BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="OPTIC_NUT" data-source="post: 3172479" data-attributes="member: 121951">Heh...the systems I've seen are little messier thanbinoculars, but not much.  I cannot seem to explain it here, though.The sacred scrolls are too old.Paradigms are funny things, as are wants.They get you places, but in a tunnel.Thus my astonishment when I look out across this winterforest with Meopta Meopros (2013) and Scope 3010s(1970s?),and wonder what all the fuss was about.  Under some conditions,the latest stuff seems a lot less sharp and saturated.But, to focus on spherical aberration:1) Would you deny that eyepieces have elements    that compensate for  each other's aberrations?        I keep reading descriptions of eyepiece designs that mention that.2-a) Do you believe the MTF chart for all lenses and all systems of lenses    looks the same, just scaled somehow? There doesn't seem to be a point    in measuring something that's pretty much the same.    ...or is it the general shape...that there is always a singular fall-off to a    diffraction-pattern appearance? 2-b)   Actually........this could be true for almost all binoculars made,     from the same desisgn paradigm.  So....maybe that is true,     but not for everything optical. Or...maybe it's possible to be     different but way too costly.  I didn't ask about costs....but still,     there are $2500 binos.I think you are saying 2-b, sort of, but you say that covers all optics everywhere.Something's missing from this picture.</blockquote>

Verification