Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
*vomit*
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Rolling Ball: what do I do?! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter emmalibertine
- Start date
*vomit*
I have to say that I think that the RB thing is probably blown out of proportion. As noted earlier, all bins have some sort of distortion and the viewer just has to decide what is and what is not acceptable to their eyes. It's all a compromise.
At the same time, I have never seen as much sweet-spot distortion as I do with the SVs when panning. Objects will widen and narrow as well as grow slightly taller and shorter as I pan. From what I can gather, Swarovski seems to have designed a bin that tried to address several buyer requirements (like a flat field of view/sharpness to the edge) and the result for some is the introduction of heretofor undetectable distortion that may be unacceptable to the viewer.
I know that not all agree and that's fine. As a matter of fact, I envy those viewers that don't see the distortion as the SV is so outstanding otherwise.
Just a passing thought, but I wonder if Swarovski would trade a bit (say 10%) of edge softness for a reduction in other distortion (like RB). This forum seems to be full of people that would have purchased SVs if they could have adjusted to the view. It certainly wouldn't happen now due to financial considerations, but it does make me wonder.
The best we can do is choose what works best for each of us as individuals and enjoy the view.
Steffan
At the same time, I have never seen as much sweet-spot distortion as I do with the SVs when panning. Objects will widen and narrow as well as grow slightly taller and shorter as I pan. From what I can gather, Swarovski seems to have designed a bin that tried to address several buyer requirements (like a flat field of view/sharpness to the edge) and the result for some is the introduction of heretofor undetectable distortion that may be unacceptable to the viewer.
I know that not all agree and that's fine. As a matter of fact, I envy those viewers that don't see the distortion as the SV is so outstanding otherwise.
Just a passing thought, but I wonder if Swarovski would trade a bit (say 10%) of edge softness for a reduction in other distortion (like RB). This forum seems to be full of people that would have purchased SVs if they could have adjusted to the view. It certainly wouldn't happen now due to financial considerations, but it does make me wonder.
The best we can do is choose what works best for each of us as individuals and enjoy the view.
Steffan
Last edited:
Ludwig,
the distorsion pattern has nothing to do with edge sharpness. If you like binoculars with pincushion distorsion like the Swaro SLC or Zeiss HT but with edge sharpness very close to the edge at the same time, I suggest to try Canon IS binoculars and Steiner Discovery or Nighthunter roofs, too. The Steiners are available as 8x44. They have a wide FOV and low CA similar to Swarovisions.
Steve
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Steffan,
Your description is one of the more succint, useful, and informative that I have read here in amongst all the r-e-a-m-s that get written.
Those image gymnastics that your eyes detect, is probably made worse for you by the juxtaposition of images growing, then shrinking.
It's early days yet, and one of the things our brains like to do is notice changes. As you said, just enjoy, don't overly obsess on our account - you'll soon know whether you want to proceed. However, sounding like you might be physically susceptible to the effect, it's probably best to limit yourself to panning with the SV exclusively for a period (with concentration solely on the subject) - well, as much as you can in a high-stakes-alpha-top-dog-shootout ! |
|Glad to hear that the focusers are up to scratch at least - good for you.
Don't worry - you won't be tarred and feathered - for picking the bin you like best - especially as you'll actually go to the trouble to look through them yourself ! :t:
Chosun :gh:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Steffan,
Well, there's no perfect bin. Every bin I own has taken some degree of adjustment, whether it's paying attention to eye alignment in the SEs, or adding Bushwackers to lengthen the body of the 8x30 EII for better ergonomics, or learning how to slide the bridge of my nose in between the short eye relief Celestron Nova's oversized occulars, or adding weight to my 10x42 SE to dampen the bad vibrations.
But having to adjust to a perceptual distortion for a week or two does take the melding of the human-bin interface to a whole other level. When you have a "just for grins" credit line like yours, there's really no need to deal with it. :king
If you can tolerate the pincushion in the HT, you should find the SLC-HD comfortable to use. Here's what Henry said about the the SLC-HDs:
"I think it’s clear that the SLC-HD and the Zeiss use similar amounts of straightforward pincushion to tame the “rolling globe” effect".
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=175077
He posted the photos to prove it, although he was talking about the FL, but from looking at Tim's photos, the HT's distortion level doesn't appear to be lower than the full sized FLs. So if that aspect of the viewing experience is acceptable to you, you should be happy with the SLC-HD's optics, provided it doesn't have "focuser issues," and it will come down to other factors such as ergonomics.
I look forward to your 3-way "shootout".
Brock
In the field, where sales count, Swarovski wins the day. In fact, there are so many Swarovisions popping up it's getting hard to find an old-fashioned EL.
Oh, and Swarovski does have an SV alternative...the superb SLC HD. Tried side-by-side, Swarovski knows you'll walk away with one or the other.
Go RB!
It is the same in the UK.
brocknroller
porromaniac
From the way you and others have described the distortion including the "Absam Ring," the SV EL's compound distortion might have created more problems than it tried to solve.
For me, what has been "overblown" is RB being marginalized as a "non-issue". For you it's an issue, for me it's an issue, for others who posted to this thread it's an issue. While some people might be content to simply send back the SV EL (or other low distortion bin) and just move on to another bin w/out trying to understand what's going on with RB or the adaptive process, I find the perceptual aspect of AMD very interesting, in particular how quickly some adapt to it, how others adapt more slowly, how some only partially adapt, and how still others never adapt.
It's also interesting because by and large, binoculars used for terrestrial pursuits - birding, hunting, sporting events, train spotting
-- have had pincushion for decades. The recent proliferation of bins with low distortion and field flatterers represents a whole new chapter in sports optics, and it has not been w/out its growing pains. This thread has also brought more rolling ballers out of the closet than any other and this suggests to me that RB susceptibility is more common and more varied than first thought. Indeed, it may well be the realization of this that caused Swarovski to allegedly change the level of distortion in the latest production SV ELs, as Holger reports, which just as you suggest, gives up some edge performance for smoother panning.
Of course, they already had that in the SLC-HD, but some people prefer the EL's ergonomics and also prefer midsized bins.
"May you live in interesting times." In terms of optics, we certainly do, and like that Chinese proverb, it has been both a blessing and a curse. A blessing in terms of the plethora of good quality roofs offered today with "bells and whistles" that have trickled down to the mid-tier and even some entry level priced roofs, and a curse in terms of the disappearing porro (still available, but most are "cheap" quality) and also in the sky high cost of owning an alpha.
<B>
Last edited:
Heck, we got SV rolling ballers on this forum who've never seen an SV. Allegedly never seen, of course.From the way you and others have described the distortion including the "Absam Ring," the SV EL's compound distortion might have created more problems than it tried to solve.
For me, what has been "overblown" is RB being marginalized as a "non-issue". For you it's an issue, for me it's an issue, for others who posted to this thread it's an issue. While some people might be content to simply send back the SV EL (or other low distortion bin) and just move on to another bin w/out trying to understand what's going on with RB or the adaptive process, I find the perceptual aspect of AMD very interesting, in particular how quickly some adapt to it, how others adapt more slowly, how some only partially adapt, and how still others never adapt.
It's also interesting because by and large, binoculars used for terrestrial pursuits - birding, hunting, sporting events, train spotting
This thread has also brought more rolling ballers out of the closet than any other and this suggests to me that RB susceptibility is more common and more varied than first thought. Indeed, it may well be the realization of this that caused Swarovski to allegedly change the level of distortion in the latest production SV ELs, as Holger reports, which just as you suggest, gives up some edge performance for smoother panning.
Of course, they already had that in the SLC-HD, but some people prefer the EL's ergonomics and also prefer midsized bins.
"May you live in interesting times." In terms of optics, we certainly do, and like that Chinese proverb, it has been both a blessing and a curse. A blessing in terms of the plethora of good quality roofs offered today with "bells and whistles" that have trickled down to the mid-tier and even some entry level priced roofs, and a curse in terms of the disappearing porro (still available, but most are "cheap" quality) and also in the sky high cost of owning an alpha.
<B>
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
QUOTE, brocknroller, "..... For me, what has been "overblown" is RB being marginalized as a "non-issue"....." END QUOTE
*speewwww*
Brock, the question must be asked, are you being paid by the word for this redundant verbosity ? this diatribe of utter nonsense ? this ubiquitous 'imaginary' crusade ? this perpetual molly rant ? :brains:
Who pays you ? the site ? industry affiliates ? server solution providers ? timewasters inc ? the contrarian society ? the ROTF LMAO club ? who ?
If indeed the answer is nay - then I do fear for your sanity, if not your very soul -
as well as the ability of the massed readers to keep their breakfast down ..... :eat:
Where's the pay off for eternally flogging this dead horse ? Do you think you're on the brink of some X-file type breakthrough ? On the verge of cracking some international conspiracy ? a secret society ? self flagellation ? punishment of the world for it's crimes ? a hobby !? :eek!: :smoke: 8-P
I've seen 747's at Sydney Airport that do less whining than you do. |:x| Do you even fathom how many m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of words you have written here :scribe: - and yet you continually cry poor. Even if you hired yourself out as a typist for $5 - $10 an hour, you'd still rake in up to 10 G. Enough for you to purchase several "alpha's" of your choice, and still have money leftover to feed the cat :cat:
Better get in quick - affordable voice recognition technology and text conversion is closing that door as we speak .... :flowers:
These are serious questions, that demand serious answers! The truth is out there ......
Chosun :gh:
*speewwww*
Brock, the question must be asked, are you being paid by the word for this redundant verbosity ? this diatribe of utter nonsense ? this ubiquitous 'imaginary' crusade ? this perpetual molly rant ? :brains:
Who pays you ? the site ? industry affiliates ? server solution providers ? timewasters inc ? the contrarian society ? the ROTF LMAO club ? who ?
If indeed the answer is nay - then I do fear for your sanity, if not your very soul -
as well as the ability of the massed readers to keep their breakfast down ..... :eat:
Where's the pay off for eternally flogging this dead horse ? Do you think you're on the brink of some X-file type breakthrough ? On the verge of cracking some international conspiracy ? a secret society ? self flagellation ? punishment of the world for it's crimes ? a hobby !? :eek!: :smoke: 8-P
I've seen 747's at Sydney Airport that do less whining than you do. |:x| Do you even fathom how many m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of words you have written here :scribe: - and yet you continually cry poor. Even if you hired yourself out as a typist for $5 - $10 an hour, you'd still rake in up to 10 G. Enough for you to purchase several "alpha's" of your choice, and still have money leftover to feed the cat :cat:
Better get in quick - affordable voice recognition technology and text conversion is closing that door as we speak .... :flowers:
These are serious questions, that demand serious answers! The truth is out there ......
Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
Steve C
Well-known member
OK Brock, a couple of points here I think. In addition to the above quote you used another post of mine about my exposure to Clay Taylor's big box of Swarovski's. You used that to illustrate Swarovski's "sample variation by the box full". To put a point on that, the variation is not the fault of Swarovski or its binoculars. That "sample variation", is as far as I'm concerned, due to "sample variation in the human user". Those focusers all felt just about like any focusers on any Swarovski I've picked up. Some people are so devoutly paranoid about the focuser, that nothing satisfies them. I don't care who makes the binocular or how much it cost, the focuser will NEVER be right according to somebody.
Next, the ONLY damned reason I say anything about rolling ball in a review is to keep my PM box from lighting up with rolling ball questions. I'm not sure I even should say anything at all about it, and may well never mention it again. In point of fact the SV EL 8.5x42 is the only binocular I've ever seen it in. While that offends the three lord high Swaro advocates no end, it is what it is, in spite of everything else made by Swarovski being superb, including the 50 mm and the 10x42 Swarovisions.
While you are right up to a point about general awareness of rolling ball is perhaps a good thing the blasted phenomena has been used to beat every one over the head. So and so saw such and such in some review of this or that, so should I worry about it too. Enough already. Look at an SV, PLEASE, before you jabber on about RB.
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
I assume I might be one of the "three lord high Swaro advocates"?? Fair enough.
But keep in mind that Brock has outposted me on this thread 38 to 8. I'd call myself a counterbalance but you see it's rather lopsided. This despite the fact that I own two SV's and Brock has never seen one.
He also has two of us "lords" (maybe all three?) on his "ignore" list so that he never has to encounter anyone who disagrees with his insular and monomaniacal opinions.
I still routinely switch between the SV and the FL. I still routinely see the differences, assuming I bother to go looking for them. And I still, utterly and completely, just don't care. I look at the birds.
Anyone who decides that the SV is "absolute"ly unusable after "approx 3 minutes" inside a store, or after no use at all...well, their opinions aren't worth much to me.
Steve is right: "sample variation in the human user" has more to do with these picayune discussions than objective reality does.
Just the way I see it,
Mark
But keep in mind that Brock has outposted me on this thread 38 to 8. I'd call myself a counterbalance but you see it's rather lopsided. This despite the fact that I own two SV's and Brock has never seen one.
He also has two of us "lords" (maybe all three?) on his "ignore" list so that he never has to encounter anyone who disagrees with his insular and monomaniacal opinions.
I still routinely switch between the SV and the FL. I still routinely see the differences, assuming I bother to go looking for them. And I still, utterly and completely, just don't care. I look at the birds.
Anyone who decides that the SV is "absolute"ly unusable after "approx 3 minutes" inside a store, or after no use at all...well, their opinions aren't worth much to me.
Steve is right: "sample variation in the human user" has more to do with these picayune discussions than objective reality does.
Just the way I see it,
Mark
Have you looked through a Swarovski 8.5x42 SV or the 8x32 SV?
Steve C
Well-known member
I assume I might be one of the "three lord high Swaro advocates"?? Fair enough.
But keep in mind that Brock has outposted me on this thread 38 to 8. I'd call myself a counterbalance but you see it's rather lopsided. This despite the fact that I own two SV's and Brock has never seen one.
He also has two of us "lords" (maybe all three?) on his "ignore" list so that he never has to encounter anyone who disagrees with his insular and monomaniacal opinions.
I still routinely switch between the SV and the FL. I still routinely see the differences, assuming I bother to go looking for them. And I still, utterly and completely, just don't care. I look at the birds.
Anyone who decides that the SV is "absolute"ly unusable after "approx 3 minutes" inside a store, or after no use at all...well, their opinions aren't worth much to me.
Steve is right: "sample variation in the human user" has more to do with these picayune discussions than objective reality does.
Just the way I see it,
Mark
Well Mark, you might be one of those three. That was more a figure of expression than a need on my part to identify three prospective posters B
But here's the deal, there are a certain small number of posters in this thread who see absolute perfection in their Swarovision binoculars. Perfection, period, end of statement, no counter argument, just perfection. Any suggestion that there is less than perfection and the reaction is akin to slapping one of your kids. Chill out please
. That there are some people who see RB does not mean the Mayans were actually right or that Swarovski is about to declare bankruptcy. It simply means that some will see RB to some extent or another. That's all. Their intellect is not inferior to yours. That is one reason why an almost universal piece of advice given on buying a binocular is to try it before you buy it.You may have been out posted 38 to 8 by Brock. Brock out posts and out words everybody, oftentimes to his discredit. I tend to think your expressions of absolute perfection is maybe 38 times more annoying than Brock.
I have said before that if I were God I'd make everybody who loves their Swarovisions see the RB to the degree I did (and apparently beethoven did too). Not forever, just once or twice. Trust me, that would alter your perceptions dramatically. It is completely illogical for you to say the following
"Anyone who decides that the SV is "absolutely" unusable after "approx 3 minutes" inside a store, or after no use at all...well, their opinions aren't worth much to me".
Anyone affected by RB like I was is NOT going to plunk down $2,500 for the thing. The other side to that coin you flipped is that anyone who denies there is nothing short of absolute perfection is possessed of an opinion that is not worth much to me. On the no use at all thing we can find agreement.
My only point in ever posting about the RB I see in the 8.5x42 SV was simply to point out that some are affected by it and you should try before you buy. As Pileateus pointed out above, if you don't like the SV then there is the SLC-HD. Believe this or not, but I'm happy that you have found your perfect binocular. I'm happy you enjoy it. Go forth and use it.
Last edited:
Ranting about rolling ball is like complaining about progressive eyeglass lenses. Some adapt, some don't. Fortunately, our great capitalist system offers innumerable alternatives to each and every customer. Caveat Emptor!
PS
I wonder if those who adapt to rolling ball (aka the globe effect) are more adaptive in general.
PSS
It is perfect, absolutely and that's a fact!
PS
I wonder if those who adapt to rolling ball (aka the globe effect) are more adaptive in general.
PSS
It is perfect, absolutely and that's a fact!
Last edited:
Am I a Swaro lord?- Oh please let me be a lord! :king:
Oh well- maybe I am not a Swaro lord anymore; as I only have two Swaro's now. One of them a lowly 14 yr. old 7x30 SLC and an ancient design 2013 8x30 Habicht porro. But I have probably lost my lordship since I do not own a SV anymore.
Oh well. :-C
Oh well- maybe I am not a Swaro lord anymore; as I only have two Swaro's now. One of them a lowly 14 yr. old 7x30 SLC and an ancient design 2013 8x30 Habicht porro. But I have probably lost my lordship since I do not own a SV anymore.
Oh well. :-C
brocknroller
porromaniac
Steve,
You are not entirely correct in saying that "the variation is not the fault of Swarovski or its binoculars" but rather to "sample variation in the human user". That's been disproved so many times that I'm surprised that myth still exists other than with the "the three lord high Swaro advocates" you mentioned.
Yes, even I have had "hands on" experience with Swaros and experienced this sample variation, not with the SV EL, but from all reports, this issue has not changed with the latest model. I tried three Swaros, two ELs and one SLC. Two had "focuser issues" ranging from harder to turn in one direction to so stiff it took two fingers to turn the knob,a and in the harder direction, I really had to tug on it.
OTOH, the focuser on the baby EL, made the same year as the SLC, was as smooth as a baby's bottom. There have been many accounts just like mine reported on BF. A similar comment was posted a while back when one member tried three baby 8x32 ELs in a store and two out of three were harder to turn in one direction than the other and the third was smooth both ways.
BF is replete with examples of the same users experiencing variation in Swaro focusers. That's focuser sample variation, not user variation.
The reason I wrote "not entirely correct" above is that there is one person I know who has a Swaro that focuses harder in one direction but finds "no problem with my Swaro focuser". Whether or not one is bothered by coarseness or stiffness or turning harder in one direction than the other is a whole other matter.
However, from his and other similar comments, it seems that some people's hands/fingers/brains - whatever is all involved - are not sensitive to such differences in focuser tension unless it's glaringly obvious. If it turned harder in one direction than the other, they might not notice it, particularly if they used the bin for hunting or they are "static birders" and weren't chasing warblers since they wouldn't be turning the focuser knob a lot.
But if it took two fingers to turn the knob, it would probably be obvious. So there are different levels of awareness, I'll give you that much in terms of "human variation," but there is most definitely actual focuser variation in Sawros that is real not psychological, and though I won't mention his name, some expert even gave the reason for it - a spring in the focuser. What has never been established is if that's the cause, why some focusers turn smoothly and some don't even for those sampled by the same user. The only answer could be sample variation.
Even eitanaltman, who I quoted about the "big box of Swaros," found some Swaro focusers at the display booth at the bird fair that turned more smoothly than the ones in Clay's box, and he mentioned that his reply to your post. Perhaps you missed it:
Here's what he said:
To be fair though, I went back by the bird fair today and handled a few more Swaros, and the focus knobs were much more consistent. None of them I would grade as "buttery" or "silky" smooth, but they didn't have the kind of issues I noticed on the box o' goodies on the boat.
Here's the comments in context:
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2674547&postcount=11
AFIC, case closed!
As to you "never mentioning it again" that you experienced "rolling ball" in the 8.5x model, it's too late - it's out there. Don't join the deniers. If you saw it, you saw it. Be honest, and let the balls fall where they may.
This thread is about RB, so it's "not beating anyone over the head" to talk about it here or when someone asks question about it on another thread. What I find more troubling is when someone asks about it, and you see three responses in a row, all wrongly advising the OP that it is a "non-issue".
But as I said earlier in another post, there's enough good, useful information out there now, in part thanks to me counterbalancing the denials, plus Holger's, Pier's and others' reviews, and even yours, that anyone who wants to know what's what with RB can find it by using a search engine. So you needn't worry about getting a deluge of PMs asking about it.
So there's no need to "beat anyone over the head" even if some people persist in denying the issue. If people do their homework, they will know that if they do see RB, that they need to give themselves time to adjust, as I always advise, and maybe they will purchase the bin and maybe not, depending on how they react and their tolerance for what they see.
While RB seems to be a "make it or break it" issue for most users who can't adapt, or as we saw with beethoven, who was so bothered by he effects of AMD that he didn't even want to try to adapt, a minority of those who continue to see RB after giving themselves a reasonable amount of time to adapt are able to tolerate it, just like some can live with coarse/stiff/harder to turn in one direction focusers.
So there's different possible reactions, and anyone who has read my responses to their questions about RB knows that. I even invented a lexicon to distinguish those different responses.
When somebody asks me about RB, I will refer them to this thread and other Websites that discuss RB, so they can learn about it and become informed buyers.
When I first puzzled over why the image seem to move when I panned with my Nikon HGs a decade ago, there was no information available to inform me about what was going on -- not in reviews, not on BF, CN, nowhere. Now there's plenty of useful information about RB, both anecdotal and technical, and some people are now even including panning tests in their reviews to test for RB.
I wish I had that kind of information available to me 10 years ago. Today, birders do, and I'd like to think I had some small part in making that happen.
Brock
Last edited:
Steve C
Well-known member
Gawdalmighty Brock. You are hopeless. B You can now lay claim to being the first denier of variation in human binocular samplers. Carry on.
To put a point on this, there is a very high likelihood that the binoculars in Clay Taylor's box that both eitan and I looked at were THE SAME BINOCULARS. I thought the focusers were fine. He didn't. Other than differences in the human users there were likely no differences.
You can now lay claim to being the first denier of variation in human binocular samplers. Carry on.To put a point on this, there is a very high likelihood that the binoculars in Clay Taylor's box that both eitan and I looked at were THE SAME BINOCULARS. I thought the focusers were fine. He didn't. Other than differences in the human users there were likely no differences.
Last edited:
Similar threads
