Zeiss SF - Allbinos review (1 Viewer)

[Chosun Juan]

The trouble is glare robs the view of contrast and colour, familiarity with an SV means a user may become immune, only when going to a binocular like the HT with virtually no glare are you reminded how clean a view can look.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2349208&postcount=1


This thread was started by Dennis a few years ago where he rightly praises the edg, he also posted a review of the edg, where he declared it the equal of the Fl and better than the SV due to lack of RB, nowhere, not once did he mention it was "dark", he just bombarded us with how brilliant it was.

John, I would agree with that - all that lost transmission light (that doesn't include the losses reflected off the front of the objectives), whether it be reflections, refractions, transmutations or absorption throughout the optical train Has to go somewhere ....... in the best bins, some of that may be redirected harmlessly outside of the exit pupil, or more or less contained within the baffling - the rest though, goes into degradation of the image, no matter how minute the quantum may be.

Familiarity with one's own bins will introduce a user confirmation bias in its glare handling abilities - not to mention colour rendition and brightness ! |8.| |8)| (o)<

Hahaha :-O ..... It's amazing how fickle the winds of change are ...... searching for supporting statements, reviews, opinions, and data, likewise can result in an increasingly tenuous grip on (other peoples ! reality !! :bounce:

I think the only solution is for dennis to purchase a 10x42 SF and an EDG and an HT to compare to his 10x50 SV over at least a year (no 30 day return flash in the pans to cover all seasons and conditions (and throw in a 10x42 MHG when they come out too) .... it's time to put this drama to bed once and for all ........ :gn:


Chosun :gh:

 

[[email protected]]

"I think the only solution is for dennis to purchase a 10x42 SF and an EDG and an HT to compare to his 10x50 SV over at least a year (no 30 day return flash in the pans to cover all seasons and conditions (and throw in a 10x42 MHG when they come out too) .... it's time to put this drama to bed once and for all ........ ":gh:8-P

HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU THINK I HAVE?:eek!:

I have actually compared all those binoculars side by side but really not for a long enough time to make valid comparison.

 

[Chosun Juan]

Ed,

Henry, Tibias, and apparently Arek, have used a camera to attempt to record the illustrate the colour bias of binoculars. It's clearly not without it's technical difficulties, but nevertheless, Henry and Tobias at least have shown clear differences are evident when the images are placed side by side, even though some apparently can't actually spot it when using the actual binoculars. I agree analysis of sampling and experimental error would be most useful, but so would a method to translate those spectra into a viewable colour. Clearly it's possible as the CIE point on your plots show, but unfortunately the actual parameters listed are incompatible with any colour rendering program I've found. Have you got something better?

Just to add to the colour palate. Wouldn't those Swifts look brown? *wink*

David

Hi David,

Yes, I agree with you, but I think such a color bias rendering (i.e., computing) program would necessarily require both the physical input spectrum and the human luminosity functions to work with. Keeping in mind there are individual differences in the luminosity functions within the population, as mentioned above, the resultant images would still not be definitive for everyone.

Apart from that, I think a database of numerical transmission vectors would be valuable for a range of purposes, including assessments of:

• Inter-tube differences
• Inter-specimen differences
• Coating change effects
• Product differences
• Brightness assessment
• Output (luminance) color bias
• Perceived color bias prediction
• Validation of other methods

Regarding the last point, rather than arguing about camera-based methods for assessing color bias, the numerical data could provide an opportunity to explain/validate more objectively what these output images represent. From my perspective, camera image manipulations are simply human perception simulators (or models), where hopefully the resultant screen patches illustrate the color bias a typical observer would consciously perceive looking through the instrument. Easy to say, not so easy to prove, particularly if the proffered images are accompanied by statements by the authors that this is what they see. I don't buy into using their perceptions as standards, so something more objective is needed.

I'm gonna think a bit more about that "brown" thing, since it sounds suspiciously similar to Chosun's hallucinations about the SLC HD. *angel grin*

Ed

Question: Returning to the Allbinos' report, it seems that the transmission measure of the SF was the max value of the curve, wherever it was located. Is that correct? I can't find it anymore, but I thought Arik had said that he took an average across all the frequency bins.

Ed, David,

I would agree that tables of raw data would be useful, as unless the colour transformations are as a result of normalizing a data point to a reference level as detected by a sensor, then some level of human influence is creeping into the process even if it is just with respect to human luminosity functions - themselves derived from population sampling and raw data. So while such things may be applicable to a 'normal' population and even the outliers among it, I can't help but feel that raw transmission data tables and individual interpretation by each of us, would give us a much more useful understanding and less potential circular conversations by some! (d----- ) here on the forum.

As adhoc questioned, and harking back to my reference about my own "David Bowie" eyes, a percentage? of the population will have colour differences between each eye greater than we see between different brands and models of binoculars. There was a thread here somewhere on BF some time back, where I recall quite a few of us exhibited the trait. How prevalent it is in the wider population, I don't know. However, the thought has occurred to me right this very second ! :king: , that when grilling the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED (in the OCD manner that any good BF poster would ! a few years back, was when my own individual eye colour casts came to light ...... blue/green left eye, golden/orangy-brownish right eye ..... A recent eye test has confirmed what I long suspected - deterioration in the resolution of the right eye (which also seems to me to suffer from 'dark' pix, and reduced field - despite tests showing none of that), and thinking about this, Monet, age related yellowing, and David's suggestion of a possible brown tint to the Swift, and Ed's good natured jibes about the robustness of my mental faculties ! :bounce: :-O , I have the strong notion, to the point of putting it out there as a possible hypothesis that ...... "Apart from actual colour rendition differences between each of an individual's eyes, that other colour differences - particularly the emergence or increase in strength of a golden/orangy/brownish tint, could be due to 'ageing' of that eyeball in advance of the other one" ..... Eureka-type moment ?! :king: even if only for me ! :-O

From memory (I would have posted the exact details in the thread), my ~2011 Swift had a creamy-yellowish tint to it - I'm sure it was well over 90% transmission though (so may have had different, more recent coatings to the one Ed presented in the test data (2005).

Ed, the SLC thing is quite perplexing ?? :cat: ..... I will be the first to admit that acclimation bias (with reference to both colour rendition differences and field characteristics, and hence juxtaposition with the parts of my own eyeball/visual information that my brain suddenly recognised) may have played a part in my perceptions, as I only viewed them after a long long day gorging on an optical feast of SV's and HT's. However, looking at the published transmission graphs for those 3 models (particularly by Gijs), I am puzzled that the magnitude of differences I saw, particularly re SV/HT vs the SLC are not reflected in the transmission graphs ????

When the opportunity arises in a few months to A/B them and more all again, I will be sure to look at the SLC first just for you! :loveme: o


Chosun :gh:

 

[paddy7]

Been watching from the sidelines, but i'm starting to think there's a Doctorate waiting for someone here.....the faint whiff of 'new science'....

 

[typo]

What you think you see, right or wrong, is all that really matters in the long run.

True..... unless you are tempted to share those views.

David

 

[paddy7]

True..... unless you are tempted to share those views.

David

Which would be why all reviews - whether by Allbinos, or Kimmo, or Cornell, or the Porters - are more signposts than absolutes. If your particular desire is for a CA-free view, or a flat field, or high resolution, a reading of two or three reviews will narrow your list. Triangulation of evidence would come into play, which i suspect is how most punters operate.
Then of course you have to go and look through them, with whatever physiology/psychology you carry with you.....
It is in the nature of the publishing of research that the methodology or the veracity of results will be as much open to debate as the conclusions. This of course is healthy and worthwhile and an essential part of academic questioning. Whether that is enough to overcome an individual's subjective attraction to a particular set of optics is another matter though!

 

[Troubador]

True..... unless you are tempted to share those views.

David

Well we can all try to share those views subject to the limitations of our vocabulary and how articulate we may be. The trouble starts when we expect others to see the same thing and get hot and bothered when they don't.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

Which would be why all reviews - whether by Allbinos, or Kimmo, or Cornell, or the Porters - are more signposts than absolutes. If your particular desire is for a CA-free view, or a flat field, or high resolution, a reading of two or three reviews will narrow your list. Triangulation of evidence would come into play, which i suspect is how most punters operate.
Then of course you have to go and look through them, with whatever physiology/psychology you carry with you.....
It is in the nature of the publishing of research that the methodology or the veracity of results will be as much open to debate as the conclusions. This of course is healthy and worthwhile and an essential part of academic questioning. Whether that is enough to overcome an individual's subjective attraction to a particular set of optics is another matter though!

Well said Paddy, well said.
Must be the result of that Adnams's beer you have down there..

Lee

 

[paddy7]

Well said Paddy, well said.
Must be the result of that Adnams's beer you have down there..

Lee

Well, to my buds, (the beer review equivalent of the 'to my eyes' used in optics reviews) Adnams isn't the bitter it was in the 1970s/80s - now the Chaucer Bitter at the Green Dragon in Bungay is another matter entirely; i do 75 miles per gallon on that!

 

[Troubador]

Well, to my buds, (the beer review equivalent of the 'to my eyes' used in optics reviews) Adnams isn't the bitter it was in the 1970s/80s - now the Chaucer Bitter at the Green Dragon in Bungay is another matter entirely; i do 75 miles per gallon on that!

Actually I quite agree. I first tasted it in September 1973 and was knocked out by the shear fragrance and body of it. When staying near last years Bird Fair I had ahem, a few of Adnams and also visited Walberswick for the first time in a couple of decades and had some more and although it was still a great pint, as you say, it isn't the same.

I will keep a look out for the Chaucer Bitter: but never mind the mpg, whats your 0 - 60 ?

Lee

 

[elkcub]

Ed, David,

1. From memory (I would have posted the exact details in the thread), my ~2011 Swift had a creamy-yellowish tint to it - I'm sure it was well over 90% transmission though (so may have had different, more recent coatings to the one Ed presented in the test data (2005).
   
2. Ed, the SLC thing is quite perplexing ?? :cat: ..... I will be the first to admit that acclimation bias (with reference to both colour rendition differences and field characteristics, and hence juxtaposition with the parts of my own eyeball/visual information that my brain suddenly recognised) may have played a part in my perceptions, as I only viewed them after a long long day gorging on an optical feast of SV's and HT's. However, looking at the published transmission graphs for those 3 models (particularly by Gijs), I am puzzled that the magnitude of differences I saw, particularly re SV/HT vs the SLC are not reflected in the transmission graphs ????
   
3. When the opportunity arises in a few months to A/B them and more all again, I will be sure to look at the SLC first just for you! :loveme: o

Chosun :gh:

Hi Chosun,

It does sound like you've hit upon the answer, — your right eye. But note how easy it is to ascribe what you perceive to be a critical property of the instrument. And then, there's the sequence effect of having previously adapted to different instruments. The eye/brain is a great comparator but a poor judge of absolutes. This can be appreciated rather well in one of my favorite visual illusions show below. The squares marked A and B have the same RGB content but look quite different due to the surrounding context. Between adaptation and context effects I'm always suspicious of pictorial demonstrations. Graphs are also pictorial demonstrations. Go numbers!
:scribe:
Ed

 

[Vespobuteo]

Here is a comparison between camera lenses, Canon, Zeiss and Leica.
Obviously not science but still a bit interesting.

"The characteristics of a lens can infuse a mood, a style, etc. Being obsessed in the subtleties is key."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xapiFu5xcXI

 

[paddy7]

Actually I quite agree. I first tasted it in September 1973 and was knocked out by the shear fragrance and body of it. When staying near last years Bird Fair I had ahem, a few of Adnams and also visited Walberswick for the first time in a couple of decades and had some more and although it was still a great pint, as you say, it isn't the same.

I will keep a look out for the Chaucer Bitter: but never mind the mpg, whats your 0 - 60 ?

Lee

0-60 ML in abour .5 sec. The rest of the pint takes a little longer.:t:

 

[adhoc]

Chosun Juan, post #183. So now I realize that the difference between L and R eyes in me and in those who reported it (some time back) in this forum might be due what my, ah, relatively junior friends convey to me in these annoying words and a disturbing kind tone: "None of us is getting younger". But I wonder about age-related change of spectral sensitivity in both eyes together (I am sure there is a lot of material on that) as it relates to binoculars. It should be interesting to know if readers have noticed their perceptions of the color balance in some make of binocular, or differences in this among makes, changing over time, and maybe hence also their preferences. Perhaps this has been already dealt with at length in this forum.

 

[typo]

Adhoc,

The main spectral changes with age are due to increases in pigmentation in the lens, cornea and the macula leutea of the retina. Mostly thiis absorbs shorter wavelengths, primarily blocking the ultra violet, but progressively decreasing blue sensitivity. Usually this starts in our fourties but varies considerably between individuals. The other major factor is increased opacity in the various eye components, particularly the lens where it's called a cataract. While the general effect is to cause reduced contrast sensitivity in the early stages, it again affects shorter wavelengths more than longer ones. The list of rarer changes is quite substantial.

In theory at least, it seems likely that differences in the transmission, particularly at the shorter end of the spectrum would either be a beneficial or detrimental depending on the individuals condition. I've found nothing in the literature that's studied the relatively subtle spectral differences comparable to binoculars. My guess is that at some stage in the age progression, differences in binocular transmission will become increasingly pronounced, and be most evident in high glare situations or when the ambient light is red shifted such as sunset.

David

 

[adhoc]

Thank you, David, post #195. I hope that my phrase "as it relates to binoculars" was understood to mean "as it relates to the use of binoculars" which is how I really should have put it.

The scarcity (or lack) of publications on age-related or other variations in subtle spectral differences is suprising. I would have thought that the subject had been well studied. May be that for nearly any occupation where good vision is critical it is not a particularly important component in the overall effective discerning of detail? (The upper age limit for airline pilots is 67 years in Japan and 65 in the United States.) Maybe ornithology is a rare exception!

 

[Binastro]

I have seen slightly different colours in my two eyes since young. Particularly looking at green grass.
Lately my elderly eyes see other differences, particularly with binoculars.
This can also vary if one eye is more illuminated than the other before using a binocular. The shades seen through the binocular is then different with each eye.

My right eye until recently saw stars 0.5 magnitude fainter than my left eye.
It was also more sensitive to very faint surface brightness objects.
However, I could estimate stars with 0.1 magnitude difference either with a telescope or two unaided eyes. This is a 10% difference.
Some observers cannot estimate star brightness at all.

 

[etudiant]

I have seen slightly different colours in my two eyes since young. Particularly looking at green grass.
Lately my elderly eyes see other differences, particularly with binoculars.
This can also vary if one eye is more illuminated than the other before using a binocular. The shades seen through the binocular is then different with each eye.

My right eye until recently saw stars 0.5 magnitude fainter than my left eye.
It was also more sensitive to very faint surface brightness objects.
However, I could estimate stars with 0.1 magnitude difference either with a telescope or two unaided eyes. This is a 10% difference.
Some observers cannot estimate star brightness at all.

You are unusual in that you noticed and scrutinized the different left right performances of your eyes. Most don't, even though they have similar differences.
The different lens prescriptions for glasses give a hint of the range of variability, but afaik there is no routine testing for light sensitivity or color awareness. Astronomy is probably the hobby where light sensitivity self tests are most readily performed, photography maybe for color sense?

 

[paddy7]

You are unusual in that you noticed and scrutinized the different left right performances of your eyes. Most don't, even though they have similar differences.
The different lens prescriptions for glasses give a hint of the range of variability, but afaik there is no routine testing for light sensitivity or color awareness. Astronomy is probably the hobby where light sensitivity self tests are most readily performed, photography maybe for color sense?

I think this can be more noticeable in the use of a scope. Last winter on a prolonged sea-watch, i thought it might be useful to be more 'ambi-ocular,' rather than always using my left eye. It was quite difficult to do, but i was quite surprised how much brighter the image was with my right. This seemed to be a consistent outcome as i swapped from right to left, after getting the hang of it.
Of course, it brought the comment that i'd 'worn the left one out....'

 

[Binastro]

That is what I have done with my right eye after a lifetime of observing with my dominant right eye mainly, 'worn out'.
It is still my dominant eye, but my left eye is now in a better condition, although I possibly can still see a bit fainter with the right.
Considering that my eyes have probably 'seen' tens of billions of images, I am grateful for my eyes.