Yet another review of the 8x40 SFL (1 Viewer)

[Ted Y.]

Microcontrast is the Big Foot and Fairy dust of Photography it seems....

It seems? But is it?
Another forum is not a proof.

With Binoculars we don't have an image artifact to objectively compare to the original.

What is the relevance of this?

 

[Troubador]

Contrast affects the amount of perceive details,
thus I find it slightly peculiar that some can describe the contrast of a binocular as "too high".

I guess it can't be higher than the actual scene that is viewed?
Perhaps some prefer a slightly softer view of the harsh reality?

Agreed!

Lee

 

[Vespobuteo]

It seems? But is it?
Another forum is not a proof.

I guess the debate is if the term is really needed when we already have resolution and contrast etc.
Maybe we could agree that it's about tonal and spatial resolution?

What is the relevance of this?

The subjective element.

I can't post my view in a binocular so that other people can look at it and see what I see.

But I can post images taken with a Leica lens or whatever lens and compare them.

 

[Ted Y.]

Maybe the correct term is microcontrast, maybe is acutance.

Resolution means separating power and sharpness is a more generic and subjective term similar to clarity for me. I use the term "sharpness" or "clarity" when I want to sum up contrast and resolution together.
For example SF 10x42 and EL 10x42. Both give a general impression of high sharpness (good resolution and contrast), but only in comparison I noticed some difference between them: it can be seen that the sharpness of the EL is mainly given by the contrast and the sharpness of the SF is mainly given by the resolution (power of separate very fine details). So SW EL 10x42 has a higher contrast than the Zeiss SF 10x42, and SF has a higher resolution than the EL, but yet they are comparable in terms of sharpness.

No one else tested binoculars with a high contrast and a very good resolution versus very good contrast and high resolution?

I am curious what the people doing photo and also using binoculars think about this.

 

[Paultricounty]

I’m enjoying the SFL discussion and I didn’t want to hijack the discussion so I posted a new discussion on where this thread was headed.


Paul

 

[GrampaTom]

I’m enjoying the SFL discussion and I didn’t want to hijack the discussion so I posted a new discussion on where this thread was headed.


Paul

Where?

 

[Troubador]

Where?

Resolution sharpness and contrast.

Lee

 

[SeldomPerched]

Microcontrast is the Big Foot and Fairy dust of Photography it seems....

Micro Contrast, Is It a Myth?: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

Contrast is at least based on a scientific definition so I'll stick to that term.

"image fidelity" might be a better general term to use with a slight problem.

With Binoculars we don't have an image artifact to objectively compare to the original.

What was the question btw?
🤣

EDIT: As expected , the term "micro contrast" first occurs in the photographic community in a Leica Lens Mythology dedicated page 1997:

Older M lenses | LEICA

photo.imx.nl

Our late departed friend Erwin Puts, I see. Very detailed as expected, and understandably quite heavy-going as I suppose optical physics is bound to be.

 

[Paultricounty]

Where?

Where?

Sorry Tom, that would’ve been helpful. In binocular forum heading , Resolution, sharpness and contrast.
Paul

 

[b-lilja]

I'm just proud to have hosted the start of a new rabbit hole!!!

 

[Maljunulo]

I'm just proud to have hosted the start of a new rabbit hole!!!

Yes, but remember that fame is fleeting. 😊

 

[Robert Moore]

Zeiss will fit in Leica leather pouch if anyone is interested. With objective covers and rain guard on. This is the pouch for 7x42 BN.

 

[Aquaplas]

What the guys think about the Rubber Coating on the SFL. It is more sticky than the coating from the SF. Will it hold for a Longe time?

 

[b-lilja]

Yes.

 

[Richard D]

What the guys think about the Rubber Coating on the SFL. It is more sticky than the coating from the SF. Will it hold for a Longe time?

Always difficult to predict how rubber or even synthetic armour will last. I don't know what the warranty is like on these (10years?), but I presume if there's a problem within the warranty period the armour would be replaced.

 

[Aquaplas]

Always difficult to predict how rubber or even synthetic armour will last. I don't know what the warranty is like on these (10years?), but I presume if there's a problem within the warranty period the armour would be replaced.

10 years is on the Glass. The Armor warranty is by Zeiss only 2 years.

 

[Richard D]

10 years is on the Glass. The Armor warranty is by Zeiss only 2 years.

You should be okay, but that's a poor warranty.

 

[Paultricounty]

You should be okay, but that's a poor warranty.

In North America it lifetime on optical defects and 1 year on rubber armor.

 

[dries1]

With all the future regulations, all binos will have armor comprised of.......?. Hold onto your 10 year old glass, the armor will last more than a lifetime.

 

[Aquaplas]

For me it feels like the same Material than the rubber from the Conquest HD?!? Or?