perterra
Well-known member
So if you have one you like, just use and enjoy it and don't worry about tiny advancements. :t: But then we won't have anything to talk about.:eek!::-O
Well theres always that side, you got a point. LOL
So if you have one you like, just use and enjoy it and don't worry about tiny advancements. :t: But then we won't have anything to talk about.:eek!::-O
But many died a miserable death before the fickle nature of the public changed. Even Rolex was building quartz when they realized it was here to stay. I bought a Omega Manahattan quartz on a fishing trip in the Bahamas, there was not a single mechanical in the store. To Omegas credit, they did it as a COSC certed quartz which meant it had to hold something like a second a year accuracy. Whic may be pretty close to the gains we see in optics. You cant really tell the difference in them.
The Canon IS binoculars work for some and don't work for others because of the funny artifacts of the IS. Please also note Canon never put any real effort into developing their IS any further. They basically left things as they were when the IS bins were introduced.
Hermann
I do expect that in the near future we will have binoculars with almost perfectly black interior surfaces, though, and that will give a readily noticeable improvement.
Kimmo
How much is a good watch, surely not as much as an Alpha binocular I wouldn't think. 3 Just kidding.:-O
I bought a Rolex datejust and a Seiko 150 m diver within a few months of each other in 81. Rolex needed cleaning a couple times to maintain it's accuracy, the Seiko on the other hand has never been opened.
Rolex left the building 10 years ago, the Seiko lives on in almost daily wear since 1981.
Nice watch. I just use my flip phone.:-O
A lot of people do, I ditch my phone the second 5 pm rolls around most times. Nothing like having some millwright call me at 2 am on a Sunday night because they ran out of welding rod. 8-P
Really I dont mind the customers calling, most of the time they make it worth your time to answer, bosses dont. I always tell them, you will never hear me bitch about a 2 am call, doesnt mean I aint bitchin, just means you will never hear it. :-O I'd rather them call me than my competition.
Interesting thread. I have the same impression: The high end binoculars of the top manufacturers are amazingly similar (almost exchangeable) in formats and features. This has been quite different 50 years ago, when Zeiss and Leica did still experiment with new ideas (like mirror/prism combinations) and formats (super wide 6x24 or 10x50, Porros as well as roofs).
Today, engineering has turned very conservative and cautious, with tiny, incremental improvements. The transmission has hit the ceiling - whether 93% or 95% - not much to gain any longer, edge sharpness is improving to a level that makes one wonder what to do next, and the weight reduction cannot be pushed any further without compromising stability and durability. The run for the nearest close-focusing point and for a faster and faster transmission has actually led to a diminishing accuracy of the focusing devices in the latest generation binoculars.
1) Field of view: Has already been wider in earlier times, and then somewhat narrowed down to reduce weight, improve eye-glass compatibility and image quality. There is room left for improvements, and the Zeiss SF seems to make the first step toward this direction.
2) New features like image stabilization: Zeiss added it to the 20x60, but nobody since then tried to shrink that technology for application to smaller devices.
3) Modularity: Exchangeable objectives or eyepieces
Hi Holger,
Yes, I completely agree. Our beloved optical companies are no longer run by people who have a passion for optics. They are run by their bean-counting CFOs
Yes, we have reached Pareto Optimality in binocular technology.
Wider field of view is good but more than 65 degree or so is not really necessary. There are astronomical eyepieces made by Nikon which have 102 degrees of apparent field of view. But I am not sure we want that in binoculars. In binoculars, we "pan" by hand not by rolling our eyes!
Image stabilization is also a very good and very useful feature. As you mentioned Zeiss made a very interesting mechanical design in the 20X60 model but they didn't expand that technology to other models. I look forward to seeing high quality stabilized binoculars in a nicely designed package. The current ones look and feel very bulky. Don't like the look of Canon IS binoculars either.
Another area that I hope binocular designers pay attention to and consider is Exit Pupil Expansion as I described here. It will make binoculars much more comfortable to use.
If we have reached the limit of the human eye-brain system, how do you suggest we "progress"?
Hi Omid,
"Pareto optimality" - yes, in some sense, though it is a local optimum rather than a global optimum: With tiny improvements, as implemented in recent years, there is not much left to gain. But entirely new approaches are possible (example: the prism/mirror image reversion) which would ask for true research and investment - something nobody dares to do these days.
A good zoom has been mentioned - I agree, zoom technology could still be improved a lot to offer high end images at different magnifications.
The exit pupil expansion you have mentioned makes sense with rifle scopes, but I am not sure whether it would offer a high end image quality in combination with binoculars. Anyway, I haven't experienced that invention in real life, so I may be wrong with my estimates.
Cheers,
Holger
Holger,
Regarding zoom technology: I don't know if this is feasible but why not take another look at switch power technology and rethink the ergonomics of these binoculars at the 32 and 42mm levels? If it could result in lighter weight through the use of high impact plastics and also provide wider FOVs they would be more popular even in the Leica price range. And if they could be made reliable in the mid-range cost category they might even sell very well.
Bob
Clearly there are various flavors of zoom possible.
My ideal would be a big optical zoom range, maybe approaching that offered by the Sony DEV 50, which manages optical zoom from 0.8x to 12x.
The straw like FoV provided by all modern binoculars is really inadequate for birding. We now scan with our bare eyes for motion and then lift the binoculars to look closer. Of course we lose sight of the target in the process, often permanently. By contrast, even inexpensive bridge cameras have 20x continuous zoom as well as framing assist to help keep the target in view. So there is a way to observe seamlessly, if only the manufacturers would recognize that as a tangible benefit which would deliver marketing advantage.
If we have reached the limit of the human eye-brain system, how do you suggest we "progress"?
Omid:
Did you mean Amateur ?
Jerry
Good ZOOM conventions DO exist. For the most part, however, they would exist only in the realm of speculation for such forums as these. They are ALL financially beyond the means for all but the mega rich. They would have TWO zooms--one for distance to the target, and one for our dioptric strengths. Consequently, it will be YEARS before we are there.
Don't worry . . . be happy!
Bill
Yes, I corrected the spelling error. Thanks for pointing it out.
We can progress in a few steps:
1- We -the binocular aficionados - should accept the fact that we are already at the apex of optical quality and stop fussing about insignificant details such as edge-to-edge sharpness (sharp filed of view of human eye is about 1.5 degrees), does it have 89% or 93% transmission, blah blah blah...