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="Chosun Juan" data-source="post: 3280351" data-attributes="member: 92780">Henry, thank goodness you have finally put all this bunkum from the apologists about Zeiss contrast /resolution to bed!  :t:  :gn:It started with the x54 HT's, and continues on with the x42 SF's, and the willingness of the faithful and the flag bearers to swallow  :eat:  and trot out   (*smacks head rolls eyes smilie*)   whatever spin the expensive marketing department decides to dish out.   :scribe:There is no doubt Zeiss makes some fine glass, but fair suck of the sav ('bois) ..... enough of the gushing already!    :storm:   .....  lest we start to think we should be looking for moles as well as feather detail amongst the birds, and odd otter!   :cat:David (Typo) has said before that the Zeiss "explanation" of maximizing "coarse" contrast at the expense of fine detail resolution in the x54 is baffling, and I agree -- it just doesn't ring true.  Never in my life have I ever seen an  MTF  (Modular Transfer Function)  chart where the coarse contrast curve lies above the fine resolution curve.  Never!   The claims of the SF offering superior subtle tones or whatever, from lower contrast are similar fluff!  For a great explanation of MTF curves, resolution, contrast, and sharpness etc, see here:   <a href="https://photographylife.com/how-to-read-mtf-charts" target="_blank">https://photographylife.com/how-to-read-mtf-charts</a>Everybody's eyes are different, and all viewing conditions are different, though broadly, we are all genetically human and function largely the same, and are living on the same planet at the same time.  Your eye may just happen to be stopped down (effectively increasing the f number) at a particular time, giving a better view through the same bin than at other times, .... or not, etc, etc.  However if one  MTF  chart is superior to another, and corresponding sets of other optical design compromises (distortion, longitudinal CA, transmission, colour balance, Fov, ER, and flare control etc,)  are better than another, then there is no arguement -- one is better than the other -- no matter what rose coloured spin you might like to gloss over it with.Higher contrast, "dynamic range", and resolution will yield greater sharpness, acutance, detail, and subtlety.Given that the human eyeball and brain form part of the viewing system, and as Lance, LS, and Perterra have said, introduce their own peculiarities, I may begrudgingly acknowledge that this could account for reported views, provided nothing more than unbridled enthusiasm is at play .....  I know that as an afternoon draws to a close that one of my eyes has a distinct blue-green color cast when looking through bins, the other a golden brownish-orange  ...... WooHoo!! my own inbuilt contrast enhancement mechanism  (ICEM)  |<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />|All we really want from manufacturers is as close as possible to the 100% view coming in, made in a technologically advanced lightweight, ergonomic, quality, value for money package.   Put your money into that Z, S, L, N, C, others,  and for gawd sakes save on all the marketing bunkum, fluff, and fan boi BS .......  Thanks!  :t:Chosun   :gh:</blockquote>

Verification