PYRTLE
Old Berkshire Boy
Most of us mere mortals here are birdwatchers, not scientists.
Quote from a simple Norfolk birder.
-
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.
When will the current alphas become 'obsolete' (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jremmons
- Start date
Most of us mere mortals here are birdwatchers, not scientists.
Quote from a simple Norfolk birder.
I'm not at all sure what inspired Peter to quote Lord Kelvin but try expressing a love for birds and nature in numbers. Try deriving an equation from the pleasure of hearing a distant cackle in the sky and then waiting for the expected Red-throated Divers to glide down to the sea.
One aspect of science is theories validated by experiments can be repeatedly validated by others performing the same experiments. Dragonflies of the genus Sympetrum (means 'stone-loving') return repeatedly to the same perch and this is often a pale coloured stone. I have repeatedly put my hand over such stones and have had the dragonfly land on it, allowing me to gently bring it closer for examination. Thi is is an experiment repeatable by others but can the pleasure derived from it be accurately expressed in numbers?
Thoughts from another mere mortal, this time a Yorkshire tyke.
Lee
One aspect of science is theories validated by experiments can be repeatedly validated by others performing the same experiments. Dragonflies of the genus Sympetrum (means 'stone-loving') return repeatedly to the same perch and this is often a pale coloured stone. I have repeatedly put my hand over such stones and have had the dragonfly land on it, allowing me to gently bring it closer for examination. Thi is is an experiment repeatable by others but can the pleasure derived from it be accurately expressed in numbers?
Thoughts from another mere mortal, this time a Yorkshire tyke.
Lee
Torview
Well-known member
I can`t see my two SV`s ever becoming obsolete, in fact I`v spent less time reading the pages on this forum or looking at optics since getting the pairing, I just enjoy them pretty much every day, I may add 7x42 at some stage, (really regret selling my UVHD+) but that will only happen if one chances in my direction.
Just noting that without numbers our impressions lack precision, though we are blessed with many people able to give comparisons of the many different models out there.
Science is a thin veneer, don’t need to scrape too deep to find stuff we just didn’t know before, someone found a new species locally Grzegorzekia bushyae.
Me, I’m just enjoying the view. So much to see and so little time to see it.
PEter
Science is a thin veneer, don’t need to scrape too deep to find stuff we just didn’t know before, someone found a new species locally Grzegorzekia bushyae.
Me, I’m just enjoying the view. So much to see and so little time to see it.
PEter
OK, this is true, but as hinted at not so subtley above, some aspects of nature observation are not amenable to numerical analysis or representation.
However in the spirit of your assertion I would like to suggest that instead of the linear representation of fields of view that manufacturers currently use (as in yards at 1,000 yards and metres at 1,000 metres) I would prefer they treated these linear measurements as the diameters of the circle of view and quote the areas of these circles in square yards or metres. Obviously the angles of view can convey something of this but personally I find area easier to visualise than the effects of a small fraction of a degree of angle of view and I think this might be more easily grasped by beginners too.
Meanwhile I am wondering if our alphas might become obsolete, not because of some amazing step forward in glass optics but by an amazing step forward in moulded plastic lens/prism optics bringing top quality optical performance along with dramatic weight reduction and price reduction........until the oil runs out that is!
Lee
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
No, would be too complicated and confusing in binoculars. I mean that the focus ratio changes from proportionally faster at the near limit to slower at the far limit. Doing so allows close focus to be rapid and far focus to be precise. Not doing so (as is the case for 99.999% of all binoculars ever made) requires a compromise between near limit speed and distance precision, or else sacrifices one for the other.
--AP
WJC
Well-known member
Being a major “college puke,” Peter needs my protection about as much a Godzilla needs protection from Bambi. But Pyrtle, even Lee, I think you guys may be over-reacting to his comment. I’m into birding for the beauty and serenity of the birds and the opportunities to stroll in nature. But, while all the numbers, metrics, and “tests” are really wasted on me, I think Peter was wise and justified in making his point—and choosing a pertinent quote.
Why? I thought you would never ask!
Every binocular site out there is filled with birders and nature lovers who INNOCENTLY or not step out of their optical comfort zones to talk of tests, improvements, aberrations, and comparisons wherein they fall short in understanding!
