How much variation is there in the production line. (3 Viewers)

[Paultricounty]

Something that I’ve noticed after trying multiple copies of mostly Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica and Nikon. I could throw in Vortex but I think in the lower price points it’s to be more expected.

Maybe a few more seasoned people here who have been in the bushiness (Bill C) or have tested dozens of binoculars over the years can ad some of their experiences on the topic. I do understand that over the years slight improvements are made without much advertising, but leaving that out and just comparing same models made within a few years of each other, here’s my experience.

In this discussion I’m specifically talking about optics, not mechanics, there may be quite a bit more variation in mechanics than in the optics. This is an unscientific and mostly subjective observation , but the optics geek in me tries to get second and third opinions before I go run my mouth.

I’ve compared with others, four Swaro 8x32 EL’s, one was clearly brighter and sharper. Compared three Leica 10x42 Trinovid HD’s , one clearly had less CA. Compared three Zeiss SF 8x42, one clearly had a greener color tint/hue. Now that I’m thinking about it , three Kowa Genesis, one clearly had more edge fall off. Also tried over half dozen 8x42 Leica UVHD+’s side by side , this was put together after someone here made multiple comments over a period of weeks about the MIG was better than MIP, not so , the surprise here was there no variation noticeable in any of those samples.

Considering all were manufactured within a year or two of each other, I think we can rule out any coating improvements. So what gives here?

Is this just manufacturing tolerances staying within a certain perimeter percentage? If so should that be noticeable?

Or is this just about the specific product lot of coating material deviation ?

Is it who or when (different time of the year, humidity, dryness) coatings were applied?

Or could it be in the glass grinding and polishing before the coating process?

Paul

 

[Maljunulo]

Interesting question(s).

 

[henry link]

Learn how to star test and measure the resolution of binoculars at high magnifications. Then prepare for some unpleasant surprises when it comes to aberrations and defects you didn't know were there from just looking through them. They're often high aberration and low resolution instruments, just barely good enough to get by at low magnification... and I'm talking about the "alpha" binoculars now.

 

[tenex]

Yes, good question. There's much discussion of sample variation in scopes but hardly any regarding binoculars -- although just today I read a comment that someone's replacement SFL(?) wasn't quite as sharp as the original.

At least in the case of alpha bins, I'd suspect slightly suboptimal adjustments. After its recent service for diopter recalibration, my old 10x32 BN is slightly sharper than before. So either I got lucky, or had bad luck the previous time it was serviced, not entirely sure which. (One might expect particular care to be taken when an individual unit is serviced?)

 

[Paultricounty]

Learn how to star test and measure the resolution of binoculars at high magnifications. Then prepare for some unpleasant surprises when it comes to aberrations and defects you didn't know were there from just looking through them. They're often high aberration and low resolution instruments, just barely good enough to get by at low magnification... and I'm talking about the "alpha" binoculars now.

I fully understand. Most don’t look to good at all on the start test.

 

[Paultricounty]

Yes, good question. There's much discussion of sample variation in scopes but hardly any regarding binoculars -- although just today I read a comment that someone's replacement SFL(?) wasn't quite as sharp as the original.

Yes I read that too, I think that was Dalat. The interesting thing there is that he noticed it without side by side comparison.

At least in the case of alpha bins, I'd suspect slightly suboptimal adjustments. After its recent service for diopter recalibration, my old 10x32 BN is slightly sharper than before. So either I got lucky, or had bad luck the previous time it was serviced, not entirely sure which. (One might expect particular care to be taken when an individual unit is serviced?)

Thats the funny part, did we get lucky or did we just have a subpar unit 🤔

Paul

 

[Maljunulo]

Learn how to star test and measure the resolution of binoculars at high magnifications. Then prepare for some unpleasant surprises when it comes to aberrations and defects you didn't know were there from just looking through them. They're often high aberration and low resolution instruments, just barely good enough to get by at low magnification... and I'm talking about the "alpha" binoculars now.

If you only have to be good enough to look good at 8X to 12X, you really don’t have to be very good.

Which shows how appallingly bad some are.

On the other hand, if you can’t see it, does it really matter? If you can only hear 100 Hz to 2500 Hz, does 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz sound different?

 

[henry link]

Just looking through a binocular with high aberrations and/or assembly defects a person with 20/20 vision may not notice any problem at all. Somebody with 20/15 vision may notice something is a little off. Somebody with 20/10 vision may see the problem right away, but still not know the cause.

A high magnification star test combined with a high magnification resolution test allows all three people to identify aberrations and defects equally well and to measure their effect on resolution equally well. Looking through binoculars over and over in the normal way just won't do that.

 

[Patudo]

Learn how to star test and measure the resolution of binoculars at high magnifications. Then prepare for some unpleasant surprises when it comes to aberrations and defects you didn't know were there from just looking through them. They're often high aberration and low resolution instruments, just barely good enough to get by at low magnification... and I'm talking about the "alpha" binoculars now.

But ... what is the ultimate point of making yourself so deeply dissatisfied with every single binocular out there?

 

[Paultricounty]

Just looking through a binocular with high aberrations and/or assembly defects a person with 20/20 vision may not notice any problem at all. Somebody with 20/15 vision may notice something is a little off. Somebody with 20/10 vision may see the problem right away, but still not know the cause.

A high magnification star test combined with a high magnification resolution test allows all three people to identify aberrations and defects equally well and to measure their effect on resolution equally well. Looking through binoculars over and over in the normal way just won't do that.

Henry , is this to say that these very small differences visualy observed with the naked eye , concerning perceived brightness and slight differences in color tint from unit to unit, have no bearing on which one actually has more or less better corrected levels of aberrations? In other words we could say that the specific optic that a group may agree seemed to be the superior one out of a small test group could actually not be the best corrected for aberrations, and could possibly the worst of the test group?

Paul

 

[Binocollector]

I'm not Henry (and far less knowledgeable) but I think that is not what it means. It just means that optics we think are awesome will still show a large amount of abberations at magnifications they were never designed for. It's like looking at a Rolex under a microscope. Just magnify the surface of the polished steel enough and it will look like the surface of the moon.

 

[henry link]

But ... what is the ultimate point of making yourself so deeply dissatisfied with every single binocular out there?

The short answer is knowledge. A side benefit is not being addicted to continually buying new binoculars in a futile search for the holy grail.

 

[Binastro]

There is always variation with binoculars, telescopes and lenses.

That is why I try to check 3, 6 or 12 units and buy the best.

Even with really high grade professional lenses there is variation.

This was in my thirties and forties when my vision may have been 20/13 or 20/14.

I don't know, as I didn't have eye tests till 40 and visual acuity wasn't measured.

I didn't use boosting just normal vision.

Stanley Kubrick did not rent movie lenses. He bought them, maybe six of each.
They were tested and he used the best two for his movies, with the others as spares.
These lenses were very expensive.

Really good optics are rare, but professional and military lenses usually perform well.

Using a mirror mount without moving it and looking at the stars shows how awful most binoculars are, with some exceptions.

Regards,
B.

 

[Patudo]

But what good does all that knowledge do, if the result is that you now find every binocular you look at to be riddled with high aberration and assorted other faults? Binocular manufacturers just aren't going to make binoculars to satisfy the probably 0.01% that carry out Henry's testing regime; and indeed, if such levels of optical performance became necessary to satisfy consumer demand, how much would binoculars cost?

It strikes me that the "futile search for the holy grail" could just as easily be applied to the search for the best possible optical performance (including the further quest for the best possible sample out of the chosen model).

 

[henry link]

Hi Patudo,

The situation for me is not quite that bad. I've been pleasantly surprised by a few binoculars, especially when stopped down in daylight and for the rest I've learned to adjust my expectations down to binocular standards. I just find it interesting to know what they're really like, even when that topples most of them from their pedestals.

Henry

 

[Patudo]

I do appreciate your knowledgeable comments - I'm grateful for the dedication of those (like yourself, kabsetz, typo) who go to the trouble of testing binoculars in detail, and have certainly spent a fair amount of time reading them, coming away somewhat better informed (I hope!). But, probably because I'm in the 20/20 (if that) crowd rather than 20/15 or better, I'm happy (optically speaking) with a pretty wide range of binoculars, and don't really wish to go searching for aberrations (what do the camera guys call it again - pixel peeping?) that my unaided eye can't see.

I guess we all have our own standards for what we consider acceptable optically, and that's fair enough. I'm glad, though, that I don't feel the only thing that I can enjoy birding with is a stopped down 8x56 FL.

 

[Maljunulo]

Hi Patudo,

The situation for me is not quite that bad. I've been pleasantly surprised by a few binoculars, especially when stopped down in daylight and for the rest I've learned to adjust my expectations down to binocular standards. I just find it interesting to know what they're really like, even when that topples most of them from their pedestals.

Henry

Intellectual curiosity is a rare commodity these days, and anyone who has it should rejoice.

It makes life ever so much more interesting.

 

[Paultricounty]

Does anybody notice when comparing CA is some binoculars of the same configuration (example 10x42), that seeing some CA on objects is not consistent across the board with other binoculars? In other words we can be being observing an object , say a black crow on a branch with a blue or cloudy sky background, the CA is less on the edges of the bird and branches in one binocular than another. But when viewing a different object, say a swan on the water, the CA is less in the binoculars that were not as good on the previous example of the crow.

 

[henry link]

You need a single consistent CA target and test set-up used under repeatable lighting conditions to avoid these kinds of inconsistent impressions.

 

[GrampaTom]

inconsistent impressions.

Yep, know these well...