Maybe a Zeiss with its "loco-tec" coatings 3.
And don't forget the Schott Choo-Choo glass.....
Lee
-
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.
Rolling Ball: what do I do?! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter emmalibertine
- Start date
And don't forget the Schott Choo-Choo glass.....
Lee
brocknroller
porromaniac
I can tolerate it too, if it's mild such as the Nikon Actions with aspheric lenses. I just use my pan a bit and stop technique like I use for minimizing "rolling bowl," but in very low distortion bins such as the Nikon HG/L, I can see AMD even with the bin in a static position.
In light of Pier's experience, who said that he was able to adapt to the RB in the SV EL, but when he stopped using the bin for a period of time while he was testing the HTs, which have pincushion, and went back to the SV ELs, he saw RB again for a few days before he adapted again, apparently adaptation isn't always permanent. In the past, I suggested that perhaps discontinuous use of a bin with high AMD could cause the user to lose his adaptation, and his case confirms that.
So I wondered during the two months that I had the 8x42 HG and 10x42 HG if I had them exclusively instead of switching back and forth with my other bins, would the RB have "ceased and desisted"? Apparently, at least for some users, going back and forth from low distortion bins to bins with a healthy amount of pincushion can interrupt the adaptation process and cause the user to need another period of adjustment.
I suspect that for some users such interruptions or going back and forth from AMD to pincushion might make the adaptation only partial. Some users adapt only partially, that is, the rolling ball ameliorates to a certain degree compared to when they first tried the bins, and becomes tolerable but doesn't disappear like it does for a lot of users. I wonder if those "semi-neural plastics," as I named them, stopped using bins with distortion altogether would they completely adapt?
All of this thinking was based on the supposition that adaptation was neural based and not behavioral. What Holger wrote (see link in my signature) seemed to support that, and someone else, not Ed, suggested that the adaptation had to do with neural plasticity.
But then Ed posted his behavioral adaptation theory, and that gave a different perspective to the issue. If adapting to RB is a matter of changing your handling of the bin or the way you move or don't move your eyes, then most people could learn how to adapt to RB, which makes it a whole 'nuther ballgame.
As to how many are affected, there's enough users worldwide who have reported seeing RB on these forums who would benefit from such knowledge, some even more sensitive to RB like the member who got "nauseated" from panning with the Nikon 8x32 HG, which to my eyes has tolerable, mild RB, thanks to some pincushion being added. Lately, there seems to be more bins being made with low distortion, so we might see more reports in the future if this trend continues including some users, such as one who posted recently, who had never seen RB in a bin before but who now knows what all the hubbub is about after experiencing it himself.
And, as I mentioned, there could other applications for adapting to abnormal conditions/environments and learning how this adaptation works might help with those too.
Since the majority of birders can adapt to RB, they aren't interested in such knowledge, however, they would be if the adaptation had to do with something that concerned them such CA or image blackouts.
Hope that recap wasn't too long!
<B>
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Ed, I wholly agree, that Pier's experience would be expected for someone on the edge of affectation, given the time away from the SV's, compounded by the ensuing vascillation between optical formulas.
Brock, no matter who coined the term, there's a vast body of scientific evidence to support "neural" plasticity. I don't know that I share Ed's doubts re: permanence /temporary effects, but I'd wager that individual responses to timeframes and frequency are as varied as the numbers of individuals themselves. What you describe above is modification of situational, and behavioural factors.
However, you seem to be forgetting about the 300lb gorilla in the room. Your equation RB = RB = RB is flawed, since k1 ≠ k2 ≠ k3, and you don't have to be Einstein to see that it also lacks c, and f(x, y, z)
The whole RB "phenomenon" consists of physical, physiological, neural, opto-neurological processing, behavioural, situational, and importantly psychological factors.
For some, I imagine those psychological factors have more bearing than others !! 8-P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
Elite athletes the world over just breathed a collective sigh of relief !! No longer do they have to spend years, and even decades, training themselves to produce flawless 'muscle memory' responses under extreme competitive stress - they can just take a relaxing holiday on a tropical island, and then just rock up on the day an' she'll be right mate ! :t:
Yes, I can just see it know - BF nominated for Nobel Laureate for significant contribution to civilisation ?!! 3
Perhaps one of the saddest things I've ever read here, was along the lines of a newbie saying something like "I researched reviews, and read quite a lot here on BF, and I'm interested in bin xyz - but I'm terrified of RB ......."
No need to worry matey, it only effects a small number of people, and most of what isn't in your eyes will be in your mind !! :h?: :brains:
Chosun :gh:
Your all encompassing "pizza with everything to go" theory is so complex that there's no way to evaluate it. But the mind can be tricky and human behavior is complex, so perhaps expecting RB adaptation to be either only neural or only behavioral might be too simplistic.
Also, experts in different disciplines see problems from the perspective of their discipline. As my doctor told me, "Surgeons see every health solution involving a knife, while general practitioners see them in terms of medicines."
As to my axiom RB=RB=RB, that means, if a person who sees RB in very low distortion bins sees "rolling ball" in one LD bin, he will see it in all LD bins. Granted, the tolerance threshold will vary from person to person, but below that threshold, the person will always see RB.
If Emma, or whoever it was that you were referencing above was concerned about seeing RB in a bin hat was notorious for it, that's a good thing. Better be forewarned about it and buy from a dealer with an ample return period to give yourself enough time to adjust than to buy one, see RB, and then return it the next week before you've had time to adjust.
If that person in question had read my responses to newbie questions on RB, I almost always stipulate that an adjustment period could be needed, and it's best to allow oneself enough time to adapt. If you haven't adapted in two weeks (longest period of adjustment reported thus far), chances are slim that you will adjust given a long time frame, but you could be the exception so take as much time as allowed by the return period.
I also now recommend that during the period of adjustment not to use any other bin, because switching from a bin with AMD to pincushion might delay or prevent adaptation.
I tried the You Tube silhouetted nude illusion and found that it didn't matter if I looked at their heads or their butts, they rotated or moved back and forth at random.
<B>
Last edited:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Pompadour, aren't you glad you asked for the short version! 8-P
And you still didn't get a figure!! Perhaps try a bit of reverse psychology next time :t: and ask for a complete dissertation
P.S. Aren't you supposed to be doing your homework! :storm:
...... I don't want to put any pressure on you, but the whole world is waiting you know!! |
| Chosun :gh:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Brock, that's the point!
There's probably a few ingredients to add to that, but I just threw together whatever was on the shelf at the time ......
Just like a pizza, each of the factors I mentioned (physical, physiological, neural, opto-neurological processing, behavioural, situational, and importantly psychological, etc - most are to found buried in some of the papers Holger references) will come out with a different sized slice (with different mixtures and proportions of those ingredients to boot) for each individual observer.
Furthermore those mixes /proportions of those factors will not remain fixed with regard to time due to various reasons (situation, optical formula consistency + adaptation if /as required, emotional state!, etc, etc, etc) ......
One reason that is fairly obvious - even you're recommending it now! (being experienced by at least you, Emma, and Pier as mentioned above - among others) is to stick to the one optical design. Flip-flopping (not the dennis kind) introduces all sorts of discombobulations, and spanner throwing in the adaptation works (for whatever part that plays - big or small) among other factors.
Sorry, but your RB equation is still a bit naff, because k1 ≠ k2 ≠ k3, let alone all the other constants, functions of variables, and changing factor influences.
The valid notion in there though is of a threshold (or more correctly a threshold 'region' due to the changing vaguaries as above).
So the question then becomes what is the tipping point?
Is it k1, k2, k3, or somewhere in between. Is it most of the time, or will those pesky changing factors come back to bite on the odd occassion? and at the end of the day, it's an individuals decision as to what he /she will live with /tolerate, all pro's and con's considered.
The newbie case I referred to wasn't Emma, it was for some normal (pincushioned) bin ..... that's what made it so sad.
Anyone (newbie or grizzled old dog) with even a smidgin of concern about potential RB phenomena effects, should try Holger's experiments (of results so far ~ 3/4 find it's much ado about nothing). If you can add to the results -great!
"Dr. Holger Meriltz has a helmholtz checkerboard test to determine your distortion levels ....." http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/test_distortion.html
As far as the 300lb gorilla test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo) goes, the first time I ever saw this I didn't even notice a gorilla (got the count right though =). Now I notice a gorilla, but if I'm properly concentrating - no chest beating.
And as for the silhouettes! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo) - nothing entered my mind, save for distinctly pleasing levels of 'field curvature' :t:
Chosun :gh:
Brock, thanks. If not a precise count even a "r-b-park" figure will do. Actually, it should be useful for yourself to have that info at hand! Or how about reckoning the % of people affected - again, very roughly. You can copy this in your reply, or stress the words "very roughly", if you're worried it may be a bit off and might be brought up against you! V. rough % of people - all people and/or regular bin users - who see it and cannot adapt at all, and who see it and can adapt for that session only. I'm sometimes asked basic questions about bins so that's useful to know!
BTW, ignore CJ's accusations re my "homework". In order to find out how digital "jiggery-poo"© affects our visual and other experiences I'm to engage in the extreme abstinence of not watching a screen for a day. It will get me further back in my reading of at least two people on this forum who I'm struggling to keep up with anyway. (Okay, CJ, soon - but you know my soon! Actually, have to do some bird surveys which should enforce that on me - hope I remember to do the follow-up.)
BTW, ignore CJ's accusations re my "homework". In order to find out how digital "jiggery-poo"© affects our visual and other experiences I'm to engage in the extreme abstinence of not watching a screen for a day. It will get me further back in my reading of at least two people on this forum who I'm struggling to keep up with anyway. (Okay, CJ, soon - but you know my soon! Actually, have to do some bird surveys which should enforce that on me - hope I remember to do the follow-up.)
OK.
Rolling ball phenomenon. I don't know when it became called that but when I was buying my first set of alpha bins I trialled the Zeiss, Leica and Nikon HG.
I described this rolling effect back in 2005 in one of my posts here. A horrible distortion to my eyes at the time.
I still have my Leica 10x42 and got a Nikon 8x32 SE in 2009.
Yesterday I noticed the smallest amount of rolling ball in my SEs which I had not really noticed before. I returned to the forum to get advice on a spotting scope which I am now after.
After seeing the RB in the SEs I am now after another pair of Leica 8x32 or 42s. Leica seems to be the best of the elite bins which is fairly immune to the RB effect. I will check the Swarovski 8x32 out too. Nikon HG has massive amounts of it and it really shocked me back in 2005 that anyone would pay anything over a grand for them.
Rolling ball phenomenon. I don't know when it became called that but when I was buying my first set of alpha bins I trialled the Zeiss, Leica and Nikon HG.
I described this rolling effect back in 2005 in one of my posts here. A horrible distortion to my eyes at the time.
I still have my Leica 10x42 and got a Nikon 8x32 SE in 2009.
Yesterday I noticed the smallest amount of rolling ball in my SEs which I had not really noticed before. I returned to the forum to get advice on a spotting scope which I am now after.
After seeing the RB in the SEs I am now after another pair of Leica 8x32 or 42s. Leica seems to be the best of the elite bins which is fairly immune to the RB effect. I will check the Swarovski 8x32 out too. Nikon HG has massive amounts of it and it really shocked me back in 2005 that anyone would pay anything over a grand for them.
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Pompadour, since you currently are being a disobedient little so-and-so
, you might as well look up Holgers distortion test reference I gave above (here it is again for the extremely lazy: http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/test_distortion.html).At the moment there are 56 responses. The vast majority of these (~3/4, ie. if k=0.7+ looks normal to you - you're pretty safe) would have no issue with RB based on the test results (notwithstanding what I have said in above post about situation, emotional state! etc, etc, etc).
You can even do the test, and add to the result database with your own personal response, as everyone who hasn't already should do =)
As for ignoring the gathering storm clouds?!! Do so at your peril !!! :storm:
As I said - no pressure - it's just the fate of the known world that hangs on your response ...... :eek!:
(if you think that task is onerous - you should see the ********* quest!) (o)<
Chosun :gh:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Pomp,
I had been keeping a running count of the SV EL "rolling ballers" and posted a partial count in some post, but I can't find the file with the numbers. Each article I write for the paper generates at least three files minimum - research, interviews and the story. So that's a minimum of 144 documents a year for work alone, often more, plus files on my interests and hobbies. I have so many files that I had to move some to flash drives to keep from slowing down my computer. I will look for the file when I get a chance, but it was a fair number if you recall the threads when the SV EL first came out and people started reporting RB. Enough to cause Holger to write a separate report on RB in the SV EL!
Why does that matter anyway? If you were one of the Chosun Juans who saw CA, for example, I'm sure you'd want to know if there was a way to not see it in your current bins rather than having to sell them and buy an HD/ED model that you might not like as much or that would cost too much.
As I see it, the problem for RBers is that even if there were some way to adapt (Chosun's multi-topping pizza theory makes that seem very difficult), the fact that one's adaptation could be lost by switching to bins with distortion means that you'd have to use only one bin or have all bins with low distortion. If I weren't "addicted" to my Nikon porros, I could live with just two bins - an 8x32 SV EL and a 10x50 SV EL (I could sell the car and take the bus everywhere
. But I don't want to give up the porros, so unless there's some way to cross adapt across distortion zones, there's not likely to be any low distortion bins in my future, be they Swaros, Kowas, Nikons, Fujis or Chinbins.The simpler solution I had was to have my eye doctor make a pair of high quality eyeglasses with k=whatever I need along with AR coatings. I'll have to take Holger's test again, forgot what my value was. As long as the bins have enough ER, the eyeglassses should work. Not sure how well they would work with the SV EL's compound distortion, but it should work well with the Nikon HGs and they have ample ER. I'll also have him make the eyeglasses out of ED glass so I can reduce the color fringing too.
Well, I let you get back to your homework.
<B>
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
I think it's not so much about "adaptation" as it is about "attention." What do you "pay attention" to? Attention is a fixed quantity. How do you want to spend it?
I've been switching between the SV, the FL, and all the rest (seven in all I think) for two years now. No problem. If I "pay attention" to the pincushion I can see it. If I "pay attention" to the AMD I can see it. Fortunately, I'm actually paying attention to the birds instead. I don't care about that other stuff.
But some people can't see past the objective lens, can't see the forest for the pincushion, or the AMD, or the size of the bin, or the shape, or (for God's sake!) the serial number, or the...
I think once Holger got his hands on an SV, he actually deleted all reference to the SV on his RB page. It doesn't fit the formula he was using (correct me if I'm wrong about that. I haven't been paying much attention to that either).
Mark
I've been switching between the SV, the FL, and all the rest (seven in all I think) for two years now. No problem. If I "pay attention" to the pincushion I can see it. If I "pay attention" to the AMD I can see it. Fortunately, I'm actually paying attention to the birds instead. I don't care about that other stuff.
But some people can't see past the objective lens, can't see the forest for the pincushion, or the AMD, or the size of the bin, or the shape, or (for God's sake!) the serial number, or the...
I think once Holger got his hands on an SV, he actually deleted all reference to the SV on his RB page. It doesn't fit the formula he was using (correct me if I'm wrong about that. I haven't been paying much attention to that either
).Mark
I think it's not so much about "adaptation" as it is about "attention." What do you "pay attention" to? Attention is a fixed quantity. How do you want to spend it?
I've been switching between the SV, the FL, and all the rest (seven in all I think) for two years now. No problem. If I "pay attention" to the pincushion I can see it. If I "pay attention" to the AMD I can see it. Fortunately, I'm actually paying attention to the birds instead. I don't care about that other stuff.
But some people can't see past the objective lens, can't see the forest for the pincushion, or the AMD, or the size of the bin, or the shape, or (for God's sake!) the serial number, or the...
I think once Holger got his hands on an SV, he actually deleted all reference to the SV on his RB page. It doesn't fit the formula he was using (correct me if I'm wrong about that. I haven't been paying much attention to that either
Mark
Hi Mark
I find I am in agreement with much of what you say here, and this pretty much sums up why I don't do critical comparisons of my bins with other models. I really don't want to sensitize my 'attention apparatus' to short comings that otherwise don't make their presence felt during normal viewing. As you say, we have only so much attention available and its a waste to spend it on 'defect' we don't need to know about.
Lee
Nice post, Mark!I think it's not so much about "adaptation" as it is about "attention." What do you "pay attention" to? Attention is a fixed quantity. How do you want to spend it?
I've been switching between the SV, the FL, and all the rest (seven in all I think) for two years now. No problem. If I "pay attention" to the pincushion I can see it. If I "pay attention" to the AMD I can see it. Fortunately, I'm actually paying attention to the birds instead. I don't care about that other stuff.
But some people can't see past the objective lens, can't see the forest for the pincushion, or the AMD, or the size of the bin, or the shape, or (for God's sake!) the serial number, or the...
I think once Holger got his hands on an SV, he actually deleted all reference to the SV on his RB page. It doesn't fit the formula he was using (correct me if I'm wrong about that. I haven't been paying much attention to that either
Mark
Allow me to add that rolling ball is nothing more than a perceptual response to a specific form of light distortion and, as such, varies with each individual. It's been suggested that uninformed people (read that as stupid) may not be aware of rolling ball simply because they are stupid. How stupid is that?
You have correctly argued that there are at least two kinds of observers: those that observe and those that obsess. Seek RB, CA, AMD, etc. and you will find it. Look past the binocular to the M/F Pileated pair feeding at your suet poles and, in an obviously ignorant stupor, you see two magnificent birds feeding. Nothing more, nothing less. Just two birds in fresh mating plumage. Panning, often quickly, you observe as they move from tree to tree in their relentless search for carpenter ants. You're mesmerized as the male presses an ear against an aging oak, listening for movement. Observation at its finest.
Later, after a great day of observation, you log on to BF only to discover that your entire birding day was ruined by rolling ball. Thankfully, you're too tired to obsess about it and too stupid to care.
PS
The real question to answer is which bin is better: the 8X32 Swarovision or the 8.5X42 Swarovision.
Being someone who can see RB effect and given it has been a factor in my bino choices, the fact that I now have a pair of Swarovski 8x32 SV right here might give an indication that I am clearly not bothered by the very slight amount visible here.
These are so incredibly bright, neutral in transmission, built well and free of CA that I had to have it as my next pair. The lack of CA in particular is very impressive. It is certainly prone to flare that is somewhat able to be compensated by pupil positioning.
But my days of using the Leica 10x42 are over. My 8x32 SE will also have plenty of shelf time from here not because of its optics; but because it lacks the same compact handling and ease of use. It's floppy rubber eye cups and eye positioning demands are a world away from just lifting these to your eyes and observing.
A big thumbs up for the SV from me and the ball rolling effect is nothing compared to the Nikon HG I first observed the effect in back in 2005.
If the SV isn't the perfect bino yet, its the closest I've got to it and I have owned some good glass, and luckily very good specimens of them.
These are so incredibly bright, neutral in transmission, built well and free of CA that I had to have it as my next pair. The lack of CA in particular is very impressive. It is certainly prone to flare that is somewhat able to be compensated by pupil positioning.
But my days of using the Leica 10x42 are over. My 8x32 SE will also have plenty of shelf time from here not because of its optics; but because it lacks the same compact handling and ease of use. It's floppy rubber eye cups and eye positioning demands are a world away from just lifting these to your eyes and observing.
A big thumbs up for the SV from me and the ball rolling effect is nothing compared to the Nikon HG I first observed the effect in back in 2005.
If the SV isn't the perfect bino yet, its the closest I've got to it and I have owned some good glass, and luckily very good specimens of them.
Last edited:
Unfortunately the store I got my 8.5x 42 SV from didn't have any 8x 32, so I didn't get to compare side by side. I'm very pleased with the 8.5x 42 though..
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Zuiko,
Going pretty much from one end of the distortion spectrum to the other, you are proof positive, that the mind can overcome what no longer matters.
The optical performance and handling joy that the 8x32 SV gives you has sent endorphins rushing around your brain :bounce: :hippy: so that any memory of pesky RB phenomena is lost in a fog of happiness
- no pills required! (o)<Enjoy your fantastic 8x32 SV, and just go and look at stuff! :t:
Chosun :gh:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
I think it's not so much about "adaptation" as it is about "attention." What do you "pay attention" to? Attention is a fixed quantity. How do you want to spend it?
I've been switching between the SV, the FL, and all the rest (seven in all I think) for two years now. No problem. If I "pay attention" to the pincushion I can see it. If I "pay attention" to the AMD I can see it. Fortunately, I'm actually paying attention to the birds instead. I don't care about that other stuff.
But some people can't see past the objective lens, can't see the forest for the pincushion, or the AMD, or the size of the bin, or the shape, or (for God's sake!) the serial number, or the...
I think once Holger got his hands on an SV, he actually deleted all reference to the SV on his RB page. It doesn't fit the formula he was using (correct me if I'm wrong about that. I haven't been paying much attention to that either
Mark
Nice posts boys! :t:
Mark, you are a certified living example that in your case (physically you might not be that susceptible to the effect anyway) out of the "multi-topping pizza theory" (I prefer to regard it as multi-disciplinary science)
the "psychological factor" (positively, for you) trumps all the others for you, such as 'swapping between optical formulas'.You don't let any pesky phenomena get in the way because you don't want to - your attention / concentration (as Pileatus echoed) - is on the subject.
This is what elkcub, mooreorless, and GeeJayW were referring to above ..... some people may see effects of the RB phenomena - because they want to.
Chosun :gh:
Brock, thanks. As I said, am sometimes asked basic things regarding bins, so like to know the approx. likelihood of r. ball, also r. bowl if that high: how many see it, how many cannot adapt... say, 10% see it, 5% don't get over it...
Mark, Lee, Pileatus, CJ (in short, Dear All), there's another category: we're not immune, not badly affected either, we don't obsessively seek, but some annoying impulse makes us try to note these things on the fly. (Don't know whether "annoying impulse" is a valid excuse in USA law.) Believe me, I want to look for and at birds, not CA.
Mark, Lee, Pileatus, CJ (in short, Dear All), there's another category: we're not immune, not badly affected either, we don't obsessively seek, but some annoying impulse makes us try to note these things on the fly. (Don't know whether "annoying impulse" is a valid excuse in USA law.) Believe me, I want to look for and at birds, not CA.
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Just as I want to look at birds or other wildlife and not at RB or pincushion. What elkcub, mooreorless, and GeeJayW were referring to above ..... some people may see effects of the RB phenomena - because they want to - is completely and utterly false as is the conjecture that they, themselves, don't see it because they don't want to see it.
They don't see it, because they can't see it, not because of some Übermensch Will to Power or Amazing Kreskin trick of mind. Or in the case of "semi-neural plastics," they see it and it doesn't bother them, because they can partially adapt to it (maybe they'd even fully adapt if they didn't switch btwn bins with greatly varying levels of distortion).
Believe me, if they saw the curved space-time I see through the full sized HGLs, there's no way they could get past the optics. .
http://www.flickr.com/photos/archer_akela/2547274788/lightbox/
<B>
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Brock,
Don't tar all those guys with the same brush - some merely posed the question! 8-P
Mark, CLEARLY stated that he does in fact see the effects
(not only that but he also engages in other risky behaviour, such as 'bin swapping'!)
I think it's not so much about "adaptation" as it is about "attention." What do you "pay attention" to? Attention is a fixed quantity. How do you want to spend it?
I've been switching between the SV, the FL, and all the rest (seven in all I think) for two years now. No problem. If I "pay attention" to the pincushion I can see it. If I "pay attention" to the AMD I can see it. Fortunately, I'm actually paying attention to the birds instead. I don't care about that other stuff.
But some people can't see past the objective lens, can't see the forest for the pincushion, or the AMD, or the size of the bin, or the shape, or (for God's sake!) the serial number, or the...
I think once Holger got his hands on an SV, he actually deleted all reference to the SV on his RB page. It doesn't fit the formula he was using (correct me if I'm wrong about that. I haven't been paying much attention to that either
Mark
Nice posts boys! :t:
Mark, you are a certified living example that in your case (physically you might not be that susceptible to the effect anyway) out of the "multi-topping pizza theory" (I prefer to regard it as multi-disciplinary science)
You don't let any pesky phenomena get in the way because you don't want to - your attention / concentration (as Pileatus echoed) - is on the subject.
When I said:
It was to point out what these guys were helpfully trying to get folk to twig to ....... the "psychological factor" can work for you ...... or agin' you!
Don't forget RB ≠ RB ≠ RB, since k1 ≠ k2 ≠ k3, and that whole host of "factors" (from the multi-disciplinary science)
change with regard to a whole host of other modifying parameters (such as tiredness, eye fatigue, optical formula consistency adaptation timeframes, emotional state, even curmudgeonliness! etc, etc, etc).Somewhere on that k value scale lies your tipping point, and your sweet spot. Go too far and you'll wander off another cliff into "Rolling Bowl". Surely you owe it to yourself and the vast BF readership to actually try the various models, and put together a collection, and usage pattern, along with optimising all the other "factors" to assist your viewing experience as much as possible ??
Unless you've gone the ultimate mile, with the Dr. Wayne Dyer "You'll see it when you believe it" initiates retreat, or Cognitive Behaviour Therapy and the like, then ....... like it or not - but you can NOT disregard the "psychological factor"
Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
That might possibly be true. I have never looked through a full-sized Nikon HGL...so I refrain from making pronouncements about them. I was under the impression we were discussing SV's which I look through all the time.
And I can certainly imagine optical scenarios in which excessive RB or pincushion would be intrusive for me. The only one that came close, in my limited experience, was the Zen 7x36 ED2, which has a LOT of pincushion. But I have happily used them for hours a a time, most recently at Christmas. I don't recall losing my lunch over it.
I still think "attention" has a lot to do with these things. The reason CA, for instance, might be more intrusive is simply because it affects the very thing you are attending to.
Frankly, when it comes to pincushion/RB I suspect we all see pretty much the same thing, with minor variations like those Holger has investigated. Some of us are just optical hypochondriacs and can't get past it.
Oh, and willpower has nothing to do with it. Trust me, I have never had any of that.
Mark