Binos with or without field flatteners (9 Viewers)

[Troubador]

There is a proclivity for observers to blame every anomaly they experience on the instrument and not on physics or their physiological inability to accommodate for those anomalies. This indicates they (at least the optically inexperienced) think their vision is flawless and any problem seen MUST relate to the performance of the binocular. The optical instrument gets consistently blamed for retinal scarring, macular pucker, cataracts, premature glaucoma, and about 20 more problems of the eye. It’s really sad that folks who spent SO MUCH of their time making mountains out of mole hills will spend SO LITTLE time studying the material required to understand those mole hills or that compensation for virtually every problem they bellyache about could be solved by reaching a little deeper into their pocket.

In addition, in the evening, the eye can operate with an f/ratio of about f/4. During the day, it can be stopped down to about f/11. Curious observers should ask a professional photographer, or serious amateur astronomer, which focal ratio provides the sharpest image.

I wouldn’t change anything, in that discussions approached from different angles, can be quite enlightening to the honest truth seeker. For me, it’s a two-edged sword. I would like to see the bar of understanding raised so that we could move forward a little quicker. However, by the nature of binocular forums—with old-timers leaving and newbies arriving—that process can’t happen until the public comes to grips with more optical realities. :cat:

Just a thought,

Bill

Nice one Bill

Lee

 

[Nixterdemus]

I yearned for bins w/FF thinking they would be the end-all of glass. Nevah could save enough moolah, but I kept buying bins. Finally, it dawned on me that what I liked was little PC. To the point of seeing artifacts of AMD w/o the full blown tilt-a-whirl show.

The rolling ball doesn't bother me though I prefer it right on the edge evah so slightly subdued. In fact I didn't care for the Zen Ray 7x36 because of the wide field combined w/healthy dose of PC. It showed what I referred to as the fountain effect.

Panning up a tree trunk the middle of the trunk "grew" and either side from center looked as water slowly breaking off a V-hull. The wide FOV gave me the illusion of the right side, still panning up the trunk, turning CW and left CCW. Whether trunk or foliage this upright vertical pan resembled a water fountain. Too confusing for me simple mind. Though I suspect distortion is the direct relation twixt FF & 400' FOV on an upscale 8X. I defer the final analogy to the experts.

I might not have explained correctly, but I know it when I see it. To date among modest bins the Kruger Caldera 8x42 provides me mild AMD w/just a touch of PC. Looking at the woods an upward vertical pan gives the illusion of the whole view tilting from top back towards me w/bottom pushed away. Coming down the bottom tilts towards me w/top pushed away.

It's one of the few 8X I own generally preferring higher magnification. Maybe a FF is somewhere in me future.

As always YMMV ...

ETA:

The 10x45 Opolyth Royal has more PC than the 10x40 Conquest. Vertical pan on an oak tree trunk, 4'-5' circumference at 15' nothing but trunk, the Conquest creates the illusion of a shallow depression. As if the lens pushed the trunk in a mite. I have to pan slow and concentrate coz at the same time I can lose sight of the indention & see the bark 'stretch'.

The Royal indention is a mite deeper and wider and I cannot duplicate the stretch at that short distance. At longer distance they both lose the indention and show a mild stretch. The PC is close to the same, yet different enough to notice.

 

[NDhunter]

Nixter:

What is PC and AMD, those are terms that are not familiar ?

Jerry

 

[Nixterdemus]

Pincushion & angular magnification distortion/globe effect/rolling ball. At least that's the way I understand what Henry explains on the first page.

I have an older 3.5-10x44 Swift 659 Premier, silver ring not red, that at least one on the internet described as looking through a funhouse mirror. I'd never seen the RB in a scope and it was quite the shock.

 

[BruceH]

IHA
.
.
.
I Hate Acronyms
.
.
.
Mainly acronyms not first defined in the text.