What would worlds best binoculars be? (1 Viewer)

If you, as an experienced birder and observer of nature, could design the world's best birding and observation binocular, what are the top three features you would include?

• Brightness?
• Resolution (detail)?
• Vividness and color fidelity?
• Field of view?
• Eye-relief (viewing comfort)?
• Close focus?
• Ease, speed, and smoothness of focus?
• Handling (closed hinge or open, finger placement, grip, etc.)?
• Weight?
• Something we have not thought of at all?

Feel free to offer comparisons to the HT (or other current top binoculars) to clarify how the best birding and observation binocular, for you, would perform, look, and feel? If you can tell us why you make the choices you do...that would be even better! Go ahead. Dream a little...and share your dream. At ZEISS, we want to make even your dreams visible. " :t:

We appreciate and will evaluate your input.

Mike Jensen
President
Carl Zeiss Sports Optics, LLC - USA

I'd like to see what Zeiss could produce in an Image Stabilised binocular.

mjensen6577 said:

• Something we have not thought of at all?

Click to expand...

That one! but you'll need to put me on the payroll to find out :cat: ..... enough freebies! ||




Chosun :gh:

dipped said:

I'd like to see what Zeiss could produce in an Image Stabilised binocular.

Click to expand...

This.

It's been 23 years since the 20x60 S, and it's high time we saw a smaller, lighter version of this binocular. You would think that many mechanical improvements could have been made on this system over the years, to the point where it could be applied to a smaller binocular, and for less cost than the 20x60S.

Oh, and I'll say it, just to get it out of the way - field flatteners. [not that I want them]

7x42 HT !

That`s all I want.

A Zeiss HT without focus play and not to have the service department keep insisting that you are wrong
Make the focusing wheel as good as the Nikon EDGs , buttery smooth and totally free of backlash or play

Torview said:

7x42 HT !

That`s all I want.

Click to expand...

:t:

Torview said:

7x42 HT !

That`s all I want.

Click to expand...

Super-wide angle [ > 9 degrees] 7x35 HT, less than 25 ounces.

Chosun Juan said:

That one! but you'll need to put me on the payroll to find out :cat: ..... enough freebies! ||




Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

|=)| ... funny. I'll have to see what I can do.

mjensen6577 said:

If you, as an experienced birder and observer of nature, could design the world's best birding and observation binocular, what are the top three features you would include?

• Brightness?
• Resolution (detail)?
• Vividness and color fidelity?
• Field of view?
• Eye-relief (viewing comfort)?
• Close focus?
• Ease, speed, and smoothness of focus?
• Handling (closed hinge or open, finger placement, grip, etc.)?
• Weight?
• Something we have not thought of at all?

Feel free to offer comparisons to the HT (or other current top binoculars) to clarify how the best birding and observation binocular, for you, would perform, look, and feel? If you can tell us why you make the choices you do...that would be even better! Go ahead. Dream a little...and share your dream. At ZEISS, we want to make even your dreams visible. " :t:

We appreciate and will evaluate your input.

Mike Jensen
President
Carl Zeiss Sports Optics, LLC - USA

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how to respond to this post. Am I supposed to pick which three things you have listed are most important to being the best birding (or nature viewing) binocular? I think it is obvious that we have a lot of top bins that do all these things well, so the challenge is to do everything even better. As the optical quality of budget bins gets better and better, I think aspiring makers of the world's best bins have to push the limits of what is possible on that front, but they have more room to distinguish themselves through innovative design and specifications, and getting all the "little things" right.


Some rambling thoughts:

I agree with dipped that image stabilization is probably the place to go for break-through performance gains, but I enjoy the simplicity/durability of non-electronified or delicately mechanically complex (to that degree) optics.

I like a wrap around grip, whether it is achieved with twin hinge construction or otherwise. My perfect bin would be something like the Swarovision EL series, only shorter in length for the x32 size (like the Zeiss FL or Leica Ultravid), without rolling ball in the x42 size, with 3 ft close focus and a variable-ratio focus to make close-focusing rapid without making distant focus too course, and with narrower minimum IPD (like most recent products from Zeiss, which do better than the industry de facto standard of 56 mm). Smooth focus, even at low temps, is important. I wear glasses and like long eye-relief, but please spec the eyecups to twist out far enough for folks who don't need it (lately, bins from China seem to spec the same eyecups on 8x models that they use on the 10x version, so they are too short for some users). Of course a bin that does all of the above, but doesn't hang flat against my body, is unacceptable! Again, I think the best bin is the one that can do it all, for as many users as possible, within the limits of each format (x20, x32, x42 etc).

--AP

Here's my top three features (for 30 or 32mm bin) and the rest from your list in order of importance to moi:

1. Resolution (detail)
2. Brightness
3. Weight: light...under 20oz

4. Handling (thin bridge like Swaro CL, short/small like Ultravid)
5. Close focus - Vortex Viper achieves 3ft
6. Field of view - at least 400ft
7. Vividness and color fidelity
8. Ease, speed, and smoothness of focus
9. Eye-relief (viewing comfort)

james holdsworth said:

Super-wide angle [ > 9 degrees] 7x35 HT, less than 25 ounces.

Click to expand...

I'd go for that.... providing there was at least 15mm ER. Actually with my finances it might have to be a Conquest HD

David

If interested in getting an alfa bin, this is the order I probably would proceed “today”, for getting an 8x32 or 8x42mm bin :

First check technical specifications, if the bin passes my requirements here then I would be interested in checking it out in reality

1. Waterproof roof.
2. Fully multicoated
3. Dielectric prism coating
4. Good warranty (Vortex, Leupold, SW, )
5. 8x32 mm up to and included 8x42mm alternatives.
6. Eye relief at least 20 mm due to wearing spectacles
7. FOV at least 8°.
8. Close focus distance: preferably 1.5 m or less, no longer than 3m.
9. Weight no more than 850 gr.
10. Twist up eye cups with “locking” positions.
11. At least 4 positions for eye cup adjustments.
12. Large sweet spot (sharpness, CA, ).. at least 80%, preferably 100% the size is usually not well described in specifications
13. Storage and operating temperature…needs to focus at -20°C without problem.


When looking at/through the actual bin and having it for a test:

1. Eye relief: If I can’t see the whole image with spectacles, I would not buy this type of bin
2. Focus movement. If the focus knob is sloppy with play, gritty, to hard to turn, I would not buy this sample, probably try another one before final judgement.
3. Hinge tension. Too loose I would not buy this sample, try another one…before final judgement.
4. Dioptre setting. Too loose I would not buy this sample, try another one….
5. Check for dirt on optic surfaces inside bin. If dirty, try another one….
6. Check for large sweet spot size (CA, sharpness ) , check if super sweet spot is present.
7. Check for “absence” of field curvature (astigmatism)
8. Check for vividness and color fidelity, neutral color the target.
9. Check for bad flare/glare situation.
10. Check for perceived depth of focus.
11. Easy focussing at -20°C, for wintertime use. Put it in the freezer overnight to test..
12. Check for optic balance between barrels



Focus speed: max 1,5 turns end to end preferred, usually not seen in specifications.
Preferably locking dioptre design on focuser.
Large oculars preferred
“Field flattener view” preferred
Hinge lock would be nice

Brightness: it seems most of the more expensive bins are close in transmission properties today so this is not that important. If important, get a bigger bin, like 42mm or 50mm instead of 32mm, to get a real improvement in brightness.

Open hinge design would be nice. Probably more durable bin if accidently dropped. Bins looking like having open hinge design around focuser but not having the forward hinge looks a bit fragile to me concerning collimation issues.
Very good traction on focuser knob to easily focus with only one finger preferred, to ease load on focussing mechanism…increased lifetime…


Anders

Mike,
Nice of you to check in and ask our opinions!

I am a fan of Zeiss, favoring the 10x56 FL. It's so good, I have nothing to complain about. But in the field I see more Swaros by far than Zeisses. What's up with that?

