Rolling Ball: what do I do?! (4 Viewers)

[Kammerdiner]

I have a hard time understanding...is someone forcing people who are sensitive to "rolling ball", to buy those binocular models that may exhibit the phenomenon? That would seem to be the case from all the ruckus being raised about it...

I think we know the origin of the neverending "ruckus." Without that, this issue would be mostly forgotten I think.

Mark

 

[Pileatus]

I think we know the origin of the neverending "ruckus." Without that, this issue would be mostly forgotten I think.

Mark

Another serious crisis is brewing.
See http://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/p...0_8x56_binoculars_review_kikkert_test8x40.pdf (number 5)
and ask yourself why one particular 42mm model garners so many 12's when the competition has trouble maintaining 11's.
I'm calling this rating bias (aka RB).
I do, however, tend to believe the ratings sight unseen.

 

[ceasar]

Another serious crisis is brewing.
See http://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/p...0_8x56_binoculars_review_kikkert_test8x40.pdf (number 5)
and ask yourself why one particular 42mm model garners so many 12's when the competition has trouble maintaining 11's.
I'm calling this rating bias (aka RB).
I do, however, tend to believe the ratings sight unseen.

We all know resolution can be measured. Maybe if they are asked nicely they will disclose how they measure it and how they measure "field sharpness."

"Contrast" and "Brightness" are something different. I wonder how they measured those factors down to the differences of 1/12th?

Bob

 

[elkcub]

I have a hard time understanding...is someone forcing people who are sensitive to "rolling ball", to buy those binocular models that may exhibit the phenomenon? That would seem to be the case from all the ruckus being raised about it...

The last time I took such advise was buying an expensive pair of shoes, which the salesman promised would break in. They didn't.

In this case we're being advised to break in our brains. They won't.

Ed :smoke:

 

[Pileatus]

The last time I took such advise was buying an expensive pair of shoes, which the salesman promised would break in. They didn't.

In this case we're being advised to break in our brains. They won't.

Ed :smoke:

Some will, some won't. C'est La Vie.

 

[elkcub]

Some will, some won't. C'est La Vie.

That's what the shoe salesman said.

Ed

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Ah, thanks Holger. I had wondered if Swaro had been "in touch" with you. I didn't realize they had done the BPO study too. So that's where they got the idea I guess?

Mark

The distortion curve of the BPO has certain similarities with that of the early 8.5x42 (though they differ in some aspects), both of them being non-monotonous. I named this feature 'anomalous' to point out that this is not wanted with any hand-held binocular.

I don't know the origin of this somewhat weird distortion curve, but I guess it is related to the field flattener - both the BPO and the Swaro are making use of a field flattening lens, and perhaps, when pushing it too far and trying to achieve an almost perfect edge sharpness, then these distortion effects emerge as a side effect. But this is pure speculation and I have no confirmation from Swaro whether or not these two features are related.

More generally speaking, I think it is most natural to have these discussions about the globe effect in these days, when more and more manufacturers begin to reduce the pincushion distortion of their binoculars. The same discussions were done 60 years ago (though, that time, not in public), before pincushion was applied to the optics, and they are repeated now when the pincushion is being turned down. Perhaps, eventually the designers will find a better compromise, the 8x32 Zeiss Conquest HD I have recently used seemed to be close to that, with just a little bit of pincushion and without any 'anomalous' wiggles of the distortion curve. After that, the globe effect will become a non-issue again.

Cheers,
Holger

 

[brocknroller]

The distortion curve of the BPO has certain similarities with that of the early 8.5x42 (though they differ in some aspects), both of them being non-monotonous. I named this feature 'anomalous' to point out that this is not wanted with any hand-held binocular.

I don't know the origin of this somewhat weird distortion curve, but I guess it is related to the field flattener - both the BPO and the Swaro are making use of a field flattening lens, and perhaps, when pushing it too far and trying to achieve an almost perfect edge sharpness, then these distortion effects emerge as a side effect. But this is pure speculation and I have no confirmation from Swaro whether or not these two features are related.

More generally speaking, I think it is most natural to have these discussions about the globe effect in these days, when more and more manufacturers begin to reduce the pincushion distortion of their binoculars. The same discussions were done 60 years ago (though, that time, not in public), before pincushion was applied to the optics, and they are repeated now when the pincushion is being turned down. Perhaps, eventually the designers will find a better compromise, the 8x32 Zeiss Conquest HD I have recently used seemed to be close to that, with just a little bit of pincushion and without any 'anomalous' wiggles of the distortion curve. After that, the globe effect will become a non-issue again.

Cheers,
Holger

Holger,

I feel somewhat vindicated after reading your posts. I've taken a lot of "heat" from certain individuals who have repeatedly denied or trivialized RB simply because it was a "non-issue" for them. But indeed, as you point out, history is repeating itself, with the pendulum swinging back toward binoculars with low distortion, and that this makes RB a legitimate topic of discussion.

I hope my insistence that the issue be taken seriously and not treated as a "joke" and your technical investigations into the "globe effect" and your position that this 'anomalous' feature is not desirable for hand-held binoculars will persuade optics manufacturers, Swaro included, to back off from these designs and find a better compromise as Nikon has done with its SE and EDG series (although you did mention seeing RB in the 8x32 EDG, I've only tried the 10x42 model and saw no RB). Of course, Nikon started "the ball rolling" in modern roofs with its Venturer LX/HG series and continues to use this design in its Premiers (HGLs).

I also have to credit Piergiovanni of binomania for always evaluating the smoothness of panning with the bins he reviews and relating that to their level of "angular distortion".

I find it very interesting that Swaro informed you that their old distortion formula had been modified. This could explain why some users who are sensitive to RB are reporting not seeing it in the newer 8x32 SV EL model. Perhaps the difference is not "psychological" as some have speculated, but an actual design modification.

Hopefully, the pendulum is swinging back the other way (but not too far - I also see "rolling bowl" from too much pincushion!). As Aristotle once wrote: Moderation in all things (that includes optical distortion).

Brock

 

[pompadour]

... have to credit Piergiovanni of binomania for ... evaluating the smoothness of panning with the bins he reviews ...

Also at least one other tester at the site. I always look for this in the reviews there.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

My question. Can we see RB in our spotting scope when we pan ?

 

[Holger Merlitz]

My question. Can we see RB in our spotting scope when we pan ?

Yes, if you are using distortion free (orthoscopic) eyepieces. The RB has been reported by astronomers as well, and also by 'microscopers' . However, mounted optics are much less used for panning than hand held optics, therefore the RB is less an issue here.

Cheers,
Holger

 

[typo]

Holger,

As a biologist I've spent hours at a time staring down a microscope panning. On some designs the RB effect can be very unpleasant for some individuals. However I've never seen the "'anomalous' wiggles" like that of the SLSV and some other binoculars through any microscope I've used as yet.

David

 

[Argon]

I had a pair of 8.5x42 Swaros for a week over a year ago. I finally decided to buy a pair of Alphas. I really wanted the Swaros and was glad to have a friend that trusted me enough to loan them for over a week. I struggled with the RB - I saw it not only when panning but when looking up into bare limbed trees. I found a place near here that had a pair of EDG I - also a pair of the Swaros. I tested them both outside the store. The clarity/view/WOW was very close between the two - too close for me to differentiate. I liked the closer focus on the Swaros - but in the end decided that, for me, the RB would be an issue. SO.....I purchased the EDG II's from EO and only look back at these threads periodically. Piergiovanni seems to be like minded - I don't have the good fortune to be able to play with all sorts of high end optics like him but have been extremely happy with my purchase. I do have a Swaro ATS 80 HD Scope that I purchased in the early 2000's. I do not see the RB when I pan with it - and quite a bit of panning is involved scoping Duck flocks or seascapes. Actually, this post is fairly pointless other than to say the passion that I see in these discussions/debates is a bit amazing.

 

[Kammerdiner]

My only caution, at least in the case of the SV, would be that saying "this is not wanted with any hand-held binocular" is more of a value judgment than science. If the edge effects are "side-effects" of edge sharpness, well then, I would say that's fine. They probably are side-effects else why put them there? Could Swaro dial it back a little? Sure, that's fine too.

Look at a website such as Eagle Optics, which is probably the biggest place American birders get their optics, at least those living outside of major cities, and you'll find (last I checked anyway) upwards of sixty 5-star reviews of the SV's. Almost nobody mentions anything unusual in the view. The very few who do mention "rolling ball" (hmm, which website do you suppose they got that from?) uniformly call it a non-issue. Not one reviewer has complained about it. These are mostly birders, by the way, who pan all the time. Now, this is not a scientific study, but it sure indicates which way the wind is blowing.

Birdwatcher's Digest reviewed all the alphas last year and felt obligated to mention rolling ball (hmm, I wonder which website they got that from). They had nine experienced birders and the best they could do was say (paraphrasing here) "Some could see it; none were bothered by it."

Just two isolated examples.

The neverending "ruckus" hereabouts has been caused by a single poster who has yet to look through a pair. You'd think that might help, especially since the distortion is "anomalous" and the personal experience of it is probably nothing you could accurately predict ahead of time. To paraphrase a car ad, "This ain't your Nikon's rolling ball."

The difference between the 8.5x42 and the 8x32 is subtle, but it's there. The 8x32 has a bit more pincushion, but at the edge the reversal looks pretty much the same.

Mark

PS: I sometimes wonder if I'm optically blessed, or an idiot, or inattentive, or just too busy looking at the birds, but I seem to be able to use most of these optical formulations just fine. And I'm no "neuro-plastic" either. Just ask my wife. I'm as set in my ways as a hunk of granite. 8-P

 

[JabaliHunter]

Kammerdiner, if you weren't in the US I'd almost be tempted to send you my 10x50s to see what you think!

I can't comment on the 8x or 8.5x - I take people's word that it may be less of an issue and I confess that I don't recall noticing it in my brief views through a friend's 8.5x. But in the 10x it can be like a slap in the face!

I think there are lots of background issues in what you say. I'm sure there are are lots of people who aren't affected. A few who saw it and didn't buy or sold them on after a short while. Equally I am sure there are a lot of people with the 'well its Swarovski, there's nothing better out there and I'm going to let everyone know that I have it' attitude. I know that I have shown them to a number of my friends and basically, if they had bought them they'd be happy, but having looked through mine they will not be buying!

With a 10x50, how many alternatives are there at that level?
- If there was an HT then that might be an alternative.
- The 8/10x56 FL are surely the most tempting but not as compact. Not an issue in itself in my opinion, but for the other gear that I lug around the woods at the same time |:x|
- The 10x50HD is tempting (as would be the 8x but for the narrow AFOV) but all the retailers I know seem to throw their arms up at the thought of Leica after-sales etc.; plus the 'reviewers' seem to suggest that the light transmission is lower than the other two; and to top it off they are probably on the way out in the not too distant future as Leica seems on the verge of new Perger style developments.

For the non-experts, it is hard to put your own experiences forward. Harder still to trust your gut and fork out for something different and take a hit on what you have. Far more likely that having bought, you make do, adapt your usage, hopefully overcome, possibly wait for an alternative to come along...

But is it a non issue? Maybe if it is only slight as possibly in the 8.5x? Not if it is perhaps more extreme or you are more sensitive. Can you adapt? The jury is still out in my view (pardon the pun)...

However, the 'fuss' is not just stirred up by one person, even if one person happens to be more vocal about it and interested in understanding the technicalities. There are others who have seen it, been affected and moved on to different brands/models (or not) who have said so and now no longer discuss it.

I know deep down that the answer to the OP question is to find an alternative, even if that means you have to wait for the right alternative to come along. Now where is that 9x50 Zeiss/Swaro/Leica/Nikon with flat >95% transmission and no RB?!

 

[JabaliHunter]

Having said all that, I should balance it by saying that there is still plenty to like about the 10x50SV regardless!

 

[james holdsworth]

I think with Swaro [and rolling ball] and Zeiss [edge sharpness], these bins are so good that we need something to pick at - something to tell the designers to keep looking for that last little bit.

Perfect bins would be boring as we really couldn't talk about them as much.8-P

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

Perfect bins would be boring as we really couldn't talk about them as much.8-P

Hahaha I like this !

 

[Holger Merlitz]

My only caution, at least in the case of the SV, would be that saying "this is not wanted with any hand-held binocular" is more of a value judgment than science. If the edge effects are "side-effects" of edge sharpness, well then, I would say that's fine. They probably are side-effects else why put them there? Could Swaro dial it back a little? Sure, that's fine too.

Look at a website such as Eagle Optics, which is probably the biggest place American birders get their optics, at least those living outside of major cities, and you'll find (last I checked anyway) upwards of sixty 5-star reviews of the SV's. Almost nobody mentions anything unusual in the view. The very few who do mention "rolling ball" (hmm, which website do you suppose they got that from?) uniformly call it a non-issue. Not one reviewer has complained about it. These are mostly birders, by the way, who pan all the time. Now, this is not a scientific study, but it sure indicates which way the wind is blowing.

Birdwatcher's Digest reviewed all the alphas last year and felt obligated to mention rolling ball (hmm, I wonder which website they got that from). They had nine experienced birders and the best they could do was say (paraphrasing here) "Some could see it; none were bothered by it."

Just two isolated examples.

The neverending "ruckus" hereabouts has been caused by a single poster who has yet to look through a pair. You'd think that might help, especially since the distortion is "anomalous" and the personal experience of it is probably nothing you could accurately predict ahead of time. To paraphrase a car ad, "This ain't your Nikon's rolling ball."

The difference between the 8.5x42 and the 8x32 is subtle, but it's there. The 8x32 has a bit more pincushion, but at the edge the reversal looks pretty much the same.

Mark

PS: I sometimes wonder if I'm optically blessed, or an idiot, or inattentive, or just too busy looking at the birds, but I seem to be able to use most of these optical formulations just fine. And I'm no "neuro-plastic" either. Just ask my wife. I'm as set in my ways as a hunk of granite. 8-P

Hello Mark,

Pincushion distortion had been introduced into binocular design, 60 years ago, almost worldwide, and that not because of my webpage, but because there were issues. I have received countless Emails, many of them from Swarovski SV owners, who wanted to know more about that globe effect because these guys had problems with their binoculars. That time, I set up my webpage ("Frequently asked questions ...") because I had to respond frequently to the same questions and I got tired of it. Meanwhile, it has become rather silent, and I guess Swaro has overcome most of their initial problems, or maybe because by now people find sufficient alternative information on the web, inside threads like this one. So this is fine with me

Cheers,
Holger

 

[Hermann]

Another serious crisis is brewing.
See http://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/p...0_8x56_binoculars_review_kikkert_test8x40.pdf (number 5)
and ask yourself why one particular 42mm model garners so many 12's when the competition has trouble maintaining 11's.
I'm calling this rating bias (aka RB).
I do, however, tend to believe the ratings sight unseen.

If you believe their "test results" unseen you'll most likely believe anthing.

Kikkertspesialisten have published quite a few tests over the years that were seriously at odds not only with other tests, but also with the experience of a large number of actual users. This was most obvious in their tests of birding scopes. And they never ever explained anywhere how they arrive at their test results. Which is fine, but they're trying very hard to make their "results" look as though they're arrived at through some "scientific" testing.

Please note I'm not saying the Swarovisions aren't good or anything, just that Kikkertspesialisten is not really a site I'm inclined to take seriously.

Not really.

Hermann