Chuck. Have you experienced the DOF problems with your Conquest's that Upland described? How is the DOF on your Conquest's compared to your SLC'S or other binoculars? Thanks!
I don't know about the Conquest HD having among the highest light transmission of any roof prism binocular. According to Allbinos the SLC is 1st @92%, the Nikon HG is 2nd @88.3% and the Conquest HD is last @88.1%. Also, I always thought the Conquest HD was the "Chunky Monkey" of the three because it has the widest bridge.
I'm not sure after you reach mid 40's that 4% is a perceptible difference for the normal human eye.
I'm not sure after you reach mid 40's that 4% is a perceptible difference for the normal human eye.
I don't know about the Conquest HD having among the highest light transmission of any roof prism binocular. According to Allbinos the SLC is 1st @92%, the Nikon HG is 2nd @88.3% and the Conquest HD is last @88.1%. Also, I always thought the Conquest HD was the "Chunky Monkey" of the three because it has the widest bridge.
Chuck. Have you experienced the DOF problems with your Conquest's that Upland described? How is the DOF on your Conquest's compared to your SLC'S or other binoculars? Thanks!
They all seem compressed in height and increased in girth in that pic.
Andy W.
Hello Perterra,
I doubt that a young man could perceive such a difference. This is what Bill Cook likes to point out: some folks obsessively pursue improvements which they cannot perceive. It may be measured but that does not mean that it is useful.
I would grant that for astronomical use, assuming clear skies, one might perceive a 4% improvement but in terrestrial diurnal use, I think not.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur
Now, Gerry:
Don’t you realize that if we removed all the posts relating to differences in optical performance that are demonstrably below the average observer’s ability to perceive, the forum would shrink to vapor? :cat:
Bill
I am curious why Upland observed it. I don't think I did when I had my Conquest's. You can't say it doesn't exist because all our eyes are different. I am sure Upland observed what he did. Some people see different things through the same binoculars. For example, some see glare through the SV 8x32 and some don't. Some see CA and some don't. I think DOF is more complicated than it seems on the surface."Depth of field refers to the distance between the nearest and farthest objects in a scene that appear acceptably sharp in an image. In principle, only the image on which the binoculars are focused is really clear and sharp. However, since people are fortunately able to see slightly blurred images as sharp, phenomena like depth of field occurs. The consequence of this is that the depth of field is not easy to determine. One person may think that a particular image is sharp and crisp whereas another person may find this same image unacceptably poor in quality." I think everybody differs in what they feel is sharp so Upland may be more critical than some other people in what he feels is sharp hence he feels the DOF of the Conquest is poor while others who are less critical would think it satisfactory.Complete and utter rabbit hole.
I'm pretty sure, Dennis, you know what you are trying to perpetuate simply cannot exist - but yet you pursue it.
Sometimes I do question Allbino's data when they get 88.3% transmission on the Conquest HD 8x32 and they get 93.1% on the Conquest HD 10x42. Too much difference in my opinion for the same binoculars even if they are different formats.ACTUALLY...the allbinos transmission % data is:
Conquest HD 10X42- 93.1%
MHG- 88.3%
SLC- 93.4%
House of Outdoors data:
Conquest HD 8X42- 92.5%
SLC 8X42- 90.1%
Occasionally I read a post here which states that two instruments are "essentially the same" or "do not differ significally" and I am tempted to suggest a trip to the ophthalmologist, or at least an optometrist.
So far I think I have resisted this impulse.
I am curious why Upland observed it. I don't think I did when I had my Conquest's. You can't say it doesn't exist because all our eyes are different. I am sure Upland observed what he did. Some people see different things through the same binoculars. For example, some see glare through the SV 8x32 and some don't. Some see CA and some don't. I think DOF is more complicated than it seems on the surface."Depth of field refers to the distance between the nearest and farthest objects in a scene that appear acceptably sharp in an image. In principle, only the image on which the binoculars are focused is really clear and sharp. However, since people are fortunately able to see slightly blurred images as sharp, phenomena like depth of field occurs. The consequence of this is that the depth of field is not easy to determine. One person may think that a particular image is sharp and crisp whereas another person may find this same image unacceptably poor in quality." I think everybody differs in what they feel is sharp so Upland may be more critical than some other people in what he feels is sharp hence he feels the DOF of the Conquest is poor while others who are less critical would think it satisfactory.
<snip>
God or Zambuto
Bill
If you think about DOF it is subjective just like a lot of other parameters when viewing with binoculars. When you focus on something really only that object is truly in sharp focus and objects nearer and farther from that object are going to be slightly out of focus no matter how good you might think a binoculars DOF is. It is subject to your own eyes and personal opinion of how sharp those other objects are. The binocular is performing the same it is just that your perception is different from others.James: if you are sure that what I experienced was the fast focus effect please explain this to me: I would get many objects at varying distances in perfect focus and then look at nearby objects both fore and aft. These objects would be out of focus. I was not touching the focus wheel after I got the initial object in focus. As I said this happened at all distances near and far. I don’t get that with my other glasses.