Rathaus
Well-known member
Thats a fascinating idea Ed. Thanks for sharing.
On the general question of technical analysis of how a binocular performs optically versus subjective descriptions, I believe we need both and on Bird Forum we get both.
However, I wonder how many of the 151,000 + members that Bird Forum has can make good use of highly technical analyses of binos' optics. For example a description of Swarovski's moustache distortion pattern might make it sound as though the bins would be awful to look through and of course they are the most popular premium bins out there. Nor, when folks ask what bins should I buy for X $/£, or when they want advice about whether bino A is 'better' than bino B do they say, 'make sure your answer is in arc-seconds and includes photos of star tests'. Nor should we forget that many people get tons of nature observation pleasure from the most under-performing of binos.
And yet those technical investigations are vital if we want to know what is going on if a bino has some problem or undesirable characteristic.
I will quote Kimmo here when he says: Much of the value of Birdforum optics discussions come from fruitful exchange of ideas, experiences, experiments and testing methods & procedures.
I totally agree with him that there is room on here and value to be had from all approaches.
Lee
Lee, Great post with an outstanding summary.
I think that one of my faults is that I expect a purely technical approach to be "absolutely ruthlessly technical"...when this is infact unreasonable and often impossible (though, the challenge is potentially very exciting).
I can see that Elk has written a really profound post and I'm trying my best to get into the right headspace to fully decipher it...but I've come down with the flu and I'm watching Blackadder with a fever and the walls are all wobbly.