[dipped]

Anyone know what this means?

"The optical design doesn’t just reduce the overall dimensions and finished weights of the Aurora but delivers 7.2° (8x42) / 6.5° (10x42) field of view with stunning resolution guaranteed at under 4’ for each and every binocular."

It was copied from the Opticron site.

[typo]

Originally Posted by dipped

"with stunning resolution guaranteed at under 4’ for each and every binocular."

Just skipping the other guff, 4' is the normal convention for 4 arcminutes of resolution. That's 4x60= 240 arcseconds!!! The theoretical limit (Dawes limit) for a perfect 42mm objective is 2.76 arcseconds ! Lets give them the benefit of the doubt and suppose they meant 4" or 4 arcseconds. I seem to remember Zeiss used to quote a minimum resolution of 6 arcseconds at one time.

They are simply claiming it's very sharp, well beyond the resolution of the eye. However the Porters in their recent test using 4x boosting still found it fell behind the alphas. Doesn't seem to quite square up does it? That would be full aperture testing though, what ever that means. They seemed pretty sharp to me, but I've not looked at them side by side with the top marks.
http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2...hart_2012.html

Probably not helping much.

David

[Torview]

I`v tried the Aurora many times and this is just MO, no desire to upset any owners, I feel its about 30% overpriced, there`s a great deal to like, especially size and weight, had it been £450 I`d have snapped one up.

Like I write just MO.

[typo]

Interesting! It's priced just above the old Zeiss Conquest. Much smaller, lighter, wider and flatter field of view, much lower CA, (if I remember rightly,) and I thought much better put together. If I interpreted that adspeak right probably much better specified on resolution as well. I'd certainly put it several notches above the Conquest. Which is over priced?

Just as a point of interest, only one of my 8 binoculars to meet that 4 arcsecond criteria, cost, £65!

David

[Torview]

Originally Posted by typo

Interesting! It's priced just above the old Zeiss Conquest. Much smaller, lighter, wider and flatter field of view, much lower CA, (if I remember rightly,) and I thought much better put together. If I interpreted that adspeak right probably much better specified on resolution as well. I'd certainly put it several notches above the Conquest. Which is over priced?

Just as a point of interest, only one of my 8 binoculars to meet that 4 arcsecond criteria. Cost, £65!

David

I get it, I`m in a minority group in admiring the old Conquest, but I love it, its way brighter than anything else in its price range, the only thing I`v seen brighter is the FL.

I think maybe the exposed polycarbonate gives the impression of inferior build quality, I think it feels like it could survive pretty much anything.

[typo]

Don't get me wrong, I really liked the old Conquest. Just think it's the better candidate for over pricing.

David

[Torview]

Originally Posted by typo

Don't get me wrong, I really liked the old Conquest. Just think it's the better candidate for over pricing.

David

A valid point, I paid £499 for mine new at SW Optics so for me it is vfm.

[absolut_beethoven]

Originally Posted by typo

Just skipping the other guff, 4' is the normal convention for 4 arcminutes of resolution. That's 4x60= 240 arcseconds!!! The theoretical limit (Dawes limit) for a perfect 42mm objective is 2.76 arcseconds ! Lets give them the benefit of the doubt and suppose they meant 4" or 4 arcseconds. I seem to remember Zeiss used to quote a minimum resolution of 6 arcseconds at one time.

They are simply claiming it's very sharp, well beyond the resolution of the eye. However the Porters in their recent test using 4x boosting still found it fell behind the alphas. Doesn't seem to quite square up does it? That would be full aperture testing though, what ever that means. They seemed pretty sharp to me, but I've not looked at them side by side with the top marks.
http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2...hart_2012.html

Probably not helping much.

David

Interesting that their chart is in complete disagreement with that Norwegian site about the merits of the Opticron line. I personally find their (the Norwegian site) test results ludicrous with zero credibility based on the binos that I've seen.

Their main website http://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/st...n-c-629-1.aspx

FWIW I was really impressed with the brightness, contrast, sharpness and resolution of the new Zeiss Conquest HD. But honestly feel that for $1000 with the Chinese, Japanese and even the Czechs delivering outstanding value for money the CA should have been better controlled, especially considering that most people accept that as one of Zeiss strengths.

[typo]

Agreed the Norwegian ranking bizarre, but if the Opticron Aurora minimum 4" figure for resolution is correct then the Porter scoring seems even more bizarre as it represents itself as basing it on 'accurate' boosted testing. They can't both be right surely?

Both reviews deserve a healthy level of scepticism IMO.

David

[Torview]

To me if the Norwegian test reveals an Opticron Countryman to have better resolution than a Swarovski el something`s awry.

I may feel the Aurora`s a bit overpriced, but no way is it a 3 vs a 5 in the Porters resolution test.

I`ll still keep trying one when the opportunity arises, hoping one day it`ll "sparkle" for me.

[typo]

The Countryman HD was certainly sharper than other comparably priced pairs I tried alongside and it's probably my current favourite at the price point, but above a Swaro and the Kowa overall???

The weather's been pretty poor when I've had a chance to try the Aurora and I'm not sure I've seen it at it's best. Seemed technically excellent, and very natural. Is that enough for the price point? Not sure yet. There's tough competition around that price from Meopta, Nikon, Minox etc. Perhaps those don't out resolve the Aurora. Who knows?

David

[pete_gamby]

Originally Posted by dipped

Anyone know what this means?

"The optical design doesn’t just reduce the overall dimensions and finished weights of the Aurora but delivers 7.2° (8x42) / 6.5° (10x42) field of view with stunning resolution guaranteed at under 4’ for each and every binocular."

It was copied from the Opticron site.

Perhaps we should just stick to the company motto - "Lighter, brighter, sharper, smaller" - that in essence is what my colleagues were trying to say.

But also thanks for drawing attention to the typo (not the typo, the typo... the mistake I mean. No David's not a mistake - he's typo). Oh... dammit. Need more coffee.

Cheers, Pete

[CliveP]

Originally Posted by pete_gamby

But also thanks for drawing attention to the typo (not the typo, the typo... the mistake I mean. No David's not a mistake - he's typo). Oh... dammit. Need more coffee.

Cheers, Pete

That's my morning chuckle.