Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Steve,
Thanks. Now you have me convinced that there is a place indeed for an Overall performance category. Presence!
This is a concept widely used in hi-fi audio to denote the character of the sound presentation: more up front, or more laid back. I think it's akin to more or less 'fast' or 'in your face'. Also, I think it's what I had in mind when including 'immediacy' in the Object performance category. However, I now see it doesn't really belong there because it's a combination of factors from different categories.
Presence is probably what people on this forum often call ‘snapping into focus’ or ‘vivid’. In my experience the concept is made up of brightness, contrast, sharpness and color tone, adding up to an impression that can be more or less appealing to the individual.
In the last couple of months I have extensively compared the new Swarovski EL SV and SLC HD to my Zeiss 8x56 FL, Swift Audubon 804ED and Leitz 8x30 Binuxit. To my surprise I found very little to choose between the two Swarovski’s and the Zeiss when comparing them on Object performance. At some point I even entertained the idea of selling the Zeiss and live with the SLC. Why? Because the SLC seemed ever so slightly faster, snappier. Really beautiful. Then it occurred to me that with prolonged viewing the Zeiss essentially gave me the same information, maybe even a bit more. And I decided to keep the Zeiss. Why? Because its slightly slower presentation (I’d now call it more laid back presence) suits my personal character and style of birding just a bit better.
I have discussed the Zeiss Fl’s object presentation, notably its contrast, with people missing something on this aspect. I still believe there’s nothing wrong or missing in the Zeiss’ transmission of contrast. However, I seem to know what they’re talking about. It’s the FL’s presence, being not exactly suited to their expectations, their taste, eyes, brain or style of birding.
Taking my other reference binoculars into the comparison, my impression is that coating, baffling and color tone are very much responsible for differences in a binocular’s presence. Both the Swift and Leitz’s presence is less immediate than the Zeiss’ or Swaro’s. It would be a mistake however to write them off on this aspect. And not only because they’re superb on other aspects (I’ve yet to see a binocular bettering them on center field resolution) but also, and probably more importantly, because their presence is a matter of taste.
And we definitely need to talk about taste when evaluating binoculars. As clear and specific as possible, please. So I’ll gladly include Presence and Overall performance in the vocabulary.
I’ll make a new vocabulary, including a few new aspects which have occurred to me in the process. See below.
Renze
PS. As we’re discussing optical performance here, and not evaluation of binoculars in general, it should be noted that yet another category is not accounted for. Of course aspects like build quality, finish etc. can’t be missed.
Thanks. Now you have me convinced that there is a place indeed for an Overall performance category. Presence!
This is a concept widely used in hi-fi audio to denote the character of the sound presentation: more up front, or more laid back. I think it's akin to more or less 'fast' or 'in your face'. Also, I think it's what I had in mind when including 'immediacy' in the Object performance category. However, I now see it doesn't really belong there because it's a combination of factors from different categories.
Presence is probably what people on this forum often call ‘snapping into focus’ or ‘vivid’. In my experience the concept is made up of brightness, contrast, sharpness and color tone, adding up to an impression that can be more or less appealing to the individual.
In the last couple of months I have extensively compared the new Swarovski EL SV and SLC HD to my Zeiss 8x56 FL, Swift Audubon 804ED and Leitz 8x30 Binuxit. To my surprise I found very little to choose between the two Swarovski’s and the Zeiss when comparing them on Object performance. At some point I even entertained the idea of selling the Zeiss and live with the SLC. Why? Because the SLC seemed ever so slightly faster, snappier. Really beautiful. Then it occurred to me that with prolonged viewing the Zeiss essentially gave me the same information, maybe even a bit more. And I decided to keep the Zeiss. Why? Because its slightly slower presentation (I’d now call it more laid back presence) suits my personal character and style of birding just a bit better.
I have discussed the Zeiss Fl’s object presentation, notably its contrast, with people missing something on this aspect. I still believe there’s nothing wrong or missing in the Zeiss’ transmission of contrast. However, I seem to know what they’re talking about. It’s the FL’s presence, being not exactly suited to their expectations, their taste, eyes, brain or style of birding.
Taking my other reference binoculars into the comparison, my impression is that coating, baffling and color tone are very much responsible for differences in a binocular’s presence. Both the Swift and Leitz’s presence is less immediate than the Zeiss’ or Swaro’s. It would be a mistake however to write them off on this aspect. And not only because they’re superb on other aspects (I’ve yet to see a binocular bettering them on center field resolution) but also, and probably more importantly, because their presence is a matter of taste.
And we definitely need to talk about taste when evaluating binoculars. As clear and specific as possible, please. So I’ll gladly include Presence and Overall performance in the vocabulary.
I’ll make a new vocabulary, including a few new aspects which have occurred to me in the process. See below.
Renze
PS. As we’re discussing optical performance here, and not evaluation of binoculars in general, it should be noted that yet another category is not accounted for. Of course aspects like build quality, finish etc. can’t be missed.
Last edited: