Seeing is believing (1 Viewer)

[PennineBirder]

As a user of several 'alpha' binoculars and scope I am becoming more and more convinced that we see and experience the optics and mechanics of our instruments depending on what our brain tell us rather than what is actually happening.

For instance, if we are itching to buy the latest brand/model that we have seen at a trade show, our brains start to see all kinds of problems with our current model which justifies to us the outlay of the new ones. I'm sure this also applies to focus wheels, eye-cups and the rest.

When we have bought the latest purchase we then 'see' the evidence we were looking to gain - the image is SO much clearer/brighter/shaper etc than the previous model.

I am no different and have been persuaded to replace perfectly good optics for a new model which my brain tells me is better than the old ones and so makes me feel good about buying them. But, I'm really not so sure now.

These thoughts about optics and advertising were crystallised for me recently when I watched a BBC TV documentary of the same title as this thread and it showed us scientifically that some 90% of what we 'see' is actually governed by our brains and only 10% of what we 'see' is due to the information coming through our eyes.

It explained convincingly why people 'see' ghosts, aliens, magic tricks, etc and oh...perhaps why we see that 'wow' factor image in our new binoculars. . . . . .

I'm not saying there aren't differences between the models and there aren't measurable improvements between good and bad optics - there clearly are. But are they as real or as important as we think they are?

 

[Binastro]

That Horizon, I think, programme was wonderful.
It really brought home how all our senses can deceive us.
We would need enormous brains to really understand what we are seeing.

 

[SuperDuty]

What you're saying is true to a degree, but there are differences in optics. When I looked through my Swarovision models I saw a nearly perfect view spoiled by pronounced yellow-green and purple fringes, through my current SF, very little CA and what's there is of low intensity. Most find the SV series to be on equal footing with the FL based optics, so it's a brain processing situation I suppose. FOV, weight and balance, focus speed and smoothness of action, eye relief, ease of view, glare control, etc, all more quantifiable, all very important to the decision making process. I do understand what you're getting at though.

As a user of several 'alpha' binoculars and scope I am becoming more and more convinced that we see and experience the optics and mechanics of our instruments depending on what our brain tell us rather than what is actually happening.

For instance, if we are itching to buy the latest brand/model that we have seen at a trade show, our brains start to see all kinds of problems with our current model which justifies to us the outlay of the new ones. I'm sure this also applies to focus wheels, eye-cups and the rest.

When we have bought the latest purchase we then 'see' the evidence we were looking to gain - the image is SO much clearer/brighter/shaper etc than the previous model.

I am no different and have been persuaded to replace perfectly good optics for a new model which my brain tells me is better than the old ones and so makes me feel good about buying them. But, I'm really not so sure now.

These thoughts about optics and advertising were crystallised for me recently when I watched a BBC TV documentary of the same title as this thread and it showed us scientifically that some 90% of what we 'see' is actually governed by our brains and only 10% of what we 'see' is due to the information coming through our eyes.

It explained convincingly why people 'see' ghosts, aliens, magic tricks, etc and oh...perhaps why we see that 'wow' factor image in our new binoculars. . . . . .

I'm not saying there aren't differences between the models and there aren't measurable improvements between good and bad optics - there clearly are. But are they as real or as important as we think they are?

 

[A2GG]

For instance, if we are itching to buy the latest brand/model that we have seen at a trade show, our brains start to see all kinds of problems with our current model which justifies to us the outlay of the new ones. I'm sure this also applies to focus wheels, eye-cups and the rest.

When we have bought the latest purchase we then 'see' the evidence we were looking to gain - the image is SO much clearer/brighter/shaper etc than the previous model.

I am no different and have been persuaded to replace perfectly good optics for a new model which my brain tells me is better than the old ones and so makes me feel good about buying them. But, I'm really not so sure now.

Agree and I know I have fallen victim to this in the past myself.

However, I think I have matured a little over the years and I at least
am more honest with myself these days. I purchased my Ultravid+
out of pure desire, as I've always wanted an Ultravid. At first it was the
8x32, but by the time I was ready to purchase I needed glasses and the ER
on the the little 32 was too short. So I finally got the 7x42 with 17mm ER.

From the start the UVid was 'the one' that I always wanted. It just spoke to me; the design , look , function and feel of it hooked me right away. I didn't try to convince myself that it's optically superior than other top binoculars. Actually, the previous HD always seemed to fall a bit behind in reviews and opinions compared to the top Swaro and Zeiss bins, but I never cared about all of that. I always knew what I wanted...and now I won't "upgrade" to the latest noctivid or any other. I'm content and maybe that's due to just admitting I simply desired the bino and not trying to convince myself of some optical attributes that may or may not be "better" than the others in order to justify the purchase.
I still purchased other binoculars and there will be more I'll be interested in, but those are supplemental and not my primary/main or favorite bino. I suspect my Ultravid will stay in that spot as my fav for a long time.

I hope I don't sound like I'm tooting my horn here or bragging in any way.

 

[oldfortyfive]

While image quality is important it's only one piece of the pie. I could easily live with any number of binoculars, but when looking at the whole package the ones I grab are my Swaro SV 8x32's or my old Vortex 6.5x30 Furys. They are pretty much on opposite spectrums for cost, etc. But their combination of wide FOV, great eye relief, great images and good ergonomics just work for me.

 

[Rathaus]

Ahh yes, welcome to the realities of Cognitive Dissonance and Cognitive Distortion :-O

 

[dan31]

I recently purchased a new Zeiss 8x56 FL out of pure desire. That and Henry's review.

I still wonder how they just happened to find a "new" 8x56 FL in 2016. They live up to their reputation.