Why are those dang Habicht's so BRIGHT! (1 Viewer)

[Richard D]

I can't comment on the 8x30's performance, not having used it, my only experience is with the 10x40's and with those to my eyes central sharpness seems close to ELs but not quite there - more than good enough though.

I suspect the technical resolution needed for a binocular to appear sharp to the naked eye is probably a lot lower than we think, particularly when they are hand held. I also suspect high transmission and a bright view will have an influence on our perception of apparent sharpness with a brighter view feeling sharper even if it measurably isn't.

From a user's point of view I don't really care about whether one pair is technically sharper than another if both are 'sharp enough' to resolve what I need. For me resolution tests are interesting rather than useful.

It would be interesting to see how the Habichts compared against similarly priced roofs - say the Conquest line, and with the same sized objectives, or at least 30/32, rather than stopping down a larger objective.

 

[Thotmosis]

Dennis I don't think it's appropriate how you discredit a very respected member here.

I find such statements from someone who changes his opinion about binoculars more often than his underwear completely out of place.
Henry has demonstrated his in-depth knowledge of binoculars more than once, please cut the bullshit.

Andreas

Speculations on how often somebody changes his underwear is also not very helpful in this discussion….let’s all be more nice to each other.

 

[dorubird]

Naturally I star-test and measure resolution first to see if there are sample defects that would disqualify a specimen. In this case I had two 8x56 FL telescopes and four 8x30 Habicht telescopes for comparison. My 8x56 FL, bought in 2007, has a good side and a theoretically "bad" side (prism edge defect), so I would have used its good side compared to the better of the two sides from my then newest pair of 8x30 Habichts.

The two 8x30 Habichts I have on hand have remarkably similar optical quality, even though one was made about 1990 and the other in 2016. Properly assembling a simple binocular like this doesn't seem to be that much of a challenge for Swarovski. In a high magnification star-test all four telescopes are quite free from the typical sample defects like astigmatism, pinching and coma. All four have very similar resolution and all four star test almost identically for longitudinal chromatic aberration and spherical aberration, which gives me pretty high confidence that the image I posted represents "normal" performance for the design.

Thanks, William, Andreas, gweller and Alexander. By now I know what to expect from Dennis.

Now that we know that Henry link tested several specimens of Habicht, the situation seems to be "normal" performance for the design. It seems happen exactly as I experienced between Swarovski EL 10x42 vs Zeiss SF 10x42. Initially due a little higher general contrast perception in Swarovski image, I thought EL must had a higher resolution too. But when I did a more detailed tripod visual test on the resolution chart, surprise: Zeiss SF clearly solved more details than Swarovski EL even if it had a slightly lower contrast. Maybe that's the case with Habicht as well. When I tried Habicht 8x30 some time ago, it seemed it had a very clear and very contrasting center image for my eyes. But then I didn't test it on a resolution chart (I'm sorry now that I didn't take this test).
So, what worries me about the Habicht is not that small FOV but the lack of clarity on the edges and small eye relief. I expected from that small FOV to give a bigger eye relief and to have a orthoscopic clarity all over the FOV, but it doesn't. It seems, for me at least again, that the sensational light transsmision is the only advantage that makes it stand out clearly compared to other binoculars competition. All porro binoculars have 3d effect, and some porro, like Nikon E2, have even higher FOV, lower chromatic aberrations, much better glare resistance, bigger eye relief, and decent focus. For me again, Habicht is a closed case! Only this sensational light transmission has the power to "open the case" from time to time I must admit that light transsmision is a very important quality and I like it!

 

[Thotmosis]

Naturally I star-test and measure resolution first to see if there are sample defects that would disqualify a specimen. In this case I had two 8x56 FL telescopes and four 8x30 Habicht telescopes for comparison. My 8x56 FL, bought in 2007, has a good side and a theoretically "bad" side (prism edge defect), so I would have used its good side compared to the better of the two sides from my then newest pair of 8x30 Habichts.

