What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is
absolutely FREE
!
Register for an account
to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Swarovski
Big fan of Porro prism .
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rathaus" data-source="post: 3573866" data-attributes="member: 132018"><p>Yes, this is entirely possible, and from my personal testing, most likely. The standard resolution test procedure is just one of countless possible tests....hence the amount of time I have spent devising other tests for the Habicht.</p><p></p><p>If Henry and others question the Habicht due to its results in a simple two dimensional black and white bubble jet printed resolution chart, then I must likewise question the performance of otherwise excellent alpha binoculars when they simply cannot resolve a single length of shaded translucent spider or worm thread, when the Habicht can. Can we devise a simple and repeatable version of this test in which others can likewise rank and file binocular performance?</p><p></p><p>Also, I must wonder if certain folk can be less compatible with a certain instrument. A highly complex interaction is taking place between human, binocular and target. If we want to become excessively analytical and reductionist, which is what happens sometimes with myself and others, then should we also be asking what biological profile the viewer has, including full eye function and all possible (and often unexpected) medications which can impact the viewing and brain/eye function (which can cycle in a 24hr basis)? I know about this first hand, from using myself as a guinea pig.</p><p></p><p>Perhaps we should also be asking if a two dimensional resolution chart is an appropriately challenging test? Is it just too overly simplistic compared to the inherent complexity of viewing in nature?</p><p></p><p>I still think Henry got a lemon <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>Cheers,</p><p>Rathaus</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rathaus, post: 3573866, member: 132018"] Yes, this is entirely possible, and from my personal testing, most likely. The standard resolution test procedure is just one of countless possible tests....hence the amount of time I have spent devising other tests for the Habicht. If Henry and others question the Habicht due to its results in a simple two dimensional black and white bubble jet printed resolution chart, then I must likewise question the performance of otherwise excellent alpha binoculars when they simply cannot resolve a single length of shaded translucent spider or worm thread, when the Habicht can. Can we devise a simple and repeatable version of this test in which others can likewise rank and file binocular performance? Also, I must wonder if certain folk can be less compatible with a certain instrument. A highly complex interaction is taking place between human, binocular and target. If we want to become excessively analytical and reductionist, which is what happens sometimes with myself and others, then should we also be asking what biological profile the viewer has, including full eye function and all possible (and often unexpected) medications which can impact the viewing and brain/eye function (which can cycle in a 24hr basis)? I know about this first hand, from using myself as a guinea pig. Perhaps we should also be asking if a two dimensional resolution chart is an appropriately challenging test? Is it just too overly simplistic compared to the inherent complexity of viewing in nature? I still think Henry got a lemon ;) Cheers, Rathaus [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Swarovski
Big fan of Porro prism .
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top