Follow up testing Noctivid (2 Viewers)

[Troubador]

Hi Lee,
My glasses introduce CA of their own, although I don't wear them when using binoculars.

I use the full Moon to see how much change in magnification there is at the edges.
Nowadays I don't like magnification change or CA, although I may have tolerated it years ago.

The strangest experience really was using a top quality Ross 100mm f/15 triplet objective. There was no false colour of any kind and it seemed bizarre for a refractor.

5,000 not out Lee, hopefully.

Congratulations.

Many thanks David

Lee

 

[Canip]

SD

.....
Though at least with CA there is something you can do to minimise the likelihood of encountering CA ie ensuring you are viewing on axis through the bins and not slightly above or below or to one side.
.....

Lee

This is a very important statement in my experience - I am convinced that a large part of the discussions about CA are caused by the fact that people tend to hold their binos in different ways, which can lead to viewing off-axis. Viewing off-axis often creates a substantial amount of the CA which people complain about. Of course, some binos are more "sensitive" to viewing off-axis and "react" by exhibiting CA, whereas others are more "forgiving".

Thanks to Lee for bringing this up !

 

[henry link]

You may well be able to discover the degree of AMD present but that won't predict who will see it and who won't. And I assert that it is subjective in the sense that I don't see this distortion when I pan. Its not that I see it but am not bothered by it. I don't see it at all. And as far as I can understand there are folks like me who don't perceive it, some that do but can get used to it, and some who cannot tolerate it at all, but I don't know of any test that can predict these responses and so help people to understand whether they might be affected by a particular model or not. If there was such a test I would be interested in reading about it.

Lee

Lee,

You personally may not notice the effect Angular Magnification Distortion when you pan, but you and anyone else can certainly see it if you look for it in the right way. The post below shows the effect of AMD on the shape of a circular object that subtends about 3º of apparent field as it moves toward the field edge.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3425938&postcount=14

I guarantee that you will see a similar change in shape to what you see in the top row if you move a similar sized circular object from the field center to 3:00 on the field edge in a 8x42 SF. I agree that you can't predict individual responses to the AMD, but by using that simple test you can certainly discover objectively whether there is a lot or a little of it compared to other binoculars. Those who already know that they respond negatively to the Globe Effect will then be forewarned.

Henry

 

[Iceberg slim]

Hey, most of those ''yanks'' actually spent most of their time on territory in Canada or on the wintering grounds in the tropics / sub-tropics. The ''yank'' portion is mostly just transit to and from their final destinations.

And, yes, this post was deliberately pedantic.

Yes but if you knew anything about 'Brit Birders, you know we covet 'Yanks and Sibes' with gay abandon...

And i'm just being informativeB

 

[Troubador]

Lee,

You personally may not notice the effect Angular Magnification Distortion when you pan, but you and anyone else can certainly see it if you look for it in the right way. The post below shows the effect of AMD on the shape of a circular object that subtends about 3º of apparent field as it moves toward the field edge.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3425938&postcount=14

I guarantee that you will see a similar change in shape to what you see in the top row if you move a similar sized circular object from the field center to 3:00 on the field edge in a 8x42 SF. I agree that you can't predict individual responses to the AMD, but by using that simple test you can certainly discover objectively whether there is a lot or a little of it compared to other binoculars. Those who already know that they respond negatively to the Globe Effect will then be forewarned.

Henry

Thanks for this Henry. It seems a simple procedure but I have reservations about its utility in practice. For example, if this was to be useful one would need consistency in labelling the degree of AMD (and how far from the field edge it extends) so that comparisons between models were not skewed and I also think the usage of subjective labels could mislead. For example describing the AMD in SF 8x42 'massive' (which may or may not be a fair description for all I know) could give the impression SF, or other model labelled in the same way, has a 'massive problem' with RB when the number of folks reporting it doesn't seem consistent with this.

I can see that your test could establish the objective presence or absence of the effect but I can't see a fair and equitable or useful way to translate that, using subjective labels, into consistent advice on which folks could rely.

Take SuperDuty. He has seen RB in Leupold McKinley 8X42. What should he take from someone reporting the SF or some other model has 'massive' AMD? To me it sounds as though he should avoid that model like the plague but he reports he doesn't see RB in SFs or Swarovisions.

Lee

 

[Binastro]

It also depends how wide the AFOV is.
As far as I recall the Russian 7x30, 10x42 has severe magnification change near the field edge, but the field is not very wide, so I don't like it at all.
If the field was super wide I wouldn't like it but I might be less bothered.

The Nikon Action VII has aspheric eyepieces and gentle undulating magnification change across the field, which doesn't bother me.

 

[henry link]

It also depends how wide the AFOV is.

Quite true, but notice the shrinking effect AMD has on the AFOV. In Zeiss' official specs the real field of the 8x42 SF is about 9% wider than the 8x42 HT (136m vs 148m). One might reasonably expect the SF to have a 9% wider apparent field, but it's only about 3% wider (62º vs 64º). The explanation for that is radial compression at the edge of the field in the SF that isn't present in the HT because it has high enough pincushion to correct AMD.

Lee,

I'm going to guess that Superduty is quite insensitive to rolling ball since he doesn't report detecting it in a group of binoculars with demonstrably high AMD. Perhaps the McKinleys have "supermassive" AMD?

Henry

 

[SuperDuty]

Either that, or maybe I'm just a weirdo. :-O

 

[Troubador]

Lee,

I'm going to guess that Superduty is quite insensitive to rolling ball since he doesn't report detecting it in a group of binoculars with demonstrably high AMD. Perhaps the McKinleys have "supermassive" AMD?

Henry

LOL, that could be the case Henry, or it could even be 'hypermassive'.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

Either that, or maybe I'm just a weirdo. :-O

SD, boasting again! We are all weirdos on here.

Lee

 

[Theo98]

SD, boasting again! We are all weirdos on here.

Lee

I'm in the club as I see HPMRB (hypermassive rolling ball) in the 64' VW-Beetle I drive....wait, do I see that, or Is It a HPMRB itself....:eek!: :-C

There goes my CRS again, or is it my Alzheimers...FWIW??! :brains:

Ted

 

[jgraider]

Just an observation, but I'm betting that if Leica hadn't used the terms "platicity" (or whatever), or "near 3D" when describing the view, it would have never been mentioned in any review by anybody. The human mind can be trained to see what we want it to see IMO.

 

[SuperDuty]

Ted

I think you need to reposition your tinfoil hat, you're good on the electromagnetic fields, but I fear there are some mind control waves leaking through. :-O

I'm in the club as I see HPMRB (hypermassive rolling ball) in the 64' VW-Beetle I drive....wait, do I see that, or Is It a HPMRB itself....:eek!: :-C

There goes my CRS again, or is it my Alzheimers...FWIW??! :brains:

Ted

 

[Theo98]

Ted

I think you need to reposition your tinfoil hat, you're good on the electromagnetic fields, but I fear there are some mind control waves leaking through. :-O

We're a Go, Robert. Now, How many Centuries to Blast Off???! 8-P B

Ted

 

[Canip]

Just an observation, but I'm betting that if Leica hadn't used the terms "platicity" (or whatever), or "near 3D" when describing the view, it would have never been mentioned in any review by anybody. The human mind can be trained to see what we want it to see IMO.

:t::t:

 

[Troubador]

Just an observation, but I'm betting that if Leica hadn't used the terms "platicity" (or whatever), or "near 3D" when describing the view, it would have never been mentioned in any review by anybody. The human mind can be trained to see what we want it to see IMO.

And I doubt whether anyone would have reviewed the first SFs and said, wow, this focuser is really smart.

Lee

 

[dalat]

And I doubt whether anyone would have reviewed the first SFs and said, wow, this focuser is really smart.

Why not? I think Zeiss really made something different in the SF (and to some lesser extent in the HT) by placing the focus wheel on the objective side of the bridge thus elminating the need for spacing of fingers or placing one finger on the bridge. I find that rather smart in its simplicy and novelty. The ergonomics of the SF are praised by most users and reviewers, so it seems that Zeiss got something right here...

 

[Troubador]

Why not? I think Zeiss really made something different in the SF (and to some lesser extent in the HT) by placing the focus wheel on the objective side of the bridge thus elminating the need for spacing of fingers or placing one finger on the bridge. I find that rather smart in its simplicy and novelty. The ergonomics of the SF are praised by most users and reviewers, so it seems that Zeiss got something right here...

Dalat you are absolutely right about that but I tend to think of that as part of the overall handling of the bins and I am a huge fan of SF for this.

I suppose I expected some sort of variable ratio focuser giving different speeds of focus at different distances (especially since Zeiss has done something like this on their Diascopes) so to find that SF was a little faster than HT (and Swaro EL) was kind of a let-down.

But yes, SFs handling and placement of the focus wheel is a major strength of that model.

Lee

 

[henry link]

Why not? I think Zeiss really made something different in the SF (and to some lesser extent in the HT) by placing the focus wheel on the objective side of the bridge thus elminating the need for spacing of fingers or placing one finger on the bridge. I find that rather smart in its simplicy and novelty. The ergonomics of the SF are praised by most users and reviewers, so it seems that Zeiss got something right here...

Well, not so novel really. See the Ross binocular below:

http://classicbinoculars.blogspot.com/2013/11/ross-steptron-8x30.html

There are many more examples of focusing wheels set forward between the hinges in old Porro models.

 

[Troubador]

And triple bridges have been done many times too.

They say there is nothing new under the sun and it could be true.

But in a modern roof-prism context SF is a handling innovation.

Lee