Originally Posted by Hermann
Despite the vocal pronouncements of several folks here, I for one don't need a short focus distance. I'd very much prefer binoculars without it, and without the optical compromises short focusing distances always entail...
I agree with this - I would rather the cost of reducing short focus be spent on wider field of view, better edge performance (
) or other optical aspects that make more difference to me.
Having said that, I realize others (possibly many others) may use their close focus much more extensively than I do, indeed, may even consider 3.3m to be too short. How often we use our binoculars to the limit of their close focus, and what the ideal close focus distance should be, probably deserves to be the subject of a new thread entirely, instead of being submerged into the wider discussion about NLs and ELs. I thought about starting one, but there already is one
I, in all honesty, find the center performance of modern alphas stunningly good - I think this is why edge sharpness and now field of view have been steadily improved, since on-axis sharpness is already so good (and seems to have been for many decades, if my 1950s era porros are anything to go by). Given that, I welcome improvements in field of view and edge performance, which are both desirable qualities to me; and being a glasses wearer, I'm glad that modern designs now deliver fields of view comparable to those of the great old classics of the past to those like myself.
My own experience, though, very much agrees with yours in relation to image stabilization showing more detail. I would be very grateful for your thoughts on Canon's performance compared to the Zeiss 20x60S mechanical stabilizer I asked in a post on another thread: https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.p...3&postcount=89