New binoculars from leica (1 Viewer)

[BruceH]

Is he the guy who came up with the phrase "WOW FACTOR?

Drew is not guilty, rather it originates in a quote by Jeff Bouton given in the link provided.

I believe Jeff is a Leica N. America marketing rep. If so, then I would expect him to be "WOW'd", else he may be "WOW'd" out of a job! If I am remembering right, I usually see him every year at the Tucson show (the weekend before Birdfair), but he skipped this year. Now it makes sense with him being involved in the Noctivid introduction. He is nice guy and I missed seeing him this year. Hopefully he will return next show to demo the new Trinovid HD and Noctivid. I am not the best at remembering names so I hope I got this right! I have his business card somewhere, but I am better at rembering names than I am at remembering where I put people's business cards.

 

[NDhunter]

This is a Leica thread, but the transmission numbers have been mentioned, at 92%.

I suppose they should do it like Zeiss. The Victory HT, on their website. "Up to 95% and more transmission"
I can tell that means a range, not an average, or ?

I would think a Noctovid would do better than that.

Jerry

 

[Chosun Juan]

Etudiant/Chosun et. al.,



Very good question, the answer to which is based on how it was computed. Not everyone appears to compute the same thing, unfortunately, leading to mass confusion. Chosun’s statement in #334, “…the convention is to quote the photopic (daylight) figure (wavelength 555nm) and this is the one that all manufacturers should be using for comparison,” is (very sorry) incorrect. Although, in her defense it has been said often enough on BF to become an urban legend.

It’s not a massively difficult concept to understand, but it does take a little effort. We are talking about transmission through the binocular, which is usually shown graphically as the luminous flux exiting the instrument in each frequency band, expressed as a percentage of the luminous flux entering in that band. In other words, there is an input spectrum and an output spectrum. The overall transmission is simply the total flux output expressed relative to the total flux input.

Similarly, the day/night values, refer to the relative brightness a standard observer will perceive expressed as a percentage of the input spectrum's brightness.

So how do we calculate the input spectrum's brightness before it goes through the binocular? This is done by multiplying the luminous flux in each band of the input spectrum by the observer's photopic/scotopic sensitivity to that spectral band, and adding up the results. How bright will the output spectrum be that leaves the binocular? This is calculated the same way, by multiplying each output band by its corresponding visual sensitivity and then adding them up.

The overall daylight value, then, is simply the ratio of the output brightness to the input brightness when the photopic sensitivity function is used! The nighttime value is the same ratio computed with the scotopic function, and it can also be done with the mesopic function.

What I've tried to explain in words is summarized more eloquently in mathematical notation below. It was taken from Visual Instrumentation by Mouroulis, pg. 360.

When it comes to understanding a statement made by a manufacturer, or anyone else, as to the percent transmission, they need to stipulate first whether they are referring to relative flux or relative brightness.

Ed

Ed, don't give the b*st*rds any more wiggle room! :-O

What I said 'should' be correct. Implicit in what I said was that the (daylight) figure (wavelength 555nm) is the inner product of the photopic luminosity function according to the CIE 1931 standard normalized to a unity figure quoted at the peak. This 'should' be what is used by the industry for the daylight figure by convention.

In case folks are not aware, that includes transmissions ranging from ~400nm all the way to ~700nm, though the 'guts' ('80%' level - good engineer that Pareto fulla ) occur between ~487nm and ~637nm. More recent data (Sharp, Stockman, Jagla & Jagle 2005) puts even more of an emphasis on wavelengths below that (bluish). There's a good visualization of the spectrum used to form the standard here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity_function

I agree though with what we have alluded to before - we never quite know what data manufacturers are quoting, what wavelengths, what standards have been used, and what numerical methods. I'm not sure if what we look at in transmission graphs is simply a plot of the raw data, or numerically 'massaged' results & with what rigour, and to what 'Standards'. I would hope that the manufacturers have adopted an industry wide convention to quote figures normalized to unity at the Photopic (daylight) peak of 555nm, and the Scotopic (night time) peak of 507nm. All of this is only for the 'normal' population - there will be those with genetic variance one way or the other, age related changes, outliers, and even BF Binoworld OCD freaks - which may explain the wide range of reported experiences here. There is even emerging research around the area of ganglions and brightness. Perhaps Gijs and Arek could give us more of an insight into the actual industry practices/conventions/Standards used?

I am certain though that some of the more 'fanciful', if not 'uninformed' or 'spurious' marketing departments are just grabbing the absolute peak figure (since it is numerically higher and thus looks better on paper!) which usually occurs in the (yellowish/orangish/reddish) part of the spectrum. Perhaps this is even what Leica did with the UVHD+ ? since tests show daylight figures below 92% .....

Leica seems to have 'doubled down' with this new Noctivid, making some truly (not even sure what the right word to use here is - high, remarkable, ambitious, out there, wild, outrageous, startling, substantial, etc! claims - such as ......
"Thanks to all these improvements, the whole visible spectrum of light is transmitted through the binoculars almost without loss. The colour rendition of the Noctivid binoculars is therefore extraordinarily close to the point of absolute colour neutrality (achromatic point)." ....... phew ! :brains:

Given that they have specified a transmission 'number' (I'm not going to warrant what that actually refers to! :-O ) of 92%, I will be beyond very curious to see what the actual tested values are ?? :cat:

Wouldn't it just be a whole lot easier if manufacturers released tested to agreed Standard figures with every new iteration of a model ??? :smoke:


Chosun :gh:

 

[Chosun Juan]

This is a Leica thread, but the transmission numbers have been mentioned, at 92%.

I suppose they should do it like Zeiss. The Victory HT, on their website. "Up to 95% and more transmission"
I can tell that means a range, not an average, or ?

I would think a Noctovid would do better than that.

Jerry

Jerry, see my post #334 for an explanation of what Zeiss has done - it is a marketing ploy based on the HT glass (they could also be having an each way bet based on the ultimate peak value depending on where that occurs - they never released the full transmission chart, but the thinking is that it occurs somewhere in the yellow - not to say that the view is yellow, although David has his doubts on this, and it may even indicate unannounced coatings and hence colour rendition tweakage!

Unfortunately, despite Leica's Advertising Script, there is no way that the S-P prism NoctiVid will transmit more than the A-K prism HT because of the losses inherent in the dielectric mirror of the Leica.

It will be very interesting in reality to see exactly where the Leica NoctiVid pans out in transmitted brightness vs the substantial marketing claims. It will also be interesting to see how the numbers stack up against its Alpha peers. :cat:


Chosun :gh:

 

[elkcub]

Chosun,

Unless I'm misunderstanding, according to your interpretation the one and only number that means anything in the output spectrum with regard to daylight brightness perception is the single value at frequency 555. Think about it. How could that be? Don't the other frequencies have any effect?

Normalizing the standard sensitivity function not only places the peak at 1.0 but also puts the other values in the range 0≤ x ≤100. Everything else in the [Wiki reference] is consistent with what was stated above, although unnecessarily technical.

The main idea is that the entire output spectrum influences brightness (for an "average" observer), although some frequencies influence it more than others. These differences are reflected in the sensitivity functions, which are not scalar values.

I'd really like to get you on board with this. :flowers: As Chosun goes, so goes the forum.

I've attached a chart I was working on some years ago showing the numerical values of the photopic and scotopic functions for 10nm frequency bins. As might be imagined, they weight the output flux spectrum quite differently, which leads to different day/night values. True, the spectral values near the peaks are weighted the most, but that can, and sometimes is, compromised by other frequencies. Analyzing those relationships would reveal color bias, incidentally.

Ed

 

[mfunnell]

Hmmm. My impression (and it is just an impression) is that CJ is after some common basis for comparison, however flawed, while E. doesn't much care for flawed measures and is more interested in getting it right. To my mind these are both valid things to wish for and, in an ideal world, not even incompatible :clap:

However, I suspect both conflict with the needs of marketing departments, so good luck with either or both approaches :-C

...Mike

 

[Chosun Juan]

Chosun,

Unless I'm misunderstanding, according to your interpretation the one and only number that means anything in the output spectrum with regard to daylight brightness perception is the single value at frequency 555 .....

Ed,

I'm pretty sure :h?: you're misunderstanding me, as (I think! :brains: I'm not saying that at all ..... In fact, I think we're pretty much saying exactly the same thing! ) :loveme:

I agree that the other frequencies are very important for determining "brightness", and that's what the Photopic and Scotopic Luminance Functions incorporate according to the long established CIE Standards (with only very minor recent tinkering). I think folks need to understand that all the visible frequencies are at play (as your attachment shows numerically :t: ) and that the real story goes deeper than even those functions (ie. those two curves with peak wavelengths @555nm, and 507nm, do not tell the whole story since even those functions are an amalgam of the 3 different cone types. Mesopic realms add a whole nuther area of complication and nuance).

The 3 cone types L, M, S (Red, Green, Blue) are not present in even quantity and even vary among individuals, being 75%-50%, 20%-45%, and ~5% respectively, and have peak sensitivities around ~570nm, ~540nm, and ~440nm respectively, though again these are subject to distribution curves among other frequencies (whole visible spectrum for L, M types, and up to ~550nm for the S type). Rods which are monochromatic vastly outnumber cones and have a peak sensitivity to light @498nm. They are not neatly corralled into discrete areas, but rather interspersed amongst each other, with only greater probabilities of finding one type at any particular location - such as a denser level of cones in the fovea. This rather long article gives a fuller explanation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision

What I am really unclear about is exactly what the transmission testers (Gijs, Arek, Industry) are putting forth, and what the industry is putting forth. Perhaps Industry Reps - Pete Gamby, Mike Jensen, and Dale Forbes, could chime in with their understanding, and clarification of what their company's, and industry are offering with regard to this transmission data. ?? :cat:

Mike Funnell's last post is correct insofar that I would like us to be able to compare 'headline' numbers (though formulated from the functions - so I think we're reading the same page, with the same boarding tickets ). ie. Let's have the ability as consumers to compare Fuji Apples with Fuji Apples, not Bonza's, Red Delicious, or even Granny Smiths, let alone Oranges, Yellow Curved Fruit :-O , or Lemons ! :eek!:

I hope this is being expressed as clearly as it sounds inside my fuzzy head, and helps to clarify things o though I'm not entirely sure that I'm not Bowieian (As in the late great David with each eye of a different colour), or even a Tetrachromat !


Chosun :gh:

 

[Vespobuteo]

ISO standard for measuring transmittance:

https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14490:-5:ed-1:v1:en

See below "Tables" in the left column, Table B.1 and Table B.2

 

[Chosun Juan]

ISO standard for measuring transmittance:

https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14490:-5:ed-1:v1:en

See below "Tables" in the left column, Table B.1 and Table B.2

Thanks Vespo, that would seem to contain what we need to know.

Does anyone have access to the full text of this Standard (ISO 14490-5) ??

(when I clicked on the 'buy now' button it wanted more than my binoculars cost me!) :eek!:


Chosun :gh:

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Ed, post 373,
Since we were on a camping vacation I did not follow the discussion here (we had no wifi, no internet, only full moon and a bright star illuminated sky).
As far as I have been informed certainly Swarovski and Zeiss but most likely also Leica and Kamakura measure transmission spectra of the instruments they produce to get a solid impression of the brightness level of these particular instruments and to find out from these spectra how the color bias is, what they do by application of an ISO standard which gives the information wanted in an independent way. I received a copy once of this ISO standard, but I am not allowed to distribute it, since it costs quite a bit of money and I probably have to sell my car or my house of I distribute this standard in an open medium without permission.
With regard to the measurement of transmission spectra: every institute seems to have its own type of instrumentation, although I have visited a company that did use a standard spectrometer with large sample compartment, but that still makes it difficult to measure spectra from for example porro binoculars (the light beam is displaced due to the prism construction) and it seems to me not possible to measure spectra with such an instrument of telescopes, be it straight ones or angled ones, so you have to build your own spectrometer to perform transmission measurements and I have seen different solutions at different producers to do that.
We have built our own high sensitive spectrometer, which is very versatile and very accurate. It was originally built to measure spectra of molecular events on a millisecond time scale in microscopic samples and that spectrometer turned out to be very useful also to measure transmission spectra in all kinds of instruments including binoculars and telescopes and the accuracy of the method has been established very well.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Binastro]

Hi Ed or Gijs,
Post 377.
Does the size of the source beam influence the measured transmission values?

 

[DavidBowman]

I was interested to chat with the Senior Leica rep at the Birdfair, about Leica's approach to PR in terms of getting improved sales of the Noctivids, compared with the HD+, which sailed under the radar. There's no doubt that, to date, Swarowski and Zeiss have been miles ahead in terms of selling the outstanding quality of their current premium bins. He said that Leica recognised this short-coming and was determined to develop the best binocular possible within existing technology and to come out and say so in their blurb. So,the press release is calling it “simply the brightest, sharpest, highest contrast and purest color image available in a binocular today”. He said Leica were confident, following extensive testing of all the rival bins, of being able to back this claim under legal challenge. Not that another binocular might not equal (or even exceed) the Noctivids in an aspect of optical performance but that in the combination of brightness, sharpness, colour richness, colour accuracy, depth of field, 3-D experience, chromatic aberration, contrast, field of view, close focus and handling they were unequalled. That certainly fits with my experience of them - absolutely stunning. Managed to sell my HD + over the weekend and now got a pair of Noctivid 8x42 on order - hoping they arrive before I go to Falsterbo in late September.

 

[Rotherbirder]

I'd scarcely call my minor rambling a review but thank you all the same for the courtesy. I couldn't agree more regarding weight but then, wimp that I am, I've recently downsized to Kite 8x30 which, at 461g (=16.26 oz) are exceptionally lightweight (rather like their owner!). I originally purchased them as a 'spare pair' and meant to continue to use my perfectly acceptable seven-year-old Zeiss 8x40s. However I now very rarely use the latter as whatever minor benefit I got from their larger OG I found outweighed (literally) by the convenience of the Kites.

In real-world birding, as distinct from that of the obsessive optics fan, I really doubt there's any significant functional difference in terms of birding not only between any of the top alphas but also the better sub-alpha brands. As I've observed many times before, I suspect that two good top-end £1000 binoculars of distinctly different specification (say 8x32 & 10x42) will be more useful than a single £2000 pair. The biggest plus to alphas is (or ought to be) not so much their detailed technical specification as their quality control and after sales service. It's a heretical thought but I often wonder if the image you project by owning the latest alpha bins is far more significant to their owners than the image perceived through them.

Well said John; this is the most sense that I've read in any post on the optics thread since I joined BF! I remember a birding acquaintance of mine saying, many years ago that "it doesn't matter how good your optics are if there is an idiot on the end of them" - never a truer word spoken! Birding is very much fashion-led these days as the rush to upgrade at the release of each new model demonstrates.

 

[Holger Merlitz]

I was interested to chat with the Senior Leica rep at the Birdfair, about Leica's approach to PR in terms of getting improved sales of the Noctivids, compared with the HD+, which sailed under the radar. There's no doubt that, to date, Swarowski and Zeiss have been miles ahead in terms of selling the outstanding quality of their current premium bins. He said that Leica recognised this short-coming and was determined to develop the best binocular possible within existing technology and to come out and say so in their blurb. So,the press release is calling it “simply the brightest, sharpest, highest contrast and purest color image available in a binocular today”. He said Leica were confident, following extensive testing of all the rival bins, of being able to back this claim under legal challenge. Not that another binocular might not equal (or even exceed) the Noctivids in an aspect of optical performance but that in the combination of brightness, sharpness, colour richness, colour accuracy, depth of field, 3-D experience, chromatic aberration, contrast, field of view, close focus and handling they were unequalled. That certainly fits with my experience of them - absolutely stunning. Managed to sell my HD + over the weekend and now got a pair of Noctivid 8x42 on order - hoping they arrive before I go to Falsterbo in late September.

Oh yes, I would like to see them back the claims regarding depth of field and 3-D experience - however, not under legal challenge, just against conventional textbook wisdom

Cheers,
Holger

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

John Cantelo, post 368,
I fully agree with your post and I use the same considerations for the choice of my birding binocular. And during our recent camping trip it again showed the usefulness of these considerations.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Binastro post 391,
I do not see why it should, although I can image that a light surface of 1 sq meter of 1 sq millimeter may give you a some trouble to perform useful measurements.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Robert Wallace]

"It's a heretical thought but I often wonder if the image you project by owning the latest alpha bins is far more significant to their owners than the image perceived through them."
I agree with much of what John posted#368 and Gilmore Girls additional comment #369.
Not a heretical thought John just very perceptive.
In the 1950's? Maslow an American psychologist came up with the hierarchy of needs. The level below the highest level (self actualisation) is self esteem, which explains why we like status symbols. I understand this model is widely used by marketing and advertising people not to mention HR professionals.
I'm not being judgemental because I felt really pleased with myself when I finally bought my West German Zeiss 10x40 Dialyts 30 years ago. Didn't make a better birdwatcher either, but increased my "street cred".
I am now quite happy to confess to being a poor field naturalist.

 

[dipped]

Did anyone ask when the 32mm series of Noctivid's will be released?

 

[jan van daalen]

I can't help it, but I get the feeling that people are getting labeled.
Like: he's driving a RangeRover and mine is a Skoda. Ha, it gets me everywhere also.
In my book, using a SV, SF and/or UV/NV says nothing about me. Just about the pleasure I get from it. I really don't care which bin the other guy uses, but it seems the other guy cares.

Jan

 

[Binastro]

It depends on ones personality.

I would not feel happy driving a Ferrari or Lambo. They are very noisy, ridiculous to me, and say, 'Look at me'.

A Jaguar yes.
A Bentley or Rolls maybe.

A Porsche never, I don't want to kill myself with a rear drive powerhouse.

A Renault 4 yes. Wonderful on snow. My cousin used to transport an 8ft tall Giraffe in one every six months as it was shared with his friend. (A toy not a real animal).

I don't really fancy the top binoculars new as they are beyond my status, unless they actually provide something nothing else can.

I prefer a Conquest HD 10x42.

We are all different.