wdc
Well-known member
It will be cheaper and more feasible to implement the digital solution ..... eventually.
Don't worry - Be Happy !:
yes and yes.
-
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.
When will the current alphas become 'obsolete' (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jremmons
- Start date
yes and yes.
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
I think that fit in the hands, and ease of view is not to be underestimated.
Best case scenario (or worst, if you've just plonked your money down), would be in the next several years, using existing technologies (including widely developed and employed materials from other industries), someone would put together the best of current performance available and incrementally improve it. Such a bin may look like:
8×42
70° AFov - 154m@1km = 462ft@1kyds, sharp to the edge
~650grams (~23oz)
1.5m variable speed close focus
20mm ER
94% flat transmission curve, S-P prisms
Best ever CA, and glare performance
This would need to be full of the best FL and HT glass, aspherical elements suitably finished, and the latest and greatest nano AR and dielectric coatings. It would have a completely neutral colour rendition.
The Fov would be that of the Nikon 8×30 EII, but flatish, sharp to the edge, and well corrected. There would be enough edge pincushion that over 90% of users could view it with no noticeable globe effect. Note that getting well corrected fields of this width is no easy task, beyond anything we have today at reasonable weight, and needing more glass weight as a % of overall weight.
The seriously light but strong chassis would have to be superbly engineered and made of advanced materials - CFRP, etc, with some pretty fancy lightweight armouring. I would think that a Nikon MHG shaped construction with longer barrels would suit - the balance would be rearward biased a 'la the Zeiss SF.
The variable focus would allow ~<1 turn cf->infinity, but with full precision.
The multi-position eyecups would be sufficiently adjustable to allow even non-glasses wearers to find a comfortable position.
The glare performance would be better than the Leica NoctiVid, while still allowing some of the ease of view of the Swarovski SV and it's large randpupille design.
It would have to be better put together than the best of today's offerings, and of course set to resolution levels well in advance of the standards - the only arguments over it's sharpness would be whether it was pin, tack, or razor sharp ! :-O
The 10×42 would be similar, 71.2° AFov, 125m@1km = 375ft@1kyds.
The 7x42 would be 66.5° AFov, 167m@1km = ~500ft@1kyds
Such a 'best of breed' beast would likely cost at least ~ 3000USD
Given the time it is taking to develop the ×32mm SF, let alone the ×50mm SF, such a bin may not arrive for several years ...... I certainly wouldn't be waiting on it.
The funny thing is that there would be those here on BF that would still find something to complain about ! :-O :cat:
Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
Just stick to the linear measurement! (there's enough confusion between yards and metres measurements and wrong part conversions anyway
It's a lot easier to just punch (pi*d^2)/4 on a calculator than it is to get your measuring tape to stand 100m, or even 10m straight up in the air ! :-O :cat:
Chosun :gh:
Its a lot easier for the manufacturer to do the calculator punching and display the result on the web page. Although, as you point out, they don't always do the conversions correctly.
As for what you are suggesting to do with a measuring tape: have you had too many mince pies already?
Lee
Hi,
the last two real innovations in binocular optics were multi layer coatings (first applied as anti-reflection coatings to surfaces used in transmission in the 80s and later to reflecting surfaces as dielectric mirrors) and phase coating in the 90s.
Since then there was evolution with manufacturers improving mechanics and waterproofing and changing small things optically while trying to get an appealing package. Alpha glass from the 90s is still very usable today, almost 30 years later and will still beat most sub-alpha pairs.
Extra wide fields are available - for astro EPs you can buy examples with 120 deg afov. The problem is that you need a stack of huge lenses for these to work well, the weight of one eyepiece is well beyond 1kg plus most are too wide to fit two beside each other with a usable IPD.
Better CA control is also available - with current ED and fluorite elements and matching partner glasses you can build triplet or higher element count objective lenses which are essentially color free up to a few hundred times magnification. So why are triplets used rarely in binoculars? Weight and cost and of course the fact that at binocular magnification a well designed and manufactured ED doublet can be good enough.
Canon IS bins work well enough with a slight weight penalty and the need to carry some spare batteries. They are also not too shabby optically although not quite alpha standard. But you will still see more detail with a stabilized pair due less image shake... Can they be built smaller and lighter - maybe a bit, but unlike with cameras where you can always leverage improvements in sensor technology to build a smaller sensor which is just as good as the last larger generation and then scale the optics down, our eyeball mk. I sensor stays the same and so does the optics for it...
Zoom EPs are there - unfortunately due to the limited field stop they have a narrower apparent field of view at low magnification and open up towards the high mag end. Zeiss has taken another approach with the new Harpia spotting scope which pairs what effectively is a zoom telephoto lens with a fixed mag, wide angle eyepiece. This results in a constant and wide apparent field of view a the price of a smaller exit pupil (and thus slightly inferior low light capability) at the low magnification end.
I think the next big thing in sports optics will be radically different from what we know today - Zeiss tried sth like this with the photo scope but they were a bit early as digicam technology was not mature enough and also they kept an optical train for visual observation which did not allow a shrink in size.
A medium size sensor camera allows for efficient image stabilization at low to medium magnification in a small package. This combined with VR goggles for viewing will allow for stabilized zoom observation with the possibility to save images and crank up the ISO in low light situations.
Joachim
A2GG
Beth
Since IS and switch/Zoom in a reasonable design is not around the corner, I suggest a bino which easily meets some of your other needs: Zeiss FL 7x42 , if you can find one.
Great CA control. Doesn't get any better than FL
WIDE true FOV
Super bright; 95% transmission or somewhere near that I recall reading
Slightly more stable image due to less shake (lower power)
about 26 ounces, but I know you don't think about weight too much.
FLs usually have nice smooth focus too
Great CA control. Doesn't get any better than FL
WIDE true FOV
Super bright; 95% transmission or somewhere near that I recall reading
Slightly more stable image due to less shake (lower power)
about 26 ounces, but I know you don't think about weight too much.
FLs usually have nice smooth focus too
Beth: Yep, the FL would probably be the perfect complement to my 8x25, it's too bad I sold it a couple years back, but my finances were in quite a different place at the time (trying to buy a house then, selling one now...)! I'm keeping an eye on the used market for a pair, but figure I'll have better luck trying to find an 8x42 HT or SF.
Justin
Justin
Last edited:
APM have a flat field 12.5mm 84degree eyepiece that is designed for binocular usage... got a longer one in the works. They are releasing new models of Porro bins that tick some of the boxes mentioned. Of course the Nikon WX provides optical perfection but is sooo costly and heavy.
PEter
PEter
A2GG
Beth
That's a bummer and I can relate to losing FL for financial reasons too.
You should be very happy with HT, SF or SV. Let us know what you finally
end up with and how you like it.
justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
I'm no optics expert, but even I can see that digital imaging is the future of hand-held optics. Forget what we know now. In 20 years, we won't know anything.
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
I was out on a short hike scanning some distant ( ~300m/1000ft) cliffs yesterday with the 8× Zens, and for the life of me despite bracing against something solid, I couldn't hold them steady enough to determine if the dark shape I was looking at was a falcon, or just some crack and shadow or something .....
I really could have done with some stabilized bins.
I don't think they're coming anytime soon though.
Perhaps the OP could look at a muster (is that what it's called? - Chuck should know!
of bins, any of:-One of the 7×42's
An 8.5×SV, or an 8×HT, or an 8× or 10× SF, or even an 8×NV
And a large stabilized bin - Canon IS 10×42, or 15×50 (the 50's at least are reasonably nice to hold)
There really is no one do it all bin at this stage ..... I choose the 8× because I can mostly hold it steady - not yesterday though .....
Chosun :gh:
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Chosun, post 91,
Do not worry, it is only the beginning of deteoration, it will become more serious with the accumulation of your years in life, but it should not hamper your observation pleasure since there are 6x30's, 5x45's etc. Can be hold steady as a rock.
