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.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ronh" data-source="post: 3574153" data-attributes="member: 55514">My way of dealing with differing opinions of binoculars among different people is to consider my own contradictions and flip-flops over the years.For example, I have a Fujinon FMTR-SX 8x30, and have commented here on its remarkable sharpness.  Not too long ago, Henry tested it and several other similar size binoculars, and found it to come up the clear winner in optical precision over the others including at least one of his 8x30 Habichts. Stopped down slightly to (what he thought typifying daytime eye pupil contraction) 28mm, he found it "probably better than 1/4 wave" and a "gem". Astronomical telescope territory!  Things were looking good for both my choice of 8x30 and my visual judgment.But, for another example, I also have a Leica Trinovid BN 12x50.  A few years back, soon after I got it, I said here that despite its many fine qualities, to my eye the image sharpness was not up to that of an 8x42 BA Trinovid I had owned, and which I had myself had tested to an impressive sub-3 arcsecond resolution.  I concluded that 12x was simply more magnification than Leica could make with sufficient accuracy even at their lofty price point.  But another 12x50 BN owner, RonE aka Surveyor of this forum and a guy most wise in such matters, disagreed, saying that he used his on a tripod for viewing distant eagles, and found the image most satisfactorily sharp.  There the matter rested.But lately, I have been using the superbrick 12x a lot, and what to my wondering eyes should appear but that if I merely spread the IPD about another mm or so from my usual setting, the view becomes wondrously sharp!  Whether vignetting from a tad too wide IPD, avoiding a bad spot in my eyes or in the binocular (which has been mentioned by Henry as a common aid to sharper perceived images), is happening, or whether I have merely at last wandered on an IPD that better matches my anatomy, I cannot tell. But man, have I reversed myself!  Now I'd agree heartily with RonE and declare it a razor sharp 12x sonofagun. Not to say this is what's going on among the politely contentious Habicht owners.  There must be many other things I'm not aware of that could be responsible for the differences.I see why Henry reports only objective measurements: they are the only defensible thing.  Making such measurements, however, is a pursuit in itself, and beyond the typical birder/sightseer.  Moreover, ignoring the human part of the equation leaves a lot of room for individual vision and technique differences which could lead to honest, truthful and practically unresolvable differences of opinion.  We might feel we're differing in opinion on "the instrument", while what is primarily different is really "we ourselves".Ron</blockquote>

Verification