The 10X42 HT compared to the SF and SV (1 Viewer)

[NDhunter]

The difference in CA control between the HT and SV is substantial to me, but I'm more CA prone than most apparently. I had all but given up the idea of a true Alpha view with ultra low CA, the HT has shown me different.

Well tell us, have you found a binocular that you are pleased with ?

The truth is, all binoculars will show some CA, and I think you know
that by now.

CA is just one of many parts, and with the higher end optics, it is well controlled, and it also does not matter much to the other 99%, that use binoculars.

Jerry

 

[[email protected]]

The difference in CA control between the HT and SV is substantial to me, but I'm more CA prone than most apparently. I had all but given up the idea of a true Alpha view with ultra low CA, the HT has shown me different.

Try an FL sometime if you are sensitive to CA. You can buy them pretty cheap and they still are a good glass.

 

[SuperDuty]

I've seen and owned several that are outstanding in many ways, they all fall short in others. You obviously don't see differences in the CA visible in optics to a very pronounced degree, which makes you very lucky, it also means your opinion on the subject doesn't mean anything to someone with a problem in that area. I'm not at all concerned with the other 99 percent, just myself. As I stated in post #1, and have reiterated in other posts, the things the HT does well make it my overall favorite so far. I disagree with anyone who minimizes the negative effect that CA has on an image, for the CA sensitive, the HT is a big improvement.

Well tell us, have you found a binocular that you are pleased with ?

The truth is, all binoculars will show some CA, and I think you know
that by now.

CA is just one of many parts, and with the higher end optics, it is well controlled, and it also does not matter much to the other 99%, that use binoculars.

Jerry

 

[james holdsworth]

FL series is very good but there were some very slight color inaccuracies; I thought it tended to be a bit warm in the view, resulting in slightly (and I do repeat, SLIGHTLY) more 'yellow' images. Aside from that I couldn't really see much difference in the HT and FL, aside from handling.

I'm surprised you think the only similarities between the Genesis and HT were CA control. It has a similarly high transmission and very good microcontrast, on par with the best I've seen. When comparing it with the FL I had a very difficult time deciding which I liked better, but of course the FL was much lighter which was an important consideration.

And this is what I mentioned. Back in the day, when the FL was newer and more often reviewed here and elsewhere, the overwhelming consensus was that the FL series was cold biased, with a bluish or slightly greenish tone. Almost no one would have ever called the view warm....until now.......#hiss/pop/crackle.

If we wait long enough, we can get every colour in the rainbow in there.

 

[jremmons]

Well, like I said earlier, every one's eyes are different. I had the 7x42 FL for about 6 months and compared it to several other binoculars (Genesis, SV, HT, UV HD, Razor HD, etc) and thought the color bias I saw was accurate, according to my eyes. That is again why empirical tests and bulk reviews are more important than individual reviews, IMO. And, again, the color cast I mentioned was practically negligible, especially in the field. The FL and HT are both the most neutral binoculars I've seen. I sometimes wondered if it was simply that they were so bright that they got that 'washed out' image some report on here and I perceived that as a yellow color cast; who knows, who cares. I've offered my meager thoughts and will abstain from further comments.

 

[typo]

I haven't spent much time with the Nikon EDG. Just a quick look on 4 occasions I think, but I wouldn't have said it was dark. At least in the sense I understand the word, but the colour pallate was quite different from the ELSV, FL, etc.. The blue was good, better than the FL for example, but it was the opposite end of the spectrum that seemed to show the main difference. The deep reds and purples were much stronger and the browns deeper and richer than the others I compared at the time. Maybe some would say the others had a 'brighter' colour balance. I just thought they were missing something by comparison.

David

 

[Vespobuteo]

The compensation process (colour constancy) usually takes minutes to adjust, so in continual use a Zeiss would begin to look 'neutral' fairly quickly, but generally comparisons are too fast to be affected. It would depend on how good your colour discrimination is in the first place though.

David

From the below figures I think we can assume that the maximal color temp difference between the alpha bins is around 100 Kelvin. The old Habicht 8x30 from 1961 is a bit more off and differs about 200-300 K from the rest. Unfortunately no figures for the Swaro SV and Zeiss FL here but probably the FL is closer to the SF than the HT.

If you have some kind of photo editor on your computer you could experiment with a 100 Kelvin difference (most editors can set color temp) on a photo or just a white patch (easier). In a direct comparison it's quite easy to see the difference. But in a blind test it's quite a bit harder to identify what photo is what. Haven't seen any figures on what color temperature the human eye can discern but I think that at 50 Kelvin it's getting difficult even in direct comparison.

Habicht 8x30 (1961) - 4547 K
Leica UV HD+ 8x42 - 4781 K
Nikon EDG 8x42 - 4803 K
Habicht 8x30 (2009) - 4841 K
Zeiss SF 8x42 - 4842 K
Zeiss HT - 4872 K

*From Tobias Menles comparison chart I get these color temperatures by using auto white balance in Apple Aperture. Higher K-value means a cooler image.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=315713&page=2

 

[Troubador]

I have only tried EDG briefly at Bird Fair, but at the time the weather was pretty bad: dull with rain. These were not conditions to flatter any bins but I really wouldn't have described them as 'dark' or even 'dull'. Given the conditions they did pretty well and I speak as someone not especially enthusiastic about Nikon bins.

Lee

 

[Vespobuteo]

Here's a quiz to test your ability to discern color temperature.
Rank these photos from warm to cold.
Total range for the series is 250 Kelvin.
Good Luck!
:t:

 

[Subzero888]

I don't see any difference in the color temperature of the pictures

All I discern is
Hot Hot Hot
Hot Hot Hot

 

[typo]

From the below figures I think we can assume that the maximal color temp difference between the alpha bins is around 100 Kelvin. The old Habicht 8x30 from 1961 is a bit more off and differs about 200-300 K from the rest. Unfortunately no figures for the Swaro SV and Zeiss FL here but probably the FL is closer to the SF than the HT.

If you have some kind of photo editor on your computer you could experiment with a 100 Kelvin difference (most editors can set color temp) on a photo or just a white patch (easier). In a direct comparison it's quite easy to see the difference. But in a blind test it's quite a bit harder to identify what photo is what. Haven't seen any figures on what color temperature the human eye can discern but I think that at 50 Kelvin it's getting difficult even in direct comparison.

Habicht 8x30 (1961) - 4547 K
Leica UV HD+ 8x42 - 4781 K
Nikon EDG 8x42 - 4803 K
Habicht 8x30 (2009) - 4841 K
Zeiss SF 8x42 - 4842 K
Zeiss HT - 4872 K

*From Tobias Menles comparison chart I get these color temperatures by using auto white balance in Apple Aperture. Higher K-value means a cooler image.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=315713&page=2

You are keeping me on my toes!

Unfortunately I don't think I can offer much on this one as the colour temperature algorithm is way beyond my mathematical abilities and I don't know how these numbers were arrived at. As much as CT can be calculated from RGB it is not a tool for colour analysis in the sense we've beeen discussing. In fact I don't think the relative transmittance of any of these would map to any locus on the black body spectrum. For a CT of 4800 the relative levels of Red Green and Blue would be roughly 100, 85, 70 so not much help there. I think the original RGB values might have been interesting though.

There are a number of tools on the web for recreating colour from RGB values. By eye we can only approximate what they are from from Allbinos and Gijs' transmission spectrum, but try entering your RGB estimates into a program like this one:
http://www.thinkoutsidetheslide.com/color-contrast-calculator/

If you enter percentage your values on the 255 scale they will be shown in the mid grey range which I quite like, but multiply them by 2.55 to compare to white.

Not sure at all on this one.

David

 

[typo]

Here's a quiz to test your ability to discern color temperature.
Rank these photos from warm to cold.
Total range for the series is 250 Kelvin.
Good Luck!
:t:

If you take your original image and try subtracting between 0 and 10 points (out of 100) in the blue and/or red, youd should start to see the differences in colour rendition as the result of consequence of the kind of differences in the transmission spectra we are talking about. It will be interesting to see the results.

David

 

[mfunnell]

I don't see any difference in the color temperature of the pictures

All I discern is
Hot Hot Hot
Hot Hot Hot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGBXhDZXTqY

...Mike

 

[Vespobuteo]

If you take your original image and try subtracting between 0 and 10 points (out of 100) in the blue and/or red, youd should start to see the differences in colour rendition as the result of consequence of the kind of differences in the transmission spectra we are talking about. It will be interesting to see the results.

David

That's what white balancing is all about, balancing the levels of red, green and blue channels
to avoid any disturbing tint/cast on the final photo due to the color temperature of the ambient light.
No need to be too theoretical, rather than heuristic in this case I think,
though transmittance and black body spectrum can be interesting in some contexts.

Since the color temperature of the ambient light is constant in the test shots,
the amount of white balancing adjustment needed will instead reflect the transmission levels/color bias over the visual spectrum in the binocular.

What you could argue about is that the light source doesn't have constant intensity over the spectrum, having too little blue content, or that the digital camera used was crap, might be, but at least it's non-biased...doesn't care if the motive is a Zeiss or Leica view.

Nevertheless, I think this method gives us a hint about what is going on and that the "color bias" differences between modern alpha bins are quite modest.
It was much worse in the past.
And color bias would actually be one of the minor points to
consider when buying a new alpha bin.

 

[ceasar]

That's alright if you don't agree. That was my subjective opinion of the EDG II's and why I sold them. I understand you defending your binoculars. When I compared several alpha's deciding which one I wanted to keep that was my observation. The EDG II's to me just didn't have the brilliance of the other alpha's. I don't know if it is due to their slightly lower transmission or older coatings. Then when I read Tobias's review and he agreed I knew why I didn't like them as much. But alpha binoculars are a personal thing and for you they may be perfect. For me it is a major downfall of the EDG II's and I wouldn't buy a pair again until they either upgrade the coatings or upgrade the glass. That is just my personal opinion and others including yours may differ. Our eyes are all a little different. The other alpha's binoculars almost popped when you looked through them like you threw a switch and turned on the light. I personally didn't get that with the EDG II's.

