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.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Troubador" data-source="post: 3279659" data-attributes="member: 109211">Hya JamesYou are reading between the lines there James and not what I posted. I didn't actually say the Zeiss view is low contrast but I did refer to other views as being higher contrast than Zeiss.Do you remember me saying that my wife's Ultravids don't separate so many different tones of browns/golds/reds on Scottish autumn hillsides as my HTs? In the past I put this down to some attribute of colour transmission but actually I am now convinced its because the Ultravid (and btw Swaro's EL) has higher contrast. Through the U'vids the autumn scene at first looks very alive and rich but look closer and some darker tones are merged together and the same for some lighter tones too.To my eyes the Zeiss view has quite enough contrast thank you and while other views may make road signs (and dvd cases <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />) easier to read and give an illusion of greater sharpness, I prefer to see the full range of subtle tones on bird plumage, mammal pellage and vegetation. BTW folks when I say 'illusion of greater sharpness' I am not saying Leica or Swaro aren't really sharp because of course they are, but I am saying that the greater contrast can make them appear sharper than they really are.So to answer your question: HT and SF have the right amount of contrast to my eyes and some other views seem a bit overly contrasted, almost 'photoshopped', but its not a case of right or wrong, just my personal preference.Lee</blockquote>

Verification