My brother-in-law was in law enforcement, and he was a crack shot. He used to sit for hours with a penny balanced on his pistol sight to train his body to be steady, so you do have a point about training your body to be steady. It does come with practice.
-
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 do Leicas have more CA than Swarovski or Zeiss? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
1x and .5x are way different than the difference between 8x and 10x. It all depends on how steady you can hold your binoculars. But I will bet the average person can hold an 8x 20% steadier than a 10x, so in that case the 8x will out resolve the 10x.
norway
š»FPš»
Can you explain how that affects resolution specifically, and how such an effect would actually offset the 25% increase in magnification that 10X provides over 8X? š¤
If you can hold your binoculars steadier, it increases the resolution. Try reading a resolution chart handheld and then mount your binoculars on a tripod, and you will see that even at 8x there is a big increase in resolution. I would say most people are going to be able to hold an 8x 20% steadier than a 10x. Don't underestimate 8x because even though 10x has greater magnification you have less resolution because you are not as steady.
Canon 10x42 IS L Tripod vs hand-held vs IS testing
Today I had some time to start my part of the hand-held vs tripod-mounted vs Image-stabilized resolution testing. For the sake of clarity, I decided to start a new thread rather than post this into the existing 8x25 IS thread. David, maybe you could summarize your tests from that thread and post...
www.birdforum.net
Last edited:
First of all: how steady you can hold a binocular is actually independent of the magnification. And completely rock steady is practically impossible. With low magnification the speed and amplitude of the shakings of the image is small. The eye can then compensate and follow the movements enough good.
The higher the magnification - the more difficult it becomes to do it. At some point you hardly gain at all by increasing the magnification because you become so tired by a heavily shaking image. But I don't think 8x in any case makes you see more details than 10x. 25% higher image scale means 25% more details to be revealed, so despite more shakings you will see at least a bit more.
BUT: when it comes to a situation when it's on the verge that you cannot see a detail, stabilization or support can be helpfull even with so low magnification as 5x. Then 8 or 10x would make it without stabilization despite a higher amplitude and speed of the shakings.
So here it's about how high magnification you can manage to make gain by without becoming exhausted. The answer to that question depends on how stable you are able to hold the binocular. Which is individual.
The higher the magnification - the more difficult it becomes to do it. At some point you hardly gain at all by increasing the magnification because you become so tired by a heavily shaking image. But I don't think 8x in any case makes you see more details than 10x. 25% higher image scale means 25% more details to be revealed, so despite more shakings you will see at least a bit more.
BUT: when it comes to a situation when it's on the verge that you cannot see a detail, stabilization or support can be helpfull even with so low magnification as 5x. Then 8 or 10x would make it without stabilization despite a higher amplitude and speed of the shakings.
So here it's about how high magnification you can manage to make gain by without becoming exhausted. The answer to that question depends on how stable you are able to hold the binocular. Which is individual.
It is interesting that the 50mm Ultravids have the best CA rating of the UVHD's according to Allbinos - that's what I thought too. It wasn't that bad in the 10x50's I tried. The CA rating is the most useful part of Allbinos for me.
The only bino I now have with any significant CA is the 10x35 E2's. It's only visible in the middle in difficult situations in bright sun. It does bother me, but it's also the cheapest of my new binoculars, by far, so I don't worry about it too much. It was less that half the cost of a color-free EDG and 25% the cost of my 8x42 SF's.
The only bino I now have with any significant CA is the 10x35 E2's. It's only visible in the middle in difficult situations in bright sun. It does bother me, but it's also the cheapest of my new binoculars, by far, so I don't worry about it too much. It was less that half the cost of a color-free EDG and 25% the cost of my 8x42 SF's.
Some birders don't realize that there is a big advantage to having a heavier binocular when it comes to shaking. It is a physical principle called inertia. Something with more mass takes more energy to get it moving or shaking.
Last edited:
But there is still some CA in the center on the 10x50 UVHD's and CA in the Swaro 10x50's are almost invisible. Edge CA doesn't bother me as much as CA in the center because unlike the edge, you can't avoid seeing it and it can reduce resolution.
I was never a fan of the EII 10x35's like I was the EII 8x30. They just didn't wow me in the same way. Interesting that you say they have CA in the middle because porros usually are devoid of CA, and they don't need ED glass either. How are your SF's for CA?
How detrimental is CA in Hunting Binoculars
Hello, planning on buying some (expensive for me) mid-priced binoculars. The primary use will be scouting/hunting...
| "CA is most evident anytime you're viewing high contrast surfaces juxtaposed against one another. It is seen as a color fringe (usually yellow or purple, in my experience) along the edges of dark objects against a light background, or vice versa. The degree to which you see CA also depends on how defined the high contrast edge between dark and light is, and how much ambient light is present. It doesn't matter whether the background is sky, snow, or whatever, it's merely an issue of high contrast, dark against light. Some CA is present in most optics to varying degrees, simply because different wavelengths (colors) of light don't converge at the same focal plane when light passes through lenses, however optics with ED (extra-low dispersion... also sometimes referred to as HD, FL, APO, etc.) glass types, lens elements, or optical design minimize this dispersion so that CA is effectively reduced to the point it isn't noticeable in all but the most severe conditions. Does it matter? That depends on how picky you are, what the intended use of the optic is, how much fine detail you wish to discern in normal viewing, and how sensitive your eyes are in seeing CA. I don't like excessive CA, and I can readily see it. CA reduces apparent sharpness/resolution, so, for example, if you wish to evaluate fine antler detail like kicker points on deer, CA can reduce your ability to see small details in certain circumstances. However, it honestly doesn't inhibit the usefulness of the optic the majority of the time, other than the image quality isn't as sharp and pleasing to the eyes as it would be with CA well-controlled. Low CA is much less important in a rifle scope than it is in binoculars, where you're doing a lot of glassing. Having absolutely no CA whatsoever under any circumstances is neither essential nor technically possible. I look at it this way: CA, like any all aberrations, reduces image quality. All else being equal, I want the least amount of optical aberrations possible without having to pay a fortune to get it. Realizing there are tradeoffs between the good and bad in everything and that there's no such thing as absolute perfection in any optic, I'm willing to live with some small amount of CA if the optic is excellent in other respects, but low CA is one of my "wants" in any optic. I'm much more picky about image quality in binoculars, which are used to search for and evaluate things, and which I spend way more time peering through than I am in a rifle scope, which is first and foremost an aiming device. Different people have different priorities. The only way to know if a given optic meets your expectations for CA or any other undesirable optical trait is to spend time looking through it." |
| Ted |
Last edited:
Try reading a resolution chart with any 8x on a tripod or using an IS 8x like the Canon 8x20 IS and then try reading it with a normal 10x. You will see more detail with the 8x because it has much greater resolution when held steady.
You're correct that it depends on how steady each individual can hold their binocular, but even if you can only hand hold an 8x 20% steadier than a 10x, I will bet the 8x will give the 10x a run for its money in resolution.
Birders THINK they can see more detail with a 10x, but they are actually just seeing things BIGGER, they are not seeing more detail.
Last edited:
tenex
reality-based
Hmm... new theme of the month?
... ... ...
Yes, I know everybody always says that you can see more detail with 10x versus 8x and I agreed with them in the past, but I am beginning to wonder if it is true. With 10x, you have 25% more magnification and objects are bigger, but can you really see more detail?
You can read words easier because they are bigger, but are you seeing more detail? Are you seeing more detail on the bird, or is it just bigger?
With 10x, you have moved 25% closer to the object, but is the resolution of the binocular higher or the same. Then you have the fact that most people are shaking more with 10x than 8x, so that is going to decrease resolution also. Unless you can hold 10x very steady, you will be able to see more detail with an 8x.
"Hereās a little test you can take to compare 8x versus 10x binoculars. Tack a dollar bill on the wall about 20 feet away and try to read the serial number. Start with a 10x binocular. Oftentimes, youāll shake so much that the task is nearly impossible. Next, take up an 8x. And while youāll still notice some shake, youāll notice that the movement in the 10x is exponentially greater.
Itās important to understand that just because the image is bigger doesnāt mean you can verify detail. So the truth is, if you canāt hold a 10x binocular steady, you will actually get better results in the field with an 8x. The advantages of a larger image are sometimes not practical because your every movement is also magnified."
Last edited:
The CA in the 10x35 E2 is a little worse than the 8x30's and the older 10x35 E. However they're still excellent optics IMO, very bright and sharp and wide field and easy eye placement. Not sure how the CA happened, the focal length looks longer than the E version. It's no big deal, I like them much better than the E version. You can view the bright Moon and it looks really clean with very little ghosting or scatter.
I probably wouldn't mind the CA in the 42mm UVHD's either, however once you've paid that much you don't want to see it
The 8x42 SF's only show a little CA at the very edge of the FOV, where there's also distortion. Totally color-free in the center 90-95% of the FOV as far as I can see. There's less color and distortion at the edge in the 8x32 SF's. I would have cropped off the outer 5% of the FOV in the 8x42 SF's. That would have also helped with the blackout issue which is the Achille's heel of the SF line. Big problem in an otherwise perfect bino IMO. They are not alone in having that problem either
There is probably more CA in 10x35 E2 because of the higher magnification. Yes, you pay a lot for Leica's, and you don't expect to see CA. When you increase the FOV as much as Zeiss did in the SF 8x42 and Swarovski did in the NL 8x42 it creates a lot of other problems like black-outs, difficult eye placement and glare because of the WA eyepiece. I would just as soon have an 8 degree FOV without all those other problems. I think 8 to 8.4 degree is about perfect.The CA in the 10x35 E2 is a little worse than the 8x30's and the older 10x35 E. However they're still excellent optics IMO, very bright and sharp and wide field and easy eye placement. Not sure how the CA happened, the focal length looks longer than the E version. It's no big deal, I like them much better than the E version. You can view the bright Moon and it looks really clean with very little ghosting or scatter.
I probably wouldn't mind the CA in the 42mm UVHD's either, however once you've paid that much you don't want to see it
The 8x42 SF's only show a little CA at the very edge of the FOV, where there's also distortion. Totally color-free in the center 90-95% of the FOV as far as I can see. There's less color and distortion at the edge in the 8x32 SF's. I would have cropped off the outer 5% of the FOV in the 8x42 SF's. That would have also helped with the blackout issue which is the Achille's heel of the SF line. Big problem in an otherwise perfect bino IMO. They are not alone in having that problem either
tenex
reality-based
Why do you like to just talk round and round in simplistic circles? All this has been dealt with on multiple occasions before, and there is no possible benefit to slogging through it all over again as if you were new here.
One expects to see some CA in some circumstances in any binocular. If Leicas have more than you like, choose another. I have a 20-yr-old BN and can arrange a demonstration of CA in the outer field if I try, but normally never even notice it. Why are you so bothered?
The important word here is "unless", since (unlike you?) some obviously can. It varies individually, and might even improve with practice. Repeating yourself doesn't add anything of further value, it only obliges others to do so as well... or find the Ignore button.
Why do you like to just talk round and round in simplistic circles? All this has been dealt with on multiple occasions before, and there is no possible benefit to slogging through it all over again as if you were new here.
You're the one that keeps bringing the same topics up again and again. Do you not understand my explanation the first time? Obviously not.
One expects to see some CA in some circumstances in any binocular. If Leicas have more than you like, choose another. I have a 20-yr-old BN and can arrange a demonstration of CA in the outer field if I try, but normally never even notice it. Why are you so bothered?
Wrong. Zeiss FL's, Zeiss SF's and Kowa Genesis have no CA in the center. All Leicas do. That is what bothers me, and that is what the thread is about. Some people are very bothered by CA like me because it decreases the quality of view, especially if it is in the center. You are one of the lucky few that aren't.
The important word here is "unless", since (unlike you?) some obviously can. It varies individually, and might even improve with practice. Repeating yourself doesn't add anything of further value, it only obliges others to do so as well... or find the Ignore button.
I doubt if anybody can handhold 10x as steady as 8x unless you are a robot, and that is my point. For most people, 8x will outperform 10x in the field because what you gain in detail with 10x you lose because of shake and loss of resolution.
dries1
Member
Dennis I think there are many who do not see CA on axis in Leicas all the time, perhaps under certain conditions. Make sure you qualify it as "I see CA" not a blanket statement of "all Leicas do" implying that all will see CA with Leica.
Saul Alinsky's tactics of repeating statements over and over does not make all in eventual agreement.
Saul Alinsky's tactics of repeating statements over and over does not make all in eventual agreement.
tenex
reality-based
norway
š»FPš»
Wait, so now increased detail means decreased resolution? š¤
The CA is there in Leicas in the center. You may or may not see it depending on how sensitive you are to CA, but that doesn't mean it is not there. CA in Leicas is like this old philosophical question. How would you answer it?
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is a philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and perception.
Similar threads
