Nikon Premier Se Binoculars (1 Viewer)

Speaking as the guinea pig who tried to conduct a controlled test of some of brock's ideas about CA in low power binoculars I feel it's my duty to warn the innocent that I was NOT able to see any effect whatever on CA that could be attributed to the removal of lead from optical glass.

I should mention that I can see plenty of lateral color in my test set-up. Its white against black pattern of bars is specifically designed to maximize the appearance of color fringes. The binoculars are compared tripod mounted next to each other and the CA target's white bars are placed at 2 degree intervals, so I can be certain I'm comparing CA at exactly the same spots in the field. I reported a VERY tiny difference in lateral CA between an old single coated Nikon 8x30E and a later 1992 multi-coated version. Between that 1992 binocular with lead and a 8x30 EII with Eco-glass that I purchased in 2006 I saw no difference in lateral color at all. I mixed and matched eyepieces and objectives between the E and the EII and still found no difference.

Today, after reading the posts above I decided to repeat the test between the single and multi-coated E's. This time, I couldn't even repeat the tiny difference I reported earlier and that's between binoculars with perhaps 15-20% differences in light transmission. How much tinier would the difference in CA be between slightly tweeked multi-coatings with only a few percent difference in light transmission?

I know nothing I can say or do on this subject will matter to the true believer. Besides, I don't have anything new to add and I'm reading the same stuff I've read many times before from brock, so I'll just withdraw now and take my licks.

henry link said:

Speaking as the guinea pig who tried to conduct a controlled test of some of brock's ideas about CA in low power binoculars I feel it's my duty to warn the innocent that I was NOT able to see any effect whatever on CA that could be attributed to the removal of lead from optical glass.

I should mention that I can see plenty of lateral color in my test set-up. Its white against black pattern of bars is specifically designed to maximize the appearance of color fringes. The binoculars are compared tripod mounted next to each other and the CA target's white bars are placed at 2 degree intervals, so I can be certain I'm comparing CA at exactly the same spots in the field. I reported a VERY tiny difference in lateral CA between an old single coated Nikon 8x30E and a later 1992 multi-coated version. Between that 1992 binocular with lead and a 8x30 EII with Eco-glass that I purchased in 2006 I saw no difference in lateral color at all. I mixed and matched eyepieces and objectives between the E and the EII and still found no difference.

Today, after reading the posts above I decided to repeat the test between the single and multi-coated E's. This time, I couldn't even repeat the tiny difference I reported earlier and that's between binoculars with perhaps 15-20% differences in light transmission. How much tinier would the difference in CA be between slightly tweeked multi-coatings with only a few percent difference in light transmission?

I know nothing I can say or do on this subject will matter to the true believer. Besides, I don't have anything new to add and I'm reading the same stuff I've read many times before from brock, so I'll just withdraw now and take my licks.

Click to expand...

Henry,

You apparently didn't read my post (#19) through to the end where I recanted and threw my support to Ed's > light transmission = > CA theory, which you have now also discredited.

So no need to warn the "innocent" about me, it's Ed they have to worry about now.

Since you've shot down two theories that attempted to explain why there were growing reports of CA in bins from about the time lead free glass was introduced and mega layer multicoatings were introduced, the mantle of truth has fallen upon you to explain the uptick in CA reports in modern bins B.E.D. (before ED glass).

Brock

John Dracon said:

Methinks the eye-brain variable that exists with humans ( alluded to by Ed and Brock) may account for the preference of one high end binocular over another. That may be the deciding variable, not the inherent quality and precision of the instrument.

A recent visit to my eye doctor shows a slight change in refraction from several years ago - an expected change related to age. In my discussion with him, he stated that the composition of the lens, glass as opposed to plastic, can significantly affect perceived resolution. Plastic lens do no resolve fine detail like glass lens do, at least for me. That is a general consensus in the industry.

When we place our eyeglass lens behind the oculars, we are introducing another variable that can affect resolution. That in itself may have a significant impact with some people. Certainly the refracted image has to penetrate another optical element to reach our eyes. It may enhance, have no measureable effect, or degrade what we see.

My eyes, for example, don't pick up CA. Don't think about it, don't see it, and don't look for it. The classic test for horizontal lines with both barrels when colliminating binoculars doesn't work for me. The line seen by the right eye is always lower even when the collimation is perfect.

I learned that moving from lined trifocals to lineless trifocals can be difficult because the optic brain has a memory stored to accommodate the lines. That memory has some permanancy.

We can all recall taking the eye exams for driving vehicles. Part of those tests deal with what is generally called the color blind test - red - green. A certain percentage of a given population sees those colors quite differently. Are we to assume everyone sees the colors the same which are attributed to this or that binocular? Of course not.

The science of semantics deals with word meanings, which are of course quite variable. And how we see and what we see is quite variable from individual to individual. It is really pointless to expect everyone to agree on what is optical perfection as opposed to near optical perfection.

By the way when the SE's first came out, I was the 10x42 fan. Then I became enamoured with the 8x32 SE and had a number. Now down to two specimans. One unused model with serial number 500,312. It will go to the highest bidder who just has to have one. My user 8x32 has a serial number 503,187. Frankly, I can see no difference, period, unleaded or leaded. But my soon to be 76 year old eyes can't resolve detail like they once could. In fact my right eye can no longer be refracted to see 20/20. But the brain nicely uses my left eye which can. I sold my 10x42 SEs once I purchased a 12x50 SE, which is really a dandy glass if you have a solid rest fot it. My Zeiss 8x32 FLs are my foul weather binoculars.
John

Click to expand...

John,

Several interesting points here, but I'd like to comment about your attempted transition from lined to lineless trifocals. In particular, you stated that "...the optic brain has a memory stored to accommodate the lines. That memory has some permanancy."

Yes, indeed! As you probably know, the process is called visual adaptation and falls into a family of behaviors that include adaptation to CA. One of the characteristics of this adaptation is the presence of long duration "aftereffects," which can persist for quite a while. In the case of CA, the process is ongoing, and after-images can involve fringes of opposite hue. In the case of curved lines the opposite curvature. The classic laboratory study of these phenomena involved the the use of prisms. See: http://www.csic.cornell.edu/201/prism_adaptation/. (I can't help but mention that M. M. Cohen is my good friend and lunch buddy, although Richard Held at MIT did most of the systematic work on CA adaptation.)

So, when you say that you don't "see" CA it really means that your 75 yr. old brain is quite good at the adaptation, — and mine too, incidentally. That doesn't mean that our brains don't have to work at processing the visual information, and probably harder if the CA (fringing) is more visible.

With regard to preferences, therefore, I tend to think that those instruments placing less adaptation demand on the user tend to be preferred. Of course, tasks are different as well as individuals. However, adaptation to a new instrument is highly influenced by what was adapted to before, and in some cases the new adaptations can conflict with previous ones.

I'd better quit before I turn into a puddle of butter. 3

Ed

brock,

I don't have enough information for a theory, but if my feet were placed to the fire I'd point the finger at widely spaced 4 element objectives with negative focusing elements, another innovation that came along in the 90's. Binoculars using that design are the only ones in my experience with really excessive lateral color. Binoculars with simple doublet objectives have never been very bad no matter what the glass or coatings. The source of the lateral color coming from the objective design would also explain why the adoption of ED glass in the objectives rather than changes in the eyepieces appears to improve the lateral color in those binoculars.

Henry

henry link said:

brock,

I don't have enough information for a theory, but if my feet were placed to the fire I'd point the finger at widely spaced 4 element objectives with negative focusing elements, another innovation that came along in the 90's. Binoculars using that design are the only ones in my experience with really excessive lateral color. Binoculars with simple doublet objectives have never been very bad no matter what the glass or coatings. The source of the lateral color coming from the objective design would also explain why the adoption of ED glass in the objectives rather than changes in the eyepieces appears to improve the lateral color in those binoculars.

Henry

Click to expand...

Henry:

Good information as usual, but for many here, give us some examples of some binocular models with the objective types you are referring to.

For example, I would like to know about the Nikon and other porro construction, and also about the roofs and how they are different.

I suppose this could be put into the Binoculars 202 class as far as
studies go.

Jerry

elkcub said:

John,

Several interesting points here, but I'd like to comment about your attempted transition from lined to lineless trifocals. In particular, you stated that "...the optic brain has a memory stored to accommodate the lines. That memory has some permanancy."

Yes, indeed! As you probably know, the process is called visual adaptation and falls into a family of behaviors that include adaptation to CA. One of the characteristics of this adaptation is the presence of long duration "aftereffects," which can persist for quite a while. In the case of CA, the process is ongoing, and after-images can involve fringes of opposite hue. In the case of curved lines the opposite curvature. The classic laboratory study of these phenomena involved the the use of prisms. See: http://www.csic.cornell.edu/201/prism_adaptation/. (I can't help but mention that M. M. Cohen is my good friend and lunch buddy, although Richard Held at MIT did most of the systematic work on CA adaptation.)

So, when you say that you don't "see" CA it really means that your 75 yr. old brain is quite good at the adaptation, — and mine too, incidentally. That doesn't mean that our brains don't have to work at processing the visual information, and probably harder if the CA (fringing) is more visible.

With regard to preferences, therefore, I tend to think that those instruments placing less adaptation demand on the user tend to be preferred. Of course, tasks are different as well as individuals. However, adaptation to a new instrument is highly influenced by what was adapted to before, and in some cases the new adaptations can conflict with previous ones.

I'd better quit before I turn into a puddle of butter. 3

Ed

Click to expand...

Good stuff! John and Ed. Many of the things I like best and least about binoculars are perceptual and cannot found in the specs and some not even in "bench tests".

Rarely do I have the empirical evidence to back up my observations, so when I present them and others don't see what I see, they are sometimes met with disbelief or even disdain.

This is nothing new for me, it happens even at home. My dad lives with me now, and although old age has taken some toll on his senses, his senses have always been dull.

Many years ago, I was visiting my parents in NJ and my mom gave me some milk. Before I could get it to my mouth, the foul odor of spoiled milk made me "dry heave". I told her it was spoiled, and my dad took the container, stuck his nose inside it, and said, "There's nothing wrong with the milk, you're nuts." He then poured the milk into his coffee and it curdled.

Unfortunately, not all phenomena are so easily verified. For example, yesterday the living room TV was "sizzling". It sounded like someone was frying bacon inside the TV. Shut off the sound, the sizzle was still there and quite LOUD. I told my dad about it, and he couldn't hear it even while standing right in front of the TV! Of course, there quickly came the usual denial, "There's no sound coming from the TV, you're nuts!".

My friend Steve and I also don't see "eye to eye" on many things. Almost after every post where I make an observation about bins we've both tried or owned, he will write "I don't see this" or "this doesn't bother me" or something to that effect.

I am bothered by too much CA, pincushion, "rolling ball," field curvature, astigmatism, and also decentered "sweet spots," the 2-D Effect of midsized roofs, and I need to reset the diopter on midsized roofs and 10x+ bins. Steve is not bothered by these things or in some cases doesn't see them.

I am not advocating relativism as a standardless standard or denying scientific evidence, but in some instances, there is no "right" or "wrong," there are just observations made with our amazingly different senses.

While it's understandable that people are skeptical about that which they cannot detect with their own senses, the irony is that their very existence depends on "invisible corpuscles".

As Missouri Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver once declared, "I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs...., and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me."

How can you show someone what they can't see or establish credibility with someone who assumes his or her personal instruments (eyes, ears, nose, skin, taste buds) are the standards by which all is to be judged?

You cannot. If I've learned one thing from my dad, it's that.

Brock

Adaptation to bad stuff is in many cases an admirable human talent. One has to eat what's available if poor or stranded in the wilderness, kill if sent to war, etc. These are necessary matters of survival. Becoming blind to optical flaws is different: you have a choice.

"Adaptation" to CA clearly means that the problem is not that something is wrong with the eyes. Rather, one learns not to see it, or adapts to it.

Adapting to a visible feature that is undesirable, but big enough and contrasted enough to be plainly visible, to the point where it is simply not seen, seems to me like morality in microcosm. A talented visual adapter may work his way up to an elephant in the living room, or a naked emperor.

For some it is too late already, and CA adaptation is complete. For the rest of us, I implore, for the love of optics and truth, resist such adaptation. Don't just turn away from optical flaws and go about your business. See and report. The credibility of the entire sub-forum is at stake.
Ron

Huh?:h?:

Did I understand that to mean that I should I believe your lying eyes over mine or the reverse?

Maybe we now need an "Optical Ethicist?"

Bob

I'll throw two suggestions into the pot concerning why there would have been a rise in complaints about CA "around the time" eco-glass came into use. Both are consistent with Henry's solid argument that binoculars are currently no worse in this respect than they were before.

Firstly, the awareness among the binocular buying and using public of something called chromatic aberration was not all that widespread until BVD started talking about it in the early-mid nineties. Even then, general understanding caught on only slowly. What you don't know about, you don't see.

The second suggestion concerns eye-glass use with binoculars. The types of high-index crack-resistant plastics used for modern varifocal lenses seem to have much more prominent CA than the harder materials or optical glass used back when bifocals were the norm and trifocals were emerging. I have a new pair of high-quality varifocals (my first), and although I'm glad to see that the adaptation process that Ed talked about above work even in my case, I'm still surprised how some hues of blue simply do not come to focus with these glasses, and by how narrow the useable viewfield is sideways. In general use one's brain rather quickly adapts to the need to turn one's head instead of one's eyes to see clearly to the side, but with binoculars this does not work - even with ample eye-relief it is not possible to turn one's head relative to the binocular to view off-axis, and consequently the high level of lateral color in the glasses gets combined with the lateral color in the binocular, with the sum of the two being really obvious.

Kimmo

henry link said:

Speaking as the guinea pig who tried to conduct a controlled test of some of brock's ideas about CA in low power binoculars I feel it's my duty to warn the innocent that I was NOT able to see any effect whatever on CA that could be attributed to the removal of lead from optical glass.

I should mention that I can see plenty of lateral color in my test set-up. Its white against black pattern of bars is specifically designed to maximize the appearance of color fringes. The binoculars are compared tripod mounted next to each other and the CA target's white bars are placed at 2 degree intervals, so I can be certain I'm comparing CA at exactly the same spots in the field. I reported a VERY tiny difference in lateral CA between an old single coated Nikon 8x30E and a later 1992 multi-coated version. Between that 1992 binocular with lead and a 8x30 EII with Eco-glass that I purchased in 2006 I saw no difference in lateral color at all. I mixed and matched eyepieces and objectives between the E and the EII and still found no difference.

Today, after reading the posts above I decided to repeat the test between the single and multi-coated E's. This time, I couldn't even repeat the tiny difference I reported earlier and that's between binoculars with perhaps 15-20% differences in light transmission. How much tinier would the difference in CA be between slightly tweeked multi-coatings with only a few percent difference in light transmission?

I know nothing I can say or do on this subject will matter to the true believer. Besides, I don't have anything new to add and I'm reading the same stuff I've read many times before from brock, so I'll just withdraw now and take my licks.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. I guess one could also make a good case for your method not addressing the relative visibility of lateral fringing. Since the design is the same in your Nikons I would expect the growth function with field angle to be essentially the same, which is what you found. Spectral content and intensity I would think are two critical variables that might be different.

Ed

Hello, Everyone.
Thanks, Again, For The Response To My Question. I Have Another Regarding The Zeiss Victory 7x42 T*fl: Is There A Better 7x Wide-field Binocular ? Is This One Of The Best ?
Thanks For Your Reply.
Wingersheek

You can certainly pick 'em, can't you? Yes, it's one of the best! Some say a 7x42 is the ideal specification: reasonable magnification, good light gathering and quite compact. The Zeiss 7x42 BGAT*P ClassiC is one of the most famous binoculars ever made, and the more modern Victory FL model is also highly regarded, known for its bright image. Is there a better 7x binocular? I'll leave others to answer that one!

Sheek - If Nikon made an SE 7x42 porro, it would be better than the Zeiss 7x42. Nikon could do it but hasn't. I enjoyed the use of the Zeiss 7x42 for a number of years. It is a great glass, probably in its class unsurpassed with P coatings. But I didn't like its ergonomics - hard to balance and the focusing mechanism gets sticky. But they are robust and do hold their value. A users gets some years behind them, they come to appreciate the value of 7 power. John

Well, I seem to be one of those who can't adapt to CA. I see it, and I always see it. I tried high-index plastic eyeglass lenses once and couldn't take it. They told me to try them for a week or two and I'd get used to it. Never happened. I felt like I was looking out a fishbowl, the whole world framed in silly color fringes. After 2-3 weeks I took them back and said no dice.

My wife says I'm stubborn. I guess even my brain is stubborn.

Oh, and thanks to all for trotting out the SE superlatives again. I had resolved to sell the SE and just live with the SV. Ain't gonna happen now. I had the SE's out this morning. God, they're good!

Wingersheek, prepare to surrender to them.

Mark

NDhunter said:

Henry:

Good information as usual, but for many here, give us some examples of some binocular models with the objective types you are referring to.

For example, I would like to know about the Nikon and other porro construction, and also about the roofs and how they are different.

I suppose this could be put into the Binoculars 202 class as far as
studies go.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Jerry,

I hesitated to say anything. FWIW, that design is used in many, but not all, roof prism binoculars. A possible connection between those designs and CA is at the confidence level of a hunch, no more. I haven't found enough corroborating evidence, so I've left it hanging in my mind as an interesting coincidence waiting for better information. Still, I do believe it would be possible to assemble some dribs and drabs of "evidence" and present it as the latest internet myth about binocular optics. With enough repetitions I'm sure it could go viral and wind up established as absolute truth in a few years. ;-))

Henry

Mark - That is what I experience every time I'm playing around with another binocular.
What ever the SEs have seems to approach a consensus among users.
John

brocknroller said:

Good stuff! John and Ed. Many of the things I like best and least about binoculars are perceptual and cannot found in the specs and some not even in "bench tests".

Rarely do I have the empirical evidence to back up my observations, so when I present them and others don't see what I see, they are sometimes met with disbelief or even disdain.

This is nothing new for me, it happens even at home. My dad lives with me now, and although old age has taken some toll on his senses, his senses have always been dull.

Many years ago, I was visiting my parents in NJ and my mom gave me some milk. Before I could get it to my mouth, the foul odor of spoiled milk made me "dry heave". I told her it was spoiled, and my dad took the container, stuck his nose inside it, and said, "There's nothing wrong with the milk, you're nuts." He then poured the milk into his coffee and it curdled.

Unfortunately, not all phenomena are so easily verified. For example, yesterday the living room TV was "sizzling". It sounded like someone was frying bacon inside the TV. Shut off the sound, the sizzle was still there and quite LOUD. I told my dad about it, and he couldn't hear it even while standing right in front of the TV! Of course, there quickly came the usual denial, "There's no sound coming from the TV, you're nuts!".

My friend Steve and I also don't see "eye to eye" on many things. Almost after every post where I make an observation about bins we've both tried or owned, he will write "I don't see this" or "this doesn't bother me" or something to that effect.

I am bothered by too much CA, pincushion, "rolling ball," field curvature, astigmatism, and also decentered "sweet spots," the 2-D Effect of midsized roofs, and I need to reset the diopter on midsized roofs and 10x+ bins. Steve is not bothered by these things or in some cases doesn't see them.

I am not advocating relativism as a standardless standard or denying scientific evidence, but in some instances, there is no "right" or "wrong," there are just observations made with our amazingly different senses.

While it's understandable that people are skeptical about that which they cannot detect with their own senses, the irony is that their very existence depends on "invisible corpuscles".

As Missouri Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver once declared, "I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs...., and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me."

How can you show someone what they can't see or establish credibility with someone who assumes his or her personal instruments (eyes, ears, nose, skin, taste buds) are the standards by which all is to be judged?

You cannot. If I've learned one thing from my dad, it's that.

Brock

Click to expand...

That was a good read, Brock. :t:

If you review comments I've made on other threads you will probably find that I never actively disagreed with your statements about eco-glass or coating improvements. I merely questioned your interpretation of the evidence, and the fact that a lot depended upon your own visual sensitivity. In other words, I wasn't persuaded enough to endorse your conclusions. That's different from piling on and disagreeing.

Ed

"Unfortunately, not all phenomena are so easily verified. For example, yesterday the living room TV was "sizzling". It sounded like someone was frying bacon inside the TV. Shut off the sound, the sizzle was still there and quite LOUD. I told my dad about it, and he couldn't hear it even while standing right in front of the TV! Of course, there quickly came the usual denial, "There's no sound coming from the TV, you're nuts!". "

Brock I would of agreed on this esp. if wearing my hearing aids.

"I am bothered by too much CA, pincushion, "rolling ball," field curvature, astigmatism, and also decentered "sweet spots," the 2-D Effect of midsized roofs, and I need to reset the diopter on midsized roofs and 10x+ bins. Steve is not bothered by these things or in some cases doesn't see them."

Brock for me 90% of what I look for in any optics is center resolution> how sharp the binocular etc. is. Without that IMO what good is the rest. There is such a thing as "looking" too much for every fault. The diopter resetting has me scratching my head. I could see that in cheap stuff but? I have seen what you are talking about astigmatism towards the edges, rolling ball, well one bounce for me.

I do think ergonomics are important and wish the Nikon 8x32SE didn't kidney bean sometimes and yes there is astimatism in edges on the 8SE while looking at the stars.

kabsetz said:

I'll throw two suggestions into the pot concerning why there would have been a rise in complaints about CA "around the time" eco-glass came into use. Both are consistent with Henry's solid argument that binoculars are currently no worse in this respect than they were before.

Firstly, the awareness among the binocular buying and using public of something called chromatic aberration was not all that widespread until BVD started talking about it in the early-mid nineties. Even then, general understanding caught on only slowly. What you don't know about, you don't see.

The second suggestion concerns eye-glass use with binoculars. The types of high-index crack-resistant plastics used for modern varifocal lenses seem to have much more prominent CA than the harder materials or optical glass used back when bifocals were the norm and trifocals were emerging. I have a new pair of high-quality varifocals (my first), and although I'm glad to see that the adaptation process that Ed talked about above work even in my case, I'm still surprised how some hues of blue simply do not come to focus with these glasses, and by how narrow the useable viewfield is sideways. In general use one's brain rather quickly adapts to the need to turn one's head instead of one's eyes to see clearly to the side, but with binoculars this does not work - even with ample eye-relief it is not possible to turn one's head relative to the binocular to view off-axis, and consequently the high level of lateral color in the glasses gets combined with the lateral color in the binocular, with the sum of the two being really obvious.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

Hi Kimmo,

If Henry were saying that binoculars are currently no worse in CA than they were before I would have no reason to disagree. However, the issue is not the CA inherent in the design, but rather the increased visibility or conspicuousness of lateral fringing, which I maintain is a necessary consequence of improved coatings. The adaptive ability of the eye is excellent, but like everything else can be exceeded. Lateral fringing becomes conspicuous when reflections are eliminated. Similarly, the globe effect becomes conspicuous when distortion is eliminated.

I don't understand why it would be more acceptable to concoct an explanation of what's been happening in the industry by reference to internal focusing than by understanding the complex nature of the human observer. Well, on the other hand, I probably do understand it.

I think your discussion of varifocal glasses is an excellent case in point. The topic was mentioned in an earlier post and is an important teaching aide, not only to understand the course of perceptual adaptation, but also the role of aftereffects. I've been using trifocals so long it's basically impossible to make the switch.

Regards,
Ed

kabsetz said:

I'll throw two suggestions into the pot concerning why there would have been a rise in complaints about CA "around the time" eco-glass came into use. Both are consistent with Henry's solid argument that binoculars are currently no worse in this respect than they were before.

Firstly, the awareness among the binocular buying and using public of something called chromatic aberration was not all that widespread until BVD started talking about it in the early-mid nineties. Even then, general understanding caught on only slowly. What you don't know about, you don't see.

The second suggestion concerns eye-glass use with binoculars. The types of high-index crack-resistant plastics used for modern varifocal lenses seem to have much more prominent CA than the harder materials or optical glass used back when bifocals were the norm and trifocals were emerging. I have a new pair of high-quality varifocals (my first), and although I'm glad to see that the adaptation process that Ed talked about above work even in my case, I'm still surprised how some hues of blue simply do not come to focus with these glasses, and by how narrow the useable viewfield is sideways. In general use one's brain rather quickly adapts to the need to turn one's head instead of one's eyes to see clearly to the side, but with binoculars this does not work - even with ample eye-relief it is not possible to turn one's head relative to the binocular to view off-axis, and consequently the high level of lateral color in the glasses gets combined with the lateral color in the binocular, with the sum of the two being really obvious.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

Kimmo,

Thanks for sticking your neck out by presenting some new ideas.

The first reminds me of UFO history. Since cave drawings, humans have been reporting in one form or another unexplained flying objects, including the "Foo Fighters" during WWII.

However, it wasn't until after the war in 1947 when those objects were given the name "flying saucers" in a Hearst newspaper article, and then a year later, on July 7, 1948, when a "flying saucer" reportedly crashed in Roswell, New Mexico, that the number of UFO sightings "skyrocketed".

It also reminds me of the publication of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," which prompted the environmental movement as other people began to investigate the various impacts of environmental pollution.

Once something is publicly recognized by an expert (or someone who has access to the media), word gets out that a certain phenomenon exists and suddenly there is a rash of reports about that phenomenon.

Over on the dark side (Cloudy Nights), when I mentioned Ingraham, hardly anybody had heard of him, and yet amateur astronomers too were reporting "color fringing" in their latest upgraded MC lead free glass bins.

One particular example that comes to mind is the Fuji 16x70 FMT-SX 2, which has lead free glass and upgraded coatings. The increased CA bothered some people to the point where they sold the "SX-2" version and bought the older version even though they never heard of "what's his name". They knew about "chromatic aberration" from Edz, and although I can't be certain, I don't think he learned the term from Ingraham.

Also interesting is that there was the same kind of amateur observation vs. expert denial on that forum as there has been between Henry and me over this issue on BF (I should add that Rusty isn't the only user who has reported this difference between the old and new 16x FMTs).

Check out the "debate" btwn Rusty and Edz:

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbarchive/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/946042/page/21/view/collapsed/sb/7/o/all/fpart/2/vc/1

Another idea to throw into the mix is the fact that in the US, birdwatching has become the second fastest growing hobby in America. CBS estimates that there are 48 million birdwatchers in the US and climbing (another source puts the number at 51.3 million):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/15/eveningnews/main6870200.shtml

So more eyes looking through bins means more poor CA "adapters" who see what's always been there in "fast" achromatic optical systems and report it.

According to this report, birdwatching is largely dominated by middle aged folks, and in middle age, eyesight starts to deteriorate and eye lenses begin to form cataracts. I'm starting to see some "purple haze" around lights at night and notice more glare around backlit objects during the day, which my eye doctor attributed to the beginnings of cataracts.

http://www.onecaribbean.org/content/files/BirdwatchingCaribbeanNicheMarkets-2.pdf

So while one factor alone might not explain the uptick in CA sightings, if you add the four together - wider and more accessible education about optics, more birdwatchers, the age of the average birdwatcher, and more eyeglass wearers using polycarbonate lens glasses - it might all add up to explain the increase in reports in CA in modern bins.

Yet, when I read reports of increased CA in newer versions of the same bins such as the 16x70 FMT-SX 1 vs. 2 or Leica Trinovid BA vs. BN, Nikon HG vs. HGL, newer SEs vs. old, etc., a mix of roofs and porros where the only optical differences are upgraded multicoatings and lead free glass, I wonder if there's something else going on that experts might have missed.

Brock