Zeiss SF - Allbinos review (1 Viewer)

[james holdsworth]

So can we now start a dozen threads about how ''blue'' the SV series is.......? lol.

 

[chill6x6]

Question: At what wavelength is the "Transmission" value taken on Allbino's? I like it that Gijs has it listed.

 

[zzzzzz]

Question: At what wavelength is the "Transmission" value taken on Allbino's? I like it that Gijs has it listed.

From the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 review.

Transmission 88.1+/- 1% 12/15.0

Attention! In this test the transmission value has been measured only for two wavelengths: 532 nm (green) and 657 nm (red) with a margin of error never exceeding 1%. Four measurements have been taken for each optical path and the results have been averaged out.

*His tests seem to lack consistency.

*Publishing a number without the a plotted graph is misleading.

*Best method is to test from 400 to 700 nm, sample every 5 nm and publish the combined average for the complete spectrum.

Check out Carson Optics they have posted tests on there website for various binoculars. Very professional.

http://www.carson.com/catalogs/2013-07-29-19-51-04

*Best source for this information comes from the manufacturer i.e. Swarovski 90% for the EL, Meopta 86% for the Meostar and Zeiss 92% for the SF. It's trustworthy!

 

[zzzzzz]

This is interesting. Looks trustworthy!

For the very first time, the manufacturers agreed to have their samples fully tested officially in an Optical Lab officially following the DIN ISO 14490-1,2-5,6,7, Optics and optical instruments - Test methods for telescopic systems, and DIN ISO 10109-4, Optics and optical instruments - Environmental requirements. DIN ISO 14490 is a multipart test methodology, that includes tests for basic characteristics, test methods for binocular system, light transmittance, veiling glare index, and limit of resolution.

Carl Zeiss AG tested the binoculars the 19.07.2013 for veiling glare figures, following DIN ISO 14490-6; resolution, following DIN ISO 14490-7; and environmental requirements, following DIN ISO 10109-4.

https://www.all4shooters.com/en/Shooting/optics/binoculars-roundup/Bino-test-Zeiss.png?resize=540x

Minox GmbH - Wetzlar tested all the binoculars on 12.07.2013 for optical performance figures, following DIN ISO 14490-1 and 14490-2.

https://www.all4shooters.com/en/Shooting/optics/binoculars-roundup/Bino-test-Minox.png?resize=540x

Leica Camera AG / QM-Sportoptik (KnBe) on 05.07.2013 for light transmission figures, following DIN ISO 14490-5, Optics and optical instruments - Test methods for telescopic systems.

https://www.all4shooters.com/en/Shooting/optics/binoculars-

Here is the link to the complete article https://www.all4shooters.com/en/Shooting/optics/binoculars-roundup/?p=2

 

[[email protected]]

I now see that others have now written to Arek. This is what I received earlier last week:

"Dear David,

Thank you for your message and letting me know about the discussion at
Birdforum. Beeing the Editor-in-Chief of Optyczne.pl, Allbinos.com and
LensTip.com, making all our binoculars and lenses reviews, leaves me
almost no time for reading the forums other than our own forum at
Optyczne.pl. My previous experiences concerning discussions with
people who wish to discredit our results taught me that the better
way of spending the time is to make another test of the binoculars
or photographic lens.

You are absolutely right that our spectrophotometer measurements changed
lately. Now the calibration of the zero point is made for three
wavelengths separately (404, 532 and 657 nm) and for both tubes of each
tested binoculars. You are also right that the relative wavelength
values are accurate both now and in past tests and should reflect colour
rendering of the binoculars quite precisely. To check the color hue of
the image given by tested binoculars I also make a photo of its exit
pupil situated in front of a white screen. The white balance of the dSLR
camera is set for this white screen. The measured hue always shows the
same as transmission graph indicates and agrees with what I see
using my eyes.

As the professor of astrophysics having over 20 years of experience in
gathering and reduction of the observational data from many telescopes
and astronomical devices I know how to plan the measurements, how to
check and interpret them and how to estimate the errors both statistical
and systematic. Many results described in our reviews are checked
several times and in different ways even if it is not stated clearly.

Greetings!
Arek"

I did follow up with further questions but have not yet had a reply.

David

"As the professor of astrophysics having over 20 years of experience in
gathering and reduction of the observational data from many telescopes
and astronomical devices I know how to plan the measurements, how to
check and interpret them and how to estimate the errors both statistical
and systematic. Many results described in our reviews are checked
several times and in different ways even if it is not stated clearly."

Sounds like Albinos know what they are doing , as far as, collecting and interpreting data and estimating errors statistically. I trust their results.

 

[[email protected]]

:-O

Den

Over the last few years there have been many discussions about some, by no means all, of Allbino's transmission graphs and the drift of these discussions is that these few graphs don't seem to make sense compared with either peoples' experience or tranmission info from other sources.

This doesn't mean that all Allbino's results are wrong but for me it is enough reason to prefer Gijs's results because we know, and now so do you, that his methods and results have been verified by others.

I have said several times on here that I prefer Gijs's results, long before the SF review was published by Allbinos.

Lee

"I have said several times on here that I prefer Gijs's results, long before the SF review was published by Allbinos."

That wouldn't be because they show the Zeiss's in a little better light figuratively speaking? Just kidding. Don't get your hair in a dander.:-O

 

[chill6x6]

From the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 review.

Transmission 88.1+/- 1% 12/15.0

Attention! In this test the transmission value has been measured only for two wavelengths: 532 nm (green) and 657 nm (red) with a margin of error never exceeding 1%. Four measurements have been taken for each optical path and the results have been averaged out.

*His tests seem to lack consistency.

*Publishing a number without the a plotted graph is misleading.

*Best method is to test from 400 to 700 nm, sample every 5 nm and publish the combined average for the complete spectrum.

Check out Carson Optics they have posted tests on there website for various binoculars. Very professional.

http://www.carson.com/catalogs/2013-07-29-19-51-04

*Best source for this information comes from the manufacturer i.e. Swarovski 90% for the EL, Meopta 86% for the Meostar and Zeiss 92% for the SF. It's trustworthy!

I had seen this before but was jut wondering if that was the procedure of for just THIS test... or is that their standard prodecure?

 

[adhoc]

Could someone provide a link to any material on individual variation in spectral sensitivity? Thank you!

 

[typo]

Could someone provide a link to any material on individual variation in spectral sensitivity? Thank you!

I've never seen the original data behind the various revisions of the luminosity function but I understand it is supposed to be an average for the healthy eye. Of course there will significant individual variation. There are many thousands of scientific puplications on the normal and abnormal variations that occur, but most are pay to read, so I rarely go beyond the abstracts. Some are well understood, like colour blindness, and there are nice readable Wikipedia articles about it. Thre are various general descriptions on age related yellowing but most lack useful detail. Beyond that it's nostly academic stuff. There can be wide variation in the ratio and distribution of the 4 main visual receptors for instance. Almost half of men have a different genetic variant of the L-conr (red) pigment from the other half and women. It has a small but detectable spectral sensitivity. We do see things differently, but on the whole not different enough to account for the variety of opinion here.

Those are just a few of the physiological factors. I suspect many of the differences reported here are primarily psycological, which I know comparatively little about. A couple of things seem relevant though. Colour constancy, for instance, is relatively straight forward. It is like an auto white balance mechanism. The brain adjusts the colour balance so that things that should be white are visualised as white. This normally takes a minute or two to adjust but could be subjected to habituation I would suppose. If your brain has learned the adjustment necessary for one binocular the correction might become almost instantaneous, but that is speculation on my part. Preconditioning is probably relevant. We are inclined to 'see' what we expect to see. The detail of how we actually receive, manipulate and interpret an image is incredibly complex and I'm sure differers between individuals but most of it is quite beyond my understanding.

Probably not a lot of help.

David

 

[elkcub]

Could someone provide a link to any material on individual variation in spectral sensitivity? Thank you!

Excellent question. Assuming you mean population variability, I've not come across such a survey. However, THIS 2005 ARTICLE published in the Journal of Vision includes some variability data between observers used to calculate an improved luminous efficiency function. It may be more than anyone is willing to plow through, but it is both historical and comprehensive.

Ed

 

[Troubador]

"Allbinos' include invisible ultraviolet and infrared, which are irrelevant from a vision perspective."

They may be irrelevant from a vision perspective but I still think they are indicative of a binoculars transmission performance. I would rather see the whole spectrum myself.

Den

I can see where you are coming from with this but I don't think it tells you anything useful about the bins because the anti-reflective coating layers are aimed at particular wavelength groups and it is unlikely any manufacturers apply layers to ensure the transmission of invisible wavelengths.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

:-O
"I have said several times on here that I prefer Gijs's results, long before the SF review was published by Allbinos."

That wouldn't be because they show the Zeiss's in a little better light figuratively speaking? Just kidding. Don't get your hair in a dander.:-O

LOL, I knew you would tease me with this Den, but that is why I made the point that I said I preferred Gijs's results long before the SF test appeared on Allbinos and so long before I could know how Gijs's results compared with Allbinos'.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

Preconditioning is probably relevant. We are inclined to 'see' what we expect to see.

David

David

This could be relevant to my use of the beach on Berneray that I have several times used for testing the whiteness of bins.

I have been there many, many times and I know how white it is. Could be my brain recovers this knowledge from 'storage' and deploys it when I visit it.

Lee

 

[typo]

Nice find Ed. Bookmarked it. :t:

David

 

[Troubador]

So can we now start a dozen threads about how ''blue'' the SV series is.......? lol.

Well James, we have Leica's red cast, Zeiss's green cast and now Swaro's blue cast. Dennis is interested in seeing the transmission figures for invisible wavelengths so next we might have bins with an invisible cast, so we can argue about how, although you can't see it, it must be affecting the view through the bins. :-O

Lee

 

[james holdsworth]

It's funny how Dennis doesn't participate in any threads discussing glare in his bins...lol.

 

[[email protected]]

This is from the Greatest Binoculars Review" by Tobias.

"Only the Swarovision lets you roam around in the image by eye movement only, without any strain or blackouts. I guess the weak baffling makes the exit pupil very accessible under many situations, for best ease of view. The trade off is a bit more flare than usual."

Personally, I would trade a little bit more glare for the comfort and the ease of view of the SV's. I know the SV's have a little more glare than some of the other alphas but it is a design decision by Swarovski. The glare is really not that bothersome under most conditions but the ease of view is there to enjoy all the time. I do feel the Swarovski 8x32 SV is the best all around 32mm binocular that I have tried. I also find the flat transmission curve of the 10x42 SV astounding. No wonder it is such a good performer.:t:

 

[Troubador]

This is from the Greatest Binoculars Review" by Tobias.

"Only the Swarovision lets you roam around in the image by eye movement only, without any strain or blackouts. I guess the weak baffling makes the exit pupil very accessible under many situations, for best ease of view. The trade off is a bit more flare than usual."

Personally, I would trade a little bit more glare for the comfort and the ease of view of the SV's. I know the SV's have a little more glare than some of the other alphas but it is a design decision by Swarovski. The glare is really not that bothersome under most conditions but the ease of view is there to enjoy all the time. I do feel the Swarovski 8x32 SV is the best all around 32mm binocular that I have tried. I also find the flat transmission curve of the 10x42 SV astounding. No wonder it is such a good performer.:t:

Swaro's bins are fine instruments Dennis and you don't need to quote reviewers to justify you enjoying them, your own eyes and your own opinions are all the matters.

Lee

 

[Torview]

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.

 

[elkcub]

"Only the Swarovision lets you roam around in the image by eye movement only, without any strain or blackouts. I guess the weak baffling makes the exit pupil very accessible under many situations, for best ease of view. The trade off is a bit more flare than usual." Tobias

This statement makes an assertion about 'roaming' followed by a "guess" about 'weak baffling', finalized by a hypothetical predictive design 'trade off' between roaming and baffling. It's really quite masterful. :smoke:

Ed