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

[[email protected]]

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.

It's sounds like you are trying to fleece us with that information. I am trying not to be sheepish in my reply. Oh Baaaaaaaa humbug.

 

[[email protected]]

It's sounds like you are trying to fleece us with that information.

I ordered a pair of Kowa 8x33 Genesis binoculars from Eagle Optics and I get them Thursday. I will do the same test I did with all my other binoculars for CA with the black chimney against a white sky and report on what I see. I will also see if they have a "Ring of Fire' or abrupt fuzzy edge. I hope I don't like them too much so I can send them back. They were $1150.00. HaHa! More to come.

 

[[email protected]]

Yes, I find your blunt and patonising style extremely annoying. I have never liked being lectured to in an emotion free tone. It comes acoss as very arrogant. :C You are welcome to propose your own method, but you will need to quantify it with a range of aperture stops, and at a range of off axis distances, otherwise it is misleading.

Leif

After reading many of Henry's posts over the years I suspect his comment about not "finding the dark wire/chimney/branch against a bright sky test for CA.....an effective way to analyze off-axis color fringing test" has more to do with Henry's methodology. We all see CA when viewing dark objects against bright backgrounds (thankfully some such as myself see much less than others) but it's hard to quantify these CA "events" during the course of a normal observation session. I think Henry suggested his test to obviate many of the inherent variables encountered when viewing and to attain some meaningful (i.e. repeatable) findings.

Of course using a specific test under controlled conditions should yield repeatable results but in the case of CA I believe even though several observers might attain repeatable results, those results would vary tremendously among individuals because ones susceptibility to CA is such a subjective matter. Even though I'm practically immune to CA compared to some of the posters on this thread I've enjoyed all the posts because I'm not just interested in optics but also the way individuals vary in there assessment of the same binocular. I always thought ergonomics was the most subjective factor between individuals and their compatibility with certain binoculars but I'm beginning to think ones tolerance (or lack of) to CA is just as idiosyncratic.

Steve

 

[henry link]

Henry,

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

Frank,

At first I thought I didn't, but then I looked back at this image from an old thread on distortion.

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=238284&d=1263665842

It's a composite of four photos of a straight window frame placed close to the field edges of four binoculars, from L to R: Swaro 8.5x42 SV, Nikon 8x42 EDG, Zeiss 8x42 FL and Leica 8x42 Ultravid (non-HD).

As you can see there is lateral color visible, particularly on the right edge of the frame close to the field stops. It wouldn't be good to read too much into this since I was not at all concerned with accurately recording CA or even focusing critically in these images, but at least they show that all these binoculars have lateral color. The Swaro colors are quite similar to the Nikon SE, purple on one side of an object and yellow (which doesn't show up well in this jpg) on the other. The worse looking performance of the Ultravid compared to the others could be real. It's the only one without some form of ED glass.

I'm sorry to have set off Leif again and appreciate the supportive comments. That's all I want to say about that. Maybe we can proceed from here.

Henry

 

[eitanaltman]

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.

I still have yet to understand what the practical significance of this "flaw" is in real world use. The other things you note, like distortion or edge sharpness, are easily observable in practice. I feel like if this was such a pernicious problem that is worthy of dinging points off so many binoculars, the impact would show up in other areas already being tested (like darkening at the edge of the FOV). It's not quite as ridiculous as his IPD scoring, but it's just not something I'm concerned about.

It's not like you are utilizing the full exit pupil anyway. And even with a binocular that has perfectly round exit pupils, you can "self truncate" them just by having your eyes not perfectly aligned. If you hold up a pair of binoculars and move the tubes around, you can see the internal baffling clip the edges of the exit pupil at various angles or alignments.

I'll quote Henry here, if he doesn't think it's important I don't think I should either unless convinced otherwise:

I agree with Lee and that's something that also happens when the pupil of the eye is not perfectly centered, which is more or less all the time when binoculars are hand held.

This is one of several things I just ignore in the Allbinos tests. Most of the time it just indicates how much eccentricity had to be introduced into each side to collimate a particular pair.

 

[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

Kimmo, I do not find you in the least bit arrogant or blunt, or offensive.

Firstly, if someone responds to me, then I assume they are talking to me. If they want to talk to others, then they should not reply to me. If they respond to me, and start telling me about X, I assume they are telling me about X. That is how is works on forums and in real life. When my neighbour looks at me and says "Hello", I always assume he is talking to me, not other people. To date that interpretation of his behaviour has served me well.

