Hi Ed
P and P* are exactly the same: the added * does not signify an improvement was made to the phase coating and was only added to make the P look the same as T* which was well respected by that time.
Lee
-
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.
So....SF 8X42 has arrived... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter chill6x6
- Start date
Hi Ed
P and P* are exactly the same: the added * does not signify an improvement was made to the phase coating and was only added to make the P look the same as T* which was well respected by that time.
Lee
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Ed, post 158,
I am sorry that it took some time before I could react on your question, but I was abroad among others to investigate the new Leica Trinovid HD.
With regard to your question: No we did not investigate the development of the coatings of the Zeiss 7x42 Dialyt, but it will undoubtedly follow the patteren of other Zeiss binoculars: gradual improvements over the years. Lee already answered your question with regard to P and P* coating.
Gijs van Ginkel
I am sorry that it took some time before I could react on your question, but I was abroad among others to investigate the new Leica Trinovid HD.
With regard to your question: No we did not investigate the development of the coatings of the Zeiss 7x42 Dialyt, but it will undoubtedly follow the patteren of other Zeiss binoculars: gradual improvements over the years. Lee already answered your question with regard to P and P* coating.
Gijs van Ginkel
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Gijs and Lee,
Thanks for both your responses. :t:
I tend to favor the notion that if: (1) there is no difference between P and P* coatings (i.e., they remained unimproved over the years), and (2) obsessively skilled observers can't detect a difference between the color balance of the T*P and T*P* models, then the T* coating used in them were probably not improved either.
If the opportunity ever presents itself it would be very interesting (alto of dubious importance other than curiosity) to obtain transmission data for the two types under identical testing conditions.
Thanks gain,
Ed
PS. Full disclosure: I use a T*P model and have skin in the game.
Thanks for both your responses. :t:
I tend to favor the notion that if: (1) there is no difference between P and P* coatings (i.e., they remained unimproved over the years), and (2) obsessively skilled observers can't detect a difference between the color balance of the T*P and T*P* models, then the T* coating used in them were probably not improved either.
If the opportunity ever presents itself it would be very interesting (alto of dubious importance other than curiosity) to obtain transmission data for the two types under identical testing conditions.
Thanks gain,
Ed
PS. Full disclosure: I use a T*P model and have skin in the game.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Hi David,
Thanks for the interesting post. Occasionally I've experienced some of the contrast effects you mentioned (coins, pebbles, etc.), but I'm not sure I'd call that sharpness. Frankly, I haven't given it much thought. As you say, it's not clear how MTF analysis would be informative, particularly if the perception depends on the color mix, illumination, and are influenced by sample variations.
The only similar color-contrast related phenomenon that begs for an explanation in my mind, is the Swift 804ED's ability to reveal subtle color variations and gradations in birds' plumage. This is quite an amazing experience. But it may be idiosyncratic or limited to my particular model type (apparently the same one reviewed by Steve Ingraham in the early 90s). Few others have commented about it.
Ed
