What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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.
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Nikon
New Allbinos Review of Monarch HG 10x42
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chosun Juan" data-source="post: 3535210" data-attributes="member: 92780"><p>David, and herein lies the problem of an 'available ER' measurement.</p><p></p><p>I could see the full Fov well enough, but due to all of those variable factors we have mentioned, alignment seemed super critical. This wasn't due to the 'available ER' being chewed up by overly proud eye cup rims. This was probably due to the really big diameter flat oculars, and my more wrap around style glasses. Some really sophisticated 3D scanning and measurement of my glasses, noggin, and proposed bin could have shown that up (similar to a body scan for buying clothes), but a simple 'available ER' figure had no chance of predicting that .... :cat:</p><p></p><p>This is why I don't put much stock in this measure - there will still be several mm of discrepancy possible. (for reference I really should start taking photographs in plan view of my glasses abutting various bin's eye cups ..... <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> . I seem to recall Ed posting some neat little diagrams demonstrating something similar to this somewhere in the past ....</p><p></p><p>I would much prefer a tight +/-0.5mm ISO measurement of total ER.</p><p></p><p>As I said earlier, this is a very important metric that needs to be preserved.</p><p></p><p>I see no reason why the 'available ER' figure you desire could not be achieved in concert with that and something like a simple outline blueprint drawing of the eye cup with key dimensions included (rim standoff, rim diameter and profile, and eye cup extension travel) - surely in 2017 this is a very basic and easy thing to provide on a website? (maybe in place of yet another dead animal?! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> :eek!: :gn:</p><p></p><p>Things like alignment margins of error, sensitivity to CA, ease of view, and eyeroamaboutability for an individual and a particular bin are always going to be a bit of an esoteric art. An available ER figure just won't cut it. Until we can all 3D Print from our desktops, a home 3D scanner and measuring device, we are left with try it and see .... :t:</p><p></p><p></p><p>Chosun :gh:</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chosun Juan, post: 3535210, member: 92780"] David, and herein lies the problem of an 'available ER' measurement. I could see the full Fov well enough, but due to all of those variable factors we have mentioned, alignment seemed super critical. This wasn't due to the 'available ER' being chewed up by overly proud eye cup rims. This was probably due to the really big diameter flat oculars, and my more wrap around style glasses. Some really sophisticated 3D scanning and measurement of my glasses, noggin, and proposed bin could have shown that up (similar to a body scan for buying clothes), but a simple 'available ER' figure had no chance of predicting that .... :cat: This is why I don't put much stock in this measure - there will still be several mm of discrepancy possible. (for reference I really should start taking photographs in plan view of my glasses abutting various bin's eye cups ..... :) . I seem to recall Ed posting some neat little diagrams demonstrating something similar to this somewhere in the past .... I would much prefer a tight +/-0.5mm ISO measurement of total ER. As I said earlier, this is a very important metric that needs to be preserved. I see no reason why the 'available ER' figure you desire could not be achieved in concert with that and something like a simple outline blueprint drawing of the eye cup with key dimensions included (rim standoff, rim diameter and profile, and eye cup extension travel) - surely in 2017 this is a very basic and easy thing to provide on a website? (maybe in place of yet another dead animal?! :) :eek!: :gn: Things like alignment margins of error, sensitivity to CA, ease of view, and eyeroamaboutability for an individual and a particular bin are always going to be a bit of an esoteric art. An available ER figure just won't cut it. Until we can all 3D Print from our desktops, a home 3D scanner and measuring device, we are left with try it and see .... :t: Chosun :gh: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Nikon
New Allbinos Review of Monarch HG 10x42
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top