Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
asaint
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 04/25/03
Posts: 2021
|
|
Part II
|
photonovore
Moonatic
   
Reged: 12/24/04
Posts: 2472
Loc: tacoma wa
|
|
Thorough & excellent report. (as usual!)
I have an observation/question re; the boosted resolution. It seems there is not much consistency in direct correlation between these figures and well...much anything else measured? For ex the Nikon EX has excellent boosted rez but rather mundane unboosted and handheld measures...where the Nikon SE seems consistent across these measures (as one would tend to expect). And the Bushnell, despite having a way out there boosted resolution deficit, seems to hold its own in normal resolution and even scores better than average handheld... Any thoughts on this seeming disconnect/inconsistency between boosted figures and other resolution measures?
-------------------- Mardi
4" achromat, ETX-70.
Whitepeak Lunar Observatory Website
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
   
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Hi Mardi,
good question, one that has been discussed before. Let me adress what I think is the easy part first.
I think handheld resolution is a combination of normal resolution and the comfortable abitlity to hold a binocular without it moving. I notice some fit well and some dampen well. Some just don't seem to be easy to handhold.
We've had numerous discussions about the differences between normal resolution and boosted resolution. There are differing opinons about which holds more weight. I'm of the opinion that in a binocular, since in normal use it will never be used at boosted power, that normal resolution holds far more weight.
The other school of thought is that boosted resolution is showing potential aberrations in the system, such as spherical aberration or astigmatism, aberrations that could show up in the on-axis image. These might not be seen in the normal power test. The thought is, test for maximum potential resolution in the system, even if it can't be seen at normal power, for even if you think you can't see it, it may add to or detract from the image. Frankly, I put a lot more weight in what I really see in the image at normal power.
It is very possible that some of these binoculars that have really poor boosted resolution do indeed have some aberrations in the system that show up at higher magnification. But if they are not seen at normal power, then IMO, there is no reason to make much issue out of it. So, while I perform the boosted resolution test, and I do see anomolies in some binoculars, I give little weight to boosted resolution. However, I do not lose sight of the fact that aberrations in the system may be potential contrast reducers, so I do give some count to boosted resolution.
Most important, in my opinion, is the normal resolution value multiplied by the actual magnification to a get a reading of apparent resolution. In this way all binoculars can be compared to each other. Straight readings unadjusted cannot be compared across a range of binoculars of varying magnification. Apparent resolution values can be compared.
The other school of thought suggests that normal resolution is controlled by the eye, so the eye is the limiting factor. That is a strong reason to suggest using boosted resolution, to get it beyond having the eye be the limiting factor. However, if you look closely at ALL the data for all 34 binoculars ( you won't get to see that trend in the smaller reports), you can see that normal power resolution varies considerably across a range, from a best of 76 arcseconds apparent (a 7x binocular could see 10.8 arcseconds) to a worst of 97 arcseconds (more than one 10x binocular could see only 9.7 arcseconds), a variation of about 25% from top to bottom of the range. Therefore, IMO, at least across this broad selection of 34 binoculars, the eye is not the limiting factor. Typical very good normal resolution falls in a range of about 82 to 90 arcseconds. Four or five out of 34 bested that 82 mark; this leads me to believe that the eye is NOT the limiting factor in normal resolution reading, at least in this case not for about 30 out of 34 of my binoculars. Seven or eight were worse than that range, in the low to high 90s.
One more factor to consider re normal vs boosted resolution. Depending on the outdoor daylight pupil of the eye, since binocular pupils range from about 4mm to about 7mm, the tester, with perhaps a 3mm to 4mm eye pupil, in some cases is not using the entire aperture in the normal resolution test. In the boosted test all the aperture is always used, since pupils are on the order of 1mm to 0.8mm. Normal power tests that are not using the entire aperture may give a better result than might be indicated by the boosted resolution test. FWIW, I sorted my data several different ways and found almost always the largest percentage of best normal/ best boosted and worst normal/worst boosted corellated, regardless of how much exit pupil was used in the normal test.
edz
-------------------- Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
timmbottoni
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 08/25/05
Posts: 1112
Loc: W Chicago suburbs, IL USA
|
|
Thanks for the excellent article.
It sounds like you have sure done a lot of research!
I guess the Nikon's would be the best bet for someone like me looking for decent but not too expensive set of astrocapable binocs.
I already have a pair of WO 8x42 APOs
Timm
-------------------- WO Megrez 80FD, Celestron C8
WO SWAN 33mm, UWANs 4mm, 7mm, 16mm, WO SPLs 3mm, 6mm, 12.5mm, WO Zoom II 7.5-22.5
WO EZTouch & Celestron Nexstar GT modified mounts
SV F50B2 Finder in WO Quick Release 50mm bracket
|
photonovore
Moonatic
   
Reged: 12/24/04
Posts: 2472
Loc: tacoma wa
|
|
Thanks for the thorough response, Ed. I agree about the weight of the boosted figure relevance to actual use. But I wonder if whatever causes the boosted figures to fall off in some binos may not possibly show up in comparisons using _low_ intrinsic contrast targets---like this: low contrast test target or this: Hamilton-Veale Contrast Sensitivity Test Perhaps there is a difference in how an optic transfers low contrast in high intrinsic contrast targets at high frequencies (USAF test target) vs. low intrinsic contrast at lower frequencies? A terrestrial corollary would be a large white boat in daytime fog for example--astronomical would be large dark or reflection nebulae I suppose... Have you seen any connection between binos with high boosted mag performance and these sorts of low frequency low intrinsic contrast targets?
-------------------- Mardi
4" achromat, ETX-70.
Whitepeak Lunar Observatory Website
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
   
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
Have you seen any connection between binos with high boosted mag performance and these sorts of low frequency low intrinsic contrast targets?
I can't address that since I never used targets like these.
edz
-------------------- Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Cosmosphil
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/04/05
Posts: 1026
Loc: So. California
|
|
Gosh, I had no idea my Orion Ultraviews were such a piece of junk. Well, at least I got a $50 online sale discount when I bought mine. Still, I have enjoyed them every time I use them the past few years.
-------------------- Phil Agins
15" Discovery TD
10" Discovery PDHQ
5.7" Ceravolo Mak-Newt HD145
TeleVue-102 / TEC 140 (on order)
Vixen ED80Sf
Coronado PST
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
   
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
I refrained from calling any of these a piece of junk, as I hope you would too.
What I've done here is given measures and weights to how well each instrument is capable of performing. Obviously some have to perform better than others. If you look at things in that comparative tone, you get a better sense of how binoculars measure up to each other.
It may be true, there are few places where you will read about some of these deficiencies to be found in a binocular like the Ultraview, or any of these binoculars for that matter. Here you have some data seldom measured and presented. Still more data, typically included in other reviews as subjective, in this review is measured to a standard. In that respect, you could say many other reviews found elsewhere are more subjective and even in some cases superficial. There is no escaping the fact that measuring everything to a scorable standard results in a list of rank for the instruments in the tests.
If you were to shop for maximum performance, you could do much better than the Ultraview, however, I doubt you would find anyone that would agree the Ultraview is junk.
edz
-------------------- Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
ngc6475
Fearless Spectator
   
Reged: 03/02/02
Posts: 4790
Loc: Northern Sierra Foothills
|
|
I own a few decent binoculars and among them is the Ultraview 10x50. It may not be the absolute finest 10x binocular I own, but it isn't junk by any means. It was the first binocular I ever bought for astronomical purposes and I still own and use it.
I think it is a worthwhile binocular to have in your kit!
-------------------- Walter
"Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest."
-Mark Twain
|
KennyJ
   
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Although I've thanked you privately Ed, your painstaking effort with these in depth reviews and reports deserve much higher public praise than any single one of us could possibly provide .
We are blessed indeed to have free access to such invaluable information , right here at Cloudy Nights .
Thank you once more !
Kenny
-------------------- If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
|
2 registered and 2 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: asaint, spaceydee
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 653
|
|
|
|
|
|
|