I am not saying that is a bad thing—not at all—unless it is spoken with such intensity as to project stolen authority, which can mislead their neighbor(s). Thus, if your countryman, Peter, spoke out of turn, his sin is only 1% of the problems facing these forums. If the “mortal” birder wishes to stick his head outside his comfort zone of knowledge and address topics he or she really doesn’t understand, are fellows like Peter out of line by merely stating the importance of providing the math or empirical knowledge to back their comments? I think not.
Finally, those of us who are in the hobby for the peace, beauty, and love of nature (devoid of tests, formulae, and comparison) should be thankful for guys like Peter. They are the ones who, for years, have been providing the improvements in optics that so many of us talk gallons about with only half-pints of understanding. :cat:
Just a thought.
Bill
I still kind of feel like some of these responses , though well thought out, are not addressing my question so I will simply reiterate: I am not talking improvement relative to true 'optical' stats, such as brightness or sharpness because, as I admitted I believe the current assortment of alpha and sub alphas are almost as good in these particular aspects as they could possibly get. I'm talking primarily innovative technological changes that would allow exceptionally wide fields of view, variable zoom, image stabilization (which could allow even more magnification), variable speed focuses, better control of glare and stray light. I guess things that would increase user friendliness and ease of view as opposed to true optical qualities. I again think my poorly worded title may have caused this issue.
henry link
Well-known member
Two items on the list (variable speed focusers or effective control of glare and stray light) don't need any innovative technology.
I've seen the patent drawings for the Kamakura variable speed focuser that was used in the Brunton Epochs (and also presumably in the Nikon Monarch Fieldscope, new Vortex Razor, Zeiss Gavia and other scopes). It could hardly be cheaper or lower tech: essentially a slot in a rotating collar is made curved rather than straight.
No innovative technology is needed to control glare either. It's just a matter of placing the right sized baffles in the right places, also cheap and low tech. Why it isn't always done properly is a mystery to me.
I've seen the patent drawings for the Kamakura variable speed focuser that was used in the Brunton Epochs (and also presumably in the Nikon Monarch Fieldscope, new Vortex Razor, Zeiss Gavia and other scopes). It could hardly be cheaper or lower tech: essentially a slot in a rotating collar is made curved rather than straight.
No innovative technology is needed to control glare either. It's just a matter of placing the right sized baffles in the right places, also cheap and low tech. Why it isn't always done properly is a mystery to me.
I thought my quote would bring Bill to the party ;-) Not sure how to take the Godzilla comment?!
Reminds me of a seeing gigapixel real-time system that you can then arbitrarily zoom in on, couple this to a suitable VR headset and you could have fun for a while! Given this story is a number of years old one can only wonder what the latest stuff can do. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...ce-drone-can-spot-a-terrorist-from-20000-feet
I am sure Graphene or metamaterials will play a part at some stage. I’d quite like to let Google’s machine learning teach loose on a copy of Zemax to see what novel optical designs it can come up with without any preconceived ideas.
Seasons greetings
Peter
Reminds me of a seeing gigapixel real-time system that you can then arbitrarily zoom in on, couple this to a suitable VR headset and you could have fun for a while! Given this story is a number of years old one can only wonder what the latest stuff can do. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...ce-drone-can-spot-a-terrorist-from-20000-feet
I am sure Graphene or metamaterials will play a part at some stage. I’d quite like to let Google’s machine learning teach loose on a copy of Zemax to see what novel optical designs it can come up with without any preconceived ideas.
Seasons greetings
Peter
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
The problem is the formulation of your question. Brightness and sharpness are psychological responses, not 'optical stats.' Field-of-View (FOV), variable magnification (i.e., zoom), and glare control are optical stats that are already well understood (as Henry mentioned). 'User-friendliness' and 'ease-of-view' are idiosyncratic and subject to wide variation in the user population, as well as being objectively unmeasurable (in the instrument).
Ed
Last edited:
WJC
Well-known member
Hi, Peter:
It was a Godzilla vs. Bambi comment. Take it well; it was meant to be taken that way. :cat:
Bill
WJC
Well-known member
That's onacounta you're kind and know how to take me. I'll get back to you on the other issue as soon as the dusty from Christmas settles.
Blessings to ya,
Bill
Ed: that is a fair point, I am having difficulty phrasing the question accurately. I guess I should have just asked when new technological innovations will come about and be implemented in the high end models. The majority of respondents that did address this question were "not soon" which answers my query (and is much what I assumed).
Justin
John A Roberts
Well-known member
Variable Focus/ Quick Focus
Just to pick up on a point that's been raised a couple of time in this thread . . .
In the Minox realisation of the 'Quick Close Focus' system:
- focus from minimum to maximum distance is within one rotation of the focuser, and
- the usual increasing physical rotation needed as distance decreases is significantly reduced
The rotation span seems to be less than a full rotation, presumedly to accommodate diopter adjustment
And as can be seen from the marking on a unit advertised on the 'net, Minox uses a Kamakura patent ( . . . so who could the manufacturer possibly be?)
John
p.s. as Henry indicated in post #71 the essence of the mechanism is simple, the focus wheel acts via a variably curved slot to move the focusing lens
Just to pick up on a point that's been raised a couple of time in this thread . . .
In the Minox realisation of the 'Quick Close Focus' system:
- focus from minimum to maximum distance is within one rotation of the focuser, and
- the usual increasing physical rotation needed as distance decreases is significantly reduced
The rotation span seems to be less than a full rotation, presumedly to accommodate diopter adjustment
And as can be seen from the marking on a unit advertised on the 'net, Minox uses a Kamakura patent ( . . . so who could the manufacturer possibly be?)
John
p.s. as Henry indicated in post #71 the essence of the mechanism is simple, the focus wheel acts via a variably curved slot to move the focusing lens
Attachments
Last edited:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Just stick to the linear measurement! (there's enough confusion between yards and metres measurements and wrong part conversions anyway
It's a lot easier to just punch (pi*d^2)/4 on a calculator than it is to get your measuring tape to stand 100m, or even 10m straight up in the air ! :-O :cat:
Chosun :gh:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
I think you've well and truly got all your answers by now, and anything further will just end up in 'paralysis'
As has been said, any changes are likely to be incremental, and within your Mark 1 eyeball's margin of error (or deterioration anyway
:cat:Look at your initial questions from a manufacturer business point of view over the next decade ....
* Exceptionally wide fields of view = not happening (way expensive and heavy)
If we get improvements over the Zeiss SF - ie. ~ 70° AFov's that are well controlled and corrected, we will be lucky ....
* CA improvements = incrementally possible (at an expense)
Already the market leaders are pretty well controlled on axis. In the whole optical train design minor improvements may be possible with including such things as appropriately finished aspherical elements and premium materials - but will you actually notice any practical difference except on your wallet ?! :cat:
* Variable Speed Focusers = doable.
Swarovski's SV, and Zeiss's SF would be prime candidates
* Better control of glare and stray light = doable.
Manufacturer's are constantly updating coatings etc to make tiny incremental improvements anyway .....
* Advanced materials = maybe ....?
It's not a big step to turn GRP (glass reinforced plastic) into CFRP (carbon fibre reinforced plastic). The biggest hurdles would seem to be around all the HunTers marketing dross of Magnesium and 'toughness' ..... and the investments in supply chain and technology. More a matter of vision and will than anything else, and could be used to offset the weight of wider field optics. Carbon 'Diets' would be useful for the Leica NV, Swarovski SLC, and any Zeiss HT successor .....
* Ergonomically friendly Image Stabilization = not happening anytime soon (complete integral redesigns needed and that won't be cheap!
* Actually usable Zoom = not happening anytime soon (technical complexity again equals expense. 'DuoVids' are feasible and it would be interesting to see an updated extra wide field, lightweight design - perhaps even with IS, but it would be a brave manufacturer investing so much for such a limited market. It will be cheaper and more feasible to implement the digital solution ..... eventually
.Don't worry - Be Happy !
Any preferences you have for a current (or near superceded) format, view, handling, fit to yer noggin, and ease of view, likely outweigh any minor incremental improvements on the near-mid term horizon, especially as this industry moves rather s-l-o-w-l-y .....
The only thing guaranteed to be "obsolete" is ........... Time :eek!:
Chosun :gh: