Call for contributions: Collecting Evidence for Lack of Progress in Sporting Optics (1 Viewer)

bh46118 said:

So if you have one you like, just use and enjoy it and don't worry about tiny advancements. :t: But then we won't have anything to talk about.:eek!::-O

Click to expand...

Well theres always that side, you got a point. LOL

How much is a good watch, surely not as much as an Alpha binocular I wouldn't think. 3 Just kidding.:-O

perterra said:

But many died a miserable death before the fickle nature of the public changed. Even Rolex was building quartz when they realized it was here to stay. I bought a Omega Manahattan quartz on a fishing trip in the Bahamas, there was not a single mechanical in the store. To Omegas credit, they did it as a COSC certed quartz which meant it had to hold something like a second a year accuracy. Whic may be pretty close to the gains we see in optics. You cant really tell the difference in them.

Click to expand...

Hermann said:

The Canon IS binoculars work for some and don't work for others because of the funny artifacts of the IS. Please also note Canon never put any real effort into developing their IS any further. They basically left things as they were when the IS bins were introduced.

Hermann

Click to expand...

Well, actually the IS system has been developed since its introduction, and the present models work significantly better than the first 12x36 and 15x45 units. Artifacts are also reduced.

I am currently comparing a new 10x42 IS L to my old one from 2007, and the new one has IS that engages faster and remains centered on the target better than the one in the old one, essentially introducing fewer artifacts. The new one also has noticeably better transmission and more accurate and vibrant colors.

As it happens, just before borrowing this Canon for a trial I tested an SLC 10x56, which was as expected an excellent binocular indeed. However, in tripod-mounted resolution testing, the Canon exceeded the results I got with the SLC. In handheld or finnstick-held viewing, there is simply no comparison. The IS technology simply opens up a whole other world to see.

IS aside, the best current binoculars are better than the best available 10-15 years or more ago, but Omid's 10x50 Trinovid is one of the very best if not the best binoculars of the pre-FL/HD era, and compared with that, the differences are not dramatic.

The quote about the best porros having reached transmission levels of 95% already perhaps reflects somewhat dated information, since I believe those figures from Fujinon and Nikon SE have since been shown to have been a bit optimistic. It can be said generally that the total transmission in most top-level binoculars has gone from an average of 80-85% ten to fifteen years ago to 90-95% today, meaning that there is now less room for improvement left than was the improvement in the past fifteen years. I do expect that in the near future we will have binoculars with almost perfectly black interior surfaces, though, and that will give a readily noticeable improvement.

Furthermore, it is to be hoped at least that more precise and automated production processes will further reduce production tolerances, and that would open the possibility for having more consistently low total aberration levels in the final products without increasing costs. That would also offer readily noticeable visual benefits.

Kimmo

Is there a reason that has been hard to achieve in the past ?

kabsetz said:

I do expect that in the near future we will have binoculars with almost perfectly black interior surfaces, though, and that will give a readily noticeable improvement.
Kimmo

Click to expand...

bh46118 said:

How much is a good watch, surely not as much as an Alpha binocular I wouldn't think. 3 Just kidding.:-O

Click to expand...

I bought a Rolex datejust and a Seiko 150 m diver within a few months of each other in 81. Rolex needed cleaning a couple times to maintain it's accuracy, the Seiko on the other hand has never been opened.

Rolex left the building 10 years ago, the Seiko lives on in almost daily wear since 1981.

Nice watch. I just use my flip phone.:-O

perterra said:

I bought a Rolex datejust and a Seiko 150 m diver within a few months of each other in 81. Rolex needed cleaning a couple times to maintain it's accuracy, the Seiko on the other hand has never been opened.

Rolex left the building 10 years ago, the Seiko lives on in almost daily wear since 1981.

Click to expand...

bh46118 said:

Nice watch. I just use my flip phone.:-O

Click to expand...

A lot of people do, I ditch my phone the second 5 pm rolls around most times. Nothing like having some millwright call me at 2 am on a Sunday night because they ran out of welding rod. 8-P

Really I dont mind the customers calling, most of the time they make it worth your time to answer, bosses dont. I always tell them, you will never hear me bitch about a 2 am call, doesnt mean I aint bitchin, just means you will never hear it. :-O I'd rather them call me than my competition.

If the phone ain't ringing, I ain't making any money. No money, no SF, no SV. :-O

perterra said:

A lot of people do, I ditch my phone the second 5 pm rolls around most times. Nothing like having some millwright call me at 2 am on a Sunday night because they ran out of welding rod. 8-P

Really I dont mind the customers calling, most of the time they make it worth your time to answer, bosses dont. I always tell them, you will never hear me bitch about a 2 am call, doesnt mean I aint bitchin, just means you will never hear it. :-O I'd rather them call me than my competition.

Click to expand...

Holger Merlitz said:

Interesting thread. I have the same impression: The high end binoculars of the top manufacturers are amazingly similar (almost exchangeable) in formats and features. This has been quite different 50 years ago, when Zeiss and Leica did still experiment with new ideas (like mirror/prism combinations) and formats (super wide 6x24 or 10x50, Porros as well as roofs).

