-
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.
olympus pro Light transmission ！ (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter lylwjhome
- Start date
WJC
Well-known member
‘Could be correct; could be wrong! If correct, who is it correct for? We all have different visual acuities and arrays of rods and cones on the macula, each with varying sensitivity. It’s the AMOUNT of difference that I find foolish to advertise.
Years ago, after a few of my articles on optics and binoculars had been published, an optical company representative approached me to write an article saying that his company’s AR coatings were superior to those of the big 3 companies.
Their coatings were very, very good but, based on coatings alone, no human was going to see the difference between them and the coatings they wanted to show inferior. Binocular optics is a shell game with the graphic artists doing the shuffling and the untutored consumer doing the guessing.
I, for one, wouldn't want to know how much better that model was compared to another model from the same company. I would want to know it stacks up against the competition. Please note I haven't said anything about possible phishing. :cat:
Bill
Last edited:
The Olympus 8x42 EXPWs lower price is not unreasonable for a decent porro glass. This model was reviewed by Allbinos in 2012:
https://www.allbinos.com/247-binoculars_review-Olympus_8x42_EXPS_I.html
Their specimens transmission graph was much better, always well above 80% from the low 400nms to the mid 700nms, with a peak of 95% in the 650nm region.
As WDC points out, this chart is somewhat tendentious and of questionable utility.
https://www.allbinos.com/247-binoculars_review-Olympus_8x42_EXPS_I.html
Their specimens transmission graph was much better, always well above 80% from the low 400nms to the mid 700nms, with a peak of 95% in the 650nm region.
As WDC points out, this chart is somewhat tendentious and of questionable utility.
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Wow, nice theoretical diagram, how about the reality?
iveljay
Well-known member
Since there is at least 15 years difference between the launch of the EXWPs and their PRO replacements a few improvements were to be hoped for.....
N.B. EXWPs are not porros, they were reviewed by Albinos in 2010, two years before the porro EXPS series, Albinos does not publish transmission figures for this glass.
Olympus used to love playing alphabet soup with their binocular names to confuse folks
N.B. EXWPs are not porros, they were reviewed by Albinos in 2010, two years before the porro EXPS series, Albinos does not publish transmission figures for this glass.
Olympus used to love playing alphabet soup with their binocular names to confuse folks
Iveljay, thank you for catching my goof posting the wrong Allbinos review.
The EXWP review by Allbinos is here:
https://www.allbinos.com/107-binoculars_review-Olympus_10x42_EXWP_I.html
They give the glass a pretty good rating, but don't show any transmission data.
WJC
Well-known member
Hi, Etudiant:
That was not your only "goof." So far, WDC has not been on this thread; WJC has been.
My mother was illiterate ... but not stupid. She taught me: "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." I'm sure that diagram says exactly what its creator wanted.:cat:
Bill
Last edited:
