OK, what is this I see in the Bushnell Legend M's? (1 Viewer)

bluespiderweb said:

...Maybe there isn't an answer anyone can offer to explain it, or even know what in the world I am carrying on about! ; )

Click to expand...

Barry,
I see that enhanced reflection with Pentax DCF ED 8x32 and appreciate it too. In that case it goes with impressions of strong colour, apparent extra contrast, and good snap to focus, making things look more solid and interesting.

I guessed it was due to sharpness/good definition but that was not borne out by comparison on a chart with binoculars which don't particularly exhibit it.

It seems to be the opposite of the general dullness which is present in diminishing light or light mist on a damp morning. However 32mm is unlikely to be relatively bright and, as would be expected, they don't work particularly well in low light.

No help here to explain it but agree it's a nice feature |=)|
Interested to hear how you get on with typo's test, and not sure what it might mean...
(cross posted so need to read more above)

It's most often on leaves in the sun and my two other binoculars, acknowledged as 'sharp', today appear to do it just as much. On second thoughts and in two respects, my testing using a chart was probably irrelevant, so I still guess that it is just an expression of sharpness.

David, thanks for your explanations. But I seem to have lost you a bit.

...the apparent width of an oncoming car headlight expands to obscure a large part of her view...I'm guessing just glare like a cortical cataract...

Click to expand...

Is this then only with lights or bright objects in very dim light or night? I have made no attempt to test for such.

...when Arek evaluated image sharpness, it is likely that something like half the light from the objective would be blocked by the iris of his eye, and typically the effective instrument resolution would have decreased significantly.

Click to expand...

Sorry if you have explained this earlier. How is resolution to be tested then, and how do we know he did not do it that way?

Place a single cotton thread...

Click to expand...

What situation are we modeling here?

Sorry if I am too dense. If the explanations in response have to be lengthy it is perfectly okay to drop it.

"Is this then only with lights or bright objects in very dim light or night? I have made no attempt to test for such.
As I said in my post "The effect is present, but less pronounced with bright spots in daylight".

"Sorry if you have explained this earlier. How is resolution to be tested then, and how do we know he did not do it that way?"
I asked Arek. They do not test for resolution in any way, and I don't imagine anyone would in defining close focus.

"What situation are we modeling here?"
Just illustrating what a relative small source of light scatter in the light path might affect the view.

Hope that's clearer.

David

typo said:

Here's something to try. Place a single cotton thread across the front of one objective of some binocular, other than your legend M, and hold in place with an elastic band. I just used a small ball bearing to reflect sunlight as a target but anything else would do. Compare one barrel to the other using the same eye and see if you can spot any difference in the apparent size of the reflection.

David

PS. I've noted a finger print doing something similar.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion David, but does it need to be sunny? And does thread have to have sunlight (or artificial light) strike it too, besides the shiny object to focus on? There's no sun now, and won't be until Monday maybe. Bright overcast and rainy now, and rain forecast the rest of the weekend.

Barry,

I can't say I've explored the permutations. When I checked earlier it was sunny and the thread was fairly shaded. Full sun would be interesting. I would think artificial light might work, but the source would need to be very small and some light would need to highlight the thread I suspect.

David

Thank you David, that (in post #24) is clearer, still not entirely clear, but I will work on it!

Barry,

I've tried a few things in artificial light, and although I'm convinced there is a difference, so far, it's been much less persuasive than daylight.

David

I did too David, but I couldn't get it to work for me. Probably doing it wrong, but the sun did get pretty bright at one point, though completely overcast. It didn't help anyway. Are you focusing on the shiny object near minimum focus distance?

I just placed the ball bearings on a low wall about 10 yards away, with the sun behind me. At that distance the smaller diameter one gave the clearer result. I guess I could have increased the distance.

In the past, it was mostly distant glitter points that signposted the presence of a fingerprint.

David

chris6 said:

Barry,
I see that enhanced reflection with Pentax DCF ED 8x32 and appreciate it too. In that case it goes with impressions of strong colour, apparent extra contrast, and good snap to focus, making things look more solid and interesting.

I guessed it was due to sharpness/good definition but that was not borne out by comparison on a chart with binoculars which don't particularly exhibit it.

It seems to be the opposite of the general dullness which is present in diminishing light or light mist on a damp morning. However 32mm is unlikely to be relatively bright and, as would be expected, they don't work particularly well in low light.

No help here to explain it but agree it's a nice feature |=)|
Interested to hear how you get on with typo's test, and not sure what it might mean...
(cross posted so need to read more above)

Click to expand...

Hiya Chris,

To me it sounds pretty normal to have those differences you see when viewing the difference in contrast or strength of colors between flat light (overcast) and bright normal light. You will see much enhanced colors and contrast in good light (not rainy, full overcast), and just dull colors and contrast in full overcast, rainy, misty weather.

I have been comparing at least 3 and sometimes 4 binos at the same time, and I can see the most difference in good sunlit conditions, or even better, bright, cloudy days where everything looks great, it seems to me, without the sun brightness and glare. At least, those are my highly unscientific but quite diligent observations, which should be taken at face value-they apply to my eyes, which no doubt others don't have here! I use bins without glasses, and my left eye is a bit weaker than my right, but with a good diopter and proper setting, I think it equals out pretty well so far for me.

Bless these optical gurus who understand most of this stuff-not me, by a far chance, but I want to understand more. Given my nature, that might not be a good road to go down, but I do try a bit to get there. Observation is the best way for me to know something is different, even though I can't explain it. I just know there are differences at times between optics by simply viewing the results over and over, that's all.

I can't explain it much at all beyond some basics, like how different lighting affects what you see, but that's about it!

adhoc said:

Barry, welcome to our world. At that time the Leica, Nikon, Swarovski, and Zeiss pockets weighed as follows respectively in their higher/highest-tier compact models.

8x20: 8.5, 9.5, 7.6, 7.9 oz. 10x25: 9.3, 10.6 ;-(, 8.1, 8.8 oz.

That was Ultravid with Leica, who also had Trinovid in these configurations; Victory with Zeiss, who had Conquest; Premier/HG with Nikon, who had many other compact model ranges; Swaro. had only this one compact range, whose name (if any) I have not recorded. Those lower-tier models were lighter than these!

Click to expand...

Thanks for your support and helpful replies, though I don't think I'm ready to take that leap just yet, though after looking through my big 10x42's this afternoon trying to sort them out, my both wrists are aching, and I had to put my wrist straps on, and it reminded me to take my meds! So, yeah, I might get there one of these days to the sub 10 oz group, but I'm going to go screaming and scratching I think before I do! ; )

I rarely do as much handling of them when I'm out in the woods and fields-it just gets a little more intense at home because I can switch between them and compare. In the field, I only bring one usually with me. And I end up taking as many pictures as I do looking through my bins. I look at all in my path, and I'm not in a hurry to get there! It's my speed right about now, if I feel up to it.