Allbino's is a good reference and starting point for somebody looking to buy binoculars. I do use it when I want to try some different binoculars at different price points. A lot of people don't agree at all with their ranking but actually I do and I like their objective testing. They do a pretty good job. But before I buy I always try the binocular to see if it fits me.
-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Zeiss SF - Allbinos review (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jremmons
- Start date
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?
David
Thank you, David, and Ed, posts #129 and #130.
David I disagree–only with your modest statement "Probably not a lot of help"!
Ed, "plow through" is right! Much of it is beyond me, but on skimming over I find in Figure 3 something of what I seek. (For those who might wonder about the y-axis offsets at first glance: "The uppermost curve in each panel is in the correct position; the other curves have been shifted downwards, successively, by 0.4 log unit.")
David, this fact you state, which is borne out by those graphs, surprised me: "We do see things differently [with respect to color], but on the whole not different enough to account for the variety of opinion here [in this forum]."
A few years back it was pointed up in this forum that often in an individual the color sensitivities of the left and of the right eye are different enough to be easily noticed. It is so in me, and I would have estimated by "gut reaction" that the graphs for my two eyes differ more than any two here! (From that I supposed that among different individuals when L and R are taken together the results vary more than they in fact do.) In this article left and right are not considered separately. I am afraid I don't remember whether those discussions on the eyes of an individual referred to publications.
Would you be able to comment also on that, i.e. whether in fact the difference between L and R in an individual is often more than the variation in the merged results (L and R together) among a "typical" set of different individuals (such as tested here)? It may not be very relevant to the present thread, I know.
"...Those are just a few of the physiological factors. I suspect many of the differences reported here [in the forum] are primarily psycological, which I know comparatively little about." Would you be able to explain a bit more the word "psychological" as used there with a simple example? If in two individuals some color X (on its own, or within an image) is "seen" about the same way after the "physiological" (optical-neural?) stage how might the "psychological" factors cause it to be then "seen" more differently? Or is this part of the "incredibly complex" process you mention (hence need too much time to explain here)? Thank you!
PS. I should have added that I assume that variations between L and R eyes such as mine are still within "normal trichromatic color vision" as tested in the subjects of the article.
David I disagree–only with your modest statement "Probably not a lot of help"!
Ed, "plow through" is right! Much of it is beyond me, but on skimming over I find in Figure 3 something of what I seek. (For those who might wonder about the y-axis offsets at first glance: "The uppermost curve in each panel is in the correct position; the other curves have been shifted downwards, successively, by 0.4 log unit.")
David, this fact you state, which is borne out by those graphs, surprised me: "We do see things differently [with respect to color], but on the whole not different enough to account for the variety of opinion here [in this forum]."
A few years back it was pointed up in this forum that often in an individual the color sensitivities of the left and of the right eye are different enough to be easily noticed. It is so in me, and I would have estimated by "gut reaction" that the graphs for my two eyes differ more than any two here! (From that I supposed that among different individuals when L and R are taken together the results vary more than they in fact do.) In this article left and right are not considered separately. I am afraid I don't remember whether those discussions on the eyes of an individual referred to publications.
Would you be able to comment also on that, i.e. whether in fact the difference between L and R in an individual is often more than the variation in the merged results (L and R together) among a "typical" set of different individuals (such as tested here)? It may not be very relevant to the present thread, I know.
"...Those are just a few of the physiological factors. I suspect many of the differences reported here [in the forum] are primarily psycological, which I know comparatively little about." Would you be able to explain a bit more the word "psychological" as used there with a simple example? If in two individuals some color X (on its own, or within an image) is "seen" about the same way after the "physiological" (optical-neural?) stage how might the "psychological" factors cause it to be then "seen" more differently? Or is this part of the "incredibly complex" process you mention (hence need too much time to explain here)? Thank you!
PS. I should have added that I assume that variations between L and R eyes such as mine are still within "normal trichromatic color vision" as tested in the subjects of the article.
Last edited:
Adhoc,
As I said, the psychological side I struggle to get to grips with but I'll have a go at explaining some of what I've been gleaned.
I think most of us assume that we have three colour receptors in the eye, and three colour channels carry the information along to the optic nerve to the visual centres of the brain and we see an faithfull reproduction of the original view. It really doesn't happen that way. The image processing starts in the retina and goes though a number of intermediate filtering processes on route. Just one of the numerous processing routes is the colour opponent pathway which is nicely summaried in this blog.
http://www.scribblelive.com/blog/2011/12/07/the-use-of-yellow-in-data-design/
Anyway, the signal from the reptors is already heavily modified before it reaches the brain. It then goes through a number of stages where various levels of information are extracted. Depending on what information is required for you current activity, much of the time this partial, selective information will form the basis of what we 'see'. The rest is simply made up by the brain based on memory and expectations amongst other things to produce a relatively complete visual image. In reality, most of the time it's just the product of the brain's version of photoshopping.
One filtering process I found interesting is the difference between how we analyse sharpness vs. acuity or visual resolution. Sharpness is a low definition but fast processing method. It allows us to rapidly identify the major feature of the view so we are able to do things like run over a rough terrain. The processing time for sharpness is in the tens of milliseconds. It takes a lot longer for the brain to process the detail required to see the finest detail, usualy in the 100s of milliseconds. In terms of the level of visual detail there is something like a hundred fold difference per unit area. So what do individuals actually mean when the comment on sharpness?
Because all these pathways and levels are processing are entirey subconcious it can be extremely difficult to figure out whether to believe what we 'see', or really it's a bizarre construct of our imagination. Knowing this I find it takes quite a bit of concentrated effort to even begin sorting out the fact from fiction.
There is an awful lot of stuff I really don't understand about what the brain actually does even within the limited scope of comparing colour bias of binoculars, but from my tiny bit of knowledge I'd urge all to be beware of believing what they think they see.
David
So then you agree EDG is a better binocular than SV in 10x42 since Allbinos ranks EDG #1...and when a new EDG comes out the margin will grow even wider
HAHA
This is exactly my experience when scanning seaweed and rocks for otters. Above a certain scanning speed you think you are 'seeing' but actually you are only seeing major shapes and outlines. I have to slow to a certain speed and concentrate to ensure I see the details within which the well-camouflaged otters may be lurking.
Lee
No. I think the EDG II would be a perfect binocular but in my opinion I found it to be not as bright and more subdued compared to the other alpha's. I think it is due to lower transmission maybe due to glass or coatings. For me it is a deal killer so I personally prefer the SV. Many people disagree but that is my opinion. I feel that Nikon's new 8x42 Monarch 7 HG could have better transmission than the EDG because the specifications say 92%. If the HG does it could be an excellent binocular but we will have to see.So then you agree EDG is a better binocular than SV in 10x42 since Allbinos ranks EDG #1...and when a new EDG comes out the margin will grow even wider
HAHA
Tobias needs his eyes examined too!
I own a Nikon 10 x 32 EDG II and it is not "dark" even with that small exit pupil! I have compared it against my 10x42 SE and my 10x35 EII and my 10x32 LX L, all of which I still own, and it is a bright as the SE and brighter than the EII and the LX L.
Both you guys, if you don't have eye troubles, are trolling nonsense here and should be ashamed of yourselves!
Bob
Last edited:
I agree ... new HG does look really very good on paper so far.
Silly minor nitpick here...I would rather the rubber armor be smooth instead
of the pebbled texture. I think it would look and feel nicer, but it's minor.
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.
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.
I prefer the pebbled armor because I think it looks more high quality plus if you get a scratch on it it is harder to see. These new HG's look very nice. Japanese too and that means high quality.:king:
Last edited:
We are all entitled to our own opinions. I respect yours. Our eyes are all different. To me the EDG II was not as bright as the SV at least in the 8x32 format. Maybe the 10x32 EDG II is brighter. I found the SV brighter and more color neutral and I preferred the ergonomics over the EDG II also. That is why I kept the SV.
Last edited:
With experience opinions can change. After using the EDG II and the SV over a period of time I found the SV a little brighter and more color neutral which I preferred and I also preferred the ergonomics of the SV. Sometimes I act a little hastily in my judgement of a binocular before I really have enough time with them. I still have the SV and the EDG II is gone though. In fact I have two SV's and the little Habicht.
That does not satisfactorily explain why you insist on calling Nikon EDG's "dark" in posts that you know new members of the binocular forum will read.
Do you think that all of the Nikon top of the line binoculars that came before the EDGs also were "dark?"
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
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?
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. o
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.
Last edited:
Thank you, David, post #164. This is very valuable as usual from you. The very last words there are startling. "I'd urge all to be beware of believing what they think they see"! Could you, some time, list as a few(?) simple points what a person assessing a binocular should avoid, common errors you frequently come across? It could be a new thread. Thank you!
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
What you think you see, right or wrong, is all that really matters in the long run.