Secondly, Henry responds to my posts in a dead pan, emotion free manner, like a university professor teaching a pupil, which winds me up. His posts are never light and friendly, they are always 'academic' and he 'corrects' my posts (as he sees it), or he lectures me when I did not ask to be lectured to. For example, in a recent post he told me off for simply using the term CA, and then went on to explain about transverse and longitudinal CA. Who is he to tell me what I can say, and why does he lecture me? I prefer to use the terms on-axis and off-axis CA for a good reason, in part because it is clearer to most people, and secondly because I prefer to emphasise observation rather than theory. There are too many instances on this forum of people misunderstanding theory to justify a falsehood, or to try and bully people into thinking they do not see what they see. Whilst there are some interesting discussions (such as the one by typo of resolution and the eye) there is also far too much pseudo academic bollocks, and far too many self regarding posts with some people referring to their rambling posts as "important discussions". For goodness sake, what a pile of self important crap. |^|

And thirdly I find some of the discussions here so damned retentive, and obsessive. There is too much 'nombrilisme' as the French say. It can be like a low grade academic argument. (High grade academic arguments are far more colourful, I've witnessed some. Loud shouting is the norm. :eek! For God's sake, use the bloody things on, err, birding. Is that such a wild idea? Oh, it is, never mind.

At the risk of being a sycophant, I like your reviews because they are down to earth i.e. straightforward. The same goes for those by FrankD and others here. I am sure people do not take them as writ in stone, but as a guide. Even were you to present 'objective' data, I doubt it would add much, because there is always the gap between a measurement, and its meaning. Often a measurement only samples 'reality'. Frankly laboratory photographs of CA are meaningless to me. The only way I can know if it bothers me is in use. Of course an in the field photo showing obvious purpling would be of use. Many criticise the Zeiss bins for edge softness. I like them a lot. Most people rave over the Swarovisions. I hate them. They are lovely most of the time, but sometimes that purpling dominates the view, and the only way to know is to use them. After all, most people do not see it. So, if people see an objective test that says "lots of wibble", but in reality they do not see the wibble, what is the point. These days online reviews shape the market. People read that product X has more wibble than product Y, and it has more gizmo-bollockss too, what more could you ask for, so they buy it. Actually I think birders are wiser than that. They create a short list from user comments here, they go to a field day hosted by an optics seller, they try them, and they buy the one they like. They don't need to know pseudo academic bollocks. And that is why I have issues with people who dismiss user comments, and claim that so called objective measurements are superior.

Henry is very welcome to perform 'objective' (but limited) tests if he so wishes, since he and some others are clearly obsessed by so called objective measurements, and I might even find his measurements interesting, but I'd rather he did not tell me what to do, or what I can say, or what I should think. If I wish to refer to on axis and off axis CA, then I shall do so. |^|

As a slight aside, Jeremy Clarkson is a well known UK car reviewer. Often most of his review has little to do with the car. Then in the last few lines he tells you about the car. And he is usually spot on. So, if you hate chromatic aberration, or rolling balls, do not buy Swarovision. If you hate edge softness, do not buy Zeiss FL/HT. Err, that's it. (Not entirely serious.) |=)|

And apologies for the long post. At this rate you will call me BrokenRoller.

Where is Chosun when we need some humour?

 

[Leif]

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

Thank you Dennis, it is reassuring to know that one of the most respected and experienced BF reviewers sees some merit in the test. || Yes, a little tongue in cheek, but you must be very experienced by now. Have you returned 100 bins yet?

 

[[email protected]]

Thank you Dennis, it is reassuring to know that one of the most respected and experienced BF reviewers sees some merit in the test. || Yes, a little tongue in cheek, but you must be very experienced by now. Have you returned 100 bins yet?

Way more than a 100 probably. I am not so sure about respected but experienced yes.

 

[ceasar]

I ordered a pair of Kowa 8x33 Genesis binoculars from Eagle Optics and I get them Thursday. I will do the same test I did with all my other binoculars for CA with the black chimney against a white sky and report on what I see. I will also see if they have a "Ring of Fire' or abrupt fuzzy edge. I hope I don't like them too much so I can send them back. They were $1150.00. HaHa! More to come.

I assume that your laugh is on Eagle Optics? Maybe they should have a "rental" policy too?:smoke:

Bob

 

[[email protected]]

Kimmo, I do not find you in the least bit arrogant or blunt, or offensive.

Firstly, if someone responds to me, then I assume they are talking to me. If they want to talk to others, then they should not reply to me. If they respond to me, and start telling me about X, I assume they are telling me about X. That is how is works on forums and in real life. When my neighbour looks at me and says "Hello", I always assume he is talking to me, not other people. To date that interpretation of his behaviour has served me well.

Secondly, Henry responds to my posts in a dead pan, emotion free manner, like a university professor teaching a pupil, which winds me up. His posts are never light and friendly, they are always 'academic' and he 'corrects' my posts (as he sees it), or he lectures me when I did not ask to be lectured to. For example, in a recent post he told me off for simply using the term CA, and then went on to explain about transverse and longitudinal CA. Who is he to tell me what I can say, and why does he lecture me? I prefer to use the terms on-axis and off-axis CA for a good reason, in part because it is clearer to most people, and secondly because I prefer to emphasise observation rather than theory. There are too many instances on this forum of people misunderstanding theory to justify a falsehood, or to try and bully people into thinking they do not see what they see. Whilst there are some interesting discussions (such as the one by typo of resolution and the eye) there is also far too much pseudo academic bollocks, and far too many self regarding posts with some people referring to their rambling posts as "important discussions". For goodness sake, what a pile of self important crap. |^|

And thirdly I find some of the discussions here so damned retentive, and obsessive. There is too much 'nombrilisme' as the French say. It can be like a low grade academic argument. (High grade academic arguments are far more colourful, I've witnessed some. Loud shouting is the norm. :eek! For God's sake, use the bloody things on, err, birding. Is that such a wild idea? Oh, it is, never mind.

At the risk of being a sycophant, I like your reviews because they are down to earth i.e. straightforward. The same goes for those by FrankD and others here. I am sure people do not take them as writ in stone, but as a guide. Even were you to present 'objective' data, I doubt it would add much, because there is always the gap between a measurement, and its meaning. Often a measurement only samples 'reality'. Frankly laboratory photographs of CA are meaningless to me. The only way I can know if it bothers me is in use. Of course an in the field photo showing obvious purpling would be of use. Many criticise the Zeiss bins for edge softness. I like them a lot. Most people rave over the Swarovisions. I hate them. They are lovely most of the time, but sometimes that purpling dominates the view, and the only way to know is to use them. After all, most people do not see it. So, if people see an objective test that says "lots of wibble", but in reality they do not see the wibble, what is the point. These days online reviews shape the market. People read that product X has more wibble than product Y, and it has more gizmo-bollockss too, what more could you ask for, so they buy it. Actually I think birders are wiser than that. They create a short list from user comments here, they go to a field day hosted by an optics seller, they try them, and they buy the one they like. They don't need to know pseudo academic bollocks. And that is why I have issues with people who dismiss user comments, and claim that so called objective measurements are superior.

Henry is very welcome to perform 'objective' (but limited) tests if he so wishes, since he and some others are clearly obsessed by so called objective measurements, and I might even find his measurements interesting, but I'd rather he did not tell me what to do, or what I can say, or what I should think. If I wish to refer to on axis and off axis CA, then I shall do so. |^|

As a slight aside, Jeremy Clarkson is a well known UK car reviewer. Often most of his review has little to do with the car. Then in the last few lines he tells you about the car. And he is usually spot on. So, if you hate chromatic aberration, or rolling balls, do not buy Swarovision. If you hate edge softness, do not buy Zeiss FL/HT. Err, that's it. (Not entirely serious.) |=)|

And apologies for the long post. At this rate you will call me BrokenRoller.

Where is Chosun when we need some humour?

You are not alone to be honest I feel exactly the same way. Henry is like the "Know it All in 8th grade" that is never wrong and ALWAYS knows more than you about everything. If you were a brain surgeon and studied medicine for 15 years Henry would still know more about the brain than you do. I know people like that in life. He talks in a condescending manner whether he means to or not or as you say the way a professor talks to a student. He irritates me to. He NEVER admits to being wrong and if he is he will squirm out of it. I like your real world observation approach better also and I agree with you that it is hard to really pinpoint and quantify something as variable as CA. He's like Dr.EDz over at Cloudy Nights. The thing is there are a lot of very knowledgeable people here on Bird Forum whose breadth of knowledge and technical expertise is really amazing so taking the attitude that you know more than everybody is not going to work. Henry is a great contributor to Bird Forum and his objective tests are interesting but personally I don't find them as valuable as what some of the people have to say about their personal experience with CA has been. That's what I value the most and it has helped me choose and use binoculars for birding more than Henry's CA boxes.

 

[[email protected]]

I assume that your laugh is on Eagle Optics? Maybe they should have a "rental" policy too?:smoke:

Bob

I am testing their return policy. I am sure pretty soon they are going to Blacklist me from ordering anymore binoculars. HaHa!

 

[ceasar]

I am testing their return policy. I am sure pretty soon they are going to Blacklist me from ordering anymore binoculars. HaHa!

That's funny?

 

[[email protected]]

That's funny?

To me it is. There is nothing wrong with returning stuff. The CEO of Amazon WANT'S people to return stuff as often they want and he encourages it because it doesn's cost Amazon that much for returns compared to how much they make if they KEEP a satisfied customer who keeps coming back to Amazon because they are not afraid to make a wrong purchase decision. That is why they make it so easy to return stuff with preprinted labels and instant refunds. That is why Amazon is the biggest online retailer in the world and ranks number one in customer satisfaction in every survey there is and Jeff Bezos is one of the richest men in the world.

 

[etudiant]

Henry can easily take care of himself in this discussion, but his neutral style and objective measurement oriented inputs have always been very helpful imho. Obviously, if the results he gets conflict with other observers personal impressions, that creates issues, but surely it is not his fault. People differ and the equipment differs, so there is room for many opinions.
More broadly, the overall variability of optical performance appears to be about 25% for alpha specimen photography lenses and I see no reason why binoculars would be any better. Given that, it is even surprising that there is so much agreement here.

 

[[email protected]]

Henry can easily take care of himself in this discussion, but his neutral style and objective measurement oriented inputs have always been very helpful imho. Obviously, if the results he gets conflict with other observers personal impressions, that creates issues, but surely it is not his fault. People differ and the equipment differs, so there is room for many opinions.
More broadly, the overall variability of optical performance appears to be about 25% for alpha specimen photography lenses and I see no reason why binoculars would be any better. Given that, it is even surprising that there is so much agreement here.

Exactly. And the reason CA is hard to measure objectively and quantify.

 

[bh46118]

Since almost all binoculars, including ED models, seem to have a significant amount of CA, what combination of properties allow the ZEN ED2, ED3 to be practically free of it ? Others that are very similarly made aren't even close. Is it quantifiable or just random luck ? Maybe CA is a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

 

[[email protected]]

More ED glass or apo lenses and a longer focal length.

 

[Kammerdiner]

Since almost all binoculars, including ED models, seem to have a significant amount of CA, what combination of properties allow the ZEN ED2, ED3 to be practically free of it ? Others that are very similarly made aren't even close. Is it quantifiable or just random luck ? Maybe CA is a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

Just double checked. Zens have more CA than FLs and SVs. Time for new binos?

 

[[email protected]]

You are not alone to be honest I feel exactly the same way. Henry is like the "Know it All in 8th grade" that is never wrong and ALWAYS knows more than you about everything. If you were a brain surgeon and studied medicine for 15 years Henry would still know more about the brain than you do. I know people like that in life. He talks in a condescending manner whether he means to or not or as you say the way a professor talks to a student. He irritates me to. He NEVER admits to being wrong and if he is he will squirm out of it. I like your real world observation approach better also and I agree with you that it is hard to really pinpoint and quantify something as variable as CA. He's like Dr.EDz over at Cloudy Nights. The thing is there are a lot of very knowledgeable people here on Bird Forum whose breadth of knowledge and technical expertise is really amazing so taking the attitude that you know more than everybody is not going to work. Henry is a great contributor to Bird Forum and his objective tests are interesting but personally I don't find them as valuable as what some of the people have to say about their personal experience with CA has been. That's what I value the most and it has helped me choose and use binoculars for birding more than Henry's CA boxes.

Dennis

You may find certain peoples personal experiences more valuable than Henry's objective tests but I certainly don't. I prefer side by side comparisons or meticulously gathered and recorded results more than the "I remember" type of reviews. I pride myself on being objective and I'm blessed with an eidetic memory but I don't even trust myself if specific results/tests weren't duly recorded or done in real time.

I personally don't recall Henry being condescending in a post but I distinctly remember you on different occasions inferring other posters must be blind, stupid, to poor to afford good optics, etc. yet I don't ever remember Henry resorting to such name calling. I've never noticed Henry make such a statement that he felt compelled "to squirm out of it" but then again he doesn't make asinine claims such as having an insider at Nikon that informs him about Nikon's production plans, serial number schemes, etc. I don't think I'm in the minority when I say I would give more credence to the results of one of Henry's carefully documented past tests than one of the "I only had the bino for two days before sending it back but I remember it did very well on the CD test" type of reviews. As I mentioned in my earlier post CA is very hard to quantify but I believe Henry was simply trying to use a consistent light source in the hope of finding some sort of repeatable "baseline" that would take some of the variables out of assessing a particular binos susceptibility for CA.

The type of test/reviews I enjoy the most are those by an objective reviewer who points out the properties/performance of a certain bino and then correlates how these properties might effect an observer in the field who is actually looking at birds. And needless to say I really enjoy side by side comparisons done in the field while observing birds under various weather/lighting conditions.....just seems like we don't get to many of those anymore.

Steve

 

[bh46118]

I still wonder why very few of the Alphas can equal the ZEN's in this area. Maybe they should emulate the Zen-Ray geometry. Is it also true that the Swift Audubon 8.5X44 ED are also able to repress CA effectively ?

More ED glass or apo lenses and a longer focal length.