I certainly could be wrong, but wasn't the period between posting 258 and 259 the longest time of no hear ever since Brock picked up the topic from Holger, was it? o
-
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?! (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter emmalibertine
- Start date
I certainly could be wrong, but wasn't the period between posting 258 and 259 the longest time of no hear ever since Brock picked up the topic from Holger, was it? o
Torview
Well-known member
Sounds the same as I saw looking through the SV, lovely still image, made unpleasant by panning, even a tiny bit.
I agree about the Meopta, one I`ll try again more extensively.
brocknroller
porromaniac
absolut_beethoven,
Welcome! to the Rolling Baller's Club of America. An application will sent to you shortly!
You'll enjoy our club activities. Once a year, we meet at Flushing Meadows Corona Park to gather under the 1964 World's Fair Unisphere to sing Led Zep's "Stairway to Heaven" and wear our club shirts that say "To be a rock and not to roll"
Yes, the world looks quite different when the shoe is on the other "ball" of the foot, as Dennis found out as well.
Even though you and I are a members of a small but elite minority, it's my contention that people should be forewarned but not alarmed about RB.
Just imagine if you will, that you had never heard about "rolling ball" and tried an SV EL. You wouldn't have a clue as to what it was or that the chances were in your favor that if you stuck with the bin that you otherwise really liked, you would eventually adapt. Instead, you would have taken one look and returned the bin or if you were at a store, not purchased it, because you didn't know that you would probably adapt.
If I have hammered too much on the issue, it's because some people kept prying out the nails each time I did. However, at this point, there's enough information on BF and out in the cybersphere that anyone with a head on his shoulders should be able to figure out what's what with RB, and I can holster my hammer in my carpenter pants.
In your case, it sounds like the RB bothered you so much, that it would be agony to even go through that period of adjustment to see if you would adapt. I tolerated RB for a month in the 8x42 HG, a month in the 10x42 HG, and two weeks in the 10x42 HGL. Of course, I didn't know what I know now (in fact, the term "rolling ball" had not even come in the vernacular at that point), otherwise, I would have refrained from using my other bins during that period, which might have given me a better chance to adapt.
Fortunately, for those Swaro fans who are RB Positive, there's the equally good quality SLC-HD. Unfortunately, for those who prefer midsized bins, there's only the 8x30 CL as alternative, not an 8x32 SLC-HD. Maybe we'll see that situation remedied in the future.
You found problems with the SV EL's focuser, which is no surprise, it should be obvious to anyone who's been reading these forums for a while that Swarovski focusers suffer from "sample variation".
The latest evidence of this can be found in eitanaltman's thread on the San Diego Bird Festival. During the "Swarovski-thon-apalooza" he tried a whole big case full of Swaros and every one had some issue with the focusers - stiff, coarse, harder to turn in one direction.
On the same thread, Steve C. posted that he had also tried Clay Taylor's "Big Box of Swarovski's" two weeks earlier at the Winter Wings Festival and found the samples "had superb, even flawless focusers". That's sample variation by the boxful!
To me, the focuser issue with Swaros is more of a concern than the RB, because it's not confined to just one model but can be found across the board in various samples of all Swaro's bins. Considering the high price of Swaros, focuser issues should be rare, not common.
You also seem to agree with eitanaltman that one not need to pay $2K+ these days to get good quality optics. Good news for birders on a budget.
<B>
Last edited:
absolut_beethoven
Well-known member
I've never seen this type of distortion before, and you're right, 3 minutes was enough for me. How could I possibly adapt when I have this jarring distortion jump out and ruin the incredible image every time I moved the binos slightly?
Now I know for future not to waste my time checking these types of bins. I have a new found respect for Nikon that they managed to get a sharp image almost to the edge without this distortion. Panning with the 1st gen Nikon 8x32 EDG causes a slight change in perspective almost like doing the same with a 28mm or 24mm wide angle lens mounted on a full frame camera. One notices it, but it's not bothersome. Absolutely no rippling effect for me whatsoever.
For me there's no question that as soon as Meopta introduce a light weight 8x42 HD, or a medium weight 8x32 HD that offers the same outstanding clarity, sharpness and vividly realistic colors as their 10x42 HD, that bino would be my next choice. But realistically, I'm not holding my breath.
Swarovski really do need to get their act together on the lousy and inconsistent feel of their focusing knobs. If Nikon, Pentax, Vortex and numerous others can do it for a fraction of the price, there's no reason why Swarovski can't once they set their minds to it.
After just unpacking both a pair of 8.5x42 EL SVs and a pair of 8x42 HT's, I can see what folks are talking about regarding the rolling ball in the SVs.
I have only spent a few minutes with each, so any insights that I might have are casual at best. Both are great bins and will be interesting to compare over the coming days.
One question: Is the rolling ball that I am seeing confined to the edge (flat field with distortion only at the edge), or am I viewing through a spherical type of distortion, where the entire viewing field is as on the surface of a ball?
Its hard to discern where the sweet spot ends and the RB begins.
Also a question for Beethoven - Can you comment a bit more about the SLC HD clarity? Would it be going too far to say that the SLC HD is every bit as clear as the SV without the RB effect?
Others on the forum have asked that I look at the SLC HD in the event that the RB is too much for me. I just have to decide if I want to order those as well for a 3-way comparison.
Thanks!
Steffan
I have only spent a few minutes with each, so any insights that I might have are casual at best. Both are great bins and will be interesting to compare over the coming days.
One question: Is the rolling ball that I am seeing confined to the edge (flat field with distortion only at the edge), or am I viewing through a spherical type of distortion, where the entire viewing field is as on the surface of a ball?
Its hard to discern where the sweet spot ends and the RB begins.
Also a question for Beethoven - Can you comment a bit more about the SLC HD clarity? Would it be going too far to say that the SLC HD is every bit as clear as the SV without the RB effect?
Others on the forum have asked that I look at the SLC HD in the event that the RB is too much for me. I just have to decide if I want to order those as well for a 3-way comparison.
Thanks!
Steffan
absolut_beethoven
Well-known member
Everybody's perspective on how they see things is different. Personally, I saw a rippling effect that seemed to affect the entire image as I panned. Others will obviously see things differently.
As far as the SV versus the SLC HD is concerned, I only looked through them for a very short time, appox 3 minutes for the former and a few minutes longer for the latter. But it was more than enough time to notice its sharper and slightly more vivid image versus the SLC HD. Brightness seemed comparable, but the extra sharpness and cleaner image due to less CA seemed to make colors more realistically vivid, i.e. superior quality image in most respects as long as its unique distortion doesn't bother you.
I haven't looked through the Zeiss HT, but IMHO the Meopta HD 10x42 is comparable to the SV 10x42 SLC HD. See my earlier post from yesterday, #259. Yes, the latter does have a few more positives in its column than the Meopta, but at twice the price.
It seems to me from what owners of the Zeiss HT have written on this forum about it, that it's the only alternative to the stunning image quality of the SV, without the distortion and probably slightly less vivid colors. But it does seem to offer the same clarity with a slightly brighter image, smoother focus and for a little less money too.
Keep in mind that NO bino, regardless of cost, is perfect, so you have to choose the one the best suits your eyes and needs. In this price range the way that you're doing it is the only way to go. In the comfort of your home and surroundings and at your leisure. Thirty days should be more than enough in order to make the right choice.
Good luck, have fun and let us know which one you choose.
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Steffan,
RB is a perceptual effect. You can't see where the sweet spot ends and the RB begins. But what you might be able to see in the SV EL, which has compound distortion, is where the pincushion ends and the angular magnification distortion begins, which as I recall from Henry's photos was somewhere around 60-70% from center. Some users see a "ring" at that point, which I've dubbed the "Absam Ring".
Pincushion tends to make straight lines bend inward like a bow who's string is pulled back. This helps make panning smoother, but sometimes optics designers get carried away and add too much of a good thing and the pincushion can be distracting. You get what I call "rolling bowl," where the image seems to roll over a negatively curved surface like a bowl.
With RB, the image appears to move over a positively curved surface like a globe. I don't like either extreme, and I agree with beethoven that Nikon does a good balancing act with these two distortions and offers good edge sharpness to boot in the EDG and SE series.
The reason you see the RB is due to the difference in image scale going from the center to the edge of the field. Just like looking at a globe, the countries at the center of the globe appear to look larger and pop out at you whereas the countries near the edge of the globe appear smaller and look as if they are moving away from you. This gives the perception of motion while panning that people call "rolling ball" or the "globe effect".
The curious thing about it is, if you can tolerate it, you will probably adjust to it in time and eventually not notice it. It will be as if it disappeared and you will see a "normal" view. But some people, like beethoven, can't tolerate it long enough to see if they will adapted. Others like me, can tolerate it, but even after a month, I never adapted to this distorted spherical worldview. I would imagine members of the Flat Earth Society would have problems adjusting too.
The problem with using the HT and the SV EL together is that you have one bin with quite ample pincushion, judging from Tim's pics of the cathedral, and the SV EL, with very low distortion, at least from 60% or so out. So you've got two bins that have opposite distortion levels. Not quite, because of the compound distortion in the SV EL, which does introduce pincushion in the center of the field.
While it's only a working theory, from some members' observations, it seems that using a bin with a lot of pincushion like the HT might delay the time it takes to adjust to the RB in the SV EL. I'm assuming you don't intend to keep both, but send one back?
I'm not sure how long a tryout period you have with the two bins, but if you have a couple weeks, I would look at them both, then put the HT away for a few days and just use the SV EL and no other bin. It might help you adjust sooner.
If you don't adjust, but like the overall image quality and color balance better in the SV EL, then you might want to check out the SLC-HD.
Brock
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Steffan,
The Swarovski SV optical formula contains a 'compound' (the so called mustache type) distortion. ie. as you progress from the centre of the field to the edge, a small amount of 'pincushion' distortion, which is then smoothly transitioned back through neutral, to a smaller amount of 'barrel' distortion.
Henry Link (see post#140 this thread) has some photos posted on a dedicated thread to demonstrate.
A good tip henry also provided was that if you want to check the distortion characteristics of any bin - view it back-to-front, ie. look through the objective end (it's helpful to look at some sort of grid, like flymesh, or fine egg-type grating, or something with lots of parrallel vertical lines, like mini-orb corrugated iron sheet, or similar). As you move your focus from the centre of the field it's dead easy to determine the magnitude, and proportion of the field affected. Just remember! Everything is back to front! (Opposite to normal from the eyepiece end) so 'pincushion' distortion bows out, and 'barrel' distortion bows in.
It is also helpful (from the objective end) to look at a small circle, and move it out to the edge of the field, taking note of how the shape changes. Just remember! Everything is Opposite! so if the circle becomes ovoid with the major axis in the vertical direction - then toward 'barrel' distortion is indicated. If the circle becomes ovoid with the major axis in the horizontal direction - then excess 'pincushion' distortion is indicated. If the circle stays a circle, then the "circle of condition" is indicated - mid strength pincushion. It is useful for getting a handle on the extent of the distortions present, based on the the severity (or not), and field point occurence of any circle shape changes.
It is good that you recognise that 'rolling ball', or the 'globe effect' is just a phenomena, resulting from your eyes individual distortion characteristics, AND that of the bin in concert; which are also subject to a whole host of other "factors", and modifying "parameters". You might have your work cut out for you, coming from the Leica, which is at the opposite end of the distortion spectrum to the SV, although Zuiko did it (post#73), so anything's possible! It's an individual thang.
Honestly just go and look at subjects, without worrying too much about evaluating the "minutiae" of the optical prescription. Humans are very good at picking up differences (or not! as the case may be, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo). Don't overly concern youself with "spherical" this, or "spherical" that either, it could just be preconceived notions based on some of the imagery around here - staring down on us like the Eye of Sauron! All AMD is not created equal, and the important point is the resultant of how it works with your eyes individual distortion characteristics; you might want to try this simple test of Holger's to quantify it here: http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/test_distortion.html
Your 3 test subjects are great bins - enjoy!, and let us know how it goes.
Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
I was just reading some recent reviews on BF and I noticed that the reviewers were including whether or not they saw RB in the bins under review! Steve C. and beethoven, and even Frank D., who I didn't even think saw RB.
Yes, ladies and gentleman, "rolling ball" has finally gone mainstream!. :smoke:
<B>
Yes, ladies and gentleman, "rolling ball" has finally gone mainstream!. :smoke:
<B>
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
If you find a rolling ball in your bin - send it back - likewise if it starts smoking (IS bins in particular!)
I found spicks and specks in one of mine once - I was hopping mad! :storm:
Chosun :gh:
I found spicks and specks in one of mine once - I was hopping mad! :storm:
Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
Be careful not to confuse what some call rolling ball with field flatteners. There are many binoculars with field flatteners, such as the Nikon 8x32 SE and 8x42 EDG, which do not exhibit RB (magnification) distortion. The distortion is a characteristic that is an integral part of the eyepiece design.
Having used a Swaro 8.5x42 SV, rolling ball is not an apt term. There is obvious distortion at the edges, which reminds me of looking through a port hole with curved edges. Port hole distortion is a more appropriate term in my humble view. Still, I'm only someone who has extensively used the binocular, and I do not have the benefit of being an expert who has never even looked through them. 3
Holger Merlitiz's site has a good explanation of distortion in binoculars. This is all well known stuff, but his explanation is very clear. The designer can reduce magnification distortion, or rectilinear distortion, but not both at the same time. Traditionally binoculars have pin cushion distortion, which makes for pleasant panning, but straight objects such as trees look bent. Swarovski have broken the trend, which I feel was a mistake on their part. The Nikon 8x32 SE (and the 8x42 EDG) have pin cushion distortion, which means that straight trees look bent. Perhaps we need a long thread on bent tree binoculars.
I do not understand the attention that this thread attracts. Binoculars have distortion, you either like it or not. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simples.
Leif,
I noted your very nice review of the Hawke Frontier ED. I've never owned one though I've tried it probably a dozen times or so, mostly as the MkI but a couple of the MkIIs just to see if anything had changed. I understand why it is popular here, but I find it unusable. It has a pronounced moustache distortion to my eyes which I find really unpleasant. The rings of magnification distortion are merely disconcerting on a featureless landscape to full nauseating funfair mirror effect in an urban setting for me.
Obviously different objective designs vary in their degree of field curvature and the amount of pincushion applied, but so far the Hawke Frontier ED, their Sapphire ED together with the ELSV count as the pair most unpleasant to use. I see a milder version in the EDG which is most tolerable in the 7x42. I'm supposing these are field flattener designs. This appear different from from a whole bunch that I would categorise as low field curvature and probably low pincushion though usually there are no straight lines to check when I've tried them. These seem a bit unnatural to my eyes but not disturbing in the same way those I mentioned. I prefer a bit more curvature (pincushion).
Holger, Ed and others have offered some explanations as to why some experience visual disturbance with one optical design more than another and I won't speculate more. You and I seem to have different preferences for what ever reason and as long as there is a choice out there we can both be happy.
David
I noted your very nice review of the Hawke Frontier ED. I've never owned one though I've tried it probably a dozen times or so, mostly as the MkI but a couple of the MkIIs just to see if anything had changed. I understand why it is popular here, but I find it unusable. It has a pronounced moustache distortion to my eyes which I find really unpleasant. The rings of magnification distortion are merely disconcerting on a featureless landscape to full nauseating funfair mirror effect in an urban setting for me.
Obviously different objective designs vary in their degree of field curvature and the amount of pincushion applied, but so far the Hawke Frontier ED, their Sapphire ED together with the ELSV count as the pair most unpleasant to use. I see a milder version in the EDG which is most tolerable in the 7x42. I'm supposing these are field flattener designs. This appear different from from a whole bunch that I would categorise as low field curvature and probably low pincushion though usually there are no straight lines to check when I've tried them. These seem a bit unnatural to my eyes but not disturbing in the same way those I mentioned. I prefer a bit more curvature (pincushion).
Holger, Ed and others have offered some explanations as to why some experience visual disturbance with one optical design more than another and I won't speculate more. You and I seem to have different preferences for what ever reason and as long as there is a choice out there we can both be happy.
David
David: I was careful not to say that one distortion form was better than the other, it is all about personal taste. Port hole (RB) distortion does not bother me, but it does bother some. Psychology is very significant in binocular preference as I am sure you agree. It is of course one reason why a single review is to be taken with a pinch of salt, even reviews by Dennis dare I say.
Thank you for the comments on my Hawke review. While writing this post I decided to check the Hawke by looking at the bottom of my garden, and I discovered a rather wet female Sparrowhawk perched on the fence. That is the first time I have seen a bird of prey in the garden, so I have something to thank you for. I have previously seen a pheasant and a red-legged partridge, but such birds are not typical visitors. Anyway, I saw strong field curvature and pin cushion distortion as mentioned in the review. Perhaps you are more sensitive to levels of distortion that do not bother me, or perhaps they have tweaked the eyepieces. The only way to be sure would be for you to use the pair I have.
Oddly enough the first time I looked through a Swaro 8.5x42 SV, a used sample possibly a year or two old, I was shocked at the view. I saw weird edge distortion (I was not panning), which I found very disconcerting, and massive off axis chromatic aberration. The view was so bad I put it down after a short time, and dismissed the binocular as rubbish. The high CA can be explained by the poor lighting, which causes the pupils to dilate. The Swaro does exhibit marked off-axis CA under certain circumstances, but I see no obvious reason why the lighting should change the distortion.
Thank you for the comments on my Hawke review. While writing this post I decided to check the Hawke by looking at the bottom of my garden, and I discovered a rather wet female Sparrowhawk perched on the fence. That is the first time I have seen a bird of prey in the garden, so I have something to thank you for. I have previously seen a pheasant and a red-legged partridge, but such birds are not typical visitors. Anyway, I saw strong field curvature and pin cushion distortion as mentioned in the review. Perhaps you are more sensitive to levels of distortion that do not bother me, or perhaps they have tweaked the eyepieces. The only way to be sure would be for you to use the pair I have.
Oddly enough the first time I looked through a Swaro 8.5x42 SV, a used sample possibly a year or two old, I was shocked at the view. I saw weird edge distortion (I was not panning), which I found very disconcerting, and massive off axis chromatic aberration. The view was so bad I put it down after a short time, and dismissed the binocular as rubbish. The high CA can be explained by the poor lighting, which causes the pupils to dilate. The Swaro does exhibit marked off-axis CA under certain circumstances, but I see no obvious reason why the lighting should change the distortion.
Sure. The SE exhibits plenty of "distortion", especially when you examine it in a manner wholly incompatible with normal birding. My Leica Ultravid did too. So did my old B&L and Pentax porros. My eyeglasses "distort" images but I like that because it's corrective in nature.
As it is, I don't see any distortion in my SE or my 8.5X42 SV. Sure, if I spin around in endless testing circles I'll eventually become disoriented, but that's not how I bird. Unfortunately, this forum has become more of a "testing forum" than a users forum. Users have real experience to share, ad-hoc testers don't.
Leif
Since I repositioned the feeders the Tits's etc. are somewhat protected from Sparrowhawk attacks and I only occasionally spot high speed fly pasts. For a number of years there was a very large female that regularly took pigeons. During the day she would fly off with them, but early in the morning she would take her time feeding, totally disdainful of the local cats. Neighbours have had Buzzards and Red Kites nest in their gardens. Not much survives the Magpies in mine.
Judging from reviews and comments there is clearly a broad spectrum of acuity, colour discrimination, sensitivity to various distortions and likely a host of other factors that separate opinions of different members. Not surprising there are disagreements, (some more constructive than others). I'm sure my eye and brain's interpretation is going to be different to yours. I've recommended people try the Hawkes a number of times knowing many others would select it in preference my own favourites. It's just not one I'd buy myself.
David
Last edited:
David: That is very sensible, I also try to avoid imposing my tastes too much. I am sometimes amazed that people like binocular X, but so be it.
Your neighbours must have big gardens. We get red kites down here. I sometimes see one circling overheard, no doubt they migrated from the Stokenchurch area. Seeing one in the garden would be a treat.
Your neighbours must have big gardens. We get red kites down here. I sometimes see one circling overheard, no doubt they migrated from the Stokenchurch area. Seeing one in the garden would be a treat.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Tor,
I'm glad somebody besides me is interested! You wouldn't get that impression from reading some of the comments above. What I wonder is if some people aren't interested in the topic, why are they reading this thread and posting to it?
With 275 posts, there's obviously a lot of interest in this topic. As I recently pointed out, RB is even being included now in reviews, not just by Holger and Pier, but also by some BF members reviewing bins on these forums. The day of denial is over.
Okay, as to your question, I don't experience RB with the SEs. Saw some mild RB in the Fuji 6x30 FMTR-SX, though I didn't in the 10x50 model, and some users have reported RB in both the 10x50 and 7x50 Fujis.
All of those bins employ field flatteners, but so does the EDG and the SE, and I found panning smooth in the 10x42 EDG and all three SEs, although Holger has reported seeing RB in the 8x32 EDG. People have different levels of sensitivity to it, and see it some bins and not in others, even reporting differences in models in the same series such as the FMTs and SV ELs.
The reason for this has never been explained to my satisfaction, but one thing seems clear, that for some people, my prior assumption that RB=RB=RB doesn't hold up. Some subtle difference in the distortion pattern is causing them to see RB in one model and not another. So even if you are RB Positive and the chances are good that you will see it in most low distortion bins, there might be some models whose AMD falls just below your threshold and you will not see it with those models or perhaps have more tolerance for it.
It would be nice if you could just plug in your "k value" and know which bins will show RB for you and which will not, particularly if you're not in a position to "try before you buy," however, from reading people's varied experiences with RB, there's apparently no substitute for "eyes-on" experience.
<B>
Last edited:
Great insights all!
I have learned a great deal and I appreciate the help with the various types of distortion.
It is amazing how different individuals view different bins, but that's what keeps the various companies in business.
Preliminarilly, I will say that the SV provides the nicest, sharpest view that I have ever experienced in a binocular.......as long as I don't move. Any movement and (to my eye) the distortion is quite apparent. It will be interesting to see if I notice it less over time. My initial thought is that for $2450, I shouldn't have to adjust to anything, but let's see how it goes.
The HT is a very nice alternative, although just SLIGHTLY (to my eye) less sharp than the SV. This is especially apparent when viewing stars. The bridge is also placed in a bit of an awkward position, causing me to have to bend my middle finger toward the ocular end to get it on the barrel when my index finger is on the focus wheel. Certainly not a show-stopper and I could adapt to that.
Build quality and focus wheels seem top notch on both bins.
Just for grins, I ordered the SLC HDs this morning and they should be here by Monday for a 3-way comparison.
Thanks again,
Steffan
I have learned a great deal and I appreciate the help with the various types of distortion.
It is amazing how different individuals view different bins, but that's what keeps the various companies in business.
Preliminarilly, I will say that the SV provides the nicest, sharpest view that I have ever experienced in a binocular.......as long as I don't move. Any movement and (to my eye) the distortion is quite apparent. It will be interesting to see if I notice it less over time. My initial thought is that for $2450, I shouldn't have to adjust to anything, but let's see how it goes.
The HT is a very nice alternative, although just SLIGHTLY (to my eye) less sharp than the SV. This is especially apparent when viewing stars. The bridge is also placed in a bit of an awkward position, causing me to have to bend my middle finger toward the ocular end to get it on the barrel when my index finger is on the focus wheel. Certainly not a show-stopper and I could adapt to that.
Build quality and focus wheels seem top notch on both bins.
Just for grins, I ordered the SLC HDs this morning and they should be here by Monday for a 3-way comparison.
Thanks again,
Steffan
Similar threads
