mooreorless
Well-known member
Another excellent thread for new people to read as well as old hands.
-
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.
New Binocular Resolution Test Results (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Atomic Chicken
- Start date
Atomic Chicken
Registered with the D.O.E.
Greetings!
I'm glad you are as happy with the 10x25's as I am... they truly are the featherweight jewel of the binocular industry!
As time goes on, I find myself regularly using only 3 pair out of my fairly large collections of binoculars. Those are:
Nikon HG 10x25
Minox BD 8x32
Leica Trinovid BN 7x42
Everything else gets occasionally taken out for a "spin", but I keep coming back to those three for almost all of my serious birding.
Best wishes,
Bawko
scampo said:
I'm glad you are as happy with the 10x25's as I am... they truly are the featherweight jewel of the binocular industry!
As time goes on, I find myself regularly using only 3 pair out of my fairly large collections of binoculars. Those are:
Nikon HG 10x25
Minox BD 8x32
Leica Trinovid BN 7x42
Everything else gets occasionally taken out for a "spin", but I keep coming back to those three for almost all of my serious birding.
Best wishes,
Bawko
scampo said:
Oh well, bad luck. Yes I'm well, and hunting fungi. But they do run fast. How is life? I bet you are helping keep up the standards at my old school! BTW a colleague where I currently work also went to Beauchamp. He was a couple of years ahead of me. Apparently the school was evacuated after he filled the chemistry labs with fumes. It is in character.
mooreorless said:Another excellent thread for new people to read as well as old hands.
Thanks!
Dennis
mooreorless
Well-known member
Dennis,You are welcome.
Steve
Steve
Bring up this thread again because I finally found some information I mentioned long time ago about visual hyperacuity. After trying many binoculars I have to day that I agree with Kimmo here. The provided site gives an interactive example for resolution power of the human eye beyond the number or size of photoreceptors per a given area in the fovea.
Hope this is still of some interest:
http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/lum_hyperacuity/index.html
Steve
Surveyor
The more I understand, the more I understand why I
Very interesting Steve. If someone had just told me about this, I doubt if I would have believed it. I do not think my eyes are particularly good, 20/25 right and 20/20 left and water a lot lately, but the pattern recognition part blew me away. Just tried 3 times this morning and got .09, .06 and .1 and I know I do not see that well. I am going to try this again after a full day at the computer to see what happens. Live and learn. I quit being able to distinquish the C at about .95-1 so the 10x seems about right (about 12x for me).
Ron
Last edited:
Vernier acuity will take you below the arc subtended by a single photoreceptor cell (split prism matching, etc.)
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Ron et al,
Please read post #95 on this thread written almost two years ago. I haven't found reason to revise my thinking, but I'm rather pleased there is finally some interest in hyperacuity. IMO, opticians are typically doctrinaire about oversimplifying optical requirements relative to human information processing needs. But, I've grown old and tired tilting with this infernal windmill. Your turn.
Blue skies,
Ed
Surveyor
The more I understand, the more I understand why I
Thanks Ed;
I had not noticed the length of this thread. I scanned your attached article and will go back and read it later tonight when things settle down here. Will go back and look at the thread from the beginning because I just happened to see some interesting comments while going back to #95. Have a good day.
Ron
I had not noticed the length of this thread. I scanned your attached article and will go back and read it later tonight when things settle down here. Will go back and look at the thread from the beginning because I just happened to see some interesting comments while going back to #95. Have a good day.
Ron
Hi All,
I appreciate that this thread is pretty old but it has raised a question for me that I hope that some one may be able to help. I am currently toying with different spec binos - 8x32, 8x42, 10x42 to see which suits me best. From the bits and bobs I have read in this thread it would seem that the human eye is the limit to resolution in binocular use, not the equipment (I could have got this completely wrong). Therefore would I expect to see a difference in resolution between similar glass but in different specs? In the samples I have a see more detail (which I assume is down to resolution and possibly contrast) with 10x42 than 8x32.
What my ramblings are leading to is the question: All other things being equal, should I detect an improvement in perceived resolution by going from 8x to 10x or from going from 32mm to 42mm objective lenses.
Apologies in advance if this is a dumb question..... but I need to know!
Thanks
ADW73UK
I appreciate that this thread is pretty old but it has raised a question for me that I hope that some one may be able to help. I am currently toying with different spec binos - 8x32, 8x42, 10x42 to see which suits me best. From the bits and bobs I have read in this thread it would seem that the human eye is the limit to resolution in binocular use, not the equipment (I could have got this completely wrong). Therefore would I expect to see a difference in resolution between similar glass but in different specs? In the samples I have a see more detail (which I assume is down to resolution and possibly contrast) with 10x42 than 8x32.
What my ramblings are leading to is the question: All other things being equal, should I detect an improvement in perceived resolution by going from 8x to 10x or from going from 32mm to 42mm objective lenses.
Apologies in advance if this is a dumb question..... but I need to know!
Thanks
ADW73UK
No.
looksharp65
Well-known member
adw73uk,
you will see an increase in details when you go from 8x to 10x. This is because everything you watch looks 25% bigger.
But then, so does the shake. Many people here won't use a 10x because the increased shake inhibits the magnification advantage.
Re the 42 mm vs 32 mm, I doubt you could discern any difference in resolution.
Assuming the magnification is the same, you will have a larger exit pupil. This gives a slight advantage a few minutes in the dusk, it helps penetrating the shadowed areas inside shrubberies etc. First and foremost, it gives easier eye placement and faster target-finding. A top 7x42 model would be the best in this regard.
The very best 32s [read: super high transmission rate] are so close to the 42s in performance that their aperture disadvantage is infinitesimal.
On the other hand, there are some very nice, lightweight and compact 42s out there now. The Opticron ED-X 8x42 is very nice IMO, but I haven't more than tried it briefly.
My own set is a 6.5x32 and a 10x32 combo, BTW.
you will see an increase in details when you go from 8x to 10x. This is because everything you watch looks 25% bigger.
But then, so does the shake. Many people here won't use a 10x because the increased shake inhibits the magnification advantage.
Re the 42 mm vs 32 mm, I doubt you could discern any difference in resolution.
Assuming the magnification is the same, you will have a larger exit pupil. This gives a slight advantage a few minutes in the dusk, it helps penetrating the shadowed areas inside shrubberies etc. First and foremost, it gives easier eye placement and faster target-finding. A top 7x42 model would be the best in this regard.
The very best 32s [read: super high transmission rate] are so close to the 42s in performance that their aperture disadvantage is infinitesimal.
On the other hand, there are some very nice, lightweight and compact 42s out there now. The Opticron ED-X 8x42 is very nice IMO, but I haven't more than tried it briefly.
My own set is a 6.5x32 and a 10x32 combo, BTW.
Thanks for the input looksharp.
I think I'll be settling for 8x32 and 10x42. For the compactness of the 8x32 and the extra detail I am seeing with 10x42. I am noticing a loss of detail between the two so wouldn't want to go lower than 8x. I was just interested to know if the difference I was seeing was down to the format or individual differences between units.
I think I'll be settling for 8x32 and 10x42. For the compactness of the 8x32 and the extra detail I am seeing with 10x42. I am noticing a loss of detail between the two so wouldn't want to go lower than 8x. I was just interested to know if the difference I was seeing was down to the format or individual differences between units.
ADW73UK,
I have a slightly different take on this that others may not agree with.
Your eyesight (visual acuity) is best under bright conditions where the pupil of your eye contracts to between 2 and 2.5mm. This means in a 8x you use effectively use the centre 16-20mm of the objective and a 10x 20-25mm. The resolution for these effective objective sizes are much closer to the magnified acuity of your eye than for a full aperture lens. Of the 8 fairly cheap binoculars I have at the moment only two are good enough not to be limiting under bright conditions for my eyesight. So it is quite possible in my opinion to distinguish difference between binoculars when it's bright. Of course a 32mm or 42mm will differ in low light performance.
David
I have a slightly different take on this that others may not agree with.
Your eyesight (visual acuity) is best under bright conditions where the pupil of your eye contracts to between 2 and 2.5mm. This means in a 8x you use effectively use the centre 16-20mm of the objective and a 10x 20-25mm. The resolution for these effective objective sizes are much closer to the magnified acuity of your eye than for a full aperture lens. Of the 8 fairly cheap binoculars I have at the moment only two are good enough not to be limiting under bright conditions for my eyesight. So it is quite possible in my opinion to distinguish difference between binoculars when it's bright. Of course a 32mm or 42mm will differ in low light performance.
David
absolut_beethoven
Well-known member
Sorry, but I beg to differ. When I compared the Nikon Edg 8x32 vs the new Zeiss Conquest HD with the larger objective - 8x42, I could easily see that the resolution on the Zeiss was better than the Nikon. And no I did not use a doubler, but I did use a tripod. See the link below for the complete test.
Using both handheld, even although my hands are quite steady compared to most people, there was enough movement that no matter how hard I tried, even knowing what to look for, was enough to level the playing field.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=227336
I also disagree about the aperture difference being infinitesimal, because this too wasn't borne out by what I actually saw. Notwithstanding my bias prior to this test that I originally concurred with you. In other words, this test shot down quite a few biases of mine. As they say, live and learn every day :t:
Cut and pasted from my tests mentioned above....
Twilight
That time of day before sunrise or after sunset when the sun is below the horizon but is still providing adequate brightness due to its light being reflected off the atmosphere back onto earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight
I know that Zeiss is making a big deal about their forthcoming Victory HTs and how the extra brightness will be especially helpful during twilight. Hopefully this post will provide potential buyers with some useful info that I found illuminating from additional twilight viewing.
Note that I said viewing and NOT tests.
Knowing that I was going to return the Zeiss Conquest HD in a few days, I decided to take both the Zeiss and the Nikon Edg out for additional use during twilight. My only objective was to see which one was more fun and relaxing to use.
Not paying attention to any faults, especially the tight and jerky focusing of the Zeiss, but just enjoying the view, I found that I had no preference for either. Both gave enjoyable views and were quite relaxing to use. I could still feel my eyes doing a small amount of work, not while using them, but noticed after looking through them for about 5 to 10 minutes without a break, I could feel my eyes relax when I put them down. But that was shortly before twilight.
Once twilight set in, I began to notice how much more I enjoyed using the Zeiss. My enjoyment of them continued to increase until nightfall.
Interestingly, after nightfall, I think the combination of lower resolution of my eyes because of darkness, plus my 50 plus year old pupils not dilating to 7mm anymore, I was back to square one. That is both were just as enjoyable to use, but even although the Zeiss were clearly a little brighter, as I mentioned above, it didn't make a huge difference for me. Certainly not what I experienced during twilight.
Hopefully others more knowledgeable that me will weigh in, so I thought that I would share this interesting observation of mine. My feeling is that the higher resolution photopic vision used during the brighter twilight period highlighted the differences in brightness between the two binos more than the lower resolution of my scotopic vision at nightfall.
The bottom line is that I take back my thoughts about marketing fluff when I first read Zeiss statement above
FrankD
Well-known member
AB,
The only objection I would have in reference to what you posted is simply that the comparison was done between two different models. If you had found the same thing by comparing the 8x32 EDG to the 8x42 EDG then I think the results would be more telling.
That was just the first thing that popped into my head after reading your post. I am certainly not doubting your experience when comparing the two binoculars in question but rather thinking that the differences in optical designs between the two models may play more of a part than the objective size difference.
Just my two cents.
The only objection I would have in reference to what you posted is simply that the comparison was done between two different models. If you had found the same thing by comparing the 8x32 EDG to the 8x42 EDG then I think the results would be more telling.
That was just the first thing that popped into my head after reading your post. I am certainly not doubting your experience when comparing the two binoculars in question but rather thinking that the differences in optical designs between the two models may play more of a part than the objective size difference.
Just my two cents.
