Why are Zeiss so sharp on-axis compared to other binoculars? (3 Viewers)

[NDhunter]

Henry, your testing is well done and you are appreciated for your efforts. Sorry to hear about your
storm damage, and I recall a year or 2 ago saying how I wished you would miss a storm that passed
through your area. The Nikon 8-16x40 binocular you use for boosting is interesting. I had one, and it
went on permanent loan to Brock. Nikon during that period did many things very well with porros, even
the case.
That binocular would be a nice discussion. Sorry, this is a bit off topic, but I wonder how many know
about that binocular.
Jerry

 

[tx2ad]

I recently had a debate with a colleague.

I said that since we all are going through a process called „aging“ (I think), with a predictable effect on the sharpness of our eyes, we ought to buy cheaper and cheaper binoculars over time, everything else is utter waste. Therefore the advice to younger forum members should be „buy the best binoculars you can afford while you are young“.

He disagreed. His point: since our eyes are deteriorationg over time, we ought to buy better and better (likely more expensive) binoculars -as we do with stronger and stronger glasses - to compensate the loss of sharpness in our eyes.

I found that a ridiculous argument. Any comments?

I agree with your colleague. Basing this on my own personal experience.

When I was young, I had preternatural, almost bionic vision. I never met any other person that could see more detail at any distance with their naked eyes than I could. I would look through various (low end to mid level) binoculars and hand them back to the owner and say: I can see more with my naked eye, why I would use those.

Eventually, my sister got me the Nikon ATB 10x25. I started to want to use them, and I was starting to see better with them than I could without them.

Many years later, I started birding. Then, I really started getting presbyopia and needing glasses to read.

The Nikons started to give me a terrible view. Was it age of the unit? Did I drop them and not remember and something needed fixing? I tried out brand new units - same experience.

I now use an SFL 8x40. I think the NL my spouse has is also very nce, but I prefer my SFL.

I have demoed a LOT of binoculars in the last 16 months (but nowhere nesr the total number you have tried) I have trouble with lower price and quality glass, but I can see almost as well as when I was young so long as I out a good piece of glass in front of my eyes.

 

[Maljunulo]

I am probably older than most folks on here, and I have had bilateral cataract surgery, so I have lens implants, and zero power of accommodation.

With the ability to compensate for my refractive error simply by use of the focus knob, I see astonishingly well when using binoculars. I am fortunate to have no significant astigmatism.

My vision and my binoculars are an absolute delight to me at this stage of my life.

 

[Patudo]

NatureLover's results and mine may not differ as much as it seems. He is using his subjective sense of what constitutes "extremely sharp", which I know from what he has said is quite different from mine.

This almost - almost - interests me enough to want to attempt to duplicate NatureLover's tests; however, being happy with the sharpness, or at least central sharpness, of pretty much every binocular I own, I'm not sure how productive it'd be to embark on "a determined search for flaws" (to paraphrase Maj of this parish).

I get that it is interesting to know which binoculars are objectively superior in terms of absolute resolution, but that is likely so far beyond my ability to see that it's immaterial. It's kinda like having a rifle that can, in the hands of a marksman, shoot tiny groups - the rifle may be capable of it, but the average to below average shot (me) isn't.

 

[Dennis Mau]

This almost - almost - interests me enough to want to attempt to duplicate NatureLover's tests; however, being happy with the sharpness, or at least central sharpness, of pretty much every binocular I own, I'm not sure how productive it'd be to embark on "a determined search for flaws" (to paraphrase Maj of this parish).

I get that it is interesting to know which binoculars are objectively superior in terms of absolute resolution, but that is likely so far beyond my ability to see that it's immaterial. It's kinda like having a rifle that can, in the hands of a marksman, shoot tiny groups - the rifle may be capable of it, but the average to below average shot (me) isn't.

You can see the difference in on-axis resolution between binoculars if you compare them back to back. If you have a way to boost the image, take some pictures through your camera of a few of your binoculars and post them. The new phones have excellent camera and by digiscoping it would be very interesting to see the differences. It might surprise you.

 

[Maljunulo]

If you can’t see the difference ….. it’s irrelevant.

 

[Rg548]

In a direct comparison between HT and SF 8x42 over a period of time I preferred the HT in every way, except perhaps handling. Sharper, better contrast and colours, also brighter but that doesn't concern me too much. Of course the usable FOV is less but it's not an issue for me. SFs always look a bit 'dulled' to me in terms of their contrast and colour, and they are missing both blue and red to some extent compared to the very best in my opinion. The sharpest 8x42 I have ever looked through is my current one - a Leica Noctivid. The colours and contrast are also a cut above the SF, with the penalty of a tiny bit more lateral CA unless you get your eye position exactly right.

In a direct comparison between HT and SF 8x42 over a period of time I preferred the HT in every way, except perhaps handling. Sharper, better contrast and colours, also brighter but that doesn't concern me too much. Of course the usable FOV is less but it's not an issue for me. SFs always look a bit 'dulled' to me in terms of their contrast and colour, and they are missing both blue and red to some extent compared to the very best in my opinion. The sharpest 8x42 I have ever looked through is my current one - a Leica Noctivid. The colours and contrast are also a cut above the SF, with the penalty of a tiny bit more lateral CA unless you get your eye position exactly right.

This may well be the 'little extra' that AK offers. The gap is coming down, but to my eyes, the AKs still offer that 'something special'
I've never tried Noctovids, as being a Leica fan, I figure this could be an expensive foray!!!!
But I am so pleased with my HT's in every way, that I really can't justify the 'upgrade' if it is one!!

 

[hopster]

This may well be the 'little extra' that AK offers. The gap is coming down, but to my eyes, the AKs still offer that 'something special'
I've never tried Noctovids, as being a Leica fan, I figure this could be an expensive foray!!!!
But I am so pleased with my HT's in every way, that I really can't justify the 'upgrade' if it is one!!

I also think A-K prisms provide something beyond S-P prisms and closer to Porros but many here don't seem to agree with me. I'm not just talking about brightness.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I also think A-K prisms provide something beyond S-P prisms and closer to Porros but many here don't seem to agree with me. I'm not just talking about brightness.

I think AK prisms provide something beyond an SP prism also. There is something about my FL 7x42 that is special. It has an almost 3D view like a porro, but part of that could be due to the better DOF of the 7x magnification.

 

[NatureLover123]

I am probably older than most folks on here, and I have had bilateral cataract surgery, so I have lens implants, and zero power of accommodation.

With the ability to compensate for my refractive error simply by use of the focus knob, I see astonishingly well when using binoculars. I am fortunate to have no significant astigmatism.

My vision and my binoculars are an absolute delight to me at this stage of my life.

I wish that I will still have +100% vision at your age.

Good to hear that you enjoy the enhanced vision with your binoculars. I hope it will last forever.

 

[Maljunulo]

I wish that I will still have +100% vision at your age.

Good to hear that you enjoy the enhanced vision with your binoculars. I hope it will last forever.

Thank you.

 

[NatureLover123]

I did another boost test with… both SFs in both directions:

Well „extremely sharp“ is a bit overrated. But you can focus them to lets say okayish sharpness for 100x. The small difference in sharpness in both tubes I will try to mitigate with the diopter, but the difference in the motion of the focus wheel is so super small, that I would probably make it worse with the diopter. So I keep it as it is. We can say the difference in both tubes is negligible. The diopter is probably more rough than the focus wheel.

Thanks for the hint, I noticed a very good collimation at 100x with the SF 10x42 (around 4 years old and in my service) but it felt slightly less with the SF 10x32 (new and in service since February this year). But I don‘t notice it with normal usage. No fatigue. I keep an eye on it, if the collimation changes over time. I hope that the double bridge is stiff enough for 30 years. I only want to send it to Zeiss, if really necessary.

Well my 32 gets more used, because it’s so amazing in almost all circumstances.

I was unable to get a digiscoped picture successfully, with this setup. I would need a second tripod and less coffee.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I wish that I will still have +100% vision at your age.

Good to hear that you enjoy the enhanced vision with your binoculars. I hope it will last forever.

If you just need Cataract surgery when you get older, rest assured that you will have excellent vision after the surgery. The success rate is almost 98%.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I did another boost test with… both SFs in both directions:

Well „extremely sharp“ is a bit overrated. But you can focus them to lets say okayish sharpness for 100x. The small difference in sharpness in both tubes I will try to mitigate with the diopter, but the difference in the motion of the focus wheel is so super small, that I would probably make it worse with the diopter. So I keep it as it is. We can say the difference in both tubes is negligible. The diopter is probably more rough than the focus wheel.

