New Binocular Resolution Test Results (1 Viewer)

[Atomic Chicken]

Steve,

Thanks for the kind words regarding the tests. Yes... my inbox is full and I don't currently have the time to go through it... thanks for trying anyway!

OK... an attempt to answer your question.

I like both the Zeiss Victory 8x20 (despite the poor resolution test results) as well as the Nikon HG 10x25. I think they are both marvelous optics considering their small size, as are the new Leica Ultravid 8x20 and 10x25 models I've recently had the opportunity to examine.

From the published specs, the 8x20 and 10x25 models both have similar eye reliefs... in the neighborhood of 14mm-15mm, depending on the brand and configuration. I would not let eye relief be the determining factor, but instead focus on what is most important to you in a compact binocular's other features.

For my own uses, I find that I grab the 10x25 more often than the 8x20 when going out the door... even though I am a bigger overall user of low-power binoculars in general. I find the small 10x25's seem to compliment my typical 8x32 or 7x42 main binoculars better than the 8x20's, which I tend to find somewhat redundant and only grab when I know I'm going hiking or doing some other activity that prevents carrying a mid-size or full-size binocular with me. However, even in those cases I sometimes grab the 10x25's anyway... especially if I think I might run out of daylight or do lakeside or long-distance birding.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that if I could only have one pair of compact binoculars, I would buy the 10x25 model instead of the 8x20 model without hesitation... even though I prefer low-power binoculars overall. They just seem to be more usefull overall and compliment my larger 7x and 8x binoculars better when used as a pair.

Hope this answers your questions!

Best wishes,
Bawko

 

[scampo]

...
Hope this answers your questions!

Best wishes,
Bawko

It's sure helped, Bawko. Thanks again. I'll try to get a look through the two Nikons before committing the cash as taking off my specs to view always adds a delay.

 

[Leif]

Hi Bawko - what a fantastic test there! I tried to send the following as a private message but your inbox is full (I'm not surprised following such a test).

I was, like many others, fascinated by your test. I was thinking it would be very useful also in the BF review section where it will be more easily accessible for future reference as I'm sure many will want to use it.

Anyway, thanks very much for your time and patience in carrying it out. I own a pair of Swarovski 8.5x32 and have been pleased with them for the years I have owned them; that said, my brother has Nikon HG 8x42 (Monarchs in the US) and, despite a slightly narrower fov, the colour rendition and apparent sharpness is better to my eyes.

I'm writing because I'm in the market for a pair of compact bins to take when I'm walking a good distance. I find the Swaros too bulky when the prime idea is not birding. Yesterday, I looked through all that my local shop had and concluded that the Swaro 8x20s were the best they had on offer - knocking spots of a pair of compact but decent Swifts. But... I found that I did not like the fiddliness of the two separate barrels so looked on the Internet and saw two other options from Zeiss and Nikon, which I couldn't test. Then I came across your test...

You seem to point to the Nikon 10x20 as the one to get but, as I wear specs and although I prefer to use the naked eye, it is also useful to have a binocular with a fair eye relief, too and I've always found 10x bins wanting in this respect and impossible to see the full fov.

I would be grateful if you have any recommendations for me - or would it still be the Nikon? And, have you tested the 8x20s, which, I presume would have much better eye relief and be more useable with spectacles?

Thanks again!

Steve: A year or two ago I decided to buy a fancy compact binocular to take on runs round the local nature reserve. I tested - at Ace Optics of Bath - the big names, Swarovski, Leica (old style), Nikon (new style) and Zeiss (Victory). I didn't see much variation in optical quality, though the Nikon was the best by a small margin due to slightly higher contrast and slightly better field edges. Other people seem to say similar things, so it's not just sample variation. I think it was also the best with eyeglasses, though to be honest none of them are ideal for eyeglass wearers. I chose the Swarovski rather than the Nikon as the latter was a bit too big for my pocket. It is just about useable with eyeglasses.

However I recently tried an Opticron 8x21 DBA (at InFocus). It seemed nicely made, with heavy rubber armour, though the hinge was a bit stiff, and it was a wee bit bulky. But for eyeglass wearers it was fantastic with excellent eye relief. It also had a noticeably wider field of view than the competitors. The only problems with the optics were obvious distortion towards the field edges, and a bit more CA, though you probably will not notice that. I strongly recommend that you try them (though you might of course decide that they are naff). I am surprised that they are not mentioned more on BF.

Leif

 

[scampo]

...

However I recently tried an Opticron 8x21 DBA (at InFocus). It seemed nicely made, with heavy rubber armour, though the hinge was a bit stiff, and it was a wee bit bulky. But for eyeglass wearers it was fantastic with excellent eye relief. It also had a noticeably wider field of view than the competitors. The only problems with the optics were obvious distortion towards the field edges, and a bit more CA, though you probably will not notice that. I strongly recommend that you try them (though you might of course decide that they are naff). I am surprised that they are not mentioned more on BF.

Leif

Hello Leif - thanks for the advice.

My local shop manager said he won't now stock the more expensive Opticron binoculars because they were so close in price to the Nikon, Swaro and Leica offerings that no one would buy them against the big names. The DBA 8x21, for example, with "Oasis coating" retails for about £250.00 which is equivalent to those from other makes.

Do you think it is likely to outperform the top makes? My mind tells me it might as Opticron are not usually fools in their pricing. I was reasonably impressed with the cheaper Opticrons in terms of fov and eye relief but, not unsurprisingly, the image really lagged behind the Swaro 8x20 - neither as solid nor as sharp, also very slightly "milky" in comparison.

What takes my fancy - because they have a single hinge rather than two tubes are the new Zeiss BT Victory Compact 8x20 and the Nikon 8 or 10x.

 

[iporali]

What takes my fancy - because they have a single hinge rather than two tubes are the new Zeiss BT Victory Compact 8x20 and the Nikon 8 or 10x.

Didn't Nikons also have two hinges?

Ilkka

 

[Leif]

Didn't Nikons also have two hinges?

Ilkka

Yes they do. Leif

 

[elkcub]

Bawko,

As an addendum to post #12 I need to add one caviat from a methodology perspective. The measurements, and their meaning, are hightly dependent upon the accuracy of magnification/power. Products that are advertised to be the same power could easily appear to overperform or underperform depending on how far they really are from nominal. For example, if the 10x25 pocket Nikons were slightly stronger than 10x, or the Zeiss 7x42 slightly weaker than 7x, differences such as you observed would be quite possible without there being any real difference in aided vision.

I don't think this invalidates your measurements by any means, but I wouldn't put too much weight on really small differences until the absolute magnification can be measured for each binocular to perhaps one decimal place.

Hope I haven't rained on your well-earned parade.

-elk

 

[Leif]

Hello Leif - thanks for the advice.

My local shop manager said he won't now stock the more expensive Opticron binoculars because they were so close in price to the Nikon, Swaro and Leica offerings that no one would buy them against the big names. The DBA 8x21, for example, with "Oasis coating" retails for about £250.00 which is equivalent to those from other makes.

Do you think it is likely to outperform the top makes? My mind tells me it might as Opticron are not usually fools in their pricing. I was reasonably impressed with the cheaper Opticrons in terms of fov and eye relief but, not unsurprisingly, the image really lagged behind the Swaro 8x20 - neither as solid nor as sharp, also very slightly "milky" in comparison.

What takes my fancy - because they have a single hinge rather than two tubes are the new Zeiss BT Victory Compact 8x20 and the Nikon 8 or 10x.

Hi Steve: I suspect that your shop manager is right. I would not be surprised if the sharpness and brightness were not far off the top marques though I haven't compared the Opticron side by side with a big name equivalent. I should have done so when I bought the Swarovski. The image quality from the Swarovski is sublime! I only wish the eye relief was a bit better. (I can say the same things about the others too.)

Leif

 

[scampo]

Hi Illka - I wasn't able to see a pair as the shop only had the baby Swaros. But looking at the picture (linked), you might be right! I thoughtlessly assumes that it had a centre hinge. In which case, I'll have to have a look at the new Zeiss which seems to have an unusual single offset hinge.


http://www.at-infocus.co.uk/pics/pr_Nikon_8x22_HGL_Minis.jpg

 

[pduxon]

uhm Steve your brother has the HG's which aren't Monarchs in the US. Monarchs retail for about £350.

Have to say like Leif I liked the DBA 8x21. By far the easiest to use. Of course you get no name cache.

 

[scampo]

uhm Steve your brother has the HG's which aren't Monarchs in the US. Monarchs retail for about £350.

Have to say like Leif I liked the DBA 8x21. By far the easiest to use. Of course you get no name cache.

Hmm - what are they called over there, then? I thought that was their name.

Yes - the Opticron's sound very good indeed. The cachet is not so important for a second pair (my other car is a...) (-;

But at £245-00, that's a lot for an Opticron when the top names are about the same.

 

[pduxon]

Hmm - what are they called over there, then? I thought that was their name.

Yes - the Opticron's sound very good indeed. The cachet is not so important for a second pair (my other car is a...) (-;

But at £245-00, that's a lot for an Opticron when the top names are about the same.

think they are Premier LX (or is that what the HGL are called?)

totally agree about the price. The Swaro, Zeiss and Nikon are about £300. Ultravids £350. Decided it was a waste of money in the end.

 

[DavidP]

think they are Premier LX (or is that what the HGL are called?)

totally agree about the price. The Swaro, Zeiss and Nikon are about £300. Ultravids £350. Decided it was a waste of money in the end.

The Nikon Monarchs are about $290 over here. The Nikon HG (UK) are the Nikon Premier LX's over here or rather LX(L)'s now (8x42 LXL are $1200).

 

[Leif]

Hmm - what are they called over there, then? I thought that was their name.

Yes - the Opticron's sound very good indeed. The cachet is not so important for a second pair (my other car is a...) (-;

But at £245-00, that's a lot for an Opticron when the top names are about the same.

Steve: I think the question you have to ask yourself is what size you are willing to tolerate. If you don't need ultra-compact, then you can get really good performance from an inverted porro such as a B&L 8x26, and save yourself a fortune (or, more accurately, spend less). I haven't done a side by side test so I don't know how they stack up against a top end roof prism job, but I would test them if I were you. I bought a roof 'cos I needed ultra-compact.

Regarding Opticron, your thought processes are interesting. It shows how hard it must be for a new name to break into the top end price bracket.

Leif

 

[scampo]

...

Regarding Opticron, your thought processes are interesting. It shows how hard it must be for a new name to break into the top end price bracket.

Leif

(-; I was responding to Pete with a wink!

I shall have to investigate further - none too easy as most local shops have a very small range. I think ultra compacts are what I would like - I can imagine them being useful on many occasions, not least in the home. The number of times I've gone for the Swaros and missed that distant hawk!

 

[Leif]

(-; I was responding to Pete with a wink!

Oh. You didn't tell me I had to lean to the right to understand your postings.

Leif

 

[xenophobe]

Bawko,

Would you post a PDF of your test chart like you did in your previous thread?

 

[Atomic Chicken]

xenophobe,

Thanks for asking... but it isn't possible to post the new chart. Here's why.
The new chart is photoplotted onto a large piece of clear photgraphic film using a laser photoplotter, using a specialized file format called "Gerber". It is an 18MB file that was created using a PCBoard CAD system, and can't be output as a .PDF (at least by any method I'm aware of!).

I will try and find a way to eventually output it as a .PDF for you and others to download, after I finish up some pressing work and have more free time... but it might be a week or two before I can experiment.

Best wishes,
Bawko

 

[xenophobe]

How much would it cost to mail one out?

I do have several binoculars to test, and accesss to a selection of others and could help provide data if you'd like... if not that's okay too.

btw, your PM box is full.

 

[kabsetz]

Hello all,

I've been meaning to contribute to this thread a bit, but have been too busy to give it the consideration it deserves. I have a little bit of time available now, so I'll try to make a couple of points and perhaps clarify some issues. I'll use Henry's post as a bridge to my own thoughts - hopefully he and the rest of you don't mind. I also would like to say up front that I enjoy reading your tests and wholeheartedly support your efforts to educate both your readers and yourself.

Bawko and elk,

.. Bawko, your eyesight actually looks to be quite good from your results, better than 20/20, but you would need to have better than human eyesight to see detail as small as 14", which is the probable 2" actual resolution of your Leica 7X42 multiplied by its magnification. The 7" you reported for that binocular multiplied by 7x is 49" which is very good eyesight acuity but almost certainly far below the actual resolution of the binocular.

Bawko, I'm sure your eyesight is much better than average, and very possibly better than that of any person you have ever compared it with. However, I have discovered that among binocular freaks there is a disproportional number of people with distinctly above-average visual acuity - which might partially explain why they are so obsessed about optical quality in the instruments. I used to think that my own visual acuity is exceptional, but nowadays I know several people whose acuity is the same or even better - a couple of them often participate in the testing I do. This is to say that while you are certainly justified in thinking that your eyesight is excellent and perhaps better than many of your readers have, some of them will, alas, have even sharper eyes than you. Not that it matters, and it certainly does not discredit your results, but I think it is usefull for you to know this.

The astigmatism I was refering to would be in the binoculars, not your eyes. If the axis of the astigmatism happens to be aligned or nearly aligned vertically it will cause a loss of resolution in the horizontal bars but have much less effect on the vertical bars. A star test would indicate if this is the cause.

Astigmatism is, unfortunately, rather common in binoculars. There is no reason to doubt any of your vertical/horizontal discrepancy results, with the possible exception of the HG 10x25. With that one, I find it bit puzzling that there could be enough astigmatism to show the discrepancy in a sample which, based on its overall performance, must be really close to being aberration-free. Also, not to increase your burden, but if you do detect astigmatism in a binocular, it might be usefull to also test it with the pattern tilted 45 degrees. Astigmatism is not always oriented vertically/horizontally, but can have any other orientation as well.

I suppose I think "resolution" is a bit of a red herring in binoculars. It's certainly true that some binoculars look "sharper" than others, but the magnification is so low that any good quality binocular is not really being pushed to its resolution limit when you simply look through it. There may be problems of many sorts in the image, but in my experience it takes a very bad or very defective binocular for its actual resolution to be worse than eyesight acuity. I may be wrong but I think if these experiments are done repeatedly the averaged result with the good binoculars will wind up being the experimenter's eyesight acuity divided by the binocular's magnification. In other words I think it is essentially an eye test.

Here I find a rare instance where I disagree somewhat with Henry. He is absolutely correct in saying that "any good quality binocular is not really being pushed to its resolution limit when you simply look through it." However, this does not mean that you would obtain absolutely identical resolution test results with, say, all 7x binoculars which (boosted) resolve as well as or better than what your eye can resolve. I'm convinced that if you tested three 7x binoculars, one with 2 arcsec, one with three arcsec and one with four arcsec booster-measured resolution, you would find that you get different eye-measured resolutions with them and would also readily see which one is the sharpest. It is likely, though, that you would need a finer gradation than 1 arcsecond steps to discern the differences. This is essentially the reason why Steve Ingraham devised his NEED test, where he recorded the distance at which he could resolve a constant target. With this kind of a setup, you can perceive 2-5% differences in the resolving power of the brain-eye-binocular systems quite readily. The real weakness of the NEED is that it does not take astigmatism into account as it uses a target with only horizontal bars.

So, I do not think that looking at bar targets through binoculars without a booster would be just an eye test. It does provide meaningful information, but the differences between high-quality binoculars are likely to be smaller than one arcsecond steps in most cases. If you were to triple your distance to the target, you can effectively cut the steps into one third, of course.

Finally, one question concerning your methodology. Did you use both eyes/barrels simultaneously, separately, or just one side of the binocular? I ask this because at a distance as short as 17+ feet (or any distance much under some 20-30 yards) you cannot have the target centered in both barrels at the same time.

Kimmo