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="Chosun Juan" data-source="post: 3296416" data-attributes="member: 92780">Yes Tobias, the wavy 'mustache' - type (invert, reverse, or not) distortion pattern was what I was referring to with my  "precise point curve details"  comment ...... Brock promptly effectively agreed with me in the next post (while at the same time making it look like he was arguing with me despite not knowing a cracker of what he was talking about!    3<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />   )   :-O  Not only is the absolute point (or degree) value of distortion important, but so is the rate of change (2nd derivative .... perhaps Brock can enrol in a high school calculus course??!   :h?:   :scribe:   ).  Such abrupt value changes may explain why more people are seeming to find the SF distortion disturbing and at the same time being ok with the SV's.   Holger's fantastic model by his own caveat uses an averaged value (and indeed little discussed on these pages anyway, correlates that to the eye's own distortion coefficient, which also appears to be an averaged value, and neglects what must be the myriad different distortional profiles among the entire viewing populace's own eyeballs ...... however, I fear we may have just lost everyone save for Ed, Henry link, Holger himself, and a few theoretical quantum physicists!  <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> )That said, Holger's model and eye tests portal is still a useful first step for anyone wondering how they will handle flat field machinations .... and it's useful to remember that less than 20% of the buying public will be affected ----- despite Brock's hysteria !!!  :storm:   *teacup smilie*   ......  teehee   <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />)Zeiss themselves (buried in the treasure trove of BF somewhere .... where is Pompadour when you need him?  <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> have virtually admitted (hinted) that the distortion profile may be subject to future adjustments and refinements ......FOLKS!  WELCOME TO THE ERA OF BEING A $3000 GUINEA PIG!!!   :eek!:And while they may only be binoculars ...... it's $3000 !!!  As well   :smoke:We seem to agree that the incremental improvements offered by HT glass would also be a worthwhile addition to help neutralize the colour rendition ..... for over 2&1/2 grand you would hope so!   and that it will be offered as a no cost upgrade   o<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />Btw, the objective / focusing setup is standard - just has different positive and negative elements than some other conventions and moves in a different direction? is all if my understanding of Henry's explanation is correct .... let's keep the overblown revelations firmly in the Zeiss Marketing Department ballpark please  <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />)Chosun  :gh:</blockquote>

Verification