What binoculars do you think have the most WOW factor! (1 Viewer)

[james holdsworth]

Leif,

I agree with Sancho and think you have misinterpreted what Henry was trying to say. In my experience, he [Henry] has been nothing but helpful and educational and any [perceived] slight is completely unintentional.

BTW - Leif, I enjoy your posts and have learned much from you, as well.:t:

 

[Troubador]

I must say that two words that I do not associate with Henry are 'arrogant' and 'patronising'.

But it is easy to be mislead by bare words when reading posts. Without hearing inflection and intonation and without seeing expression and body-language one can misinterpret.

In any case this forum would be very much the poorer without Henry and without Leif, so I hope that they will continue to give us the benefit of their knowledge and musings.

Lee

 

[[email protected]]

I'm curious what "weak areas" Dennis thinks they have. Besides his sensitivity to "rolling ball" with flat fields. I've found the Kowa Genesis models to be just lovely optically and ergonomically. The 42mm versions are too heavy for my tastes but the 8x33 is one of my favorites compact roofs. Wide field, very bright, very sharp, low CA, very comfy to hold and use.

http://www.allbinos.com/182-binoculars_review-Kowa_Genesis_8x33.html

 

[eitanaltman]

Ummmm.. OK. The Kowa 8x33 is their #9 ranked model in the 8x32 rankings, just behind the Swaro EL and the Kahles 8x32. Better than the Viper, Meostar, Minox HG. They didn't exactly have a lot of criticisms beyond their obsession with truncated exit pupils. It had outstanding marks in transmission, and correction of the major aberrations. The only real criticisms (besides the exit pupil) were the blurring at the edge and the warranty. That doesn't exactly provide evidence to support the statement that "they are weak in a lot of other areas."

 

[NDhunter]

Ummmm.. OK. The Kowa 8x33 is their #9 ranked model in the 8x32 rankings, just behind the Swaro EL and the Kahles 8x32. Better than the Viper, Meostar, Minox HG. They didn't exactly have a lot of criticisms beyond their obsession with truncated exit pupils. It had outstanding marks in transmission, and correction of the major aberrations. The only real criticisms (besides the exit pupil) were the blurring at the edge and the warranty. That doesn't exactly provide evidence to support the statement that "they are weak in a lot of other areas."

It seems the 8x32 class has been mentioned, and the recent Holger Merlitz,
review has ranked the Kowa, as the best of the mid-range.
The Nikon EDG is on top.

I really enjoy Holgers reviews and his views on binoculars. Very easy to
understand, and well done.

I tried to provide a link to the review, but was unable to. It is here on BF
on another thread.

Jerry

 

[eitanaltman]

Here's a link to the review you are referencing: http://www.holgermerlitz.de/8x32/test8x32.html

And his thoughts (courtesy of Google translate): "A mid-size binoculars with a fast, yet pleasantly precise focus wheel. It's the glasses with the lowest chromatic aberration and (together with the Nikon) with the least distortion. The Diopterverstellung is on the right eyepiece and the eyepiece lock in 4 positions. The Kowa shows in almost every way, superior performance, only the edge sharpness could be better. The wide field of view provides with a very bright one, because of the low CA, very high micro-contrast. The strap seems a bit too large for a 8x33 binocular. Overall it's the best of the 'non-premium' class."

Basically says the same thing as Allbinos -- very bright, low distortions, low CA, wide FOV, nice focus knob... only criticism is the edge sharpness.

 

[[email protected]]

I've been out today experimenting with the dark wire/chimney/branch against a bright sky test for CA. At the risk of giving offense I have to say that I don't find this method to be an effective way to analyze off-axis color fringes. You can certainly see color, but the true nature of the aberration can be lost for two reasons. First, the fringes mostly form in the bright areas and are therefore obscured by the bright background, some colors more than others, and a narrow dark line, like a wire, tends to blend together the outward facing and inward facing components of transverse CA, causing lateral color to sometimes resemble longitudinal color.

So, once again I'll plead for the use of white bands against a black background. Believe me, the color fringes stand out much better against a dark background and the white bands are wide enough to fully separate the the inward and outward facing fringes.

I made the photos below in sunlight using the "high contrast" shadow box I improvised yesterday. The left one shows the lateral color near the field edge (fieldstop at the top) of a Nikon 8x32 SE. The right one is a Zeiss 8x42 FL. I tried to reach best focus with both, but good focus is not really possible with the astigmatic Zeiss. The white band looks wider in the Zeiss mostly because of more pincushion distortion in it vs more angular magnification distortion in the Nikon. The photos faithfully show the larger amount of lateral color in the Zeiss and the true color components of the inward and outward facing edges in each binocular.

Believe me, guys, I'm making this plea as a public service to CA haters. I really believe that the life of a CA-phobe can be made easier if you'll just adopt a target for your evaluations that gives you better information about what you're seeing.

The SE looks a lot cleaner than the FL. Nice test though.

 

[[email protected]]

Henry -- is it accurate to say that if the color fringe is differently colored in either direction (e.g. purple on one side, green on the other) then it's *lateral* CA?

I find this very easy to see in nearly every binocular I've ever tried. I can see it easily on any high contrast edge, e.g. a street sign against the sky, a roof of a building, a dark telephone pole against the sky, etc. In my subjective experience it's typically absent in the center axis of nearly every binocular, but the difference seems to be in how far off axis it starts appearing, and how severe it is when it does appear. The Vortex Viper 8x32 HD and the Zen ED's are the best performing among those I've tried to critically test for this aspect.

Exactly. Good summation.

 

[[email protected]]

Ummmm.. OK. The Kowa 8x33 is their #9 ranked model in the 8x32 rankings, just behind the Swaro EL and the Kahles 8x32. Better than the Viper, Meostar, Minox HG. They didn't exactly have a lot of criticisms beyond their obsession with truncated exit pupils. It had outstanding marks in transmission, and correction of the major aberrations. The only real criticisms (besides the exit pupil) were the blurring at the edge and the warranty. That doesn't exactly provide evidence to support the statement that "they are weak in a lot of other areas."

It depends how important those deficiencies are to you. I hate blurred edges that are visible from an on-axis view. Maybe it doesn't bother you. That's why all binoculars have to be tried.

 

[FrankD]

The SE looks a lot cleaner than the FL. Nice test though.

That is an interesting interpretation of the pictures provided. At first I had a similar reaction. Then I considered the fact that even though the FL's "band" of CA is wider the color is more diffused over that wider band. The SE's band is narrower but the colors are more intense. Which is "worse" and which is "better"? We are only seeing a small subsection of the view. Based on that I cannot make an interpretation on which affects image quality more.

 

[[email protected]]

That is an interesting interpretation of the pictures provided. At first I had a similar reaction. Then I considered the fact that even though the FL's "band" of CA is wider the color is more diffused over that wider band. The SE's band is narrower but the colors are more intense. Which is "worse" and which is "better"? We are only seeing a small subsection of the view. Based on that I cannot make an interpretation on which affects image quality more.

I saw the narrower band on the SE when I compared it to my other binoculars and I think it affects the image less overall because to me it is less visible.

 

[Pileatus]

I saw the narrower band on the SE when I compared it to my other binoculars and I think it affects the image less overall because to me it is less visible.

Get a Swarovision 8X32 and CA disappears forever.

 

[FrankD]

Henry,

Any chance you have a similar pic of a Swarovision for comparison?

 

[eitanaltman]

The SV 8x32 still has CA. It's pretty minor but it's still there. I don't think it's any better in that respect than other bins that are excellent in this aspect (kowa 8x33, zen ED, etc).

 

[james holdsworth]

The SV 8x32 still has CA. It's pretty minor but it's still there. I don't think it's any better in that respect than other bins that are excellent in this aspect (kowa 8x33, zen ED, etc).

Pileatus is a man of absolute superlatives - although he loves his bins and we can all understand that!

 

[brocknroller]

Ummmm.. OK. The Kowa 8x33 is their #9 ranked model in the 8x32 rankings, just behind the Swaro EL and the Kahles 8x32. Better than the Viper, Meostar, Minox HG. They didn't exactly have a lot of criticisms beyond their obsession with truncated exit pupils. It had outstanding marks in transmission, and correction of the major aberrations. The only real criticisms (besides the exit pupil) were the blurring at the edge and the warranty. That doesn't exactly provide evidence to support the statement that "they are weak in a lot of other areas."

True, good marks in other areas, however, I don't think taking points off for an exit pupil that's vignetted by 7.3% could be called "obsessive," but given the lopsidedness of the two sides, I'd guess the Kowa Arek tested was a bad sample. You might expect 1.5% in a midsized roof, because it seems they often undersize the prism for compactness (though the Kowa 8x33 isn't too compact), but being off by more than 7% leads to quite a loss. If you get one like this and you're a tester, I think you should ask for another sample.

However, Arek is pretty "obsessive" about edge sharpness, and any bin that's less than 80% generally loses a lot of points. For me, 73% sweet spot wold be acceptable if the fall off were gradual at the edges, but if it had a "ring of fire," not.

He also didn't like the "Prominar" writing inside the objective housing, though someone on here did a back of the envelope calculation on how much scattering that would cause and came up with a very low number, though I don't know how he arrived at that conclusion.

