, and that would mess up the results somewhat. So my VA is a bit less than David's but in the same ballpark.
Anyways, given an acuity of 70", matching that through an 8x binocular requires instrument resolution of 8.75" for an exit pupil that matches the eye pupil for that 70." What I'm not at all sure about is whether this would be anywhere near good enough to actually allow the eye to resolve that 70". It would be interesting to have a resolution chart that simulates a progressively aberrated image, and to see how much the visual resolution figures go down as contrast lessens and the image softens.
Kimmo
Zeiss's silence on this has been deafening.....
Chosun :gh:
CJ
Dear Friend, perhaps you missed Mike Jensen's post in this very thread, but Zeiss have picked up on this issue and it is being investigated. I doubt whether it is a 5-minute job to assess what is happening, the full extent of it and the best remedial action.
There has been no 'silence' from Zeiss, and 'deafening' is therefore an unhelpful exageration.
You are very excitable these days, dear lady, and it is gratifying that you are in such vigorous form :eek!:
Lee
Hello Henry,
Good work you did...!!!!
It leads me to try a star test in my own 10x42 HT and 10x40 Habicht W GA.
The circles in the my HT, defocusing in both directions, are more like the ones in your FL 8x56 than in the HT 54 you tested. And the view vs. my former FL 10x42 (early one pre Locu-Tec) in regard the resolution is as good in the center, austanding!, and with a bigger sweet spot in the HT42. The contrast and colours are nothing dull or near that!!!
An the Habicht shows something strange in the circles of the light defocused: A "slice" cutted in each circle, located at 4,30 hour in the left tube and at 7,30 in the right one. Seems to be something related to the prisms...
Anyway, the central view is almost as good as in the Zeiss but with a little smaller sweet spot in the Habicht. The colours and contrast and the brightness at dusk / down are really great in the Habicht!!! On par, clearly, with ANY top quality binocular of the size...Including the HT.
PHA