Last paragraph - sorry to hear that Henry. Hope your rebuilding can go well.Threads like this are so discouraging to me. The OP has been here for 20 years and yet he is asking the same old newb questions and offering completely unsubstantiated newb answers snatched from thin air.
Nearly everything you need to know about how binoculars actually behave has been covered here multiple times by people who know what they're talking about (there's a search function for that.) More importantly for those who claim to be interested in evaluating optics, the methods for home testing many of the on and off-axis aberrations that plague binoculars have been explained many times and methods for measuring both full and stopped down resolution have been explained many times. Why is that so few of us actually do these things?
Here (I promise for the last time) is a photographic test of the true resolution of two binoculars and how the lower aberrations of one cause it to appear "sharper" even at large line pairs, much larger than what both binoculars can resolve and even for people with average eyesight acuity.
Victory HT 8x42
Hello, Visiting my son at London, after been with him at his PhD in Economics graduation in the EUI (European University Institute), Firenze, Italy, I made a visit at Harrods. Just to take a look at the place. As the last year, they have DEALS in binoculars. Two were VERY GOOD SALE offers...www.birdforum.net
Brands have nothing to do with what you see in the photos. Aberrations quite unrelated to binocular brand have everything to do with what you see. Almost everything about the aberrations that affect "sharpness" can be seen and explained with a boosted magnification star test and the true resolution itself can be accurately measured at boosted magnification for the full aperture and at smaller apertures to simulate the daylight observations. Please stop jawing in the dark and get to it!
That's all from me for now. Tropical Storm Debby brought a large oak tree down on our house and mostly destroyed it, so I'll be dealing with that for quite a while. Happily, no binoculars lost their lives.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Why are Zeiss so sharp on-axis compared to other binoculars? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dennis Mau
- Start date
Very sharp binoculars.
From actual observations.
Canon 10x30 c.1998
Canon 12x36 Mk 1 c.1998
Canon 15x50 c.2000
Canon 10x42L.
IS off in all above Canons.
Foton 5x25 2000
Swarovski 10x25.
Chinon 10x25 reverse Porroprism. Two samples both clearly sharper than other 10x25s.
They have a problem in that the bridge design is uncomfortable unless the binocular is used horizontally, and not suitable for eyeglass wearers.
Minolta 8x23AF.
Japanese 12x50 Ultraview Porroprism best of six c.1980
Japanese Celestron 20x80 c.1975 best of three. ~2.5kg.
Zeiss 10x42 Conquest HD
Zeiss 8x32 Conquest HD
Zeiss 20x60S.
Pentax 8x24 reverse Porroprism old Japanese binocular.
Possibly Nikon 7x50 Marine.
Leica 8x32 BA two samples.
Minox 15x58. I think correct specs.
Quantam 15x70, probably Chinese.
Fujinon 14x40.
Two I haven't used are the Swarovski 10x40 Porro good example (I have a very worn example).
And the Takahashi 22x60 that I have never used.
Both these may be very sharp.
As to the very sharpest it may be the Takahashi 22x60 or Zeiss 20x60S.
But I haven't used the Zeiss 20x60S boosted 4x or 7x, but have boosted the Japanese Celestron 20x80 7x with good results.
The Japanese 25x - 135x 80 zoom binocular is quite sharp up to 80x, but I wouldn't say this is a very sharp binocular.
It is well aligned.
Some of the 10x50 Japanese binoculars may also be very sharp, but I haven't tested them properly.
I think some of the modern non Zeiss top quality binoculars may also be very sharp, but I haven't used them.
Just making statements and then posting numerous comments to support this statement, without any comments to the opposite is just not on.
Neither is posting threads and if clearly wrong and then just deleting the posts is also not on.
As to using glasses to correct for aging eyes.
If the acuity is reduced glasses will not correct for this unless the glasses are held quite a distance in front of the eyes to provide up to 2x magnification.
Glasses provide for dioptre correction, astigmatism and prism problems.
Reduced acuity apart from these effects is not corrected, although special lighting may help.
Regards,
B.
From actual observations.
Canon 10x30 c.1998
Canon 12x36 Mk 1 c.1998
Canon 15x50 c.2000
Canon 10x42L.
IS off in all above Canons.
Foton 5x25 2000
Swarovski 10x25.
Chinon 10x25 reverse Porroprism. Two samples both clearly sharper than other 10x25s.
They have a problem in that the bridge design is uncomfortable unless the binocular is used horizontally, and not suitable for eyeglass wearers.
Minolta 8x23AF.
Japanese 12x50 Ultraview Porroprism best of six c.1980
Japanese Celestron 20x80 c.1975 best of three. ~2.5kg.
Zeiss 10x42 Conquest HD
Zeiss 8x32 Conquest HD
Zeiss 20x60S.
Pentax 8x24 reverse Porroprism old Japanese binocular.
Possibly Nikon 7x50 Marine.
Leica 8x32 BA two samples.
Minox 15x58. I think correct specs.
Quantam 15x70, probably Chinese.
Fujinon 14x40.
Two I haven't used are the Swarovski 10x40 Porro good example (I have a very worn example).
And the Takahashi 22x60 that I have never used.
Both these may be very sharp.
As to the very sharpest it may be the Takahashi 22x60 or Zeiss 20x60S.
But I haven't used the Zeiss 20x60S boosted 4x or 7x, but have boosted the Japanese Celestron 20x80 7x with good results.
The Japanese 25x - 135x 80 zoom binocular is quite sharp up to 80x, but I wouldn't say this is a very sharp binocular.
It is well aligned.
Some of the 10x50 Japanese binoculars may also be very sharp, but I haven't tested them properly.
I think some of the modern non Zeiss top quality binoculars may also be very sharp, but I haven't used them.
Just making statements and then posting numerous comments to support this statement, without any comments to the opposite is just not on.
Neither is posting threads and if clearly wrong and then just deleting the posts is also not on.
As to using glasses to correct for aging eyes.
If the acuity is reduced glasses will not correct for this unless the glasses are held quite a distance in front of the eyes to provide up to 2x magnification.
Glasses provide for dioptre correction, astigmatism and prism problems.
Reduced acuity apart from these effects is not corrected, although special lighting may help.
Regards,
B.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
I agree with that, the EL is at least as good as the SF on CA. If it wasn’t said here already , I’d say the Kowa Genesis is better than both of them in CA correction.
The quality of coatings does differentiate different brands and models, but the quality of the glass does also. The highest quality glass and the best coatings are part of what you pay for in an alpha binocular. Remember that Zeiss owns Schott so who do you think gets the best glass?
Last edited:
The EL is generally not as good at CA control as the SF or FL. It depends on what Kowa Genesis you are talking about when you are considering CA control.
The Genesis 8x33 isn't as good as the SF or FL, but the Genesis 8.5x44 is probably a little better. The Kowa Genesis 8.5x44 is right up there with the SF and FL as being one of the best binoculars for CA control.
The trouble with Kowa's is they have a lot of fall off at the edges, and it is very abrupt so you see a noticeable fuzzy ring around the FOV which is annoying.
I have verified all these CA results with Allbinos also because I have had all these binoculars at one time or another.
Kowa Genesis 8x33 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
Kowa Genesis 8.5x44 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
Swarovski EL 8.5x42 Swarovision - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
Carl Zeiss Victory SF 8x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
I agree that all those Canon's you have listed are sharp. The Zeiss Conquest HD's and the Zeiss 20x60 S are very sharp. The Leica 8x32 BA's are very sharp and the Fujinon 14x40 IS is very sharp and sharper than most of the Canon's. The rest of the binoculars you have listed, I haven't tried.
I agree that the SFL 10x40 has poor CA when panning. I also experienced a blue ring around the FOV which is a type of CA before I got rid of mine. Try the Zeiss SF or FL. They both have better glass and much better CA control.
The Habicht 10x40 has much better CA control than the SFL 10x40 because it is a porro and porro's don't even need high-end fluorite glass to control CA like a roof prism does.
Last edited:
You're probably right because when you are younger you have more vision accommodation and less presbyopia, so your eyes can adjust more to less than perfect optics.
Thanks, Henry, for that objective testing, it supports my theories perfectly with substantiated results. The Zeiss are sharper than the Swarovski due to lower spherical and chromatic aberrations, as I have said all along!Threads like this are so discouraging to me. The OP has been here for 20 years and yet he is asking the same old newb questions and offering completely unsubstantiated newb answers snatched from thin air.
Nearly everything you need to know about how binoculars actually behave has been covered here multiple times by people who know what they're talking about (there's a search function for that.) More importantly for those who claim to be interested in evaluating optics, the methods for home testing many of the on and off-axis aberrations that plague binoculars have been explained many times and methods for measuring both full and stopped down resolution have been explained many times. Why is that so few of us actually do these things?
Here (I promise for the last time) is a photographic test of the true resolution of two binoculars and how the lower aberrations of one cause it to appear "sharper" even at large line pairs, much larger than what both binoculars can resolve and even for people with average eyesight acuity.
Victory HT 8x42
Hello, Visiting my son at London, after been with him at his PhD in Economics graduation in the EUI (European University Institute), Firenze, Italy, I made a visit at Harrods. Just to take a look at the place. As the last year, they have DEALS in binoculars. Two were VERY GOOD SALE offers...
Brands have nothing to do with what you see in the photos. Aberrations quite unrelated to binocular brand have everything to do with what you see. Almost everything about the aberrations that affect "sharpness" can be seen and explained with a boosted magnification star test and the true resolution itself can be accurately measured at boosted magnification for the full aperture and at smaller apertures to simulate the daylight observations. Please stop jawing in the dark and get to it!
That's all from me for now. Tropical Storm Debby brought a large oak tree down on our house and mostly destroyed it, so I'll be dealing with that for quite a while. Happily, no binoculars lost their lives.
I almost feel like Einstein must have felt when one of his theories was proved by experimentation.
Sorry, about the Oak tree hitting your house. We just had a lightning strike hit a big Ponderosa Pine in our backyard that was 20 feet from the house that drilled a hole in the ground and damaged our sprinkler system. Mother Nature is merciless.
"Even in these slightly degraded images, I think it’s obvious why the Zeiss image on the right at normal magnification looks “sharper” and "cleaner" than the Swarovski image on the left.
Not only does the Zeiss resolve higher spatial frequencies than the Swarovski, frequencies beyond anyone’s eyesight acuity, but it also looks sharper and higher contrast even at the lowest spatial frequencies on the chart that are easily resolved by both binoculars.
There is no trade-off here between low frequency contrast and high frequency resolution; the Zeiss is better at both, which is just what you would expect from an instrument with lower spherical and chromatic aberrations.
I also made images with both binoculars stopped down to 22mm to simulate bright daylight. Both show lower aberrations and reduced resolution when stopped down, but the Zeiss is still obviously better."
Attachments
Last edited:
Wow! That is pretty impressive. Stone-ground seems a little far removed from being ground with diamonds, but I guess a diamond is a stone, albeit a quite hard one.
Swarovski may grind their own glass, but they still buy the blank glass from Schott which is owned by Zeiss, so I bet Zeiss gets priority for the best glass in their binoculars.
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
You didn't quite get the point. You're just assuming that every Zeiss/Swarovski comparison will turn out this way. This comparison could have been done between any high aberration binocular and any low aberration binocular. Different Zeiss and Swarovski models or specimens could easily have produced the opposite result. To separate the sheep from the goats you'll have to learn how to test for aberrations, not brand names.
So sorry to hear that, Henry!!
Very best wishes to you, I‘m sure from everybody on the forum!
Canip
Conndomat
United States of Europe
What is much more important is that no people were harmed!
Henry, all the best from me too.
Andreas
Thotmosis
Well-known member
Ooof Henry, what a terrible story, take care and i really don’t know what to say…but if your house is mostly destroyed its a disaster!
Hopefully you and your loved ones are unharmed…the unharmed binoculars are an extra bonus. Take care, all the best from The Netherlands and God bless you.
It looks pretty conclusive to me! Different specimens aren't going to be that different unless Swarovski and Zeiss have totally lousy QC, and I doubt that very much since they check every one thoroughly for build quality and optics before leaving the factory, especially the alpha level binoculars.
A Lemon NL or SF just isn't going to happen. It is very, very unlikely. Not with the QC these two titans have in place. C'mon, let's get real here!
I have never bought a high-end alpha level binocular like an NL or SF and had consistency problems between any two samples, that would amount to a hill of beans. Now, MIC junk that costs less than $500 is another story.
You're dreaming if you think you could repeat the test and get totally different results. Swarovski and Zeiss have excellent QC, and it simply would never happen. Swarovski and Zeiss would laugh at you if you told them that!
Last edited:
Your response to the my statement regarding hearing and vision loss with age was an absolute and unequivocal:
You went on to expand on the variance of hearing and vision loss without clarifying that you didn't disagree with the hearing loss due to age part of the statement.
Your post was poorly worded and you didn't clarify until after my reply.
I see more people with glasses than hearing aids. I falsely assumed there was a greater variance in people with vision loss than people with hearing loss, hence my statement.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Ok, I thought that was clear with my reference to the hearing aids?!
Yes, there are probably more people with a visual impairment than with a hearing impairment, but on the other hand there are many people who have a hearing impairment but do nothing about it.
IMO it also has to do with the fact that we pay more attention to the sense of sight than the sense of hearing, and there are also legal templates that make a hearing aid regulation much more difficult to achieve, hearing aids are much more expensive than glasses.
But overall it seems to be related to lifestyle that the eyes are more stressed.
Andreas
ArchStanton
Well-known member
I was at a local burning event and stopped by the Swarovski booth and asked if they use Schott glass, and they said they do and it is made to their specifications. They then grind, polish, and add their proprietary coatings.
Last edited: