Hi Karen,
I've used an 8x32 LX L (refurb) for two years and find it to be absolutely exquisite. The "globe effect," which is the perception that the view is rolling over, has been shown to result from an insufficient amount of pincushion distortion. The LX L, however, has a sufficient amount, which can easily be seen by viewing a vertical object and moving it to the periphery, where it gently bends outward at the top and bottom. Your fortunate selection is being disparaged for no good reason along these lines.
I can't help but adding, for those who incessantly refer to "rolling ball" as a property of the binocular, that it is not. It is a unwelcome perception that some observers sometimes experience under some circumstances — namely visual panning. Unfortunately, the pejorative term "rolling ball" has been applied indiscriminately to any nausea inducing visual-motion scenario, of which there are many, and most of which have nothing to do with the globe effect.
Some folks also accuse the LX L of having excessive CA, which is a basic color aberration. Actually I seriously doubt that it does, unless we can believe that for some strange reason Nikon failed to minimize chromatic aberration in the basic design of its top optic (at the time). No, the fact that only a few people consistently report seeing serious color fringing, suggests that the fault probably lies with their atypical color perception or how it interacts with the coatings. Hopefully, like me, you are not one of them.
Anyway, in my opinion you made an excellent choice, and I hope that you enjoy the LX L as much as I do. Incidentally, optics that have been refurbished at the Nikon factory have the added advantage of being hand-tuned to perfection.
Happy birding,
Ed
PS. Just noticed ronh and Kevin's posts, which are right on! :t:
Ed,
A few corrections. First, the FULL SIZED LXL's
DO have "rolling ball" or as Holger refers to it, "the globe effect". (even experts don't always agree on terminology)
At this point, I can't believe you are even questioning this since it's been so widely reported. Before you quote Henry's adage, "repetition does not mean verification," it's not just a "few people" but many people who see "rolling ball" in the LX/LX L over the years, and this raises it well above the status of "rumor".
I had the 10x42 LXL and it displayed the same amount of "rolling ball" as the 10x42 LX. Nikon did not add pincushion to the full sized LXLs, I don't know where you got that idea, what they did do is change the glass from lead to lead free, change the bias of the coatings to make the image look brighter, and significantly reduce the weight (on the full sized models, only about an ounce difference in the LX/LXL midsized models). Other than a name change and perhaps an upgrade to the coatings, nothing appears to have changed on the LXL since it was introduced but its name (first Premier LXL an then just "Premier").
Henry once reported that the full sized LX/LXLs seemed to even have barrel distortion added, which would put it on the other end of the spectrum from bins such as the 8x30 EII and the Zen Ray 7x36 ED2, which have a lot of added pincushion.
The reason you and others don't see "rolling ball" in the 8x32 model is that Nikon
did add some pincushion to the midsized models, as I mentioned earlier. Compare them side to side as I have done on a telephone pole and a power line, and you should see the difference.
Why Nikon designed the midsized models differently is unknown, perhaps the wider FOV of the 8x32 and 10x32 models required it, but whatever the reason, the difference is visible to those who can see "rolling ball" in the full sized models.
The midsized LX/LXLs still have some "rolling ball," but not enough to bother me, however, one BF member reported that the 8x32 LX had too much 'rolling ball' for him, and he sold it because of that. So tolerance to "rolling ball" can vary considerably in those who see it.
Second, "rolling ball"
IS a
measurable property of some binoculars, and those of us who "incessantly refer to 'rolling ball' as a property of the binocular" are correct.
Holger Merlitz's report clearly shows this, and I'm sure you've read his report, so your statement puzzles me.
http://holgermerlitz.de/globe/distortion.html
Holger also showed whether not you can see "rolling ball" (aka "the globe effect") in binoculars with no or low pincushion depends on how much pincushion you have in your own eyes, as I also mentioned earlier.
Third, while admittedly the word "rolling ball" may have been "applied indiscriminately to any nausea inducing visual-motion scenario" by some people, for example, excessive pincushion also creates a scrolling effect while panning, which some people call "rolling ball," the term
is being properly applied in regard to the full sized LXLs.
Fourth, "Rolling ball" is a
real property of the lenses created by the lack of pincushion to correct the curved image of optical lenses. That's why optics designers add pincushion to the lenses of bins used for terrestrial observing. You know that, so again, your statement is puzzling.
The reason they didn't add pincushion in the full sized LX/L, as you explained, is to get the maximum edge sharpness. However, that wasn't really necessary as the more user friendly designed EDG proves.
With the EDG, panning is smooth with no "rolling ball," and yet the image is still sharp to about 85% toward the edge. The LXL is sharp to about 95%, BUT the EDG has a wider FOV, so proportionally, they have close to the same "sweet spot".
As far your statement: No, the fact that only a few people consistently report seeing serious color fringing, suggests that the fault probably lies with their atypical color perception or how it interacts with the coatings.
How can you be sure YOUR eyes aren't the atypical ones?
I've been reading about the LX/LXL for quite awhile now, over a decade in the case of the LX, and I can attest that there are more than just "a few people" who have reported being bothered by the amount of CA in the LX/LX Ls. I don't have time to dig out all those references, but for those who want to do the homework, it's there to be found. Not just users' comments but also reviewers'.
I'm not sure if the higher than average CA in the LX/LX L series has be shown objectively, but implying that it's due to "a few people's" "atypical" eyes is speculation on your part. Measuring CA is tricky, but according to Henry, it can be done, however, I'm not sure if he has ever measured the degree of CA in the LX/LX L series.
One possible explanation is that due to Nikon's red biased coatings, and the silver prism coatings on the LX/LXL, reds are not only more vivid in the LX/LX L image but also in the CA. IOW, it might not be a matter that "Nikon failed to minimize chromatic aberration in the basic design of its top optic" but rather in maximizing its top optic's color saturation, it inadvertently made the CA more apparent to those who are sensitive to it.
Looking at the color fringing in my Nikon binoculars, the red side of the fringe is always more obvious than the green side, because our eyes are more sensitive to red than green. In high contrast situations, I move my target a bit off axis so the more obvious red fringed side is minimized.
Purposely looking for CA in every bin you try can sensitize one's eyes to it, so as you recommended to Karen, just use your binoculars as you normally would and if CA shows up, well that just means that you are in the majority of people who see what is actually there. How we got by all these years without ED glass is a wonder.
I just wanted to correct those misstatements, not only because your comments sounded a bit too dismissive to those of us who are able to see "rolling ball" and CA in bins, and in particular, the LX/LX L series, but also to assure Karen that if she sees these things herself, she shouldn't feel as if she is seeing something "fanciful" but that "rolling ball" and CA are real traits that can be measured in binoculars.
Brock
