• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Does Nikon use ED glass in the SE and EII? (1 Viewer)

Leif said:
Hello David

I think that is why it does not bother me, as I know that all binoculars have distortion, and other artifacts. There does seem to be excessive hoo haa over it though.
Click to expand...

From my perception (pun intended), it's the outright denial that RB exists and its trivialization by some notorious neural plastics that's excessive, considering Holger's technical report and his reviews, Pier's comments on seeing it in various bins reviewed on binomania, and the many reports on BF from various "rolling ballers".

These denials come from people who can't even see RB. And I'm the voyeur? Pleeeeease!

<B>
 
normjackson said:
Don't forget should only be comparing the prism housing. The Nikon shown is the SE 10x42 with the correspondingly bigger objectives. Also the Leupold has the eyecups down in second picture which makes it look smaller. I actually meant to post the front view of the housings (from a thread on CloudyNights forum) :
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/attachments/1416304-leupold 6x30 & 10SE 002resize.JPG
Click to expand...

Hi Norm, That is my picture from Cloudy Nights.:t: I no longer have that 10x42SE. I still have the Yosemite.
 
Binastro said:
Unfortunately the Dawes limit and resolution of binoculars seems to be repeatedly mixed up here.
The Dawes limit applies only to equal double stars as seen in a high magnification telescope.
Regarding the resolution of equal double stars with the unaided eyes, also not substantiated as almost no human being can separate double stars 1 arcminute apart with unaided sight.
Very good sight is 2.5 arcminutes, and for most a bit wider than that.
Some young children might do better.
Then you are I think using resolution charts, maybe with non standard illumination, which is quite wrong.
The only way to compare binoculars using non standard illumination is to test them side by side by the same rested observer in the same light levels.
And I think the tests are invalid anyway as stated as they do not account for the visual acuity of the observer.
Sorry to be pedantic here but Dawes is Dawes.
Double stars are double stars.
Test charts are test charts with standard illumination.
And eyes are different.
Click to expand...

Where are your links to what you do with binoculars? Boosted test of resolution is not just the limits of the eye. There are sample variations as well. So same light, test quite a few of samples of the same binoculars that are being compared. I ask who is going to do that?
So would a test of just one sample of each be a waste of time?
 
Binastro said:
Unfortunately the Dawes limit and resolution of binoculars seems to be repeatedly mixed up here.
The Dawes limit applies only to equal double stars as seen in a high magnification telescope.
Regarding the resolution of equal double stars with the unaided eyes, also not substantiated as almost no human being can separate double stars 1 arcminute apart with unaided sight.
Very good sight is 2.5 arcminutes, and for most a bit wider than that.
Some young children might do better.
Then you are I think using resolution charts, maybe with non standard illumination, which is quite wrong.
The only way to compare binoculars using non standard illumination is to test them side by side by the same rested observer in the same light levels.
And I think the tests are invalid anyway as stated as they do not account for the visual acuity of the observer.
Sorry to be pedantic here but Dawes is Dawes.
Double stars are double stars.
Test charts are test charts with standard illumination.
And eyes are different.
Click to expand...

Whatever it's historical origins, in common usage, including by astronomers, the Dawes limit has become a mathematical description relating objective diameter to diffraction limited resolution and hence also MTF and Line Pair readings. If it offends your sensibilities just think of it as the Abbe limit. The difference is only 2.6% and inconsequential for these amateur methods.

For daytime viewing 2.5 arcminutes acuity is poor and likely to lead you to failing your driving test. I don't know that 1 arcminute is quite as common as Gijs suggests, but it's possible between us we are confusing Snellen 'gap' angles with point source and line pairs.

David
 
Binastro,
In response to your post nr 100: I know that the Dawes limit is not a good way to estimate the resolution of our eyes when not looking at white double stars of magnitude 6, but looking at birds in a landscape. I also know that a black and white test chart in broad daylight is not the best way to estimate the resolution of eye+binocular in the field, although it is used a lot.
The actual visual resolution (of the eye itself) is about 1-4 arcminutes at day light, goes down to 4-14 arcminutes at twilight and becomes as low as 14-20 arcminutes at night so numbers of 3 arcseconds do not tell us a lot about the resolution of our eyes with binoculars. Binoculars can only improve to a certain degree our visual resolution and it is not a staighforward job to make a good estimation of it taking into account differences in contrast, color, light intensity and individual variations.
Gijs
 
brocknroller said:
From my perception (pun intended), it's the outright denial that RB exists and its trivialization by some notorious neural plastics that's excessive, considering Holger's technical report and his reviews, Pier's comments on seeing it in various bins reviewed on binomania, and the many reports on BF from various "rolling ballers".

These denials come from people who can't even see RB. And I'm the voyeur? Pleeeeease!

<B>
Click to expand...

Hello Brock. I did not use the term voyeur. I should add that some of my posts to you have been tongue in cheek, an attempt at humour, but you seem to have missed that, no doubt there is a gap here due to different cultures.

Regarding rolling balls, yes binoculars have distortion, and it varies between models. Yes, the Swaro 8.5x42 has an unusual distortion which impacts on panning. Whether or not that is significant depends on the observer. Clearly for some it will be a deal breaker, just as with me 'excessive' CA is a deal breaker.

Please calm down old chap. (I am using 'old chap' in the friendly sense often used in the UK, such as in WW2 films, where stiff lipped RAF types refer to each other as 'old chap' despite being only just out of nappies/diapers. But as you know we have warm beer, so we are an odd bunch.)
 
Regarding sample variations and resolution, I would say that with low price consumer binoculars, the tests are indeed probably a waste of time as the variation is so large.

I remember well that a zoom lens was tested I think by AP many years ago, which was a low price item from a well known importer of rather awful optics.
The sample tested was very good, probably cherry picked and the lenses sold like hot cakes.
I considered them all to be virtually worthless.

With high quality optics there will be much less variation, but even the very top names sometimes allow a lemon to slip through.
I would think that one should test at least two examples of even the best binocular.

As to who will test many examples of the same binoculars, well strangely I often tested between 6 and 12 of the same binocular and bought say the best one or two.
But I am obviously shall we say strange.
But it was a way of getting a high performance binocular for a low price, typically Russian or Japanese.
I did this with Korean EWAs but even the best were not up to much.

Generally I regard tests of high quality binoculars as fairly accurate, but with low priced binoculars and monoculars I feel the tests are probably not worth using as a buying recommendation, as the variations are so large.
 
Leif, Brock is a little testical over the rolling balls problem in some binoculars and people pooh poohing it.;):-O

Leif said:
Hello Brock. I did not use the term voyeur. I should add that some of my posts to you have been tongue in cheek, an attempt at humour, but you seem to have missed that, no doubt there is a gap here due to different cultures.

Regarding rolling balls, yes binoculars have distortion, and it varies between models. Yes, the Swaro 8.5x42 has an unusual distortion which impacts on panning. Whether or not that is significant depends on the observer. Clearly for some it will be a deal breaker, just as with me 'excessive' CA is a deal breaker.

Please calm down old chap. (I am using 'old chap' in the friendly sense often used in the UK, such as in WW2 films, where stiff lipped RAF types refer to each other as 'old chap' despite being only just out of nappies/diapers. But as you know we have warm beer, so we are an odd bunch.)
Click to expand...
 
Leif said:
Hello Brock. I did not use the term voyeur. I should add that some of my posts to you have been tongue in cheek, an attempt at humour, but you seem to have missed that, no doubt there is a gap here due to different cultures.

Regarding rolling balls, yes binoculars have distortion, and it varies between models. Yes, the Swaro 8.5x42 has an unusual distortion which impacts on panning. Whether or not that is significant depends on the observer. Clearly for some it will be a deal breaker, just as with me 'excessive' CA is a deal breaker.

Please calm down old chap. (I am using 'old chap' in the friendly sense often used in the UK, such as in WW2 films, where stiff lipped RAF types refer to each other as 'old chap' despite being only just out of nappies/diapers. But as you know we have warm beer, so we are an odd bunch.)
Click to expand...

Leif!

By "voyeur" I was referring to Jerry's post, thought you saw that. Besides, I own 10 bins, four of them top draw, that hardly qualifies me as a voyeur unless I'm using them to look in my neighbor's window! Jerry's just envious because I can flirt with Wonder Woman and he can't because of the his "ball and chain". ;)

Yes, I know you were writing "tongue in cheek" from your smilies although that "rolling balls" joke went right past me, too Benny Hill cheeky, I think.

Ah, so CA is your Achilles Heel? Well, then go to your Imagine Nation and switch that aberration for RB, and you'll get an idea of what it's like if you said you saw CA and certain recalcitrants kept insisting that CA was a "non-issue," told you that you were "brain damaged" because you saw it, and said that there was "excessive hoo haa over it". How's that shoe feel on the other foot, a bit tight, perhaps? :-O

Please don't say "Calm down". We get enough of that from Jerry. First he gets somebody riled up with a harsh comment and then tells them to calm down, which just riles them up even more. :smoke:

Sometimes there's some truth behind the humor and I was really beginning to think you had a chip on your shoulder because you weren't getting the recognition you thought you deserved.

People have short memories, especially the MTV generation. You can't just leave for a long time and expect people to remember your "Greatest Hits". You got to keep current, add a little hip and hop, and update the oldies but goodies with a click track like they did with Elvis' "A Little Less Conversation".

I never liked the warm beer. Fortunately, the pub in Manchester that we frequented had cold beer. Lager and a splash of black currant was my poison (the bartender thought that was a strange combo since they usually spike ale with currant and lager with lime). Occasionally, I'd buy a pint 'o Guinness, also chilled. If they have refrigeration up north, they certainly should down south near London Town by now. Unless you actually like warm beer.

To each his own! A saying to live by.

<B>
 
brocknroller said:
Please don't say "Calm down". We get enough of that from Jerry. First he gets somebody riled up with a harsh comment and then tells them to calm down, which just riles them up even more. :smoke:
Click to expand...
Are you saying Jerry's horrid to everyone? I thought maybe I was getting special treatment. How disappointing :-C

Guess you will miss out on "olfactory perception" of some of the less volatile esters and whatever in Guinness if you chill it. I assume they still serve it at room temperature to visitors who do the brewery tour.
 
normjackson said:
Sorry hadn't noticed it was yours or would have credited it.


The Yosemite looks comfortable enough there. Hope you made sure the Nikon went to another nice home. |=)|
Click to expand...

Norm, No problem at all, I liked seeing that picture again. I am not sure what really happened to my Nikon after I sold it to Kevin P.
 
brocknroller said:
Leif!

By "voyeur" I was referring to Jerry's post, thought you saw that. Besides, I own 10 bins, four of them top draw, that hardly qualifies me as a voyeur unless I'm using them to look in my neighbor's window! Jerry's just envious because I can flirt with Wonder Woman and he can't because of the his "ball and chain". ;)

Yes, I know you were writing "tongue in cheek" from your smilies although that "rolling balls" joke went right past me, too Benny Hill cheeky, I think.

Ah, so CA is your Achilles Heel? Well, then go to your Imagine Nation and switch that aberration for RB, and you'll get an idea of what it's like if you said you saw CA and certain recalcitrants kept insisting that CA was a "non-issue," told you that you were "brain damaged" because you saw it, and said that there was "excessive hoo haa over it". How's that shoe feel on the other foot, a bit tight, perhaps? :-O

Please don't say "Calm down". We get enough of that from Jerry. First he gets somebody riled up with a harsh comment and then tells them to calm down, which just riles them up even more. :smoke:

Sometimes there's some truth behind the humor and I was really beginning to think you had a chip on your shoulder because you weren't getting the recognition you thought you deserved.

People have short memories, especially the MTV generation. You can't just leave for a long time and expect people to remember your "Greatest Hits". You got to keep current, add a little hip and hop, and update the oldies but goodies with a click track like they did with Elvis' "A Little Less Conversation".

I never liked the warm beer. Fortunately, the pub in Manchester that we frequented had cold beer. Lager and a splash of black currant was my poison (the bartender thought that was a strange combo since they usually spike ale with currant and lager with lime). Occasionally, I'd buy a pint 'o Guinness, also chilled. If they have refrigeration up north, they certainly should down south near London Town by now. Unless you actually like warm beer.

To each his own! A saying to live by.

<B>
Click to expand...

I can't understand much of the above and I find many of your posts rather patronising.

As for beer, British beer is made to be drunk at cellar temperature. Chill it, as they do in Montreal, and you kill the flavour.
 
Leif, old chap, better drop that one. Too close to the mark - seems on average we here are not terribly youthful - prompting the Chosun infant to blast us as "old codgers". Brock tells the story of a Brit. friend who said, "My dear boy..." - the rest of it is, basically, just use bins to look at birds, advice he spends much of his time defying. But that won't do either, as we have a p.c. young lady. No ageism, sexism, politics. Never suggest that most bins are quite adequate to enjoy a view of, or observe minute details of, birds. Be neutral. I.e. just say, e.g. "You absurd [insert bin make here] fan, that's full of CA, RB... it fails the USAF and DVD tests... etc. etc." and you're safe.
 
pompadour said:
Leif, old chap, better drop that one. Too close to the mark - seems on average we here are not terribly youthful - prompting the Chosun infant to blast us as "old codgers". Brock tells the story of a Brit. friend who said, "My dear boy..." - the rest of it is, basically, just use bins to look at birds, advice he spends much of his time defying. But that won't do either, as we have a p.c. young lady. No ageism, sexism, politics. Never suggest that most bins are quite adequate to enjoy a view of, or observe minute details of, birds. Be neutral. I.e. just say, e.g. "You absurd [insert bin make here] fan, that's full of CA, RB... it fails the USAF and DVD tests... etc. etc." and you're safe.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you've lost me.
 
Well..! I can only quote your own words a few posts back: "I should add that some of my posts to you have been tongue in cheek, an attempt at humour ..." Actually, I would refer to it yet again to explain the point - again, not serious - of my post, which is, that doesn't always work! My first sentc. in it referred to your post #106. Cheers!
 
Last edited:
pompadour said:
Well..! I can only quote your own words a few posts back: "I should add that some of my posts to you have been tongue in cheek, an attempt at humour ..." Actually, I would refer to it yet again to explain the point - again, not serious - of my post, which is, that doesn't always work! My first sentc. in it referred to your post #106. Cheers!
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm still lost, I don't understand what point you are making.
 
Leif, actually two points. First, the quote (from #106) that some comments "have been tongue in cheek, an attempt at humour". (I seem to remember you also said v. recently you were sometimes taken too "literally". Spent some time now trying to find that word on this thread and couldn't; it may be on another.) Then the words "old chap", also in #106, about which you make that same clarification again there. My first point - meant to be facetious - is that this expression, and "dear boy" might not only be taken litreally but cause annoyance. Political comments, BTW, may also annoy, I add. My second point - also facetious - is the irony that to say annoying things about people's opinions on bins is quite acceptable in BF. Hope that's a little clearer. Didn't expect this to go so far! Hope no offence.
 
pompadour said:
Leif, actually two points. First, the quote (from #106) that some comments "have been tongue in cheek, an attempt at humour". (I seem to remember you also said v. recently you were sometimes taken too "literally". Spent some time now trying to find that word on this thread and couldn't; it may be on another.) Then the words "old chap", also in #106, about which you make that same clarification again there. My first point - meant to be facetious - is that this expression, and "dear boy" might not only be taken litreally but cause annoyance. Political comments, BTW, may also annoy, I add. My second point - also facetious - is the irony that to say annoying things about people's opinions on bins is quite acceptable in BF. Hope that's a little clearer. Didn't expect this to go so far! Hope no offence.
Click to expand...

Ah, okay, thanks for taking the time to explain that to me. Phew! Absolutely no offence taken. Yes, when I used the term 'old chap' I was careful to explain the meaning to avoid agism, since Brock does tend to take what I say literally, clearly a cultural issue, and not a criticism of said fine gentleman. Not sure I made any political statements, perhaps you were referring to all posters. I think a lot of the remarks to Brock about RB are pulling his leg.
 
Relieved! Yes, the ref. to political comments was general. Re Brock and RB, seems to me, too, that a lot of people are pulling his leg: it's a real issue for him. BTW, English is not my first language, so I should navigate these waters with care, but sometimes let myself go as above! Came in while you were out (a year ago) - good to have you here.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

K
MHG Help
Replies
19
Views
2K
Binocollector
B
L
Nikon Monarch M7, Hawke Frontier HD or Kowa BDII XD for the aged of sixty? All in 8x30
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
Elkhornsun
E
has530
8-16x40 XL Zoom...One Binocular to Rule Them All?
Replies
9
Views
2K
tenex
tenex
A
Do you use your Nikon roofs in the rain?
Replies
16
Views
1K
quincy88
Q
J
Full Spec Sheet for Nikon 8X30 Monarch HG
Replies
3
Views
1K
JohnVan
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top