Thanks for the hint, I noticed a very good collimation at 100x with the SF 10x42 (around 4 years old and in my service) but it felt slightly less with the SF 10x32 (new and in service since February this year). But I don‘t notice it with normal usage. No fatigue. I keep an eye on it, if the collimation changes over time. I hope that the double bridge is stiff enough for 30 years. I only want to send it to Zeiss, if really necessary.

Well my 32 gets more used, because it’s so amazing in almost all circumstances.

I was unable to get a digiscoped picture successfully, with this setup. I would need a second tripod and less coffee.

Thanks, for the testing! It is nice to know that there is negligible difference in resolution in both tubes with the SF at 100x boosted. Also, it sounds like the collimation was very good at 100x. If you ever pick up another tripod, it would be fascinating to see some digiscoped pictures at 100X, especially if you could compare two different brands of binoculars. I also like my SF 10x32. It is so much lighter and smaller than the SF 10x42 yet at least in the daytime I don't feel like I am missing anything the SF 10x42 would provide.

 

[Maljunulo]

I did another boost test with… both SFs in both directions:

Well „extremely sharp“ is a bit overrated. But you can focus them to lets say okayish sharpness for 100x. The small difference in sharpness in both tubes I will try to mitigate with the diopter, but the difference in the motion of the focus wheel is so super small, that I would probably make it worse with the diopter. So I keep it as it is. We can say the difference in both tubes is negligible. The diopter is probably more rough than the focus wheel.

Thanks for the hint, I noticed a very good collimation at 100x with the SF 10x42 (around 4 years old and in my service) but it felt slightly less with the SF 10x32 (new and in service since February this year). But I don‘t notice it with normal usage. No fatigue. I keep an eye on it, if the collimation changes over time. I hope that the double bridge is stiff enough for 30 years. I only want to send it to Zeiss, if really necessary.

Well my 32 gets more used, because it’s so amazing in almost all circumstances.

I was unable to get a digiscoped picture successfully, with this setup. I would need a second tripod and less coffee.

I'm a bit confused on how your test assesses collimation.

 

[NatureLover123]

I'm a bit confused on how your test assesses collimation.

By looking with the binocular that is handheld through both tubes of the other binocular that is mounted on the tripod. 😂 And by moving your head 10-40cm away from the exit pupils (the focused object was a bright part of a tree around 2km away).

I can then see if the focused object will become doubled or not or how far away you need to move until its „doubled“. With the 42 it never got doubled and with the 32 on the tripod it moved slightly into „doubled“ before the exit pupils got so small, that the focused part of the tree got bigger than the aligned exit pupils of the hand holded 42, that’s quite far away for 100x.

When I move from the exit pupils of the 32 unboosted away, then it looked always perfectly collimated.

 

[Maljunulo]

Okay. I had no idea.

Thanks

 

[Patudo]

I also think A-K prisms provide something beyond S-P prisms and closer to Porros but many here don't seem to agree with me. I'm not just talking about brightness.

I honestly cannot see the difference between Abbe-Koenig prisms (or porros for that matter) vs. Schmidt-Pechan myself - but can certainly believe others do, as my brother believes he sees a little more contrast with Abbe-Koenigs (but not porros). I mainly use porros myself, and my brother almost exclusively uses a Swaro 8.5x42 Fieldpro, so we really ought to talk up our own gear in approved Birdforum fashion. But try though I might, I just can't see the difference. Some of the very best binoculars I have ever tried - Swaro NLs, the 10x50 and 8.5x42 SVs, the 8x42 Noctivid - have been Schmidt-Pechan. (I don't really perceive "3D" in porros either!)

I truly wonder if some kind of blind test (the same chassis with S-P vs A-K prisms) could be arranged for our "discerning" readership, what the results would be.

 

[Canip]

I truly wonder if some kind of blind test (the same chassis with S-P vs A-K prisms) ….

… and the same glass, same AR coatings, similar craftsmanship on the prisms, etc etc - looks like a challenge
I think we therefore just have to believe if someone says he or she can see a difference in contrast between S-P and AK (I don‘t, and I have a hard time believing )

 

[dorubird]

… and the same glass, same AR coatings, similar craftsmanship on the prisms, etc etc - looks like a challenge
I think we therefore just have to believe if someone says he or she can see a difference in contrast between S-P and AK (I don‘t, and I have a hard time believing )

yes, I think we will see differences even where we shouldn't see them. When two identical binoculars are presented to us as different, the psychological effect tells us that there must be a small difference...