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="brocknroller" data-source="post: 1763073" data-attributes="member: 665">Dean,You asked a lot of interesting questions, some of which I've wondered about myself. I hope the BF optics experts will chime in with some concrete answers for you. I can only give you the benefit of my experience. I've had two 12x50 SE samples myself, and I found them to work better at longer distances than up close (even the sample that has a 16' close focus). I suspect the reason for this with me is the shallow depth of field with the 12x50 vs. the 8x32, which makes focusing more critical at close distances. A hair over or under and the "object of your affection" is blurred whereas with the 8x32, you've got wiggle room for your eyes to accommodate the focus. The other aspect is one of aesthetics, but may also play a role in perception of sharpness. I find it more pleasing to my eyes to see a bird in context, that is, in its natural surroundings. In the 12x50 SE, the depth of field is so shallow that at close distances, I can get the bird in focus (and keep it in focus, if it doesn't move around too much), but the background and foreground will be blurry. At longer distances, focusing the 12x50 SE on fine detail is much easier for me, because I don't have to "hunt" for the best focus and some of the background and foreground is also in focus so I've got visual cues as to where my target is. I'm not sure if those are the issues in your case, your eyes may have better focus accommodation than mine, but that's what I've found in comparing the 12x50 and 8x32 SEs. As far as the 12x Leicas vs. the 12x SEs, the Leica's increased contrast and color saturation may help to compensate for its CA. I found this to be true when comparing the 8x32 LX with the 8x32 SE. The LX shows more CA, but at the center the perceived sharpness is better due to the increased contrast and color saturation. In an actual "bench tested" resolution test, the LX was an element behind the SE. Increased contrast and more vivid colors can help bring out detail on birds. At 60x, imperfections are more easily visible than at the normal power of the bins. Whether or not those imperfections are visible through your eyes at the normal power might depend on your visual acuity, sensitivity to CA, etc., and the severity of the imperfections. Boosted testing is a good way to pick the "best of the litter" if you have more than one sample, but I can usually tell which sample or different bin is the better one from my own observations under different lighting conditions. If I hand two sample bins to a friend or neighbor who hasn't spent a ridiculous amount of time looking through binoculars the way I have, they usually don't notice the difference even if one is slightly out of collimation. The one exception I recall is when I had my neighbor who is a budding birder, do an A/B comparison of my older SE (501xxx) with the Nikon 8x32 LX. I asked which she liked best, and she said the LX, because the colors were "brighter". She was looking at a finch on my backyard tube feeder. Yellows really "pop" in the LX.The increased color saturation, contrast, and resolution are what distinguish alphas from the rest of the pack, but with the cheap manufacturing in Asia and the Asian Pacific, we are beginning to see second tier bins give the alphas competition at a fraction of the cost. In the future (perhaps near future), it's going to come down to optical nitpicking to distinguish the "men from the boys," and other features such a robustness, reliability, accessories, and warranties will play a larger role as Asian optics chomp at the heels of the alphas. This may be one reason why Leica improved its customer service and extended its Ultravid warranty.</blockquote>

Verification