Why do Zeiss's alpha level binoculars like the FL and SF have some of the best CA control of any binoculars? (2 Viewers)

[Paultricounty]

I’m going to throw this in here and then back away a bit because I’m torn. On one hand, I think these magnified photos of aberrations are excellent ways to objectively measure, not with a definitive number, but with a definitive visual which are very telling in a specific manner. Speaking of CA, these photos literally measure which one is better than another, similar to how a resolution chart is used to see which binocular is superior in that area to another. To me, this is great because it tells me in a mechanically measurable way, which is better or which is superior as an optic, but on the other hand, this is misleading and can do a disservice to beginners or intermediates in the hobby.

The reason being, is these photos are not what’s seen by the naked eye in the real world on the ground. Back when I got started, if I saw the photo of CA in that Ultravid, I never would’ve bought one. In the beginning, some albino reviews kept me from even trying some binoculars, even without pictures. After buying and trying out the majority of all available Zeiss and Swarovski binos from $500 to $3000, I ventured to see what others were talking about Leica and Nikon pro and con, not withstanding Allbinos and quite a few opinions on forums like this. So the point I’m trying to make here, is if somebody were to look at photos like this of a Kowa genesis and a Leica UV or Noctivid, they may make the purchase based on seeing a blur of blue in a Leica in a magnified picture, buy the Kowa and think they are buying the superior Binocular in image quality, when that is so far from the truth. They may never see the beauty that has made me a huge fan of Leica and is my choice over the other the majority of the time. Of course, if someone is overly sensitive to CA, then these photos could be very important (I’d still say try before buying) but that’s the exception to the rule and 90% of the people are not overly sensitive to CA, and under 90% of observing conditions you barely see any CA in 8 x 42 Leica Noctivids or Ultravids.

 

[Maljunulo]

If you have to magnify the image, in order to see it, is it relevant?

Perhaps as an exercise in intellectual self-stimulation.

 

[Rg548]

I don't see the need to magnify these images to purposely look for problems.
Pick the binos up and make your own mind up which has less CA, or whatever other problem is on your radar at that time.
Sharpness tests also, if the naked eye cannot discern the difference, why magnify it, to try and see something you can't see!!!
It might be why I'm so happy with my binos, they are amazing, and i'm not trying to find a problem.

 

[Paultricounty]

If you have to magnify the image, in order to see it, is it relevant?

Perhaps as an exercise in intellectual self- stimulation.

Maljunulo, exactly what I was getting at, but you said it without two lengthy paragraphs. I also didn’t want to come off like I don’t like Jacks reviews and photos, or that I know more that he.

 

[Paultricounty]

I don't see the need to magnify these images to purposely look for problems.
Pick the binos up and make your own mind up which has less CA, or whatever other problem is on your radar at that time.
Sharpness tests also, if the naked eye cannot discern the difference, why magnify it, to try and see something you can't see!!!
It might be why I'm so happy with my binos, they are amazing, and i'm not trying to find a problem.

That’s one way of looking at it, definitely. For some who may think of themselves as optical geeks, it’s a way to definitively or objectively measure the optic at a higher level then the eye can see, if for no other reason, which is kind of cool. ✌🏼

 

[jackjack]

I’m going to throw this in here and then back away a bit because I’m torn. On one hand, I think these magnified photos of aberrations are excellent ways to objectively measure, not with a definitive number, but with a definitive visual which are very telling in a specific manner. Speaking of CA, these photos literally measure which one is better than another, similar to how a resolution chart is used to see which binocular is superior in that area to another. To me, this is great because it tells me in a mechanically measurable way, which is better or which is superior as an optic, but on the other hand, this is misleading and can do a disservice to beginners or intermediates in the hobby.

The reason being, is these photos are not what’s seen by the naked eye in the real world on the ground. Back when I got started, if I saw the photo of CA in that Ultravid, I never would’ve bought one. In the beginning, some albino reviews kept me from even trying some binoculars, even without pictures. After buying and trying out the majority of all available Zeiss and Swarovski binos from $500 to $3000, I ventured to see what others were talking about Leica and Nikon pro and con, not withstanding Allbinos and quite a few opinions on forums like this. So the point I’m trying to make here, is if somebody were to look at photos like this of a Kowa genesis and a Leica UV or Noctivid, they may make the purchase based on seeing a blur of blue in a Leica in a magnified picture, buy the Kowa and think they are buying the superior Binocular in image quality, when that is so far from the truth. They may never see the beauty that has made me a huge fan of Leica and is my choice over the other the majority of the time. Of course, if someone is overly sensitive to CA, then these photos could be very important (I’d still say try before buying) but that’s the exception to the rule and 90% of the people are not overly sensitive to CA, and under 90% of observing conditions you barely see any CA in 8 x 42 Leica Noctivids or Ultravids.

yes Kowa Genesis is much superior bino then Leica UV..... in terms of CA correction.
but as many knews, CA is just a one small part of choosing a bino. such as Brightness, color fidelity, distortion, edge sharpness, FOV, Ease of view... extra...

I'm very sensitive to abberatiom such as CA, Distortion, Edge sharpness extra. but I happly use Zeiss HT and Leica BN which is much inferior in those part compare to Swaro.
because they give me joy not by correcting those abberation but other things they do
such as HT for brightness, BN for pleasent creamy color.

also I guess I'm little more sensitive to color fidelity too. but one of my favorite porro is IOR 7x40 with dreaded yellow tint.
I ranked them super low in terms of color fidelity in my review but i use them happily because somtime I want it's yellowish view.

so. as you also know, not every people wants optically perfect bino (there are no such thing as perfect, but I'd say just close to.)
it's bino's characteristics not perfection of abberation and color fidelity which drew people to buying them.

also talking about color fidelity, Many 2~300$ MIC bino have been overcoming color fidelity of 'coloe hue bino' such as Nikon EDG, E2, SE MHG, HGL, Kowa Genesis, Leica BN, UV, NV.

but does it mean 200$ MIC bin have better color so all of the people shoud get those instead of the bino I listed?
of course not!


I'm not posting Leica's CA to harass all the advantage Leica have.
I have post those because we are talking about CA this time.
If I really want to keep people away from buying leica, I would post other disadvantages too.
but It will not be successful if I intend to do, because people don't by leica for superior abberation control or enormous field of view.

As I am also one of the Leica user, I agree that leica get less benefit from Photo compared to Swarovski because of it's CA, Edge blur, distortion.

it's impossible to tell ruggedness and comfort of view that leica have with any method except for viewing it at real world.

 

[jackjack]

If you have to magnify the image, in order to see it, is it relevant?

Perhaps as an exercise in intellectual self- stimulation.

as I said above, real view is about x4~5 time bigger then digiscoped photo.

 

[Dennis Mau]

only for centeral CA


8 power

NL 8x32
NL 8x42
SF 8x42
Opticron Aurora 8x42
EL 8x32
FL 8x32

10 power

NL 10x32
NL 10x42
Kowa genesis 10x33
EL 10x32
EL 10x42
SF 10x42

haven't seen 10 power FL

Very interesting. Do you have any results for edge CA? That seems to be the CA that is difficult to control. Thanks!

 

[jackjack]

Very interesting. Do you have any results for edge CA? That seems to be the CA that is difficult to control. Thanks!

I'm not 100% sure about it
one thing I'm sure is that Swarovski EL & NL, Zeiss sf 8x42, SRBC is not on this rank even if I expend the rank to 10

they can be under rank 10 is I rank central CA between binos I have seen

EDGE

8 power

Oberwerk 8x32 SE
Zeiss TFL 8x32
Bushnell legend M 8x42
Nikon EDG 8x42

for 10 power

Kowa genesis 10x33
Zeiss SF 10x42
Zeiss FL 10x32
Bushnell Legend M 10x42
Bushnell Forge 10x42

 

[Paultricounty]

yes Kowa Genesis is much superior bino then Leica UV..... in terms of CA correction.
but as many knews, CA is just a one small part of choosing a bino. such as Brightness, color fidelity, distortion, edge sharpness, FOV, Ease of view... extra...

I think you missed my point. I was referring to someone buying the Kowa, thinking it’s an overall superior (better) binocular than the Leica, which it’s not. It’s only better in the area of CA, under the worst case observing scenario, because under 90%+/- conditions the user won’t see CA in the Leica. My point was the magnified pictures could influence the buyer to buy the lesser optical quality bins because of the photo.

I'm very sensitive to abberatiom such as CA, Distortion, Edge sharpness extra. but I happly use Zeiss HT and Leica BN which is much inferior in those part compare to Swaro.
because they give me joy not by correcting those abberation but other things they do
such as HT for brightness, BN for pleasent creamy color.

That makes my point, it’s about the overall image that brings joy to the user, not , I have to have the binoculars that don’t show CA under magnification of the image that I can’t see under normal use.

also I guess I'm little more sensitive to color fidelity too. but one of my favorite porro is IOR 7x40 with dreaded yellow tint.
I ranked them super low in terms of color fidelity in my review but i use them happily because somtime I want it's yellowish view.

I have an early BAK-4 Bushenell Rangemaster (just before the newer yellow corrected silverline version, improved coatings) and we can easily see a yellow color hue, but wow, are these things sharp and show minute details that much more modern and expensive bins don’t even come close. Not to mention a 10° field of view with a gradual soft fall off.

so. as you also know, not every people wants optically perfect bino (there are no such thing as perfect, but I'd say just close to.)
it's bino's characteristics not perfection of abberation and color fidelity which drew people to buying them.

also talking about color fidelity, Many 2~300$ MIC bino have been overcoming color fidelity of 'coloe hue bino' such as Nikon EDG, E2, SE MHG, HGL, Kowa Genesis, Leica BN, UV, NV.

Color hue as the ones you describe (I have all of those except the BN) I believe are an intended characteristic to make the image have more color saturation, contrast, softer (in a good way) image as apposed to some that are super sharp and more to the blueish spectrum, are more fatiguing on the eyes over long observing sessions. The cheap MIC stuff with color hue is more a product from the lack of quality and most likely not intended for beneficial purposes.

but does it mean 200$ MIC bin have better color so all of the people shoud get those instead of the bino I listed?
of course not!


I'm not posting Leica's CA to harass all the advantage Leica have.
I have post those because we are talking about CA this time.

I know that ✌🏼🙏🏼.

If I really want to keep people away from buying leica, I would post other disadvantages too.
but It will not be successful if I intend to do, because people don't by leica for superior abberation control or enormous field of view.

Exactly, many buy Leica because of the incredible delicious image quality, a more immersive feeling to the image circle, better and more enjoyable panning characteristics, not to mention overall build quality and material feel 😉.

As I am also one of the Leica user, I agree that leica get less benefit from Photo compared to Swarovski because of it's CA, Edge blur, distortion.

it's impossible to tell ruggedness and comfort of view that leica have with any method except for viewing it at real world.

That’s what it’s all about. To me the central saturated contrasty image quality of Leica supersedes a flat edge, or wider FOV and better CA correction in those 10% of observing conditions it rears its ugly head. I love using my NL’s and EL’s and Habicht’s, but on very sunny days , observing for hours on end, give me an EDG or a Leica Ultravid and I’ll go home and not have eyestrain or a headache 🤭✌🏼

 

[Dennis Mau]

I’m going to throw this in here and then back away a bit because I’m torn. On one hand, I think these magnified photos of aberrations are excellent ways to objectively measure, not with a definitive number, but with a definitive visual which are very telling in a specific manner. Speaking of CA, these photos literally measure which one is better than another, similar to how a resolution chart is used to see which binocular is superior in that area to another. To me, this is great because it tells me in a mechanically measurable way, which is better or which is superior as an optic, but on the other hand, this is misleading and can do a disservice to beginners or intermediates in the hobby.

The reason being, is these photos are not what’s seen by the naked eye in the real world on the ground. Back when I got started, if I saw the photo of CA in that Ultravid, I never would’ve bought one. In the beginning, some albino reviews kept me from even trying some binoculars, even without pictures. After buying and trying out the majority of all available Zeiss and Swarovski binos from $500 to $3000, I ventured to see what others were talking about Leica and Nikon pro and con, not withstanding Allbinos and quite a few opinions on forums like this. So the point I’m trying to make here, is if somebody were to look at photos like this of a Kowa genesis and a Leica UV or Noctivid, they may make the purchase based on seeing a blur of blue in a Leica in a magnified picture, buy the Kowa and think they are buying the superior Binocular in image quality, when that is so far from the truth. They may never see the beauty that has made me a huge fan of Leica and is my choice over the other the majority of the time. Of course, if someone is overly sensitive to CA, then these photos could be very important (I’d still say try before buying) but that’s the exception to the rule and 90% of the people are not overly sensitive to CA, and under 90% of observing conditions you barely see any CA in 8 x 42 Leica Noctivids or Ultravids.

"Of course, if someone is overly sensitive to CA, then these photos could be very important (I’d still say try before buying) but that’s the exception to the rule and 90% of the people are not overly sensitive to CA, and under 90% of observing conditions you barely see any CA in 8 x 42 Leica Noctivids or Ultravids."

Where did you come up with those percentages? I have never read anywhere where it says that 90% of the people are not overly sensitive to CA, and what people? I would bet birders are more sensitive to CA than the normal population as a subgroup because we are aware of it. Under 90% of observing conditions, you barely see any CA in 8x42 Leica Noctivids or Ultravids. Who is you? If you is me, I certainly see CA in 8x42 Leica Noctivids and Ultravids and much more than I see in a Zeiss SF or FL.

You don't have to see CA for it to affect the view. CA can affect the view in other ways besides obvious color fringing, and you might notice the edges of buildings are blurred without seeing any obvious color fringing and not even know what is causing it. jackjack has shown with his excellent pictures that the NV is very poor for CA control. When I had the NV 8x42 I saw CA especially on the edge and I am not oversensitive to it.

You have to face reality that the NV's are NOT the best binoculars for CA control, BUT they are good at a lot of other things, like color saturation. As jackjack says, no binocular is perfect, and they all have their good and bad points. CA control in an NV is a bad point, but that doesn't mean it is a bad binocular. Same way with people. The binoculars people own are like their kids, and you don't want to admit they have bad points because they are your kids. The NV's have a lot of good point though and because of those good points you may like them best.

Chromatic aberration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jackjack]

I think you missed my point. I was referring to someone buying the Kowa, thinking it’s an overall superior (better) binocular than the Leica, which it’s not. It’s only better in the area of CA, under the worst case observing scenario, because under 90%+/- conditions the user won’t see CA in the Leica. My point was the magnified pictures could influence the buyer to buy the lesser optical quality bins because of the photo.

That makes my point, it’s about the overall image that brings joy to the user, not , I have to have the binoculars that don’t show CA under magnification of the image that I can’t see under normal use.

I have an early BAK-4 Bushenell Rangemaster (just before the newer yellow corrected silverline version, improved coatings) and we can easily see a yellow color hue, but wow, are these things sharp and show minute details that much more modern and expensive bins don’t even come close. Not to mention a 10° field of view with a gradual soft fall off.

Color hue as the ones you describe (I have all of those except the BN) I believe are an intended characteristic to make the image have more color saturation, contrast, softer (in a good way) image as apposed to some that are super sharp and more to the blueish spectrum, are more fatiguing on the eyes over long observing sessions. The cheap MIC stuff with color hue is more a product from the lack of quality and most likely not intended for beneficial purposes.

I know that ✌🏼🙏🏼.

Exactly, many buy Leica because of the incredible delicious image quality, a more immersive feeling to the image circle, better and more enjoyable panning characteristics, not to mention overall build quality and material feel 😉.

That’s what it’s all about. To me the central saturated contrasty image quality of Leica supersedes a flat edge, or wider FOV and better CA correction in those 10% of observing conditions it rears its ugly head. I love using my NL’s and EL’s and Habicht’s, but on very sunny days , observing for hours on end, give me an EDG or a Leica Ultravid and I’ll go home and not have eyestrain or a headache 🤭✌🏼

for the first paragraph, that you say I missed the point, I was half jocking 😀
Have compared Kowa genesis 10x33 with Leica UV 10x32.

Kowa excels at Distortion, CA, Edge sharpness but overall Leica UV is a better bino.

I think Leica is the most sustainable bino at the market.
Best build quality and best AS (at least here in South Korea)

yellowish hue is made by dropping purple blue, and bit of green transmission compared to yellow, orange spectrum.
if intended, it help to reduce eyestrain and enhance color satuation and contrast at sunny days then more bluish ones.
but imhaving similar color bias doesn't mean they have similar texture of color.

such as around 2010 MIC bins emphasize yellow + orange same as Leica UVHD.

and recent MIC bins tend to reduce yellow light and spare more purple and blue. making bit reddish but lot better in color fidelity.
and Fujinon HC & Vortex Razor UHD have very similar bias

but lot is diffrent in actual.


I was traveling through Europe early this August. Day was much brighter then South Korea enough for me to miss my EDG 😀

many bino have different times and ways to shine.
looking through BN 7x42 at early sunset was the best experience Leica gave to me 😀

 

[Dennis Mau]

If you have to magnify the image, in order to see it, is it relevant?

Perhaps as an exercise in intellectual self-stimulation.

jackjack's picture's show aberrations at the upper limit and sometimes beyond the limit of normal eyesight, but what you have to remember is not everybody's eyesight is the same, and we all don't see CA to the same degree. Some people that are very sensitive to CA will notice it when others don't so that is why these pictures that rate CA at a very high level are important.

When a binocular has high levels of CA, a lot of people may not even detect the CA, but they will notice something is wrong with the view. They might notice blurring around the edges of branches without even knowing it is CA because there is no obvious color fringing. I firmly believe that is why the Zeiss FL has one of the best on-axis views around of past and present binoculars because of lack of CA and other aberrations.

 

[Paultricounty]

"Of course, if someone is overly sensitive to CA, then these photos could be very important (I’d still say try before buying) but that’s the exception to the rule and 90% of the people are not overly sensitive to CA, and under 90% of observing conditions you barely see any CA in 8 x 42 Leica Noctivids or Ultravids."

Where did you come up with those percentages? I have never read anywhere where it says that 90% of the people are not overly sensitive to CA, and what people? I would bet birders are more sensitive to CA than the normal population as a subgroup because we are aware of it. Under 90% of observing conditions, you barely see any CA in 8x42 Leica Noctivids or Ultravids. Who is you? If you is me, I certainly see CA in 8x42 Leica Noctivids and Ultravids and much more than I see in a Zeiss SF or FL.

I should’ve said approximately, you got me. I think I must’ve took a cue from you and many of your posted with definitive numbered quotes, sorry. I would agree that I see more CA in the aforementioned Leica’s than I do the Zeiss FL, SF and most Swaros. But under the majority of my observing it’s not intrusive in the center or where it catches my eye the majority of the time. And in those worst case scenarios that I do see it in the Leica’s, I can also spot it in the Zeiss and Sworos. I observe many times throughout the week with the groups from 8 to 80, many are birders, Some are photographers and some are novices. I can’t remember more than one or two times that anybody commented that the CA was bad in the Leica’s.

You don't have to see CA for it to affect the view. CA can affect the view in other ways besides obvious color fringing, and you might notice the edges of buildings are blurred without seeing any obvious color fringing and not even know what is causing it. jackjack has shown with his excellent pictures that the NV is very poor for CA control. When I had the NV 8x42 I saw CA especially on the edge and I am not oversensitive to it.

Yes they are excellent pictures and very enjoyable reviews. Yes CA doesn’t necessarily have to be observed to degrade an image to some degree. But we’re talking about low magnification optics. And I can assure you when doing side-by-side comparisons visually with multiple people looking at the same objects , Nobody saying they can’t see the same amount of detail on an object from a noctived or a
sf. It’s certainly been proven that you have some highly visual sensitivities that I would wager the majority of people under 50 or older don’t experience.

You have to face reality that the NV's are NOT the best binoculars for CA control, BUT they are good at a lot of other things, like color saturation. As jackjack says, no binocular is perfect, and they all have their good and bad points.

Exactly, just like the Zeiss and Swaros have their faults, I’m glad we agree.

CA control in an NV is a bad point, but that doesn't mean it is a bad binocular. Same way with people. The binoculars people own are like their kids, and you don't want to admit they have bad points because they are your kids.

That’s more you and some others , not me. I like them all, I just like the image in Leica more, mostly.

The NV's have a lot of good point though and because of those good points you may like them best.

Chromatic aberration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dennis Mau]

I don't see the need to magnify these images to purposely look for problems.
Pick the binos up and make your own mind up which has less CA, or whatever other problem is on your radar at that time.
Sharpness tests also, if the naked eye cannot discern the difference, why magnify it, to try and see something you can't see!!!
It might be why I'm so happy with my binos, they are amazing, and i'm not trying to find a problem.

You're not purposely looking for problems, but rather to see how different binoculars compare to each other without having to look through a hundred binoculars yourself. All these objective and subjective tests that all the reviewers and websites do are very helpful in that they help you choose a binocular without having to try them. Most people do not have access to a wide variety of binoculars to try, so by having websites like Allbinos you, can reduce your choices and narrow down your selection.

Say you want a binocular with low CA because CA bothers you. Just select a few binoculars that scored well for CA on their tests, and then try them yourself. jackjack's pictures are immensely helpful because they tell the truth about a binocular's characteristics and possible weaknesses. In essence, all these tests just point you in the right direction in your binocular search without trying dozens of binoculars, and sometimes they unearth a hidden gem of a binocular for $500 that compares well with a $2000 binocular.

