Comprehensive 10x42 test in German magazine (1 Viewer)

[John Russell]

I have been asked to supply resolution data from the test.
This was divided into categories as follows:-

Better than 3,5": Leica Ultravid HD, Swarovski EL WB & Swarovision, Zeiss Victory

3,5" achieved: Nikon SE

4,7" achieved: Canon IS WP, Kowa XD44, Meopta Meostar B1, Minox APO HG BR asph. Nikon HG L

4,7" not achieved: Leupold Golden Ring HD, Pentax DCF ED

John

 

[brocknroller]

I have been asked to supply resolution data from the test.
This was divided into categories as follows:-

Better than 3,5": Leica Ultravid HD, Swarovski EL WB & Swarovision, Zeiss Victory

3,5" achieved: Nikon SE

4,7" achieved: Canon IS WP, Kowa XD44, Meopta Meostar B1, Minox APO HG BR asph. Nikon HG L

4,7" not achieved: Leupold Golden Ring HD, Pentax DCF ED

John

He must have either had an exceptional 8x32 EL WB or an underpar 8x32 SE to get those results.

Kimmo measured the resolution in the alpha 8x32s and found the Ultravid slightly ahead of the other two, however, he did not list his results in arc seconds but in lp/mm. Resolution comparisons are found about 1/4 down the page.

He didn't include the SE in this resolution test, but he did include an EII in another "shoot out" against the same roofs and the EII came out on top. See if I can find that article.

http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/optiikkaarvostelu/optics_12_zeiss_leica32mm_GB.shtml

Brock

 

[Chhayanat]

He must have either had an exceptional 8x32 EL WB or an underpar 8x32 SE to get those results.

Kimmo measured the resolution in the alpha 8x32s and found the Ultravid slightly ahead of the other two, however, he did not list his results in arc seconds but in lp/mm. Resolution comparisons are found about 1/4 down the page.

He didn't include the SE in this resolution test, but he did include an EII in another "shoot out" against the same roofs and the EII came out on top. See if I can find that article.

http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/optiikkaarvostelu/optics_12_zeiss_leica32mm_GB.shtml

Brock

Surely the present tests for 10x42 binoculars?
Chhayanat

 

[tazzilla]

I wonunder how the Meopta 10x42 HD was stack up as it is a improvement over the non HD version.

 

[lmans66]

If anything the tests (old or new) show how close binoculars are in terms of quality etc... The small percentages of differences are not meaningless but I think they do show that the when comparing apples to apples, you get apples...

 

[birdazzLED]

oops wrong plce

 

[stereotruckdriver]

I would think by looking at the results that maybe some subpar samples were used for the test?

 

[james holdsworth]

Henry Link found that his 8 x 42 and 8 x 56 FL's tested the best resolution scores of any roof he has tested.......2.8 arc/sec. or there-abouts?

 

[Chhayanat]

I would think by looking at the results that maybe some subpar samples were used for the test?

It is certainly not ruled out. The results for which binoculars suggested less than optimum specimens might have been used?

 

[ronh]

James,
Henry has measured his third 8x42 FL at 2.8 arcsec in both barrels. I believe he decided to stop there.
Ron

 

[henry link]

I just noticed some of my binoculars are being discussed here.

I would say that one barrel of my 8x42 FL and both barrels of the 8x32 SE honestly achieve very high arc second resolution on the USAF chart (approaching 120/D) by having unusually low aberrations by binocular standards. The 8x56 FL has much worse aberrations at full aperture. Even its better side doesn't look pretty at high magnification, but that side manages to crack 3 arc seconds by muscling through on aperture alone.