Thank you guys for pointing out the obvious to the one who had taken the bait... Also ignored... first on the list...
Joachim
You have our all - and all our - deepest sympathy
Thank you guys for pointing out the obvious to the one who had taken the bait... Also ignored... first on the list...
Joachim
You're constructing (if I may say so) extremely narrow-minded arguments that while technically correct, work poorly for purposes of public discussion. And I say that despite agreeing with (what I take to be) your point of view, that higher powers than 8 or even 10x can be useful handheld, so categorical denials of that are unhelpful. I often carry my SLC 15x56 around lakes and other open areas and get better views of birds like your kingfisher that way. A study has even been referenced here supporting the conclusion that magnifications up to around 15x can offer an advantage handheld; I reattach the graph below.This is just what you see, but the blur is not the fault of the enlargements (it's your fault)...
not narrow, but basic. Because that is the starting point for understanding the rest.You're constructing (if I may say so) extremely narrow-minded arguments
Of course, I completely agree, Tenex. I know very well that many find it harder than others to stabilize their binoculars. There is nothing wrong with being unable to use 10x or more. I was simply saying that it is wrong to declare one's incapacity as an absolute dogma valid for everyone else. And that it would be better to learn from those who may have already learned or from those who come naturally.That said, Joachim also has a point: most people do say they can't use such magnifications effectively.
That figure you posted isn't realistic.
How is it possible that binoculars mounted on a stand do not reach the same theoretical curve? There is something wrong with that test!
It is incredible, and in fact we cannot and must not believe it!
I was simply saying that it is wrong to declare one's incapacity as an absolute dogma valid for everyone else.
That's all. Instead I am also taken for a troll ...
Sorry, I realized afterward that "narrow-minded" might not have been the best choice of words; "literal" or "picky" perhaps instead. But I do think you have a problem here. You're arguing in a fraught way that can easily tick people off... but of course you're not alone in this. Posts on forums like this can sometimes be repetitive, conceited, argumentative, disorganized, nonresponsive, or all the above. These are merely common relational problems, as opposed to "trolling" which is deliberate, insincere manipulation, possibly even malicious. Maintaining that distinction is important. Otherwise we'll all just come to see one another as trolls, and instead of merely being annoying, society will fall apart entirely.not narrow, but basic. Because that is the starting point for understanding the rest.
Since this is not accepted humbly and shamelessly, everything else will never be accepted.
Who is it that really has the narrow minded?
I think "supported" here means braced, leaning against something, rather than fixed to a rigid tripod, which they may not have bothered to measure as it should (as you say) agree with theory.That figure you posted isn't realistic.
How is it possible that binoculars mounted on a stand do not reach the same theoretical curve? There is something wrong with that test!
It is incredible, and in fact we cannot and must not believe it!
Ok, I misunderstood and in this case it is different. But in any case, I did a lot of tests and I arrived at results other than those. And certainly, it is not the magnification that is the cause of the blur, but it is our hands.You're misunderstanding the word 'supported'. This is about sitting in a recliner, elbows on the armrests, things like that.
Let's forget about the trolls and take everyone who used binoculars and divide them by percentage. At least 60% have never even tried to use binoculars with magnification greater than 12x. Maybe 75% have never used 15x. 90% have never seriously used values greater than 20x and I believe that only 5% have really tried to get good results with 25-35x freehand.You're again mis-representing what was said. I have decades of experience hand-holding 15x and 20x binoculars. That doesn't change the fact that for most people this wouldn't work at all. Nobody said 'everyone'... except you.
Excellent Tenex, you are hitting all the points and you are not the narrow minded. Surely you're right that I could "tick people off". It's not my purpose, but it's just a consequence that I can't avoid if I say what I have to say.But I do think you have a problem here. You're arguing in a fraught way that can easily tick people off... but of course you're not alone in this.
Sure. Every lie publishes, I see it as an outrage. Although in this case I certainly misunderstood the terms.I think "supported" here means braced...
And again, you're somehow making this sound like an outrage instead of a simple question...
Do you believe that we have won and that the point has been made and understood?you take exception to blanket statements about what magnification "can be handheld". I do also, so I understand. Can you accept victory? Your point has been made and understood. What is the further problem?
it is not the magnification that is the cause of the blur, but it is our hands.
..........A study has even been referenced here supporting the conclusion that magnifications up to around 15x can offer an advantage handheld; I reattach the graph below.
Certainly. There are some factors, such as visual acuity and geometric mechanics at the basis of optical resolution, which intervene here.Rico, you know perfectly well that the blur increases as the magnification of the binoculars increases.
No, not really. Often I consider it a success when just one person understands. I think one seldom wins in the larger sense you have in mind, which is why I tend to be less argumentative myself -- and why I supposed that impression might be unintentional on your part! Best wishes of the season to you also.Sure. Every lie publishes, I see it as an outrage...
Do you believe that we have won and that the point has been made and understood?
Here's the link to the Vukobratovich article itself:Apologies if this is obvious, Tenex, but where is that figure coming from? I would like to read more about that.
Yes, I think practical results must vary with the model in a way that a single graph can't convey, and would be worth further exploration. I would not have been advancing claims for regular handheld use in the field based on my previous Zeiss 15x60 Porro, which for all its classic beauty was challenging to hold for any period of time, had minimal eye relief, and (for whatever reason) I found increasingly difficult to focus accurately in recent years. In all those respects (weight, ergos, sharpness) my current SLC 15x56 is an absolute dream by comparison. Not for some people perhaps, but for me. [Edit: I'll just add that whenever I hand the SLC to someone passing by to see what I'm looking at, they don't complain of being unable to use it; they say wow, that's a great binocular.]You are technically correct in that statement in that the Vukobratovich plot shows the effective magnification of a hand held 10x binocular is 5.8x and a 15x binocular is 6.2x, but with the down sides, suspect few birders would think that is worthwhile for a 0.4x advantage.
We have to acknowledge that paper was from 1989, and I know I've found modern binoculars that give me much better results, both hand held and supported, than that profile suggests. However there are still some pretty awful binoculars about.
Yes, of course. Though many would have said "8x" there, which is even more restrictive... and where a novice inquiry is not the immediate issue, more nuanced opinions still can be voiced.I hope we can agree that it would be very bad advice to encourage a novice to buy anything over a 10x without extensive prior testing.
The Swarovski SLC 15x56 is perhaps the best binoculars in the world at "high magnification", among those that can be used freehand (1.2Kg). I think it is a dream for me too (although I would prefer it better at 25x).....my current SLC 15x56 is an absolute dream by comparison. Not for some people perhaps, but for me. [Edit: I'll just add that whenever I hand the SLC to someone passing by to see what I'm looking at, they don't complain of being unable to use it; they say wow, that's a great binocular.]
I opened the topic on the magnification ...But perhaps this is not the right place to talk about it. We are very off topic.
As soon as I have a little time I prefer to open a suitable discussion.
I too happened several times to lend my binoculars to the curious passerby, finding that no one has ever accused problems of too much magnification (16x, 25x, 35x). Even a 7-8 year old boy, once I explained to him how to lean on the wall, willingly used 35x for half an hour, observing Herons, Night Herons and Pheasants. And above all the women surprised me.
[/url]
One thing no one wants to talk about is you get older. I used to have "magic hands", but I now find holding something steady annoying. Ideally I would like eyepieces which brace the binocular ... against my eye sockets. In which case handholding becomes much easier.
Edmund