Vespobuteo
Well-known member
I don't want to rub it in but
transmission would be higher with schott-glass,
o
transmission would be higher with schott-glass,
o
I don't want to rub it in but
transmission would be higher with schott-glass,
o
They already use Schott glass. :t:
ok, schott HT glass…then…
"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
o
Any more brightness beyond this point may have impact on colour redention and contrast.
I don't think transmission is such a big thing beyond a point. I find 10*50 extremely bright. Any more brightness beyond this point may have impact on colour redention and contrast.
Sanjay
Nice experiment, Barshnik. :t:
According to the Weber-Fechner laws of psychophysics, the just-noticeable difference (jnd) between two stimuli is proportional to the magnitude of the stimuli. Hence, it becomes easier to perceive a force difference of 1/10 oz. if the overall turning force requirement is reduced. Ironically, this may plague Swarovski's new focusers simply because they succeeded in designing them to turn with a lighter touch.
No good deed goes unpunished. 3
Ed
Oh, no! Not another plague upon us! Hopefully, Weber and Fechner did their ciphering wrong and the new Swaro focusers (which I didn't realize were redesigned until you mentioned it, where did you find that information?) will turn smooth as a baby's bottom in both directions (including the SLC's focusers).
I'd like to see John measure the directional resistance in about a dozen other Swaro focusers, both old and new, because from my experience and from the experience of many others on BF, it's apparent they are not all created equal, having tried three new samples and found differences among them, and the fact that some developed problems over time (only after a few months in Lee's sample).
One EL focuser took a lot of force with two fingers to turn in one direction (I'd bet way more than 1/10 oz,), and a new SLC took took just a little more work to turn in one direction, which sounds like John's sample.
Given the numerous complaints about the directional stiction difference, there are probably a lot of Swaro focusers with more than 1/10 oz. difference, either out of the box or after being used for a while. Plus, others are "ratchety," "coarse," or "stiff," throughout the focus range, not just in one direction.
If, indeed, Swaro has redesigned their focusers with a "light touch," it means that my effort to raise awareness of this issue (despite heavy flak from The Defenders) and the comments from other birders who have expressed dissatisfaction with Swaro focusers have managed to get heard above the buckshot of the company's 2/3 hunting customer base, for whom the dual stiction focusers were designed, as peatmoss was told by Swaro.
Even if the redesgin didn't completely solve the problems, it at least shows that Swaro is finally paying attention just as they did with turning up the level of pincushion distortion with the SV ELs.
Of course, I'm not so naive as to believe these changes were made solely to satisfy a minority of customers, but rather out of concern that they and other potential customers might migrate to Zeiss or other brands if they did not make the changes.
And now the rebuttal....
Brock
Your rant has probably sold more Swaros than any other poster. :t::t:Oh, no! Not another plague upon us! Hopefully, Weber and Fechner did their ciphering wrong and the new Swaro focusers (which I didn't realize were redesigned until you mentioned it, where did you find that information?) will turn smooth as a baby's bottom in both directions (including the SLC's focusers).
I'd like to see John measure the directional resistance in about a dozen other Swaro focusers, both old and new, because from my experience and from the experience of many others on BF, it's apparent they are not all created equal, having tried three new samples and found differences among them, and the fact that some developed problems over time (only after a few months in Lee's sample).
One EL focuser took a lot of force with two fingers to turn in one direction (I'd bet way more than 1/10 oz,), and a new SLC took took just a little more work to turn in one direction, which sounds like John's sample.
Given the numerous complaints about the directional stiction difference, there are probably a lot of Swaro focusers with more than 1/10 oz. difference, either out of the box or after being used for a while. Plus, others are "ratchety," "coarse," or "stiff," throughout the focus range, not just in one direction.
If, indeed, Swaro has redesigned their focusers with a "light touch," it means that my effort to raise awareness of this issue (despite heavy flak from The Defenders) and the comments from other birders who have expressed dissatisfaction with Swaro focusers have managed to get heard above the buckshot of the company's 2/3 hunting customer base, for whom the dual stiction focusers were designed, as peatmoss was told by Swaro.
Even if the redesgin didn't completely solve the problems, it at least shows that Swaro is finally paying attention just as they did with turning up the level of pincushion distortion with the SV ELs.
Of course, I'm not so naive as to believe these changes were made solely to satisfy a minority of customers, but rather out of concern that they and other potential customers might migrate to Zeiss or other brands if they did not make the changes.
And now the rebuttal....
Brock
I'm thinking you need to work on finger strength.
I wrote "rebuttals," not buttheads
I don't think transmission is such a big thing beyond a point.
Any more brightness beyond this point may have impact on colour redention
Sanjay
Interesting point Sanjay, but consider this.
Imagine a bin which only transmits 80% of light and the missing 20% was lost from all colours equally. If you were to look through it I think you would say it was not bright and that the colours looked 'washed out'. But this is because of a lack of light, not too much of it.
With bins that transmit 90% of light like most good quality modern bins there is still 10% of light lost and if this is lost from the red colour then you may think that the reds in a view (and other colours that contain red) look washed out, but again this is due to a lack of light (or a lack of brightness of red) not too much. So I think it true to say that in any bins that show any washed-out colours it is because the bins are not transmitting all of the light of that colour.
I think that the closer bins get to transmitting an impossible 100% of light the more likely that all colours will be seen in their full glory and all this is thanks to more light.
Lee
Without sunglasses, bright sunny days are a sure bust for color vibrancy. Excessive brightness is also why people use darkening filters on telescopes when viewing the earth's moon.Interesting point Sanjay, but consider this.
Imagine a bin which only transmits 80% of light and the missing 20% was lost from all colours equally. If you were to look through it I think you would say it was not bright and that the colours looked 'washed out'. But this is because of a lack of light, not too much of it.
With bins that transmit 90% of light like most good quality modern bins there is still 10% of light lost and if this is lost from the red colour then you may think that the reds in a view (and other colours that contain red) look washed out, but again this is due to a lack of light (or a lack of brightness of red) not too much. So I think it true to say that in any bins that show any washed-out colours it is because the bins are not transmitting all of the light of that colour.
I think that the closer bins get to transmitting an impossible 100% of light the more likely that all colours will be seen in their full glory and all this is thanks to more light.
Lee
Gotta disagee here, Lee. My 8x32 FL (what is it 95%+ according to Allbinos?) just gets washed out in seriously bright conditions. And my creaky old eyes can't even get big pupils anymore. Near as I can tell, less is more for lots of folks.
I think brightness may be seriously overrated, for many users anyway. Same with FOV.
And there's nothing left that transmits 80% anyway. 90-92% sounds about right.
Mark
Isn't your SV making something like 92%? Does 3% really turn a bin from sensational [your SV] to washed out [FL]?
I don't think there is a person here that could see 3% differences outside of a lab. I don't buy into the ''washout'' thing either as the HT is around 95% and no one that has one would ever say it washes out. Are you sure you are not seeing veiling glare instead? I have some classic bins that probably don't exceed 75% transmission and, sure, they are too bright in some conditions too, like bright snow and over water etc.
Interesting point Sanjay, but consider this.
Imagine a bin which only transmits 80% of light and the missing 20% was lost from all colours equally. If you were to look through it I think you would say it was not bright and that the colours looked 'washed out'. But this is because of a lack of light, not too much of it.
With bins that transmit 90% of light like most good quality modern bins there is still 10% of light lost and if this is lost from the red colour then you may think that the reds in a view (and other colours that contain red) look washed out, but again this is due to a lack of light (or a lack of brightness of red) not too much. So I think it true to say that in any bins that show any washed-out colours it is because the bins are not transmitting all of the light of that colour.
I think that the closer bins get to transmitting an impossible 100% of light the more likely that all colours will be seen in their full glory and all this is thanks to more light.
Lee