• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Yet, More on Collimation (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

WJC

Well-known member
Hey Gang,

The following is from a letter I have just sent to some of the MAJOR bino OEMs. If you have definitive information, please share it with me.

****************************

... I am working on my third book on binoculars—the first two of which go beyond the sub-rudimentary tripe so prevalent in print, today—and I need some authoritative information on the dichotomy in thinking concerning binocular collimation, US and Asian vs. European.

During the early days of WWII, the US military—the mover and shaker of which was the Navy—moved from the British Mk I binocular collimation devices and conditional alignment to the 3-axis clinical collimation that, taking the axle into consideration, would allow the binocular to collimated at every position of the IPD. By 1941, the British recognized their Mk I collimator was very limited and determined it to be “obsolete.”

The US experimented with a number of devices to accomplish this. The US Navy used the Mk 5 and the image projecting Mk 13 collimator while the British used the MK II, III, and IV. Much more problematic than the US Navy’s Mk 5, the British collimators were more portable, thus easier to move from one theater of operation to another.

THE PROBLEM

Long after the importance of 3-axis collimation was established, some European repair facilities and independent technicians were still using the conditional alignment techniques of the British Mk I collimator. The images of two such collimators are attached.

I wish to know the thinking behind the resistance to incorporate the more efficient technology.

Was it:

1. A lack of understanding, caring, or resistance to change?

2. A feeling that an observer’s spatial accommodation was a NECESSARY part of the process of collimation and that eyestrain could be (or should be) ignored?

3. A feeling that since the IPD of most adults will fall between 62mm and 69mm deviations for the greatest and least separation of the telescopes were inconsequential and that attaining the more stringent standards needed to serve observers of ALL IPDs were unnecessary.

I have photographs of the CURRENT binocular collimator used by one of Europe’s “Big Three” and, although there are adjustments available, I see no way to take the axle into consideration.

FINALLY

I have attached (if sent via a REAL email address*) two photos of some of the collimators still used in Europe. I would appreciate a tech manual for either device (or both) or the thinking concerning how each was supposed to be used.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-01-24 at 7.37.38 PM copy.jpg
    Screen Shot 2018-01-24 at 7.37.38 PM copy.jpg
    202.7 KB · Views: 147
  • Screen Shot 2019-01-04 at 2.23.06 PM copy.jpg
    Screen Shot 2019-01-04 at 2.23.06 PM copy.jpg
    301.5 KB · Views: 158
3rd book.... better get that crowbar our to make space on the shelves. Will it be ready for Santa to deliver??

Peter
 
3rd book.... better get that crowbar our to make space on the shelves. Will it be ready for Santa to deliver??

Peter

Hi Jan,

THAT one is at least a year out. The one Santa might bring is attached. :cat:

Bill
 

Attachments

  • The Concise Guide COVER 191001 copy.pdf
    1,000.4 KB · Views: 119
Hi Bill,

Both the collimators in your post are exactly the same.

They are the Enbeeco collimator manufactured by Newbold and Bulford in London.

The one with the binocular mounted on it is the original configuration with a fork arrangement for holding porro prism binoculars only via the central hinge.

The one with the red "handle" on the top is my old one which I converted the binocular mount on so that it could hold roof prisms.

I have three other collimators now and this one is consigned to my store room.


Gary.
 
Hi Bill,

Both the collimators in your post are exactly the same.

They are the Enbeeco collimator manufactured by Newbold and Bulford in London.

The one with the binocular mounted on it is the original configuration with a fork arrangement for holding porro prism binoculars only via the central hinge.

The one with the red "handle" on the top is my old one which I converted the binocular mount on so that it could hold roof prisms.

I have three other collimators now and this one is consigned to my store room.


Gary.

191018

Thanks, Gary:

Please understand my inquisitiveness about these collimators is in no way meant to be an indictment of any person or company; I’m just trying to find justification for moving from the 3-axis collimation that was determined to be the more precise way to go as far back as 1941, back to the Brit Mk I conditional alignment method considered outdated 78 years ago.

