|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1983
Loc: Bedford Falls, Pa.
|
|
Preamble: As you age, your eyes' focus accommodation worsens, and those fuzzy edges caused by field curvature that you used to be able to focus when you were younger become as blurry as the newspaper is eight inches from your face w/out reading glasses.
Not all eyes age at the same rate, so it's difficult to put an exact age at which this happens, but if you need reading glasses, your focus accommodation has already begun to slide. However, what you have lost in focus accommodation, you have hopefully gained in wisdom, so don't let this bit of bad news upset you! :-)
Also, most if not all binoculars have astigmatism, some very little, some a lot, and unlike field curvature, the out of focus areas due to astigmatism cannot be refocused no matter how young you are.
Having said that, a lot of birders could give a rat's bum about edge performance, or at least they are not as obsessed with the edge performance as much as binocular astronomers, because they use the edges to locate a bird, and then center the bird in the "sweet spot".
Unless you are looking at a pileated woodpecker or a turkey vulture or some other large bird at close focus (usually not possible since such birds tend to be skiddish around humans), you should have enough room to fit the bird in the sweet spot on most birding bins, be they $80 Yosemites or $1,8000 ELs. However, if you view several birds at the same time, the outermost or top- or bottom most may be out of focus on some binoculars.
I'm sure that most birders have their preference as to the size of the sweet spot they desire, and therefore the degree of edge performance they can accept.
TWO QUESTIONS:
1. How far from the center on a BIRDING binocular is it necessary for the image to be sharp in order for you to have a good birding experience?
In percentage -- 50%, 60%. 70%, (for the more technically minded 72.35% ), etc. This assumes a moderately wide to wide FOV, as typical of most birding bins.
2. List the BIRDING bins you have tried with the WORST and BEST sweet spots/edges. Amplfy on what the experience was like using these bins if you can.
Note to nitpickers: Sharpness gradually falls off from the center on all binoculars, so by "sweet spot" I mean the area in the centerfield that is "acceptably sharp" to your eyes.
Note to everyone else: There are no "right" or "wrong" answers, just looking for opinions, and curious to see if there is any consensus of opinion.
Thanks!
--------------------
Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: I'm a mocker
|
KennyJ
The British Flash
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 20139
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Brock ,
Let me commence by saying that although my taste in wine has altered with age so as to have a preference these nights for a rating of 1 or 2 , where 1 indicates DRYEST , as opposed to the 4 or 5 my palate once prefered , I cannot be so specific about how my preference in daytime optics has altered over a corresponding period .
Also , it will do no harm to reiterate that I am NOT a birder .
I was raised , or " force - fed " on a 10 x 50 binocular with a narrow 5 degree TFOV , eye relief in the region of minus 3mm , with only " coated optics " , Bk7 prisms with square exit - pupils , eyecups which may as well have been constructed of solid steel , and with the entire instrument apparantly having been designed before the word ergonomic had been invented , and also heavy enough to come in handy as an emergency lump hammer .
Did I mind ? -- No !
Did I even NOTICE any of these things ? - No !
Did I even KNOW about any of these things ? -- No !
To a point , ignorance is bliss .
But moving on swiftly and steadfastly to attampt to address your QUESTION ONE , and I think I must have mentioned this before , but for me , there is a basic minimum TRUE field of view ( BMTFOV ) which I require in a hand held binocular , before I can even begin to enjoy looking through it , even if it were sharp to 100% out from centre .
I would put that BMTFOV at a full FIVE degrees , and not a gnats whisker less .
Beyond that , meaning WIDER than 5 degrees , I find the 6 degree TFOV of the Nikon 10 x 42SE just about acceptable , but only because I find the sharpness acceptable to a point whereby a FULL 5 degrees of TFOV is sharp enough for my eyes to enjoy looking at .
PROPORTIONATELY speaking , I similarly find the following binocular acceptable to me .
Swift Kestrel ( 7 degrees TFOV but with probably around 5.5 degrees acceptably sharp )
Swarovski 8 x 20 ( 6.6 degrees TFOV with probably around 5.5 degrees acceptably sharp )
Captain's Helmsman ( 7.2 degrees TFOV with probably around 6.2 degrees acceptably sharp )
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT ( 8.6 degrees with probably around 7 degrees acceptably sharp )
Much as I appreciate and admire the edge sharpness of the Nikon SE ( relatively speaking ) I STILL think that extra 0.5 degrees of " sharp " TFOV gives the Swift Kestrel a sensory advantage over the SE .
That -- and even the extra " less sharp " area which the Kestrel provides , and perhaps also other aspects which I'm less aware of , or simply cannot categorise for want of more studied technical analysis , seem to make the Swift Kestrel 10 x 50 a more " friendly to use " binocular than the Nikon 10 x 42 SE .
I think I've at least PARTLY answered QUESTION TWO with my answer to QUESTION ONE !
Looking forward to reading any responses from others ,
Kenny
--------------------
Milton Wilcox R.I.P
|
Rich N
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/22/04
Posts: 5618
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area, Calif...
|
|
Hi Brock,
Most of the time the birds are small enough and far enough away that they don't take up much of the field of view.
I can't remember thinking the image of the bird is bad because of too small a sweet spot in my binocular. Maybe it is because I'm using some of the better birding binoculars. Also, when I'm looking at a bird I'm usually concentrating on it rather than the overall optical quality of the image.
What bothers me most is a little off axis false color. But here again, if I'm really intent on observing the bird I tend not to think so much about the false color caused by lateral dispersion in the eyepiece.
Rich
|
sparrow
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/10/06
Posts: 1002
|
|
Quote:
List the BIRDING bins you have tried with the WORST and BEST sweet spots/edges. Amplfy on what the experience was like using these bins if you can.
Thanks!
Speaking only of my main birding bins and ONLY for the purpose of
birding these all give a decent FOV.
1. Zeiss 7x42 "Classics".
My best overall birding glass. Clear, sharp, bright, excellent contrast
with little field distortion. 450 feet at 1000 yds.
2. Bushnell 8x28. Note- I'm talking about a $90 pair of bins. These
always give decent performance out in the field under actual birding
conditions. They get the job done. 417 feet at 1000 yds.
3. Leica BA. 8x32 Excellent across the full FOV except with pincushion
out on the edges which I really don't notice under actual use. Has,
perhaps, the best color and contrast of all my bins. 405 at 1000 yds
4. Nikon 7x35 Action. Super wide FOV with surprising resolution and
contrast for the price ($55). These are my preferred glass when going
deep into the woods for warblers (along with the Zeiss). 490 feet at
1000 yds.
Sparrow
The wild creatures shall not be measured by man. In a world older and
more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with
extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by
voices we shall never hear. They are not bretheren; they are not
underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of
life and time.
Henry Beston
--------------------
For the animal shall not be measured by man. They are not brethren,
they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in
the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail
of the earth.
Beston
|
Claudio
sage
Reged: 07/26/04
Posts: 277
|
|
Brock,
In my opinion the width of the sweet spot, i.e. the central area with very negligible loss of sharpness, should be related to the way we use our eyes.
The sweet spot should be wide enough to allow the eye to swivel sufficiently without being limited by loss of sharpness. For “sufficiently” I mean the normal range of swivelling before we instinctively turn the head, which I would estimate about 30º wide (comments on this estimation are very welcome). Thus this area with very negligible loss of sharpness should be about 30º of AFOV; if it were narrower the loss of sharpness would be felt as intrusive and we would notice it even when looking at the centre of the FOV; as a result we would be led to re-focus frequently.
Please note that, since here the sweet point is related to the way the eyes work, the estimated width of 30° is measured on the apparent field of view, so it doesn’t vary depending on the magnification of the binocular. A 6x with will have a sufficient sweet spot when the there are 5° of true FOV ( = 30° of apparent FOV), a 10x will have a sufficient sweet spot when the there are 3° of true FOV ( = 30° of apparent FOV).
30° could seem to be a too narrow sweet spot, but in my experience not many binoculars have a sweet spot of 35°. However, please note that I am talking of an area of very negligible loss of sharpness.
The width of the sweet spot and the quantity and quality of loss of sharpness in the areas out of the sweet point are interesting for me not just since my eyes became to age. In fact this has ever been one of the first qualities I look for in a binocular. In my opinion the width of the sweet spot and the quality of the edges out of the sweet spot are very important to get a relaxed view.
About sweet spot, edges quality and birding purposes. I agree with Rich that when the bird is spotted, what is significant is the highest quality at the centre of the FOV.
However, sweet spot and quality at the edges become important when looking for birds. Two typical situations are the search of raptors against the sky and the search of pelagic birds from the coast. In these cases the worst way to look for them is by panning the binocular. Small, indistinct silhouettes against a bright sky are much more difficult to detect, and their gliding movement less perceivable.
The correct way to look for them is by dividing in sectors the area we have to scan, each sector being a bit less of the width our binocular can cover in one view. Then each sector will be checked without moving the binocular.
Obviously the binocular with better quality out of the centre of the field of view will work better in this kind of birding activity.
Anyway, even when trying to spot a warbler among the twigs of a bush a binocular with good sweet spot and good edges quality is very welcome. It reduces significantly the need of re-focusing: what is in focus of the bush is naturally in focus because our eyes would do the same, what is out of focus is naturally out of focus because at shorter or longer distance, and as a result the overall view of that portion of bush is very natural and the eyes become quieter, just waiting for a movement of the bird among the foliage. I realize that there are more factors concurring to get this relaxed way of looking for birds, however the sweet spot and the edges quality are two of the most important ones.
One binocular I have found very disappointing is the Nikon Monarch 8x42, I tested deeply two samples and the sweet point was very narrow. It is a pity, because the sharpness in the centre of view is very good and the chromatic aberration on axis and in backlight not particularly tedious, but there is loss of sharpness just out of the very centre of view. I wrote some notes about this but am not able to find them now, anyway I seem to remember the soft point was for me not wider than 20/25 degrees of AFOV.
I would like to make more comments on this theme, but in two hours I have to be at the hospital to be operated on for two hernias… no internet there, sorry for neither following nor participating to the thread for at least a couple of days.
Regards
Claudio
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1983
Loc: Bedford Falls, Pa.
|
|
Thanks for your responses, particulary to Claudio for taking time out to post TWO HOURS before having a double hernia operation. Now, that's a true binofan! Hope all went well, let us know how you are doing. And please buy 25 lb. bags of birdseed from now on. :-)
Let me see if I can sum up the results so far:
For Kenny, it sounds as if he is willing to trade off a bit of edge sharpness for a wider TFOV though he still prefers around 80% sharp edges (if I did my math correctly), which is above average edge performance for WF birding bins in the "under $1,000" category, though I have seen some 7x42 B/GAs sell for that much now that they are discontinued.
It sounds as if Rich N. is in the "could give a rat's bum about edge performance" camp, but then I found one of his posts on BF:
Rich N.
The Zeiss Classic 7x42 B/GA T*, as I remember, is also a little soft toward the edges of the field. How does the new Zeiss 7x42 FL compare in edge sharpness to the Classic?
So apparently even Rich has some interest in edge performance since CA would not be a problem with the FLs. Did you buy an FL Rich? With several "Rich"es on CN/CD, I forget who has which bins.
I have heard such wildly varying reports on the size of the FL's sweet spot that I suspect there's either considerable sample variation OR a fair amount of field curvature and that reports differ according to the reviewer's focus accommodation.
Sparrow did not include percentage of sharpness from the center, but it sounds like he is willing to trade off some edge sharpness for a wide FOV, particularly with the 7x35 EX.
Claudio's comments come closest to my own opinion on the subject.
For example, I didn't feel comfortable with the Audubon 804 ED despite its very contrasty and super color saturated images, because the sweet spot was so small. Testing the bins on the night sky, I could not fit the two end stars of Orion's Belt in focus horizontally while centered on the middle star. Orion's Belt spans 2.75* in the sky, so that means the sweet spot, at least horizontally, was LESS than 3*. When I panned with the binoculars my leading eye would see a fuzzy image and my trailing eye a clear image so I always had to keep my eyes fixed (almost impossible to do) and move my head while panning to keep images in both eyes in focus. Not "user friendly".
With the FMC 804 Audubon, I can barely get the three belt stars in focus, so its on cusp of the magic 30* zone, though the vertical edges are much better. I still find myself falling into the "fuzz" if I pan too quickly with this model. Like the ED model, the magnification is larger than 8.5X so this gives the impression of a smaller FOV. BUT, the images are incredibly sharp, contrasty, and bright. When it's damp and the light levels fall and my 8x32 LX fails me, I switch over to the FMC (WP) 804 Audubon. Or if I'm making an ID at a distance, the extra resolution helps.
With the MC 804 Audubon, I can easily fit the three Belt Stars in focus and way beyond, about 70% horizontally, 80% vertically, very good for a 8.2* FOV, and the magnification is 8.5X so the FOV looks WIDE.
I also like to look at groups of birds rather than one bird at a time so having a wide sweet spot makes for less jumping back and forth and gives my eyes time to relax and wander around the FOV, looking for the most interesting or colorful birds.
The reason I posted this thread is probably obvious from my preRamble and from my other posts about focus accommodation. I find that these days, I prefer as wide a sweet spot as possible for birding and any other terrestrial observing. By the time I get to Kenny's age, I will probably need bins with a min. of 80% sweet spots. :-)
--------------------
Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: I'm a mocker
|
KennyJ
The British Flash
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 20139
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Brock ,
That's quite an early summarisation , so I presume you are expecting the poll station to close later tonight ?
What about Henry Beston's opinion that wild creatures shall not be measured by a man ?
Is that why you stuck to using the belt stars of Orion as a yardstick ?
At least Henry's order would not rule out Amalia or Lynne from refering to livestock as any points of reference !
Anyway , if Claudio's mathematical observations / estimations are true and accurate , which they probably will be , knowing Claudio ( and I sincerely hope all went well with the Hernia , Claudio ) then it looks like I'm either even more easily satisfied than I thought I was , indeed to the tune of 10 degrees AFOV , or I'm very fortunate to have eyes with " auto - blinker mode " when it suits me .
Thanks for an interesting thread , which I feel deserves far more input .
Come on guys and gals ,
ROLL UP - ROLL UP - don't be shy -- give it a shot !
Regards , Kenneth of Lancashire
--------------------
Milton Wilcox R.I.P
|
Amalia
Reged: 10/16/04
Posts: 5165
|
|
Quote:
I have heard such wildly varying reports on the size of the FL's sweet spot that I suspect there's either considerable sample variation OR a fair amount of field curvature and that reports differ according to the reviewer's focus accommodation.
Brock,
this was one lengthy post, and not really suited
for foreigners like me, actually.
Regarding the above quotation, I have to answer you
that there are:
...several Zeiss FL getting sold at the moment (I have tried the
Zeiss 8x56 and 10x56 B T* P* Victory, so the last version, and
I own the 8x56 and 10x56 Victory FL, so the newest version).
These versions get simply mixed up. And, oh boy, they really
*are* different...
...these various focal lengths show a different amount
of field curvature, as far as I can say this already now.
... and yes, of course there is this sample variation,
also in the Zeiss production. I have found a very good
illustrated written example of this.
Plus, we have the wellknown "honeymoon effect", since the
new Zeiss Victory FL gets called (by Zeiss, of course) "the
best binocular of the world". So many users get a little
bit confused, because, hey, she's the most wonderful bride...
No, I don't think Angelina Jolie to be the most sexy woman
of the world. But from the pictures I can tell that she
does not think this either, but she surely enjoys all this
talking, and writing, and all this excitement...
But first of all, tell me, what the shark are *you* discussing here? 
And why the Zeiss FL? Do you want to purchase one?
Or is this just theoretical stuff, as practiced by another
CNer already? So maybe I just disturbed a precious
only-theoretical discussion...?
Thank you! 
Amalia
--------------------
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1983
Loc: Bedford Falls, Pa.
|
|
Quote:
Brock ,
That's quite an early summarisation , so I presume you are expecting the poll station to close later tonight ?....
Thanks for an interesting thread , which I feel deserves far more input .
Come on guys and gals ,
ROLL UP - ROLL UP - don't be shy -- give it a shot !
Regards , Kenneth of Lancashire
The Lancashire Kid,
You win your own "WEEKLY AWARD FOR LACK OF ATTENTION TO LAST POST DETAIL"! :-)
I said, and I quoth: "Let me see if I can sum up the results SO FAR:
Thus, anticipating and hoping to draw more posts, or even a post from "mooreorless", to this thread since you and I are not the only old fa-rts on CD. :-)
I was going to wait until it died out to put in my tupence, but I felt compelled to reply after Claudio's heroic effort to get one last post in before going under the knife.
Thanks for that call to arms. I hope we do get more replies, but I can see from Amalia's post, I may not have been perfectly clear about what I was asking.
Quote:
this was one lengthy post, and not really suited
for foreigners like me, actually.
Amalia, I apologize for my bombastic verbosity. Oops, there I go again. :-) I mean lenghty post, and when talking of Zeiss bins, you are less a foreigner than I, since I'm not even on the same continent as Deutschland!
But to clarify, this thread isn't about Zeiss FL bins, I only mentioned them because Rich N. had asked about their edge performance on Birdforum whereas his post here, he didn't seem concerned about this aspect. Not to make a "gotcha", but rather to show that even birders who are less concerned about edge performance (how WIDE a sharp centerfield a bin has) have some interest since binoculars with poor edges are unpleasant to use, as Claudio pointed out in his post about the Nikon Monarch, and I did about the 804 Audubon ED, and I could add another example, the Japanese-made Celestron 8x32 Ultima, which had an exceptionally sharp but very small "sweet spot" and poor edges. In fact, you could get more of the edges in focus than you could the centerfield!
So let me restate my original post in a (hopefully) more understandable way.
As you get older, your eyes lose their ability to focus close up due to hardening of the lenses. When it becomes bad enough that you have to hold the newspaper farther than the reach of your arm, it's time to get reading glasses. :-)
This same condition (presbyopia) affects how well you can accommodate (adjust to) changes in focus from near to far in binoculars and also how well you can the focus field curvature of lenses.
Field curvature occurs when part of the image is in focus to your eyes and part is out of focus. You can focus the centerfield OR the edges but not both at the same time.
All lenses have some field curvature, however, binocular manufacturers can manipulate the optical system to lessen this effect or add field flattener lenes to overcome it.
Younger people's eyes can focus better because their eye lenses are more flexible. So when they look through a binocular with field curvature, they will generally see more of the edges in focus than an older person.
So... my first question was to YOUR eyes, how much field curvature is acceptable? More specifically, how far from the centerfield of a binocular can the sharpness fall off before it interferes with your enjoyment of birding? The second question was to name specific examples of binoculars with poor edges and good edges. So the thread is both theoretical and practical.
The other thing I should add is that regardless of your ability to focus the edges of a binocular with field curvature, some people can ignore the fuzzy edges better than others, just as some people can ignore chromatic aberration (false color) better than others. So there's a psychological aspect to this as well as one that can be measured.
Thanks for that information on the two version of Zeiss Victories, the terminology can be confusing when companies change the optics but keep the same name. I believe the reviews I was referring to on Birdforum dealt with the 7x42 and 8x42 T* FLs.
You lost me with your reference to Angelina. All I know about her is that every time she visits a new country, she adopts a native child. And I would guess that she must go through a lot of lipstick and lip balm with those big smackers. :-)
As far as if I would like to purchase a Zeiss FL myself... maybe if I hit the lottery, but first I'd like to TRY one.
An 8x32 roof that gave as sharp (hopefully sharper) and contrasty images as my 8x32 LX but without the chromatic aberration of the LX would be most welcome! However, the edge sharpness would have to fit within my tolerance zone. From what I've been reading, the edges on the 32mm models are better than the full sized models. But again, opinions vary.
Well, gotta go purchase some lottery tickets. Take care!
--------------------
Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: I'm a mocker
|
Amalia
Reged: 10/16/04
Posts: 5165
|
|
Good grief, when I understand you it gets only worse,
my dear Brock... 
So many questions, and I have only started to use
binculars, arr, binoclars, I mean, Binnoucluarrs, well,
I own a Fujinon since I was rather small, but the rest
of my bincocular collection was more or less what one
could call cheap stuff, except for that Minolta zoom,
who can be called quite useless, except for spotting
Alpine Marmots, and...
I like to talk about Marmots, actually. Brock, what do
you know about Alpine Marmots?
Last summer I have found a place where the path leads
very close to a marmot society, so when I arrived there
I could not believe how close they were, and we remained
and watched each other, and border sharpness was not
really important, I mean, without using binnculcoars.
Quote:
So... my first question was to YOUR eyes, how much
field curvature is acceptable? More specifically, how far
from the centerfield of a binocular can the sharpness fall
off before it interferes with your enjoyment of birding? The
second question was to name specific examples of binoculars
with poor edges and good edges. So the thread is both
theoretical and practical.
Pooh, difficult, feels like a test...
Except for marmotting I very seldomly do birding, I call
this *observing everything in the nature and enjoying it*.
The field curvature does not bother me, I use mainly my
rather new (one month or so) 10x32 Leica Trinovid, and this
thing has such a sharp resolution, that I could jump up and
down, and so the field curvature goes totally unnoticed. 
Poor edges I have noticed in my also new 10x50 Nikon Action
Extreme. This is too much for me, in the night.
Poor edges also in the last Zeiss Victories, too much for
me. The newer ones are a little bit better -- but these
are no daylight nature binos to me, for different reasons I
will try to explain in my future threads.
I will call the threads "Amabin #1", "Amabin #2", etc.
Is this a good idea?
For daylight I do prefer Leica, Trinovid or Ultravid does
not matter. The Trinovid are sometimes discounted now, this
is maybe the chance to get one...
I don't think good about the Monarch either. I was thrilled
first, but then I understand they have only little red...
Angelina, I thought to be the dream honeymoon bride for
males...  (analogy to the honeymoon with the new
Zeiss FLs).
We will have to wait some months until humanity will
discover that the FLs are fabulous astronomy and hunting
bunnyculars.
So, time to get some vitamin C for my cold!
Take care, you too! 
Amalia
--------------------
|
KennyJ
The British Flash
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 20139
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Amalia ,
Your sudden activity on the bincooling related forums here at CN has been like a breath of fresh Alps air !
Considering you've had Fujinon Bincollars since you were less large than you now are , I'm a little surprised it seems to have taken so long for you to enter into discussions about Binklers here at Rowdy Fights .
I did a little bunkling earlier tonight , re - checking the Instability of 15 x 70 Bonkers whilst hand felt . .
Even when resting my elbows on a strategically located tumble dryer ( which was switched off , incidentally -- well actually PURPOSELY ) so as to prevent vibration transporting through my arms to the Bunklingers , I found the stars to be dancing around like chickens with no heads , but I know they can't be chickens with no heads , because I have a few books about astronomy , and in any case , it's too cold for chickens out there , or so I'm told ( in my astronomy books ).
Even when I fell asleep , the stars were still dancing like Debussy's Snowflakes !
Regards and clear Binkscleaners ,
Kenny
--------------------
Milton Wilcox R.I.P
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1983
Loc: Bedford Falls, Pa.
|
|
Amalia: Brock, what do you know about Alpine Marmots?
Brock: Well, for one thing I like their scientific name (Martmota marmota). That's what I used to say to my grade school teachers when they asked "Who told you you could chew gum in class?" I'd reply, "Martmota, martmota" (my mudder, my mudder, you have to understand I had a thick New Yawk accent when I was young :-). I know that marmots are related to American groundhogs, which I enjoy watching at our local park. I also know that marmots seal their burrows with a combination of earth and their own excrement so I probably wouldn't want to get TOO CLOSE to their burrows or at least stay upwind. :-)
Amalia: Last summer I have found a place where the path leads very close to a marmot society, so when I arrived there I could not believe how close they were, and we remained and watched each other, and border sharpness was not really important, I mean, without using binnculcoars.
Brock: I can just imagine a meeting of the Marmot Society....
Marmot Society Chairman: This meeting of the Marmot Society is hereby called to order. The first order of business is to vote on having an official Marmot Day holiday in Switzerland like our cousins, the groundhogs, have Groundhog Day in America. How do you vote?
Marmot Society Members: Aye, Aye, Aye, Aye, Aye, Aye, Aye, Aye ye ye!
Marmot Chaiman: Motion passed. Now we have to select a marmot to represent Switzerland who also has a knack for weather forecasting.
Marmot Fabienne: I vote for Florian, he has a trick knee from slipping on his excrement whilst building his burrow, and it acts up when the weather is going to be bad.
Marmot Society Chairman: Will anyone second the motion?
Marmot Yves: Aye!
Marmot Society Chairman: How do you vote?
Marmot Society Members: Aye, Aye, Aye, Aye, Aye, Aye, Aye, Aye ye ye!
Marmot Society Chairman: Now we have to find a human who would be willing to present our case to the Swiss Parliament.
Dr. Brocklittle: I vote for Amalia!
Marmot Society Chairman: Who are you with the moustache? You're not a marmot!
Dr. Brocklittle: I'm a friend of the groundhogs from America. I vote for Amalia because she was the Binnculcoar Marmot Spotting Swiss Champion last year with a Top score of 26.5 alpine marmots within 10 minutes, and the most amazing part is that this was performed with a Minolta 8-20x50 zoom binnculcoar.
Marmot Society Chairman: That is amazing! Considering how dim and narrow a view that zoom binnculcoar must give, and how easily it can get knocked out of collimation. In the tradition of your American president, I will wave the popular vote and decree by executive order to have Amalia represent us to the parliament. Thank you, Dr. Brocklittle.
Dr. Brocklittle: No, problem, I like to talk to the animals.
Marmot Society Chairman: I now move to end our business meeting and have some refreshments at our buffet table of grass, flowers, bulbs, seeds, insects, birds' eggs, and if we are still hungry after all that, we can eat each others' young. I should also mention that if anyone’s burrow was damaged by the storm, feel free to pick up some extra excrement in the restrooms. Thank you, and good eating my fellow marmots!
--------------------
Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: I'm a mocker
|
richtea
sage
Reged: 02/01/05
Posts: 309
Loc: UK Yorkshire
|
|
Hi Brock
I'm a little late on this post but here's my "tuppence worth" anyhow
I think the acceptable sweet spot on birding is variable with the type of viewing
On open wide spannng wetland areas i much prefer a "wide" sweet spot even greedily up to say 70% or more but this is purely my lazy method of picking up "in flight" and moving birds on the outer edge of the view
However closer in i am ok with sufficient sweet spot to accomodate the object and a little around the outline and this can then drop to 40-50% but the resoloution needs to be really at top level
I am an avid aircraft watcher at airports and shows (obsessively so it seems at times) and that is a different arena imo for this question
Far out aircraft (i mean a long way off not the hippy "far out man") only need a small sweet spot to hold the plane in view which is fine if the bin is also wide angle ish
However time and time again when i find myself at airport special viewing areas then close in an aircraft body/cockpit etc needs a whopper of a crisp spot if you are "anorak" enough to want detail quickly
And judging by my early looks through my "new" E2 10 x 35 this little baby bin may just be the "lost jewel" i looked for as a compact version of my favourite older Zeiss aircraft binocular
PS Thanks for all your correspondence and advice on the Nikon's and Swift to date
Regards
Richt
--------------------
12x Canon IS MK11 Porro
10x C/Zeiss Jenoptem/Nikon SE/E11/Swift Ultralite/Hawke B/Watch WP/ Praktica WA Porro/Olympus Wide /Brunton Porro
10 x Belomo Loupe + 10/20 x Silver Geo Loupe
10 x Celestron Regal LX Roof
9x Opticron Minerva Porro
8.5x Swift Audobon FMC Porro
8x Nikon E11/Minolta Activa WPFP/Praktica WA Porros/Smith Wesson(Pentax)Roof/Bushnell Discoverer Roofs/Olympus Wide PC Porro
7x Fujinon CDPC Roof
6.5x Pentax Papilo reverse porro
Nikon ED78A/38 x WA Scope/Eyepiece
|
sparrow
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/10/06
Posts: 1002
|
|
Quote:
Sparrow did not include percentage of sharpness from the center, but it sounds like he is willing to trade off some edge sharpness for a wide FOV, particularly with the 7x35 EX.
Brock,
I just took a "what works for me" attitude. If I had given exact
numbers it would have been only a wild guess on my part without any real
objective meaning.
I think this is typical of most hard core birders. We really don't know
nor pay much attention to objective specs but are very sensitive to what
actually works out in the field.
Thus for woodland birding I have no problem comparing the 55 buck Nikons
to the Zeiss 7x42. In my opinion they both work well for this purpose
and never mind the difference in price or the prestige of the brand name.
I can say that for this purpose DOF is almost as important as FOV and
both are decent in this respect.
BTW I'm almost 70 and can't read this monitor without my reading glasses
but never use glasses when birding.
Sparrow
--------------------
For the animal shall not be measured by man. They are not brethren,
they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in
the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail
of the earth.
Beston
|
lynntx
sage
Reged: 03/25/04
Posts: 301
Loc: Texas, USA
|
|
Brock,
Your Marmot Society post made my day.
The more of your post I read, the more I appreciate your writing ability and good humor. Most of us can only make an occasional lame joke at best.
Regards,
Lynn
--------------------
Texas, USA
*******************
Orion ST80
127mm F8 Burgess Refractor
8" F6 Dob
8X21, 8X30, 8X42, 7X50, 10X50, 15X70 Binoculars
(Psalm 19:1)
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1983
Loc: Bedford Falls, Pa.
|
|
Quote:
On open wide spannng wetland areas i much prefer a "wide" sweet spot even greedily up to say 70% or more but this is purely my lazy method of picking up "in flight" and moving birds on the outer edge of the view. However closer in i am ok with sufficient sweet spot to accomodate the object and a little around the outline and this can then drop to 40-50% but the resoloution needs to be really at top level
I am an avid aircraft watcher at airports and shows (obsessively so it seems at times) and that is a different arena imo for this question
Far out aircraft (i mean a long way off not the hippy "far out man") only need a small sweet spot to hold the plane in view which is fine if the bin is also wide angle ish
However time and time again when i find myself at airport special viewing areas then close in an aircraft body/cockpit etc needs a whopper of a crisp spot if you are "anorak" enough to want detail quickly
And judging by my early looks through my "new" E2 10 x 35 this little baby bin may just be the "lost jewel" i looked for as a compact version of my favourite older Zeiss aircraft binocular
PS Thanks for all your correspondence and advice on the Nikon's and Swift to date
Regards
Richt
Richt,
You're welcome, I'm happy that you found the 10x35 E2 suitable for your speciality hobby. The extra magnification combined with the 70* AFOV and good edges is just the "ticket" for a hawk hound or aircraft "anorak", and Bushwacker covers should be standard equipment, considering the archaic metal objective housings.
I'm also glad you clarified what you meant by "far out aircraft", because this image immediately sprang to mind :-):
http://www.okc.cc.ok.us/stigert/html/Jefferson_Airplane/JA-Lrg.jpg
Your comments about preferring different sweet spots for far and near observing are interesting. I prefer a minimum 70% sweet spot from both near and far observing.
For close in birding, the birds look LARGE so they take up more of the FOV, plus I enjoy is watching how birds interact. Seeing a nuthatch spread his wings in attempt to scare off sparrows eating seeds at my open feeder and watching THEIR reaction is a Kodak moment. If the sweet spot isn't wide enough I can't catch all the action in one "frame" but have to bob back and forth and put it together in my head like looking at two panels of a comic strip.
I wouldn't think of you as "anorak" for watching aerial acrobatics, but trainspotting, now that's another story. :-)
--------------------
Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: I'm a mocker
|
richtea
sage
Reged: 02/01/05
Posts: 309
Loc: UK Yorkshire
|
|
Hi Brock
Wow thats a cool picture you sent the link for
If i start seeing anything as mesmerising as your picture whilst out and about amongst air shows etc i think i will need to increase medication !!
And yes i will be ordering Bushwacker covers sooner rather than later though i'm still not quite sure which ones fit the 10 x 35 E2 and the 804 Audubon ?
I know its model 5 that fit the 8 x E2
Regards
Richt
--------------------
12x Canon IS MK11 Porro
10x C/Zeiss Jenoptem/Nikon SE/E11/Swift Ultralite/Hawke B/Watch WP/ Praktica WA Porro/Olympus Wide /Brunton Porro
10 x Belomo Loupe + 10/20 x Silver Geo Loupe
10 x Celestron Regal LX Roof
9x Opticron Minerva Porro
8.5x Swift Audobon FMC Porro
8x Nikon E11/Minolta Activa WPFP/Praktica WA Porros/Smith Wesson(Pentax)Roof/Bushnell Discoverer Roofs/Olympus Wide PC Porro
7x Fujinon CDPC Roof
6.5x Pentax Papilo reverse porro
Nikon ED78A/38 x WA Scope/Eyepiece
|
Amalia
Reged: 10/16/04
Posts: 5165
|
|
Oh Brock... 
Forgive me, please, but you don't really know much about Alpine marmots...
They are called marmota marmota.
They do not close their burrows with the rather strange combination you
mentioned. According to:
http://www.wildhueter-st-hubertus.de/html/murmeltier.html
http://naturbeobachtung.at/platform/mo/nabeat/species.do;jsessionid=31E0BE671C1437B58C64C794775AF8EB?doSpecSheet&ptnameId=130041
http://www.nabu.de/m03/m03_05/02722.html
...marmots do use earth, stones and hay to close their burrows.
This stopper (= "door") is one - two meters long, to provide a good isolation
against the cold.
During the 6 months of their hibernation they do wake up all 3 - 4 weeks
for one or two hours, and walk to a special tunnel which gets used as a toilette.
I have to declare that Switzerland, and especially Switzerland's Alpine Marmots,
are perfectly able to rule their own matters. Nobody here ever wanted to have a
Groundhog Day, where men take a groundhog out of his home, and
tell strange stuff. Seen from here, the best about this your Rite is the movie
"Groundhog Day". This movie is really amazing. Even if the majority of the
movie was actually not filmed in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, but in Woodstock,
Illinois.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_day#In_fiction
Marmots don't say "Aye". They scream, and this sounds like a whistle.
In the reproduction-active time they also do meow, similar to cats.
Alpine Marmots don't have to select a marmot to represent Switzerland,
as Switzerland takes care of them and protects them by a Swiss Federal Law.
You are right (phew!) when you describe what marmots eat, you only
forgot roots and tubers. But you are not right, and you even blame the marmots
when you write that they would eat the young ones. This is definitely not true.
However true is that 30% of the young ones do not survive long enough to
hibernate for the first time. And it seems also true that marmots hibernate in
groups to raise the inside temperature, to make the survival of the young ones
more probable. And in very long winters with high snow the young ones
die first. From my very limited experience I do think that all higher animals
are sad when they lose their small ones.
Well. You surely will have realised that I like marmots. While I am perfectly able
to laugh about them when they run in the late summer, because they have such
a big belly, and it comes very close to the ground when they run...
But I am truly afraid of inventing stories about protected animals, as I think they
had to get protected because we, the human, did not know enough real information
about them. And strangely enough, I think reality to be as fascinating as very good
fiction.
I think we should treat animals as animals -- because they are superior to us
in so many things. Especially concerning heart to heart communication, and
about being true friends. And about how to live on this world. And to be fully awake
and ready. And much more. I admire many of them, even frogs.
I hope to not have hurt your feelings by my rectification.
Maybe in the future we better invent stories about humans... Why not?
Best regards,
Amalia
--------------------
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1983
Loc: Bedford Falls, Pa.
|
|
Quote:
Brock,I just took a "what works for me" attitude. If I had given exact numbers it would have been only a wild guess on my part without any real objective meaning.
I think this is typical of most hard core birders. We really don't know
nor pay much attention to objective specs but are very sensitive to what
actually works out in the field....
BTW I'm almost 70 and can't read this monitor without my reading glasses but never use glasses when birding.
Sparrow
Well said! Published specs can be wrong, and even when they're correct, they won't tell you how wide the sweet spot is or other important criteria such as color rendition, contrast, and brightness. And how many manufacturer ads have I read that proclaimed their binoculars were "sharp to the edges," or my favorite "p-coated prisms for edge to edge sharpness", as if the coatings had anything to do with the edge performance!
What "works in the field" is exactly what I'm trying to find out. Thus, guesstimates of sweet spots for day use even if they are not objectively accurate as star tests give us at least something to compare, with the caveat that not everyone's vision is the same. The fact that you can't read your computer monitor without glasses suggests that you may not be able to focus the edges better in a bin with field curvature than I could with my (chronologically) younger eyes.
My dad, OTOH, is in his late 70s, and he doesn't need reading glasses, he has no trouble sleeping with dogs barking, and he can eat (even chocolate) an hour before going to bed w/out a splash of reflux. He also wakes up at 7 a.m., drinks two cups of coffee, and is napping by 9, He can also shovel snow, do push-ups, etc. -- another Jack LaLane. So there's a difference between chronological age and physiological age. Yet another variable to contend with.
It's also imporant to note that two people may have different perceptions of what they see through binoculars even if they both wear reading glasses or when both have the same diopter prescriptions. I just heard from a friend who compared a Fuji 7x50 FMTR-SX with his Zeiss 7x42 B/GA, and he was disappointed in the edge performance of the Fuji, despite the field flatteners. Yet, I've read reviews, one in particular I recall by Barry Simon on excelsis.com, which rated the the 7x50 Fujis as "sharp almost to the edge." Sample variation? Vision variation? Or Perception variation?
My friend's reason is that while his Zeiss may have a smaller sweet spot (percentage wise from the center of the field... larger in actual terms), it degrades so slowly as to not be objectionable.
I appreciate your no nonsense approach to birding optics - what works, works. It doesn't matter if it's $1,000+ European optics or a $55 Chinese bin as long as it gets the job done.
Some birders are self-proclaimed "snobs". You may recall the story I told of the birder who said he looked at both a Swaro EL and Leica BN, and chose the Leica because the "red dot" was more prestigious (or at least in his circle).
However, I can understand how my question may seem tedious to a diehard birder who sees binoculars as a means to and end dan rather an end unto themselves like Kenny and I, who are diehard binofans, and secondarily casual birders and/or amateur astronomers.
If I can borrow an analogy from another arena, it's similar to automobile aficionados. At one time I used to read Automobile Weekly, Car Craft, and other auto magazines. I also owned muscle cars, sports cars, luxury cars, and super fuel efficient economy cars, always fascinated with some aspect of automobile manufacturing.
Today, give me a car that takes me from here to there comfortably and safely with a minimum of gas consumption, and I'm happy. When I hear guys talk about how fast a car can go from 0-60, or how much torque a car has, or if it has "tuned headers" or dual exhaust, etc., I nod out.
So if you fall asleep reading my nitpicking posts, I understand. :-) That's one reason why I write my humorous posts, to break up the tedium, and also to test if Kenny is REALLY reading EVERY single post! Talk about an "anorak"! :-)
--------------------
Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: I'm a mocker
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1983
Loc: Bedford Falls, Pa.
|
|
Quote:
Brock,
Your Marmot Society post made my day.
The more of your post I read, the more I appreciate your writing ability and good humor. Most of us can only make an occasional lame joke at best.
Regards,
Lynn
Lynn,
Thanks for your kind words. I'm happy you enjoy reading my parodies, now if I could just get Lorne Michaels to hire me to write for Saturday Night Live or his spin-off movies, I would be laughing all the way to the bank. :-)
--------------------
Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: I'm a mocker
|
|
0 registered and 22 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: MMICKELS, okiestarman56
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 3511
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 