SimonLS
Well-known member
On the 770 series Kowa did it properly, the hood slides out over the filter.But why do Swarovski and Kowa put the filter threads of their scopes on the lens hoods?
John
On the 770 series Kowa did it properly, the hood slides out over the filter.But why do Swarovski and Kowa put the filter threads of their scopes on the lens hoods?
John
I suggest the reason is that the value of this feature would be rejected by most purchasers........ just look at IS bins and the hostility expressed on BF, despite it being a massive improvement in most circumstances.I don't know why autofocus was not pursued in binoculars.
I suggest the reason is that the value of this feature would be rejected by most purchasers........ just look at IS bins and the hostility expressed on BF, despite it being a massive improvement in most circumstances.
???just look at IS bins and the hostility expressed on BF...
Partially???
By hostility do you mean that some people don't want IS binoculars, or what?
Andreas
There are often comments, often personal attacks, that should be moderated out.What exactly was hostile?
Andreas
But personal attacks on you have nothing to do with hostilities against IS binoculars, they are two different things.There are often comments, often personal attacks, that should be moderated out.
Hostile attacks on individuals or against opinions are not acceptable.But personal attacks on you have nothing to do with hostilities against IS binoculars, they are two different things.
Andreas
Hmm, where can this be going?You seem to be a supporter of petty conflict and picking "fights", why?
What is the purpose of this whataboutism?You seem to be a supporter of petty conflict and picking "fights", why?
You try to throw sand in the eyes.I suggest the reason is that the value of this feature would be rejected by most purchasers........ just look at IS bins and the hostility expressed on BF, despite it being a massive improvement in most circumstances.
I can see I am being bated, and now by yourself too.Is this not itself a backhanded attempt to pick a fight?
As I recall, the hostility developed before you moderated your position to state merely that IS binoculars were superior for your purposes, which seemed to resolve the problem. Did it somehow not, for you?
You and tenex...... I rest my case.What is the purpose of this whataboutism?
You replied to a post that autofocus for binoculars doesn't make sense because many members of the BF are already hostile to IS binoculars.
You try to throw sand in the eyes.
Andreas
You and tenex...... I rest my case.
You can try to troll and pick a fight...... well, when you have something intelligent to contribute to the topic in hand, then I'll perhaps read it. Until then, goodbye and good riddance.
IPD Lock function on Opticron Traveller Mg
The Traveller’s mechanism enables a user to lock the IPD to the minimum that he or she will need i.e. at the closest focusing distance
(see Ceaser/ Bob at: Opticron 6x32 Traveller BGA Mg )
The binocular can then be:
- folded out . . . to be put away in a case, and
- when taken from a case, folded inward to the correct IPD for closest use
This makes sense in terms of convenience in casing and uncasing a binocular
However, for most uses it would seem preferable to be able to set one’s maximum needed IPD, and then to slightly close the IPD for nearer distances *
The Traveller’s mechanism necessarily functions as it does because of it’s simplicity
In contrast, the more complex mechanism used on the early Zeiss Porro’s, had the advantage of being able to be set to one’s generally preferred IPD,
and then be adjusted to either a lesser or greater IPD
. . .
* and of course the mechanism used on the Traveller could be instead made to do this, but with the loss of the ability to fold the binocular flat for storage
Exup and Condomat.You and tenex...... I rest my case.
You can try to troll and pick a fight...... well, when you have something intelligent to contribute to the topic in hand, then I'll perhaps read it. Until then, goodbye and good riddance.