In a weirdly lit store, even a $100 binocular looks pretty bright and sharp on axis. Subtle differences are not so noticeable. But there is a real obvious difference that can be seen with just a little coaching. If a clerk wants to sell a Swarovision ( Some have shared company incentives with me, like sell enough units, get a free binocular of your own.) all he has to do is have the purchaser look at the edge of the field. See how much better the Swarovision is? SOLD. Even the previous EL beat the socks off the FL in this respect, and the Swarovision just kills it, and the HT as well.

Not that I give a hill of beans, as long as there's a reasonable sweet spot and the edge isn't too bad, or I wouldn't be a Zeiss fan would I? And you're in a tough spot if for some reason you "can't" keep the hallmark super clarity and provide edge sharpness too. But if you want a bigger piece of the market, I think that's where you've got to bear down.

And if you could make the edge sharp without the "rolling ball effect", by keeping the usual degree of geometrical distortion, it would be unique, even, and preferable to me. But here, I hesitate to advise you. The reasons are that rolling ball doesn't bother many people, if it does it will only be noticed in a birding/moving target situation, and the preservation of straight lines at the edge of the field is, like edge sharpness, a strong selling point in the store.

Basically I'm saying you've got to reconsider your whole manner of field correction, which is very well thought out and which I am very fond of! So that you won't be able to tell you're looking through a Zeiss any more, huh? Actually I think this is all real bad advice and hope you don't take it. But seriously, how come "edge sharpness" is not even in your list? Something you haven't thought of?

Ron

I'll chime in with the 7x42 HT suggestions.

20+ mm eye relief
Flat field
Minimal chromatic aberration

Yep, that's your competition.

I just want to say one word to you, Mike. Just one word.

Are you listening?

PORROS.

Zeiss used to make the best porros in the world, but hasn't designed a new porro since 1960. Instead the company focused on perfecting the roof prism and correcting its inherent flaws. It took decades for roofs to come up to speed with porros in terms of resolution and brightness, but they never will match porros in terms of 3-D effect, and getting the roof prism perfected has cost buyers an arm and leg.

Some of the former Zeiss East (Jena) porros continue to be produced by Docter Optik, but they are all chunky monkey 50mm-56mm porros, none are suitable for birding the way the Zeiss 8x30 Oberkochen was, just ask Annabeth.

The Berlin Wall fell in 1989. Isn't it about time for Zeiss to lift the moratorium on making porro binoculars? Yes, it still has the 7x50 B/GA, but that porro has IF EPs, and it's not a format preferred by birders.

Nikon has the premium SE and EII lines, Swarovski has the Habicht line, why not a premium porro line from Zeiss (with center focus, please)?

I'd like to see Zeiss porros in these formats: 8x30, 7x35, 10x35, 8.5x44, 10x44. Design them in Germany but make them in Hungary or Spain, I can't afford $2K for a pair of "Made in Germany" (whatever that truly means) binoculars.

Brock

Hi Mike

You will get lots of wish lists here! Good luck in getting them past Gerry!

My wish list:

Starting point is HT 8x42

Add

Nano lens anti-reflection coatings to take light transmission to the next step. Yes, I know T* is wonderful but Zeiss needs to push this boundary as it has done with the glass itself.
18mm ER (some people won't even try 16mm)
Close focus, about 1.75 metres. Any closer demands too much of the focus mechanism, space, weight, reliability, feel etc.
Another 20 metres on FOV at 1,000 metres.
Widen the zone of critical central sharpness. I am not concerned with sharpness all the way to the edge, however.

Getting into the land of make-believe I could ask for carbon fibre optical tubes and titanium bridges, but since we don't want to end up with a $4,000 binocular, lets just ask if some components made from these might save some weight and not cost too much.

Best wishes

Lee

james holdsworth said:

Super-wide angle [ > 9 degrees] 7x35 HT, less than 25 ounces.

Click to expand...

+1

Get rid of the fuzzy edges which I find very distracting.