The two 8x30 Habichts I have on hand have remarkably similar optical quality, even though one was made about 1990 and the other in 2016. Properly assembling a simple binocular like this doesn't seem to be that much of a challenge for Swarovski. In a high magnification star-test all four telescopes are quite free from the typical sample defects like astigmatism, pinching and coma. All four have very similar resolution and all four star test almost identically for longitudinal chromatic aberration and spherical aberration, which gives me pretty high confidence that the image I posted represents "normal" performance for the design.

Thanks, William, Andreas, gweller and Alexander. By now I know what to expect from Dennis.

Henry,

Is your custom made 8x30 GA for sale? If so I’m really interested in it.

 

[Thotmosis]

From a user's point of view I don't really care about whether one pair is technically sharper than another if both are 'sharp enough' to resolve what I need. For me resolution tests are interesting rather than useful.

It would be interesting to see how the Habichts compared against similarly priced roofs - say the Conquest line, and with the same sized objectives, or at least 30/32, rather than stopping down a larger objective.

I agree with you, i love to read all the technical posts here and realize that i need some more study to fully understand them but from a user’s perspective…i guess some aspects you can not measure because everybody’s eyes, face and brains are different. Just my opinion, don’t shoot me.

I have shortly compared my Leica 8x32 HD (not plus) with my new Habicht 8x30 GA IF under mostly cloudy weather conditions in The Netherlands and to me the Habicht’s are much brighter, sharper, i see more detail and they feel more though then my Leica’s. But the view on the edges, especially vertically, is not so clear as with the Leica’s. For me it’s not an issue at all but i can see why for others who seek a perfectly flat view it is bothering them. I need more testing in sunny weather to see if it‘s really a glare monster as some say it is. With my 10x40 I didn’t noticed any glare.

I didn’t do a direct comparison between my 8x30 and 10x40 but can say already that for me the 8x30 is more relaxed to look through. Probably because of the lower magnification. Also i discovered that for my kind of use, a small IF binocular like the Habicht 8x30 IF is very usable in the field.

 

[CharleyBird]

Quote:

"I don't want to spoil the party, but please note that Birdforum is one of the last redoubts for the cult of the Habicht Porro. Of course, Porro prisms can be part of a superb binocular design, but when they're combined with a 100 year old Kaspereit eyepiece design and a fast crown and flint cemented doublet some well understood performance limitations will inevitably follow. Anybody interested in buying a Habicht after reading praise on this forum should be certain that it can be returned with no questions asked, because compared to state of the art modern binoculars virtually every performance characteristic of the Habichts is compromised, except for the very high light transmission and color accuracy provided by Swarovski's current AR coatings.

The measured off-axis astigmatism of the 8x30/10x40 Habicht Kaspereit eyepiece is a whopping 9 diopters near the edge of a 60º field, compared to a fraction of a diopter near the edge of a 69º field in the current NLs. The measured full aperture resolution of my two 8x30 Habichts is mediocre due to high longitudinal CA and spherical aberration, exactly as expected from the objective design. Eye relief is too short for eyeglasses, the prisms are so undersized that one prism edge intrudes into the exit pupil, an obvious vignetting shadow is visible at the field edge in subdued light and there is strong veiling glare from insufficient baffling in the 8x30. None of this seems to matter to the fans when a binocular is one of the last survivors from a Golden Age."
henry link

Thank you for this excellent summary, well worth repeating and rereading in full.
I recall chuckling the first time you wrote about the undersized prism intruding into the exit pupil.

 

[Thotmosis]

" most of the seemingly glaring, insurmountable faults that are found lurking in almost every bino here (depending on brand preference/loyalty of who's posting) is almost always much ado about nothing "

 

[[email protected]]

" most of the seemingly glaring, insurmountable faults that are found lurking in almost every bino here (depending on brand preference/loyalty of who's posting) is almost always much ado about nothing "

Agreed! But it does give us something to argue about!

 

[Thotmosis]

When I tried Habicht 8x30 some time ago, it seemed it had a very clear and very contrasting center image for my eyes. But then I didn't test it on a resolution chart (I'm sorry now that I didn't take this test).

So what is more important to you, the image that you see with your own eyes in the field or the results of a test on a resolution chart?

 

[gweller]

I don't know of too many roofs or porros with 95% transmission, the exceptional microcontrast and the 3D stereopsis of the Habicht. It, is a superb small porro. I can't convince everybody to like them. It is your personal preference what kind of binocular you like. My point of the thread is, the Habichts are the brightest 8x30 you can buy. If you like bright binoculars, the Habichts are it. From The Greatest Binoculars. Tobias likes them.

"The Swarovski Habicht 8x30 W is my favorite binocular. The proof is in the pudding, and this one I take out every day and use with joy - and awe. It's my reference for center sharpness, color reproduction, brightness, and handheld steadiness. And the 3D view is what spoils me for most other binos. The Habicht is very small, easy to hold, of very high build quality, and has a truly excellent price-performance ratio. Other binoculars may be easier to use and give a cleaner image under difficult situations. The Habicht 8x30 yields the most beautiful images, and has the greatest "I WANT TO TOUCH WHAT I SEE" factor."

"To be honest, it is a bit embarrassing to test the latest and most expensive roofs and always find that they cannot achieve what this little porro does in the center of the image. I was glad to find out that some people had made similar observations and commented at www.birdforum.com, especially about Gijs van Ginkel´s statement who measured the transmission of quite a few binoculars and claimed: "I have investigated the quality of the Habicht 8x30 porro and at first I could not believe what we found. I have had many porro binoculars in my hands, but the image quality of the Habicht is excellent: very sharp image quality, bright and with perfect color reproduction. We measured 95% light transmission, but the latest ones come up to 96%, while the spectrum is flat as the Dutch country side". Swarovski now claims on their website a transmission of 96% (compare this with 91% for the 8x42 SLC and 90% for the Swarovision 8x32 and then tell me that porros are totally outdated...)"

greatestbinoculars: Swarovski Habicht 8x30 W binoculars review

Dennis, that is a report that was last revised in 2014 - 8 years ago. Things have moved on since then (NL's, SF's, update Ultravids etc, etc). Rather than cherry picking parts of the review perhaps you should also state here that the reviewer lists a lot of cons plus suggested hacks needed to make the 8x30 useable?

It may well be a fairly nice bright porro, but it is not perfect by far and has (to my mind) too many faults to make it worth the effort. Why not just accept that?? Or have you painted yourself so far into a corner by talking it up so much that you can't go back??

 

[dorubird]

So what is more important to you, the image that you see with your own eyes in the field or the results of a test on a resolution chart?

Both! Yes, the image that you see with your own eyes in the field it is more importantly. But, when they are very subtly different in clarity (contrast + resolution), as in the case of the examples given by me, it is good to do more detailed tests to make a more complete impression about what this clarity is.
A pair of binoculars. like any other optical instruments, can have different amounts of "salt" and "pepper":
binoculars with higher resolution and higher contrast
binoculars with higher contrast and lower resolution
binoculars with lower contrat and high resolution
binoculars with lower resolution and poorer contrast

 

[Thotmosis]

Dennis, that is a report that was last revised in 2014 - 8 years ago. Things have moved on since then (NL's, SF's, update Ultravids etc, etc). Rather than cherry picking parts of the review perhaps you should also state here that the reviewer lists a lot of cons plus suggested hacks needed to make the 8x30 useable?

It may well be a fairly nice bright porro, but it is not perfect by far and has (to my mind) too many faults to make it worth the effort. Why not just accept that?? Or have you painted yourself so far into a corner by talking it up so much that you can't go back??

Do you have a personal vendetta with Dennis? I’m more interested in your own experiences with the binoculars that you use(d) and would like to know what you like(d) and not like(d) about them. Nothing personal but, for me at least, it’s becoming rather boring and all this attacks at the same person all the time distracts from object of the discussion: a Swarovski Habicht binocular. So please tell us about your own experience with the Habicht’s, I’m really very interested in your personal experiences.

 

[Thotmosis]

Both! Because when they are very subtly different in clarity (contrast + resolution), it is good to do more detailed tests to make a more complete impression about what this clarity is.
A pair of binoculars can have different amounts of "salt" and "pepper":
binoculars with higher resolution and higher contrast
binoculars with higher contrast and lower resolution
binoculars with lower contrat and high resolution
binoculars with lower resolution and poorer contrast

Thank you for your explanation, I understand what you mean now. If I have time maybe I will also try to do some tests with a resolution chart, may be fun. If you had to choose between two binoculars, would you choose the one with the better view in the field or the one with the better results on the resolution chart?

 

[CharleyBird]

" most of the seemingly glaring, insurmountable faults that are found lurking in almost every bino here (depending on brand preference/loyalty of who's posting) is almost always much ado about nothing "

Do you agree? It is rare to read someone writing about instruments they have kept and learned to use over years, and to have used scientific method to test in some ways.

Some treat their current binocular like the latest number one pop chart hit.

 

[gweller]

Do you have a personal vendetta with Dennis? I’m more interested in your own experiences with the binoculars that you use(d) and would like to know what you like(d) and not like(d) about them. Nothing personal but, for me at least, it’s becoming rather boring and all this attacks at the same person all the time distracts from object of the discussion: a Swarovski Habicht binocular. So please tell us about your own experience with the Habicht’s, I’m really very interested in your personal experiences.

No experience with the Habichts and of course I don't have a "vendetta" against Dennis. I'm sure he is a perfectly amiable chap........

Just trying to keep things a bit balanced for the benefit of those amongst who might be too unduly influenced by his sometime wild and over the top opinions. But then of course when he posts such comments as he did above, about Henry, then I feel someone has say something.

 

[William Lewis]

I don’t doubt your opening sentence, that’s for sure.
What about current experience? Does that have any bearing?

Id love to see this test redone with a few more samples. it’s possible the same results 5 or more times might convince my eyes that there not seeing what there seeing: it could happen🙃

Hi Paul. Yes, I think 95% of users only judge binoculars hand held, by eye and if your happy with them based on your experiences then that's all that matters.

I know my habicht 7x42's aren't the best binoculars in the world on a variety of measures, but I'm content with them. The srga's I picked up a couple of weeks back I'm also content with but are inferior to the habichts in other ways, and inferior to many other binoculars too.

It's nice to have both points of view - the experience and the science. I don't disagree with Denis's or anyone elses experience of a particular view, it's good to have the debate.

 

[Thotmosis]

Do you agree? It is rare to read someone writing about instruments they have kept and learned to use over years, and to have used scientific method to test in some ways.

Some treat their current binocular like the latest number one pop chart hit.

Hi CharleyBird, I agree with your signature and I read the more technical posts about scientific methods with great interest though I honestly admit that I don’t understand them al. But I’m learning.

Some people are very enthousiast about there current binocular and that it’s good because they are happy. If somebody else has a different opinion it’s also good because I believe in freedom of speec. But name calling and chasing one person in different treads with the same critical remarks all the time is not very productive at all. There is an ignore button after all 😉

 

[Thotmosis]

No experience with the Habichts and of course I don't have a "vendetta" against Dennis. I'm sure he is a perfectly amiable chap........

Just trying to keep things a bit balanced for the benefit of those amongst who might be too unduly influenced by his sometime wild and over the top opinions. But then of course when he posts such comments as he did above, about Henry, then I feel someone has say something.

I’m sure you are a perfectly amiable chap as well but I would like you to try a Habicht for yourself onetime, maybe you will be surprised and like it after all 😉.

 

[gweller]

I’m sure you are a perfectly amiable chap as well but I would like you to try a Habicht for yourself onetime, maybe you will be surprised and like it after all 😉.

If my bank balance allows it, maybe I will at some stage.
However at the moment my binocular line up is full and I can't really justify adding to it!

 

[Thotmosis]

If my bank balance allows it, maybe I will at some stage.
However at the moment my binocular line up is full and I can't really justify adding to it!

I understand, same here, my bino budget for 2022 is consumed. Maybe you can lend one if the chance occurs. What is your current line up?