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="elkcub" data-source="post: 1262875" data-attributes="member: 14473">EdZ,Many thanks for the extensive comments, which provide a good basis for me to put together an initial understanding of your position. Reviewing what Henry said several posts ago, and your response to my initial questions, I don't see all that much difference with regard to establishing the true resolution of a sample optic.  It is the best reading one can obtain by a process of increasing magnification.Cutting to the chase, where you may differ (Henry can speak for himself, of course) is that you overlay that process with a second one to evaluate quality.  Essentially, an optic that reaches its resolution limit at a lower magnification is in some sense better than one that reaches it later.  Ergo, the product of magnification and test resolution incorporates both variables into a composite score you call "apparent resolution."  The lower that score, the better the optic is, I'd presume.  Does that summarize it, or is there something essential I'm missing?Part of my problem getting to this point is the word "apparent," which is usually reserved for how things appear to the observer, e.g., the apparent FOV.Ed</blockquote>