Good to know that FOV is now non-essential data. 8-P
I just remembered that my first good bino was a Pentax 8x42 DCF WP with a FOV of 330'. The new 8x42 NL comes in at 477'. It doesn't take a nitnoid to care about THAT difference! Yikes!
There are folks on BF who have made a career in the field and have spent years watching people blow things out of proportion when they don’t even know what those proportions SHOULD be. That is how we learn. But some make a religion of worshipping the small stuff. You have been around long enough to know what I mean. Oh, how I was ripped apart when I first started telling people there was not an AMERICAN MADE line of consumers binoculars. Why? Because it didn’t match what they wanted to believe or what they were TOLD they should believe.
I stayed the course. Today, it’s popular to talk about Kamakura, Katsuma, Kenko, etc. The bar was raised.
Next, I took on the auto-focus scam. Captain’s in Seattle had a huge marine market. But I chose to ignore the easy dollar to teach my customers the realities of the issue. Initially, I was met with stiff opposition. But I killed that dragon locally and wouldn’t let Steiner in my shop for 15 years, and then only when Sven Harms of Pioneer Marketing (the importer back then) allowed me to sell them my way. Even then, my message was misconstrued. Recently on CN someone was saying I was praising Steiner. Well, not quite. I said Steiner Navigator II 7x50 was a great binocular. Shortly afterwards the Navigator II was made in the squatty Steiner format and all bets were off. I DID NOT praise that one.
The bar was raised, locally.
Then, I met the, “I’ve perfectly collimated my binocular,” crowd by pointing out that because of heat and humidity the words “perfectly” and “collimated” didn’t belong in the same sentence (I would chose “collimated for all PRACTICAL purposes) and that 100% of the many Internet “collimation tips” were wrong and only dealt with “conditional alignment,” a term I coined as a Navy Opticalman in 1976.
Today—after 44 years of fighting the battle, many others are backing me up and you can read about “conditional alignment,” “spatial accommodation,” and “rectus muscles” here, on Cloudy Nights, Optics Talk, and others. The bar was raised ... at least for some.
Then there was the issue of AR coatings having “A TINT,” which they don’t, or have everything leading to a crisper image being laid at the feet of those coatings, ignoring more than half a dozen other factors that needed to be added to that equation. But the average observer doesn’t think of that reality—and manufacturers beating the dead AR horse ... to death, the consumer is willing to be told what they SHOULD believe.
For those can read AND reason, the bar was raised.
Today, I am trying to get people to understand “dioptric accommodation” and the need to learn to STARE. Have you seen that very important concept in print before? No? Me neither. Most observers don’t understand it and the concept is gum on the shoes of the postdocs. See the first attachment.
I have been long abused for a very long time for standing up for reality. Now, as I open Collimation Plus, I should be sickly sweet to everyone in the world that I never offend anyone. I need the money. But the price is still too high. Without health you HAVE nothing; without integrity you ARE nothing.
PS Mark, please understand that what constitutes being a “nitnoid” is different for the average birder and a person who has been fighting the above—and more—for decades. In addition, I have it on good authority that the birds don’t care. There is one local magpie who’s all over it, but MOST don’t care. And so many things some observers claim to see can’t, in fact, be seen, like those who profess to see axially and marginally (with precision) in the same instant.
I guess as long as I am getting positive feedback from those I have been able to help, I will stay the course. My concern for my fellow birders has little to do with their concern for me.
Last edited by a moderator: