David Swain
Well-known member
Not like the situation with the EII is much different!
-
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.
What binoculars do you think have the most WOW factor! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
Not like the situation with the EII is much different!
jan van daalen
Well-known member
I don't know Cameraland but I do know Swarovski and visit the plant in Absam on a regular base and take my word for it. It is bogus what they have told you. I sell them a lot and ordered before 11.00 hours it is delivered within two days.
Mainstream business? No offcourse not, that's the SV serie, but custom order?? No way!
Jan
Mainstream business? No offcourse not, that's the SV serie, but custom order?? No way!
Jan
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
Another insider?!!! Lol!!! Bryce...
steve@37n84w
Well-known member
Most places that sell watches don't carry Rolex either. As you said the 8x30 Habicht is not a popular seller, it's definitely not mainstream yet some people go to the trouble to find one....gee I wonder why???
If you really want one proudpapa is still showing two in stock on ebay.
Steve
He won't give me any discount and I have to have a discount. I don't pay retail for any binoculars. Too much depreciation. He should at least give me a discount for buying direct from him instead of going through E-bay. He has to pay E-bay 10% when he sells a pair. Heh, Proud Papa I will give you $850.00 shipped for some Habicht's 8x30.
Last edited:
David, RonE (thanks for adressing that post to me), et al., the water RonH finds "nice" I find a bit risky but maybe worth braving. Here acc. to my meagre knowledge and understanding, based on readin gup of basic optics and on some of D.'s recent and past material, are some ideas, some of them tentative even when I don't add "it seems", etc. Happy if any errors are shown - bluntly is fine. The nos. below are given to make that (or commenting) easier.
(1) Seems to me too that the pupil of the eye does "stop down" the obj. lens. RonE, I gather you say light entering at every point in the obj. lens arrives at every point in the exit pupil. A part of the light from every point of an object in the image reaches every point in the obj. lens and every point in the exit pupil and eye's pupil. But, from ray diagrams (seen, not drawn by me), RonH's ruler experiment and his explanation (unable to find an expln. from David in my limited reading of his material) it sems that: every ray entering the obj. lens a given distance from its centre arrives at the exit pupil and the eye's pupil a proportional distance from the pupil's centre. What is below follows from that.
(2) Consider the pupil of the eye when at 2 mm diam. in bright conditions.
(3) The light which enters it is the light in the corresponding inner 2 mm of the exit pupil.
(4) This is formed by the light entering the obj. lens within a circle which in an 8x bin (say) is 8 x 2 mm = 16 mm in diam. If the obj. lens is larger the rest of the light entering the obj. lens is lost.
(5) Resolution through the central area only of the obj. lens is lower than through the whole obj. lens because of (a) the Dawes limit, and (b) greater difficulty in correcting diffraction. Not v. clear to me whether David has other reasons (apart from empirical findings). This offsets the advantages of stopping down.
(6) That difference in resoln. in that central area is noticeable with the acuity of the human eye in bright conditions, in bins where David finds it so.
(7) With an obj. lens somewht larger than 16 mm. the light through that central 16 mm is resolved noticeably less well than the light ouside it. Thus, the eye sees a difference in resoln. in this situation vs when it is more open and receiving light from outside that circle.
(8) A 2 mm pupil of the eye placed "true" / on axis to the exit pupil receives light from a circular area of 16 mm diam. (in an 8x bin) at the centre of the obj. lens but when placed elsewhere within the exit pupil (when it's larger than that, with a larger obj. lens) recieves light from outside that area of the obj. lens. Thus, it then sees the image at better resolution, the more so the larger the obj. lens.
(9) This is one reason why "roaming", above, is more comfortable.
(10) It is also one reason why a 7x (say) can show more detail than an 8x (at a certain diam. range of the eye's pupil).
RonH, re RonE's math. identity I first mistakenly thought (unlike you I guess) that it may be a coincidence, but then was happy to find it works in the general case!
(1) Seems to me too that the pupil of the eye does "stop down" the obj. lens. RonE, I gather you say light entering at every point in the obj. lens arrives at every point in the exit pupil. A part of the light from every point of an object in the image reaches every point in the obj. lens and every point in the exit pupil and eye's pupil. But, from ray diagrams (seen, not drawn by me), RonH's ruler experiment and his explanation (unable to find an expln. from David in my limited reading of his material) it sems that: every ray entering the obj. lens a given distance from its centre arrives at the exit pupil and the eye's pupil a proportional distance from the pupil's centre. What is below follows from that.
(2) Consider the pupil of the eye when at 2 mm diam. in bright conditions.
(3) The light which enters it is the light in the corresponding inner 2 mm of the exit pupil.
(4) This is formed by the light entering the obj. lens within a circle which in an 8x bin (say) is 8 x 2 mm = 16 mm in diam. If the obj. lens is larger the rest of the light entering the obj. lens is lost.
(5) Resolution through the central area only of the obj. lens is lower than through the whole obj. lens because of (a) the Dawes limit, and (b) greater difficulty in correcting diffraction. Not v. clear to me whether David has other reasons (apart from empirical findings). This offsets the advantages of stopping down.
(6) That difference in resoln. in that central area is noticeable with the acuity of the human eye in bright conditions, in bins where David finds it so.
(7) With an obj. lens somewht larger than 16 mm. the light through that central 16 mm is resolved noticeably less well than the light ouside it. Thus, the eye sees a difference in resoln. in this situation vs when it is more open and receiving light from outside that circle.
(8) A 2 mm pupil of the eye placed "true" / on axis to the exit pupil receives light from a circular area of 16 mm diam. (in an 8x bin) at the centre of the obj. lens but when placed elsewhere within the exit pupil (when it's larger than that, with a larger obj. lens) recieves light from outside that area of the obj. lens. Thus, it then sees the image at better resolution, the more so the larger the obj. lens.
(9) This is one reason why "roaming", above, is more comfortable.
(10) It is also one reason why a 7x (say) can show more detail than an 8x (at a certain diam. range of the eye's pupil).
RonH, re RonE's math. identity I first mistakenly thought (unlike you I guess) that it may be a coincidence, but then was happy to find it works in the general case!
steve@37n84w
Well-known member
I've paid full blown retail for some of my binos and the views I've enjoyed through them make it worth every penny.....just saying.
Steve
I am intrigued by the Habicht 8x30's because you say they are sharper than the EII's but it seems you are the only one of that opinion. I would say 70 % of the people who have them and the EII's prefer the view through the EII and then there's the stiff focus issue. I am not really convinced that they are worth $900.00 dollars.
steve@37n84w
Well-known member
I don't think I'm the only one who thinks they are sharper on axis. Erik on Cloudy Nights and just a few days ago on this forum Plyscope told you his Habicht was sharper on axis than his EII. Erik, Plyscope, and I make three (30%) so where is the other 7 who think their EII is sharper on axis than their Habicht????
Dennis understand that I LOVE my EII's and they are FANTASTIC but the Habicht (at least Erik's, Plyscope's and mine) are a little sharper on axis. My favorite porro for most birding is my 8x30 EII, it is a GREAT binocular. And the 8x30 EII is a little easier to focus than the 8x30 Habicht....of course the Habicht is a little smaller, little brighter, little sharper on axis, fully waterproof, etc.
Steve
NDhunter
Experienced observer
I don't think I'm the only one who thinks they are sharper on axis. Erik on Cloudy Nights and just a few days ago on this forum Plyscope told you his Habicht was sharper on axis than his EII. Erik, Plyscope, and I make three (30%) so where is the other 7 who think their EII is sharper on axis than their Habicht????
Dennis understand that I LOVE my EII's and they are FANTASTIC but the Habicht (at least Erik's, Plyscope's and mine) are a little sharper on axis. My favorite porro for most birding is my 8x30 EII, it is a GREAT binocular. And the 8x30 EII is a little easier to focus than the 8x30 Habicht....of course the Habicht is a little smaller, little brighter, little sharper on axis, fully waterproof, etc.
Steve
I'm thinking both of these are very nice binoculars, and as far as saying
which binocular is sharper, that is a very subjective thing.
I would surely not purchase one of these over the other based on sharpness.
If you are looking for a waterproof Swaro. 8x30, in that price range, just
move up and get the CL. It is better than either one of these.
Don't make this into a: he said, she said. :gh:
Jerry
My impression is that the Habicht is better optically than the CL. I also love classic porros for the high transmission and 3D image.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Interesting that you think the CL is better than these two. Why?
You are the 1st person that I have heard say this.
I apologize for my optical ranting to you guys who just want to talk binoculars per se! If you will only "not mind us" for a little longer, hey I'm enjoying your discussion so don't quit!
RonE,
First, a quibble. The round spot in the eyepiece is the exit pupil corresponding to a single direction within the field. There is a multitude of afocal exit beams that cross in space at a common place. This would still happen if the objective lens was stopped down however: such a stop does not reduce the field of view. So, I don't see how this situation persisting even with a closed down daytime eye pupil disproves that stopping at the eyepiece is not optically equivalent to stopping before the objective.
But I agree with your philosophical point, as I understand it, which like many philosophical points seems trivial and self evident on the surface but is actually significant. Of course a stop behind the binocular does not change the binocular. To insist otherwise would be to question the basic principle of causality and Lord knows what else. But I still believe it to be "optically equivalent" to stopping before the objective.
Once again I thank you for your example, which deserves to worked out formally in symbols rather than with some typical numbers as you grabbed out of the hat. It shows that a perfect binocular always provides a perfect eye (both resolving to the theoretical limit of their aperture) with exactly all the resolution it can use, no more and no less. Of course in real life things are uglier, as the eye's acuity drops in low light, binoculars are flawed, etc. But it is an elegant concept.
RonH
RonE,
First, a quibble. The round spot in the eyepiece is the exit pupil corresponding to a single direction within the field. There is a multitude of afocal exit beams that cross in space at a common place. This would still happen if the objective lens was stopped down however: such a stop does not reduce the field of view. So, I don't see how this situation persisting even with a closed down daytime eye pupil disproves that stopping at the eyepiece is not optically equivalent to stopping before the objective.
But I agree with your philosophical point, as I understand it, which like many philosophical points seems trivial and self evident on the surface but is actually significant. Of course a stop behind the binocular does not change the binocular. To insist otherwise would be to question the basic principle of causality and Lord knows what else. But I still believe it to be "optically equivalent" to stopping before the objective.
Once again I thank you for your example, which deserves to worked out formally in symbols rather than with some typical numbers as you grabbed out of the hat. It shows that a perfect binocular always provides a perfect eye (both resolving to the theoretical limit of their aperture) with exactly all the resolution it can use, no more and no less. Of course in real life things are uglier, as the eye's acuity drops in low light, binoculars are flawed, etc. But it is an elegant concept.
RonH
proudpapa56
Where'd you go, stay put!
Well, Dennis, my original goal when deciding to stock, and dish out a good chunk of change, for a full line of Swarovski Binos and Spotting Scopes, including special order items, was not to break even.
Last edited:
NDhunter
Experienced observer
James:
You are right, I was being a bit sarcastic.
There is another thread recently about what is most important to you , optics or ergos.
That is where the CL for instance would be ranked very well, ergos.
I admit, I just get tired of hearing about the schoolyard, "mine is better than yours" talk.
There are many factors that go into the many things that are compared
with binoculars on here.
I find sharpness, is hard to compare, and I don't put a lot into that one.
I find most all of the better mid to high level optics are all very sharp, and
sharpness is hard to measure, subjective, and the other differences are more important to me.
Jerry
Surveyor
The more I understand, the more I understand why I
Ron I agree with all that. As I originally stated, I get approximately the same measurements with the stop in front or behind the binocular. It is functionally equivalent. In the first paragraph, if the bino aperture were stopped down, the exit pupil would be smaller, have the same information but less resolution.
The original question was which was doing the limiting of contrast and resolution and I said it was the eyes (because of the above discussion) where David said binocular in some cases, using a stopped down instrument.
The line of reasoning I was after is that eye stops down the eye, not physically stops down the bino. Both eye and optic have to obey the same rules of refraction, illumination and EM wave propagation (and several other rules) so, to me, the math is the same be it eye or optic.
Last edited:
Good contributions though. Very interesting reading on some important topics. It certainly enriches the thread and in a way it does ultimitely affect the wow factor.
steve@37n84w
Well-known member
Jerry
If you're referring to mine and Dennis's posts I never once said "mine is better than yours", unlike Dennis I would never be so presumptuous. I simply said that MY 8x30 Habicht is sharper on axis than MY 8x30 EII. I totally agree that the many other parameters that determine a binoculars overall performance are more important than just a binoculars on axis sharpness which explains why I normally use my 8x30 EII for birding duties.
While I agree that differences other than on axis sharpness are more important overall (assuming the binos being compared are relatively close in sharpness) I totally disagree that on axis resolution is hard to measure and subjective. It's very hard to put a numerical value on CA, veiling glare, etc. but not on axis resolution. Whether mounting the binoculars on a tripod and seeing how many elements can be resolved on a USAF resolution chart or splitting difficult double stars of know magnitude and arc seconds separation
I think on axis resolution is easier to quantify than more nebulose qualities such as CA, veiling glare, etc.
In the past I would drag out the new acquisitions on a yearly basis and test for resolution but haven't done so in a while. I have an excellent auxiliary scope ( nato surplus artillery gun sight with german optics no less) that I purchased from surplus shed several years ago that I use for boosted resolution testing. I normally just use the night sky and as any forum member who regularly uses binoculars for splitting double stars knows this is an excellent (and enjoyable) means of comparing on axis resolution.
Again I never said my binocular is better than anyone's binocular. I simply said MY Habicht 8x30 is a little sharper on axis than MY EII. Some other forum members have come to the same conclusion but I'm sure there are others that see it differently which is fine with me. It would be rather boring around here if we all preferred the same type or brand of binocular and if we all gave the same concernment to the many different parameters that influence how well we get along with a particular bino.
Steve
I really appreciate your input here Steve. I am also an amateur astronomer and I know splitting double stars is a good test of on-axis sharpness. I feel sharpness is one of the easier attributes of a binocular to test and one of the most important characteristics that I look for in a binocular. I have found the Nikon SE and EII porro's to be sharper on-axis than even the alpha roofs. I bought a Swarovski 8x30 Habicht so when I get it I will do a comparison between my Nikon 8x32 SE and Nikon 8x30 EII's. It will be called "The battle of best porro's in the world."
