- Joined
- Feb 19, 2017
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 2
I was advised to give this topic a try in this forum :
I know that many threads already exist about dental loupes but I cannot find any answering to this specific question. Part of the reason is that I am referring to a very recent product line. Another reason is that I am passionate about photography and have very high optical standards in mind when selecting my loupes.
My observations are that EyeZoom mini, co-developped with Konica Minolta, have astonishing sharpness, color rendition and contrast. The chromatic aberration is minimal and I observed no geometric aberration : straight lines remain straight. However, my cons for the EyeZoom mini are (1) the fact that the image circle seems smaller compared to the HDL 4.5 (the image tends to fill less proportion of your sight, being surrounded by a black circle), (2) The barrel is slightly longer (which will move the gravity center and might increase the weight sensation for long procedures), (3) I didn't find any utility for the 2.5x magnification since I can see the full mouth already at 3.5x, (4) price tag. There is also the fear that moving parts might decrease long term viability of the product (even tough the execution is extraordinary and I have no objective indication that the product would be fragile)
On the other hand, I enjoyed very much the expanded field sensation with the HDL 4.5x (image was filling my eyes and I had no real sensation of covered field size restriction in comparison with the 3.5x of the EyeZoom) as well as the extra magnification. The barrel is slightly shorter and the price tag is inferior. However, I had the feeling that : (1) there is some geometrical distortion (making the proportion of an object change when you move it to the border of the image, what I fear could alter your perception for esthetic restorations or make you feel dizzy after long procedures), (2) the optical qualities were slightly lower (color slightly less saturated, slightly less resolution that was in part compensated by the extra magnification). One important element of my reflexion is related to the fact that the 4.5x HDL demo loupes seemed less adjusted to my inter pupillary distance and eyes position in the carrying glass : so the whole comparison might be invalidated (it could be that in fact, if the loupes were adjusted, I would see through the optical sweet spot where distorsion, resolution, etc.. are optimal).
I am posting this in hope that it would be read by another customer (or a product specialist) who could answer the following questions:
1) Should we expect higher optical performance with Konica Minolta co-branded EyeZoom products (which would imply that the optical formula was deeply involving KM know-how, or that the lenses themselves are manufactured with different, higher standards) or is this co-branding thing only limited to the fact that Oarscoptic would have infringed KM patent for the two step magnification feature (while the optical formula and manufacturing processes are exactly the same as for any other Orascoptic products) ?
2) Did anyone make the same comparison and would this person share its conclusions about which product is the best upon its criteria ?
Many thanks for your feedback
I know that many threads already exist about dental loupes but I cannot find any answering to this specific question. Part of the reason is that I am referring to a very recent product line. Another reason is that I am passionate about photography and have very high optical standards in mind when selecting my loupes.
My observations are that EyeZoom mini, co-developped with Konica Minolta, have astonishing sharpness, color rendition and contrast. The chromatic aberration is minimal and I observed no geometric aberration : straight lines remain straight. However, my cons for the EyeZoom mini are (1) the fact that the image circle seems smaller compared to the HDL 4.5 (the image tends to fill less proportion of your sight, being surrounded by a black circle), (2) The barrel is slightly longer (which will move the gravity center and might increase the weight sensation for long procedures), (3) I didn't find any utility for the 2.5x magnification since I can see the full mouth already at 3.5x, (4) price tag. There is also the fear that moving parts might decrease long term viability of the product (even tough the execution is extraordinary and I have no objective indication that the product would be fragile)
On the other hand, I enjoyed very much the expanded field sensation with the HDL 4.5x (image was filling my eyes and I had no real sensation of covered field size restriction in comparison with the 3.5x of the EyeZoom) as well as the extra magnification. The barrel is slightly shorter and the price tag is inferior. However, I had the feeling that : (1) there is some geometrical distortion (making the proportion of an object change when you move it to the border of the image, what I fear could alter your perception for esthetic restorations or make you feel dizzy after long procedures), (2) the optical qualities were slightly lower (color slightly less saturated, slightly less resolution that was in part compensated by the extra magnification). One important element of my reflexion is related to the fact that the 4.5x HDL demo loupes seemed less adjusted to my inter pupillary distance and eyes position in the carrying glass : so the whole comparison might be invalidated (it could be that in fact, if the loupes were adjusted, I would see through the optical sweet spot where distorsion, resolution, etc.. are optimal).
I am posting this in hope that it would be read by another customer (or a product specialist) who could answer the following questions:
1) Should we expect higher optical performance with Konica Minolta co-branded EyeZoom products (which would imply that the optical formula was deeply involving KM know-how, or that the lenses themselves are manufactured with different, higher standards) or is this co-branding thing only limited to the fact that Oarscoptic would have infringed KM patent for the two step magnification feature (while the optical formula and manufacturing processes are exactly the same as for any other Orascoptic products) ?
2) Did anyone make the same comparison and would this person share its conclusions about which product is the best upon its criteria ?
Many thanks for your feedback