Benefits from High end glass; Good Eyes or poor eyes? (1 Viewer)

[Steve C]

I got to thinking about this the other day. On another forum there is always chatter for high end binoculars. However it seems recommendations seem split about 50/50. Some say poor eyes or older eyes that aren't necessarily poor, but not as sharp as they were once, are not good enough anymore to be able to see benefits of high end stuff. Others seem to say that young, sharp eyes don't need the good stuff. That does not seem to leave much middle ground .

There is too much opinionated "gack" there to ask the question, the answers would go the same routes, the general question comes up often enough, even if it is not the specific topic of the thread.

I tend to think the better your eyes, the more use there is to be seen in high end optics. I also tend to think that any eyesight benefits from good glass, so maybe the answer is "all eyes". In all eyes there is some point where the question of ..."how much resolution can any human eye use?"..has to come in to play.

So for those who have some definite points, whether you are either simply optically inclined, or even optometrically inclined , or maybe both, which kind of eyesight benefits most from high end glass?

 

[opticoholic]

Good question Steve.

Something Frank wrote in another thead rang pretty true to me: "Only the most discriminating users can find the ever so subtle differences between the most advanced Chinese models and the current crop of 'alphas.' "

So "the good stuff" is getting closer and closer to the "slightly less good stuff!"

I'm really not sure. Maybe both poor old weary eyes AND young sharp eyes can benefit from the very best glass, but perhaps in different ways and to different degrees. But often, maybe neither group gets much more out of a $2K "alpha" than can be gleaned from "the next best" 2nd tier model.

--Dave

 

[eitanaltman]

Well I think the term discriminating doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the quality of vision. It's more about being trained to know what to look for.

 

[opticoholic]

Well I think the term discriminating doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the quality of vision. It's more about being trained to know what to look for.

Yes, ...maybe the young sharp eyes would have an easier time learning to notice those "ever so subtle differences."

 

[[email protected]]

I got to thinking about this the other day. On another forum there is always chatter for high end binoculars. However it seems recommendations seem split about 50/50. Some say poor eyes or older eyes that aren't necessarily poor, but not as sharp as they were once, are not good enough anymore to be able to see benefits of high end stuff. Others seem to say that young, sharp eyes don't need the good stuff. That does not seem to leave much middle ground .

There is too much opinionated "gack" there to ask the question, the answers would go the same routes, the general question comes up often enough, even if it is not the specific topic of the thread.

I tend to think the better your eyes, the more use there is to be seen in high end optics. I also tend to think that any eyesight benefits from good glass, so maybe the answer is "all eyes". In all eyes there is some point where the question of ..."how much resolution can any human eye use?"..has to come in to play.

So for those who have some definite points, whether you are either simply optically inclined, or even optometrically inclined , or maybe both, which kind of eyesight benefits most from high end glass?

I think a trained eye can appreciate an alpha binocular no matter how old you are. I think it has more to with knowing WHAT to look for in a good binocular rather than your chronological age. It is like the appreciation of a fine wine in that it takes time and seasoning to really appreciate a fine optical instrument.

 

[Steve C]

OK, thanks for the responses, but there are evidently a couple of things that might need to be clarified. I'm not talking here about trained eyes, whatever that means. It is certainly different things to different people. I am concerned about the general question as concerns more or less typical, normal eyes with no particular disease problems or serious anomalies.

Since I started this thing , I'll use myself as an example. For one I am not bothered by chromatic aberration. I'm just not, as strange as that may seem to some people, so in my looking through of binoculars, I AM NOT going to train myself to see it,... period, end of statement. I have some test scenarios I use to test it, ones that let me see it under conditions where I can, but hopefully not in situations where I will learn to see the thing.

For another thing, I am not particularly bothered by what some people literally fuss about ad nauseum, and that is edge softness. I guess the point is, we are all different and what we have done is largely train ourselves to look for the facets of image presentation and ergonomics that suits us, or does not suit us. Sometimes we train ourselves to be OCD about certain things.

So the question is whether there is any particular advantage to either good eye sight or poor eye sight, or both types of eye sight to be gleaned by expensive optics. For me, I'm getting real close to 65 (you ought to see all the medicaid crap in the mailbox every day... if you are already there I guess you know all about that). So one thing in the back of my mind is that at some point my eyes are going to begin to go. I feel pretty fortunate in that I have damn good eyes for my age, but suffer no illusion that will last forever. So, when they go, do I need to look toward alpha glass more so than I have done to date? That is at least part of the query. That and to some extent to answer the question when I am asked.

 

[typo]

Thanks to the excellent work of my optician I still have no problem sorting the wheat from the chaff, but there is only so much he can do. I need at least double the 'standard' light level for peak acuity and that's only going to get worse. The resolutions of the pairs I have range from excellent to appalling. At the moment in good light I can readily tell them apart, but on a gloomy winter's afternoon it hardly makes a difference if I use my best 3.6 arcsecond pair or my £20 14 arcsecond pair. I figure I'll be shifting to high magnifications not higher quality in future.

David

 

[kabsetz]

Steve,

I'll offer my opinions here since I have some. It is not a simple matter, of course, and probably would not be contentious if it were.

Firstly, I think the "second opinion" in your first post, that young eyes don't need premium optics, is simply wrong. The better your eyesight, the more you can benefit from better optics, but with good eyes you obviously see better than someone who has worse eyesight, even if your optics are not as good.

If it were only a matter of seeing the smallest possible detail (for your visual acuity, given the magnification of the binocular), then the ultimate optical quality of binoculars at least with exit pupils of about 4mm or more does not matter that much unless your visus is better than about 1.5 or 20/15. BUT, the aberrations that compromise resolving power also compromise contrast and color rendition (SA, CA) or, in addition to that, make viewing difficult and tiresome (on-axis astigmatism or off-axis astigmatism that steps in too close to the image center.) These detrimental effects also influence viewers who are not blessed with the best eyesight. And if you have really good eyesight, you will see slight differences in available detail even between the very best binoculars. I have very good but not exceptional vision, and I would not buy any binocular, of any make or model, without being able to try out the particular unit first. And, it seems that I need an exit pupil size of close to 4mm or more before my eyes are satisfied with the quality of the image. For instance, I had a very good, low aberration sample of a premium 10x32 for a while, but could not be fully satisfied with its image the way I can be with a first-rate 10x42 or an 8x32 or bigger. Likewise, I simply don't get the detail I want to see from my 8x20 Leica Ultravid, even though it is an essentially perfect specimen optically.

When we go up in magnification and down in exit pupil diameter, all aberrations in the optics become progressively more visible. With a 20-60x80mm birding scope for example, with a good quality sample all users irrespective of their eyesight can benefit of the maximum magnification, but as the quality starts to go down, the ones with weaker eyesight will continue to benefit from the high magnifications longer. However, even here the other detrimental effects of aberrations come to play, and as an example I can tell of a birder friend of mine who does not have very good eyesight. He happens to have a subpar Swaro 80mm HD scope that has astigmatism and is not sharp beyond some 40x mag. He tells me that he rarely uses magnifications between some 45-60x as he sees little benefit from them. But, when I suggested that he send his scope for a checkup, he says that his eyes are not good enough for that to be worthwhile.

Kimmo

 

[Giorgio]

That's a very interesting topic.
It is certain that having good eyes is a benefit, this increases also the chances of liking high end binoculars or other optics.
But i do think the most important "organ" is your brain.
I mean people will be naturally more skilled for using certain senses, like ears and be passionated by music, sense of smell and why not work on elaborating fragrances, ...
Assuming we are all registered on these forums means that we certainly born as people having a natural sense of the vision, even we could also be bright in other senses.
After this, many of us will react more to CAs, to Distorsion,...
This is way to subjective and i'm affraid that it's not possible to respond accurately to this topic :smoke:
The best way should be in my opinion, to live near a big optic shops, where you can try al type of binoculars and compare them from outside, and see by yourself, if you need high end glass or not, depending of your own vision interpretation.
Or do like Dennis does. Even if he can be criticized, i think he must be one of the persons that knows himself the best, having tried loads and loads of different optics.
This is all i can share due to my short optics experience, beeing 27 yrs old ^^
By aging your view change, but your senses change aswell.

 

[Troubador]

Excellent question Steve, but I would say that as your description of yourself is one I would write about me.

Being pragmatic I would say that if you have a top quality pair of bins then any shortcomings in the view is more likely down to your eyes or perception. Apart from keeping your spectacles up to date with changes in your vision, having top bins is 'the best you can do'. Whether you could do as well with bins at a lower price point is a good question but if you have the best bins you can afford then its a sort of reassurance.

Drifting off a bit, like you I don't search for CA or edge sharpness or RB. If phenomena like this don't impinge on my ordinary viewing I don't need to know about them.

A thoughtful question Steve, and a very practical one.

Lee

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Steve C,
I uderstand your questions as: what scientific evidence is there about the performance of ageing eyes in relation to the performance of alpha binoculars. I will describe what I have seen in different publications:
-1- With increasing age the pupil can not open as wide as at younger age due to the deteoration of the muscular system , which handles that. It means (on avarage, but one can find quite large differences:
Age 20 about 8 mm pupil size, age 30 about 7 mm, age 40 about 6,5 mm, age 50 about 6 mm, age 60 about 5,5, mm, age 70 about 5 mm pupil size.
-2- With increasing age the eye lens is yellowing and light scattering increases. As a consequence the transmission (for blue light) decreaes dramatically and the ageing eye performs less, which becomes particularly evident at lower light levels e.g. one can not read the newspaper anymore without turning lights on much earlier than at a younger age.
-3- Accomodation decreases considerably with increasing age, see also under -1-. At the age of 20 the accomodation performance of the eye amounts to about 10 diopters, at the age 0f 40 it is about 5 diopters, at 50 it is about 2 diopters and than it levels of to about 1 diopter.
-4- The resolving power of the eye also decreases with age. Up to about the age of 25 one can say that t is 100%, at the age of 40 it decreases by about 10% and at the age of 60 it is about 25% less.
Now how can high quality binoculars help us to overcome these phenomena to some extent. Of course very small amounts of optical aberrations are vital to yield optimal resolution and crisp sharp images. Resolution and bright images are helped a lot by higher light intensities and that requires high light transmission levels, so the older eye can enjoy image quality for more years. Top quality binoculars have top quality light transmissions and are very well designed (if the designers do their work properly) so optical aberrations are virtually absent.
I hope that this answers some of your questions about the benefits of alpha binoculars (and with alpha binculars I mean every binocular that fulfills the demands I have described).
Gijs

 

[pompadour]

Steve, not trying to comfort(!), but seems to me your worry is not justified. Frank is an eminently sensible guy, that quote from him can be taken as is, and the gap will only narrow in the next few yrs.

Anyway, as I keep telling the Chosun generation, I expect unimaginable tech will sweep away such worries, and today's analyses - with due respect to posts above - on bins, in years rather than decades. By that I mean really unimag., not glass optics, not necess. digital, just magical at this stage. (To me already any v. good bin is magical but that's not what I mean!) Am extrapolating not tech. itself (too ignorant), but the reality of actual vs widely expected advance in tech.

 

[Cluster]

"Training for binocular users" reminds me of one evening last year when we were parking up near our local town hall (which is near the pub, of course). A couple of guys were looking up at the clock-tower with binoculars. I asked what they were looking at, one told me that there was a Peregrine nesting near the top, and that it was in view right now. Would I like to look through his bins?

I did use his large, light porros and was shocked to see a full double image at around 16x mag. I gave them right back to him and suggested that they might need some attention or a place in the nearest rubbish bin. He looked at me as if I were an idiot and said "That's what binoculars do! One image for each eye!". I told him that I didn't know that and wished him luck with the Peregrine.
I wonder if he ever upgraded?

Dave.

 

[Chosun Juan]

I can't believe I've actually managed to post on a thread before Brock has vomitted RB all over it ! ....... =)

Pompadour - I see that while I've been out collecting charred wallaby's for dinner, that you haven't done your assigned homework and have been merrily posting away! btw. this future stuff is dragging on far too long in getting here for my liking - I find delivery has trouble in keeping up with imagination ...... perhaps that's because of all the money is being spent looking after the "old codgers" health instead of being poured into expediting tech development ?!

As to Steve's question, just two brief points:-
(i) I think there's a whole debate raging over exactly what visual information can be detected by the eye /brain optical processing system. Whether it's above, at or well below the diffraction limit, and the colour range detectable is still yet to be entirely nutted out. (this question arises a lot when trying to determine the digital resolution required in Mpx to equal that of the human eye, let alone whether the eye /brain could 'evolve' to handle more information)
(ii) I'm just going to be general here folks, so don't get too upset - but higher quality bins ie. the 'alpha' view are usually accompanied by better glare control, coatings technology, hence contrast, colour representation, control (or at least minimised variation in levels) of abberations (SA, CA), astigmatism, coma, field flatness, dof, distortions. Also better quality glass begets less inclusions, better transmission, more consistency etc. In a nutshell, the eye has a whole lot less work to do (that relaxing view) and that must be beneficial to any quality of eyesight - from eagle-eyed whippersnapper to weary old timer ......

Personally, I "see" "things" without bins, that I've never seen with bins - so if one cropped up that had 10x better resolution than what the best of the best top-gun human had - I'd be all for it. As technology progresses, this should become available better, cheaper, faster. I know the view around here is that the 'alpha' view is approaching a plateau, but as a frog hops halfway to the 100% wall with each leap, I'm sure the progress is there to be made, such that 5 years from now we'll be comparing those 'alphas' to the current crop, and going WOW! look at how much more we can see. I just hope by then I'll have cut back on staring at computer screens to preserve what little is left of the infinite beauty of my eyesight.


Chosun :gh:

 

[Pinewood]

Hello all,

Who could not benefit from the higher contrast, the better control of aberrations, the wider fields and better colour rendition of top notch binoculars? None of those attributes are necessarily affected by age. My nascent cataract does affect color perception in one eye but I still have the other eye. In daytime, when our eyes' pupils are not dilated, there would be little difference in personal resolution between the old and the young.
Even without dilating to 7 mm, I can still enjoy an exit pupil of that size for the ease of placement.
However, I certainly am challenged by ten power binoculars, as my hand was never as steady as those of some on this Forum.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

 

[FrankD]

A great deal of information has been said on this subject so far and all of it is good in one sense or another. Since I was quoted above I thought I would chime in.

I do stand by my original comment in the context that it was originally posted. To put it in the perspective of this post though lets assume that the second tier Chinese glass is at the same level as the non-Chinese Alphas. We can call them both "good glass". That will then put everyone's opinions "on the same page".

The difficult time that I am having with answering this is in trying to determine "bad glass" to compare the "good glass" to. In the past price was an excellent primary indicator of quality (roof versus porro excluded). It is my opinion that, in this day and age, quality optics can be purchased at almost any price point. Yes, issues such as quality control and highest light transmission are still out there to be variables in this equation but assuming the individual receives a good specimen at each price point then we are left with just the issue of light transmission.

We could question the control of aberrations and distortions as a justification for higher end glass as they do tend to better less expensive glass in those areas. The question in my mind though is whether or not they better less expensive glass in the center of the field of view in these areas? How many times have we read that an inexpensive porro, such as the Nikon Action, gives comparable optical performance in the center of the field to the most expensive roofs? How many of us don't center the object in the field of view?

Many points of discussion to consider with this issue.

The simple answer, I guess, is to say that everyone would benefit from optics that have good quality control and excellent optical performance across the entire field of view.

How many binoculars fit those criteria? How expensive are they?

 

[pompadour]

CJ, and David, apologies, my PMs are very much overdue, will do soon. Been turning to chat away in BF for relief from similar self-induced stress (and not always finding peace and harmony overflowing here!) Also, maybe I shouldn't take up so much of the present with vague blah about the future. Did so here only to suggest to Steve that the best will likey not only be more affordable but better.

 

[FrankD]

Pleased don't tell me that $300 bins have the same level of sharpness/resolution. They may in the centerfield (the easy part) but off-center is where major challenges arise to the aging eye...

Actually I have a 25 year old porro that not only has the same level of sharpness/resolution as the Alphas but a very respectable sweet spot as well.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=220714&highlight=Nikon+7x35

Axial resolution is outstanding. Using the USAF 1951 chart at 56x I measured 3.5 arc seconds in the better right barrel and about 4 arc seconds in the left (which has a little coma). The right barrel works out to 122.5/D, about as good as binoculars get.

Longitudinal chromatic aberration is “normal” for an f/4 achromat, but lateral color (the color fringing you really see in binoculars) is better corrected than any current alpha roof prism binocular I’ve tried. This is typical of binoculars with simple cemented doublet objectives, which virtually never have as much lateral color as binoculars with complex air-spaced objectives and internal focusers.

In a star test the axial aberrations of the action look quite well corrected for a binocular, in fact better than many current alphas. Off-axis aberrations are good enough; a similar mix of astigmatism and field curvature to the 8x30 E with a similar rate of deterioration.

 

[Steve C]

Frank,

Is that above post perhaps misplaced? Yes some of those old porros are real eye openers.

Anyway, thanks for the responses, that is the sort of information I was looking for.

I don't suppose I have a particular worry, as I can pick nits for myself and as my eyes change, I'll use what suits them, if is turns out to be spendy...well I'll pay the price.

I don't want to label good glass as only high end stuff. Some of the benefits of the high end of the game have benefits other than optics that weigh into their choice.

I do tend to think good optics should tend to offer benefits to all eyes.

 

[Steve C]

Steve,

I'll offer my opinions here since I have some. It is not a simple matter, of course, and probably would not be contentious if it were.

Firstly, I think the "second opinion" in your first post, that young eyes don't need premium optics, is simply wrong. The better your eyesight, the more you can benefit from better optics, but with good eyes you obviously see better than someone who has worse eyesight, even if your optics are not as good.

If it were only a matter of seeing the smallest possible detail (for your visual acuity, given the magnification of the binocular), then the ultimate optical quality of binoculars at least with exit pupils of about 4mm or more does not matter that much unless your visus is better than about 1.5 or 20/15. BUT, the aberrations that compromise resolving power also compromise contrast and color rendition (SA, CA) or, in addition to that, make viewing difficult and tiresome (on-axis astigmatism or off-axis astigmatism that steps in too close to the image center.) These detrimental effects also influence viewers who are not blessed with the best eyesight. And if you have really good eyesight, you will see slight differences in available detail even between the very best binoculars. I have very good but not exceptional vision, and I would not buy any binocular, of any make or model, without being able to try out the particular unit first. And, it seems that I need an exit pupil size of close to 4mm or more before my eyes are satisfied with the quality of the image. For instance, I had a very good, low aberration sample of a premium 10x32 for a while, but could not be fully satisfied with its image the way I can be with a first-rate 10x42 or an 8x32 or bigger. Likewise, I simply don't get the detail I want to see from my 8x20 Leica Ultravid, even though it is an essentially perfect specimen optically.

When we go up in magnification and down in exit pupil diameter, all aberrations in the optics become progressively more visible. With a 20-60x80mm birding scope for example, with a good quality sample all users irrespective of their eyesight can benefit of the maximum magnification, but as the quality starts to go down, the ones with weaker eyesight will continue to benefit from the high magnifications longer. However, even here the other detrimental effects of aberrations come to play, and as an example I can tell of a birder friend of mine who does not have very good eyesight. He happens to have a subpar Swaro 80mm HD scope that has astigmatism and is not sharp beyond some 40x mag. He tells me that he rarely uses magnifications between some 45-60x as he sees little benefit from them. But, when I suggested that he send his scope for a checkup, he says that his eyes are not good enough for that to be worthwhile.

Kimmo

I agree with your first sentence completely. Your second sentence is given truth by my eagle eyed 24 yr old nephew. He can see more stuff with the naked eye than many can with binoculars. What he can pick out with a good 10x has to be seen to be believed.

I like the magnification/exit pupil explanation too, that is useful information. Thanks