[FrankD]

Tom,

Here is a direct link to the Flickr pic of that model...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7302996...in/photostream

Very good apparent sharpness, better than average eye relief as I can clearly see the field stops, relatively flat field with a very respectable sweet spot for an ultrawide.

[bh46118]

black crow

I don't know if you have ever been directed to this web page ? If there is a more complete online reference than this, I couldn't tell you where. I don't think anyone will dispute Professor EdZ's credentials as a tester-reviewer-debunker.

Bruce

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthrea.../o/all/fpart/1

Originally Posted by black crow

I think that basically I know a good set of binoculars when I look through them but honestly I've never really thought about it until I joined this forum in December. I joined because I got excited about bird watching and the optical end of that. I've always carried compact binoculars but in November bought my first pair of full sized optics. I didn't really know about more than a half dozen companies and did my initial research on those. I had a low end budget but wanted something really good for my money. I knew from the inexpensive Nikon compacts I've owned that it could be done. I've owned maybe five pair of Nikons and one pair of Swift compacts in my life. I knew how good the Nikons were so I was biased for sure. Where I live it's kind of hard to put your hands on a lot of binocs so I went mostly on reviews. I ended up with the new Nikon Monarch 3 8x42. I think I did ok but now know I could have done better for that $200. That's my binocular history up to now so you get some idea of where I'm coming from.

When I got here I got swept up in the optical excitement. No one I know personally cares about optics like I do. So like a kid in a candy store I jumped in with both feet and within the next week (waiting for deliveries) I will own nine pairs of binoculars.

Better late than never I'm realizing I don't know enough about evaluating these optics to know which ones to keep and which to let go of. I do understand some of the basics of course but I hear terms here that mean almost nothing to me.

So I would like to ask for some help here.

Would some of you be willing to make a list of the most important things to look for when evaluating and testing these optics? Many of these binocs will be close optically but there well be other things that I will not know to look for to separate the good from the great. Or if there is a link to a thread here that already covers this subject. I'd greatly appreciate the help. And if you can briefly describe how to make the tests to determine these different mysterious things.

Help out a newb dudes. Pretty please. I'd like to be able to make some reasonably worthwhile evaluations to share with you all.

[black crow]

Thanks a bunch. This looks great.

[bh46118]

Your welcome.

Bruce

[brocknroller]

[quote=bh46118;2333854]black crow

I don't know if you have ever been directed to this web page ? If there is a more complete online reference than this, I couldn't tell you where. I don't think anyone will dispute Professor EdZ's credentials as a tester-reviewer-debunker.

Bruce

He's right up there with the Duke of Debunkers, Carl Sagan. :-)

Although, as I recall, he recanted on his theory of "full illumination of the exit pupil" and you can still find multiple threads on that concept, complete with numerous measurements.

Even a debunker sometimes needs to be debunked. That's what we have Henry for.

Brock

[FrankD]

[quote=brocknroller;2334129]

Originally Posted by bh46118

Even a debunker sometimes needs to be debunked. That's what we have Henry for.

Brock

Yes, the Henry/EdZ debates are legendary.