I think Brightness is hard to be shown in photos.Thanks guys (especially Henry)! I find the negativity towards the flat field concept expressed by eg Tobias quite interesting - I don't share it myself, but it's interesting to get a sense of what others see.
@jackjack - the second photo in your post #5 (HT binoscope) shows very distinct inward bending of the straight lines especially the roof of the building at the top of the image. Do you perceive that when using the HT yourself? I ask because when I tried the HT myself (albeit some time ago) I didn't notice it, not do I using the apparently very similar 8x42 FL. I don't doubt it's there, I just don't perceive it. When I look at the full-size version of the same photo, the pincushion (hope I'm using the right word for it!) is still there, but much less apparent.
My impression of the 10x42 HT was a very bright binocular, slightly but noticeably more so than the 10x42 SF I tried on the same occasion (on a sunny day, too). This doesn't show in the scopes - but I thought the images in Tobias's site (now offline!) did not show this well also.
After looking at more binoscopes I'm even more of the opinion that although they can be interesting and indeed useful in some respects, the saying that "the camera never lies" is not quite correct!
I have set phone camera the same setting and digiscoped at night to see Brightness differ, but mostly failed. unless the Brightness gap is so high (such as nikon 3s vs zeiss conquest) because not only transmission but also, the size of the exit pupil (because not all to 8 powers have exactly 8 power)
and exact collimation of the phone lenses plays a bigger part at night.
also AFOV too.
abd who is Tobias? I only know the review site not the reviewer name...
