What would worlds best binoculars be? (1 Viewer)

[dalat]

Please let Swaro and Nikon bother about the edges and do something different: really wide angles in a portable formate!

 

[FireStation46]

That Santa would drop off any Alpha to me nowo:t:3

 

[kbrabble]

Get rid of the fuzzy edges which I find very distracting.

I just don't get this, at least with the HT, the edge is far from fuzzy. It may not be as sharp as the center, but fuzzy? Or is the pair I have just the best Zeiss ever made?

 

[edwincjones]

This.

It's been 23 years since the 20x60 S, and it's high time we saw a smaller, lighter version of this binocular. You would think that many mechanical improvements could have been made on this system over the years, to the point where it could be applied to a smaller binocular, and for less cost than the 20x60S.

Oh, and I'll say it, just to get it out of the way - field flatteners. [not that I want them]

I have the 8x32fl and 8x56 dialyt

have considered the 20x60 but have not due to
-cost
-weight
-small exit pupil

? 12-15X and 40-50mm @ $3-4000US?

edj

 

[james holdsworth]

I just don't get this, at least with the HT, the edge is far from fuzzy. It may not be as sharp as the center, but fuzzy? Or is the pair I have just the best Zeiss ever made?

Just you and me.

I don't want to really get into it, as these sort of things tend to degenerate, but my HT has a huge area of critical sharpness [est 50%] - that central area that shows virtually no loss of super-sharpness and this extends vertically almost top to bottom. The usable sweetspot is most of the FOV.

Any loss of sharpness is extremely gradually, with even the outer 10% usable, despite what some others seem to see.

Recently, I tried viewing a stop-sign from over 1km and found I could still make out each letter using any part of the outer FOV. Seriously, does anyone really need anymore edge sharpness than this? The only time it might become noticeable is if you had a very distant subject, then skewed the bins. to the very edge of the FOV, but that would be silly.

Of all the Zeiss I have, or have tried, the HT has the best edges, and that includes porro's like the 8x30 and 15x60. For my eyes, it is as close to a flat-field without field-flatteners I have seen.

Of course, others will see things very differently, as has been proven with the vast array of FL threads on the subject but, to me, the HT is pretty impressive.

 

[Dennis Mau]

If you, as an experienced birder and observer of nature, could design the world's best birding and observation binocular, what are the top three features you would include?

• Brightness?
• Resolution (detail)?
• Vividness and color fidelity?
• Field of view?
• Eye-relief (viewing comfort)?
• Close focus?
• Ease, speed, and smoothness of focus?
• Handling (closed hinge or open, finger placement, grip, etc.)?
• Weight?
• Something we have not thought of at all?

Feel free to offer comparisons to the HT (or other current top binoculars) to clarify how the best birding and observation binocular, for you, would perform, look, and feel? If you can tell us why you make the choices you do...that would be even better! Go ahead. Dream a little...and share your dream. At ZEISS, we want to make even your dreams visible. " :t:

We appreciate and will evaluate your input.

Mike Jensen
President
Carl Zeiss Sports Optics, LLC - USA

A Swarovski Swarovision 8x32 SV.

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Super-wide angle [ > 9 degrees] 7x35 HT, less than 25 ounces.

I would support that. In the past, Zeiss had a great tradition in making truly wide angle binoculars - which unfortunately got lost over the years. Meanwhile, none of the high end binocular makers dares to touch the wide angle issue any more.

5mm exit pupil, 70 degrees apparent field of view, with 16-17mm eye relief would be fine. Obviously, the weight of such a binocular would be a little higher than usual. The edge-sharpness doesn't need to be perfect, but a moderate degree of field flattening would be welcome.

I would prefer a Porro, which then could be somewhat cheaper than the top-line roof binoculars, but I would be happy with a roof as well. Do not care about a super-close or super-fast focus, rather care about maximum optical performance and mechanical precision. Avoid features which are of little practical use but driving up the price - the last 2% transmission gain may be of use for a night-glass, but not really required for a multi-purpose binocular.

Add filter-threads in front of the objectives to allow attaching filters, e.g. polar-filter for observations over water, skylight filter for astronomy, yellow filter for higher contrast during long-distance observations. Make eye-cups exchangeable and available with different layouts so that everybody can optimize that important interface to his individual likes.


Cheers,
Holger

 

[Pileatus]

A Swarovski Swarovision 8x32 SV.

Dennis,
Run the bases!

 

[fugl]

Any loss of sharpness is extremely gradually, with even the outer 10% usable, despite what some others seem to see.

Seem to see as opposed to really see, you mean? I'm finding that a rather tough distinction to get my mind around .

 

[WiscTJK]

If you, as an experienced birder and observer of nature, could design the world's best birding and observation binocular, what are the top three features you would include?

• Brightness?
• Resolution (detail)?
• Vividness and color fidelity?
• Field of view?
• Eye-relief (viewing comfort)?
• Close focus?
• Ease, speed, and smoothness of focus?
• Handling (closed hinge or open, finger placement, grip, etc.)?
• Weight?
• Something we have not thought of at all?

Feel free to offer comparisons to the HT (or other current top binoculars) to clarify how the best birding and observation binocular, for you, would perform, look, and feel? If you can tell us why you make the choices you do...that would be even better! Go ahead. Dream a little...and share your dream. At ZEISS, we want to make even your dreams visible. " :t:

We appreciate and will evaluate your input.

Mike Jensen
President
Carl Zeiss Sports Optics, LLC - USA

1. 6.5 or 7x32 conquest, 7x35 as suggested by others, or even a 7x28/30 with a compact fold like your excellent 8x20 victory. I (and many others) simply won't or can't afford ht priced binoculars.

2. Warranty and customer service like Vortex.

3. Image stabilization.

Thanks, Todd

 

[Troubador]

Seem to see as opposed to really see, you mean? I'm finding that a rather tough distinction to get my mind around .

FUGL

Don't get too picky over a form of words. James just means he doesn't see what some people do. And when you look for an effect that others report but can't find it yourself, how do you find the words without casting a small shadow over your own observations or those of others?

Lee

 

[fugl]

FUGL

Don't get too picky over a form of words. James just means he doesn't see what some people do. And when you look for an effect that others report but can't find it yourself, how do you find the words without casting a small shadow over your own observations or those of others?

Well, duh! I guess you didn't notice the smiley?

 

[Troubador]

Well, duh! I guess you didn't notice the smiley?

Ha! Sorry FUGL :eat:

Obviously I was in such a hurry to get out and go Otter Spotting (saw 3) that good old Reno humour, and your smiley, passed me by. And we Brits are supposed to be masters of irony too (nothing else, just irony).

Lee

 

[kabsetz]

Mike,

Thanks for asking. As many others, I will not limit myself to mentioning three pre-chosen categories in my preferred ranking order, but will instead go through your whole list as well as add some commentary, as well as adding a category or two. My suggestions are embedded into the quote below.

If you, as an experienced birder and observer of nature, could design the world's best birding and observation binocular, what are the top three features you would include?

• Brightness?
  
  - Current technology seems to enable manufacturing binoculars close enough to perfect light transmission characteristics that for the best current binoculars, this is very nearly not an issue anymore. The Zeiss HT may be the brightest binocular available, but its closest rivals from Austria also get so close that the difference is insignificant. The last couple of percent of achievable light transmission between the current almost 95% and the impossible ideal of 100% are, in my opinion, nice if technological advancements were to allow them, but not necessary or worth investing a lot in. When I recently tested some current top binoculars for a Finnish birding magazine, I found that although the Zeiss HT was just perceptibly brighter to my eyes than the Swaro SLC HD, the difference did not matter in any of the test conditions I tried them in. The Nikon EDG, which does not exceed 90% light transmission, I felt was just at the level where improvement in brightness would have been worthwhile.
  
• Resolution (detail)?
  
  - Contrary to what many might say, this is one area where improvement is still both possible and worthwhile. Let me elaborate. Any 8-10x42 binocular or any binocular with a still larger objective lens, and also a well-designed 8x32 can easily have enough raw resolution to satisfy even the most discerning, sharp-eyed viewer. That is, assuming that they are designed to provide diffraction-limited optical performance and manufactured to deliver it. In practice, I am yet to see a portable waterproof birder-friendly binocular model from any manufacturer that would not suffer from so much spherical aberration and/or coma as well as astigmatism in at least one of the two barrels in most of the samples I have tried that it visibly compromises the "critical sharpness" of the central image. The problem here seems to be mostly manufacturing tolerances that are not tight enough. I think the source of this is the assumption that human visual acuity is no better than 60 seconds of arc, and that as long as the binocular image exceeds this value, the eye will not see a difference in sharpness. Neither of these assumptions are true, and for a binocular to be subjectively as well as objectively as sharp as it could be, it needs to be free of astigmatism, coma and excessive spherical aberration in both barrels in addition to being well collimated. To again use an example from my most recent testing, the Zeiss HT had much more pronounced spherical aberration than the Swaro SLC HD (in the samples I had, at least, and I tested two of the Zeiss) and the SLC had visibly and measurably better centerfield sharpness.
  
  Related to this is my observation that a binocular with better resolution (in other words, the one with fewer aberrations since this is what determines the resolution given an equal aperture) will also work better in heat haze as well as have a better depth of field, since when and if the image is comfortably sharper than the resolving ability of the viewers' eyes, you can look further beyond or in front of the area of perfect focus before the so-called "circle of confusion" becomes large enough to soften the image to a disturbing degree. The same effect works in heat haze, where the mirage can be considered an additional aberration that builds up on top of and eventually overwhelms the other aberrations.
  
  So, I would like a binocular designed to have low enough aberrations to be essentially diffraction-limited, produced with strict-enough quality control that this would not only apply to the prototypes tested at the factory but also the end products sold to customers.
  
• Vividness and color fidelity?
  
  - As with the first category, with improved coating technology used by Zeiss as well as their most important rivals, we are now getting binoculars where vividness and color fidelity is close to what is theoretically achievable. Further improvements are always welcome, but they are unlikely to be significant. To my eyes, the Zeiss HT now has essentially flawless color fidelity, and this applies also to the best Swarovski models.
  
  Where there is still room for improvement is maintaining these levels in all lighting situations. Internal baffling and blackening of binoculars has improved a great deal also, but stray light control and severely backlit situations still remain somewhat of a problem even for the best current binoculars. This is an area where nanotechnology could perhaps help? A near-perfect flat black paint for the binocular interior would be very worthwhile.
  
• Field of view?
  
  - I agree with those who have expressed a wish for wider true and usable fields.
  7 degrees for a 10x and 8.5 degrees for a 8x binocular would be a good starting point. All of the field also needs to be usable. The Swarovisions have demonstrated that a reasonably wide usable field is possible, and the Canon 10x42 IS L has a 6.5 degree field that is very nearly sharp to the edge also, and without some of the artifacts that people complain about in the SV's. The additional advantage of field-flatteners is that binoculars and telescopes with them have larger sweet spots, or "zones of critical sharpness" than binoculars without them.
  
• Eye-relief (viewing comfort)?
  
  18-20mm of eye-relief is best, 16mm barely adequate. This is when it is measured from the plane of the eyecup rim. Measuring from the eyelens surface is meaningless if the lens is recessed deep into an eyecup.
  
  - What is often lacking in binoculars with ample eye-relief is eyecups that rotate out far enough for viewers who do not wear glasses while viewing. This has been a problem for me also with Zeiss's new Conquest HD's, and is an easy and cheap thing to remedy in the design phase. Eyecups also need to feel sturdy and move in and out without sticktion or clatter. In this regard, recent Swarovski eyecups have, in my experience, been better than recent Zeiss eyecups. I wonder if it would be feasible, instead of eyecups that have click-stops, to build them with locking rings at the base of the eyecup that would allow you to lock them to any extended position between minimum and maximum. This would also make them feel solid unlike any click-stop system could. Or, simpler still, when turned anti-clockwise they become adjustable by pulling in-out (with visible distance markings for repeatability), and by turning clockwise they would solidly lock to that length.
  
• Close focus?
  
  - I'm of the school that is satisfied with ca 3 meters of close focus, but understand those who like to focus closer. Progressive focus with about 100 degrees of focus wheel rotation from 10m to infinity and about a 180 degree rotation down from 10m to minimum (at 2-3 meters) would be my ideal, but I tend to get used to the focus ration I'm using, so it is not a priority for me and I would not pay much extra for it.
  
• Ease, speed, and smoothness of focus?
  
  - I like the size, placement and tactile feel of the Zeiss HT focus wheel. I also like the diopter adjustment system in it in principle, but in the models I have tried the diopter adjustment wheel is hard to grip and extremely stiff to turn, so setting the diopter while viewing is difficult. The system would require very little tweaking to be to my liking, however.
  
  A good focussing system absolutely needs to be consistent in that it moves the focus in both barrels in perfect synchrony. In this respect, I have seen problems even in some of the most high-end models, including in one of the Zeiss HT's I have tried.
  
  Smoothness is important, but being from a country where we bird in extremely cold weather as well, it cannot be achieved at the expense of focus freezing up in January.
  
  Focus speed I covered in the previous section.
  
  
• Handling (closed hinge or open, finger placement, grip, etc.)?
  
  - I notice that I do not have set preferences here. I have really liked the handling of Swarovski's 8x32 EL's (both old and the new SV models) because they fit my hands perfectly and are light and slender, but I also really enjoyed the handling of the rather different Victory HT. In the Victory, the balance in the hands as well as the size and placement of the focus knob were very good. I do not like unnecessary protrusion such as in the rubber-armored Leica Ultravids, nor do I like deep recesses like in the first generation Swaro EL's.
  
  - One thing that should be standard on all binoculars is a tripod adapter attachment built in. There is no reason why those binocular users who wish to use a Finnstick or a monopod should need to resort to heavy and ungainly platform-and-strap adapters or mousetraps. The Nikon EDG series as well as a number of Japanese roof prism binoculars from Kite, Opticron etc. have a tripod adapter thread in the front hinge, which is an excellent inexpensive additional feature that really adds value to some users. The best binoculars in this respect are Canon's 10x, 15x and 18x IS models and Pentax Papilios, which have a tripod thread directly under the binocular body more or less at the centre of gravity. That way, for monopods or Finnsticks, you can skip the adapter altogether and just thread the stick onto the binocular.
  
• Weight?
  
  - Not that important for me, since I almost always support my binocular on a Finnstick. For unaided hand-holding, lighter is better down to about 0.5kg, after which the loss of inertia will begin to compromise stability of view a bit too much. Perhaps the optimum is around 600g, but this is a weight not easily attainable with 42mm binoculars. For that size, the current norm of +-800g is ok, and I doubt many buyers base their ultimate choice of a binocular on a few grams here or there.
  
• Something we have not thought of at all?

* Image stabilization. Optical image stabilization helps immensely in seeing more detail, more quickly and more enjoyably. It should be available in birding-suitable binoculars from more than just one manufacturer to ensure ongoing development of the technology. I have used IS binoculars as my primary birding binoculars for over ten years, and despite testing all the best offerings from Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski, Nikon and others, I am sticking with Canon simply because of the stabilization. In the few instances where the stabilization does not help or is detrimental to image quality, I can simply turn it off and use the binocular without it.

Other than having a stabilizer, the Canon 10x42 IS L that I use fulfills my ideal binocular criteria in very few of the categories above. It is ugly, it weighs too much, it has very poorly designed eyecups, its tactile feel is about as sophisticated as that of a pair of old rubber boots and it has very slow focus with a poorly placed focus wheel. But it has a very effective image stabilizer, and optics that are extremely well designed and just well enough implemented that enough of the design promise is carried on to the image, and even with the stabilizer off the image is good enough to show me all the detail any other premium binocular would.

* Another thing not on your list is making interpupillary distance adjustment work with a little adjustment wheel that would move the barrels towards or away from each other in a precisely controllable fashion so that it would always remain as set and be easily and accurately repeatable. I'm not sure how worthwhile I would find this, but liking precision and repeatability, I think I would. Mechanically, it would be relatively easy to implement, but I do not know if it would be worth the additional cost factor.

* For a binocular to be universally usable, it needs to have enough focus travel past infinity to accommodate severely myopic users. 6-8 diopters past infinity would be good. Surprisingly many premium binoculars fall short here.

* Diopter adjustment should not be stepwise. Especially with the reduced accommodation that comes with age, the 1/3 diopter steps found in some expensive binoculars are simply too large for being able to find the correct setting. 1/5 diopter is much better, but who needs steps at all when the adjustment can be continuous just as easily. I applaud the HT for this feature, but bring it up in order to urge you not to abandon it in future designs.

* Optional winged eyecups are an inexpensive, simple and thoughtful addition that come in very handy in some circumstances.


Feel free to offer comparisons to the HT (or other current top binoculars) to clarify how the best birding and observation binocular, for you, would perform, look, and feel? If you can tell us why you make the choices you do...that would be even better! Go ahead. Dream a little...and share your dream. At ZEISS, we want to make even your dreams visible. " :t:

We appreciate and will evaluate your input.

Mike Jensen
President
Carl Zeiss Sports Optics, LLC - USA

To sum up, my dream binocular would be a 10x45 IS L with the size and weight and focus wheel placement of a Zeiss Victory HT, underbody tripod attachment thread, 7.5 degree field of view, 2.5m close focus, low spherical aberration like in the present Canon 10x42 IS L, field flatteners like in the Canon also, light transmission like in the Zeiss HT, color balance and vibrancy like in the Swaro SLC HD, no astigmatism or coma like in just about no binocular I have seen but found in many good spotting scope samples, and stray light suppression as good as or better than in the SLC HD. Eyecups as described above, and a micrometer-adjustment for IPD.

Not that unreasonable, is it?

Kimmo

 

[jogiba]

I'd like to see what Zeiss could produce in an Image Stabilised binocular.

Since I have the Zeiss 7x42L and four Canon IS binoculars I am satisfied with what I have.

 

[JabaliHunter]

Super-wide angle [ > 9 degrees] 7x35 HT, less than 25 ounces.

I'd go for that.... providing there was at least 15mm ER. Actually with my finances it might have to be a Conquest HD

David

+1

I would support that. In the past, Zeiss had a great tradition in making truly wide angle binoculars - which unfortunately got lost over the years. Meanwhile, none of the high end binocular makers dares to touch the wide angle issue any more.

5mm exit pupil, 70 degrees apparent field of view, with 16-17mm eye relief would be fine. Obviously, the weight of such a binocular would be a little higher than usual. The edge-sharpness doesn't need to be perfect, but a moderate degree of field flattening would be welcome.

I would prefer a Porro, which then could be somewhat cheaper than the top-line roof binoculars, but I would be happy with a roof as well. Do not care about a super-close or super-fast focus, rather care about maximum optical performance and mechanical precision. Avoid features which are of little practical use but driving up the price - the last 2% transmission gain may be of use for a night-glass, but not really required for a multi-purpose binocular.

Add filter-threads in front of the objectives to allow attaching filters, e.g. polar-filter for observations over water, skylight filter for astronomy, yellow filter for higher contrast during long-distance observations. Make eye-cups exchangeable and available with different layouts so that everybody can optimize that important interface to his individual likes.


Cheers,
Holger

I agree wholeheartedly, especially in a 7x35 (roof or porro); and perhaps a 9x50 HT roof...

 

[SurreyPecker]

'What would worlds best binoculars be?'

a zeiss 7x45 p* T* night owl with original lead glass optics but in a body that doesnt weigh 3LBS ..... :t:

the view imho unsurpassed to this day*, such a shame the weight and ergonomics were so....so

*except maybe if one had bionic eyes ...

 

[Hermann]

To sum up, my dream binocular would be a 10x45 IS L with the size and weight and focus wheel placement of a Zeiss Victory HT, underbody tripod attachment thread, 7.5 degree field of view, 2.5m close focus, low spherical aberration like in the present Canon 10x42 IS L, field flatteners like in the Canon also, light transmission like in the Zeiss HT, color balance and vibrancy like in the Swaro SLC HD, no astigmatism or coma like in just about no binocular I have seen but found in many good spotting scope samples, and stray light suppression as good as or better than in the SLC HD. Eyecups as described above, and a micrometer-adjustment for IPD.

I agree with almost everything you wrote. The one thing I *don't* want is an electronic stabilizer with the quirks of that of the current Canon models. In my opinion the mechanical stabilizer of the 20x60S is quite clearly better than that of the current crop of Canon IS binoculars, even though it may well be not quite as tough as the Canon stabilizer.

A couple of other points:

- I'd also like to stress the importance of a reliable and smooth focuser once more. This is one area where many modern roofs leave a lot to be desired, like, for instance the Conquest HD. A reliable and smooth focuser that works well in very high *and* very low temperatures is IMO far more important than a short minimum focusing distance.

- The dioptre adjustment should have a range from +5 to -5 diopters for users with large difference between their eyes. +4 to -4 isn't quite enough in my opinion. Dioptre adjustment also needs to be continuous, just like Kimmo pointed out.

- Sizes: 7x35/42, 8x30/32, 8x40/42, 8x50 (no stabilizer required to keep the weight as low as possible), 10x40/42, 15x50 (with a stabilizer)

Hermann

 

[Binastro]

. And in my opinion a binocular with such fine mechanical operation and optical precision that when it is made there is no provision for collimation as both barrels have perfectly aligned and superb optics in each.
With all the mechanical axes and optical axes perfectly parallel at every IPD.
With an expected life of 50 years.

Some refractor telescopes indeed never need Collimating.
Similarly some Maksutov telescopes have no adjustment provision.
It would be more difficult to provide this in binoculars, but they are low-power instruments and it may be possible to engineer them so that no adjustment is ever necessary.

And the 10×45 binocular with 7.5° field should have perfect star images to the edge. and the star images over the whole field should be tiny pinpricks of different brightness.
Not the bloated star images presented in most binoculars.

Also almost nil ghost images even in the presence of street lights at night.
This is indeed almost achieved in some of the best binoculars already.
I think this is because a very careful design.

Also image stabilisation above eight times is essential.
It may need more work to prevent the smeared star images that the Canon system shows near the end of the travel.
but if used carefully the Canon system is okay for static objects although following a bird in flight it needs to be improved.

 

[etudiant]

. And in my opinion a binocular with such fine mechanical operation and optical precision that when it is made there is no provision for collimation as both barrels have perfectly aligned and superb optics in each.
With all the mechanical axes and optical axes perfectly parallel at every IPD.
With an expected life of 50 years.

The US Army thought that they had that. The Steiner M22 binocular was built with sealed and unadjustable optics in a plastic shell. The Army reverted to conventional designs. I believe the German Army went through a similar phase.

So it is not so easy to make a good and robust binocular.