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="paddy7" data-source="post: 3598200" data-attributes="member: 88594">I think we have to be careful to not compare carrots to cauliflowers here. David's methods of testing resolution have been witnessed by me 'live' and as far as i'm concerned, he's bang-on with it. We were using different sized shingle on a Suffolk beach to compare an FL 8x32 and the Kite Bonelli, with the latter victorious - to my surprise!However, that does not - in my opinion - make the Bonelli a better 'birding bin', as all the other factors mentioned by Jerry come into play. I would still go out with the FL for too many reasons to mention. Resolution is just one factor, in a balance of ingredients determined by the manufacturer's priorities and of course, the price. A $25 high-resolving bin may be saddled with other problems that would stop you buying it.I think David made a valid point in the original post, and this was regarding resolving power, particularly at the centre of view. You don't need to own them for a month to see that. However, in 'normal use' this may be of little consequence in the field.Personally, i see plenty of CA in most Leica bins, and could make the point that - at that price point - i would find that disappointing. That doesn't discredit Leica, or make the combination of benefits they offer less than completely suitable for someone else, who may not see it like i do, or find it off-putting.Another thing about resolution though, is that it is a physical property, and thus is comparable and testable (particularly if using the same set of eyes); with the use of a test chart (USAF or similar) anyone can do it. The units of difference we are talking about however are unlikely to affect anyone's enjoyment of the bins in the field, if everything else works for them.</blockquote>

Verification