Unfortunately there is no entertainment to be had in the alpha 32 theatre in Wetzlar.
The busy bees of Wetzlar are busy, busy, busy with other things just now.
And anyway FL 8x32 is still a competitive package. We will just have to be patient.
Lee
-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Is the best roof in the world better optically than the best porro? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
Unfortunately there is no entertainment to be had in the alpha 32 theatre in Wetzlar.
The busy bees of Wetzlar are busy, busy, busy with other things just now.
And anyway FL 8x32 is still a competitive package. We will just have to be patient.
Lee
Stephen, when I made that comment seconding Holger's idea I did think of the Swarovski Habicht 8x30, Nikon SEs and a few larger porros. I vaguely remembered comparison tests of those with roofs, such as the excellent and lengthy one by you linked above, which I have now read yet again (having read it when it appeared.) Of course I don't mean to disparage such tests in any way. In fact, they point up how good optically porros could have been by now, even beyond that, had they been developed in the recent past as roofs have. (I doubt if I'd use one though, beyond that smallest size, as I find the larger ones a bit cumbersome!)
And now this (okay, I'm not asking any questions right now). The troika of Wetzlar, Manitou and Troubador had better deliver!
Last edited:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Yes, well, I 'spose the "GIANT" announcements due next year will help keep Swaro's new ABK x56 SLC's at bay ....... |8)|
But a x32 "WOW!" is still needed ..... times a tickin' .......
As for your other assertions young man ..... G-ross !! Go and wash your mouth out with soap !!
Chosun :gh:
1) About the 32, I personally agree CJ.
2) "young man?", oooohh you flatterer o
3) re 'other assertions': Well, young lady, twas yourself who dragged s*xual relations and zippers into what was hitherto a chaste and innocent discussion. But I guess, being stuck out in the bush, with only BF for company, its enough to drive a lady up the eucalyptus. And BTW, the 'stained dress' was a real life feature of Zippergate, and not something dreamed up by my admittedly tortured imagination.
Lee
Last edited:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
1) About the 32, I personally agree CJ.
2) "young man?", oooohh you flatterer o
3) re 'other assertions': Well, young lady, twas yourself who dragged s*xual relations and zippers into what was hitherto a chaste and innocent discussion. But I guess, being stuck out in the bush, with only BF for company, its enough to drive a lady up the eucalyptus. And BTW, the 'stained dress' was a real life feature of Zippergate, and not something dreamed up by my admittedly tortured imagination.
Lee
Sir, I was just drawing the analogy to "whoppers" of our time ..... lies that is !! I didn't drag the conversation down with "Zippergate" .... that's the official reference from Wiki, and as for Willy's quote, well that's just some of the funniest damn stuff (if no doubt deeply embarrassing for the young intern in question), that the rest of the world has heard :smoke: (except for the UK - no s*x please - we're British!). The WMD one, equally, if not moreso, a sizeable whopper - though with rather sadder consequences. I could have also easily included Juliar's (in)famous "No Carbon Tax in a government I lead" quote, except that I thought it too political, and recent history tells us she no longer leads the goverment anysways - wot with being knifed an all, just months out from the election, and giving a 'hospital pass' to original knifee KRudd. Such shifting-sands-based opinions, changeable allegiances and questionable machinations make notorious forum 'flip-flopper' D, look like a solid citizen of unwavering loyalty and optical commitment!
I'll leave it up to you which cap fits - naughty boi, or drrty ol' man, but your preceding post was in "bad taste" ....
you need to go and "clean it up"! :egghead:
As for the x32 HT, even if Z's resources are wrapped up in "Bigger" projects, it's such a doddle, that for the paltry fee of several hundred thousand dollars, I will personally deliver the program before Christmas with a guaranteed WOW! and end this trifling roof v's porro, my roof v's your roof, debacle once and for all! |8)|
Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
Lee, CJ, apart from things tending to "wander" a bit at this stage, that matter brought up is also, or was for years, meshed with internal politics in a country where many BF readers live. Here's to the status quo B : mystic communion across the North Sea o, idyllic love among the euaclypts ... Let there be no UN crisis!
: mystic communion across the North Sea o, idyllic love among the euaclypts ... Let there be no UN crisis!
The offending post has been deleted and I tender my apologies for any offence caused. I shall try to restrain my ribbaldry in future but I'm afraid I can't give any guarantees
Lee
Lee, CJ, apart from things tending to "wander" a bit at this stage, that matter brought up is also, or was for years, meshed with internal politics in a country where many BF readers live. Here's to the status quo B
Good gracious Pomp, you old romantic!
I'll drink to that B
Lee
[email protected]
Well-known member
These are intriguing pictures.
It's interesting, not to say instructive, how much larger an equivalent roof prism must be to be better (?) or just as good as one of the best porro prisms.