From the Greatest Binocular Review.
"I find one major fault though - the view is visibly darker then in the Leica Ultravid 8x42, the Zeiss HT and even the Zeiss SF. No matter how sharp the EDG is, it looks a bit subdued where the Leica Ultravid sparkles vividly. Nikon really needs to boost transmission in the EDG, no matter how, by coatings and or better glass. "

Dennis,

I don't have to defend Nikon's EDGs because I am not giving my personal opinions about them. Allbinos rankings of the EDGs defends them.

The 8x32 EDG ranks 1st out of 29 8x32 binoculars rated in their rankings of binoculars.

http://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-8x32.html

The 8x42 EDG ranks #2 out of 25 8x42 binoculars rated:

http://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-8x42.html

And the 10x42 EDG ranks 1st out of 75 10x42 binoculars rated:

http://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html.

There are 2 other EDG versions but Albinos doesn't rank 7x42s and 10x32s.



One other thing about Allbinos is that it does not use imprecise terms like a "bit subdued" or "sparkles vivedly" or rave about binoculars in terms like "dark but phenomenal EDG." And it also does not describe itself in a self important manner as "THE GREATEST BINOCULAR REVIEW."

I think I have said enough about the use of "meaningless terms" in reviewing binoculars so I am out of here. If you want to continue doing so that is up to you but what you are "transmitting" by doing so "reflects" on you.

Have a nice day!

Bob

 

[Vespobuteo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGBXhDZXTqY

...Mike

Oh my, those are NICE colors,
wish I had that punch in my Zeiss bins...:-O

 

[typo]

That's what white balancing is all about, balancing the levels of red, green and blue channels
to avoid any disturbing tint/cast on the final photo due to the color temperature of the ambient light.
No need to be too theoretical, rather than heuristic in this case I think,
though transmittance and black body spectrum can be interesting in some contexts.

Since the color temperature of the ambient light is constant in the test shots,
the amount of white balancing adjustment needed will instead reflect the transmission levels/color bias over the visual spectrum in the binocular.

What you could argue about is that the light source doesn't have constant intensity over the spectrum, having too little blue content, or that the digital camera used was crap, might be, but at least it's non-biased...doesn't care if the motive is a Zeiss or Leica view.

Nevertheless, I think this method gives us a hint about what is going on and that the "color bias" differences between modern alpha bins are quite modest.
It was much worse in the past.
And color bias would actually be one of the minor points to
consider when buying a new alpha bin.

Colour temperature is not the same as white balance correction by the way.

We were talking colour temperature. If, and it's a big if, the illuminating light has a locus on the colour temperature scale then using it to correct colour balance would work. If it isn't a locus it cannot work for colour correction and another method needs to be employed. If we assume Tobias's light source was such a locus, putting a colour filter in between it and the camera that doesn't produce a pricise locus shift, like a binocular, makes a correct colour temperature calculation impossible. A green or yellow bias simply cannot exist as a colour temperature. The software will still produce a number, just a meaningless one. Reapplying meaningless numbers to another image is then pointless of course. If Tobias had actually put up the Raw RGB values we might have had an idea what the colour bias was like.

Did you try those programs?

David

 

[mfunnell]

If Tobias had actually put up the Raw RGB values we might have had an idea what the colour bias was like.

Well, would RGB colours really do the trick? Relative to what, and within which colour space?

Given controlled lighting, wouldn't an absolute colour space like L-a-b be better than any of the common RGB colour spaces (sRGB, Adobe RGB, ProPhoto RGB and similar)? Or, perhaps, we should go with comparisons of views of printed Pantone(TM) colours that can be approximated via CMYK printing or its variants, under varied colour temperatures and lighting conditions (direct, indirect, at various angles left, right, above, below...)? And that's just a brief summary of where things can go if you want them to...

Personally (and many thoughts may vary here) I'm @ Birdforum and the binocular bits to avoid these kinds of discussions - which happen all too often on photography forums - but more power to your left elbow if you wish to persist. My guess: this kind of thing never ends, so certainly can't end well...

...Mike

 

[Torview]

................ EDG II's and I wouldn't buy a pair again until they either upgrade the coatings or upgrade the glass.
[/I][/B]

I`m pretty sure you did`ny buy the first pair..........

 

[SuperDuty]

Having multiple samples of the same $2000 - $2900 binocular on hand to check against each other long term is not something that very many people could ever pull off, that being said, I have seen several of the same model SVs, and owned and compared directly a 2010 and 2015 SV. I could see no discernable difference between them despite the reports of ongoing, unannounced coating changes.

James, post 42,

Or generalize having been in contact with only a sample of them.

PHA