Gijs van Ginkel
Do not worry, it is only the beginning of deteoration, it will become more serious with the accumulation of your years in life, but it should not hamper your observation pleasure since there are 6x30's, 5x45's etc. Can be hold steady as a rock.
Gijs van Ginkel
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Gijs, don't write me off yet! lol. I'm getting younger and younger, better and better, cell by cell
I think a slight amount of movement with an 8× is fairly normal for everyone. Most times it is not critical, and so we do not consciously think of it. It just happened to be that this particular case was pushing the limits .... (also my lenses may not have been crystal clean, and the sun wasn't entirely helpful).
Image scales less than 8× tend to annoy me a bit, though I can see the use for close in warbling. On the way back I stopped to check out some wrens, which turned out to be Variegated Wrens - they ended up coming so close to check me out (or my blue T-shirt! that I put my bins down and just used the Mark I eyeball - 180° Fov !!
Pretty happy as that's 3 reasonably rare birds in 3 weeks, (sacred kingfisher, and square-tailed kite), to ad to the pair of Wedge-tailed Eagles flying over my house last month
Chosun :gh:
I think a slight amount of movement with an 8× is fairly normal for everyone. Most times it is not critical, and so we do not consciously think of it. It just happened to be that this particular case was pushing the limits .... (also my lenses may not have been crystal clean, and the sun wasn't entirely helpful).
Image scales less than 8× tend to annoy me a bit, though I can see the use for close in warbling. On the way back I stopped to check out some wrens, which turned out to be Variegated Wrens - they ended up coming so close to check me out (or my blue T-shirt!
that I put my bins down and just used the Mark I eyeball - 180° Fov !! Pretty happy as that's 3 reasonably rare birds in 3 weeks, (sacred kingfisher, and square-tailed kite), to ad to the pair of Wedge-tailed Eagles flying over my house last month
Chosun :gh:
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Chosun, post 93,
I have no intention whatsoever to write you of, but it seems quite normal to me, that a magnification of 8x can cause some vibrations and since you are not dead fortunately your muscle tension will all by itself cause some vibration, which one can limit a bit by supporting the binocular. The other point is that your heart beat also causes vibrations in the muscular system fortunately and that also affects binocular stability.
Happy New Year and congratulations with your nice bird observations.
Gijs van Ginkel
I have no intention whatsoever to write you of, but it seems quite normal to me, that a magnification of 8x can cause some vibrations and since you are not dead fortunately your muscle tension will all by itself cause some vibration, which one can limit a bit by supporting the binocular. The other point is that your heart beat also causes vibrations in the muscular system fortunately and that also affects binocular stability.
Happy New Year and congratulations with your nice bird observations.
Gijs van Ginkel
WJC
Well-known member
Gijs, don't write me off yet! lol. I'm getting younger and younger, better and better, cell by cell
I think a slight amount of movement with an 8× is fairly normal for everyone. Most times it is not critical, and so we do not consciously think of it. It just happened to be that this particular case was pushing the limits .... (also my lenses may not have been crystal clean, and the sun wasn't entirely helpful).
Image scales less than 8× tend to annoy me a bit, though I can see the use for close in warbling. On the way back I stopped to check out some wrens, which turned out to be Variegated Wrens - they ended up coming so close to check me out (or my blue T-shirt!
Pretty happy as that's 3 reasonably rare birds in 3 weeks, (sacred kingfisher, and square-tailed kite), to ad to the pair of Wedge-tailed Eagles flying over my house last month
Chosun :gh:
About 10 years ago, I decided I was going to live forever and so far ... so good! 8-P
Bill
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
I was out on a short hike scanning some distant ( ~300m/1000ft) cliffs yesterday with the 8× Zens, and for the life of me despite bracing against something solid, I couldn't hold them steady enough to determine if the dark shape I was looking at was a falcon, or just some crack and shadow or something .....
I really could have done with some stabilized bins.
I don't think they're coming anytime soon though.
Perhaps the OP could look at a muster (is that what it's called? - Chuck should know!
One of the 7×42's
An 8.5×SV, or an 8×HT, or an 8× or 10× SF, or even an 8×NV
And a large stabilized bin - Canon IS 10×42, or 15×50 (the 50's at least are reasonably nice to hold)
There really is no one do it all bin at this stage ..... I choose the 8× because I can mostly hold it steady - not yesterday though .....
Chosun :gh:
Less coffee and some beta-blockers might work?
And some 8x might be more stable than others due to large FOV, good ergo and excellent eye piece/ER. You know what bin I'm talking about.
tenex
reality-based
Progress is an interesting thing to worry about. I read an expert-sounding essay 15-20 years ago that envisioned an imminent quantum leap in quality due to correction of residual aberrations by aspherical optics. Not only has that not happened, they didn't foresee what has: dielectric mirrors, HT glass, ongoing improvement of coatings, field flatteners. And at this point, within the context of something resembling traditional binoculars, I'm not sure what else can be done, at least that I would notice.
On the other hand, beyond that context, the future is already here if you want it. People are starting to ID birds with superzoom cameras now, 600 to 3000mm equivalent lenses. That's 14x to 70x, and you can even save an image to study later. Not the same experience at all, but useful. (I doubt anyone will ever build all that into something with dual oculars of high quality, as it would be prohibitively heavy.)
So I'll second everyone recommending that you go for what you want now, and enjoy it.
Tenex: interesting you mention superzooms, as I replaced my person spotting scope with a low-end Fujifilm superzooms and find it incredibly useful for extracting field marks during shorebird and waterfowl viewing.
I have heeded the masses and am beginning to search for a used SF/HT/SV or 7x HD+/EDG/FL, so we'll see what happens! I'd probably just go ahead and buy new if I didn't also just pick up a pair of Victory Pockets (which I personally consider an example of a technological marvel such as what I'm asking in this thread). I still regret selling some of the used alphas I'd gotten fir good prices in the past, but alas, best not dwell on them...
Justin
I have heeded the masses and am beginning to search for a used SF/HT/SV or 7x HD+/EDG/FL, so we'll see what happens! I'd probably just go ahead and buy new if I didn't also just pick up a pair of Victory Pockets (which I personally consider an example of a technological marvel such as what I'm asking in this thread). I still regret selling some of the used alphas I'd gotten fir good prices in the past, but alas, best not dwell on them...
Justin
Last edited:
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
The quality standard for binoculars is probably the limiting factor here.
Not much point in making them better than the average eye might be what the average manufacturer thinks.
And the ISO standard seems to be set quite low as some here on BF have pointed out.
When it comes to camera lenses your essayist might be more correct on aspherical lenses and "quantum leap" in image quality. Especially zoom lenses have improved significant only over the last 4-5 years and many uses aspherical lens elements. See attached file of the Nikon 24-70mm zoom, with built in image stabilization of course, and using in total 4 aspherical lenses. Image quality is also clearly better than it's predecessor and very welcome on the latest 45 MP image sensors. This lens is not cheap but still a bit less expensive than most alpha binoculars.
Attachments
Last edited:
WJC
Well-known member
Once while publishing ATM Journal, I received an article from a fellow who had just designed a compound telescope that was FAR superior to anything heretofore created. He sent along spot diagrams to prove his findings. I had designed telescopes the spots for which would only take up a TINY portion of the Airy disc even at the edge of a huge field. And although neither hand nor machine could make it to spec, his spots would fit into a TINY portion of my best effort.
So, I popped his specs into Zemax-EE for a better look.
This exuberant designer had designed a telescope using MONOCHROMATIC light. Thus, when I added real-world visual wavelengths, his spot diagram—in which all the rays were superimposed—would have taken an array of 9, 19-inch monitors to capture! ‘A bit short of diffraction limited, wouldn’t you say?
Quite often, excitement overrides knowledge, experience, and logic. :cat: