What would worlds best binoculars be? (2 Viewers)

etudiant · Sep 16, 2013

kabsetz said:
Etudiant

This is what I was getting at in post #34, in the second point "resolution." In the best presently offered binoculars, I believe all the axial aberrations other than spherical aberration and chromatic aberration are well enough corrected in the optical design, so a prototype or a perfectly successful production sample can have a practically perfect image. But manufacturing and assembly tolerances result in the actual binoculars you can buy from a store usually being visibly compromised.

Kimmo

For those who are interested, this writeup: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-perfect-lens
provides an excellent summary of things that can and do go wrong when producing optics. Binoculars have to make 2 such assemblies play nice with each other.
Documenting the end result would not cost much, given the automatic measurement tools available, but would provide a compelling marketing advantage imho..

Den Dee · Sep 16, 2013

etudiant said:
. . .
Reliable quality is still an unbeatable marketing tool, imho, even better than no questions asked service.

Yes, indeed!!!

Zeiss, Swarovski, Nikon, Leica, Kowa... - listen!

.

hinnark · Sep 16, 2013

Innovator's Dilemma

Coming back to the discussion above regarding small incremental improvings vs. innovations that are really new I'd like to add that this seems to be a typical case of what is known as the "innovator's dilemma" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator's_Dilemma in economic sciences. In a short the innovator's dilemma means that the economical success of products of a company today could be the cause of a decline in the future because it tempted the company to avoid anything that differs from their current success. That includes innovations as well.

There are lots of examples of companies in all kind of businesses that failed to innovate at the right time mainly for this reason. In my opinion the European optic makers could be just now at such a point.

Steve

MPeoples · Sep 16, 2013

Hi Mike,

What I look for are the following, Brightness, Resolution, color correction, comfort and balance, and the Field of view. The price is also a factor. I use my binocular's for multi viewing, astronomy, birding and also hunting.

Best
Mike Peoples
Adorama, Inc.

NDhunter · Sep 16, 2013

etudiant said:
For those who are interested, this writeup: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-perfect-lens
provides an excellent summary of things that can and do go wrong when producing optics. Binoculars have to make 2 such assemblies play nice with each other.
Documenting the end result would not cost much, given the automatic measurement tools available, but would provide a compelling marketing advantage imho..

Etudiant:

This is a very good post and the reference is with camera lenses, but
much the same as with QC with binoculars.
Camera lenses are complex with the variable feature, that adds it own
problems.
I have found the same issue with variability with comparable optics, and
a term found here sometimes is a "cherry" example. Get one, and you
are finding the top of the heap.

There are some members here, who can offer ways to check out the
performance of optics. Henry, is a great resource, especially on the
spotting scope subforum, demonstrating using the star test.

It is hard to compare like optics, as it takes time, and a quick shop view
will not do it.

Jerry

LabradorDuck · Sep 20, 2013

One place where Zeiss has already done well is interpupillary distance. That's one of the main things that led me to Zeiss. 56mm may be narrow enough for most people, but it isn't for me. I am glad to have one of the major brands that can get below that. My old binoculars were porros marketed as "child-friendly" due to their low minimum IPD; Zeiss was really my only upgrade path.

I have noticed that the new Terra ED models are of a more standard size and thus would have been unusable to me; I hope that this is somehow a limitation of some steps taken to reduce their price point and not a portent of the future of Zeiss's flagship models. In a market where the big players compete over tiny increases in optimal performance that are often barely visible in normal use, these sorts of ergonomic details can do a lot to set a brand apart.

Sagittarius · Sep 22, 2013

I would like to see a Victory HT in 12x50 and 15x56 with 18 to 20mm eye relief.

mjensen6577 · Oct 5, 2013

Thread seems to have tapered off. Just want to thank everyone who has contributed. Stream will be printed and evaluated within the new product committee. There is some good stuff here. Thank you.

NDhunter · Oct 5, 2013

Mike:

You have made this a daring post, and it is one that none of the other majors
would attempt.

I like that, get all of the information you can, and go on from here.

Jerry

Torview · Oct 5, 2013

Mike,

Many on here want a premium 7x binocular, all your competition is denying us this now, so Zeiss could take a real lead here and give (some) of us what we want.

Please !

etudiant · Oct 5, 2013

Torview said:
Mike,

Many on here want a premium 7x binocular, all your competition is denying us this now, so Zeiss could take a real lead here and give (some) of us what we want.

Please !

As age creeps up on us all, even on birders, ease of use becomes a priority.

Lightweight binoculars with plenty of eye relief for us glasses wearers is what is wanted for easy viewing. Easy viewing is a feature that would be a real market place differentiator. Can a viewing experience approaching that of the big WW2 8x60 be made available in a smaller, lighter package such as a 7x35?
Of course, that would also necessitate a shift in the marketing from the usual sharper/brighter pitch, but it would be a game changer, imho.

Binoseeker · Oct 7, 2013

Troubador said:
Hej Anders

ER measurements are only half the story. No matter how generous the ER it will not function properly if the eyecup (and its settings) do not deliver the user's eye to the right position.

ERs of 16 - 18 mm are perfectly adequate providing the eyecup is designed and manufactured in the right way.

Hej da Lee

Hi Lee,

I tested the HT in a store and the ER was too short for me when looking with spectacles....so no HT for me :smoke:

I probably have a larger distance between eye and spectacles than you have...

Cheers,

Anders

Holger Merlitz · Oct 8, 2013

Binoseeker said:
Hi Lee,

I tested the HT in a store and the ER was too short for me when looking with spectacles....so no HT for me :smoke:

I probably have a larger distance between eye and spectacles than you have...

Cheers,

Anders

It may also help to change the spectacles - which no doubt contribute the cheapest part to the image chain ;-)

Cheers,
Holger

NDhunter · Oct 8, 2013

Holger Merlitz said:
It may also help to change the spectacles - which no doubt contribute the cheapest part to the image chain ;-)

Cheers,
Holger

Holger:

Good post, no reason to throw anything under the bus, when it clearly
is a personal issue.

Zeiss and most makers make optics that will work well with 90% of the
population. For the others, I suppose it will be a personal thing.

Jerry

Binoseeker · Oct 8, 2013

Holger Merlitz said:
It may also help to change the spectacles - which no doubt contribute the cheapest part to the image chain ;-)

Cheers,
Holger

Or get contact lenses, or laser treatment ;-)

Well there are a lot of bins with larger ER, so there are obviously some manufacturers out there who can do this

If you make a bin with larger ER and good eyecups then more people can use them, right ?

Anders

Holger Merlitz · Oct 8, 2013

Binoseeker said:
Or get contact lenses, or laser treatment ;-)

Well there are a lot of bins with larger ER, so there are obviously some manufacturers out there who can do this

If you make a bin with larger ER and good eyecups then more people can use them, right ?

Anders

Right, but there are side-effects: For those without spectacles, the 'ease of view' of such long-ER oculars may be compromised - I often found binoculars with 13-14mm ER easier to use than those with 18-20mm (I am not wearing glasses), even when the eye-cups could be adjusted. Also, a longer ER implies wider oculars, which are heavier and costlier, contain more glass (means less transmission) and so on ...

Cheers,
Holger

kabsetz · Oct 24, 2013

In light of recent and past discussions on other threads concerning focus mechanisms, I offer the perhaps impractical suggestion of abandoning mechanical linkages altogether and using hydraulics instead. I'm not an engineer, but it would seem to me that it would be easy to implement a system where the focus wheel would move hydraulic fluid that, via thin tubes could be routed to where the moveable lens elements are. Since required fluid pressures would be minimal, leakage problems should not be an issue, and diopter adjustment should be easy to incorporate as well. This would also allow for virtually full freedom in focus wheel placement, size and tactile feel. Progressive focus should also be attainable.

Another solution would be electronics, which could probably be made lighter and more precise than mechanical systems and would make diopter adjustment and variable focus ratio a breeze (even allowing for user-tuneable focus speed), but would depend on batteries so in that respect would be less elegant.

Kimmo

steve@37n84w · Oct 24, 2013

kabsetz said:
In light of recent and past discussions on other threads concerning focus mechanisms, I offer the perhaps impractical suggestion of abandoning mechanical linkages altogether and using hydraulics instead. I'm not an engineer, but it would seem to me that it would be easy to implement a system where the focus wheel would move hydraulic fluid that, via thin tubes could be routed to where the moveable lens elements are. Since required fluid pressures would be minimal, leakage problems should not be an issue, and diopter adjustment should be easy to incorporate as well. This would also allow for virtually full freedom in focus wheel placement, size and tactile feel. Progressive focus should also be attainable.

Another solution would be electronics, which could probably be made lighter and more precise than mechanical systems and would make diopter adjustment and variable focus ratio a breeze (even allowing for user-tuneable focus speed), but would depend on batteries so in that respect would be less elegant.

Kimmo

Kimmo

I just don't know how practical hydraulics would be for the use mentioned especially considering how difficult it would be to make the components on such a small scale. Each hydraulic cylinder would need a miniature piston, seals, wipes, etc. You would also need a miniature pump which would have to be mechanical (powered by the focus wheel) or electric. I would also be concerned about lag time until the needed hydraulic pressure is attained, this would be totally unacceptable for quick focus.

I own several pieces of equipment (skid steer, excavator, and tele handler) and I appreciate the durability of hydraulic systems which can operate thousands of cycles without any problem but I just don't see it being viable for focussing binoculars for several reasons if it was simply a scaled down version of existing systems.

Steve

Holger Merlitz · Oct 25, 2013

kabsetz said:
In light of recent and past discussions on other threads concerning focus mechanisms, I offer the perhaps impractical suggestion of abandoning mechanical linkages altogether and using hydraulics instead. I'm not an engineer, but it would seem to me that it would be easy to implement a system where the focus wheel would move hydraulic fluid that, via thin tubes could be routed to where the moveable lens elements are. Since required fluid pressures would be minimal, leakage problems should not be an issue, and diopter adjustment should be easy to incorporate as well. This would also allow for virtually full freedom in focus wheel placement, size and tactile feel. Progressive focus should also be attainable.

Another solution would be electronics, which could probably be made lighter and more precise than mechanical systems and would make diopter adjustment and variable focus ratio a breeze (even allowing for user-tuneable focus speed), but would depend on batteries so in that respect would be less elegant.

Kimmo

I think fluids would have a rather high thermal expansion coefficient, so that the focus might change continuously once you touch the instrument with your warm hands. I might be wrong, however ...

Cheers,
Holger

etudiant · Oct 25, 2013

kabsetz said:
In light of recent and past discussions on other threads concerning focus mechanisms, I offer the perhaps impractical suggestion of abandoning mechanical linkages altogether and using hydraulics instead. I'm not an engineer, but it would seem to me that it would be easy to implement a system where the focus wheel would move hydraulic fluid that, via thin tubes could be routed to where the moveable lens elements are. Since required fluid pressures would be minimal, leakage problems should not be an issue, and diopter adjustment should be easy to incorporate as well. This would also allow for virtually full freedom in focus wheel placement, size and tactile feel. Progressive focus should also be attainable.

Another solution would be electronics, which could probably be made lighter and more precise than mechanical systems and would make diopter adjustment and variable focus ratio a breeze (even allowing for user-tuneable focus speed), but would depend on batteries so in that respect would be less elegant.

Kimmo

Interesting concept.
I wonder whether the image stabilization systems that Canon and Fuji use could be augmented to take over the focusing as well.
That would add considerable utility while eliminating a mechanical subsystem that has often been a source of dissatisfaction, as Kabsetz has noted.
More generally, given the predominance of autofocus in digital cameras, it is surprising that this feature has not yet reached the binocular market. Is the industry just too conservative or is there a real dealbreaker issue here that makes it impractical for binoculars?

What would worlds best binoculars be? (2 Viewers)

Registered User

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Well-known member

Registered User

Mostly using spectacles (myopic) with binoculars.

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Mostly using spectacles (myopic) with binoculars.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered User

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread