ecj100 at aol.com
Fri May 15 19:08:07 CDT 2015
In my view personal opinion, in particular my own, is the most crucial element of purchasing binoculars. No pair of binos works equally well for all. Over 40 years I have found that numbers, such as those produced by Cornell, are secondary to how binoculars fit a particular individual. I have repeatedly found that some highly rated pairs do not work for me, even if they do for others. For many years I happily used Celestron ED binoculars, but they were not waterproof and over time developed non-fixable mechanical problems. To me, they provided an unsurpassed apparent depth of field, even if not quite as crisp at the very edge. I have now switched to the Vortex Viper and am thrilled with the image quality, as a are others I know. Others may find them less impressive because the simple fact is that binoculars do not exist and cannot be tested in a vacuum. The best binoculars are those that work best for you, not those that rank best on any particular test.
Falls Church VA.
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 15, 2015, at 7:47 PM, Chuck Cole via Mnbird <mnbird at lists.mnbird.net> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Greenfield [mailto:tapaculo47 at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 6:32 PM
>> To: 'Chuck Cole'
>> Cc: 'MN Bird'
>> Subject: RE: [Mnbird] Ferhnglasser
>> I don't understand why you lump www.allbinos.com (a Website
>> from Poland) in
>> with "advertising rubbish". Why is, for example, their "use [of a]
>> spectrophotometer to obtain the transmission graph in the range of
>> wavelengths from 380 to 900 nm" not a quantitative measure?
> The mere fact that the glass has transparency that compares similarly and
> favorably with transmission of a coke bottle is not a measure of imaging
> What I saw in that link you provided was almost entirely the writer's
> PERSONAL OPINIONS, and stated as such.
>> And while they
>> report that the expensive Nikon and Swarovski models do well on that
>> measure, they enthusiastically point out that Vanguard and
>> Vortex binoculars
>> costing just over a quarter of the price do so also:
>> (Note that I didn't find that source, and am not an owner or
>> partisan of
>> expensive optics.)
>> But I have no interest in arguing; can you point us to ratings on the
>> additional measures you mention, e.g. "optical measurements of
>> multi-spectral resolution" that show conversely the lack of
>> between different binoculars?
> I merely suggested
> 1) the buyer should do a test of ability to resolve Jupiter's 4 Gallilean
> satelites, and
> 2) THEY should look for actual measurements and comparisins of optical
> performance, not just "I liked that.." reports., and
> 3) I did not offer to research or teach optics to anyone, but shared some of
> my experiences with tests and so on.
>> Stephen Greenfield
>> tapaculo47 at gmail.com
> YOU can research more and learn on your own. The data may be hard to find
> and is likely to require that YOU do tests,
> such as the very simple Jupiter test I recommended.
> Happy hunting!
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mnbird [mailto:mnbird-bounces at lists.mnbird.net] On
>> Behalf Of Chuck
>> Cole via Mnbird
>> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 5:09 PM
>> To: 'Mark Boenish'; mnbird at lists.mnbird.net
>> Subject: RE: [Mnbird] Ferhngldsser
>> Everything in the Swarovski 'reviews" you cite is advertising
>> rubbish and
>> thus deserving of disrespect.
>> There is NO point of optical performance measure and none of
>> comparison at
>> Geometric measures of the external bodies are at most red
>> herrings to make
>> folks think they have seen meaningful data when there is no MEASURED
>> information at all regarding OPTICAL quality. Such optical
>> measurements of
>> multi-spectral resolution are routinely used in professional
>> circles, so
>> their absence is quite conspicuous. Hobbyists may not know
>> what they mean,
>> but can learn to spot their absence and maybe also learn a little.
>> The Swarovski optical claims for flint glass, dielectric
>> coatings, field
>> flattening and so on have been common industry practice since
>> the early
>> 1970s and are in no way unique or better in their products.
>> Leica and Zeiss
>> are good, but are also over-priced and are outclassed by
>> others that are
>> also more durable. Measured performance is real and what counts!
>> These Swarovski reviews are largely author's hype and cite
>> nearly trivial
>> measurements. Lacking quantitative measures of
>> center-to-edge corrections,
>> color fringing and so on merely supports my earlier
>> statements that these
>> ads are hype, do not contain pertinent information.
>> Companies selling such
>> high-priced things merely pay writers more to build the hype
>> that makes
>> folks buy without any real data and real tests. Some of the
>> Bushnell binocs
>> I've tested match the higher priced brands easily. I've seen
>> cases where
>> different units of the same brand and model differ greatly,
>> and some are
>> truly bad. I've seen others delivered with major defects in
>> their factory
>> coatings. The "Jupiter test" is always required no matter
>> how much faith
>> and superstition a "believer" may have.
>> You seem utterly mesmerized and taken in by hype alone.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mnbird [mailto:mnbird-bounces at lists.mnbird.net] On Behalf Of
>>> Mark Boenish via Mnbird
>>> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 11:50 AM
>>> To: mnbird at lists.mnbird.net
>>> Subject: [Mnbird] Ferhngldsser
>>> I have to put in a word for the Swarovski EL binoculars as
>> others have
>>> expressed some disrespect for these fine instruments. These
>> are simply
>>> optically the best binoculars on the market at the present time. A
>>> similar amount of money can buy you very nearly as good of
>> a product
>>> from Zeiss or Leica, significantly less money will buy you a solid
>>> product from Meopta, a modest amount of money will buy you
>> binocs that
>>> will get the job done from a variety of makers.
>>> Personally, I worked my way up over the decades from inexpensive
>>> Bushnell 7x50s to Bausch and Laumb 7x50s to Zeiss 7x50s to
>>> 10x32 ELs about ten years ago. There is a difference as you
>> work your
>>> way up the price range. I just had my eyes examined and was
>>> to learn that my 53 year old eyes are still 20/20 with no
>> sign of eye
>>> disease (this was a concern as glaucoma runs in my family). I
>>> celebrated by ordering Swarovski EL 10x50s. They should be arriving
>>> this afternoon! I have tried these out several times and
>> they are the
>>> bomb for long range raptor viewing. Almost magical. If you don't
>>> believe me check out these reviews:
>>> Mnbird mailing list
>>> Mnbird at lists.mnbird.net
> Mnbird mailing list
> Mnbird at lists.mnbird.net
More information about the Mnbird