Then why did you compare a EDX which is not part of the post? Pretty useless when the post is about the APO vs HG.
As you're not the original poster that's not for you to decide. The OP can determine if the contributions people have taken the time to make are helpful or not (in the absence of any APO buyer documenting their experience, let alone comparing it with another binocular). That they don't help you is irrelevant. If he wants, he can tell the posters their advice is useless - doing so though will probably result in no further additions to this thread.
But if you believe someone has appointed you judge over the other posters, you should consider that your own five comments have added nothing to the discussion of the comparison between a Hawke APO and a Nikon MHG.
Not sure why this stuff has to be spelt out explicitly but thanks for your contribution...
The MHG hardly has field flattening...though it itself states it so boldly.
I'm not sure if I agree with that, although once again we end up in the murky definition of the term "flat field" which is not used consistently.
Many people think of "flat field" as the straight lines + rolling ball distortion profile of the Swaro SV. The MHG 8x42 that I have has only a small amount of pincushion which straightens out / reverses towards the edge, with AMD/compression towards the edges. So there is for sure aggressive correction of rectilinear distortion.
That said, the *technical* meaning of "flat field" is more about field curvature, but once again the MHG from what I can tell has pretty minimal curvature. It's sharp across most of the field (maybe the last ~20% gets blurry?) and only requires a slight adjustment to bring the edges into focus.
So it's not Swaro SV edge-to-edge sharpness (with aggressive correction of both curvature and pincushion) but it's probably ~80% of the way there. It's certainly way "flatter" than the typical birding binocular.
Did you get them?Hi folks: Expecting my Hawke Frontier 10x42 APO's to arrive Monday from B&H. These were ordered in June. Very interesting that even now there are no reviews or first-impression reports. I can leave some comments here if anyone is interested, though I'm no expert (this is my first post here).
I've read about that effect with flat field bins too. Comparing my Opticron Traveller 8x32 (not a flat field) to a cheap Olympus 8x40 (which has a similar FOV) though, it seemed to me that the DOF of the Olympus was much deeper. I have to give it another try tomorrow. It might be that in the Olympus, the lower overall optical correction create a more gradual transition between the focal plane and the fore- and background, giving the illusion of greater DOF.Re 10) It has been mathematically proven that all binoculars of the same brightness (and thus the same diameter of the human eye pupils) with the same magnification must have the same depth of field. A few observers, however, have reported a "poster effect" of now modern flat field binoculars.
Classic porros have a nice 3D effect up to about 100 m because of the wider stereo base. Will probably be difficult to differentiate - at least up to this distance. ;-)Depth of sharp field of view (DoV)
The depth of field of binoculars depends mainly on the magnification of the binoculars. Small pupil diameters of the eye due to brighter light increase the depth of field of the eye analogous to photo cameras with small apertures - but only slightly in relation to virtual images of very similar binoculars. The eye pupil adapts to more light due to larger transmission and larger angles of view of the binoculars by contracting (reduction of the diameter), the depth of field of the entire binocular-eye system is slightly increased at least when comparing similar binoculars. An evaluative comparison of binoculars 10x42 and 8x42 is, from an optical-physical point of view, nonsensical. Nevertheless, I was curious: A comparison of both binoculars with a view of my large, deeply structured garden shows me significantly more sharply focused plants as well as a subjectively more beautiful overall image in the Nikon MHG 8x42 versus the "poster image" of the Hawke APO 10x42. The significantly greater depth of field is also important when looking for observation targets within the depth of field, binoculars used for military purposes currently have the format 7x40. As already written, mainly different magnifications cause different depths of field when observing with binoculars, quality differences of the binoculars hardly ever. However, I admire photographers for their emphasis on individual motifs by using blurred surroundings (Bokeh). Of course, there is no evaluation regarding the depth of field of binoculars with different magnifications, the comparison with regard to my garden was pure curiosity.
Not all manufacturers are so strict with the "APO" term. You can expect a traditional optics company like Zeiss to use it only when it technically applies, but it's not so sure with others.Apochromatic lenses are designed to bring three colors into focus in the same plane – typically red (~0.620 µm), green (~0.530 µm), and blue (~0.465 µm). The residual color error (secondary spectrum) can be up to an order of magnitude less than for an achromatic lens of equivalent aperture and focal length. Apochromats are also corrected for spherical aberration at two wavelengths, rather than one as in an achromat.