（翻译）评测：7x40军用双筒望远镜 Review: Military 7x40 binoculars

footway

原文来自http://www.holgermerlitz.de/six7x40.html
Review: Military 7x40 binoculars
评测：7x40军用双筒望远镜

by Holger Merlitz
作者：Holger Merlitz 翻译：北旅论坛footway

Binoculars, designed for military applications, are often found to be of 7x40 type. This specification was very common within the East-Block states, but not exclusively so. The Avimo was a British design, and a couple of Arabic and South Asian countries were supplied with East German or Soviet equipment and used the same optics as well. It is said that recently US soldiers, fighting in Iraq, were eager to capture NVA DF binoculars which were still abundant among Iraqi's troops.
设计上作为军事用途的双筒望远镜，常见到7x40规格。这规格在冷战的东方阵营是很普遍的，但并不是专有的，Avimo就是英国设计，另外有几个阿拉伯国家和南亚诸国是接受前东德或者前苏联装备的，也同样装备这类望远镜。事实上就在最近，在伊拉克打仗的美国大兵，也渴望能缴获NAV DF望远镜，此镜在前伊拉克军队中依然大量装备。

Why did 7x40 turn out to be so useful for military applications? Because it provides a reasonable compromise between power, low light performance and weight. In contrast to 8x30 binoculars, being another popular choice for armed forces, the 7x40 remains usable under low light conditions, and it is much more likely to find a bunch of troops moving around in the night than under bright sun. At the same time, the 7x40 is more compact and mobile than 7x50, the latter being a favorite choice for naval applications. Modern troops, however, are nowadays equipped with electronically amplified viewing devices and do not any more rely on binoculars with large exit pupils.
为什么7x40规格作为军事用途如此常见？因为它提供了在光学性能、低照明下表现和重量之间的合理的平衡。作为军队的另一常见选择，8x30双筒镜，与之相比，7x40在低照明情况下仍能使用，它在夜间比在白天更擅长发现移动的人群。并且，7x40比7x50更紧凑、更适合移动，后者是海军使用的满意选择。不过，现代军队装备有电子增强光学装置，已不再依赖大出瞳望远镜了。

The present review compares a selection of five 7x40 military binoculars, along with a modern civilian glass, the 7x42 Habicht of Swarovski.
这次评测选择了5种7x40军用望远镜，还有1个现代民用镜：施华洛世奇(Swarovski)的Habicht 7x42。


The Carl Zeiss Jena DF 7x40, old version with hard-rubber eyecups (1964)
Care Zeiss Jena的DF 7x40，配硬质橡胶眼罩的老版本（1964年产）

The 7x40 DF (Doppel-Fernrohr) of the NVA (Nationale Volksarmee) was introduced in the 1960s and was the first binocular built by Carl Zeiss Jena from scratch since the days of WWII. It replaced the 7x50 Binoctar, 10x50 Dekaris and 8x30 Deltrentis, individual focus versions of Jena's earlier classical line of binoculars. The 7x40 DF was given a short ('stubby') body shape, thereby keeping it rather compact, despite of its large prisms and considerably high weight. With its thick rubber armor, its large oculars with long eye-relief (suitable for use with gas-mask) and the eye catching window of its infrared detector re-charger, the DF had become the classical example of a full fledged military binocular, the blueprint of later 7x40 clones which adopted the same design philosophy. In 1980, it was replaced with the 7x40 EDF, a roof-prism construction which was more compact, but with smaller field of view. The serial number of 3390911 indicates a production in 1964.
NVA(Nationale Volksarmee)的7x40 DF (Doppel-Fernrohr)是20世纪60年代诞生的，是二战后卡尔.蔡斯.耶拿（Carl Zeiss Jena）从零开始制造的第一款双筒望远镜。它用来代替7x50 Binoctar、 10x50 Dekaris 和 8x30 Deltrentis等蔡斯经典的双调焦望远镜系列。7x40 DF被设计成矮身材（粗短型），尽管它有大棱镜和相当高的重量，还是在一定程度上保持了紧凑性。身披厚厚的橡胶，长出瞳距离的大目镜（适于戴防毒面具使用）和用于红外观测的受光窗，DF成为了军用望远镜全能地典型，后来的7x40望远镜的蓝图基于相同的设计这里克隆了该镜。在1980年，7x40 DF被7x40 EDF代替，EDF是更紧凑的屋脊棱镜结构，但视野相对小。（评测用的）编号为3390911是1964年的产品。


The IOR-SA 7x40, version of 2001
IOR-SA 7x40，2001年版

Quality binoculars for the Romanian army are produced by IOR-Bucuresti, founded in 1936 and from 1937 to 1945 part of the war-industrial complex of the occupying Germany. IOR stands for 'Industry Optic Romania'. The IOR-SA 7x40 was constructed in collaboration with Carl Zeiss Jena, which explains its obvious similarity with the DF 7x40. In contrast to the DF, it is still in production, comes with modern multi-coated lenses, and is nitrogen filled. The contoured eye-cups are useful to prevent stray light entering from behind or the side. A detailed review of this binocular was written by Scott Powers. The serial no. of 0317-01 indicates a production in 2001.
罗马尼亚军队装备的高质量的双筒望远镜产自IOR-Bucuresti，该厂建于1936年，1937到1945期间被占领国德国作为战争工业的一部分。IOR表示“罗马尼亚光学工业”。IOR-SA 7x40是在与东蔡合作期间设计的，这就解释了它与DF 7x40的明显相似性。与DF不同，它仍然在产，并且使用了现代的多层镀膜和内部充氮。波状轮廓的眼罩能有效遮挡来自后方和侧方的杂散光。对于这款镜子Scott Powers已经写了详细评测（译者：粗略看了看，个人感觉那人吹的太玄乎，镜体竟然说是钢的）。（评测用的）这款编号为0317-01标示是2001年生产的。


The PZO 7x45, year of production: unknown
PZO 7x45，生产日期：未知

With 45mm objectives, the PZO occupies a position between the 7x40 and the night-specialist 7x50. It was produced for the Polish army by PZO (Polskie Zaklady Optyczne), a factory located close to Warsaw. After the end of the cold war, the 7x45 remained in production and is nowadays called 'LP-7x45Z'. Like the IOR-SA and the NVA DF, it is featuring an infrared detector, a robust rubber armor, snap-in objective covers and a long eye-relief. The eye-cups are contoured to shield the eyes from side stray light. This sample seems to be without serial no., and it is not easy to estimate its age. The lenses appear to be multi-coated, although not with state of the art technology.
拥有45mm的物镜，PZO处于7x40和擅长夜视的7x50中间位置。它是PZO(Polskie Zaklady Optyczne)为波兰军队生产的，该厂离华沙很近。冷战后7x45仍被生产，现在的名字是'LP-7x45Z'。与NVA DF和IOR-SA类似，它也有红外探测、强壮的外包橡胶、内扣式的物镜盖和长出瞳。波形眼罩能遮挡来自侧面的杂散光。(评测用)这个样品看起来没有编号，不容易判断生产日期。虽然没用尖端科技，但透镜看起来是多层镀膜。


The GG95 7x40, year of production: Late 1990s
GG95 7x40，生产日期：90年代末

This Chinese 7x40 binocular is produced in Nanjing and represents the military issued version of the Hioptic MBHA0740r. I was unable to figure out whether both versions do actually differ in any specifications, but I suspect the military sample to have a somewhat improved coating. The optical design is featuring an air-spaced doublet objective (tele-objective type) and an ocular construction using five lens elements in three groups. According to the manual, this binocular is immersible in 1.5m deep water for one hour and operational within -43 to +55 degs. centigrade. In contrast to most other military binoculars, it has got no rubber armor. The imprint on the left prism housing reads 'Y/GG95-7' and I shall refer to it as 'GG95'.
中国的7x40望远镜是南京生产的，是在文章Hioptic MBHA0740r中评测的军用型。我无法指出两个版本在哪些性能上有什么实际上的不同，但我猜测军用版在镀膜方面做了改进。这款镜子结构设计上使用了双分离物镜（长焦类型）和5块3组的目镜。依据使用手册，该镜可浸入1.5米深水中1小时，可在-43-+55摄氏度下使用。相比其它大多数军用望远镜，它没有外包橡胶。左镜肩上的铭文'Y/GG95-7'，我将用'GG95'表示该镜。

footway

The Avimo 7x42, year of production: 1980
Avimo 7x42，生产日期：1980

This 7x42 binocular was made by Avimo Optical Imaging (now: Thales Optics) in UK during the 1980s. It was later licensed to Rollei Germany, and nowadays Russian copies made by BELOMO in St. Petersburg have been spotted on Internet auction sites. This binocular has got a characteristic body shape. It is reported (in Seeger's book about military optics) that these devices were not popular with the British troops in combat conditions during the Falklands war, because of their curious 'cranked' tubes. This meant that the observer had to move his head up a few inches higher than with conventional constructions. This binocular is of fixed-focus type and has to be used with eye-glasses by anybody with visual defects. Its eye-relief is long enough, however, and the telescopic eye-cups are effectively shielding any side-stray light. The present sample was made in 1980.
这款7x42双筒望远镜是Avimo Optical Imaging (now: Thales Optics)于20世纪80年代在英国生产。它后来授权给德国Rollei，现在俄罗斯圣彼得堡BELOMO生产的副本在互联网上拍卖。这款望远镜镜体外形很有特色，Seeger的关于军用光学的书中描述说，在福克兰岛（马岛）战争环境中，这款镜子不被英国军队所欢迎，就因为它们特有的“曲柄”管状镜身，这意味着用这款镜子的观察者不得不比使用普通结构的镜子的人的脑袋抬高几英寸。这款镜子不可调焦，眼睛不好的人必须戴眼镜使用。它的出瞳距离足够长，眼罩能有效的遮挡旁边的杂散光。（评测用的）样品是1980年生产的。


The Swarovski Habicht 7x42, current production
Swarovski Habicht 7x42, 当前产品

The 7x42 Habicht is made by the Austrian manufacturer Swarovski and the only civilian binocular of this test. It can be regarded as a modern high-end Porro of classical design, but made with state of the art materials, lens coating and sealing techniques. Despite of its central focuser, it is fully waterproof and nitrogen filled, and there also exists a rubberized ('GA') version. I was informed that a couple of 7x42 GA binoculars are in service at the Austrian army, so this is actually not a fully civilian glass. Compared to its competitors, it is amazingly light and mobile, but the eye-relief of 14mm may be a little short for comfortable use with eye-glasses. In Germany, this binocular costs about 600 Euro (the 'GA' version: 700 Euro).
7x42 Habicht是奥地利施华洛世奇（Swarovski）工厂生产的，是这次评测中唯一的民用镜。在经典设计中，它可看作髦高档古典保罗镜，是用了最高科技的原料、镜片镀膜和技术装备。尽管是中心调焦，它还是充了氮并完全防水，它有个包胶版本('GA')。我了解到几种包胶版7x42在奥地利军队服役，所以这款镜子并不是完全民用品。与它的竞争对手对比，有令人吃惊的轻便易携带性，但14mm的出瞳距离对戴眼镜还想舒服使用的人来说太短了。在德国，这镜子卖600欧元（包胶版700欧元）。


In front: NVA DF, GG95, IOR-SA, three models with plenty of similarities.
Behind: PZO, Avimo, Habicht
前排左起：NVA DF,GG95,IOR-SA，这三款有大量的相似点
后排左起：PZO,Avimo,Habicht

The following table is summarizing the specifications of the contenders.
下表是这些镜子的一些性能指标


Optical performance 光学性能

Angle of view: With 60 degs. apparent angle of field, the DF and the IOR are the only (moderate) wide angle binoculars in this test. The IOR shows some light-fall close to the edge (vignetting), an indication for the prisms being undersized and unable to illuminate the entire field of view. The more bulky DF has got a set of larger prisms and does not display such a vignetting. The GG95 comes next with a reasonable 56 degs. of field. The remaining three contenders display a rather narrow angle (tunnel-view), and I believe that fields as narrow as 50 degs. or less are no good choice for military binoculars, where the surveillance of large areas is among the most common applications and much easier achieved with reasonably wide angles.
视角：在本评测中，DF和IOR有60度表现视场，是仅有的广角（中等）望远镜。IOR在边缘处的光线变暗（渐晕，逐渐模糊），说明棱镜尺寸不够大，不能照亮整个视场区。更加庞大的DF拥有更大的棱镜，没有表现出渐晕现象。跟在后面的是GG95，拥有适当的56度表现视场。其它3款表现了明显的窄视角（管窥视野），我认为是50度甚至更小的视场对军用望远镜不是好选择，因为大面积的监视是最常见的应用，拥有适度的宽视角更容易完成任务。

Image sharpness: At the center, all of the six contenders have got an excellent resolution. But they differ as soon as the edge of the field is approached. Here, the Swarovski performs best, where the star test displays point-like images beyond 80% (radial) off center. Even at the edge, the deformations of the stars remain low. The PZO is next with about 75% of point-like stars and moderate blur at the edge, closely followed by the GG95 (little less than 70%). Both NVA and IOR display star images that start to deform a little less than 60% off center. At the edge, the deformations are high. So far, the edge sharpness of the contenders is quite accurately correlated with their angle of field: The smaller the angle, the better their edge resolution. This indicates that they are all using oculars of comparable performance. However, the Avimo is an exception: The stars are fine at the center, but already less than 50% off they start deforming. This poor performance is of course a consequence of its fix-focus feature. It is not possible for me to find the optimized focus for my eyes, so that the full performance of this binocular remains inaccessible.
图像清晰度：所有镜子的中心区域的都有优秀的分辨率。但当接近边缘部位就有区别了。在本评测中，施华洛世奇表现最好，在观星测试中，离中心80%（半径）的地方还表现出点状。即使在边缘处，星像的变形也保持很低。PZO是下一个，在75%处保持点状，到边缘就中等模糊了。紧跟在后面的是GG95，只稍微小于70%。DF和IOR在还没到60%处就开始变形了，到了边缘处变形很严重。迄今为止，边缘的清晰度与它们的视场大小有精确的关系：视场越小，边缘分辨率越高。这表明它们的目镜都处于相似的水准。但是，Avimo是个例外：星像在中心很好，但不到50%处就开始变形了。这低劣的表现明显怪罪于目镜不可调焦。对我来说，无法调整出最适合我眼睛的焦距，使得这镜子的任何功能对我都遥不可及。

Image color: The differences are small but visible in a straight comparison. The only binocular which seems to have a fully neutral color tone is the Habicht. The Avimo has got a very slight yellowish tone, and so are, a little stronger, the GG95 and the NVA DF. The IOR-SA is already visibly yellowish, although much less than most of the Russian binoculars or the NVA EDF roof-prism binocular. The PZO has got a slight yellow-brownish image tone, of similar intensity as the IOR.
图像颜色：差别很小，不过在直接对比中能看出来。只有Habicht能完全体现真实颜色。Avimo有非常轻微的偏黄，GG95和NVA DF偏黄稍微重些，IOR-SA是明显的偏黄，但也明显轻于大部分俄罗斯镜子和NVA EDF这个屋脊镜。PZO有轻微的偏黄褐色，偏色程度类似IOR。

Rectilinear distortion: All binoculars show a slight pincushion distortion, which is intentionally installed to eliminate the globe effect and in this way to provide a smooth panning.
直线扭曲：所有望远镜都表现出轻微的枕形畸变，这是有意如此的，为了消除球面效应，并通过此法提供一个平滑视场盘。

Stray light: Under difficult viewing conditions, especially at twilight, light from sources outside the field can enter the objective lenses through a large angle to illuminate the tube walls and is, partially, scattered into the optical path. It then becomes visible as a diffuse fog, most intense around the edges of the image, reducing the contrast. Only the GG95 and the Avimo are displaying some problems here. At the prism entrance, the GG95 has got a shiny metallic ring which may be the cause of the stray light. Inside the Avimo, it seems that a glossy finish of the internal tube is responsible for reflections. In both cases, a minor modification would improve the performance of these binoculars a lot. For military applications, an excellent stray light protection is required to ensure the maximum contrast under difficult light conditions. The other four contenders perform very well in this discipline and there is nothing left to complain about.
漫射光：在困难观测环境下，特别是黄昏黎明，来自视场外的光线可以以大角度通过物镜，照亮镜筒内壁，部分光线进入了光学路径，变成可见地漫射雾，在图像边缘尤其明显，如此减少了对比。这里只有GG95和Avimo表现出了这样一些问题。GG95的棱镜入口处有能反光的金属环，或许能产生漫射光。在Avimo内部，物镜那边内壁的光洁表面似乎能产生反射。在这两种情况下，小小的修改将能改善很多望远镜的性能。对于军事应用，为确保低照明下最大对比度，优秀的防止漫射是必要的。其它4款在这方面表现非常好，没有产生抱怨。


Left: A shiny metallic ring in front of the prism entrance, the cause of stray light inside the GG95?
左图：在棱镜入口处有能反光的金属环，产生了GG95内部的漫射光。
Right: A glossy finish inside the Avimo's internal tubes
右图：在Avimo物镜部分能反光的内壁

footway

Ghost images: If, at night, a bright object (street lantern, moon) is positioned into the field, reflections on the air-to-glass surfaces take place, which can lead to multiple 'ghost' images of the light source. The Swarovski is perfectly preventing any ghosts, even when tested against high intensity lanterns. This indicates a top quality coating. In fact, an image as clean as that is hard to find among most top level binoculars, since these are usually of roof prism type and are producing a more or less intense spike - a diffraction effect at the roof-edge. Military glasses have got a reticle inside one of their oculars, and this glass plate usually serves as an extra source of reflections. The GG95 and the Avimo seem to use reticles which are properly coated, displaying a high resistance against ghost images. I suspect that the GG95 performs better here than the MBHA0740r which I had tested earlier. In contrast, the PZO and the NVA DF develop a ghost image of higher intensity at their reticles. Although the IOR is slightly better at this side, I found a rather bright ghost image inside the left tube, which has got no reticle. Anything similar was not visible when I tested another sample of the IOR, and I suspect here we may have an example of quality control failure. Perhaps, one lens surface remained uncoated, or has got a defective coating, and considering that a blank glass surface reflects 4% of the incident light, compared to 0.2% of a typical multi-coated surface, such an uncoated surface might be able to spoil the ghost-resistance of the entire light train.
鬼影：如果，在晚上，一个明亮的物体（路灯，月亮）进入了视野，光线在玻璃表面产生反射，能够产生光源的多重鬼影。施华洛世奇能完美的阻止任何鬼影，即使是在在强光路灯下测试。这象征最高质量的镀膜。事实上，在最高档的双筒镜中，鬼影都轻微的很难被察觉，这些镜子通常是屋脊镜，并有或多或少的强烈尖锐状——屋脊边缘有衍射现象（译者：实际上根本不懂这句英文的意思）。军用镜子在一只目镜内有刻度板，这块玻璃板经常是产生倒影的另外源泉。GG95和Avimo似乎在刻度板适度镀了膜，能有效阻止鬼影。我猜测GG95比我早期评测过的民用品在此方面表现要好。相比之下，PZO和NVA DF的刻度板极大的增强了鬼影。虽然IOR表现的稍微好些，我在左镜筒发现一个明亮的鬼影，这边没有刻度板。而我在其它类似评测中的另外IOR却没有发现鬼影，我猜测这次我用的是一个质量控制失败的产品。或许，有一个镜片表面没有镀膜，或者是有缺陷的镀膜，考虑到空白玻璃表面能反射4%的入射光，而典型的多层镀膜表面仅反射0.2%，一个未镀膜的表面就能毁掉整个光路上的防鬼影措施。

Low light performance: This is a difficult test, since we have got six binoculars of almost identical specifications and the differences in low light performance are naturally very subtle. Still, I believe to have found the Habicht and the Avimo producing the brightest image under very low light conditions (at night, with clear skies and the half-moon near the zenith). With short distance, the GG95, IOR and PZO were following. Once more I found the performance of the PZO in this discipline a little disappointing: On paper, this binocular with its large exit pupils should actually perform best, but it reproducibly remained behind the Habicht and Avimo. This indicates that its light transmission may be comparably poor. It is no surprise to find the NVA DF at the end of this competition. It is only single-coated, and its light transmission is specified as 75% (without reticle), whereas a modern binocular like the Swarovski Habicht can pass between 90% and 95% of the incident light. It should also be noted that, in case the low light is paired with isolated light sources, the Avimo and the GG95 would lose performance because of their response to stray light.
低照明表现：这是困难的测试，因为这6款镜子有相同的规格，在低照明下的表现区别很细微。不过，我确信Habicht和Avimo在低照明下产生了最亮的图像（夜间，无云，正上方有半月）。后面相距不远，GG95,IOR和PZO紧跟着。再一次，我发现PZO在这方面的表现有一点让人沮丧：纸面上，这款镜子拥有的大出瞳应该在实践中表现优异，但却再一次排在Habicht和Avimo后面，这表明它的透光性能应该相对可怜。NVA DF排在最后并不令人惊讶，它是单层镀膜，它的透光率标注是75%（没有刻度板时），而现代望远镜如Habicht能通过入射光的90%——95%。还应指出的是，当低照明和独立光源配合测试，Avimo和GG95将因漫射光而丧失性能。

Mechanical construction 机械结构

Since these binoculars were made for (and have proved their qualities at) the military, their mechanical construction is of outstanding ruggedness and durability. All of them five military binoculars are waterproof, have got a massive and robust central hinge and provide a long eye relief. I would rate the NVA DF, the IOR-SA and the PZO on top position because they represent the most complete type of military binocular. The GG95 is lacking the rubber armor. The Avimo has got no focuser, and I think this handicap leads to serious limitations of its application range. Most people will need to use eye-glasses in order to exploit the full optical performance of this device, and the observation with spectacles is always a potential source of trouble. The Habicht is fully waterproof and has got an excellent mechanical construction, but it is without rubber armor and its eye-relief is comparably short.
因为这些镜子是为军队制造的（或者证明了能为军队服务的质量），它们的机械结构能经受户外的粗野和长期使用。所有5款军用镜子都能防水，有一个庞大健壮的中央铰链和长出瞳距离。我愿意确定NVA DF，IOR-SA和PZO为最高等，因为它们体现了军用望远镜的大部分品质。GG95缺少包胶。Avimo无法调焦，我认为这障碍会导致其应用范围受到严重限制，大部分用户需佩戴眼镜，才能充分发挥这款镜子的所有光学性能，戴眼镜观察永远是麻烦源泉。Habicht完全防水并且拥有优秀的光学结构，但它没有包胶并且出瞳距离相对太短。


Summary 总结

The following table is supposed to summarize the above observations. The points are distributed according to their relative rankings, so that the best binocular gets 6 points, the second one 5 points and so on. In case two or more items occupy the same rank, their scores are averaged so that each discipline retains a total weight of 6+5+4+3+2+1=21 (thanks to Edward M. Huff for suggesting this approach which makes a less biased final score). For example: Imagine three binoculars perform best in mechanical construction, then, instead of getting 6 points each, they receive (6+5+4)/3 = 5 points each.
下面表格是对上述性能的总结。点数表明它们的相对等级，最高级望远镜得6分，第二名得5分，依此类推。当两个或多个竞争者得分相同，它们的分数求平均，如此每个名目保持总分是6+5+4+3+2+1=21（感谢Edward M. Huff建议了这个方式，减少了最终分统计偏差）。例如：假设3款镜子在机械结构中得最高名词，不是每个得6分，而是每个得到（6+5+4）/3=5分。

The 'final score' is the sum of the individual scores and is intended to serve as an orientation only.
最终分是各项得分的和，仅供参考。

footway

Without any doubt, the Swarovski Habicht delivers the best optical performance of this competition. This is a high tech Porro prism binocular with almost perfect optics and accurate mechanics. It has got a single weakness only, which is its flimsy field of view. This is a matter of design philosophy: Stopping down the field of view brings along an entire bunch of advantages. The edge sharpness improves, because the edge is shifted towards the center, and aberrations are growing nonlinear with the angle of field, so that most problems are avoided once this angle is kept small. It is also easier to protect the binocular against stray light if the incident angle is stopped down. Then, smaller prisms are required, keeping the instrument slim and light. Finally, oculars with narrow apparent fields of view can be of simpler construction than wide angle binoculars (e.g. 3 lens element reverse Kellner instead of 5 lens element Erfle), are therefore cheaper, provide a better light transmission and are less prone to ghost images, because they contain less air-to-glass surfaces. However: I believe that the wide angle experience adds to the joy of using binoculars, and an apparent field of view of only 45 degs. is just too little for my taste.
毫无疑问，施华洛世奇的Habicht提供了本测试最佳的光学表现，这是一个高科技保罗棱镜望远镜，拥有几乎完美的光学和精确的机械性能，它只有一个弱点：单薄的视场。这是设计理念问题：缩小视场以提高整体性能。边缘移向中心改善了边缘清晰度。畸变是随视场变大而呈非线性增长，于是一旦视场保持较小，大部分问题就避免了。随着入射角变小，保护镜子不被漫射光干扰也更容易。同时，只需要小棱镜，可以保持镜身苗条轻巧。最后，小视场目镜也可以比广角望远镜结构上更简单（如Kellner的3片式代替Erfle的5片式），也因此更便宜，提供了更好的透光性，因为减少了玻璃表面，也减少了产生鬼影可能。不过：我相信广角性能能增加使用镜子的乐趣，只有45度的视野，非常不合我的口味。

Behind the Swarovski Habicht, with 31 points, there is a considerable gap, and all five competitors are then bunched between 24 and 22 points. It is fair to claim all of them playing in the same league and I would not suggest to declare any one as the winner. The accuracy of such a field test is not high enough to seriously claim the IOR or DF, with 24 points, being better than the Avimo with 22 points. Still, this test has revealed a couple of interesting common features and also differences.
在Habicht 31分后面，有相当大的缺口，所有5只镜子得分在22至24之间，公正的宣布他们是同一水平，我不会建议宣布其中任何一款是胜利者。这样的实地测试的精确度不会高到让人认真的辩护说有24分的IOR或者DF就比22分的Avimo要好。不过，这次评测揭示了一些有趣的共同特征以及不同。

There are the DF and its clones. The old NVA glass is still competitive and does not need to hide behind younger designs, but its coating is naturally far from being state of the art. It is a very heavy device, too, and here the competitors have become more user friendly over the years. The IOR-SA is essentially a DF with somewhat reduced prism-size. As a consequence, it has got some vignetting close to the edge of the field, but a comparison using the above Table shows that both binoculars perform almost the same. I don't know the reason why the IOR has got a somewhat more pronounced yellow tint, whether this is intentionally so (choice of radiation resistant glasses) or simply the result of poor glass quality. Its coating is altogether better than the DF's, because it was made almost 40 years later, but there may be a problem with quality control (see the ghost image section above). The GG95 is perhaps another variant of this construction. It is similar to the IOR, but without rubber armor and with somewhat reduced field, thereby avoiding vignetting and improving the edge resolution. Also, its weight is further reduced, and I would attest the GG95 a much improved mobility compared to the DF, which is almost one pound heavier. The GG95 also displays quite a high quality lens coating, but a weak point is its response to stray light, which may be avoidable without causing much of extra production costs.
对于DF和它的克隆。NVA的老镜仍然是竞争者，不需要躲在年轻设计的背后，但它的镀膜与现在科技相差很远了。它也非常沉重，经过多年后，这里的其它镜子已变得对用户更友好。IOR-SA是缩小了棱镜尺寸的DF，后果是在靠近视场边缘时有渐晕现象，但上面表显示，两款镜子的表现几乎一样。我不知道IOR明显偏黄的原因，或许是有意为之（选择了抗辐射玻璃），或者很简单，是使用了劣质玻璃。它的镀膜全面好过DF，因为这是40年后生产的，但在质量管理方面有问题（参看上面鬼影一节）。GG95是这结构的另一变种，它与IOR很类似，但没有外包橡胶并且减少了视场，如此避免了渐晕并改善了边缘像质，并且，它的重量进一步减少，我能证明GG95相对DF在便携上有很大改进，后者几乎比前者重了1磅。GG95展示了高质量的镀膜，但弱点是它受散射光影响，可能不增加很多额外生产成本就能避免这问题。

With 45mm lenses, the PZO has got the largest objectives of the competition, but it is unable to take advantage of that fact. Its low light performance is on average level only, which obviously is the result of poor light transmission. On the positive side, its stray light protection is excellent and so is the resolution close to the edge of the field. I would like to know whether the current version, the LP-7x45Z, comes with improved coating and transmission, which would significantly enhance the performance of this otherwise fine binocular.
藉由45mm的镜头，PZO在本次评测的发挥了最高水平，但却没能利用自己的优势。它的透光率只处于平均水平，这明显是透光性能低下的结果。好的一面是，它的漫射光防护和边缘像质很优秀。我很想知道是否当前产品LP-7x45Z已经改进了镀膜和透光性，这将明显的提高这个其它方面优秀的望远镜的性能。

The Avimo is especially interesting. It has got a quality coating, excellent low light performance, and high resistance against ghosting. Unfortunately, this impression is spoiled by a glossy finish of the inner tube walls, causing a stray light which could easily be avoided. Confronted with examples like that, I sometimes ask myself whether such an obvious defect could be left unnoticed during those field tests which are mandatory for defense projects. Apart from that, I dislike the fixed-focus feature of this binocular. I believe that every optical instrument has to be focused in order to deliver maximum performance. The argument, such a binocular should be used with glasses only, is of little impact. How many people are wearing glasses which are perfectly tuned to 100% compensate their visual defects? I have often enough experienced that my eyes perform somewhat differently from day to day, and I always turn the focus wheel to find the optimum position during my observations. I don't want to miss this opportunity to get the best out of the instrument I am using.
Avimo特别有趣，它拥有高质量的镀膜，优秀的低照明表现，有效的防止了鬼影。不幸的是，这些都被内壁光滑的表面产生的漫射光破坏，而这些应能轻易避免的。面对这镜子，我有时问自己，国防项目强制性的实地测试中，如此明显的缺陷为何能被无视的保留。除此之外，我不喜欢这镜子的固定调焦。我确信任何光学仪器为了发挥最好性能必须能被调焦，这观点对于以玻璃制成的望远镜来说也不例外。有多少人即使戴眼镜，能将视力调整到100%的性能？我有丰富的经验，我的眼睛性能每天都不一样，观测时我经常转调焦轮以找到最合适位置，我不想失去发挥我正使用的仪器最高水平的机会。

Disclaimer 免责声明
The information given in this report reflects the personal impression and opinion of the author only. I cannot guarantee for the accuracy of any given specification. I have neither been payed nor have I been supported in any other way to write this review. I thank Mr. Xu and Mr. Wang who left their binoculars with me for testing.
在本报告中的资料反映了个人的印象和作者的见解而已。我不能保证任何特定规格的准确性。写这个报告我没有得到任何付费和任何支持。感谢徐（Xu）先生和王(Wang)先生为测试给我留下了望远镜。

Back Home

Last updated: Mar. 2006
最后更新：2006.3

footway

一点一点编辑出来的啊，呵呵。
如果能将我的word文件直接传上来就成为网页该多好啊。