I just don’t see a way for those collimators to take the axle into consideration. It seems both of those collimators were to work in the field for the 6x30 and 7x50 (ascertained by the spacing of the scopes) most used by so many country’s military and not in a factory setting.

I certainly know there is a big difference between working with new binoculars by technicians who know what they’re doing and working with cheap binos that have been dropped and are being worked on by the myriad armchair technicians who know collimation is “QUICK and EASY,” even though they rarely know more than one convention of operation. In addition, through the letters I’ve written and phone calls I’ve made, I’m losing the warm fuzzies about today’s technicians even at the major optical firms knowing the in and outs of the operation. One senior tech told me they were only instructed in “how to get the alignment in the box.”

Even so, each of those companies has to repair and collimate instruments that are not in the best of shape. I would hope they would have some means for performing a 3-axis collimation and I’m just trying to find out what they use and see the operation manual for the device.

Sadly, I’ve got the feeling they are leaving the most precise alignment to the spatial accommodation of the user, which I find a cost-saving but debilitating shortcut.

I have a photo of Gail Fisher (repair manager, now retired) at the collimator of Swarovski Optik USA and I see no way to consider the axle, which Dr. Hanna considered “the heart of the binocular.” And I just got the following from Zeiss the day before yesterday:

“Dear Sir
Anyone with this level of information at this point is probably long gone. You can check with either the Binocular Historical Society here in the US or the Optical Museum in Jena in Germany. Otherwise there is nobody of knowledge like this within the company to my knowledge.”


If people who have a real handle on binocular collimation are “probably long gone,” who’s running the railroad?

Sometimes, people think I’m violently opposed to conditional alignment. I’m certainly not. I just want folks calling the procedure what it is and stop sharing so much more than they know about the “quick and easy” procedure. They are not doing their fellow observers any favors.

In so many cases, conditional alignment is adequate to serve one IPD nicely to excellently!!! However, there are so many things these aggressive screw-tweakers don’t know, which can take an instrument farther out of clinical collimation or, in some cases, damage the instrument.

You have been with Zeiss and Leica. Can you get pictures of their factory collimators for me along with either their tech manuals or written instructions for their use?

Please share the specifics you know. :cat:

Bill
 
Hi Bill,

Sorry,

It is forbidden to take photos in the Leica and Zeiss factories.

And........if I ditribute any operating manuals, etc, that I have I an liable for prosecution.

Gary.
 
Hi Bill,

Sorry,

It is forbidden to take photos in the Leica and Zeiss factories.

And........if I ditribute any operating manuals, etc, that I have I an liable for prosecution.

Gary.

191019

Hi, Gary:

That, my friend, is a VERY GOOD reason NOT TO! Besides, knowing their methodology on binocular collimation had to be right up there with understanding nuclear propulsion and why Micky Mouse could talk, why Pluto couldn’t, and why no matter how short your comment, if not prepared in a word processor, you would be dumped out of this program with no way to retrieve your text.

At Captain’s, my 2 Navy Mk 5 collimators and Fujinon U.B.M.M. were always in plain sight of my customers and I was always eager to let customers take photos and show them exactly how they worked.

But then, I had nothing to hide. ‘Makes one think, doesn’t it? Thanks, anyway.

Based on current knowledge, we know the US Navy’s wartime standards—that my generation of Opticalmen had to adhere to—are over-the-top for most of today’s non-wartime binocular users, especially in today’s disposable/no-fault warranty world.

An exhaustive survey for the Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory in May of 1986 revealed in part:

“Zero optical tolerances and zero tolerances for image differences are not practical: they would be too difficult and expensive to obtain and could not be retained in use.”

But that:

“Indeed, a degree of alignment error unnoticed by, or even undetectable by, one observer may be unacceptable to another."


Those two comments are found next to each other in the same manual. So, you can figure out the dichotomy. From my standpoint, the first comment is technically correct but practically foolish. Cory & I could mass produce clinically collimated binoculars—many of which had been abused for decades—in short order.

In a recent phone conversation, Omid pointed out that the math involved in eccentric-ring collimation would be confusing and time consuming. He would be correct IF you didn’t understand what you were doing. We learned all that math in Opticalman “A” school and then put it out of our minds so that we could get on with the task. A sailor who didn’t care—or was cranially challenged—might have a hard time. For those who had a clue, cared, and had the right test equipment, the process was akin to making a jelly sandwich.

The following reports are available for those who might like to be confused by some stimulating bedtime reading.

Jacobs (1943)
Army-Navy-National Research Council (1946)
Ingalls and Pestrecov (1948)
Johnson (1960)
MIL-Handbook-141 (1962)
Opticalman 3 & 2 (1966)
Gold and Hyman (1970)
Gold (1971)
Gibson 1980
MIL-Standard-1472C (1981)

Those of us who frequent CN and BF know there are those who would rather kiss a rattlesnake of the lips than admit to being wrong about ... anything. I have made bold comments on this topic. But I don’t matter; it’s only truth to be shared with your neighbor that does. And my whole purpose in looking into this conundrum is to come to an understanding of why collimation standards have been dumbed down—if they have been.

And if they have not, why is it that so many people I’ve spoken to act as if I’m speaking a foreign language?

“Dear Sir: Anyone with this level of information at this point is probably long gone.” :cat:

Bill
 
Last edited:
Hello Bill,

I would like to thank you for collecting and putting your vast amount of knowledge down in print before this knowledge is lost forever.

Sadly in the modern throwaway world this knowledge is regarded as being useless and irrelevant , and us "old fogeys" are regarded with some amusement by the younger generation when we carry on about quality and old school craftsmanship.

Keep up the good work , some of us still appreciate it.

Sadly your books are not available where I live , have you considered putting your knowledge down in E-Book format ?.

Keep up the good work.

Cheers.
 
191019


But then, I had nothing to hide. ‘Makes one think, doesn’t it?

“Dear Sir: Anyone with this level of information at this point is probably long gone.” :cat:

Bill

Hi Bill,

It is not about having anything to hide.

Most manufacturing companies around the world will not allow photography on their premises.

Most companies will not allow their information (i.e manuals etc.) to be shared with people outside the company.

The collimator I use for exhibitions I attend with Zeiss is on open display and has been photographed countless times.

As for the comment that people with knowledge are long gone..........perhaps this is just the opinion of the one person who replied to you on a local level.

I was taught "3 axis collimation" at Leica and carried it out every day, I carried it out every day at Zeiss and I still do.

At both companies there were plenty of people who were fully conversant with and skilled at collimation.

Gary.
 
I just got the following from Zeiss the day before yesterday:

“Dear Sir
Anyone with this level of information at this point is probably long gone. You can check with either the Binocular Historical Society here in the US or the Optical Museum in Jena in Germany. Otherwise there is nobody of knowledge like this within the company to my knowledge.”


If people who have a real handle on binocular collimation are “probably long gone,” who’s running the railroad?

You didn't ask them if they had people knowledgeable about collimation; you asked if they had anybody who remembered why decades ago certain equipment was or was not in use.
 
Hi Bill,

It is not about having anything to hide.

Most manufacturing companies around the world will not allow photography on their premises.

Most companies will not allow their information (i.e manuals etc.) to be shared with people outside the company.

The collimator I use for exhibitions I attend with Zeiss is on open display and has been photographed countless times.

As for the comment that people with knowledge are long gone..........perhaps this is just the opinion of the one person who replied to you on a local level.

I was taught "3 axis collimation" at Leica and carried it out every day, I carried it out every day at Zeiss and I still do.

At both companies there were plenty of people who were fully conversant with and skilled at collimation.

Gary.

Thanks, Gary:

That was the first STRAIGHT answer I have received in this whole search. I checked every repair that was sent to the best companies. All were in 3-axis spec. But then, that was before the NO-FAULT madness started getting traction.

After my first alignment job in 1970, I started dreaming about one day working for Zeiss.:cat:

Bill
 
Of course alignment isn’t exactly where these companies have their IP and market determining features.... so there really isn’t any need to hide, other than the reasons given above. If most people are happy with what they buy then things can’t be too bad.... ;-)

Peter
 
Of course alignment isn’t exactly where these companies have their IP and market determining features.... so there really isn’t any need to hide, other than the reasons given above. If most people are happy with what they buy then things can’t be too bad.... ;-)

Peter

191021

Hi, Peter:

I’m not talking about NEW binoculars. I’m speaking of the many Internet offerings in which some well-meaning, but totally clueless armchair technician is telling all who will listen how “QUICK AND EASY” it is to collimate their binoculars when they are miles from being able broach the most rudimentary part of the subject. And I have been kind. What I really think about these “quick and easy” gurus can’t be stated on Bird Forum.

People see distortion and call it curvature of field, they see anti-reflective coatings and talk about their COLORS—when, in fact, they have none, their binocular is out of alignment and they say it won’t focus, they talk about myriad things that no human can see yet drives them nuts.

Some of these “quick and easy” collimation tips can, if the error is small enough, make a bino serviceable or excellent ... for a few users with a similar IPD. But that is NOT clinical collimation and while pursuing that “quick and easy” goal, they can take the instrument farther out of real collimation.

And have you seen any of those “quick and easy” tips that specify how important it is to choose the errant telescope to start adjusting. NO. Do you see any that talk about how an adequate distance to the target is critical? NO. Instead, we see how looking at a roofline down the street is adequate before you start tweaking the binocular on whichever side feels good at the time. There are even those who talk about “collimating” their binocular inside their house. I did that once. But then, I woke up and had to go to work.

On this issue, I could encourage others to see me as being a snot ball. If people spent 1/20th the time learning about optics as they do spreading totally mindless, and often harmful information, all our binocular forums would be better places.

“In matters of style, swim with the stream. In matter of principle, stand like a rock.” — Thomas Jefferson

This bull is dangerous to our brothers and sisters of the birding hobby and I am standing like a rock. Being liked would be great. Being helpful—at least for those who care—is far superior.

Bill

PS I think I must go take a cold shower, now. :D
 
Last edited:
I appreciate you Bill, keep telling it like it is. It's nice to have your wealth of knowledge available to us mere mortals. LOL.

I once took a $40 pair of Bushnell porros which were out of alignment and "adjusted" the screws as per internet suggestion. I made it worse, so I threw them away and bought quality binoculars. Never looked back. I never even knew what 3 axis collimation was. Suffice it to say I have been schooled. Nobody but the factory will touch my nice binos because I trust they have the equipment and knowledge to do it correctly.
 
I appreciate you Bill, keep telling it like it is. It's nice to have your wealth of knowledge available to us mere mortals. LOL.

I once took a $40 pair of Bushnell porros which were out of alignment and "adjusted" the screws as per internet suggestion. I made it worse, so I threw them away and bought quality binoculars. Never looked back. I never even knew what 3 axis collimation was. Suffice it to say I have been schooled. Nobody but the factory will touch my nice binos because I trust they have the equipment and knowledge to do it correctly.

Thank you; you’re kind.

I will do my best to keep telling it like it is. However, that does not come without sacrifice. The politically correct crowd frequently likes to hammer on me for not soaking my words in perfume and covering them in rose petals.

But I’m dealing with two debilitating diseases. I’m a Navy Chief who had his formative years in West Texas. See what I mean?

“If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.”— Winston Churchill

On repairing and collimating binos: Cory is closer and we were repairing, restoring and collimating binos when most of the big names were pooping green. And, he has TWO Mk 5 collimators.

Attached is one of my repair jobs. But Cory can do even more. While I’m reduced to working with this bloody big Mac, he has a lathe. :cat:

Bill
 

Attachments

  • 633kb copy.jpg
    633kb copy.jpg
    604.1 KB · Views: 64
  • Screen Shot 2019-10-22 at 10.08.09 AM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2019-10-22 at 10.08.09 AM.jpg
    275.2 KB · Views: 50
Hi Bill,

It is not about having anything to hide.

Most manufacturing companies around the world will not allow photography on their premises.

Most companies will not allow their information (i.e manuals etc.) to be shared with people outside the company.

The collimator I use for exhibitions I attend with Zeiss is on open display and has been photographed countless times.

As for the comment that people with knowledge are long gone..........perhaps this is just the opinion of the one person who replied to you on a local level.

I was taught "3 axis collimation" at Leica and carried it out every day, I carried it out every day at Zeiss and I still do.

At both companies there were plenty of people who were fully conversant with and skilled at collimation.

Gary.

garymh: Thank you for not only for setting the record straight, but also for your diplomacy, which the thinly-veiled insinuations in the post(s) you responded to certainly did not deserve.

I was almost tempted not to post this, given the epistle of indignant execresence that is bound to follow, but... what the hell. :cat:
 
garymh: Thank you for not only for setting the record straight, but also for your diplomacy, which the thinly-veiled insinuations in the post(s) you responded to certainly did not deserve.

I was almost tempted not to post this, given the epistle of indignant execresence that is bound to follow, but... what the hell. :cat:

191023

TXdefender: See, this is what I was talking about.

Patudo: I am going to air a few things of which, had you been aware, you might have withheld your “thinly disguised” barbs at me. Then, after everyone on BF has had a chance to see that fraction of my thinking I can share without fear of litigation, they may decide for themselves whether or not my response constitutes an epistle of indignant excrescence. I hope it is all right with you if they’re allowed to make up their own minds.

First off, although Gary and I have been friends—or at least acquaintances—quite a long time, and I respect him very much, he did not set the “record straight” as some coins have more than two sides. He spoke to what he knew. Now, I will speak to what I know. I know Gary is your countryman, but I didn’t just fall off the optical “turnip truck” last night ... I think it was actually last Tuesday.

The first bit from my letter to Lee:

“At the time I left Captain’s in 2008, all collimation jobs returning from the European giants were well within tolerance as checked by me either with the Mk 5 or the Fujinon U.B.M.M.”

Do you have a problem with that declaration?

Next from the letter:

The Asian binocular business has cut into profits for all the European firms and paying their engineers and technicians what they’re worth didn’t help. Also, about that time, the no-fault warranty scheme—wherein a $1,000 binocular could be replaced by a $200 binocular with the consumer happy as a clam because it was “new”—was starting to get popular. With this concept, companies could layoff their techs, sell off their equipment, and close most of their repair departments, and save bunches of money.

Not from Lee’s letter:

Some of those mid-priced binoculars are imported at a cost of about $5.00 a box — a CEO of a major optical importing business who must remain nameless. Oh, but you knew that, didn’t you?

From the letter:

I think it only logical, considering the financial environment, to believe these firms might be looking at other ways to cut corners and save money, especially given the consumer is already onboard with relying on their spatial accommodation in considering whether a binocular is 'collimated' or not."

You will note that I said “MIGHT.” And my, “... especially given the consumer is already onboard with relying on their spatial accommodation in considering whether a binocular is 'collimated' or not."


That comment was derived from the myriad comments about this or that independent repair company’s excellent binocular collimation job when I knew the techs didn’t know collimation from conditional alignment. I have stated, many times, that you can count the techs in the States who understand how to perform a 3-axis binocular collimation on one hand with fingers left. For that, I have been taken to task by folks like you for nothing more than stating the, what’s that word ... TRUTH and for standing up for the uninitiated.