 

[Paultricounty]

jackjack's picture's show aberrations at the upper limit and sometimes beyond the limit of normal eyesight, but what you have to remember is not everybody's eyesight is the same, and we all don't see CA to the same degree. Some people that are very sensitive to CA will notice it when others don't so that is why these pictures that rate CA at a very high level are important.

When a binocular has high levels of CA, a lot of people may not even detect the CA, but they will notice something is wrong with the view. They might notice blurring around the edges of branches without even knowing it is CA because there is no obvious color fringing.

But not so much on true high end bins.

I firmly believe that is why the Zeiss FL has one of the best on-axis views around of past and present binoculars because of lack of CA and other aberrations.

Of course except for the edges, that some people hate the FL distortion 😉✌🏼

 

[The Kingfisher]

First let me be clear, I was referring to the 8x42 Noctivids, I do see considerably more CA in the 10x, which is unfortunate. But I’ll stick with my opinion that under those harsh conditions where CA is clearly evident in the Nocs, the Swaros and Zeiss will show CA as well. I wouldn’t put M7 near the Nocs, I used four of them, two 10’s and two 8’s and each one had different levels of CA.

I see more veiling glare in UV’s than I do in EL’s. Go figure.

I totally agree. The Noctivid 8x42 does not handle CA perfectly, but I think it handles CA well in most birding situations. I am rather sensitive to CA, but CA is not an issue with the Leica Noctivid. The old Nikon HGL was hard to use because of disturbing CA everyware you looked, but that is not the case with the Noctivid 8x42. As you say..in some situations/lighting CA can be rather prominent in the Noctivid 8x42, but so it also is in many other binoculars (Nikon EDG 8x42 to name one). Leica Noctivid 8x42 is not perfect, but a very very good binocular. Zeiss SF and Swarovski NL Pure are not perfect either..and according to me they loose to the Leica Noctivid when I compare over 20 different things wich are important in a binocular. My favourite binocular is still Nikon EDG 8x42, but maybe with time it could be the Leica Noctivid 8x42. Time will tell.. 🙂

 

[Paultricounty]

I totally agree. The Noctivid 8x42 does not handle CA perfectly, but I think it handles CA well in most birding situations. I am rather sensitive to CA, but CA is not an issue with the Leica Noctivid. The old Nikon HGL was hard to use because of disturbing CA everyware you looked, but that is not the case with the Noctivid 8x42. As you say..in some situations/lighting CA can be rather prominent in the Noctivid 8x42, but so it also is in many other binoculars (Nikon EDG 8x42 to name one). Leica Noctivid 8x42 is not perfect, but a very very good binocular. Zeiss SF and Swarovski NL Pure are not perfect either..and according to me they loose to the Leica Noctivid when I compare over 20 different things wich are important in a binocular. My favourite binocular is still Nikon EDG 8x42, but maybe with time it could be the Leica Noctivid 8x42. Time will tell.. 🙂

We’ll said, better than I did 😀✌🏼

 

[agus_m]

Anyway, why couldn't Leica just correct the CA in the top binos? I get it that the non flat, small FOV, high contrast, red hue and high distortion image has its appeal. On the other hand, nobody likes CA.
Nowadays, even the chinese SRBC has way less CA than the top Leica bino like Jackjack showed, while having a wider field, better corrected, etc. Cutaway images show that Leicas have roughly the same amount of lens elements like Swaros or Zeiss. What's stopping them from matching glass types, using achromatic doublets in the eyepieces, etc. to reduce CA? I feel like they could leave all those "features" I mentioned above that appeal to certain users intact, while having ample margin to remove CA, any ideas?

 

[Paultricounty]

Anyway, why couldn't Leica just correct the CA in the top binos? I get it that the non flat, small FOV, high contrast, red hue and high distortion image has its appeal. On the other hand, nobody likes CA.

I’ve been saying the same thing for some time. They did improve edges , which was another complaint by some. They do use field flatteners now on the Nocs and it’s somewhere between an EL and an UV, but no panning issues, Leica nailed it on that.

Nowadays, even the chinese SRBC has way less CA than the top Leica bino like Jackjack showed, while having a wider field, better corrected, etc. Cutaway images show that Leicas have roughly the same amount of lens elements like Swaros or Zeiss. What's stopping them from matching glass types, using achromatic doublets in the eyepieces, etc. to reduce CA? I feel like they could leave all those "features" I mentioned above that appeal to certain users intact, while having ample margin to remove CA, any ideas?

I concur 👍🏻