• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Ulrtavid 10x42 vs 10x50 (1 Viewer)

brazos

Member
I have narrowed my search down to these 2 binoculars. The price difference is about $100 which when spending this much not a big deal. There are obvious size differences which I can deal with since I have held them both. Sure the 10x42 are smaller which is better but the 10x50's aren't too bad (8oz heavier and 1.5" longer). Are the 10x50's optically worth the extra load? Are they much better in low light situations? This is allot of money to spend and want to make sure I made the best choice I can. I think what is driving me towards the 10x50's is getting the best view possible over everything else and still be a reasonable size and weight to carry if I need to.

Thanks,

Brazos
 
Depth of field might be another point to consider: In general, 10x42 binoculars are very sensitive to focusing (=shallow depth of field) while 10x50s seem to be more reasonable. This has been my observation but I don't have any sceintific explanation to back it (my PhD is in the wrong field!) Does any body have any information how depth of field changes in binoculars with same power (say 10) but with different front lens (say 25, 32, 42 and 56mm)?
 
Last edited:
I think your observation is theoretically justified. Holding power constant reduces the contributing variables to focal length, f/#, and effective aperture. A 10x50 binocular tends to be designed with a larger focal lenth objective than a 10x42, thereby making its effective f/# larger for a fixed observer pupil diameter (which determines the effective aperture). As with a camera lens, the DOF increases directly with f/#.

By the same token, observing this focal length effect directly can be elusive because, at the expense of some brightness, the observer can also involuntarily contract his pupil to increase the f/# — producing a classic observer effect.

Blue skies,
Ed

PS. I can't help but add that if the objective focal lengths are not different, the DOF of a 10x42 should be the same as that of a 10x50 (assuming effective aperture is constant).
 
Last edited:
10x50 Every Time!

Hi Brazos
I think I can help, as I have a pair of both!
Yessir, the 10x50 is one HEAVY binocular. Like you, I thought that the small difference in weight would not be a problem. But as the weeks and months went by I realised that this is one big sucker to hang around your neck! After a year the metal strap loops are even starting to bite thro the straps. Now that is some strain!
But...........the 10x50 is so much better optically, that I never used the 10x42 and I sold them real quick. With the 10x50 available daily for comparison, it soon became clear that the big ones were vastly superior. After a while the small ones upset me to look thro, they were a bad second place. So now I walk around with a bent neck, and I'm happy. I hand my big black bins to other people to check out, and they gasp with amazement at the image. Some say it's like watching 'discovery channel' when you look thro them. But they all hand 'em back with the comment that they must be good quality cos they are so heavy and they can't stand holding them much longer. This was a real surprise to me because my main binocular used to be Swarovski 8.5x42 at 860g. The 10x50 leica is only 1010g. I did not expect to notice the extra 150g. But it feels like an extra kilogramme in use.
Optically, the 50's have much better edge definition, bigger sweet spot, better depth of focus, brighter image at night and clearer overall sharpness. they are also error-free on the eye-to-eye diopter, which sits at the 'zero' point all the time. The 42's are slightly out, requiring the diopter set a point to one side. Not a problem, but aesthetically displeasing to have the pointer slewed crooked all the time. The 42's also have one barrel optically better than the other. One side has bigger sweet spot, and better edge definition. On the 50's they're both good. Flare is less on the big ones too, and they have bigger eyepiece lenses.
The only bad thing I notice optically about the 50's is that the point of focus across the field of view is not uniform. If I focus the CENTRE of the the image on the horizon at infinity, I notice that the outer edge is NOT focussed on the distance the same, but is focussed on someting closer, maybe around 50 yards away. If I move the focus wheel so the the outer parts of the image are in-focus, then the centre is wrong. In other words, the focussing characteristics of the lenses are CONICAL, not flat field. A shame that this wasn't corrected in the design stage. But I do understand that if this problem was compensated out of the design, then a 'bowl shaped' curved image would result when panning. Zeiss dialyts were known for this. I'd personally prefer it if the whole image was in focus at the same time, but that's just me.
Conclusion? The big ones. No contest.
And an afterthought: Both mine developed the well-known jerky focus wheel problem after around a year's use. Big fault. So bad in fact, that I never use my Leicas any more. It's that horrible. Wanna buy mine? I don't love them any more with a fault like that.....
best wishes
Paul
 
Thanks

Thanks to all. I learned a bit about DOF. Thanks Paul for your input. I think I will go with the 10x50's. I just don't carry my bino's around to much and I have a decent pair of 8x30's if I do. I have been testing different Leica's and have not noticed the sticking focus wheel but there is a problem from all I have read about it. I just don't see why some grease can't be applied and be done with it. I have read the reviews at BDV and it is partly why I am looking at the 10x50's.

Thanks,

Brazos
 
I'm not surprised to read that a better image can be seen through the 10x50 Ultravid compared to the 10x42. I've had the same experience with the Zeiss 8x56 FL compared to the 8x42. I'm sure the reason is the same in both cases. The objective focal lengths of the larger aperture bins are longer. When the eye stops down the aperture in daylight both 10x Ultavids become effectively the same aperture. For instance, if the eye is open to 3mm both become effectively 10x30s, but the 10x42 is operating at about f/5-5.5 while the 10x50 is effectively about f/6-6.5. The higher focal ratio optics will have lower aberrations and the difference may be enough to see a cleaner appearing image through the 10x50.

The idea that different binoculars of the same magnification can have different DOF has been thrashed around here and on other forums many times. I fall into the camp of those who believe that only magnification has any signiificant effect on the actual optical DOF in binoculars and telescopes. The camera anology breaks down because our retinas are not positioned at the focal point of the objective lens like film in a camera. I really don't want to get into the theoretical arguements about this again, but here is a simple experiment that convinces me. With the sun behind you place a small round reflective object like a light bulb or Christmas tree ornament about 15 ft away so that you can see a tiny reflection of the sun in it. Now focus one barrel of any pair of binoculars on a distant object (more tham 100 ft). Without changing the focus place the glimmer spot of the sun in the center of the field. It will be an out of focus disc, possible with concentric rings inside. The size the disc is determined by only one thing: how far out of focus the glimmer spot is. If you compare ANY two binoculars of the same magnification you will see virtually the same size disc. I say virtually because the actual magnifications may not be exactly the same between two bins labeled with the same magnification. I place one binocular to one eye and the other binocular to the other eye and center the disc in both side by side which allows a very accurate comparison. If you compare bins of different magnifications the difference in the disc sizes is not subtle. The disc through a 6x bin is about half as large as an 8x bin and a 10x is 60-70% larger than an 8x.
 
Henry,

As a first order approximation, theory says that relative to magnification the DOF should be proportional to the reciprocal of magnification squared, i.e., 1/m^2. For comparison purposes your binoculars are in the ratio of 100:64:36. If the observed disc sizes are also in this relationship, then, as you found, "...the disc through a 6x bin is about half as large as an 8x bin and a 10x is 60-70% larger than an 8x." I've underlined words that reflect these being gross size estimates on your part. Still, I'm very impressed and applaud your ingenuity.

Personally, I've always worked to bring theory and observation together, rather than entertaining the notion they are at odds. In this instance, the same theory also says that for a given magnification DOF is directly proportion to f/#, which is a smaller effect that may well operate within the accuracy of size estimation you (or anyone else) is able to make. Moreover, since the observer's pupil size is under involuntary control, the potential for this influencing f/# must be considered in any measurement approach involving an observer. I don't know why this limitation, which is well known to every behavioral scientist, can't be accepted.

As a further thought, it is my belief that the additional DOF, however small, provided by a somewhat larger focal length objective adds to the overall ease of use and enjoyment of the instrument. This will have to remain an article of faith, since a natural experiment involving different binoculars would be very difficult to conduct.

I hope that nothing I've said is offensive, since it is merely an attempt to bridge an unintended divide. In my opinion there is no basis for disagreement.

Respectfully,
Ed
 
Last edited:
Brazos,

I'll join the folks recommending the 10x50 if image quality is paramount and the size/weight difference does not scare you. I have tested the 10x42 Ultravid, and tried the 10x50. I also saw a better image in the 50. As Paul says, it has better corrected field edges, and although my eyes don't allow me to measure a better centerfield resolution for the bigger model, they do see a slightly sharper, more satisfying image. I also find that although the 50 is heavier I tend to be able to hold these kinds of slightly longer and heavier binoculars more steady than the shorter, lighter versions.

Ed, as you know from previous threads, I tend to side with Henry on the D.O.F. issue. I started out by trusting the theory about the f-ratio of the objective being an important determinant of depth of field (important after magnification differences were eliminated), but in none of my repeated and various trials and experiments (none quite as elegant as Henry's out-of-focus glitter point test) did I manage to unearth any D.O.F. differences that I could believe in, let alone duplicate or quantify.

Kimmo
 
If you compare ANY two binoculars of the same magnification you will see virtually the same size disc. I say virtually because the actual magnifications may not be exactly the same between two bins labeled with the same magnification. I place one binocular to one eye and the other binocular to the other eye and center the disc in both side by side which allows a very accurate comparison. If you compare bins of different magnifications the difference in the disc sizes is not subtle. The disc through a 6x bin is about half as large as an 8x bin and a 10x is 60-70% larger than an 8x.

Well, I composed a response yesterday, but deleted it because I thought it might be interpreted as argumentative (heaven forbid), and possibly a bit pompous (I’m trying to improve). Also, it occurred to me that it wouldn’t be too hard to try out Henry’s technique in the back yard. I managed to find a single red Xmas tree ornament, and the sun cooperated nicely. The trial was finished just a few minutes ago. I hope my eyesight wasn’t hurt permanently.

I decided to use all four of my Swarovski SLC’s to maintain as much similarity as possible; all roof, same manufacturer, same quality, equal owner affection, etc. They made for a nice 2x2 experiment design, — two 10x and two 8x, each pair having a large and small objective variant. Specifically, they were the 10x25, 10x42, 8x20, and 8x30.

There were two trial sets, each using a different sun angle. The second was better because the glitter point was at the top of the ball and made for an easier visualized disk. I should point out that when on-axis all binoculars produced a nice circular disk with a strong red fringe. Off-axis they rapidly changed to oblongs, whether vertically or horizontally. I should also add that when these disks were examined they were not stable; there was a 3-4 sec. waiting period to be perceived clearly as a disk. The impression is that my eye was accommodating, or more broadly speaking, “adapting”. Problem 1 — Whatever happens in the eye may influence the results. Solution — none that I can think of.
I did all subsequent comparisons with my left dominant eye.

Although Henry apparently uses two eyes to compare blur disks simultaneously, I would not recommend this because the eyes do not function independently. Binocular rivalry often cross-contaminates what each eye perceives, eliminating or averaging differences when they are small.

There were two primary questions: (1) were the 10x disks perceived to be larger than the 8x?, and (2) were the disks from larger objectives perceived to be a different size than those from smaller ones? After preliminary efforts to set up the binoculars at a uniform focusing distance, i.e., several leaves at the top of a tree two hundred feet away, it became evident that everything depended on how accurately that was done. A small change in infinity setting has a clear effect on disk size. Problem 2 — repeatability. Solution — do this several times to average out error. I did it three times, not enough.

The results were as follows:
1. 10x binoculars produced larger disks than 8x. Theory says they should be in the ratio of 100:64 (nonlinear), rather than 100:80 (linear). The difference looked more like theory would predict, but I wouldn’t stake my life on it.
2. For both 10x and 8x pairs the larger objective consistently seemed to produce slightly larger disks than the smaller ones.
3. Results 1 and 2 were replicated after resetting infinity focus thrice.

Discussion:

Result 1 is possibly consistent with theory, result 2 is not. The larger objectives should produce greater DOF and, hence, smaller out-of-focus disk sizes. They appeared to be, however, slightly larger.

One explanation for result 2 might be that the two small objective (pocket) binoculars were slightly higher power than spec, or the large objective binoculars lower than spec, or some combination of the two. If disk size grows with the square of magnification, then any small difference would be exaggerated.

Another explanation is that this observer did not infinity focus the pocket binoculars in the same way as the larger ones. A procedure was used to approach infinity from a point beyond and work inwards, but there is no guarantee that this corresponded to an equivalent setting in each case. The focuser gains are different between the binoculars, with the pocket pairs involving more turns and possibly yielding more precision. High gain conversely, could produce more error.

Yet another explanation is that my perceptual estimates of size were contaminated by scene disparity, in particular, monocular field of view or distance cues. Pocket binoculars always have a smaller FOV than their full size mates. Size estimation has many pitfalls and this may simply have been one of them. Side by side comparison with both eyes, as mentioned above, has yet other complications, particularly a tendency to average out small differences — which would obviously bias the results to not seeing any.

Other comments:

1. There is no doubt that the visualized disk monotonically changes with defocus. Rack the focus wheel from one end to the other and observe it spread out or contract. I’m not sure if the growth is linear, but the disk will also grow larger beyond the observer’s infinity focus. (I have some residual concern about this, as relates to physical scaling.)

2. The procedure is, as Henry mentioned, easy to perform (although not so easy on the eyes.) I am concerned with the visual adaptation process that obviously occurs when the out-of-focus glitter point is first addressed by the eye. This may involve several things including lens accommodation and pupil changes to minimize retinal blur. I certainly experience strain whatever it is. That being the case, it’s hard to know if the same physiological state obtains for each binocular. As I’ve mentioned on other threads, differences in pupil diameter affect both the effective aperture and f/# of the system. Hence, they constitute a problematic basis for a nasty observer effect.

3. In my opinion, although the present results do not support the theory that larger objectives, with longer focal lengths, have a greater DOF, they also don’t quite support the thesis that they are the same size either. Besides, the "null-hypothesis" can't be proven. All in all, I would say that the procedure, as ingenious as it is, is subject to sufficient vagary that it not likely to strongly verify nor refute theory. The weak point is that it's all based on size perception. Personally, I'm also not convinced that the adaptations required to perform the task don't mask the optical advantages that some believe a larger objective provides. But, that's just me. I need my theories disproven before I give up on them.

Thank you Henry for an interesting exercise, and I'm going to save my red ball for the future. It’s been fun, but now I need to take a nap.

Blue skies,
Ed
 
Last edited:
I hope you had some fun, Ed. I've gone so far down optogeek street that I find these backyard tests endlessly fascinating. I think the probable explanation for your 2.5mm exit pupil binoculars showing smaller discs is that your eye was actually open to more than 2.5mm. I think this is likely, even in sunlight, when a binocular is placed in front of your eyes. If the small binoculars were acting as stopdowns for your eyes that would increase DOF by changing the focal ratio of your eye. I don't think dynamic changes in the pupil size of the eye should make any difference in the DOF of binoculars as long as the binocular exit pupils are larger than the entrance pupil of the eye at its widest dilation. Of course the large binoculars can always be stopped down to match the exit pupils of the small ones to be certain. Most of the time I equalize all the 8x binoculars to 30mm for this kind of test.

Today I tried to refine my technique. I compared three "8x30" telescopes of very different focal lengths, using two artificial stars (pinholes about 20mm apart) as my close out-of-focus target. The telescopes were one barrel of a Nikon 8x30 E II (110mm FL), one barrel of a CZJ 8x50 Octarem stpped down to 30mm (about 190-200mm FL) and a Takahashi FC-50 telescope stopped down to 30mm and outfitted with a 50mm camera lens as an eyepiece to make an extremely long 400mm focal length 8x30 . I used a USAF 1951 resolution target at about 50m as my distant target to focus on. My artificial stars were pinholes in aluminum foil with a halogen bulb behind them for illumination. The idea behind the two closely spaced stars is to make the test more accurate. Using only one eye it's pretty easy to judge how much of a a gap or overlap there is between between the discs as seen through different instruments.

I started by focusing the Takahashi scope on the distant target and adjusted the distance to the pinholes until the two discs reached a size that allowed their edges to just barely touch (about 8m). Then I focused each of the binoculars on the USAF target and compared their disc sizes to the TAK at the same distance from the pinholes. I found (after numerous repititions)that the disc sizes in both 8x binoculars were virtually identical to the 8x TAK, just large enough for the two discs to barely touch. These three instruments represent a far wider range of focal lengths (110mm-400mm)and focal ratios (f/3.6-f/13.3) than would be found among 8x binoculars. If, under controlled conditions I can't see any difference in DOF at the same magnification between an f/3.6 scope and F/13.3 scope I feel pretty confident that focal ratio has, at best, a very tiny influence on DOF in binoculars. I 'll add that I did experience some of the same involuntary effort at focus accomodation that Ed mentioned, but fortunately my eyes aren't capable of much accomodation and it was pretty obvious when they had given up and relaxed.

Next, I did the same test through binoculars with magnifications of 10x, 9x, 7x, and 6x. With each lowering of magnification there was an easily seen reduction in the size of the discs indicating more DOF with lower magnifications. Finially I tried a Nikon 8-16x40 zoom in an effort to estimate the smallest change in magnification that would make a visible change in the disc sizes. My best estimate is about 0.3X.

Unless somebody can suggest some new wrinkle, I think I've done all I can stand to do with this question for now. A nap sounds pretty good.
 
Ed/Henry

When Henry first brought up his idea I tried the same thing but modified hes technique a little. I used a collimator to set infinity focus and an artificfial star at about 3 meters. To aid in the out of focus estimate I plotted a concentric circle target with about .125" wide lines spaced about .25" and punched a hole in the center for the star aperture (a small square plastic box). While very out of focus it still aided with the size estimate.

This may help in saving the vision and estimating the blur diameter. Hope this talk goes a little further, I am really enjoying the discussion. Thanks

Ron
 
Henry,

You may be right about the operating relationship between the size of my pupil vs. the EP of the binocular. Given the brightness of the ambient conditions, and the lack of eyecup seal with my face, I just assumed that my PD would be < 2.5mm with the compacts. Stopping down everything to the same EP would certainly be a good control. This is an issue that has always annoyed me, incidentally, and it's unfortunate that there is no simple means (that I know of) to monitor the behavior of the pupil during observations. It's quite dynamic with a frequency as high as 4-5 hz, and might be expected to respond not only to some function of light in the eyeball, but also the subject being observed. After looking at the bright disks, it's clear that part of the eyestrain is due to brightness, so, not to argue, I'd be surprised if my pupils were not fully closed.

I had a similar idea about using the gap between two disks to estimate size. Last night my wife located some clear glass polished marbles of 9/16" diameter (used for flower displays). Of course they roll around a lot but make perfect little star sources — even better than my red ornament. I found a wire mesh with .25 in. spacing and clipped out a few sections to make .5x.5 square holes. The balls rest perfectly in those holes and can easily be separated to calibrated distances.

Out in the back yard this morning I did an experiment similar to yours comparing the 8x30 with 8x20 SLCs. I first set up the 8x30 to have disks that just touched and then observed with the 8x20. If the disks were smaller there should be a gap.

Results: There was a clear gap! The method is a considerable improvement over what I did yesterday because there was no need to alternate between binoculars, and the gap between two disks is twice the change in radius going from larger to smaller. It's a difference multiplier.

If interested in glass marbles see this web site: http://www.mcgillswarehouse.com/groupslist.aspx?CategoryID=125&selection=29. I could also send you a handfull.

Surveyor, it seems like you have even a different method. What do you think?

Clear balls,
Ed
PS. Swarovski sells some really good and expensive Crystal Balls.
 
Last edited:
Separate and apart from the comparative optical quality, it might depend on what you actually want to use them for.
For terrestrial viewing only, the 42mm would probably be as satisfying as the other, and you do get the bonus of a little less wieght. Though i have not checked, i would assume the field of view would be a tad wider also.

If you want them for dual use, i.e., night-astronomy, assuming the close focus is ok for birds etc, and you have made the decision to purchase one of the two, you might want to get the 50mm.

The light grasp would be (assuming equality of coatings) about 30% more for that extra 8mm of aperture, AT NIGHT.
[(Aperture in mm /2) squared, x pi ]
Of course during regular daytime, your eyes will limit your exit pupil to 2mm, pretty much negating the light grasp. The larger aperture would still give a tad greater resolution during daytime, but probably not enough to notice.
 
Depth of field might be another point to consider: In general, 10x42 binoculars are very sensitive to focusing (=shallow depth of field) while 10x50s seem to be more reasonable. This has been my observation but I don't have any sceintific explanation to back it (my PhD is in the wrong field!) Does any body have any information how depth of field changes in binoculars with same power (say 10) but with different front lens (say 25, 32, 42 and 56mm)?

When viewing witih two eyes (which most people do) it's easy to confuse two related phenomena: a) depth of field, and b) stereoptic depth. We've been discussing a), which is a monocular property, and seems elusive at best. For practical purposes I'm willing to fold up the tent. No difference. Stereoptic depth, however, can be directly related to the separation of the centers of the objectives. Comparing my 10x SLC models all set to my IPD of 64mm, the 10x42 is 3-4mm wider than the 10x25. The 8x30 is about 1mm wider than the 8x20. This might make for a subtle difference in perceived depth favoring the larger objective models.

As I recall, Henry or Kimmo mentioned something similar a few years ago.

Personally, I find the 10x42 a great configuration, but several reviewers have extolled the 10x50, which is 7 oz heavier and has a slightly larger FOV. Eye relief is also better at 17mm vs 14mm. Am I going to buy one — nope.

I hope we find out what's purchased.

Blue skies,
Ed
 
Last edited:
I'm almost ready to fold my tent also. My apologies for highjacking what is supposed to be an Ultravid thread, but I've noticed one more thing about DOF in binoculars worth mentioning. It's one of those things, that once I saw it revealed in the test, made me realize that it's so obvious I should have noticed it all along. Ed's experience with small exit pupil binoculars got me interested in trying some DOF experiments with aperture stopdowns. I stopped down one barrel of a CZJ 8x50 to 42mm, 35mm, 30mm, 28mm, 22mm and 20mm. Using the out-of focus glitter point test described above I compared the DOF of the stopped down apertures to the 50mm barrel under lighting conditions that ranged from bright sunlight to twilight.

Briefly, what I found was that DOF of the eye/binocular combination varies considerably with light level until the eye opens as wide as the exit pupil. How much DOF the combination has appears to depend on only two parameters; the magnification of the binocular and the pupil dilation of the eye (as long as it is smaller than the exit pupil). As you might expect the widest DOF occurs in very bright light, when the eye is closed down to perhaps 2.5mm giving the optics of the eye a focal ratio of about f/10. Under those conditions every binocular is effectively stopped down to 2.5mm. The DOF the eye sees through the binocular decreases as the eye opens wider in response to low light until the entrance pupil of the eye equals the exit pupil of the binocular. If the exit pupil is 5mm then the eye will be operating at f/5. No further decrease in DOF occurs if the eye opens wider than the exit pupil. So the eye will always operate at f/10 looking through an 8x20 and enjoy very wide DOF in any light, but the eye will vary between f/10 and f/5 when looking through an 8x40. Dof of an 8x40 will be the same as an 8x20 in bright light, but in dimmer light the 8x40 will have shallower DOF. I think this is one reason some observers are so happy with small exit pupil binoculars. Restricting the effective aperture of the eye may cause the image to be dim, but it also helps the eye in other ways. It increases DOF which improves edge performance by decreasing field curvature, and it allows the eye to avoid the worst eyesight aberrations that occur with wide pupil dilation.
 
Henry,

Just to make sure that the difference in EP between the 8x20 and 8x30 didn't play into the results, I masked the 8x30 to 20mm. Same results. The 8x20's disk is slightly smaller. Also, comparing a masked objective with an unmasked one on the 8x30 they remained the same. Conclusion: my pocket bins have slightly less power than the larger models.

In a separate experiment I mounted the Swaro 2x booster on the left side of my 10x42, making for a comparision with a 20x42. The disk sizes would be 2:1 if linear and 4:1 if non-linear. The 20x42 blur disk is much more than twice as large as the 10x configuration. 4:1? Could be. Unfortunately, brightness falls off with the square of disk radius, so looking for subtle differences is useless.

That's about it for me too. Like you and Kimmo before me, I see no measurable differences in DOF based on focal length. It must be a very small effect, or the theory is not being applied correctly.

Blue skies,
Ed
PS. I just saw your last post. Good work. I concur with it all. Remember that in low illumination the retina undergoes scotopic changes which also work against DOF. I'm thinking seriously about getting a Swaro Krystal Ball. ;)
 
Last edited:
PPS. Incidentally, the reasoning in your last paragraph also supports the notion that involuntary contraction of the pupil could momentarily improve the eye's DOF, at the expense of brightness, when the task demands it. This would be a dynamic response as different parts of the scene are brought to the fovea for examination. It's the main supposition behind an "Observer Effect," because there is no way to decouple this behavior.

Ed
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top