What besides birds? (1 Viewer)

[Chosun Juan]

Recently, I've rather enjoyed taking to observing a local resident - check out this absolute Q-Tee!

And of course, when out for a stroll, bins are always handy for checking out oncoming traffic (especially when approaching rapidly with intent!)
(This is just one of the smaller units!)

Also, David (Typo), speaking of F1 - wish I'd had my set of bins along to check this out .... nah - who am I kidding? was shaking that much, that nothing short of a Canon IS would have shown this, clearly .....
Epic is an understatement!


Chosun :gh:

 

[Malloot]

Badgers!! I love them!!But also Deer, Roe, Boar, Beaver, Otter, etc.

 

[jaymoynihan]

other living things, night sky, landscapes

 

[WilsonsWarbler]

Is train spotting odd in the USA, its an established hobby in the UK?

It's not odd at all, but I've never seen anyone else train watching (or is it more properly termed spotting?) have any sort of binoculars. No idea why, they certainly are useful...

Also, almost every forest preserve I can think of near me is right by railroad tracks. So one day a few weeks ago, I saw my first Yellow Headed Blackbird, and also a rare (and honking) blue and gold sd40-2. I didn't have my camera, but it was like this: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=39339

Trains?

I'll roll with that!

 

[ronh]

Everything. How can you be so sure it's not interesting, if you don't look at it?

 

[Troubador]

We use ours to look in rock pools by the sea for different organisms like sea anemones, sea slugs and starfish. By the same token we now also look in freshwater pools, lakes and rivers.

Doing this you can get lovely views of stuff as if you were inches away.

In addition, we use bins for looking at / searching for small flower species in marshy / boggy ground to save walking and thereby damaging the habitat and plants. Plus you get great views without kneeling or lying down in the mud.

This is all in addition to the usual diet of birds, animals, insects etc.

Modern, close focussing binoculars are wonderful and versatile things: the notion that they are purely for distant objects is obsolete.

Lee

 

[Dimitri]

I use my Leica to look all other living things. Lepidoptera, Odonata, Plantae, Coleoptera, Mammalia, ...

 

[newfie ghost]

Everything. How can you be so sure it's not interesting, if you don't look at it?

:-O

I like to look at objects to test the resolution. You never know if the resolution might change since you last looked.

 

[bh46118]

The base of the large silver maple in my yard, viewed at 20 to 30 yards when shaded , will show more difference in resolution, retrieval of shadow detail, and the ability to discern subtle color differences than any other object I've seen. Reading an unfamiliar news paper is probably the best pure resolution test. If you can't read it, it didn't resolve it.

My Porro kills my roof's on the silver maple test, but for general viewing both roof's still have a fantastic image. I know Dennis likes to work everybody on here, but his Poro vs roof observations seem to be honest and objective based on my own observations. :eek!:

To answer the original question, anything and everything.

Bruce

:-O

I like to look at objects to test the resolution.

 

[FrankD]

I know Dennis likes to work everybody on here, but his Poro vs roof observations seem to be honest and objective based on my own observations. :eek!:

To answer the original question, anything and everything.

Bruce

Bruce,

I don't entirely disagree with you. I don't think it is as simple a picture as the one Dennis paints though. His comparisons are/were done simply between the EDG and SE of similar configurations. I have no doubt that the EDG is sharp, especially at the edges, but is it the sharpest roof out there...especially at the center? I would probably give the Zeiss FL 8x32 the nod there...at least from personal experience. Keep in mind I have never owned the EDG series.

My experience leads me to believe that porros and roofs of equal quality resolve similar amounts of detail at any given distance. I tend to believe that the 3D effect of porros tends to produce more apparent detail especially at closer distances. If you think about it for a second it does make sense. If you take any given object that has some depth to it (even the bark on the tree you mentioned) then it should appear to show more detail because the wider objective spacing of the porro tends to give more depth "around" the edges of the object. This in turn gives the appearance of more detail.

A flat object, like the often referenced USAF resolution chart, should level the playing field since it is a two dimensional object.

Just a thought that popped into my head.

Keep in mind I do tend to prefer porros at times because of the 3D effect they provide, the higher light transmission values (in general) and occasionally their handling. Other days though I tend to prefer roofs because the image seems "easier" because of its "flatness".

 

[newfie ghost]

The base of the large silver maple in my yard, viewed at 20 to 30 yards when shaded , will show more difference in resolution, retrieval of shadow detail, and the ability to discern subtle color differences than any other object I've seen. Reading an unfamiliar news paper is probably the best pure resolution test. If you can't read it, it didn't resolve it.

My Porro kills my roof's on the silver maple test, but for general viewing both roof's still have a fantastic image. I know Dennis likes to work everybody on here, but his Poro vs roof observations seem to be honest and objective based on my own observations. :eek!:

To answer the original question, anything and everything.

Bruce

I like the silver maple test as well

 

[hinnark]

Since this is bird forums, I assume we all bird with binoculars? But what else do you glass, if anything? What else fancies your glassing eye?

I use to watch TV with binoculars since my screen is pretty small. Also, I appreciate to watch fish in the aquarium. Well, and sometimes I like to watch at my collection of binoculars at the shelf - with binoculars.

Steve

 

[bh46118]

:-O

I use to watch TV with binoculars since my screen is pretty small. Also, I appreciate to watch fish in the aquarium. Well, and sometimes I like to watch at my collection of binoculars at the shelf - with binoculars.

Steve

 

[bh46118]

Hi Frank

It may be more to do with the resolution of the Minox than it has to do with a Porro being sharper than a roof in general. The Zen has a combination of attributes that make for that wonderful "easy" view whereas the Minox has, to my eyes anyway, a resolution and brilliance that are not attainable without spending huge amounts of money. The downside is that they are more "work" to look through, have a narrow FOV and a ton more CA than the Zen. I know you have had several pair of the 8X and liked but did not love them. I definitely understand that, as they are not an "easy view" type of binocular. It could be that they just simply work for me. I think mulligatawny owl said it better than I ever could in this recent post. I always enjoy your comments Frank.

Bruce

Originally Posted by mulligatawny owl

You're right the Opticron/Minox are crazy good value, way better in my experience than all the chinese ED stuff. In fact if I was mainly into coastal or fairly open habitat birding the HR WP would be my choice over the SE regardless of price.

Really, anyone who doesn't want to fork out for an SE and wants to see what all the fuss is about regarding the legendary view of the SE just get an HRWP instead, the overall view of both is of exactly the same washed clean, transparent pin sharp quality that I certainly never saw in either my Hawke ED 8x43 or my Zen ED2 7 x36.

Interestingly the only roofs I've tried that gave me that feeling were the EDG II 8x32 and the SV 8.5x42 I recently tested out, ( this was just in the street outside a bino shop though so maybe not a very good test ) I thought the FL 8x32 I also tested was clearly really poor in comparison.

Bruce,

I don't entirely disagree with you. I don't think it is as simple a picture as the one Dennis paints though. His comparisons are/were done simply between the EDG and SE of similar configurations. I have no doubt that the EDG is sharp, especially at the edges, but is it the sharpest roof out there...especially at the center? I would probably give the Zeiss FL 8x32 the nod there...at least from personal experience. Keep in mind I have never owned the EDG series.

My experience leads me to believe that porros and roofs of equal quality resolve similar amounts of detail at any given distance. I tend to believe that the 3D effect of porros tends to produce more apparent detail especially at closer distances. If you think about it for a second it does make sense. If you take any given object that has some depth to it (even the bark on the tree you mentioned) then it should appear to show more detail because the wider objective spacing of the porro tends to give more depth "around" the edges of the object. This in turn gives the appearance of more detail.

A flat object, like the often referenced USAF resolution chart, should level the playing field since it is a two dimensional object.

Just a thought that popped into my head.

Keep in mind I do tend to prefer porros at times because of the 3D effect they provide, the higher light transmission values (in general) and occasionally their handling. Other days though I tend to prefer roofs because the image seems "easier" because of its "flatness".

 

[bh46118]

It should be the new reference standard test. :eat:

Bruce

I like the silver maple test as well