I post this question because I understand that the optical aberrations such as coma, astigmatism, distortion, etc. are corrected or minimized by the use of several lenses. The more lenses you use, the more you could correct the aberrations. The optical design of binoculars is very rarely specified by manufacturers, with the exception of a few such as Canon with their IS models. However, there are several "cutaway" images of alpha binoculars around this forum, which let us deduce among other things, the amount of lenses used. I haven't seen any cutaway of the Conquest HD, MHG, Trinovid, etc. But if the image through these binoculars is "inferior" to the alphas (less sharp, blurry edges, less usable FOV, etc.), could we speculate that the subalphas lower their cost by having less lenses, and thus are unable to correct optical aberrations to a certain standard? I am aware that not everything can be corrected by adding lenses, like transmission, contrast, glare, etc. But many of the problems like field curvature, coma, astigmatism, CA, etc. only depend on the lens configuration.
-
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.
How many lens elements do sub-alphas bins have? less than alphas? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter agus_m
- Start date
I don’t think it’s the number of lenses, but the properties of the glass, and the sophistication of the optical train’s design, as well as manufacturing tolerances which make an alpha.
There is a distinct possibility that I am all wet, in which case correction will be swift.
There is a distinct possibility that I am all wet, in which case correction will be swift.
Totally different field of optics, but when it comes to jewelers loupes, going from a single lens to a Hastings triplet brings with it edge-to-edge sharpness, as opposed to the former’s blurriness.
Binocollector
Well-known member
The problem with using too many lenses is a drop in transmission. And making the eye-piece compact enough. I once had a lengthy conversation with the owner of "intercon-spacetec", a well-known German seller who sells amongst all the alpha brands also a lot of scopes. And he said, the main achievement of Swarovski with the NL Pures wasn't the FoV or flat field but to do all that in a compact design and not make the eyepiece overly large.
Like a Komz BPO 7x30 for instance, which has one of the most well-corrected optics I saw so far but the eye-piece with 6 elements is huge.
And then I look through a vintage 6x18 tiny German reverse porro that is almost sharp to the edge and has a larger field than a Kowa BDII 6.5x and I wonder how they did it in the olden days. How were they able to achieve something like that in a teeny-tiny bino like a 6x18? So there seems to be some magic involved in bino-design that I don't know anything about. A main factor that drives modern binos to having more elements might also be eye-relief, not just "purely optical" factors. People want more and more eye-relief to use binos with glasses.
Of course none of my wide-angle old porros have enough eye-relief to use with glasses.
Just some ramblings from my unsorted thoughts on the matter.
Like a Komz BPO 7x30 for instance, which has one of the most well-corrected optics I saw so far but the eye-piece with 6 elements is huge.
And then I look through a vintage 6x18 tiny German reverse porro that is almost sharp to the edge and has a larger field than a Kowa BDII 6.5x and I wonder how they did it in the olden days. How were they able to achieve something like that in a teeny-tiny bino like a 6x18? So there seems to be some magic involved in bino-design that I don't know anything about. A main factor that drives modern binos to having more elements might also be eye-relief, not just "purely optical" factors. People want more and more eye-relief to use binos with glasses.
Of course none of my wide-angle old porros have enough eye-relief to use with glasses.
Just some ramblings from my unsorted thoughts on the matter.
Last edited:
Firstly, a small aperture binocular like a 18mm has less CA than a 42mm if both are about f/4.
Secondly,, the eyepieces can be simple 3 element narrowish field or 5 or 6 element wide angle.
Thirdly, the more elements you have the bigger the problem of centration, wedge, tilt etc. etc.
In addition, high end glass is more fragile and starts to degrade as soon as it is made. So it has to be immediately coated to stop tarnish.
So, not a very good question.
A high end long focus doublet astro refractor and simple 3 element eyepiece will probably be better on planets than a fancy high end short focus refractor with seven element eyepiece.
No prisms and no diagonal.
I see almost no difference between my uncoated 120mm doublet refractor and two identical single coated doublet refractors in actual use.
Regards,
B.
Secondly,, the eyepieces can be simple 3 element narrowish field or 5 or 6 element wide angle.
Thirdly, the more elements you have the bigger the problem of centration, wedge, tilt etc. etc.
In addition, high end glass is more fragile and starts to degrade as soon as it is made. So it has to be immediately coated to stop tarnish.
So, not a very good question.
A high end long focus doublet astro refractor and simple 3 element eyepiece will probably be better on planets than a fancy high end short focus refractor with seven element eyepiece.
No prisms and no diagonal.
I see almost no difference between my uncoated 120mm doublet refractor and two identical single coated doublet refractors in actual use.
Regards,
B.
tenex
reality-based
No, you'll find similar numbers of elements in many/most modern bins, certainly in the Conquest-to-Victory range. Maybe an extra "field flattener"-type lens, especially in higher magnification models. Quality differences will mainly be in coatings, glass types, sophistication of eyepiece design, and tolerances and QC. I often wonder where aspherical surfaces may be used, but they're hardly ever touted as on camera lenses.
Hi,
first of all, I would say, the main reason an alpha is an alpha pair of binoculars is a very well built up brand recognition - as can be seen by comparing the alphas from the teutonic trinity selling very well around the globe while the Nikon EDG series is known mainly to optics nerds outside of Japan.
The last breakthrough innovation in binocular optics was phase coating 40 years ago or so. Maybe dielectric coatings a bit later but these were not really new, they just happened to be good and affordable enough for binoculars when they were introduced.
Well corrected wide (>60 deg afov) or super wide (>75 deg afov) angle EPs are not new, nor is the need to have somewhat well figured lenses for good enough for the low mags in most binoculars - astro refractors need a lot more precision due to the higher magnifications, many astro reflectors have even smaller tolerances with added complication to need aspheric surfaces.
Another important thing are marketing people and/or community managers actually listening to people and having an idea for a product that appeals to many users and good product designers and mechanical engineers to fit the huge EPs needed for great afov and eye-relief into a pair of bins that is neither too heavy nor too large, all while keeping a good balance.
Joachim
first of all, I would say, the main reason an alpha is an alpha pair of binoculars is a very well built up brand recognition - as can be seen by comparing the alphas from the teutonic trinity selling very well around the globe while the Nikon EDG series is known mainly to optics nerds outside of Japan.
The last breakthrough innovation in binocular optics was phase coating 40 years ago or so. Maybe dielectric coatings a bit later but these were not really new, they just happened to be good and affordable enough for binoculars when they were introduced.
Well corrected wide (>60 deg afov) or super wide (>75 deg afov) angle EPs are not new, nor is the need to have somewhat well figured lenses for good enough for the low mags in most binoculars - astro refractors need a lot more precision due to the higher magnifications, many astro reflectors have even smaller tolerances with added complication to need aspheric surfaces.
Another important thing are marketing people and/or community managers actually listening to people and having an idea for a product that appeals to many users and good product designers and mechanical engineers to fit the huge EPs needed for great afov and eye-relief into a pair of bins that is neither too heavy nor too large, all while keeping a good balance.
Joachim
tenex
reality-based
The real question then is how that reputation was mainly built, on quality and innovation or just marketing etc as the EDG example could seem to suggest. Also the early roof models (Dialyt, Trinovid) weren't exactly optical advances due to lack of phase coating, but they were innovative and people liked their compactness, and that problem did get solved (by an alpha maker). Such major breakthroughs don't keep occurring, but progress in coatings and eyepiece designs continues, and manufacturing quality remains as important as ever. So marketing can matter, and has hobbled Nikon to the extent that there may be no successor to EDG, but alpha status isn't mainly about successful marketing, which Svbony and Gosky just need to work harder at.
Longevity counts too… if you’ve been about a long time then you’re doing something right and people have probably heard of you. Sort of limits new market entrants. We are certainly blessed with a wide range of different price/performance models. Getting “good enough” is certainly pretty easy.
Peter
Peter
I disagree.
You could dye top-of-the-line examples from the “Teutonic trinity” bright purple, and remove all manufacturers logos, and they would still be superior.
It is not “brand recognition” which makes them the best of the best.
Afterthought: Are you referring to sales, and saying they are alphas because they sell more?
Last edited:
Hi,
in my opinion at least a certain percentage of the owners of teutonic trinity top of the line models - aka alphas were drawn to them, at least partly, by a brand name well known for exclusive products. A Nikon logo on the other hand does not mean anything to those as Nikon builds bins from $$ to $$$$.
Shure, their marketing was also not really good for their EDG series, as in europe Nikon is not often carried by specialized optics brick and mortar stores and the usual electronics chains which carry Nikon, rarely had a single EDG in stock as it would take a lot of luck and/or patience to find a buyer. So even when the EDG series was still sold by Nikon, finding one outside of Japan usually meant you had read a review etc and then ordered online.
The same goes for Nikon scopes of the Fieldscope ED, Monarch Fieldscope and EDG series, which are not really considered alpha despite being well known on here for their very consistent optical quality, more so than teutonic trinity top of the line modes which have all produced a few lemons.
With scopes, Kowa also plays a bit of second fiddle among the alphas when compared to the teutonic trinity as fewer people will recognize a Kowa logo that Leica, Swaro or Zeiss...
Joachim
A couple of very simple but older "alpha" designs come to mind, the Swarovski 7x42 Habicht (Porro) and the Zeiss 8x56 Dialyt (Abbe-König).
They both had (cemented?) doublet objectives and 2-group, 3-element Kellner eyepieces and even older versions had tansmission values >90%.
Unlike most current roof prism binoculars the Dialyt had a focussing bridge, so no focussing lenses.
Both, however, had very modest AFoVs.
John
They both had (cemented?) doublet objectives and 2-group, 3-element Kellner eyepieces and even older versions had tansmission values >90%.
Unlike most current roof prism binoculars the Dialyt had a focussing bridge, so no focussing lenses.
Both, however, had very modest AFoVs.
John
That's probably true - or to word it in another way, to get what current top alphas offer (long eye relief + wide field + sharpness to the edge) requires a complex optical design that may not be possible to execute within the price bracket of a sub-alpha.
I'd argue Nikon are as recognized a brand in the optics world as anyone. The Monarch HG and other ranges at lower price points sell well (from what I can gather) and/or are highly regarded because they offer great value at those prices. When I've comparing the EDG to what you call the Teutonic trinity, it doesn't seem as bright (perceived, if not actual transmission) as an EL or the others, doesn't have the wide field of a SF, colours don't hit you the way a Noctivid does. It's easy to see why it doesn't sell the way the others do. From what I gather it does certain things well (glare resistance) and the focus mechanism is a pleasure to use but I'm not sure if they are, by themselves, reason enough to choose the EDG over the others. Current new prices quoted for the EDG, from what I gather (not following alpha prices as closely as some here do), are distinctly lower than the other alphas - I think that reflects what the market thinks.
I'm not an optics designer, to be fair - but think computer-aided design must have gotten a lot better over the last 40 years, enabling more complex optical designs (that produce better corrected images with wider FOV). I'm fairly sure that if you compare the optical train of eg. the NL or SF to a 40-year old design it should be possible to tell the former has a more complex design.
I still think a lot of it is brand recognition. If you spend over 2k for a binocular, it‘s got to be one with a prestigious name. The VW Phaëton was as good as the competition from Mercedes, BMW or Audi, but people didn‘t spend that kind of money on a „Volkswagen“, so it became a failure.
Nikon has prestige in cameras, but not really in binoculars, despite the WX or the wonderful 7x50, 10x70 and 18x70.
Just my 2ct.
Now people are going to think you're a show-off, Christophe, but AFAIK you drive an Opel.
When I get a ticket, the car is described as a "Daimler" but it's only a SMART.
Regards,
John
Hermann
Well-known member
I agree, with some caveats:
- Complexity isn't necessarily a good thing. The more complex a binocular is, the more things can go wrong. There have been plenty of examples where the focusers didn't work as designed for instance.
- Some "ancient" designs, dating back to long before there was computer-aided design, were incredibly good. Holger Merlitz for instance believes that the 8x60 blc from the 1940s was the best binocular of the 20th century (Merlitz 2023:202, 204). I once had a chance to look through one in very good condition in 1980, and I found the optical quality and the ease of view overwhelming.
Hi,
the EL series always looked very bright due to so-so stray light handling. In most circumstances the image just looks a bit more bright than normal, in difficult situations there is veiling glare. The Zeiss SF was indeed very good product management (listening to all those who wanted a wider field) and product design (fitting a moderately wide angle EP with sufficient eye relief into a package that is only a bit larger and not heavier than the competition - while still being balanced), but no - the SF has 64 deg afov - Televue introduced its Nagler line of eyepieces with 82 deg afov in 1984...
The Noctivid has a transmission curve strongly emphasizing the yellow-orange part of the spectrum which results into very punchy, but not necessarily true to nature, colors... not really sth special optically...
As for prices, yes, the EDG is discontinued after 15 years or so and has not taken part in the last rounds of price increases...
Wide angle EPs with with good edge correction in instruments with field flattening were known in the astro market for many years before the EL came around - nothing new there... except maybe for clever packaging.
Joachim
the EL series always looked very bright due to so-so stray light handling. In most circumstances the image just looks a bit more bright than normal, in difficult situations there is veiling glare. The Zeiss SF was indeed very good product management (listening to all those who wanted a wider field) and product design (fitting a moderately wide angle EP with sufficient eye relief into a package that is only a bit larger and not heavier than the competition - while still being balanced), but no - the SF has 64 deg afov - Televue introduced its Nagler line of eyepieces with 82 deg afov in 1984...
The Noctivid has a transmission curve strongly emphasizing the yellow-orange part of the spectrum which results into very punchy, but not necessarily true to nature, colors... not really sth special optically...
As for prices, yes, the EDG is discontinued after 15 years or so and has not taken part in the last rounds of price increases...
Wide angle EPs with with good edge correction in instruments with field flattening were known in the astro market for many years before the EL came around - nothing new there... except maybe for clever packaging.
Joachim
But those were in scopes. How many binoculars had eyepieces like that in 1984?
Binocollector
Well-known member
The difference is the size. A Komz BPO 7x30 has a very well corrected field, too, and it's an old design. But the oculars are huge. So the "clever packaging" also involves drastically reducing the size.
No
I just purchased brand-new 8x42 EDG last month, they're sitting here right by my desk. No need to blow another $1000 on the Teutonic/Portuguese trinity 