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: 3156887" data-attributes="member: 665">pimpleknees,Is that like "once alpha there's no going backa?" <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />I had a Nikon 10x42 SE, which has sharp edges, 90%+ like the SLC-HD, and I had Nikon 10x42 HG, which had very little pincushion and was sharp almost to the very edge (of course, the image shrank toward the edges as it appeared to "fall off" the "globe"). The SE had smooth panning, the HG created "rolling ball." So for me, gaining that extra little bit of edge performance was not worth it. The HG also cost me twice as much as the SE, and it was a demo. I also have an 8x32 SE, and when I'm birding around the neighborhood, which is wooded (not as much as it used to be, we lost 100 acres to development), I prefer to use my 8x30 EII. Not sharp to the edge, but sharp to at least 70% and then gradual fall off until the edge, so the edges are still quite useable. In that regard, it is the best of the three samples I had. I prefer the wider FOV of the EII because everything is "closed in" near me except the ball field. For more open landscapes, I use the SE. As an amateur astronomer turned birder/wildlife observer, and someone whose focus accommodation ain't what it used to be, sharp edges are important to me, but not as important as having the "right tool for the job" or in getting the "best bang for my buck." Broccoli</blockquote>

Verification