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="WJC" data-source="post: 3584546" data-attributes="member: 25191">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</blockquote>

Verification