-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Let's talk PORROS! (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
At some point, you get to a point where continued discussion is fruitless.
If a person is happiest with technically inferior binoculars according to someone, why should I really care? They are HAPPY and it is 'no skin off m nose' as we are each free to use the binoculars we prefer for whatever reason we like them better.
This also overlooks genetic and biological differences that might make PERFECT binoculars for one person less so for someone else.
If a person is happiest with technically inferior binoculars according to someone, why should I really care? They are HAPPY and it is 'no skin off m nose' as we are each free to use the binoculars we prefer for whatever reason we like them better.
This also overlooks genetic and biological differences that might make PERFECT binoculars for one person less so for someone else.
I understand their tests perfectly. You try to interpret them to your advantage. As long as my eyes agree with Allbinos I tend to agree with their tests and reviews more than I do yours. For example, I have looked through a Nikon Prostar 7x50 and I have a Fujinon FMTR-SX 7x50 and I found the Fujinon has sharper edges just like Bill said and Allbinos shows in their review. So I will stick with my opinion, and you can stick with yours. I say the Fujinons have sharper edges, Bill says they have sharper edges and Allbinos says they have sharper edges. It is time to concede it is three against one! Allbinos doesn't mince words. They are saying the Fujinon has sharper edges that is what blurring at the edge of the FOV means if you don't understand.
Blurring at the edge of the FOV
Fujinon FMTR-SX 7x50
(Blurring at the edge of the FOV The blur appears in the distance of 93% +/- 3% from the field of vision’s center. 9/10.0)
Nikon 7x50IF SP WP
(The blur occurs in a distance of 89% ± 3% from the field of vision center. 8/10.0)
Last edited:
WJC
Well-known member
Henry, I was at my PAYING job, performing a non-paying task mainly for a friend. The test—as performed—did all it was supposed to do. I don't stack BBs unless I'm required to do so. If I did, I would not have warranted such as the attached.
Attachments
henry link
Well-known member
Hi Jesse, this might do it for you:Hi Henry, what do you mean by that? Do you have a link to a good explanation? I know only the popular terms to distinguish the distortion: pincushion (intended design), barrel (unpopulary for bins) and combinations thereof (for instance unpopulary "mustache" shape). Jessie
In this context, it is worth noting what und where baffles do:
Verzeichnung – Wikipedia
de.wikipedia.org
Verzeichnung – Wikipedia
And, of course there is Holger Merlitz' material on the "Globe Effect", which is all about the negative effect of too much angular distortion resulting from too little pincushion.
Henry
henry link
Well-known member
Thanks, Henry. Your answer is very helpful. Jessie
Addendum:
I wrote in thread "Horizon II", it's a pity that I didn't know the document you linked:
TELESCOPE EYEPIECE
Telescope eyepiece: functions, properties and aberrations.
www.telescope-optics.net
Last edited:
WJC
Well-known member
Henry, you have my email address and know you are always welcome to write.Enough said, Bill. I think we can leave it at that.
Henry
BC
WJC
Well-known member
210107
It seems that every time I seek justification for some person’s or company’s credentials, relating to a review or statement about binoculars, it is taken as me throwing stones because they’re not ... ME, when, in fact, I’m only trying to secure information regarding the experience or credentials of those proffering those reviews or statements. I think that is a good thing because I have seen enough unadulterated BULL coming from EXPERTS in my day, so as to overload a two-ton!
Every time I turn around, I see something that “Allbinos” has said about this or that. However, I have been to their site more than once and, although having seen many dozens of reviews, I have yet to see the experience or credentials that would allow their pronouncements to be accepted, out of hand, by so many. I’m certainly not saying it doesn’t exist, no, no, no, just that I have not seen it. It would seem to me that if they had the expertise to offer such pronouncements, they would be more than eager to quantify. Am I wrong?
I see “editor,” “editor,” “editor,” “chief editor,” etc. But you can’t click on the name, only their email. Thus, Allbinos could be a bunch of guys with a computer and a camera working after hours out of the back of a tire store.
So, please, someone must have much more information than me. I would ask them to share that information with me.
Bill
Here is a good description of how they test binoculars. I personally like Allbinos because I agree with them most of the time. Regardless of their detractors I feel they know what they are talking about.
How do we test binoculars? - Description of test methods and categories.
Binoculars tests, published on Optyczne.pl/Allbinos.com are conducted by a group of great optics enthusiasts with a lot of experience under their belts. We’ve handled about 500 pairs of binoculars so far plus several dozen of spotting scopes, telescopes, many eyepieces and plenty of other...
Last edited:
Hello Henry, your link (2nd picture) shows me an angular distortion image from a wide angle instrument with zero rectilinear distortion. I assume that angular distortion is the same as barrel distortion and is overcompensated by a pincushion distortion calculated by the designer to the desired resulting pincushion distortion visible to the user to avoid a globe effect when panning the binoculars. Is this correct?
I once did one of the tests you described with circles on paper: 2 cylindrical coffee cups were placed lying side by side on a table for comparison and observed with binoculars that have pincushion distortion. One cup opening was approximately in the centre of the field of view, the other at the edge. I saw 2 circles without distortion. Observation distance ~ 4 m. Jessie
Last edited:
richard866945
Bino repair man
It was a Chinese military spec 8x30 that was available direct from the factory.
Interesting! Thanks!
henry link
Well-known member
Well almost correct. Angular or angular magnification distortion is not the same thing as barrel distortion. As you noted above it's present when there is zero rectilinear distortion (pincushion or barrel), but the radial compression of shapes that it causes will increase with increasing barrel distortion and decrease with increasing pincushion. Just the right amount of pincushion will reduce the angular distortion to zero. Too much pincushion will reverse the sign of the angular distortion and cause circles at thr field edge to stretch radially rather than compress.
Any circular target at any distance will do to observe the compression effect as long as it's small enough to subtend just a few degrees of apparent field. Only one circular target is needed. Just move it back and forth from the center to the edge and watch for its shape to change.
Last edited:
Thank you very much Henry.
I will repeat the test. I used 2 coffee cups to make it easier to see a deviation from the circular shape of the coffee cup at the edge of the field of view by direct comparison with a circular appearing cup at the centre. Based on your hint, I also think that deviations from the circular shape can be detected by panning slowly: After all, you see an apparent movement when a circle becomes an ellipse and movements are easily detectable. Best wishes. Jessie
Last edited:
WJC
Well-known member
Hi, Denny,Here is a good description of how they test binoculars. I personally like Allbinos because I agree with them most of the time. Regardless of their detractors I feel they know what they are talking about.
How do we test binoculars? - Description of test methods and categories.
Binoculars tests, published on Optyczne.pl/Allbinos.com are conducted by a group of great optics enthusiasts with a lot of experience under their belts. We’ve handled about 500 pairs of binoculars so far plus several dozen of spotting scopes, telescopes, many eyepieces and plenty of other...www.allbinos.com
Thank you for justifying your remarks.
I am going to try to justify my thinking for you. Since you seem to have a proclivity for grouped opinions, I would ask you stack up what I am about to say by asking—directly—the following individuals: Holger Merlitz, Ed Huff, Gary Hawkins, Jan van Daalin, Gijs van Ginkel, and Henry Link. But please understand that I support you in believing whatever YOU want to believe. I won’t gain or lose a dime based on that decision, nor will I think the less of you.
**************
You said:
“Here is a good description of how they test binoculars. I personally like Allbinos because I agree with them most of the time. Regardless of their detractors I feel they know what they are talking about.”
My take:
— There is MORE TALK about TESTS but, although they speak endlessly about their team of EXPERTS, there is NO talk about verifiable experience and credentials in optics possessed by those experts. Am I wrong for thinking that would be a great piece of the puzzle to have before putting Allbinos, or any other organization, on the pedestal of authority? I could wallpaper my house with the pages written by EXPERTS that had little or no relationship to optical realities. What I have seen from Allbinos is definitely worth reading. Opinions of any observer are of value. However, opinions of 50 inexperienced and untutored observers don’t hold a candle to the empirical results of “tests” performed by one person at the feet of the laws of physics.
Their list of tests says nothing about the thinking behind the creation of those tests, the conditions under which they were carried out, nor the scientific knowledge used in interpreting the data. Thus, for me, placing such an almost unquestionable emphasis on their pronouncement is over the top and foolish.
— You said, “Regardless of their detractors I feel they know what they are talking about.” And why do you feel that way? Is it, “because I agree with them most of the time”? Frankly, I would choose to base my standards on science * and not on any uncredentialed observer—untutored in the given science—whether I respect that observer or not.
* “College is a place where pebbles are polished and diamonds are dimmed.”— Robert G. Ingersoll
Cheers,
Bill
Last edited:
I bought an APM APO 7x50 Porro Prism binocular from APM in Germany that uses FK61 glass for $350 that gives me a better view than the NL 8x42 did. The APM has a lot of advantages like a bigger aperture pulling in 40% more light, better light transmission, more efficient prism, bigger exit pupil, almost no CA, no glare(even near the sun) and a 3D stereoscopic view that the NL can't make up for with optical wizadry. Now that is what you call porro value.
Attachments
Last edited:
Dennis what has happened to your need for the view to be ultra-sharp to the very edge of the field of view? This was vital as you needed to be able to roam your eyes around the fov and see sharp images everywhere.
And I notice in Post 278 you accuse Swarovski of chicanery which means the use of deception or subterfuge to achieve one's purpose. That is quite an accusation. Does this mean you look back on your years with Swaro binos with regret that you were 'deceived' for so long?
Lee
And I notice in Post 278 you accuse Swarovski of chicanery which means the use of deception or subterfuge to achieve one's purpose. That is quite an accusation. Does this mean you look back on your years with Swaro binos with regret that you were 'deceived' for so long?
Lee
Lee,
Personally, I think some of the talk and print about the NL Pure's is a bit over the top. My experience with them was expected to be WOW but, for me at least was a little average for Alpha bins.
To this, we can add the relatively large numbers of NL Pure's being sold after short ownership experiences. This may not say they are bad bins but, definitely, that new owners aren't thrilled with their purchases.
Sid
Personally, I think some of the talk and print about the NL Pure's is a bit over the top. My experience with them was expected to be WOW but, for me at least was a little average for Alpha bins.
To this, we can add the relatively large numbers of NL Pure's being sold after short ownership experiences. This may not say they are bad bins but, definitely, that new owners aren't thrilled with their purchases.
Sid
Similar threads
