The perfect binocular (1 Viewer)

[Swedpat]

I know this has been discussed before. And the standard answer is that it will never be made. But if you put aside what is technically impossible(for example 100% light transmission, or 120deg AFOV with 20mm ER and 25mm eye lens) and just focus on factors you find perfect, is a perfect binocular impossible? I don't think so.
I reason like this:

*Is undistorted image possible? Yes, at least as what the eye can notice.

*Is sharpness across the entire FOV possible? Yes, at least as what the eye can notice.

*Is it possible to get rid of unneccesary glares? Yes.

*Is it possible to make optics without noticeable CA? Yes, at least for me.

*Is comfortability to hold possible? Yes.

*Is sufficient eye relief with eyeglasses possible even with wide FOV? Yes.

*Is it possible to get focus wheel without play? Yes.

*Are all these factors possible to combine in the same instrument? Yes, I think so. Swarovski NL Pure is close. Just get rid of the glares and I would consider it as the perfect binocular.

So if I define perfect binocular as a binocular which I don't find anything to complain about, and I am fully satisfied with, I mean a perfect binocular is possible to make.
Of course different people have different desires and opinions about details, like speed of focus wheel, placement of focus wheel, body design, APOV, and so on.
But I mean a "perfect" binocular technically is possible to make as long as we don't include technically impossible factors.

 

[Ignatius]

🥱

 

[Swedpat]

🥱

Any thoughts you want to share?

 

[Binastro]

For me 90 degree eyepieces are the widest I can tolerate.

100% transmission is too bright.
There are light losses because of glass thickness.
The highest transmission is probably a simple multicoated opera glass with a tiny field of view.

What someone finds perfect will soon be imperfect with time.

Perfect is a concept of the mind, but not achieved in anything man made.

The £0 3x opera glass I used to view the Mercury transit at 12 arcseconds across is very imperfect, but no S, Z, or L binocular could have made the observation except the 3x12 Zeiss monocular.

Looking for perfection is for me slightly ridiculous.

But good luck with your quest.

Regards,
B.

 

[edwincjones]

I guess the perfect binocular for me would be

-the quality of the WX with IS
-the size and weight of a 32mm pair
-the cost affortable to me

still looking
edj

 

[A2GG]

It is possible to find a binocular that checks all boxes for you. If you can find something that suits you with no disappointing features then the bino can be considered “perfect” for you. the technical specs don’t really matter if in use it has a wide enough FOV, is bright enough, etc. This all depends on what you’re using the bino for and what’s important to you when using it. I don’t have a long list of strict requirements. I want the bino to work well with my eyeglasses, have a pleasing image (color tones are important here), very good resolution (doesn’t have to be extreme as in top bins), good mechanical operation (focuser especially), good ergonomics and it should be reliable.

 

[etudiant]

The wish list of the OP is certainly achievable with an electronic scope.
Granted, the image would be digitally created and getting the desired resolution and color fidelity would be expensive, but it is possible.
Weight and packaging might be the biggest near term hurdle.

 

[ChrisMc1957]

What is perfect for one person, can be imperfect for the next man/woman. Earlier this year my wife wanted to upgrade her binoculars, we both have a pair of Opticron 8 x 40 not expensive ca £300/pair and we have had these around four years now and they have served us well. So we visited one of our local nature reserve Infocus shops and tried multiple pairs of binoculars, more expensive Opticron, Swarovski, Hawke, Nikon, Canon and Zeiss etc etc.

Some of these were very expensive, but just did not suit her and actually she could not use some of them at all, the ones that she was happy with and she could comfortably use for long periods of time were a pair of Zeiss SFL 8 x 40, around £1,600 a pair.

We spent a good amount of time in the shop trying various makes looking out over one of the lakes that are on this nature reserve. So we took note of what she liked the best and in June this year visited the Global Bird Fair at Rutland, there we tried the same Zeiss SFL 8 x 40 along with cheaper and more expensive manufacturers pairs, but she kept coming back to the Zeiss, so we bought a pair whilst there and was lucky that there was a nearly £300 saving when bought at the fair, everyone’s a winner!.... So far nearly three months later she is very pleased with what she purchased.

So yes, a am sure a perfect set of binoculars can be manufactured as you say, however, as I started with above, what is perfect for one, may not be perfect for another IMO

 

[Swedpat]

So yes, a am sure a perfect set of binoculars can be manufactured as you say, however, as I started with above, what is perfect for one, may not be perfect for another IMO

Yes, I believe the perfect binocular can be made for everyone, but as you say, not the same model for all.

 

[Ignatius]

Any thoughts you want to share?

I thought I had ... 🍿

 

[PatR]

I thought I had ... 🍿

 

[Maljunulo]

The £0 3x opera glass I used to view the Mercury transit at 12 arcseconds across is very imperfect, but no S, Z, or L binocular could have made the observation except the 3x12 Zeiss monocular.
Regards,
B.

Why?

 

[Binocollector]

@Binastro
Interesting about the Mercury transit. Do you think that would have worked with the 2x54 Orion? I have one of those and it's the only bino that seems even brighter than my unaided eyes, even though that's impossible.
But I also got a couple of nice opera glasses, including a "Mautner Sport" in 3x30. Optically really nice but no diopter.

 

[Binastro]

Why?

I wanted to see what the minimum size binocular would show the Mercury transit with a safe filter.

I don't think S, Z or L make 3x binoculars.
So people rave about these makes, yet they can't make the observation that I did.

I did not think I would see it with 3x, but I did and certainly for a long period, but I had to know where this tiny black spot was.
I reckon I would have just seen it with a good 2.5 opera glass, but I didn't have one.
This is with 20/15 vision.

It would be possible with a 2x binocular with a safe filter, but this might need 20/12 acuity or better.

I think that young Aboriginal Australians might see it with only a safe filter and no optical aid if they are told the position of Mercury.
Possibly also with the best fighter pilot eyesight.

I could not easily find Mercury with 3x without using 5x to see it easily and the switch to 3x.
Once found at 3x it was easy to follow the tiny black spot every few minutes as it crossed the Sun.

There are two types of Mercury transits.
One has Mercury at 12 arcseconds, the other 10 arcseconds.
These occur at different times of the year.
I saw the 12 arcsecond transit.

It is possible I would have seen a 10 arcsecond transit with the 3x opera glass.

I found that Venus transits were incredibly easy with just a safe filer at 60 arcseconds diameter.
It was immediately and easily seen.

Regards,
B.

 

[Bill Atwood]

An 8x42 NL with 8x40 SFL glare handling, weight and price would definitely be my favorite combo of attributes available today. Maybe add in the SF focus wheel.

Other nice to haves:
Image Stabilized
6x-20x zoom
Impervious glass

 

[Montereyman]

I have 10x25 binos that weigh only 12 ounces and are my most used ones. I have 16x stabilized that are great in open spaces and 12x50 that are the heaviest ones I own (and best used with a harness). None of mine have problems with flare with backlit subjects and no exhibit much in the way of CA either. All are water and fog proof. If I can spend half as much and get 99% of the utility from a less expensive binocular then that works for me.

 

[tenex]

Yes, I think so. Swarovski NL Pure is close. Just get rid of the glares and I would consider it as the perfect binocular.

This answers your own question. It's a mystery why Swaros (EL or NL) can't deal better with glare, whether it's somehow related to other design goals. I've heard it said that less baffling allows the eye to roam wider and appreciate the sharpness at the field edge, but am not sure I believe that. Originally I was tempted to say "every bin is a compromise", which of course is true, but as you point out it should be possible to come close to perfection. (At least for some... opinions vary on NL focus speed, etc...)

 

[rran6136]

It is possible to find a binocular that checks all boxes for you. If you can find something that suits you with no disappointing features then the bino can be considered “perfect” for you. the technical specs don’t really matter if in use it has a wide enough FOV, is bright enough, etc. This all depends on what you’re using the bino for and what’s important to you when using it. I don’t have a long list of strict requirements. I want the bino to work well with my eyeglasses, have a pleasing image (color tones are important here), very good resolution (doesn’t have to be extreme as in top bins), good mechanical operation (focuser especially), good ergonomics and it should be reliable.

I always like reading your posts GG. Refreshingly sensible and joy oriented.

 

[Canip]

It's a mystery why Swaros (EL or NL) can't deal better with glare

For me, the mystery is more why some people (I am one of them) can use ELs or NLs virtually glare-free while others seem to struggle with it. Henry had presented some useful ideas about that subject.

 

[dorubird]

For me, the mistery is more why some people (I am one of them) can use ELs or NLs virtually glare-free while others seem to struggle with it. Henry had presented some useful ideas about that subject.

I can teach you to see glare in Swaro, but it's better to stay happy dont read more 😀

There is a scenario where anyone can see glare in Swarovski binoculars, but with the condition that the pupil of our eyes to dilates more than the exit pupil of the binoculars. So the insufficient dilation of our pupils (depending on the external conditions or health) explains why some people see glare and others don't. This explains why, paradoxically, glare appears especially at sunset or on cloudy days, because then our pupils dilate more. During the day this happens very rarely and only under certain conditions. We also have to look, for example, towards a dark forest that has the light of the sky above. This is the moment when, if we look for a longer time in the FOV full of dark area of the forest, we let our eyes pupils to dilate more. At that moment our dilated pupils will capture the parasitic reflections, which are present outside the exit pupils of Swarovski binoculars. This also explains the fact that when you move the pupils of your eyes in the direction opposite to the parasitic reflection, the glare can disappears, but at the price of decentering from the optical axis. This decentering also make the convenience and naturalness of the viewed image to suffers a lot