Bill:
I agree with your post, and when I purchase a new or new to me binocular, the first thing
I do, is check the collimation. I use my method of focusing on a distant target, then pulling
the binocular away several inches, then closing my eyes to lose my focus, then giving it
another look. Our eyes will accommodate small collimation issues, and this is a good way to test for
yourself. There is a thread on here about that very subject.
I looked up the definition of the Seidel aberrations, and that is a complex subject, way above
my interest.
I do have some experience with conditional alignment, as I have a number of Nikon porros
that I have obtained over the years. I have found that I can often get them into alignment
by screwing the objective barrels in or out, and have had great success making them work out.
Also, I have the famous Celestron Skymaster 15-70, that should come with instructions for
collimation. I have played with the prism screws to get it somewhat "good".
If you do a search on that one, the net is full of advice on that issue.
You may know how many good independent binocular shops there are in the US.
The last binocular I had an issue with, was properly fixed by a skilled shop in Houston, TX.
There can't be a large number with collimators, and the skills needed.
Another question, is how many binocular Manufacturers do this proper service.
I know the Big 4 do it, but how many others. I am just guessing here, but am thinking
Kahles, Bushnell, Leupold, Meopta and maybe Vortex.
Jerry
Hi Jerry:
Your method works just fine, IF you know how to just STARE. Some people can’t do it; some people need to work at doing it; some people don’t think it matters. If they’re happy, I’m happy for them. Still it doesn’t serve them well. What you don’t know CAN hurt you.
Yes, your eyes will “accommodate” SMALL collimation issues. However, with the right binocular, they don’t have to. This makes for a better view with less or no eyestrain.
—“I looked up the definition of the Seidel aberrations, and that is a complex subject, way above my interest.”
Likewise, it is way above my INTEREST, too. But, so many people who wallow in speculation about optical anomalies wouldn’t have to do so, if they understood these aberrations and how they are interconnected. Which is more productive, two nights reading about aberrations, or spending years participating in conversations in which neither the speaker nor audience understand the subject matter? If you see a man at the top of a mountain, there’s a good chance he didn’t fall there!
—“I do have some experience with conditional alignment, as I have a number of Nikon porros that I have obtained over the years. I have found that I can often get them into alignment by screwing the objective barrels in or out, and have had great success making them work out.”
When adjusting the lenses, you might be better served by leaving the “barrels” alone, choosing instead to adjust the eccentric rings or collimation setscrews—unless the adjustment is slight. When adjusting the lens housings too much, you may shear off metal shards that can get on the prisms. Almost always, when going about alignment this way, you are depending largely on accommodation and not collimation. Would it be good enough for me? As often as not, yes. I just get tweaked when the armchair technician calls that operation “collimation.” Semantics? Of course; collimation? Nope!
—“Also, I have the famous Celestron Skymaster 15-70, that should come with instructions for collimation. I have played with the prism screws to get it somewhat "good". If you do a search on that one, the net is full of advice on that issue.”
I am well aware. A few million of those words are mine and represent my futile attempt to save people from themselves. But just like the Gold Ring thread, some folks find much more pleasure in speculation than in listening to one who has the inside track on the subject. I’ve known, through a number of reasons, Leopold didn’t manufacture binos themselves. But just like Cloudy Nights, I had to rear up on my hind legs and expend a few thousand words to put the subject to rest—for a few weeks … maybe!
A STORY
As an optics merchant, it would be foolish to turn away sales of a popular binocular. Yet, that is exactly what I once had to do.
A particular instrument kept arriving from a prominent importer out of collimation—right out of the box. Therefore, the next time I received a shipment, I set aside time to check each one before putting them away. When the first eight were out of collimation—by even the most lenient of industry standards—I decided not to waste any more time on the project, and sent the entire shipment of 20 back to the importer.
I could have collimated them. However, that could have caused other problems. First, it would have been a waste of time and money for my company. Then, too, how could I know the instruments would hold their collimation and not soon cause problems for my customers? Knowing it would cost more in handling and shipping to return individual instruments to the importer, than it would to simply return the lot and remove the model from inventory, I felt that was the best option. Popular or not, that model was a waste of money.
Then, when I saw the binocular being treated as the neatest thing since sliced bread on a certain Internet binocular forum, I felt I was obliged to make other participants aware of my findings. I was quickly reminded that no good deed will go unpunished and that you can’t save some people from themselves.
I pointed out that I had been a supporter of the importer for years, had more than two dozen models of their telescopes and binoculars in inventory, and was a friend of a long-time president and CEO of the company. It made no difference; the price point overshadowed rational experience. Apparently, some people thought I had a hidden agenda.
Finally, several others with practical experience with that model came forward to say things like, “I ordered four, before I got one that was collimated,” “their quality control really stinks,” and “I found it wasn’t worth it, and just gave up.” Still, the price point kept dredging people up who would swear to the excellent performance of the binocular. Barring collimation issues, they were right. Yet, those issues kept showing up in the majority of cases.
As I said, you can’t save some people from themselves. The best I can do is quote the age’s old adage on quality:
“The bitterness of poor quality will linger long after the sweetness of a low price has been forgotten!”
—“You may know how many good independent binocular shops there are in the US. The last binocular I had an issue with, was properly fixed by a skilled shop in Houston, TX. There can't be a large number with collimators, and the skills needed.
—“Another question, is how many binocular Manufacturers do this proper service. I know the Big 4 do it, but how many others. I am just guessing here, but am thinking Kahles, Bushnell, Leupold, Meopta and maybe Vortex.”
I can assure you it’s MUCH worse than you think. The following is from my ethereal book:
“Since most binoculars are not used at either the highest or lowest IPD setting, the maximum errors in parallelism can often be ignored. However, with collimation errors subject to the alignment and tilt of 4 prisms and 2 objective lenses (in a traditional Porro prism binocular), the exact cause of the displaced image is not easily established.
“This misunderstanding is not limited to amateurs. Some professionals, at major importing companies, just know how to ‘get it in the box,’ giving little thought to the ‘whys’ of the procedures. Fellow Navy Opticalman Cory Suddarth was with me at Captain’s the day I took a call from a fellow who had been a repair MANAGER at his company for more than 10 years. His call went something like this:
‘Bill, I don’t understand it; I’ll get the binocular collimated, but when I move one of the barrels, it’s off again!’
This fellow had been selling a conditional alignment job as ‘collimation’ all those years, and it was this experience that caused me to suggest: There’s a big difference between 20 years of experience and one year of experience 20 times.’
I doubt many repair facilities have people onboard that would willfully cheat their customers. Too often, however, they just don’t know what they don’t know. But, if the bino is returned with clean lenses and is aligned well enough (near the user’s IPD), that user will get on the net and brag about the company’s great work. I have seen glowing testimonies of the work of others when I knew they were considerably short of the services they were selling. But, the customer is king.
For the last few years, one major seller of binoculars has been claiming that “Conditional Alignment” is a “myth.” For years, this fellow told Cory and me that he doesn’t NEED a collimator, largely due to the fact that he can “eyeball” an instrument’s collimation to “100 power.” Well, that’s his tail; I sit on mine. He has even produced two video tapes (for sale, of course) to prove his assertion.
I feel that if he were correct, optical scientists at the University of Arizona’s Optical Sciences Center and leadership of SPIE (the Society of Photo-optical Instrumentation Engineers) wouldn’t have invited me to give a lecture on Conditional Alignment at their 2012 conference. He has since taken in one of Cory’s classes on collimation. If that did not tweak him, I would be pleased for him to try to correct me to the PhDs at SPIE and the OSC in Tucson. Frankly, I think that would be a hard sell. :flyaway:
Cheers,
Bill