Orascoptic loupes : HDL Prism 4.5 Vs Eyezoom Mini

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

NicoMarGor

New Member
5+ Year Member
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

Members don't see this ad.
 
Prisms.

KM does have very high quality optics, however it seems that you have no use for the 2.5-3.5 adjustment feature, so I do not see the justification in purchasing it. I was very impressed with the prisms.

I'm wondering, if you were deciding between those two choices, why not the Eyezoom Mini and the 3.5 Prisms? It seems like it's a closer comparison.

So it's all about what you are looking for. Obviously quality is a must. Do you need higher magnification? Is weight a huge issue? Is the adjustability a big factor for you?

Based on what you're saying, I think it might be a better option to compare the 4.5 Prisms to the Eyezooms (not mini). The Eyezoom will give you the ability to adjust, the clarity of KM, and more flexibility. Of course the downsides are weight and price. I personally have the Eyezoom and I love them. Definitely worth the cost IMO, and I don't find the weight bothersome. But if those downsides are a deal breaker for the product, I would definitely recommend the 4.5 Prisms. I have tried those on and was very impressed.
 
what the difference between prisms and hi res plus?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Many thanks for your answer !

Let me explain the rationale for comparing HDL 4.5 and EyeZoom Mini. My observations were that the prisms are expanded field while the KM are not. Hence, 4.5x magnification ratio to the 3.5x of the EyeZoom Mini is not reflected in the reduction ratio of the field size observed with the 4.5x compared to the one observed with the EyeZoom Mini. Another way to see it is that a part of the extra field that should be seen through a 3.5 EyeZoom Mini is lost in the black circle surrounding the image circle, while the image circle with the 4.5 was larger, covering an extra field partly compensating for the extra magnification. And this is exactly that feature that I loved with the HDL 4.5.

The reason for ruling out the 3.5 HDL is that, for me, it was covering a field larger than the arch : what's the point for magnification if you still encompass useless information ? I want the maximum magnification without sacrificing potentially useful field.

The reasons for ruling out the EyeZoom (not the Mini) are indeed the price and the weight. For the latter point, I want an everyday and all purpose tool. While the three steps magnification is providing that (a magnification for each purpose) I am afraid that the weight makes it uncomfortable to wear all day... The length of the optic is of importance too because the gravity center moves farther from the frame and contribute to the feeling of weight. Some may like the XV1 frame to balance the long and heavy Eyezoom : question of taste (I do not like the look and you are forced to use Orascoptic light which is not my preferred one). But that is obviously a personal appreciation. In this respect, the HDL 4.5 is significantly shorter than the EyeZoom while the HDL 4.5 and EyeZoom Mini have similar weight. The same discussions apply for the price : it is a matter of perspective (if you end to purchase additional loupes for specific applications, the overall investment becomes much more than purchasing just the EyeZoom). These considerations apart (price and weight), the EyeZoom is without question the best product around for its optical performances.

So, to me, there are too much parameters to make only one comparison obvious : I believe the short list will greatly vary from people to others. This is without including the galilean systems that I did not even try giving that I want the best image resolution/quality that only kepler will offer. Though I respect the fact that some will only consider Gallilean (for their lower cost and weight) or compare Gallilean to Kepler (having their own parameters in Mind).

The real reason for my initial thread was to check if others have the same impression that the KM products surpass the HDL prisms in respect with image quality (resolution, color rendition, contrast, absence of geometrical aberration,..). This was for me somehow frustrating as the price, the shorter length and the expanded field of the HDL 4.5 were making it the best theoretical option. In theory, image quality should also be better with the prisms as the zoom feature of KM products makes the optical path more complex, with extra elements that should somehow alter the image (in photography, prime lenses are always better than zoom lenses at the same focal). I was so amazed by this discovery, which goes against logic, that I though there must be an explanation. One explanation would be that KM products are manufactured and / or optical formula designed by (or with large contribution of KM) and not only that KM is providing the right to Orascoptic to incorporate their patented* multistep magnification feature, in a product that would be designed and manufactured in the same way as HDL prisms.

*
https://www.google.be/patents/WO201...ved=0ahUKEwiCvfzv8p7SAhUCJ8AKHc8NDhoQ6AEIGjAA

The reason to share opinions is that we need to evaluate products based on demo loupes which might be unadapted to your interpupilary distance. Such exercice might be unfair to a product compared to another. If everyone agrees on an observation, this should somehow reflect the reality. If I am the only one, I might have been influenced by an artefact. Another way to make sure would be to have a product specialist reading this and commenting. I find sad that, contrary to photography lenses (where MTF charts are published for every existing lens..), absolutely no information is available to indicate which loupe has better resolution compared to another. Apart from Field size and depth of field, you need to select a product based on demo loupes which might be adapted in a way that is not suited for you.

Anyway, I needed to make a decision and I selected the EyeZoom Mini based on the image quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Superb glass is heavy. Just look at the best DSLR lenses. Great high mag loupes will be heavy, it's physics. Learn to strap those loupes tight so everything isn't being supported by the bridge of your nose. These are loupes, not eyeglasses. If you still have a problem with weight go for lower magnification or get headband mounted loupes.
 
Superb glass is heavy. Just look at the best DSLR lenses. Great high mag loupes will be heavy, it's physics. Learn to strap those loupes tight so everything isn't being supported by the bridge of your nose. These are loupes, not eyeglasses. If you still have a problem with weight go for lower magnification or get headband mounted loupes.

Could you clarify your post ? HDL 4.5x weight 2.5 oz (71.5 g), EyeZoom Mini -with max magnification of 3.5 - weight 2.6 oz (73.7 g) : I don't think a linear correlation can be made between magnification and weight. Or do you mean that KM EyeZooms are made of different material compared to regular Orascoptic HDL prism ? If so I would be interested if you could tell more about that (since it is the question I am raising).
 
Top