Very well said.... most people don't know anything about it.
I am not sure the problem with the monarch 7 8x30, but it gives blackouts when I use second eyecup position. If I extend the eyecups fully, I can’t see the whole field of view and I feel it reduces the clarity as well. I used to use some third party winged eyecups to avoid that problem however I didn’t completely solve the issue. Now with over time I got used to however M7 is getting less and less use because I have other options to use. Anyway I believe it is a fine binocular in its price range.Are the blackout problems in the M7 due to the eye cups being too short for the eye relief? Does the Curio really have better image quality than the M7? The M7 has quite an aperture advantage over the Curio. That surprises me. I am sure the M7 is more comfortable to use. How about CA in the M7 and the Curio. Do you see any in the center? You just need to hit the gym more often to carry that SLC 8x56 or get a harness.
I was thinking the same thing could be done for the SFL and the Conquest. I wonder why they have more CA than most other Zeiss and some Leica’s. Maybe Zeiss doesn’t care to much about CA. I wish Zeiss would update and modernize their designs with better glass so they can have that Leica image quality. But then it could change the characteristics of the binoculars. 😜🤭
I didn't find the head support helped that much with steadying the NL. In fact, I found it uncomfortable and irritating to have it resting against my forehead. I tried reading resolution charts with it and without it, and it made very little difference. Don't underestimate 8x in comparison to 10x.
Interesting that you prefer the Curio even over the NL. When I had the Curio and the NL 8x42, I came to the same conclusion. The Canon 12x36 IS III does have a lot of CA, probably some of the worst I have seen. That and lack of contrast is a big reason I sold mine. The SLC is like a big comfortable couch. It is very comfortable to use, but as you say a little on the heavy side.
I realize that Zeiss uses glass embedded with fluorides, which is different from fluorite crystal. I think Beth hit the nail on the head when she said Kowa and Zeiss use 2 ED elements per objective, and Leica only uses one. The Zeiss FL and the Kowa Prominar both have almost no CA in the center, and perhaps that is part of the reason.
I agree that is one weakness of the x56 Conquests. They do have quite a bit of CA.
Are you sure that's how resolution works? 🤔
Resolution increases if you use an IS binocular or put a binocular on a tripod. I believe the difference was as high as 30% between hand held versus IS or tripod mounted. Even if you can only hold an 8x 20% steadier than a 10x your resolution will increase dramatically.
www.birdforum.net
So you mean like an 8x32 would have more resolution than an 8x56 because you can hold Steadier. 😆
That's not really what resolution means, at least as far as I know — although obviously the steadier, the better as far as viewing goes.
I really think 10x is overrated in what you can actually see versus 8x because you are shaking more. Objects are bigger with 10x, but they are moving around a lot more, so your resolution is lower. Essentially, 10x users are fooled into thinking they are seeing more, but they are not.
"Increasing the magnification of binoculars or telescopes can decrease their resolution. Resolution is a measure of the ability of a lens to distinguish fine details in an image. As the magnification of a lens increases, the image becomes larger, but the size of the individual details remains the same. This can make the details appear less distinct and can decrease the overall resolution of the image. Additionally, as the magnification increases, the field of view decreases, making it harder to locate and track objects. Also, at high magnification, the image can become shaky due to the movement of the observer's hands, which affects the final resolution of the image. Some high-end binoculars or telescopes have a mechanism to mitigate this problem called image stabilization."
