Ardy
Well-known member
Ed, I have a deaf mute friend ,who is an agnostic,dyslexic,insomniac,and after looking through a new pair of the Swarovisions,with the "globe effect"stayed up all night wondering if there really was a "dog"
-
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.
Nikon SE binoculars and ED lens (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter John Dracon
- Start date
Ed, I have a deaf mute friend ,who is an agnostic,dyslexic,insomniac,and after looking through a new pair of the Swarovisions,with the "globe effect"stayed up all night wondering if there really was a "dog"
brocknroller
porromaniac
Hi James,
Congratulations on your new (vintage) SE. I bought a more recent one for $499 about a year ago, and now I'm feeling a bit smug.I find it a great glass to use with glasses, — or is that redundant?
I find it unfortunate but understandable that misconceptions are developing, — which probably can't be stopped given that they've already sprouted legs. Nonetheless, it might help to point out that there are several visual/motion induced perceptions that have similar consequences as the "globe effect," that is, they induce "curious" visual-motion percepts and/or nausea. "Motion sickness" itself one of them, but there are quite a few others. Deaf mutes, incidentally, tend not to be effected, so those folks are safe. All others, be cautious.
Sheldon Ebenholtz (Oculomotor Systems and Perception, 2001) summarizes 12 common situations that induce nausea, including our old friend, "viewing through binoculars." Yup, any binoculars. If you use them in the right way it can be accomplished. But, and here's the point, if curious visual percepts or nausea is induced from head motion one can not conclude it results from the rolling globe phenomenon.
As a case in point, I have long suspected that a phenomenon knowns as "vection" (a motion illusion sometimes accompanied by dizziness/nausea) is induced by scanning vertical tree forests with binoculars. The vection phenomenon has been studied extensively in laboratories using an apparatus like that shown below, and could easily be confused with rolling ball effects. http://www.answers.com/topic/vection
I'll probably regret bringing this up. :flyaway:
Ed
Ed,
I have Chronic Labyrinthitis so I know about "vection" more than most. When the condition is acting up, I have to be careful not to turn my head quickly or tilt it to the side quickly.
The only time I ever felt nauseous looking through a bin was with a 10x30 IS, which was not a good sample.
I was standing looking at the moon when it began to "swim" around the field of view. I was only moving my eyes, not my head. The nausea stopped when looked through the bins sitting down. That IS sample was very susceptible to microvibrations unlike my own 10x30 IS sample, which was much more stable.
However, I can assure you that the "rolling ball" in the LX is the real deal, not a misconception with bean sprouted legs.
I can see it even when the bins are still. The night sky looks like Ptolemy's Crystalline spheres.
If you don't see it yourself, look at the edges of a full sized LX/LX L, and you'll notice that straight lines remain straight right to the edges. If you carefully look at the image scale, you'll also notice that the same target looks larger at the center and smaller and somewhat "squished" at the edges.
There's no pincushion whatsoever. Why Nikon designed a birding and hunting bin that way is a mystery wrapped in an enigma roll.
The SE and EDG prove Nikon can make birding bins with sharp edges and only a small amount of "rolling ball".
"A great glass to use with glasses" is alliteration not redundancy; this is, this is, this is, this is redundancy.
Thanks for that erudition on "vection" and the graphic. No doubt, in bins that do have some pincushion (but not too much), some people might experience vection, particularly if they turn their head quickly.
Bins with too much pincushion can also create a "rolling globe phenomenon," but with the image rolling over a negatively curved surface (saddle shape).
That can be as distracting as positively curved "rolling ball" from lack of pincushion.
I suppose one rough test to distinguish "vection" from true "rolling ball" would be to pan slowly in one direction with the binoculars looking at a tree line near the horizon.
Then quickly pan back and forth on the same tree line.
If you see "rolling ball" in the first scenario, it's probably the real deal.
If you see it only while turning your head quickly back and forth, it's probably "vection".
If you don't see it in either scenario, hold on to that bin, it's good 'in.
Last edited:
mooreorless
Well-known member
I must not of read Brock's list before this and I don't think I am bothered by CA as much as Brock and also the the rolling ball. I can't say I agree with his list of best to worst. This is just me opinion of course.
Regards,Steve
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
His list was probably intended to rank order the binoculars from best to worst in terms of their inherent lateral CA. It may have succeeded in ranking the apparent CA to his eyes, but not the actual optical differences between the binoculars. As earlier posts have suggested there was no control for magnification or FOV. For a given field angle, apparent CA tends to increase with magnification. For a given magnification, apparent CA tends to increase with the square or cube (can't remember which) of field angle. Hand held, it's almost an impossible observation task to judge the extent of CA at a fixed field angle for two instruments (of equal power) with unequal FOV. Inevitably, the judgment will be influenced by edge differences, which favor the narrower field. Of course, personal bias (i.e., desires concerning the outcome) also influence the assessment, which is why, in a real experiment, care would be taken to disguise the instruments and use trained observers.
Bla, bla, bla ... :brains:
Ed
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
No, any design that successfully reduces CA makes for a better binocular, regardless of whether the user is aware of CA, because CA reduces resolution.
--AP
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Brock,
Although I am a retired experimental psychologist, I'm really not too keen on the illusions and disorientations associated with binocular use/misuse. My reason for bringing up the vection example was simply to point out that there are several illusions that result from body or image motion. (Very little is known about the added effects of magnification on these, incidentally). The globe effect is quite real (if illusions can be real) and can be minimized by a pinch of pincushion. Holger worked out the pinch size quite nicely. More than a necessary pinch of pincushion is readily apparent and objectionable (to me) on a static basis. No need for motion. Less than that, as with the new Swaro, is probably an issue under task conditions that mimic the checkerboard environment that triggers the perception. I'm still not completely convinced that similar panning phenomena might not be induced by eye movements given the right visual pattern motion, i.e., unrelated to distortion.
I don't quite follow the need to defend the observation that the 10x SE has barrel distortion, and that it induces/enhances the globe effect. I haven't questioned it. But, while we're on the subject, it might be worth noting that there really has not been a great cry of anguish from (other) users, and some accept it as a fault only reluctantly. The reason, I believe, is that the globe effect, like many others, is task specific. Most users probably learn to avoid such situations without even realizing it.
Anyway, thanks for the lesson about redundancy.
Ed
Although I am a retired experimental psychologist, I'm really not too keen on the illusions and disorientations associated with binocular use/misuse. My reason for bringing up the vection example was simply to point out that there are several illusions that result from body or image motion. (Very little is known about the added effects of magnification on these, incidentally). The globe effect is quite real (if illusions can be real) and can be minimized by a pinch of pincushion. Holger worked out the pinch size quite nicely. More than a necessary pinch of pincushion is readily apparent and objectionable (to me) on a static basis. No need for motion. Less than that, as with the new Swaro, is probably an issue under task conditions that mimic the checkerboard environment that triggers the perception. I'm still not completely convinced that similar panning phenomena might not be induced by eye movements given the right visual pattern motion, i.e., unrelated to distortion.
I don't quite follow the need to defend the observation that the 10x SE has barrel distortion, and that it induces/enhances the globe effect. I haven't questioned it. But, while we're on the subject, it might be worth noting that there really has not been a great cry of anguish from (other) users, and some accept it as a fault only reluctantly. The reason, I believe, is that the globe effect, like many others, is task specific. Most users probably learn to avoid such situations without even realizing it.
Anyway, thanks for the lesson about redundancy.
Ed
Last edited:
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
To be really picky CA reduces apparent sharpness (or makes for a worse MTF with reduced contrast in white light). ED bins really do look sharper.
Resolution is generally measured at a single wavelength whereas sharpness is amore a of perceptual measurement but you could measure white light MTF and quantify it: how the contrast ratio of black and white lines changes as the lines get closer together. This is where resolution and contrast get coupled together.
The problem with the "astronomical idea" of resolution (the smallest separation of points of light you can split) is not the best for terrestrial use where images have lower (and varying and information carrying) contrast. MTF measurements are much better but not actually possible for an amateur on a budget.
BTW, I don't see any barrel distortion in my SEs. Flat field yes but not barrel distortion.
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Alexis,
Absolutely! That is why CA is important in black and white photography. However, those purple or green bands are seen by some and not seen by others.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :brains:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Brock,
Although I am a retired experimental psychologist, I'm really not too keen on the illusions and disorientations associated with binocular use/misuse. My reason for bringing up the vection example was simply to point out that there are several illusions that result from body or image motion. (Very little is known about the added effects of magnification on these, incidentally). The globe effect is quite real (if illusions can be real) and can be minimized by a pinch of pincushion. Holger worked out the pinch size quite nicely. More than a necessary pinch of pincushion is readily apparent and objectionable (to me) on a static basis. No need for motion. Less than that, as with the new Swaro, is probably an issue under task conditions that mimic the checkerboard environment that triggers the perception. I'm still not completely convinced that similar panning phenomena might not be induced by eye movements given the right visual pattern motion, i.e., unrelated to distortion.
I don't quite follow the need to defend the observation that the 10x SE has barrel distortion, and that it induces/enhances the globe effect. I haven't questioned it. But, while we're on the subject, it might be worth noting that there really has not been a great cry of anguish from (other) users, and some accept it as a fault only reluctantly. The reason, I believe, is that the globe effect, like many others, is task specific. Most users probably learn to avoid such situations without even realizing it.
Anyway, thanks for the lesson about redundancy.
Ed
Ed,
It's partly "task specific". For example, I do a lot of panning since I "bird" mostly in deep woods and at close to medium range, and often need to move the bins quickly to catch up to my target.
When I'm "out and about" and looking a longer distances and panning much more slowly, the effects of pincushion and "rolling ball" are less bothersome.
However, you should question the "barrel distortion" in the 10x42 SE, because there isn't much. The bin I was referring to my previous post was 10x42 LX.
brocknroller
porromaniac
With the 10x42 LX and especially the 10x42 LX L, I prefer the term "recursive subroutine," because every time I thought about spending so much money on a bin with so much "rolling ball," I'd curse and curse again!
Birding can also be redundant, particularly in the winter. Sparrow....sparrow....sparrow....sparrow...ah, wait...no, another sparrow....
brocknroller
porromaniac
Chromatic Aberration Rankings in 12.1 Binoculars
ABSTRACT: The above chromatic aberration binocular tests were conducted over a 10-year-period, from 1999 to 2009, using a power cable to test for vertical CA and the edge of a matte black power transformer to test for later CA. The binoculars were mounted for the test in the same location for all tests. More than one binocular was used for each test, with up to 10 binoculars during one test (since this report is limited to ZR and Nikon binoculars, some of the binoculars were excluded from the sample group). Test results were recorded in a notebook and bins were rated from 1-5 (low to high CA) with + or – when ratings fell in between whole numbers. These tests were not intended to be definitive, scientific, or analytical, but were designed for comparative purposes only. The author is an uncredentialed, unlicensed, self-trained observer, who has spent an average of 6 hours a week looking through binoculars over the past 10 years, as well as reading 10,563 binocular forum posts, numerous binocular reviews, and contributing 543 posts to one binocular forum and 1,951 posts to another. To at least feign scientific legitimacy for naysayers, nitpickers, and nerds, for one session the author used a “double blind” test, but the subjects found it difficult to judge CA whilst looking through the two blindfolds. Readers of this report are asked to take the results cum granis salis, and to conduct their own tests since one’s sensitivity to CA can vary from eye to eye, from brain to brain, and even from “expert” to “expert”.
INTRODUCTION. See Abstract.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. See Abstract.
RESULTS. See post # 6.
DISCUSSION: See this thread.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The author would like to thank the following individuals for contributing binoculars for testing: Steve (mooreorless), Walter Locke (MIA), Jerry (NDHunter), Ron (Surveyor). Thanks also to Steve for taking photos of these binoculars individually and collectively. Also a shout out to Ed (elkcub) for inspiring this "paper".
LITERATURE CITED: 10,563 posts on Cloudy Nights and Birdforum binocular forums.
APPENDIX. Still intact, though sometimes it's hard to tell with IBS.
DISCLAIMERS: The author does not work for Zen Ray or Nikon, though he wished he did and is available for consulting work at very reasonable rates.
Last edited:
John Dracon
John Dracon
Brock - In your post No.23 in reference to the 8x32 SE, you ask the rhetorical question, "I find it a great glass to use with glasses, - or is that redundant?" Of course not, but you have written a good example of alliteration combined with an apt pun.
Nicely done. John
Nicely done. John
John Dracon
John Dracon
Ed - I was unaware that Brock was using a quotation from your post. Alliteration is the deliberate use of consecutive initial consonants or similar sounds for effect in prose, poetry, and speech. Your quotation was not an example of redundancy, which is the use of superfluous words, e.g., "Department of redundancy department." Yours was a pun which brings similar sounding words possessing different meanings together in speech and writing. "Glass" in your quotation refers to binoculars,- "glasses" refers to eye glasses. Sorry I didn't give you credit for the pun, which was a good one. John
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
No problem. Given what we know about the 8x32SE, and its oft discussed 17mm eye relief, do you think it was redundant to say: "I find it a great glass to use with glasses"? You're right, it was a rhetorical question, just like this one perhaps. But, ... I repeat myself.
PS. I tend to use the word redundant in the information theory sense, i.e., a signal devoid of information content. Unfortunately, I'm discovering that much of what I say is like that, so I ask the question before someone points it out.
PS. I tend to use the word redundant in the information theory sense, i.e., a signal devoid of information content. Unfortunately, I'm discovering that much of what I say is like that, so I ask the question before someone points it out.
Last edited:
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
Well it's official, this thread is now unreadable. |:S|
