* Personal needs and choices will be fundamental in any choice.
Maybe it's better translated like this?
- Personal needs and personal choices, will be fundamental in any decision of binocular.
-
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.
Chromatic aberration (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jay_Feather
- Start date
Maybe it's better translated like this?
- Personal needs and personal choices, will be fundamental in any decision of binocular.
Steve C
Well-known member
That is not the contradiction. You opened the post saying basically personal choice/opinions are irrelevant. You close by saying they are fundamental.
Steve C
Well-known member
Lee, tenex,
There is s definite contradiction in the two parts of Rico's post I highlighted. Personally I think if one says a personal choice should never be discussed, it is picking nits if you wish to use a different adjective other than irrelevant to describe it. Which is fine with me. That is one reason I have referred to possible translation errors. You may well be right about your interpretation, but until the translation thing can be resolved, who knows? What he meant and what we think he meant can differ fundamentally.
Rico's problem that he experiences here is because of these contradictions. Something cannot be dismissed as it should never be discussed, at the beginning of the post, to closing the post with its being fundamental. Optics choices are strictly personal choices. The selection can be narrowed considerably with objective technical details, but what one particular user prefers is ultimately a personal choice between finalists. Hence choice/personal opinion can never be dismissed.
There is s definite contradiction in the two parts of Rico's post I highlighted. Personally I think if one says a personal choice should never be discussed, it is picking nits if you wish to use a different adjective other than irrelevant to describe it. Which is fine with me. That is one reason I have referred to possible translation errors. You may well be right about your interpretation, but until the translation thing can be resolved, who knows? What he meant and what we think he meant can differ fundamentally.
Rico's problem that he experiences here is because of these contradictions. Something cannot be dismissed as it should never be discussed, at the beginning of the post, to closing the post with its being fundamental. Optics choices are strictly personal choices. The selection can be narrowed considerably with objective technical details, but what one particular user prefers is ultimately a personal choice between finalists. Hence choice/personal opinion can never be dismissed.
Last edited:
In the post #78 I pointed out to Trubador that his decision to choose 8x instead of 10x when it's windy was a choice. And that there is little or nothing to discuss about any personal choice, since everyone knows what they want or how Trubador feels with 8x in the wind. That is, I can never say that he has to prefer 10x, if he prefers 8x.
"This is a choice! And personal choices should never be discussed (they are like opinions)."
... and finally I closed by emphasizing in practice the same concept, but transported to the choice of binoculars, for example for both a novice and an expert.
"Personal needs and choices will be fundamental in any choice."
I don't know, but I don't see a contradiction in these two sentences.
I have not used the term "irrelevant".
While surely the way I express myself in my native language, it could distort the translation and it may well arise a contradiction.
In general, I reread the translation, because sometimes it alters the terms as Google wants or it happens that it makes a positive sentence negative (or vice versa).
SteveC and Rico
My preference for 8x binoculars instead of 10x binoculars in windy conditions on the Scottish Western Isles is indeed a personal choice and it would be wrong, for example, for me to insist that other observers do the same.
However this personal choice is driven by an indisputable fact and that is that the impact of bino shake on the image is greater with 10x binos than 8x. This fact is therefore available and amenable to discussion.
In addition, when a large proportion of a segment of the population make the same choice in the same circumstances (for example to look in both directions to check for on-coming vehicles before crossing the road) then this ' frequently-occurring choice' is worthy of being treated as an 'empirical fact', and a person from this population who does not make this same choice can be regarded as an exception to the empirical fact and worthy of investigation to discover why this person makes a decision that is different from the choice made by the majority. This personal choice therefore qualifies as a topic for discussion because it is an exception to the most frequently-occurring choice.
I would say that from my experience of visiting Birdforum for several years now that it is an empirical fact that the number of members who are comfortable hand-holding binoculars without additional means of support decreases rapidly as the magnification of the binoculars being discussed increases beyond 10-12x.
What do other members think?
Lee
My preference for 8x binoculars instead of 10x binoculars in windy conditions on the Scottish Western Isles is indeed a personal choice and it would be wrong, for example, for me to insist that other observers do the same.
However this personal choice is driven by an indisputable fact and that is that the impact of bino shake on the image is greater with 10x binos than 8x. This fact is therefore available and amenable to discussion.
In addition, when a large proportion of a segment of the population make the same choice in the same circumstances (for example to look in both directions to check for on-coming vehicles before crossing the road) then this ' frequently-occurring choice' is worthy of being treated as an 'empirical fact', and a person from this population who does not make this same choice can be regarded as an exception to the empirical fact and worthy of investigation to discover why this person makes a decision that is different from the choice made by the majority. This personal choice therefore qualifies as a topic for discussion because it is an exception to the most frequently-occurring choice.
I would say that from my experience of visiting Birdforum for several years now that it is an empirical fact that the number of members who are comfortable hand-holding binoculars without additional means of support decreases rapidly as the magnification of the binoculars being discussed increases beyond 10-12x.
What do other members think?
Lee
Last edited:
PYRTLE
Old Berkshire Boy
One has only to look at the Binocular size ( specification ) poll to see the percentages of the most popular choices in use. Despite this being primarily a birdwatcher's site, one individual persists in ignoring this fact and trying to argue unsuccessfully that a x 25 or above binocular is what we need to see detail...... Wrong!
We use a telescope mounted on a tripod (for prolonged steadiness and comfort ) if we seek a higher magnification for detail. It's that straightforward.
Anyway, this thread is titled " Nikon, Chromatic aberration" and is now way off topic, as has already been pointed out.
Morning all, P
:t::t:
MandoBear
Well-known member
We all know handshake increases with magnification and that increasing handshake eventually renders an image virtually useless to a birder. One can test this with a spotting scope, though I readily admit one can "grab" a quick ID at long distance with 20-30X handheld BUT the image is rarely enjoyable or long lasting.
Facts related to optics are only a component of the visual equation. Individuals are primarily interested in their perceptions, not the numerical values assigned to eye relief, chromatic aberration, magnification, acuity or anything else.
Facts related to optics are only a component of the visual equation. Individuals are primarily interested in their perceptions, not the numerical values assigned to eye relief, chromatic aberration, magnification, acuity or anything else.
Steve C
Well-known member
This whole thing has gotten way out of hand and off track. You don't know if you are in this chromatic aberration thread, or whether we are in the magnification and move vision thread.
The main focus of "discussion" centers on the idea Rico can view nature for many dozens of minutes hand held when using magnification so high that it beggars the imagination. Each human is unique, and if Rico can do what he claims, more power to him. I personally reject the whole hand held high magnification premise. Use of a tripod is different
I think magnification is strictly a matter of personal preference. Yes certain aspects of magnification can be quantified, but those objective factors have to be used in a personal holistic presentation or impression we get from a binocular. I agree magnification does not create the blur, but magnification magnifies everything, including movement, and to keep on topic a bit, yes it can affect CA.
Personally I am an 8x user, but have all magnification in handheld use from 6x to 10x. Which I use depends on usage needs at the moment. I have 20x for use primarily with tripod. I will review and recommend based on personal experience, but as the ever lasting debate of is 10x better than 8x shows, both work. The choice is personal and individual, often driven by perceptions.
The main focus of "discussion" centers on the idea Rico can view nature for many dozens of minutes hand held when using magnification so high that it beggars the imagination. Each human is unique, and if Rico can do what he claims, more power to him. I personally reject the whole hand held high magnification premise. Use of a tripod is different
I think magnification is strictly a matter of personal preference. Yes certain aspects of magnification can be quantified, but those objective factors have to be used in a personal holistic presentation or impression we get from a binocular. I agree magnification does not create the blur, but magnification magnifies everything, including movement, and to keep on topic a bit, yes it can affect CA.
Personally I am an 8x user, but have all magnification in handheld use from 6x to 10x. Which I use depends on usage needs at the moment. I have 20x for use primarily with tripod. I will review and recommend based on personal experience, but as the ever lasting debate of is 10x better than 8x shows, both work. The choice is personal and individual, often driven by perceptions.
I hope what I'm about to say will be useful.
The CA of binoculars is not caused by magnification, but rather by a possible low focal ratio of the objective.
Thus, it will also be possible to obtain higher CA at 8x than 20x (or vice versa).
That depends on how the binoculars are designed.
Technical information should serve everyone, to better understand how things are and in the correct way. And above all they should not harm anyone (that is, they are harmless).
Steve C
Well-known member
Rico,
The English language can be strange even for native speakers. In the portion of my post you quoted, I used the word effect, which means to cause change. That is my mistake, I should have used affect, or even influence. Spell checkers only catch misspelled words, not out of contest things, and I don't know how translation may have made that look. I missed it in my pre post proof reading. So it may have appeared I said that magnification can cause CA. I know full well that is not the case.
EDIT!!!!!
There are days I should have stayed in bed. I can even mix up effect and affect even when I am consciously trying to keep them straight. I sure did switch them here.
The English language can be strange even for native speakers. In the portion of my post you quoted, I used the word effect, which means to cause change. That is my mistake, I should have used affect, or even influence. Spell checkers only catch misspelled words, not out of contest things, and I don't know how translation may have made that look. I missed it in my pre post proof reading. So it may have appeared I said that magnification can cause CA. I know full well that is not the case.
EDIT!!!!!
There are days I should have stayed in bed. I can even mix up effect and affect even when I am consciously trying to keep them straight. I sure did switch them here.
Last edited:
WJC
Well-known member
Steve,
While magnification does not cause Chromatic Aberration, it certainly can increase or decrease its degree. Some people think the objective is the culprit in creating CA. However, while it is the prime suspect, it can be increased or diminished by any element—or combination—along the light path. :cat:
Bill
MandoBear
Well-known member
Or even out of context things... :-O:-O
Steve C
Well-known member
What can I say. :eek!: It has been a bad couple of days here.
