More Globe Effect, Pincushion & Oculars (1 Viewer)

Nixterdemus · Aug 25, 2012

Slowly some of this is sinking into me olde noodle, I think. Rolling ball/Globe effect/Turning Cylinders make for sharp edges. So, the Premier LX/LXL has fairly sharp edges, even w/o field flatteners, due to little PC.

Even better edges can be had w/FF, w/o larger amount if PC in order to maintain RB, but a decent sharp edge can be had w/FF and enough PC to counter the RB.

Wide oculars around 24-30 MM allow a wide FOV and whatevah combo of FF/PC % is used to tailor the view.

You can have RB w/mild PC and I suppose that's to help ease some of the RB effect? Seeing how you can have some PC & RB then I guess the final equation is a trade-off somewhat dependant on % of folks affected by RB, the average amount of PC that would prevent/allow RB and how flat an edge you wish.

Do varying amounts of mild PC that allow RB actually make the effect less intense or is it merely a floating number/percentage betwixt seeing RB/not seeing RB compared to the population in general?

I see mild PC & RB. Is it probable that others see PC/no RB and others still that see RB/no PC from the same glass?

Is the Globe Effect all or naught? I see the image in the center of a horizontal scan come towards me and then back the "background" as it becomes the trailing edge up to round 60 yds. somewhere around 80-100 yds I see the spinning cylinders. Is it normal for the effect to be more prominent up close and then taper off?

Steve made mention of the beta Primes as having 7% pincushion in the 8x & 2% pincushion in the 10x.

How is this percentage concluded? Can you have 100% PC or would these percentages represent the amount of the maximum which is less than 100%?

Perhaps I should have titled the thread, Henry Help!

If I look through bins w/no PC, the maximum amount of PC for me to still see RB and a third bin w/average of the two in PC would I see the same Globe effect and only note that the edges were sharpest on no PC/softest w/most PC and the middle of the road PC soft-sharp?

I certainly hope I'm making some sense.

brocknroller · Aug 25, 2012

First off, the Premier LX does have field flatteners. But so does the EDG and the SE series, and they don't have the extreme "rolling ball" that the LXs do.

Admittedly, neither the EDG or the SE is sharp to the very, very, very edge like the LX, but close enough to get a cigar. Those extra few percent at the edge of the LX ain't worth the trade off of dumping the pincushion, IMO, but then again, I'm a rollingballer, others who are immune to RB, might feel differently.

But the point is, it's not an "either/or" choice, the EDG and SE prove you can have your cake and eat it too. You just need keep the distortion in balance, but I'll leave it to the number guys to work out the percentages. What I do know is that too much PC and you get "rolling bowl" like the ZR 7x36 ED2, too little and you get the "rolling ball" of the Premier LX.

Or you have compound distortion like the SV EL, with the inner image rolling under and the outer image rolling over, but they don't cancel out for everybody, some still see the RB.

But the real mystery is, if I know this, a mere plebe, optical engineers also know this, so why would do they go to extremes (like Billy Joel) with a bin made for terrestrial use when they know users will be using them to pan trees lines (and tilt up and down them) and some people are going to see weird stuff happening if the optical design doesn't moderate the distortion levels?

Why not take the moderate path ("circle of condition") that accommodates the greatest number of users? Is moderation dead? Is egalitarianism? Have we again entered an age of extremism as in the days of Heinrich Erfle, Konig Albert and Otto Eppenstein?

Why must bin companies cater to this special interest group that insists the view must be sharp to the very edge in the static image regardless of the consequences of what happens to the moving image? Has sitting in front of our computers all day made our brains static?

These are deep thoughts for Jack Handey and others to contemplate. It's beyond my keen, but I'll just say that I'm with Sonnefeld and Kohler on this one.

From binomania:

"In 1940, all binoculars were designed to create images with no distortion, then at home Zeiss decided to apply a minimum of angular distortion of binoculars even if the conservative part of the designers, Heinrich Erfle, Konig Albert and Otto Eppenstein were absolutely opposed.

"In 1945, thanks to Hermann Slevogt Sonnefeld and was offered a good compromise, it meant the ability to create binoculars with a small amount of angular distortion that could partially eliminate the 'rolling ball effect. Then, thanks to Kohler, is applied to all products terrestrial optical Zeiss what is called "circle of condition", that is a good compromise between containment of the distortion and the effect just mentioned. This parameter, which will be analyzed in the following and a specific article, was for years a reference point for all designers of optical ground. "

Kammerdiner · Aug 26, 2012

brocknroller said:
First off, the Premier LX does have field flatteners. But so does the EDG and the SE series, and they don't have the extreme "rolling ball" that the LXs do.

Admittedly, neither the EDG or the SE is sharp to the very, very, very edge like the LX, but close enough to get a cigar. Those extra few percent at the edge of the LX ain't worth the trade off of dumping the pincushion, IMO, but then again, I'm a rollingballer, others who are immune to RB, might feel differently.

But the point is, it's not an "either/or" choice, the EDG and SE prove you can have your cake and eat it too. You just need keep the distortion in balance, but I'll leave it to the number guys to work out the percentages. What I do know is that too much PC and you get "rolling bowl" like the ZR 7x36 ED2, too little and you get the "rolling ball" of the Premier LX.

Or you have compound distortion like the SV EL, with the inner image rolling under and the outer image rolling over, but they don't cancel out for everybody, some still see the RB.

But the real mystery is, if I know this, a mere plebe, optical engineers also know this, so why would do they go to extremes (like Billy Joel) with a bin made for terrestrial use when they know users will be using them to pan trees lines (and tilt up and down them) and some people are going to see weird stuff happening if the optical design doesn't moderate the distortion levels?

Why not take the moderate path ("circle of condition") that accommodates the greatest number of users? Is moderation dead? Is egalitarianism? Have we again entered an age of extremism as in the days of Heinrich Erfle, Konig Albert and Otto Eppenstein?

Why must bin companies cater to this special interest group that insists the view must be sharp to the very edge in the static image regardless of the consequences of what happens to the moving image? Has sitting in front of our computers all day made our brains static?

These are deep thoughts for Jack Handey and others to contemplate. It's beyond my keen, but I'll just say that I'm with Sonnefeld and Kohler on this one.

From binomania:

"In 1940, all binoculars were designed to create images with no distortion, then at home Zeiss decided to apply a minimum of angular distortion of binoculars even if the conservative part of the designers, Heinrich Erfle, Konig Albert and Otto Eppenstein were absolutely opposed.

"In 1945, thanks to Hermann Slevogt Sonnefeld and was offered a good compromise, it meant the ability to create binoculars with a small amount of angular distortion that could partially eliminate the 'rolling ball effect. Then, thanks to Kohler, is applied to all products terrestrial optical Zeiss what is called "circle of condition", that is a good compromise between containment of the distortion and the effect just mentioned. This parameter, which will be analyzed in the following and a specific article, was for years a reference point for all designers of optical ground. "

Think about it, without good old Brock beating this topic to death, and resuscitating it, and beating it to death over and over again, RB would probably be lying in utter obscurity in a three-year-old thread somewhere. This one belongs in "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds." Without Brock it would have been dead in the water.

I don't even understand why Brock cares so much since he's never looked through an SV and probably never will.

Like suddenly I'm a "special interest group" because I use the SV. I've used them all and unless you really muck it up like Zen did with the 7x36, I just don't care. Very, very few people do. Brock, you are the special interest group. I'm glad Nikon has just the thing for you. Go look at some birds.

Mark

Nixterdemus · Aug 26, 2012

Thanks Brock for the insight and references. It would be nice if all the bins, starting around $300, were categorized as a reference w/various options. Naturally, my memory failed me on the Premier. I've looked at so many different bins over the last few days that I'm suffering w/bino overload. I start off w/Prime and end up almost talking myself into the Fuji 16x70 which isn't relatively close to the same bin.

I've muddled about a bit trying to comprehend. I realize not everyone sees RB under certain added PC conditions. When you say, "immune to RB" does that imply some never see RB or some that see it just aren't bothered by the effect?

Having seen RB, that isn't bothering me as a lot of PC did in same 7x36 EDII, I wonder if there are similar degrees of variable RB and perhaps I haven't been exposed to a significant amount to date.

I saw the same type of PC, maybe lens diameter/curvature played a part, in the Bushnell Elite E2 7x26. That combined w/what I felt was unrealistic colour saturation led me to give that bin away as well. I think it was right about then that I was branded as an optical heretic.

I've never looked through bins w/FF to my knowledge. It would appear through limited incorporation of PC that a relatively sharp edge can be produced more economically at the risk of RB to a certain percentage of the population.

The one bin that I see RB is a joy to view canopy close. I can pan/scan as a rollercoaster w/o discomfort or what I consider weird/unnatural geometric shapes that can bother me w/too much PC.

Yet, there's nothing in any of the specs that says X-amount of PC to use as a guide. There can't be that many different options/applications in an optical formula to not be able to identify them fairly accurately w/o looking through them if there was a standardized system.

Take my old Conquests, please. Tip 'o the hat to Henny Youngman. The 8x30 and 10x40 would seem plagued by PC, yet they don't bother me. Honestly I rarely look through the 8x30, but I'm always looking through the 10x40.

It doesn't bother me that my cheap astro bins cannot produce stars as pinpoints and tend to show flare on bright objects. I don't care so much about sharp edge in hand held bins as I do about too much PC that I don't know how to quantify.

The struggle continues.
-----------
Mark,
Am I now labeled as being in cahoots/co-conspirator for resurrecting the RB topic? Do you feel the EDII debacle w/PC was due in part to overzealous nature of extra wide FOV w/o wide oculars?

My 10x40 Conquest oculars measure 20MM & I've no clue what the EDII measured. My budget RB measures 25MM and I think the Fuji FSX models are 30 MM w/Primes coming in at 25-26 MM as I read over on the ZR forum.

brocknroller · Aug 26, 2012

Nixterdemus said:
Thanks Brock for the insight and references. It would be nice if all the bins, starting around $300, were categorized as a reference w/various options. Naturally, my memory failed me on the Premier. I've looked at so many different bins over the last few days that I'm suffering w/bino overload. I start off w/Prime and end up almost talking myself into the Fuji 16x70 which isn't relatively close to the same bin.

I've muddled about a bit trying to comprehend. I realize not everyone sees RB under certain added PC conditions. When you say, "immune to RB" does that imply some never see RB or some that see it just aren't bothered by the effect?

Having seen RB, that isn't bothering me as a lot of PC did in same 7x36 EDII, I wonder if there are similar degrees of variable RB and perhaps I haven't been exposed to a significant amount to date.

I saw the same type of PC, maybe lens diameter/curvature played a part, in the Bushnell Elite E2 7x26. That combined w/what I felt was unrealistic colour saturation led me to give that bin away as well. I think it was right about then that I was branded as an optical heretic.

I've never looked through bins w/FF to my knowledge. It would appear through limited incorporation of PC that a relatively sharp edge can be produced more economically at the risk of RB to a certain percentage of the population.

The one bin that I see RB is a joy to view canopy close. I can pan/scan as a rollercoaster w/o discomfort or what I consider weird/unnatural geometric shapes that can bother me w/too much PC.

Yet, there's nothing in any of the specs that says X-amount of PC to use as a guide. There can't be that many different options/applications in an optical formula to not be able to identify them fairly accurately w/o looking through them if there was a standardized system.

Take my old Conquests, please. Tip 'o the hat to Henny Youngman. The 8x30 and 10x40 would seem plagued by PC, yet they don't bother me. Honestly I rarely look through the 8x30, but I'm always looking through the 10x40.

It doesn't bother me that my cheap astro bins cannot produce stars as pinpoints and tend to show flare on bright objects. I don't care so much about sharp edge in hand held bins as I do about too much PC that I don't know how to quantify.

The struggle continues.
-----------
Mark,
Am I now labeled as being in cahoots/co-conspirator for resurrecting the RB topic? Do you feel the EDII debacle w/PC was due in part to overzealous nature of extra wide FOV w/o wide oculars?

My 10x40 Conquest oculars measure 20MM & I've no clue what the EDII measured. My budget RB measures 25MM and I think the Fuji FSX models are 30 MM w/Primes coming in at 25-26 MM as I read over on the ZR forum.

Yes, when I say "immune to RB," I mean some people never see it from Day 1 ("immunies"). Others see it but quickly adapt ("neural plastics"), and still others take up to two weeks before they've adapted ("hard plastics").

And then there are the "RB tolerates," who see RB, but for some inexplicable reason, it doesn't bother them. I guess it's like the hair in front of a sheep dog's face, after awhile, they don't notice it.

Finally, there are non-neural plastic "rollingballers," for whom once the image starts rolling, it keeps rollin', rollin', rolllin', keep those birdies rollin' ad infinitum et ultra, infinitum ad nauseam.

"Rollingballers" don't have enough distortion in their eyes and/or "plasticity" in their brains to adapt. Hard heads like me.

As to the other extreme, "rolling bowl," there are two theories being floated. One by allbinos is that how far off center the first curved line appears determines the severity of the pincushion. If that's true, then you can have a bin with a moderate FOV with worse PC than a WF bin, though it's more typically seen in WF bins.

Indeed, the Swift 8x44 ED and 10x42 Ultralites were not WF bins, the 8x44 was only 6.5*, but showed a lot of pincushion. Enough to squish my rectangular garbage bin into a saddle shape.

But it stands to reason, at least my reason, that the more edge you have in a bin the more the curving is going to happen as you approach the edges until you end up with "Cupid's Arrow" at the very edge.

The other theory put forth recently by a BF member, forgot whom, perhaps he'll chime in, is that what matters is not how far off axis the first curved line appears but how steeply it's curved at that point.

I have no idea which theory is correct, just putting them out there for review by the experts, but Arek better hope that the alternate theory isn't true, otherwise, all his distortion figures on allbinos will have to be revised!

Holger Merlitz · Aug 26, 2012

The power of marketing

brocknroller said:
But the real mystery is, if I know this, a mere plebe, optical engineers also know this, so why would do they go to extremes (like Billy Joel) with a bin made for terrestrial use when they know users will be using them to pan trees lines (and tilt up and down them) and some people are going to see weird stuff happening if the optical design doesn't moderate the distortion levels?

The answer is very simple and irritating as well: Nowadays, it is not the optical designers any more who determine the direction of progress, but the marketing experts.

They found: In test magazines, pincushion distortion is regularly punished by the testers, while globe effect is not. So they remove the distortion.

They also realized that binoculars with perfect edge-sharpness are winning, so they continue to improve the edge sharpness, even though it is of very little practical use, rather serving as an excuse to higher the prices.

So it continues: A close focusing point even below 2m - not useful, in fact rather harmful, because it increases the required travel for the focusing lens. But there is no space left - modern binoculars have to be compact, so they are forced to increase the power of the focusing lens, which in turn increases aberrations, which in turn have to be compensated by increasingly complex and expensive ocular designs.

A high power focusing lens requires a high precision mechanics with low tolerances. But the test magazines tend to praise binoculars with fast focusers - from 2m to infinity within less than one turn, which cannot at the same time be precise. The result: With modern high-end glasses, the focusing precision has gone down, hardly any manufacturer who does not have serious troubles to cope with all those contradicting requirements. Whether the current high end binoculars will still perform after 20 years, as well as the older generation glasses are performing today? I doubt. Short term profit, shorter life cycles, that is what counts. Warranty times are already going down.

2% more transmission than the competitor? The marketing guys are doing anything to achieve that. There is no practical use for it, but the product is winning the competition, and, of course, there is another excuse to raise the price.

Times are changing.

Holger Merlitz

marinemaster · Aug 26, 2012

Good post, good info. I'm glad to see this discussion as the mechanical aspect of binos is not discussed much here. The inside engineering of binos is as important as the view, glass used. I am learning something. Thanks.

Torview · Aug 26, 2012

Illuminating as always Holger, I doff my cap.

I still don`t understand the obsession with sharp edges, no practical use to the way I bird.

Brock asks if its the age of extremism, I think its the age of the "lifestyle accessory", this comment is not aimed at the Birders on here, but people with disposable income who buy what the marketing men long to sell them regardless of a real need.

Just look at the explosion of Camper Vans in the UK, people paying 60K+ to go Camping !!!, my cousins fit this group, never camped in their lives, but its become the must have item to have on the driveway, and there it sits 50 weeks a year !

Sorry for going off topic a bit.

normjackson · Aug 26, 2012

Holger Merlitz said:
Times are changing.

I dunno. I remember when sharp edges on flint stones were first invented my dad saying they were much more awkward to use and more difficult to maintain than teeth (I think he was having a mid-life crisis at the time). And folks forget I was the first one to warn on BirdForum that flints might one day be used againt birds but of course everyone poo pooed my idea.

Who does really choose their binoculars based on reviews anyways? Only complete knaves surely? |

|

typo · Aug 26, 2012

Well said Holger.

David

Nixterdemus · Aug 26, 2012

Agreed, sales is the final yardstick towit product success is measured. During the jet-age Autos had to have fins on the back. No practical use unless wishing to impale in reverse. Time marches on and roughly in the later nineties the jellybean auto prevails. More aerodynamic, yet losing their individuality.

I think wide FOV is also suspect in design along w/flat edge. No one cares to look through straws, but how much of a view do we really need and at what expense? It would seem the easiest way to more clean FOV is to back off the magnification. Sadly, there's no industry standard/models of varying PC/FOV for people to observe.

Sure, they can compare differing glass from inside the fluorescent showroom, but if they knew their preference/what suited them best and models were spec'd as having x-amount of distortion at a particular degree of taper it might help.

With the rising cost of glass I'm in no position to drop several grand on a couple of bins to evaluate them SXS. I can accept my financial limitations in perusing bins up to $1000 and there's quite a bit of glass, discontinued/demos/discounted notwithstanding, around $400-$600 that suits me just fine. Still, not all glass is graded/reviewed under scrutiny as Allbinos. Not to insinuate that it's the end all, but they appear to take an honest stab at grading. Periodical rags sucking up to potential advertisers, nevah looked through a glass I didn't like, don't instill confidence.

Anywho, I was working on another response before reading other replies and I'll post, but first I'd like to thank those that have taken the time to reply. Also, I draw conclusions from my perceptions, yet that's no indication of being correct. Such is life drawing straws.

Interesting as previously I have stopped seeing RB, as intense as once/first was, only to come back to the glass and start from scratch seeing it again in all it's glory. Yet, to date I've only partially accommodated to RB. Even if I don't see the background/foreground/background view in a close pan or the twirling cylinder farther off I still see undulations in the fabric of view.

Possibly I'm not using the RB glass enough or I'm keeping the noodle off balance by using the 10x40 Conquest so much counteracting the adaptation.

I don't know which theory on the PC bowl is the most likely subject, but I'll throw out my two cents that intensity of the first curve would seem to trump the proximity to the center of the first curve.

This is all coming off the top of my head, but a more intense curve on the first curved line would seem to indicate more PC if it continues at the same rate.

Now, is it better/worse to have PC start early w/mild curve and slowly progress to greater bow or start later/farther from center but heavy bow at more aggressive pace?

I'm limited to glass I have in contemplation which is why I keep coming back to the pre-HD Conquest. For it's price point, now $699, the biggest mark against the 10x40 was how soon curved lines began from center. So, whilst the sweet spot is considered small it appears that the early distortion is gradual to the edge and not offensive to my eyes.

Troubador · Aug 26, 2012

Holger has put his finger on it.

And the people most influenced by the marketing strategies are probably not the bin-maniacs on Bird Forum but the vastly bigger number of folks who don't know enough and do not want to know enough to know better.

Fads come and go in the automobile world too; remember when auto manufacturers used to proudly declare the coefficient of drag (Cd) for each new model? Aero was the must have. Today, in Europe at least, family cars have their suspension honed on racing tracks. It makes them uncomfortable to ride in on normal bumpy roads, but when road tested by obsessives (the auto equivalents of guys like us) they go faster round corners. And it sells. The Audi S-line option pack (shorter stiff suspension and big wheels) sells like hot cakes in the UK.

To me, desire for sharpness to the edge of the field, seems like an irrelevence similar to the desire for sports suspension in family cars. And yes, just like there are family car owners who like a blast around corners even if the car crashes and bangs over bumps the other 98% of the time, there are some folks who want 'sharp to the edge'. I should say here that bins for astonomy is a totally different question. When you have set up your bins on a tripod and have acquired a view of a field of stars and the thing has at last stopped vibrating from the last time you touched it, you will indeed squint into the nether edges of the FOV to get every last joy of observation.

But for normal nature observation I struggle to understand the desire for edge sharpness, but it is something (just like Cd ratings of cars or times around race circuits) that magazines and other organisations can test for and report on, leading to a marketing-driven hierarchy of desirability.

You will know that I am a Zeiss-guy (but not blind to the merits of other makes) so I see sense in the HT's push for greater transmission of light even though we are entering the area of diminishing returns. Some of my best nature observation moments have taken place in horribly dull conditions so I will take 3 or 4 % extra light please.

Lee

Kammerdiner · Aug 26, 2012

Holger Merlitz said:
The answer is very simple and irritating as well: Nowadays, it is not the optical designers any more who determine the direction of progress, but the marketing experts.

They found: In test magazines, pincushion distortion is regularly punished by the testers, while globe effect is not. So they remove the distortion.

They also realized that binoculars with perfect edge-sharpness are winning, so they continue to improve the edge sharpness, even though it is of very little practical use, rather serving as an excuse to higher the prices.

So it continues: A close focusing point even below 2m - not useful, in fact rather harmful, because it increases the required travel for the focusing lens. But there is no space left - modern binoculars have to be compact, so they are forced to increase the power of the focusing lens, which in turn increases aberrations, which in turn have to be compensated by increasingly complex and expensive ocular designs.

A high power focusing lens requires a high precision mechanics with low tolerances. But the test magazines tend to praise binoculars with fast focusers - from 2m to infinity within less than one turn, which cannot at the same time be precise. The result: With modern high-end glasses, the focusing precision has gone down, hardly any manufacturer who does not have serious troubles to cope with all those contradicting requirements. Whether the current high end binoculars will still perform after 20 years, as well as the older generation glasses are performing today? I doubt. Short term profit, shorter life cycles, that is what counts. Warranty times are already going down.

2% more transmission than the competitor? The marketing guys are doing anything to achieve that. There is no practical use for it, but the product is winning the competition, and, of course, there is another excuse to raise the price.

Times are changing.

Holger Merlitz

Let's take each charge in turn:

1) Marketing. It's true, marketing often tends to "create" needs more than fill them. Point taken. But then again, technology often creates something genuinely new, which marketers then have to sell. It's their job. It's a gray area. Marketing fails on folks like me, who are cheap and have high standards. Fads are lost on me. I buy my clothes at thrift stores and my running joke is this: "Yeah, I'll buy a cell phone as soon as they get all the bugs worked out." The SV, for me, is not a fad.

2) Edges. I like sharp edges. They are of practical use, to me. My two most-used bins are the SV and the FL. Guess which I like better?

3) The only "test magazine" I'm aware of that "punishes" pincushion is Allbinos, and I have never thought much of their reviews. Some of their criteria make no sense at all.

4) Close focusing. Not that useful to me. Useful to others. There's nothing "compact" about honkers like the SV or the Chinese full-sized, though. They are long! But you are right, Holger: make the focus too fast and the focus won't hold up without crazy levels of precision. The barrels will be out of synch, and from personal experience, I can tell you that's very annoying. That's one reason why I don't mind the slower SV so much.

5) 2% more transmission, compared to the state of the art. Complete waste of time, at least for a full-size bin. Which is not to say I'm not glad that the state of the art is what it is. What I mean is that for full-size bins, if you're not careful, you'll have to start wearing sunglasses with them in bright light, something I seriously don't want to do.

So we agree on 3 out of 5. Not a bad percentage really.

Just a user,
Mark

PS: Nixter, you are an honest pilgrim, just like me. Carry on I say.

Chosun Juan · Aug 26, 2012

Nixter, while calls for some sort of universal RB /distortion levels labelling are admirable, due to the 'secret recipes' employed by each brand, we may not see that soon - well, no sooner than we find out what the Colonel's 'secret herbs and spices' are ....

While helpful, be mindful that a portion of the 'rolling ball' or 'globe effect' has to do with an individual's optio-neural hardware and processing.
While the percentage formula may be able to be stated, or categorised ('secret' sauces notwithstanding), an individuals reaction to it, or ability to adapt may not be so easily quantifiable.

About all you can say with absolute certainty, is that somewhere back down the line, all of us here on this rock share DNA, and ancestors, and have the same basic blueprint - even if some of us have lost the operating instructions!

Whether makers add in enough pincushion (like Zeiss) to correct the AMD, or not (like Swarovski), or are somewhere off the planet (a' la Leica); there are some widely recognised 'middle way's (Like Nikon EDG, SE, and lately Zen Prime HD).

Luckily, I've never looked through Nikon's LX's, and thus have not been traumatised for life! There are other equally nauseating bins out there I'm sure (there was a demo /simulation - not Holger's - Henry link's, I think? - on another thread of a bin *x** which I found positively hurl inducing).

I was only half-joking with the AESOP fable in the Zen Prime HD thread. Rolling ball .... AESOP (Apparent Effective Shortened Object Phenomena), I hypothesise, is very much 'situation' and 'object' as well as 'user' dependent.

I have a hunch that 'panning speed' will play a part in whether a sharp edge (no distortion) bin will be a v*mit maker - or more precisely whether the 'frequency' of the 'AESOP' will match with the natural frequency of 1) the human digestive / internal organ system (~7Hz if I remember my James Bond correctly!), or 2) the visual system, ("Motion sickness) is greatest for vertical sinusoidal motion in the frequency range of 0.05–0.8 Hz and is maximal at 0.167 Hz" according to wiki.

The other part of the 'situational' equation are the 'objects' being viewed - I would think if panning through a grove of Giant Sequoia's, that any 'shortening' of the trunks as they passed out of the FOV, would not be noticeable if the entire vertical field consisted only of trunks. Of course it may be more distracting if a stationary 'Rocky the Squirrel' half way up started to 'appear' to run up and down the trunk without moving a muscle!

As for the other thoughts about what drives these and other design choices, and whether they are beneficial or not - I have to disagree.
The customer may not always be right - but the customer is always the customer!

If there was no progress, we'd all still be sending in these contributions by carrier pigeon, and then making month long journeys by horse and sulky to hear the town crier announce the collected wisdom!

Whilst I readily acknowledge the seemingly (my lawyer advises that I'd also better chuck an 'allegedly' in there somewhere as well!) dubious relations between advertisers and "nevah looked through a glass I didn't like" tomes; I'm with Jerry Seinfeld - I want more everything! ("6:06") http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NienKmtknI

100% transmission ..... yes please!
flat colour curves ..... woohoo!
more FOV ..... yeehaw! (sensible AMD /distortion, and abberation corrections, and Swaro eyeglass friendly ER included!)
close focus ..... yeah, why not?
eliminate CA ..... bewdy!
more mechanical precision? ..... thanks :t:
cheaper prices ..... yup!
in fact ..... more everything!! (except weight - will somebody please bring us into the 21st century .....)

I see while I've been typing away, that Mark's had similar thoughts - bring on the talking computer I say! (and I don't care if it's a marketer, propeller-headed boffin, or fat banker that specifies it - just bring it!)

Chosun :gh:

Troubador · Aug 26, 2012

Chosun

Well said my friend, well said

Lee

bh46118 · Aug 26, 2012

I put an optic up to my eyes and look through it, and If I like what I see then I buy it. What a marketer or reviewer says means not a damn thing as long as my eyes tell me it looks right. Some time I might get around saying what I really think. :-O

Nixterdemus · Aug 26, 2012

Ah yes, marketing for mullah. Sex sells, yet there appears to be nothing sexy about bins. In this harsh light of reality brightness, contrast, resolution, edge and FOV would seem to be jockeying for position along w/colour rendition, focus rate, weight, ergonomics, armour, sweet spot and the need or not for thumb indentions.

I also wonder why for me the vertical scan appears more critical than the horizontal pan. As much as the ED II 7x36 caused the woods to appear as the dark forest haunted apple trees from, The Wizard of OZ in vertical scan the horizontal pan wasn't as bothersome.

Same goes for the Sightron II BL 8x32. More behaved, yet still I sense slight discord in vertical. There seems to be something about that orientation that requires more attention for me.

Granted I'm looking at/through more modest glass. I'm not concerned w/sharp edges as much as I'm bothered by too much PC and not enough dough.

I pulled out the Swift Holiday Mark II 7x35 M-704 600' @ 1000 yds FOV and sporting 24MM oculars. Quite a bit of PC bow noticeable in close horizontal and likewise vertical stretches the tree trunks and exaggerates limb movement compared to background fodder. I take into account the cutting edge of technology from then along w/massive FOV.

Though I'm adjusting to the mild PC combined w/RB bin in a horizontal scan I'm now seeing a flatter movement. The left and right sides are compressed as the middle moves quickly into centerfield though not as exaggerated as the background/foreground/background movement or my further view of a more compact rotating cylinder.

Also in the same vertical scan the trunks bow slightly front to back, much easier on the eyes, limbs don't wave/bow more towards the outside and the background movement behind focus is more restricted and the same up & down length across the board.

For me, even as I accept/perceive RB movement a little differently w/more use, the slight PC view in vertical is preferred. Moving back to the 10x40 Conquest the PC bow isn't as bad as the old Swift porro, but it's real noticeable though not unpleasant.

Would appear I'm a fanboy of a little PC over higher degree of PC. The critical vertical scan for me is more natural and uniform. I'm not sure what the view would be in a no distortion bin as all that I'm aware of are well out of my allotted budget.
--------------
As for CJ's post I believe Queen said it all: I want it all I want it now.

Maybe I could afford the best if I didn't enjoy sampling/buying so many varieties. I fear looking through the alpha glass, no doubt filled w/noble gas, for the view might consume me to point of pulling out plastic and in an even weaker moment become paralyzed unable to return for refund.

Betting the farm on gilded bins would require swapping a cow for magic beans that I might become goosed to the heavens for golden eggs. I'm thinking about the 10x Prime. It claims to have all the requirements for nirvana. ED/FF/Dielectric/FMC and more for six bills.

Yet, if I find the bin of my dreams what would I post? W/no more optical frustration or curiosity I'd be limited to only reading others woes and wants. Before long I'd become full of myself only to find me defending my ultra 2500 clam bin against the new laser polished 3500 grand glass.

brocknroller · Aug 26, 2012

Chosun Juan said:
Nixter, while calls for some sort of universal RB /distortion levels labelling are admirable, due to the 'secret recipes' employed by each brand, we may not see that soon - well, no sooner than we find out what the Colonel's 'secret herbs and spices' are ....

While helpful, be mindful that a portion of the 'rolling ball' or 'globe effect' has to do with an individual's optio-neural hardware and processing.
While the percentage formula may be able to be stated, or categorised ('secret' sauces notwithstanding), an individuals reaction to it, or ability to adapt may not be so easily quantifiable.

About all you can say with absolute certainty, is that somewhere back down the line, all of us here on this rock share DNA, and ancestors, and have the same basic blueprint - even if some of us have lost the operating instructions!

Whether makers add in enough pincushion (like Zeiss) to correct the AMD, or not (like Swarovski), or are somewhere off the planet (a' la Leica); there are some widely recognised 'middle way's (Like Nikon EDG, SE, and lately Zen Prime HD).

Luckily, I've never looked through Nikon's LX's, and thus have not been traumatised for life! There are other equally nauseating bins out there I'm sure (there was a demo /simulation - not Holger's - Henry link's, I think? - on another thread of a bin *x** which I found positively hurl inducing).

I was only half-joking with the AESOP fable in the Zen Prime HD thread. Rolling ball .... AESOP (Apparent Effective Shortened Object Phenomena), I hypothesise, is very much 'situation' and 'object' as well as 'user' dependent.

I have a hunch that 'panning speed' will play a part in whether a sharp edge (no distortion) bin will be a v*mit maker - or more precisely whether the 'frequency' of the 'AESOP' will match with the natural frequency of 1) the human digestive / internal organ system (~7Hz if I remember my James Bond correctly!), or 2) the visual system, ("Motion sickness) is greatest for vertical sinusoidal motion in the frequency range of 0.05–0.8 Hz and is maximal at 0.167 Hz" according to wiki.

The other part of the 'situational' equation are the 'objects' being viewed - I would think if panning through a grove of Giant Sequoia's, that any 'shortening' of the trunks as they passed out of the FOV, would not be noticeable if the entire vertical field consisted only of trunks. Of course it may be more distracting if a stationary 'Rocky the Squirrel' half way up started to 'appear' to run up and down the trunk without moving a muscle!

As for the other thoughts about what drives these and other design choices, and whether they are beneficial or not - I have to disagree.
The customer may not always be right - but the customer is always the customer!

If there was no progress, we'd all still be sending in these contributions by carrier pigeon, and then making month long journeys by horse and sulky to hear the town crier announce the collected wisdom!

Whilst I readily acknowledge the seemingly (my lawyer advises that I'd also better chuck an 'allegedly' in there somewhere as well!) dubious relations between advertisers and "nevah looked through a glass I didn't like" tomes; I'm with Jerry Seinfeld - I want more everything! ("6:06") http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NienKmtknI

100% transmission ..... yes please!
flat colour curves ..... woohoo!
more FOV ..... yeehaw! (sensible AMD /distortion, and abberation corrections, and Swaro eyeglass friendly ER included!)
close focus ..... yeah, why not?
eliminate CA ..... bewdy!
more mechanical precision? ..... thanks :t:
cheaper prices ..... yup!
in fact ..... more everything!! (except weight - will somebody please bring us into the 21st century .....)

I see while I've been typing away, that Mark's had similar thoughts - bring on the talking computer I say! (and I don't care if it's a marketer, propeller-headed boffin, or fat banker that specifies it - just bring it!)

Chosun :gh:

In the above litany, which does not belong?

Hint: If you want it all, you will have to keep stuffing larger and larger marbles into your nostrils in order to stretch them out, because you are going to pay through the proboscis.

As to the idea of progress for progress sake, my townships supervisors' idea of progress is to let developers level every house in my neighborhood until there's no trees or wildlife left and no residential homes, just student housing, restaurants and office buildings.

From my POV, that's not progress, that's wholesale destruction.

Which brings to mind an old Barry McGuire song...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwYNWYaS3bI&feature=fvst

brocknroller · Aug 26, 2012

Holger Merlitz said:
The answer is very simple and irritating as well: Nowadays, it is not the optical designers any more who determine the direction of progress, but the marketing experts.

They found: In test magazines, pincushion distortion is regularly punished by the testers, while globe effect is not. So they remove the distortion.

They also realized that binoculars with perfect edge-sharpness are winning, so they continue to improve the edge sharpness, even though it is of very little practical use, rather serving as an excuse to higher the prices.

So it continues: A close focusing point even below 2m - not useful, in fact rather harmful, because it increases the required travel for the focusing lens. But there is no space left - modern binoculars have to be compact, so they are forced to increase the power of the focusing lens, which in turn increases aberrations, which in turn have to be compensated by increasingly complex and expensive ocular designs.

A high power focusing lens requires a high precision mechanics with low tolerances. But the test magazines tend to praise binoculars with fast focusers - from 2m to infinity within less than one turn, which cannot at the same time be precise. The result: With modern high-end glasses, the focusing precision has gone down, hardly any manufacturer who does not have serious troubles to cope with all those contradicting requirements. Whether the current high end binoculars will still perform after 20 years, as well as the older generation glasses are performing today? I doubt. Short term profit, shorter life cycles, that is what counts. Warranty times are already going down.

2% more transmission than the competitor? The marketing guys are doing anything to achieve that. There is no practical use for it, but the product is winning the competition, and, of course, there is another excuse to raise the price.

Times are changing.

Holger Merlitz

Indeed, the times are 'a changin', but not all for the better, as you outlined above. Thanks for that "simple" and "irritating" answer.

I've been hammering on the "incremental change$ for diminishing return$" theme for a few years now, and in my BF thread by the same title, Henry posted and said that it wasn't just roof prism and AR coatings that were driving up costs, but more complex optics. Your post explained why and how that's happened and the trade-offs that go hand and hand with such "progress," the most disturbing of which to me is the $2K+ price tag.

During the past couple years, I've also quoted the next to last paragraph in your 8x30 EII vs. 8x32 Meopta review where you touched upon these same themes.

Yours is the voice of reason, but I don't think most people want to be reasonable. They want to keep chasing that increasingly costly and always just beyond reach optical nirvana.

In a consumer society "contentment" and "product longevity" are the death knell.

The only upgrades that I've welcomed with open arms have been the refinement of AR coatings. The coatings on the 550xxx 8x32 SE are noticeably better than the on the 501xxx 8x32 SE I bought in 1998.

Fortunately, with good quality porros, that's really all you need, and the upgraded coatings haven't added much cost. In fact, before the recession when the dollar was strong against the yen, the price of the 8x32 SE was $525, only $26 more than the price in 1998 from the same NYC store.

Brock

Pileatus · Aug 26, 2012

Holger Merlitz said:
The answer is very simple and irritating as well: Nowadays, it is not the optical designers any more who determine the direction of progress, but the marketing experts.

They found: In test magazines, pincushion distortion is regularly punished by the testers, while globe effect is not. So they remove the distortion.

They also realized that binoculars with perfect edge-sharpness are winning, so they continue to improve the edge sharpness, even though it is of very little practical use, rather serving as an excuse to higher the prices.

So it continues: A close focusing point even below 2m - not useful, in fact rather harmful, because it increases the required travel for the focusing lens. But there is no space left - modern binoculars have to be compact, so they are forced to increase the power of the focusing lens, which in turn increases aberrations, which in turn have to be compensated by increasingly complex and expensive ocular designs.

A high power focusing lens requires a high precision mechanics with low tolerances. But the test magazines tend to praise binoculars with fast focusers - from 2m to infinity within less than one turn, which cannot at the same time be precise. The result: With modern high-end glasses, the focusing precision has gone down, hardly any manufacturer who does not have serious troubles to cope with all those contradicting requirements. Whether the current high end binoculars will still perform after 20 years, as well as the older generation glasses are performing today? I doubt. Short term profit, shorter life cycles, that is what counts. Warranty times are already going down.

2% more transmission than the competitor? The marketing guys are doing anything to achieve that. There is no practical use for it, but the product is winning the competition, and, of course, there is another excuse to raise the price.

Times are changing.

Holger Merlitz

I parted with a Leica Ultravid in favor of a flatter field, "globe effect" Swarovision. I still use my outmoded SE porro.
I want sharp edges because I find soft edges VERY distracting.
In the USA Nikon has a virtual lifetime warranty. Swarovski might as well be lifetime given their service record. Many of the 2nd tier manufacturers are lifetime warranty...some no questions asked.
Close focus...3M is good enough but the closer focus on my SV works just fine.
People have more choices today than they did ten years ago and, I dare say, the mid-priced bins are as good as many of the alphas of yesteryear. The market, eventually, rules.

More Globe Effect, Pincushion & Oculars (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

porromaniac

porromaniac

"Experientia Docet”

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread