Rolling Ball: what do I do?! (1 Viewer)

[hinnark]

Brock,

If your posts are to become 'war and peace' length treatises, might you include an 'abstract' at the start of each one, briefly outlining the major points (although how many more times and ways you can say: individual differences are individual, gawd only knows ....), and include a summary of hyperlinks. That would be much appreciated by readers tired of sifting through reams of endless bunkum and BS. Thanks.


Chosun :gh:

LOL! Chosun, I have to confess, I've never met a girl with your sense of humour in real life before. You've made a substantial suggestion for improvement.

Steve

 

[Steve C]

Brock,

You can point to all the threads in the world about focus problems. Each particular binocular is full of "poor focus" complaints. What these are is anecdotal. I will try to point out that a whole bunch of anecdotal comments cannot translate into a reliable data set. Focus is an unsolvable dilemma for manufacturers.

So if you want to "Wave Brock's Bright Flaming Red Flag of Passion" about focus issues, buddy go right ahead the field is yours. Just keep in mind that when you gripe about ad homineum attacks remember you can't expect to continually poke people with a stick and remain free of reaction. Your problem is staring at you when you look in the mirror.

Trying to cover you with a defining word and "obdurate" is as close as I can get. There is maybe a better word out there, but it is worth no more effort. You boast of your passion and hope you are "helping" people. What you are doing is continually hosing down threads with blasts from your limitless syllable pool.

So you are free to roam. I simply ask one small favor. Just leave reference to me out of your "passion". Oh and one other thing, try not to break your arm patting yourself on the back.

 

[GeeJayW]

Yes, it is good, at least when there's no ad hominems.

If I had a dollar for every time someone raised that "he hasn't even looked through a pair" objection, I’d have enough money to buy an EDG instead of just testing one. To borrow a popular term, that objection is a “non-issue,” because the focuser problems reported with the EL WB and pre-HD SLC focusers are the same ones reported in the SV EL and SLC-HD: turning harder in one direction than the other, “coarse focus,” “stiff focus,” and “ratchety focus”. Those last three descriptions might be people’s different terms for the same issue, namely, the focuser does not turn as smoothly as they expected in their samples. Some can live with it, others can’t.

My handling an SV EL would not change those facts, so it's a “straw man argument”. But one person says it, others repeat it, and it goes on and on….Ca-Ching, Ca-Ching.

I don’t doubt that your Swaro focuser turning slightly harder in one direction than the other doesn’t bother you. The 8x30 SLCneu I tried was like yours – slightly harder to turn in one direction. Had the focuser been on the EP side of the bridge as it is on all the other Swaro bins, it might not have bothered me either, but having to turn the focuser with my ring finger made it an issue, because I don’t have the same strength and dexterity in my ring fingers as I do my index fingers.

But some users have been bothered by this lack of two-way smoothness in their Swaro focusers, and from their comments, some were worse in this regard than your sample and the SLC I tried. The older EL’s focuser was worse. The focuser was really stiff and took a lot more effort to turn in one direction than the other; even the owner told me the focuser was stiff before he sent it. OTOH, the baby EL, made the same year as the SLC (2009), turned smoothly in both directions.

We’re now getting reports of this same sort of sample variance in the SV ELs and SLC-HDs as we did with the earlier models. Some people get smooth ones, some don’t. Some are bothered by it, some aren’t. Nothing has changed.

I suspect that Steve C. has been lucky, and that sooner or later, he will meet up with a Swaro focuser that doesn’t “turn like butter,” just as he met up with an SV EL that showed him RB. He will then have to re-evaluate his “human factors only” theory, just as beethovan’s opinion turned around about RB when he finally experienced it himself. Some aspects of binoculars are experiential and can’t be (or simply aren’t) part of most binocular tests. Even if they were included, they might not show up in a particular test since some are sample dependent, some are user dependent, and some are both.

Why am I “vehement” about the Swaro focuser issues? I’m not, but I am “passionate” about optics, and I do think at this price point, buyers should expect to have a smooth focuser right out of the box. From my experience with the old EL, these issues don’t get better over time, they get worse. Some of those “buttery smooth” focusers might eventually stiffen up like refrigerated vegetable oil. In fact, exposure to extreme cold might hasten this process.

What I am vehement about is the same thing that Beethoven was in post # 306 above. I can tell you the post that upset him was quite mild in comparison to some of the zingers I’ve received. I should have reported them instead of returning fire, but I didn't, and that was an mistake on my part.

We can agree to disagree, but when you get personal attacks again and again, it’s more trouble than it’s worth. Besides spring has sprung, I saw blackbirds and goldfinches in my backyard, and ducks at a nearby pond. Winter’s over.

I went to a birding event yesterday and went birding at the Pine Barrens today. Ordered a copy of “Projects for the Birder's Garden: Over 100 Easy Things That You can Make to Turn Your Yard and Garden into a Bird-Friendly Haven” and signed up for a birding ID class, which starts next week.

So you don’t have to worry about any “vehemence” from me, I will be too busy using my optics to dissect them, ad hoc or post hoc.

Brock

Fair enough.. (I did have to look up ad hominen though, clearly I needed to pay more attention at school)...

Enjoy the spring, it's certainly a good time to see birds in their finest garb.

 

[Leif]

but when you get personal attacks again and again, it’s more trouble than it’s worth.

What a hypocrite. |^| People in glass houses ... well, you know how it goes.

No doubt you will continue to post your usual verbal diarrhea. I suppose they allow you access to a keyboard as it pacifies you.

 

[Chosun Juan]

Brock,

You can point to all the threads in the world about focus problems. Each particular binocular is full of "poor focus" complaints. What these are is anecdotal. I will try to point out that a whole bunch of anecdotal comments cannot translate into a reliable data set. Focus is an unsolvable dilemma for manufacturers.

So if you want to "Wave Brock's Bright Flaming Red Flag of Passion" about focus issues, buddy go right ahead the field is yours. Just keep in mind that when you gripe about ad homineum attacks remember you can't expect to continually poke people with a stick and remain free of reaction. Your problem is staring at you when you look in the mirror.

Trying to cover you with a defining word and "obdurate" is as close as I can get. There is maybe a better word out there, but it is worth no more effort. You boast of your passion and hope you are "helping" people. What you are doing is continually hosing down threads with blasts from your limitless syllable cesspool.

So you are free to roam. I simply ask one small favor. Just leave reference to me out of your "passion". Oh and one other thing, try not to break your arm patting yourself on the back.

Steve,

Beautifully put. Insightful, concise, and eloquent, yet full of true care and warmth. I hope Brock lays down the defensive armaments for once, takes that to heart, in the spirit of the good intentions it was meant with, and says g'day to that bloke in the mirror.

"Coining a term", inventing a lexicon, having a laugh, throwing in a bit of intellectual jousting, playfully misdirecting with a bit of obscure vernacular - it's all good fun. Heck, we can even forgive the odd factual inaccuracy, as we work through it by gently nudging it back on course.

But when that " chautauqua" becomes a god to worship in itself, when the voice of reason quietly withdraws through sheer sorrow for the poor lost soul, when the "high priest" starts to believe in his own press, dismissing any logical arguement with carefully worded obfusification, when the emotional intelligence to comprehend another's growing frustration at wilful mischief falls short, when the joyful enthusiasm becomes vehement obstinance, when even the curmudgeonly seem like rays of sunshine in comparison - then is it any wonder that the gathered crowd either turns their backs and walk away, pointedly shout down the "gospel", or even "hurl" rotten tomatoes?

Whatever history exists, I have seen no real evidence of it here - plenty of admirable restraint though. Newcomers must be left thinking nothing short of WTF!? Some (well me) have with good intentions, playfully tried to cajole, prod, lead, and push Brock to stop, turn around, and smell the roses, hopefully in a humourous, entertaining way for all and sundry. Brock "crying foul" though, when the smart *rs* kid in the sandpit gets the sh*t kicked out of him, is nothing more than a self-fulfilling victimhood prophecy.

We're all here to say g'day, teach what little we know, and hopefully learn a little something of the vast amount more that we don't. But when good spirit is abandoned for a personal plaything ego trip, when the nicieties are swapped for rough-housing - then someone's gonna get hurt. If that just serves to further validate someone's worldview, then it is not "wrong" per se, just sad, and mind numbingly *boring* for the rest of us. Nobody's trying to dictate the bounds of your personage, or say this is how, and only how, you must be; you are free to march to your own drum - but displaying a little genuine empathy will go along way.

I think ronh put it best long ago, when he said "C'mon Brock we love ya man, but FFS wake up to yourself" ...... Ok! I might have paraphrased that last bit! but it was something along those lines.


Chosun :gh:

 

[ronh]

I did sort of fly off the handle at Brock once upon a time, when the witch to be burnt was the Zeiss FL's soft outer field focus, its outstanding weakness for sure, as many delighted owners freely admit, already. My barking at him like that didn't do either of us any good though.

In a way it's comforting to be in a place where people fight about binoculars. It's just bound to happen among people who care. I'd much prefer my latest expensive binocular be taken to task, and that I be called stupid for liking it, to a blank stare. The amplified view holds a magical quality, and so the qualities of viewing instruments and of the view itself occasionally warrant strong disagreement in my opinion, in search of "truth". But we're all supposed to be on the same team here, let's not rough one another up too bad!

Next Sunday's sermon will be "What binocular would Jesus use?". See you then.
Ron

 

[pompadour]

Ron, don't! Splinter groups ... holy war ... crusades ... inquisitions ... Hmm, but then, we already have all that here ...

 

[Troubador]

Do you remember the Bourne movies?

The main moral imperative (yes there was one!) was the lesson taught to Bourne by his girlfriend: there is always a choice. In Bourne's case it was the choice not to kill.

In the case of BF the choice is not to bite the bait, not to flare up, not to respond to a post that seems infinitely provocative.

By responding to some posts in what might be termed a 'like for like' manner we are simply perpetuating aggravation and shouldn't be surprised if the next reply is in the same vein.

There is always a choice, and sometimes it is right to quietly withdraw and let a dispute die of natural causes.

There is a whole heap of goodwill on BF. Lets have vigorous debate, arguments and tantrums even, but lets always remember that there is always a choice.

Lee

 

[FrankD]

I did sort of fly off the handle at Brock once upon a time, when the witch to be burnt was the Zeiss FL's soft outer field focus, its outstanding weakness for sure, as many delighted owners freely admit, already. My barking at him like that didn't do either of us any good though.

In a way it's comforting to be in a place where people fight about binoculars.
Ron

I can feel the love too Ron.

 

[Argon]

If only everyone would post in Hieroglyphics o8-P:king::eek!::smoke: like Chosun

 

[hinnark]

Like most users, I do like as large a sweet spot as possible, but edge sharpness isn't as important to me as it is to some. Ideally for me I like it to extend to about 80% to 90% of the FOV and be sharp enough to the edge that I can see anything of interest moving into the FOV.

As I've mentioned in previous reviews posted on here that I find it tiring to continually concentrate on anything with my eyeballs turned to the extreme right or left, coupled with the fact that absolute sharpness becomes, for me any way, very difficult to judge under those tiring conditions.

Well, binoculars with good edge sharpness like the one I suggested, use to have the widest sweet spot possible. They have a sweet spot that last from the center to (almost) the very edge. I haven't seen optics so far with sharp edges on the one hand and a smaller sweet spot on the other.
Or do you mean you prefer binoculars that deliver just that, a remaining soft-area of about 20 to 10% at the edge?
Steve

 

[Troubador]

Well, binoculars with good edge sharpness like the one I suggested, use to have the widest sweet spot possible. They have a sweet spot that last from the center to (almost) the very edge. I haven't seen optics so far with sharp edges on the one hand and a smaller sweet spot on the other.
Or do you mean you prefer binoculars that deliver just that, a remaining soft-area of about 20 to 10% at the edge?
Steve

I'm with Ludwig on this one. I like a wide sweet spot but the nearer it gets to the edge of the field of view the less important another increase in the sweet spot becomes. Once the sweet spot gets to between 80 and 90% then its enough for the remainder of the FOV just to be sharp enough that I can see something come into view. At this point I centre the new subject as I don't feel comfortable squinting to one side to see the edge of the FOV.

I can see why astronomers or shore bird watchers, with bins on a tripod might want to make full use of the steady FOV they have aligned with on the tripod, so they don't have to immediately move the aim of the bins.

All power to folks who want edge to edge sharpness but for me its not important.

Lee

 

[hinnark]

I'm with Ludwig on this one. I like a wide sweet spot but the nearer it gets to the edge of the field of view the less important another increase in the sweet spot becomes. Once the sweet spot gets to between 80 and 90% then its enough for the remainder of the FOV just to be sharp enough that I can see something come into view. At this point I centre the new subject as I don't feel comfortable squinting to one side to see the edge of the FOV.

I can see why astronomers or shore bird watchers, with bins on a tripod might want to make full use of the steady FOV they have aligned with on the tripod, so they don't have to immediately move the aim of the bins.

All power to folks who want edge to edge sharpness but for me its not important.

Lee

Lee,

but let us not forget another important point here: the size of the FOV as a whole. Perhaps we can agree on this statement. The larger the FOV and the sweet spot in degrees, the better. I agree, edge sharpness isn't a value for it's own. There are some binoculars out there with a relative large sweet spot but the FOV isn't that wide, so that the size of that sweet spot isn't that wide as well when measured in degrees. Examples are Bushnell 8x42 Elite or Pentax 8x43 ED.

Steve

 

[Troubador]

Lee,

but let us not forget another important point here: the size of the FOV as a whole. Perhaps we can agree on this statement. The larger the FOV and the sweet spot in degrees, the better. I agree, edge sharpness isn't a value for it's own. There are some binoculars out there with a relative large sweet spot but the FOV isn't that wide, so that the size of that sweet spot isn't that wide as well when measured in degrees. Examples are Bushnell 8x42 Elite or Pentax 8x43 ED.

Steve

Steve

We can shake hands on that one . And for sure the size of the FOV is very important. For me this is so because of looking for otters and birds when they resurface after a dive, but I can imagine it for circling raptors and many other reasons.

Lee

 

[oetzi]

Lee,

but let us not forget another important point here: the size of the FOV as a whole. Perhaps we can agree on this statement. The larger the FOV and the sweet spot in degrees, the better.
Steve

I wholeheartedly agree. Not having looked through so many different binoculars or so for so many hours I already believe that FOV can only be replaced by even more FOV. Usable one, that is.

Cant wait to lay my hands on a 8x32 Swarovision and try fo myself, maybe in two weeks time it will arrive. So there is enough time to read my way thorugh the Swarovski sub-forum.

 

[Chosun Juan]

Steve

We can shake hands on that one . And for sure the size of the FOV is very important. For me this is so because of looking for otters and birds when they resurface after a dive, but I can imagine it for circling raptors and many other reasons.

Lee

Lee,

That's an interesting observation, for me it's platypus, and rakali (sometimes they help out with a little bubble trail ....... =)

The raptors all have different circling behaviour, and it also varies with conditions, but one of the tightest circlers here, is the Little Eagle, and 8 degrees or 140m FOV will cut the mustard there, allowing you to pick up any interlopers, mutual soaring /sky-dancing, argy-bargy, etc. If I can get 90% clear then all good.

So this makes 8x more useful in this instance for me, than a clear to the edge 6.3 degree 10x. Even with clarity right to the edge - your still gonna miss the action when trying to pick up 2 BOPS going in different directions, until the distance away from you increases sufficiently. Now if I could get an 8 degree, clear to the edge 10x, whooooeee! But that might be a little unrealistic ..... I'm thinking "I need nines" ...... 8-P

That old chestnut - individual horses for courses.


Chosun :gh:

 

[Troubador]

Lee,

That's an interesting observation, for me it's platypus, and rakali (sometimes they help out with a little bubble trail ....... =)

The raptors all have different circling behaviour, and it also varies with conditions, but one of the tightest circlers here, is the Little Eagle, and 8 degrees or 140m FOV will cut the mustard there, allowing you to pick up any interlopers, mutual soaring /sky-dancing, argy-bargy, etc. If I can get 90% clear then all good.

So this makes 8x more useful in this instance for me, than a clear to the edge 6.3 degree 10x. Even with clarity right to the edge - your still gonna miss the action when trying to pick up 2 BOPS going in different directions, until the distance away from you increases sufficiently. Now if I could get an 8 degree, clear to the edge 10x, whooooeee! But that might be a little unrealistic ..... I'm thinking "I need nines" ...... 8-P

That old chestnut - individual horses for courses.


Chosun :gh:

CJ

Otters leave bubble trails sometimes too although the ones we mostly see are in seawater and the surface is often too choppy to see the bubbles.

Shouldn't the plural of Platypus be Platypi?

Lee

 

[brocknroller]

CJ

Otters leave bubble trails sometimes too although the ones we mostly see are in seawater and the surface is often too choppy to see the bubbles.

Shouldn't the plural of Platypus be Platypi?

Lee

According to the Oxford Australian Dictionary, the plural of platypus is platypodes. The ending -pus is from the Greek word for foot, and in Greek the plural of pus is podes (also why foot doctors are called podiatrists). So if you are a stickler for using an original-language plural form, the plural should be platypodes (and octopodes for the plural of octopus).

The plural form -pi is from Latin. However, just as there are technical terms in optics found in physics books and different usage by amateurs such as Frank D's "depth of focus," when speaking in the vernacular, people often use platypuses and octopuses as plurals, and few people, other than zoologists, will argue otherwise.

Next week, we'll be discussing the plural forms of rhinoceros. Stay tuned.

Grammar Guy

 

[Chosun Juan]

CJ

Otters leave bubble trails sometimes too although the ones we mostly see are in seawater and the surface is often too choppy to see the bubbles.

Shouldn't the plural of Platypus be Platypi?

Lee

Lee,

I didn't expect to see two of them!

Two would be a real bonus; a real treat - it wouldn't even matter if they were in the same FOV or not! ....... I believe that once I had regained the power of speech, then they would be referred to (as Brock said) - "platypuses" ...... but then again I don't know too many zoologists either !!


Chosun :gh:

 

[GeeJayW]

A trapper out in the field in Africa collecting animals for a zoo received a series of texts from his employer:

1. George, could you get us a pair of Mongooses for our collection please?

2. George, sorry about the spelling, could you get us a pair of Mongeese please?

3. George, sorry about all this confusion. Look, could you get us a Mongoose please? PS. Please get us another one.