Cory Suddarth and I used to have conversations with major player in the US binocular market who said he didn’t “need a collimator” because he could “eyeball collimation to 100 power.” Do you think this fellow knew anything about spatial accommodation? He did not! He went so far as producing TWO video tapes for sale stating that “conditional alignment” was a myth. Being the Jerk that you obviously think I am, that fellow should not have remained a respected friend—but he did. Now, after attending one of Cory’s “Collimation with a Navy Mk5 Collimator” classes, this fellow has a collimator, knows how to use it, and understands spatial accommodation. He is no more of a friend now than he was then, just more respected as a tech.

If I could be bought, I wouldn’t be living on social security in the outback of Idaho. But without your health, you HAVE NOTHING; without integrity you ARE NOTHING.

It has never been popular to say so many godlike repair techs don’t have the knowhow or gear to perform a real “collimation” job. But it’s the truth. Should I ignore that or camouflage it to be accepted? The price is too high for me.

Then we come to the FACT that I have now gotten responses from all of the Big Three, with each representative stating the answer I sought could not be found with any of their colleagues in the United States. And, of course, the Zeiss rep stated that anyone with the information I wanted was “probably long gone.” So, Patudo, what was I to do in my search for answers—for the birders, amateur astronomers, and hunters in the country—turn a blind eye or act like the comments I was hearing and the seeming secrecy of the current philosophies didn’t really matter?

And how many times did people look down their noses at me because I said there were no “consumer” binoculars “MADE” in the States, with so many pointing to Meopta in Florida?

From Lee’s interview:

Troubador: Are any Meopta Sports Optics products assembled in the USA?

Milos: Our USA operations moved to Florida recently but their activities there are mainly concerned with coatings. As far as our sports optics products are concerned, Meopta USA only distribute the products that we send from the Czech Republic.

Oh, my, you mean that old curmudgeon, Bill Cook, was right about that, too?

I will spare you the rest of the letter. The following is from the end:

I was not vilifying; I was just looking for answers. A reassuring reply from someone with the knowledge to give such a reply was all I ever wanted. My logic dictated that if companies had the wherewithal to perform adequate collimation and testing, they would be pleased to say so.

Finally, for most of my time in optics, 2 arcseconds was believed to be the best resolution the brain could discern. But recently, scientific tests with CRTs and cell phones have shown we can detect resolutions down to 1 arcsecond. A tiny amount, perhaps, but different by a factor of TWO! That is MORE than significant.

My thinking was that maybe some new SCIENTIFIC discovery had shown conditional alignment was all that was really needed for binocular manufacture and EVEN REPAIR. If that data was available, I just wanted to see it.

Like me or hate me, I think no rational person will find fault with my reasoning or motivations.

But, please, pick my “epistle of indignant excrescence” apart that the forum be edified and I forced to learn a lesson.

Cheers,

Bill

And Patudo, have a great day whether you need it or not.:cat::cat::cat:
 
Last edited:
In today's world it seems obvious you can not please everyone. I've read many posts by yourself in both BF and Cloudy Nights. I've drawn my own conclusion that Bill Cook has likely forgot more about optics than I'll ever know.

All I can give here is MY experiences from MY point of view. Do I think the big 3 can properly do a 3 axis collimation? I do. The reason I buy them is because I BELIEVE I can tell a difference. Interestingly enough the most used pair of binos I have is a cheap Vortex. I have 3 kids who all love to put hands on my things and the "no fault" warranty actually gives me comfort in leaving these out in the house. That said, when I look through them for more than a while I feel eyestrain and headache. Is it the collimation? Is it the glass quality? Is it simply in my head? I don't know. When using my Swaro and Leica I do not feel this. Again, what is it? I don't know. But I do FEEL they are likely spending more time and effort on alignment and quality control. If that's not the case I don't want to know because I've invested a lot of money (Really I do want to know but it sure would burst my bubble). LOL.
 
In today's world it seems obvious you can not please everyone. I've read many posts by yourself in both BF and Cloudy Nights. I've drawn my own conclusion that Bill Cook has likely forgot more about optics than I'll ever know.

All I can give here is MY experiences from MY point of view. Do I think the big 3 can properly do a 3 axis collimation? I do. The reason I buy them is because I BELIEVE I can tell a difference. Interestingly enough the most used pair of binos I have is a cheap Vortex. I have 3 kids who all love to put hands on my things and the "no fault" warranty actually gives me comfort in leaving these out in the house. That said, when I look through them for more than a while I feel eyestrain and headache. Is it the collimation? Is it the glass quality? Is it simply in my head? I don't know. When using my Swaro and Leica I do not feel this. Again, what is it? I don't know. But I do FEEL they are likely spending more time and effort on alignment and quality control. If that's not the case I don't want to know because I've invested a lot of money (Really I do want to know but it sure would burst my bubble). LOL.

191024

“ ... you cannot please everyone.” Rick Nelson, Garden Party, 1972

As with my first comment, I knew, as of September 2008, they did, too. However, knowing how fast repair departments are giving way to this No-Fault garbage, knowing that quality-oriented techs are dying off, and seeing comments like the one from the Zeiss representative just made me wonder. I was not on a witch hunt; I just wanted someone in the know to stop being so secretive and tell me-that’s all!

In one of the attached photos, we see a Japanese fellow using a Mk 5 type collimator. In the other, TWO Japanese fellows are using Fujinon U.B.M.M.s. There was no cloak and dagger concealment.

As stated, the information will not put a dime in my pocket; I just wanted the information for others. Most binocular repair takes a little mechanical aptitude and common sense. Restoration projects take considerably more experience and tools. 3-axis binocular collimation takes a bit more understanding. A lot? No! But more than some people, who know the consumer doesn’t seem to care, are willing to experience.

People talk endlessly about anomalies and aberrations that can only be dealt with by digging deeper into the pocket. With collimation—the only aspect THEY can control—it’s different. But first, we have to shake them loose from those idiotic “Quick and Easy” no-nothing/no-it-all Internet threads that often lead people to screw up their alignment more or even damage their bino.

I some cases, conditional alignment is all that is needed if all the IFs are in place. However, the willy-nilly screw tweaking bull needs to be met head-on with a dose of reality. I don’t care if the ultracrepidarians screw up their binos into oblivion. But, when I can, I just want to help the honest truth seeker. :cat:

Bill

Where in Texas do you live?
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2019-10-19 at 8.07.38 PM copy.jpg
    Screen Shot 2019-10-19 at 8.07.38 PM copy.jpg
    77.2 KB · Views: 52
  • Screen Shot 2019-10-19 at 8.11.27 PM copy.jpg
    Screen Shot 2019-10-19 at 8.11.27 PM copy.jpg
    87.2 KB · Views: 51
Last edited:
I'm near Houston, I was in law enforcement for 10yrs (hence the name) and used my binos on a daily basis, I've since quit doing that and am enjoying life even if the money isn't as good. I go to Lake Creek nature preserve and Spring Creek Greenway to do some nice observations but mostly I use my Binos in my neighborhood. We have wonderful species around here. Some favorites are the red shouldered hawk and we have a barred owls which are mostly heard but seldom seen. I love my Leica 7x42's and sometimes at night I can see the owls on overhead lines on my street. I use my Swaro spotting scope doing long range shooting and love it. I also participate in the sport which shall not be named on birdforum (sounds like shunting). I love and enjoy optics and it has always been a fascination of mine. I've enjoyed playing with my optics and always learning. I've gone from the complete novice to somewhat informed but would not consider myself near an expert like yourself. I've enjoyed reading your insights and expertise and hope to order your book as a Christmas present to myself. Keep up the good work Mr. Cook, I'm always willing to learn more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top