-
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.
Chromatic aberration (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jay_Feather
- Start date
tenex
reality-based
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.
That said, Joachim also has a point: most people do say they can't use such magnifications effectively. I happen also to think that some learning by the brain is involved and they're not giving that a chance, but in any case you and I seem to be outliers for whatever reason. I think the ideal solution would be similar but more nuanced general recommendations about magnification, which don't seem to deny our own experience. Would you agree?
There has begun to be talk of "trolling" here, which is not a good sign. Please don't feed the trolling-accusers...
Attachments
Last edited:
Hi Tenex, I'm here.
Since this is not accepted humbly and shamelessly, everything else will never be accepted.
Who is it that really has the narrow minded?
It seems logical to me that a higher magnification will show, with more enhancement, the hand shake. In the exact same way it will also show a greater detail of the objects.
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 have learned over time to stabilize my binoculars and the improvements have led me to use 25x freehand (shame about the weight over 1Kg).
That's all. Instead I am also taken for a troll ...
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?
It seems logical to me that a higher magnification will show, with more enhancement, the hand shake. In the exact same way it will also show a greater detail of the objects.
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!
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.
I have learned over time to stabilize my binoculars and the improvements have led me to use 25x freehand (shame about the weight over 1Kg).
That's all. Instead I am also taken for a troll ...
Mark9473
Well-known member
You're misunderstanding the word 'supported'. This is about sitting in a recliner, elbows on the armrests, things like that.
Mark9473
Well-known member
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.
In the course of a handful of posts in this thread, you are using very extremist wording. It may appear to many that you are intending to enhance conflict rather than resolve it. Me, for now, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and I think the situation may be due to language/translation/culture. But think about what I wrote.
tenex
reality-based
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.
So I was trying to bring the matter back toward some nice conclusion: 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?
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.
You might want to read the study itself, which unfortunately I didn't save the reference to (only this graph). Perhaps someone else can point it out. And again, you're somehow making this sound like an outrage instead of a simple question...
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.
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.
How is it possible to say that most will not be able to use 25x?
It is not possible! Nobody knows what magnification will be used by others. We have only value for ourselves and not for others.
When I read sentences that encourage you to avoid using values greater than 8x, I believe that "advisor" is only giving advice to himself.
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.
Sure. Every lie publishes, I see it as an outrage. Although in this case I certainly misunderstood the terms.
I had already downloaded that article, but I hadn't read or translated it yet. In any case, that curve does not reflect my experiences. I also used 100x freehand and it is paradoxically easier than 10x!
Maybe one day I'll talk more about it.
Do you believe that we have won and that the point has been made and understood?
Rico, you know perfectly well that the blur increases as the magnification of the binoculars increases.
So while you are correct to say that the blur originates in our hands (and arms and heartbeat and breathing) the higher the magnification, the worse the blur becomes. Magnification is not the source of the blur, but what we see through the binos is definitely created by the combination of hand-shake and magnification. In this sense magnification is part of the cause.
Lee
Tennex,
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.
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. Unfortunately, that is not an easy thing to do in the UK. I can only think of one birding specialist store I've visited that even stocked a single12x, and that was a Swarovski EL. Even at major birding fairs, some manufacturers don't bother puting their higher power models on show. Their explaination is simple, "birders don't like anything over 10x". Nevertheless, I have persuaded them to dig out quite a few 15x+ binoculars to try. I've just not found one I would personally choose to take for a day's birding, but would totally agree, everyone's needs are different.
David
Attachments
Rico's Style of Posting
Ladies and Gentlemen, for more than 40 years in my business career I have worked with and for, and sold to and bought from, people of other nationalities in many countries in Europe.
These people put the little bit of French I speak to shame because they all spoke English so well. But their English was not without challenges and these usually meant that to an ear and sensibility used to hearing English spoken by people born and raised in an English-speaking society, the English of my European colleagues often sounded abrupt and even rude and sometimes aggressive.
But this was only a superficial impression caused by my colleagues doing their best to articulate facts and opinions while not knowing the turns of phrase that soften these and make them more polite.
I well remember this seemed especially true of the Dutch who I loved for their blunt honesty (see our own Jan van Daalen) and also the Italians, whose sheer enthusiasm for whatever they were talking about and trying to convey could give a mistaken impression of belligerence.
So when considering Rico's often enthusiastic posts, and in the absence of clues such as tone of voice, hand gestures and body language, please assume everything is meant in a friendly and informative way.
Lee
Moderator
Ladies and Gentlemen, for more than 40 years in my business career I have worked with and for, and sold to and bought from, people of other nationalities in many countries in Europe.
These people put the little bit of French I speak to shame because they all spoke English so well. But their English was not without challenges and these usually meant that to an ear and sensibility used to hearing English spoken by people born and raised in an English-speaking society, the English of my European colleagues often sounded abrupt and even rude and sometimes aggressive.
But this was only a superficial impression caused by my colleagues doing their best to articulate facts and opinions while not knowing the turns of phrase that soften these and make them more polite.
I well remember this seemed especially true of the Dutch who I loved for their blunt honesty (see our own Jan van Daalen) and also the Italians, whose sheer enthusiasm for whatever they were talking about and trying to convey could give a mistaken impression of belligerence.
So when considering Rico's often enthusiastic posts, and in the absence of clues such as tone of voice, hand gestures and body language, please assume everything is meant in a friendly and informative way.
Lee
Moderator
Thanks Lee, for your defense. I take this opportunity to wish everyone a Merry Christmas.
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.
Certainly. There are some factors, such as visual acuity and geometric mechanics at the basis of optical resolution, which intervene here.
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.
tenex
reality-based
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.
Here's the link to the Vukobratovich article itself:
http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=563160&d=1446353767
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.]
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.
Last edited:
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).
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.
As for Vukobratovich's article, I am increasingly convinced that there is something wrong. Even the calculations don't come back.
I opened the topic on the magnification ...
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=385017
Last edited:
Rico I would be cautious about assuming these people saw a steady and informative image, especially if they were not accustomed to using binos. I have met many people who did not know of the existence of the dioptre adjuster on their binos and just assumed that the unsharp image they saw was typical and as good as it could get. They were amazed when shown how to adjust the dioptre. I have given others binos to try with not only the dioptre adjusted to a stupid setting but also with one eyecup down and one eyecup up. Most people did not question this probably due to a combination of not being sure something was wrong and not wanting to appear ignorant by asking about it. Of course they learned something when shown how to set the eyecups and the dioptre.
I suspect that the people who tried out your higher magnifications just thought a shaky image was normal. Even if they thought 'this shaky image cannot be normal' they may not have commented in case they appeared ignorant or stupid.
Lee
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
Edmund
Steve C
Well-known member
A bit off topic I suppose, but for an improved hold;
-cup the binocular between your palms
-thumbs on cheekbones, wherever placement is comfortable
-index fingers on forehead, again wherever placement is comfortable
-middle fingers for focus
-last two fingers around the barrels of the binocular
-make it steadier still using this with a baseball style brimmed cap using the index finger over the bill. May not work too well with small hands on the latter point.
Don't laugh, it works
Similar threads
