Talk about a wide fov. Probably makes the Nikon eii look like a keyhole.
A person comparing an “ALPHA” binocular made today with an “ALPHA” binocular made 15 years ago may talk about the “wider field” without wanting to (or even noticing) the field starts getting soft the SAME DISTANCE OFF AXIS and that perhaps the only difference is in that the field stop has been opened up a bit. Most people fail (or refuse) to note that an objective lens has the ability to form an image ~155 – 170 degrees wide and that it’s only the amount of aberrations the OEM thinks will sell, or a rationally designed eyepiece will accommodate (taking the human eye into consideration) that restricts the field.
In addition, he or she may come up with any number of improvements (to their mind) without noticing that some things which might be inconsequential to them, might drive other observers nuts. And even if enough money were spent on the new product, there would still be enough physical differences to make any comparison like stacking BBs.
Talk is cheap. And while it may make a given observer ecstatic, it is doubtful any university lab in the country could quantify the difference to the “average” observer! The test case I fall back on relates to image brightness being related strictly to better AR coatings.
Comparing a binocular with magnesium fluoride coatings on all glass-to-air surfaces to the same instrument with today’s multi-coatings, an observer may experience an increase in light transmission of 13% or slightly more. But when comparing the multi-coatings of two leading manufacturers the difference is so small as to be inconsequential. Frequently, when an observer suggests one manufacturer’s coatings are “noticeably” superior to those of another brand of similar quality, the difference he or she is seeing probably relates more to baffling, prism shields, edge blackening, size and position of the field stop, knife-edge on that stop, prism type, slotted prisms (in Porro prism instruments), smoothness of surfaces, configuration of the eyepiece, and other considerations than coatings alone.
Those are just 9 examples; I’m sure there are plenty more. And then, when you throw in the differences in the individual’s physiological situation—strabismus, cataracts, early onset glaucoma, macular pucker, retinal scaring, etc.—it can make those comparison virtually useless. It’s not that advertised improvements have not been made. It’s just that tiny “improvements” made in a computer printout are essentially never “proven” AT THE EYEPIECE, which is the only place it really counts.
It is often said that “insanity” is repeatedly do the same thing and expecting difference results. Thus, considering the number of times I have approached this subject over the last couple of decades, I will be glad to accept my insanity, as I will the next time the topic comes up—a few minutes or another thread distant. Ah, but sometimes the bar is silently raised.
Twenty years ago, I was swimming against the current to say, Bushnell, Celestron, Meade, Minolta, Orion, Swift, Oberwerk, and others didn’t MAKE binoculars. Today, it’s accepted except by the newbie’s newbie. Thus, I am encouraged with the battle of the “ALPHA” comparisons. I am out of the business and have more than enough binos to do me the rest of my life without needing to buy another. I just want to ratchet up the thought glands in my interested neighbor. I’m not stamping my foot or looking down my nose at those who choose not to believe. Rather, I’m just trying to offer some cranial options. :cat:
Bill
