Hello Brock;
I agree with most of what you say.
At this point I feel like a distinction of my beliefs may be in order.
Since we are on a forum that discusses both use and comparative recommendations I have two sets of criteria for all the optics I use, but will only discuss binoculars. I feel these are distinct and separate activities.
First, there is the use for their intended purpose, to look at nature or structures, whatever the task of the moment is. For that purpose I can enjoy them for just what they are. I use my Leica BA’s almost exclusively this time of the year just because of the postcard quality of the colors of the changing leaves, which I can’t explain..
Second, there is another mode of discussion on BF, that of comparing and recommending optics for others to rely on. For that purpose, I am far more critical and analytical and want to detail actual differences, not just my preferences.
Therefore, I feel that the two different objectives deserve different sets of priorities and approach each accordingly.
Sorry for dragging you into the fray, but your preference towards fast, smooth focusing was the first thing that came to mind.
Best.
Ron,
It's reassuring to hear that you like to "stop and smell the roses" before you stick them under a microscope and dissect them (so to speak)!
Like that one - "postcard quality of the colors of the changing leaves". You can also wax poetic!
So do I, though it seems that at least one or two detractors would prefer if I gave "just the facts, mam".
However, I do that all week as a journalist so when I get on the forums, I like to be more creative and use humor, cultural references (which may not always translate across the country let alone across the pond), idioms, analogies, metaphors and similes instead of dry prose structured in a pyramid fashion (the butler did it and here are the facts in descending order of importance).
As far as focusers, yes I like mine smooth as a baby's bottom, but not fast as the 2006 Bugatti Veyron 16.4, which could do 0-60 in 2.5 seconds (the bin equivalent would be the 8x32 LX, which does close focus to infinity in just under 1/2 turn).
I like bin focusers that are medium fast (~1.5 revolutions cf to ∞).
Too fast and I overshoot my target and it also plays havoc with my focus accommodation.
I should also make a distinction of my beliefs by saying that I have no beef with the quantitative analysis of bin features. At times (at least when I can understand what the results are), I find your technical reports, Henry's, and even that schoolmarm Edz's helpful in making purchase decisions (or more likely these days, adding or deleting them to/from my "Wish List").
However, I probably do come off at times as anti-quant. Most of this stems from the Wall Street Meltdown, which I have been writing about for three years now. I even interviewed a "quant" who works for a local hedge fund for one article.
If you watched
60 Minutes tonight (if you had the patience to wait for the football game to finally end), you would have heard the latest scheme that the big investment banks involved in the "Meltdown" last spring and smaller hedge funds are hatching to beat the system.
In a nutshell, they are using supercomputers to get stock information faster than even Wall Street floor traders and remote trading companies by having their "quants" devise algorithms that can detect trends within milliseconds and buy and sell stocks automatically based on that instant analysis.
The FCC rep interviewed said that "speed trading" was in part responsible for the "mini market crash" last spring, and that they are now putting in place "circuit breakers" such that if a stock goes up 10 percent in a very short period of time, trading on that stock will stop.
As facts about "fast trading" has spread through the media, small time investors are feeling that the system is "rigged" and are becoming more reluctant to invest. Those investors are the ones who are providing money for companies to grow and hire new employees. The fast traders who work on "puts" and "calls" (betting on stocks going up or down w/in a certain period of time) aren't contributing anything of real value but rather are just making their firms richer.
In case you missed it, here's a recap:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/07/60minutes/main6936075.shtml
So what's my beef? The quants are doing the same thing as they did before - making their quantitative analysis w/out regard to its "real life" consequences.
My belief is that science (or in this case, math) must always be conducted in a socially responsible manner.
Brock