The short guarantee period is certainly a beef in Europe for many bins, but in the U.S. Kowa bins have a Limited Lifetime Warranty. However, the company only guarantees parts availability for 10 years (but then again, so does Swaro). Also, it says that "In the event of a defect covered under this warranty, the Company, at its discretion, will repair or replace the product free of charge." "At its discretion" sounds like Leica's Goodwill When We Feel Like It warranty. I'd like that elastic clause taken out. If the parts defective and they still have it in stock up to 10 years, they should replace it w/out qualifications. And they should say that if they don't have the part, they will replace the bin with whatever is comparable at that time.

http://www.kowa-usa.com/kowanewweb/sporting/warranty.html

I think the Genesis series, the 8x33 in particular, looks rather elegant and I almost included it among my Seven Beauties in my post on the "most beautiful bins" threads.

However, due to RB I never had it on my Wish List. It has even less distortion than the 10x42 HG/Ls I had.

Brock

 

[Leif]

Henry rather bluntly dismissed an interesting discussion about CA, which raises the issue of why many people see purple fringing, and many don't. To me the purple fringing in many roof prism binoculars is very obvious given high contrast lighting, as it is to some other people, and I find it astonishing that many others do not see it.

Contrary to Henry's rather blunt dismissal, I find that a dark chimney against a bright cloudy sky demonstrates CA more clearly than a resolution target. I prefer to refer to on axis and off axis CA, as it is clearer, not due to ignorance, and I do not need lecturing about the various forms of CA. Henry has not mentioned spherochromatism, which contributes to purple fringing, and neither has he mentioned the variation of optical performance with focus distance. He has simply assumed no variation. Given that the focus lens is likely to be the cause of the purple fringing, the fact that it moves will change the performance, to an unknown degree. And if you do photograph the image from binoculars of a test chart, you need as I've mentioned to take photos with a range of aperture stops, and at a range of distances from the axis, otherwise the information you produce is misleading.

 

[kabsetz]

Leif,

With the (high) risk of you reading me also as blunt, arrogant and dismissive, I must say in response to your last two posts that you must be projecting onto Henry something that does not come from him. In one and the same paragraph, you also accuse him of lecturing of various forms of CA and of failing to mention some potential forms or contributing factors. You also choose wording that implies that he would not know of the things he has omitted.

Also, it was stated clearly in a previous thread that started to flare up similarly to this one, that on these forums many posters write their contributions with the awareness that there is a wider readership with a more varied knowledge and expertise background reading each one of them than just the poster or few they are directly responding to. I also need to say in my own defense as much as Henry's that there are so many knowledgeable posters on this forum that, even if I wanted to, I could not keep track of exactly who knows exactly what and always take that into account when answering them.

On the actual topic, I think that Henry's idea of a cheaply-made reasonably standardized CA chart is laudable, since although in practice I have done tons of CA assessment using power lines, chimneys and roof edges as well as branches against the sky with clouds or not, it has become painfully apparent that so many uncontrolled variables are at play here that making meaningful comparisons that way is, at least for me, impossible.

Hoping not to offend you, but feeling that keeping silent in fear of offending would be worse.

Kimmo

 

[Torview]

This may raise a chuckle but, somewhere I find I`m bound to see purple fringing in every current roof I`v tried is.....

on the very edge of a brightly sunlit Dartmoor sheep`s fleece, its guaranteed, right where the fleece meets the background a blue-purple fringe, not yet been apparent to me in a porro !

Cue relevant "sheep" jokes.

 

[[email protected]]

Henry rather bluntly dismissed an interesting discussion about CA, which raises the issue of why many people see purple fringing, and many don't. To me the purple fringing in many roof prism binoculars is very obvious given high contrast lighting, as it is to some other people, and I find it astonishing that many others do not see it.

Contrary to Henry's rather blunt dismissal, I find that a dark chimney against a bright cloudy sky demonstrates CA more clearly than a resolution target. I prefer to refer to on axis and off axis CA, as it is clearer, not due to ignorance, and I do not need lecturing about the various forms of CA. Henry has not mentioned spherochromatism, which contributes to purple fringing, and neither has he mentioned the variation of optical performance with focus distance. He has simply assumed no variation. Given that the focus lens is likely to be the cause of the purple fringing, the fact that it moves will change the performance, to an unknown degree. And if you do photograph the image from binoculars of a test chart, you need as I've mentioned to take photos with a range of aperture stops, and at a range of distances from the axis, otherwise the information you produce is misleading.

Very interesting and I agree with you. I see CA clearly with the dark chimney and bright cloudy sky test.