The huge difference in the sizes of their respective ocular/eye cup construction really sticks out because there isn't that much difference in their FOVs.
Has anyone compared the 8 x 30 Habicht with the 8 x 30 CL? Here the roof prism costs less but the sizes in and surrounding their optics are more equal.
Bob
If the Habicht image is as nice or better than the SE then it's fair to say IMO that the Habicht is superior to the CL. I have the CL and had (up until a week ago ) the SE. The SE has noticeably better resolution and contrast than the CL.
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Bob, I think the relative sizes of the oculars in those photos is distorted due to the use of a wide angle lens on the camera, and the different distances of each of the bins eyepieces from the camera lens surface, and the foreshortening effect on foreground objects.
A more accurate 'picture' would be given by measuring the ocular diameters.
Chosun :gh:
Among the best 8x32 roof-prisms the Leica Ultravid and Zeiss Victory are both much shorter than the Swaro. Sv. (4.6 vs 5.3 in.) Maybe much of the length is due to the field-flattening lens/es. It'll be interesting to see a photo of those w. these two porros.
Last edited:
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Others may disagree with me about this (Alexis?
), but in actual use the 32mm SV doesn't "feel" any bigger than the 32mm FL. The FL is shorter, but the barrels are thicker, the bridge is chunky, and the focus knob is huge. So adjusted for my IPD the FL is actually bigger in terms of both width (minor difference) and, depth (pretty significant). I haven't used the Leica because of short eye relief but I suspect it might feel smaller than the SV.Agreed with CJ about the distorted perspective in the photos--wide-angles do that. But make no mistake, the SV oculars are huge. Right around 24mm diameter. The EDG's look about the same, maybe? It must be good for something, else why do it? My theory: "ease of view," by which I mean that although all 32mm binos have the same exit pupil diameter, all exit pupils are not created equal. The SV is significantly more forgiving of eye placement than the FL and has that "roam around" feel to it. Wave of the future for sure.
Mark
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
The diameter of the ocular eye lens isn't just pulled out of a hat. It's determined by simple geometry. The photo below shows the light cone emerging from a binocular eyepiece. The altitude of cone equals the eye relief distance. The diameter of the eye lens is simply the diameter of the cone base required for the sides of the cone to subtend an angle equal to the apparent field.
Attachments
Last edited:
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Henry, I could be wrong, but there seems to be more to it than just eye relief. Think about it if you get a chance. It's beyond my ken. I called it "voodoo" a few days ago, but of course that's not good enough. LER doesn't fully explain what I'm looking at.
Mark
Mark
[email protected]
Well-known member
Most of us who have both the Habicht and SE give the nod to the Habicht when it comes to on axis resolution but the SEs are a little sharper in the outer fov as they should be considering their use of field flattener lenses.
The one thing I find so surprising about the Habicht is their light transmission, the tiny little porro yields an unbelievably bright image.Proudpapa mentioned that Swarovski claims 88-90% for their roofs and 95-96% for their porros and after using the Habicht under low light conditions I don't doubt their light transmission figures at all.
If you ever try a Habicht the one thing you will find surprising is their diminutive size, in direct comparison with the Habicht the 8x32 SE is a large binocular.
Steve
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Mark, you just have to read Henry's post carefully .....
The eyepiece diameter is determined by the relationship of ER .... AND .... Afov
I thought Henry's graphic quite *brilliant* |:d|
Chosun :gh:
Mark,
FYI the oculars on my 10 x 32 EDG I, as near as I can measure them, are at least 23mm---maybe 24mm wide. ER is 17.3mm. AFOV (Real) is 6.5º. AFOV (Apparent) is 59.2º. FOV @ 1000 yards is 341 feet.
I was just out on the deck fooling around with it before I came in and read this.
Bob
PS: When I hold a binocular up to my eyes I brace the top of it's eye cups firmly up against my brow ridge just under my eyebrows. This binocular with it's big wide oculars and eye cups is the easiest binocular to use that I own. I can put the eye cups farther back underneath my eye brows without getting any hint of a blackout than I can with any other binocular I have.
One more thing. When I got the 10 x 32 EDG I compared it carefully with my 10 x 32 LX L which I had used for years. I noted that although the 341'@1000yard FOV remained unchanged on the EDG it's eye relief was longer by 1.3mm and the ocular was wider by a couple of millimeters. Also the EDG was longer over all. I inquired about that here and Henry volunteered that the ocular was likely widened (tweaked) so that the same FOV could be kept on a longer binocular.
I noticed that the same thing had happened with a new Kahles 8 x 32 I purchased last year which I compared with an older one I had owned for awhile. The oculars were visibly wider and the eye cups were longer and in this case the FOV was increased somewhat. There were new coatings throughout on the new model also. I found that these improvements had noticeably improved the view when I compared the 2 binoculars.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