Click to expand...

Hi Holger,

Yes, I completely agree. Our beloved optical companies are no longer run by people who have a passion for optics. They are run by their bean-counting CFOs

Today, engineering has turned very conservative and cautious, with tiny, incremental improvements. The transmission has hit the ceiling - whether 93% or 95% - not much to gain any longer, edge sharpness is improving to a level that makes one wonder what to do next, and the weight reduction cannot be pushed any further without compromising stability and durability. The run for the nearest close-focusing point and for a faster and faster transmission has actually led to a diminishing accuracy of the focusing devices in the latest generation binoculars.

Click to expand...

Yes, we have reached Pareto Optimality in binocular technology.

1) Field of view: Has already been wider in earlier times, and then somewhat narrowed down to reduce weight, improve eye-glass compatibility and image quality. There is room left for improvements, and the Zeiss SF seems to make the first step toward this direction.

2) New features like image stabilization: Zeiss added it to the 20x60, but nobody since then tried to shrink that technology for application to smaller devices.

3) Modularity: Exchangeable objectives or eyepieces

Click to expand...

Wider field of view is good but more than 65 degree or so is not really necessary. There are astronomical eyepieces made by Nikon which have 102 degrees of apparent field of view. But I am not sure we want that in binoculars. In binoculars, we "pan" by hand not by rolling our eyes!

Image stabilization is also a very good and very useful feature. As you mentioned Zeiss made a very interesting mechanical design in the 20X60 model but they didn't expand that technology to other models. I look forward to seeing high quality stabilized binoculars in a nicely designed package. The current ones look and feel very bulky. Don't like the look of Canon IS binoculars either.

Another area that I hope binocular designers pay attention to and consider is Exit Pupil Expansion as I described here. It will make binoculars much more comfortable to use.

Omid said:

Hi Holger,

Yes, I completely agree. Our beloved optical companies are no longer run by people who have a passion for optics. They are run by their bean-counting CFOs



Yes, we have reached Pareto Optimality in binocular technology.




Wider field of view is good but more than 65 degree or so is not really necessary. There are astronomical eyepieces made by Nikon which have 102 degrees of apparent field of view. But I am not sure we want that in binoculars. In binoculars, we "pan" by hand not by rolling our eyes!

Image stabilization is also a very good and very useful feature. As you mentioned Zeiss made a very interesting mechanical design in the 20X60 model but they didn't expand that technology to other models. I look forward to seeing high quality stabilized binoculars in a nicely designed package. The current ones look and feel very bulky. Don't like the look of Canon IS binoculars either.

Another area that I hope binocular designers pay attention to and consider is Exit Pupil Expansion as I described here. It will make binoculars much more comfortable to use.

Click to expand...

Hi Omid,

"Pareto optimality" - yes, in some sense, though it is a local optimum rather than a global optimum: With tiny improvements, as implemented in recent years, there is not much left to gain. But entirely new approaches are possible (example: the prism/mirror image reversion) which would ask for true research and investment - something nobody dares to do these days.

A good zoom has been mentioned - I agree, zoom technology could still be improved a lot to offer high end images at different magnifications.

The exit pupil expansion you have mentioned makes sense with rifle scopes, but I am not sure whether it would offer a high end image quality in combination with binoculars. Anyway, I haven't experienced that invention in real life, so I may be wrong with my estimates.

Cheers,
Holger

Maljunulo said:

If we have reached the limit of the human eye-brain system, how do you suggest we "progress"?

Click to expand...

simple

we call success/victory
and
get out and enjoy the optics

edj

Holger Merlitz said:

Hi Omid,

"Pareto optimality" - yes, in some sense, though it is a local optimum rather than a global optimum: With tiny improvements, as implemented in recent years, there is not much left to gain. But entirely new approaches are possible (example: the prism/mirror image reversion) which would ask for true research and investment - something nobody dares to do these days.

A good zoom has been mentioned - I agree, zoom technology could still be improved a lot to offer high end images at different magnifications.

The exit pupil expansion you have mentioned makes sense with rifle scopes, but I am not sure whether it would offer a high end image quality in combination with binoculars. Anyway, I haven't experienced that invention in real life, so I may be wrong with my estimates.

Cheers,
Holger

Click to expand...

Holger,

Regarding zoom technology: I don't know if this is feasible but why not take another look at switch power technology and rethink the ergonomics of these binoculars at the 32 and 42mm levels? If it could result in lighter weight through the use of high impact plastics and also provide wider FOVs they would be more popular even in the Leica price range. And if they could be made reliable in the mid-range cost category they might even sell very well.

Bob

ceasar said:

Holger,

Regarding zoom technology: I don't know if this is feasible but why not take another look at switch power technology and rethink the ergonomics of these binoculars at the 32 and 42mm levels? If it could result in lighter weight through the use of high impact plastics and also provide wider FOVs they would be more popular even in the Leica price range. And if they could be made reliable in the mid-range cost category they might even sell very well.

Bob

Click to expand...

Clearly there are various flavors of zoom possible.
My ideal would be a big optical zoom range, maybe approaching that offered by the Sony DEV 50, which manages optical zoom from 0.8x to 12x.
The straw like FoV provided by all modern binoculars is really inadequate for birding. We now scan with our bare eyes for motion and then lift the binoculars to look closer. Of course we lose sight of the target in the process, often permanently. By contrast, even inexpensive bridge cameras have 20x continuous zoom as well as framing assist to help keep the target in view. So there is a way to observe seamlessly, if only the manufacturers would recognize that as a tangible benefit which would deliver marketing advantage.

etudiant said:

Clearly there are various flavors of zoom possible.
My ideal would be a big optical zoom range, maybe approaching that offered by the Sony DEV 50, which manages optical zoom from 0.8x to 12x.
The straw like FoV provided by all modern binoculars is really inadequate for birding. We now scan with our bare eyes for motion and then lift the binoculars to look closer. Of course we lose sight of the target in the process, often permanently. By contrast, even inexpensive bridge cameras have 20x continuous zoom as well as framing assist to help keep the target in view. So there is a way to observe seamlessly, if only the manufacturers would recognize that as a tangible benefit which would deliver marketing advantage.

Click to expand...

Good ZOOM conventions DO exist. For the most part, however, they would exist only in the realm of speculation for such forums as these. They are ALL financially beyond the means for all but the mega rich. They would have TWO zooms--one for distance to the target, and one for our dioptric strengths. Consequently, it will be YEARS before we are there.

Don't worry . . . be happy!

Bill

Maljunulo said:

If we have reached the limit of the human eye-brain system, how do you suggest we "progress"?

Click to expand...

We can progress in a few steps:

1- We -the binocular aficionados - should accept the fact that we are already at the apex of optical quality and stop fussing about insignificant details such as how many turns does the focus wheel turns, is it slow or fast, is the weight distribution of the binoculars evenly distributed across its length, is it water proof to a depth of 1.5 meter or 1.7 meter, edge-to-edge sharpness (sharp filed of view of human eye is about 1.5 degrees), does it have 89% or 93% transmission, blah blah blah...

2- Believe that progress is possible. Not by improving what we have further and further in the way that we have done in the past (i.e. better coating, better glass, etc.) but by thinking creatively and shifting the paradigm. I think the possibilities are in areas such as ergonomics (e.g., Swarovski made open-bridge EL binoculars, a good progress), zoom, expanded exit pupil (working on it myself), modularity (mentioned by Holger) and so on.

3- I am an electronics engineer by profession but I don't consider DIGITAL BINOCULRS as a next step in the evolution of classical binoculars. Surely they will come and get better and better with time. They will have lots of zoom, shake reduction, image intensifier, etc. but they will not make DVO (Direct Vision Optics) obsolete. Both technologies will co-exist. Semi automatic rifles were invented and perfected over time but they did not make bolt-action rifles obsolete for sporting use. In the same way, semi-automatic shotguns did not make double-barrel shotguns obsolete. The situation won't be like digital photography in which digital cameras completely overtook film ones.

4-Finally - and most importantly- the much needed next big thing in sporting optics will not come from Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica or Nikon. It will come from one of us. An amateur! :t:

Omid:

I have not posted yet on this thread, but I agree, I am not going with anything electronic or
stabilized, my cameras are enough for me. No batteries for me, in any sports optic.

Did you mean Amateur ?

Jerry

NDhunter said:

Omid:
Did you mean Amateur ?

Jerry

Click to expand...

Yes, I corrected the spelling error. Thanks for pointing it out.

WJC said:

Good ZOOM conventions DO exist. For the most part, however, they would exist only in the realm of speculation for such forums as these. They are ALL financially beyond the means for all but the mega rich. They would have TWO zooms--one for distance to the target, and one for our dioptric strengths. Consequently, it will be YEARS before we are there.

Don't worry . . . be happy!

Bill

Click to expand...

As you say, the pieces are coming together...
Maybe zoom is what will drive digital binocular acceptance, because it is cheaply available already. Only the display is still inadequate, but that too is evolving pretty rapidly. The end product might be something like a virtual reality headset whose display is fed by the zoom optics.

Omid said:

Yes, I corrected the spelling error. Thanks for pointing it out.

Click to expand...

Is this grammar class?

I hope not, and I do hope this ceases.

I really could care less if someone misspells a word or three.

In fact, we aren't publishing any books!

Bryce...

I have binoculars with fuzzy edges, moderate pincushion and excellent but not class leading transmission. The SV leaves them FAR behind in optical enjoyment and quality. Haters flame away. All hail the mighty SWAROVISION !!!!!!!B Just having a little fun.:-O

Omid said:

We can progress in a few steps:

1- We -the binocular aficionados - should accept the fact that we are already at the apex of optical quality and stop fussing about insignificant details such as edge-to-edge sharpness (sharp filed of view of human eye is about 1.5 degrees), does it have 89% or 93% transmission, blah blah blah...

Click to expand...