Why do Leicas have more CA than Swarovski or Zeiss? (2 Viewers)

[[email protected]]

Wait, so now increased detail means decreased resolution? 🤔

To simplify it, the resolution you gain with 10x over 8x in observing detail is often negated by the increase in shaking at 10x, but it is dependent on how much you shake. For that reason, for a lot of people, an 8x will actually outperform a 10x in the field when handheld.

Binocular Resolution Testing w/USAF Charts - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights

Page 1 of 4 - Binocular Resolution Testing w/USAF Charts - posted in Binoculars: I finally pulled out my USAF Lens Resolution Testing Charts and performed a series of tests on various pieces of equipment. These charts are line pairs and as I mentioned in another thread, the result cannot be...

www.cloudynights.com

"It’s important to understand that just because the image is bigger doesn’t mean you can verify detail. So the truth is, if you can’t 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."

 

[dries1]

Dennis something is missing alright, CA on axis in a newly acquired Leica Trinovod HD. It is a great feeling not to be affected by CA and glare.

 

[dorubird]

So the truth is, if you can’t hold a 10x binocular steady, you will actually get better results in the field with an 8x...

then you will have problems with 8x binoculars also...and you need 7x, and so on!!!!
But if you are quite stable, the 10x vs 8x advantage is visible. You don't even have to choose details beyond the resolution limit of the binoculars to see the 10x advantage. You only need some very coarse details, that the 8x binoculars also resolve, to realize that a 10x bino resolves them much easier with all the movement. More practice doesn't hurt!

About CA
It is about the implementation of correction lenses in an optical system with much more complex implications than it seems at first glance. Even the simplest optical system raises complex optical problems. It requires serious optical knowledge, not at the level of: "who has more ED, FL lenses is better". Chromatic aberrations are not solved so simply, and it is a very harmful approach for understanding the functioning of binoculars. For example, a simple misalignment in the eyepiece lenses can induce chromatic aberrations even in APOcrhomat instruments, no matter how much many fluorite lenses or ED has! Another interesting aspect is that, at the same optical quality, the bigger the objective lens, the more difficult it is to reduce chromatic aberrations (again I emphasize that with the same mechanical and optical qualities of the glass)

[email protected]​

I noticed your attempt to better understand how binoculars work. Very good! But at the same time, I notice that you are very indecisive and confused, which is shown by the fact that you still have unanswered questions and jump from one extreme to another in explanations. I also notice that you want to find the ideal binoculars for you, very good!...but it seems that you haven't found it yet, and I really fell sorry for you! Your searches are normal, but there comes a time when "should rest" and enjoy more the good parts of the binoculars that you have. You tend to see more the weaknesses of the binoculars without enjoying their qualities. You are a BinoPessimist If you only look at the weaknesses more than at qualities, you will never find your favorite binoculars, because absolutely all binoculars have weaknesses (yes, this is a true!). We have to accept weaknesses for the sake of qualities. Everyone must makes their choice by themselves and not by others, what a weakness to choose or not, but after that it's good to "close the file" ! We have to "fall in love" with our binoculars without these little things influence that can spoil the experience. It's like being fell in love with a woman, but wondering "why she has black hair, because I don't like black!?"... It's good to be satisfied with what we like, otherwise the dissatisfied one will have the gift taken away. I hope you really love your Zeiss 10x40 and Zwaro 8x56!

 

[Will K]

I've been using Leica for the first time this autumn, after replacing my Vortex Razor scope with a new APO Televid. Moving from the Razor to the Televid has vastly reduced the CA in my spotting scope experience, but a very slight effect is still there. I didn't see any CA when I first used the Vortex, however, and it is something that grew in my perception over time. Maybe the Leica's CA will become more obvious the more I use it.

 

[norway]

To simplify it, the resolution you gain with 10x over 8x in observing detail is often negated by the increase in shaking at 10x, but it is dependent on how much you shake. For that reason, for a lot of people, an 8x will actually outperform a 10x in the field when handheld.

I like 8X for some situations, while I prefer 10X in others.

For some people under some conditions, it might be possible to get more perceived "resolution" (again, this is poorly-defined) at somewhat lower magnification, but there's a lack of evidence to categorically state: “For most people, 8x will outperform 10x”

However, I can categorically state that — at least for me, personally, under the present outdoor conditions — there is noticeably more resolving power at all ranges when handholding my 10x42 than my 8x42 Ultravids. In the most unmistakable example, it's just possible to distinctly and clearly read every individual letter stamped into a clay pot at 10X, whereas 8X is not simply able resolve them sufficiently to be certain. Likewise, fine textures and small details are without question better-resolved at higher power, and 10X keeps the trees, boathouses, boats, etc. along the coastline distinct to a significantly longer range, as well as giving more visual information at equal ranges.

Although they're fantastic for other reasons, I would personally not choose 8X in situations where resolution is my main priority — at least not for my eyes and hands.

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis something is missing alright, CA on axis in a newly acquired Leica Trinovod HD. It is a great feeling not to be affected by CA and glare.

I wish I didn't notice CA. I never used to, but then I started looking for it, and now I can see it instantly. So I guess the lesson learned is not to look for it.

 

[[email protected]]

I've been using Leica for the first time this autumn, after replacing my Vortex Razor scope with a new APO Televid. Moving from the Razor to the Televid has vastly reduced the CA in my spotting scope experience, but a very slight effect is still there. I didn't see any CA when I first used the Vortex, however, and it is something that grew in my perception over time. Maybe the Leica's CA will become more obvious the more I use it.

It really takes a while to learn to see CA. Some people never see it, just like some people never see glare. I am one of the unfortunate few that see both. A good way to see CA is to use a binocular like a Leica with a lot of CA for a while and then go to a Zeiss FL or Kowa Genesis with no CA, and it will really be an eye-opener.

You will notice immediately how much cleaner the view is through the Zeiss or Kowa and how much whiter the whites are and how the blacks are much truer black with no color aberrations in them and when you look at something black against a white background there will be no color fringing instead there will be a crisp sharp separation of black and white.

 

[dries1]

Dennis you are surly entitled to your opinion, however it is not law or universal fact.

 

[Scott98]

One thing about CA I've learned from astronomy discussions is that it's not worth getting too far into the weeds on these arguments about CA in refractive optics. It is indeed the difference between peoples' eyes and vision that create different perceptions and everyone can be right while stating different things.

CA tends to be blue/purple/violet in color. As we age, the lenses in our eyes gradually develop opacity and it acts to make things look more yellow. I'm talking about cataracts. If the opacity gets bad enough nowaways, you can have surgery to replace the clouded lens with a new synthetic one.

These changes act as a weak blue filter. So - in general - older eyes cannot pick up the blue or violet halo anymore. And then there's varying degrees of color blindness or color perception that is present throughout life and differs among individuals. So before getting too heated about things, realize that some people may indeed not see the CA that other people do see.

 

[norway]

You can read letters better because they are bigger and easier to see with 10x, but that doesn't necessarily mean the resolution is higher. It all depends on how much you shake and how steady you can hold 10x. Put your 8x on a tripod or use an 8x IS and try to read those letters on the pot, and then handhold the 10x and try to read them.

I will bet you can read the letters easier with the 8x on a tripod easier because you have increased your resolution about 30%. Resolution is very dependent on how much you are shaking.

Ok, how much you wanna bet? 🤔

Also, what’s the point of comparing a tripod-supported pair to handheld? One could just as meaningfully claim that a 10X on legs vs. handheld 8X gives 75% more “resolution” or whatever made-up number it is.

Or simply put them both on a tripod and the 10X will have a verifiable 25% advantage.

Regardless, the fact remains that under the same handheld conditions, 10X unquestionably resolves significantly more than 8X for me. Obviously they’re also superior when compared with tripod support.

 

[[email protected]]

One thing about CA I've learned from astronomy discussions is that it's not worth getting too far into the weeds on these arguments about CA in refractive optics. It is indeed the difference between peoples' eyes and vision that create different perceptions and everyone can be right while stating different things.

CA tends to be blue/purple/violet in color. As we age, the lenses in our eyes gradually develop opacity and it acts to make things look more yellow. I'm talking about cataracts. If the opacity gets bad enough nowaways, you can have surgery to replace the clouded lens with a new synthetic one.

These changes act as a weak blue filter. So - in general - older eyes cannot pick up the blue or violet halo anymore. And then there's varying degrees of color blindness or color perception that is present throughout life and differs among individuals. So before getting too heated about things, realize that some people may indeed not see the CA that other people do see.

I agree with that and also even our brains interpret things like CA differently. But that does not mean the CA is not there. It is there it is, just some people see it and others don't or they see it differently. Perception is very dependent from individual to individual.

 

[norway]

Yes — I’ve used tripods, bipods, monopods, image-stabilised optics, clamping devices, rucksacks, wall tops, fenceposts and many other vibration-reducing methods besides, and I’m well aware of their benefits.

Apologies for the somewhat personal question, but I do have to ask whether the consistent failure to comprehend what other people write is deliberate, or whether there’s something that causes you to genuinely believe that everyone else is somehow wrong? 🤔

 

[dries1]

 

[norway]

On what conceivable basis are you claiming that what I can clearly and quantifiably perceive with my own eyes is wrong?

Also, why are you assuming that a 25% increase in vibration amplitude matters, but a 25% in magnification doesn’t?

 

[Paultricounty]

The advantage in 10x over 8x in resolution is dependent on how steady you are. An 8x IS binocular, or an 8x on a tripod will out resolve a 10x handheld. Reducing CA is not as complicated as you describe. It is a matter of optical design and F ratios and eyepieces play a role, but the big players are ED glass and apochromatic lens systems and that is what has drastically reduced CA in modern binoculars because they help converge the different wavelengths of light into one focal point.

Since both Zeiss and Kowa use 2 ED elements in their objectives, and they have almost apochromatic performance as far as CA is concerned, that might be the key to reducing CA. It may be your weakness with the English language, but I find you just seem to ramble on and on without making a point. I laugh at you calling me indecisive, when that is exactly how I would describe your aimless ramblings. Your train of thought is not consistent or directed as you wander from one idea to the next in the same paragraph. I have a difficulty understanding what you are trying to say, honestly, and I understand English quite well.

I am not a pessimist, but I am just pointing out the fact that Leicas have more CA in general than other alpha level binoculars, and I am trying to understand why. You might call me a realist. I realize all binoculars have weaknesses, but some are definitely more perfect than others and especially when it comes to CA Zeiss and Kowas are more perfect than Leicas.

The problem here Dennis is twofold, one is you seem to read and pass over or dismiss everything that a few of the optical experts here are explaining to you, once everything has been explained in some of the posts, it seems like you just want to go on on, like you have nothing better to do. Maybe pick up a hobby, gobirding, take up Brazilian jiu-jitsu or kodokan Judo.

The second thing is you are clearly dismissing or denying that your eyesight has changed/degraded, and very likely is causing the sensitivities you’re having with glare and CA. I’ve went beck and read your some of your posts from ten years or so ago, and you didn’t have these issues with CA and glare in most binoculars , that were inferior to the ones your discussing here. Please have your eyes examined , maybe you need a tune up Lasik , then maybe you will come to the conclusion that’s it’s not the binoculars. That may save many of us your hundreds of posts in dozens of discussions. Thank you.

 

[[email protected]]

One thing about CA I've learned from astronomy discussions is that it's not worth getting too far into the weeds on these arguments about CA in refractive optics. It is indeed the difference between peoples' eyes and vision that create different perceptions and everyone can be right while stating different things.

CA tends to be blue/purple/violet in color. As we age, the lenses in our eyes gradually develop opacity and it acts to make things look more yellow. I'm talking about cataracts. If the opacity gets bad enough nowaways, you can have surgery to replace the clouded lens with a new synthetic one.

These changes act as a weak blue filter. So - in general - older eyes cannot pick up the blue or violet halo anymore. And then there's varying degrees of color blindness or color perception that is present throughout life and differs among individuals. So before getting too heated about things, realize that some people may indeed not see the CA that other people do see.

I agree, CA is very dependent on the individual. Interesting that as we age, things look more yellow. The eyes and the brain really affect our perception and everybody is different, especially when seeing CA. You're correct that color blindness also comes into play also. If you're color-blind, you probably won't even see CA.

 

[Jos Stratford]

A reminder folk, the topic is CA in binoculars.

 

[CharleyBird]

Be forewarned about glare in the NL 12x42, especially over bodies of water.

I own and use the NL 12x42 as my daily full size birding binocular. Over two years it has produced no glare for me whatsoever, used in all conditions that I encounter here in the UK, including over lakes and sea at sunrise & sunset.

 

[Scott98]

I agree, CA is very dependent on the individual. Interesting that as we age, things look more yellow. The eyes and the brain really affect our perception and everybody is different, especially when seeing CA. You're correct that color blindness also comes into play also. If you're color-blind, you probably won't even see CA.

It also depends how much you want to fetishize the "perfect" image. With astronomy refractor telesopes it's easy to check this - you increase the magification up to 300x and look at a bright star. You'll instantly see if there's any CA. A lot of planetary observation is routinely done at this level of magification. With low-power binoculars, there's a question of how much it shows up in regular use, and if people even care about it.

I don't mind tolerating a touch of CA. I used 8x42 Nikon LXL Premiers for 13 years that showed some CA on bright targets. It was fine, because I knew they only cost me $400 used. But once I paid a small fortune for EDG and Zeiss SF binos, I didn't want to see any CA. Someone paying more attention to birding goals may not even notice or care. A little CA in my 10x35 E2's is OK because the price was lower and I love the 21-ounce weight, the 35mm aperture, and the comfortable porro grip.