OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc. Homepage SWFA     SampleList.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Other Optics > Binoculars
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 10X42 vs 10X50
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials.

10X42 vs 10X50

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Message
JGRaider View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: February/06/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1540
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JGRaider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 09:56
I don't know about you guys, but I never pay attention to any manufacturer's light transmission numbers. There is really no standardized way of measuring, so each manufacturer can come up with whatever LT# they want depending on the way they test.  

I can tell the OP that, having owned both the 10x42SV and 10x50SV at the same time, comparing them on tripod mounts, that the 10x50 is noticeably brighter in suspect light than the 42mm version.   The 42mm SV is still very much a standout though, and almost as good as it gets IMO (I reserve the "as good as it gets" for the 10x50SV, which is absolutely amazing).  
Back to Top
Brocksw View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: October/20/2016
Status: Offline
Points: 57
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brocksw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 10:28
Originally posted by Kickboxer Kickboxer wrote:

A 42 mm objective allows a certain amount of light to "enter"... 90% of that, according to Swarovski, passes through.  A 50mm objective allows approximately (under ideal conditions) 16% more light to "enter"...

Therefore, the answer is obviously "NO", the same amount of light is not available with a 42mm objective as with a 50mm objective, but 90%, according to Swarovski, of the available light gets through...


To get a subjective "feel' for this, take the total light passed through (90%) and multiply by relative brightness (exit pupil squared)... to make it easy, take a 10x scope with a 42mm objective...  exit pupil squared (relative brightness) is 17.64.  Multiply relative brightness by total pass through... 0.9x17.64 = 15.876...you get a number that is perhaps meaningful in comparison of several riflescopes (or binoculars) if you believe the manufacturer's transmission numbers.  With a 50mm objective, 10x scope... 5 squared is 25, 25x0.9=22.5... Perhaps an indicator of "actual relative brightness" at the ocular at a certain power utilizing manufacturer's transmission numbers.  If I played with it a bit it might provide a data point useful in optic selection. 

Interesting exercise on the spur of a moment...






So where do you come up with 16%? 

Relative brightness between the 2 equations you show is more like a 30 percent difference (simply taking 15.876/22.5).  Does relative brightness have any other correlation to objective lens diameter or area aside from the exit pupil itself?  For some reason I have the idea that the area of the objective lens or exit pupil is not being taken into account enough... for instance the area of the exit pupil in the 42 mm optic you reference is equal to 13.85 mm^2.  There has to be some correlation to relative brightness using that figure instead of or in addition to the exit pupil squared (17.64)?  Or is the area of the exit pupil completely irrelevant?

Interesting stuff indeed...
Back to Top
WJC View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: May/28/2014
Location: Twin Falls, ID
Status: Offline
Points: 328
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote WJC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 11:05
"I don't know about you guys, but I never pay attention to any manufacturer's light transmission numbers."

Everybody put your hands on the monitor and say ... Amen.
“Water, water everywhere nor any drop to drink.” — Samuel Taylor Coleridge
“Social media everywhere but not a thought to think.” — me

Back to Top
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 23679
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Kickboxer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 12:39
Originally posted by Brocksw Brocksw wrote:

Originally posted by Kickboxer Kickboxer wrote:

A 42 mm objective allows a certain amount of light to "enter"... 90% of that, according to Swarovski, passes through.  A 50mm objective allows approximately (under ideal conditions) 16% more light to "enter"...

Therefore, the answer is obviously "NO", the same amount of light is not available with a 42mm objective as with a 50mm objective, but 90%, according to Swarovski, of the available light gets through...


To get a subjective "feel' for this, take the total light passed through (90%) and multiply by relative brightness (exit pupil squared)... to make it easy, take a 10x scope with a 42mm objective...  exit pupil squared (relative brightness) is 17.64.  Multiply relative brightness by total pass through... 0.9x17.64 = 15.876...you get a number that is perhaps meaningful in comparison of several riflescopes (or binoculars) if you believe the manufacturer's transmission numbers.  With a 50mm objective, 10x scope... 5 squared is 25, 25x0.9=22.5... Perhaps an indicator of "actual relative brightness" at the ocular at a certain power utilizing manufacturer's transmission numbers.  If I played with it a bit it might provide a data point useful in optic selection. 

Interesting exercise on the spur of a moment...






So where do you come up with 16%? 

Relative brightness between the 2 equations you show is more like a 30 percent difference (simply taking 15.876/22.5).  Does relative brightness have any other correlation to objective lens diameter or area aside from the exit pupil itself?  For some reason I have the idea that the area of the objective lens or exit pupil is not being taken into account enough... for instance the area of the exit pupil in the 42 mm optic you reference is equal to 13.85 mm^2.  There has to be some correlation to relative brightness using that figure instead of or in addition to the exit pupil squared (17.64)?  Or is the area of the exit pupil completely irrelevant?

Interesting stuff indeed...

42mm is 84% of 50mm... 16% differential for amount of light that can possibly enter the objective.   The numbers for "exit pupil" and "relative brightness" are just calculated figures of merit... they have little meaning, other than being interesting (for some of us), for anything related to what the human eye actually experiences/sees.  They tell you that given all the proper conditions, there should be a visual improvement in brightness with 50mm vs 42mm given same magnification.  We already know that there is more light available from the entrance... if there are no significant restrictions due to design or glass/coating quality, the end result should be obvious. 

I DO, mostly, believe some manufacturers transmission numbers... Swarovski, Zeiss, S&B, Meopta, Nikon, etc... have a reputation to uphold and would get a lot of bad press for misreporting.  Now, there are things that can make the numbers slightly better, or worse, (depends on whether using best case or worst case calculations) but generally, they try to be accurate.  When someone advertises 99.6 or 100 percent light transmission, I tend to question their veracity. 


Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living
Back to Top
vortech347 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: February/19/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 39
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote vortech347 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 13:13
A great topic and conversation.

If I'm way off base just say so.  In a very simplistic way, isn't it similar to lumens vs. Lux with flashlights.

One is total amount of light and one is intensity.

So you have 90% light transmission through the glass.  With a certain exit pupil size you could calculate the total amount of light being transmitted through the objective.

Increase that exit pupil size with the same transmission efficiency and the total amount of light passing through to the objective is greater.

Now, if your eye's pupil is only dilated to 3mm and your binocular has a 5mm exit pupil, you most likely won't see much difference compared to a binocular with the same 90% light transmission but only has a 3mm exit pupil.

BUT, your eyebox could be more forgiving since you have some margin of error for eye placement.

Here is an example I've personally experienced.

I have Nikon Monarch ATB 10x32's and a buddy has Leica 10x50 Ultravids.  In bright daylight the images are fairly comparable between the two.  The image is nicer through the Leicas but both are bright and clear and it's easy to view wildlife through either.

Now let's move to dusk.  The Leica's keep looking great while the Nikon get's dimmer and dimmer much faster.  It was truly night/day difference at sunset looking through both.

In that case I suspect both light transmission AND exit pupil both played roles in showing the drastic difference in quality between the two binoculars.  

Sound reasonable?
Back to Top
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 23679
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kickboxer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 14:32
Originally posted by vortech347 vortech347 wrote:

A great topic and conversation.

If I'm way off base just say so.  In a very simplistic way, isn't it similar to lumens vs. Lux with flashlights.

One is total amount of light and one is intensity.

So you have 90% light transmission through the glass.  With a certain exit pupil size you could calculate the total amount of light being transmitted through the objective.

Increase that exit pupil size with the same transmission efficiency and the total amount of light passing through to the objective is greater.

Now, if your eye's pupil is only dilated to 3mm and your binocular has a 5mm exit pupil, you most likely won't see much difference compared to a binocular with the same 90% light transmission but only has a 3mm exit pupil.

BUT, your eyebox could be more forgiving since you have some margin of error for eye placement.

Here is an example I've personally experienced.

I have Nikon Monarch ATB 10x32's and a buddy has Leica 10x50 Ultravids.  In bright daylight the images are fairly comparable between the two.  The image is nicer through the Leicas but both are bright and clear and it's easy to view wildlife through either.

Now let's move to dusk.  The Leica's keep looking great while the Nikon get's dimmer and dimmer much faster.  It was truly night/day difference at sunset looking through both.

In that case I suspect both light transmission AND exit pupil both played roles in showing the drastic difference in quality between the two binoculars.  

Sound reasonable?

Way off base. 

somewhere on this site is a pretty good discussion of light transmission through a scope, I just don't have time to look for it right now... but the OBJECTIVE is the beginning point, the OCULAR, where EXIT PUPIL exists, receives the transmitted light... the last surface before impacting the eye.


Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living
Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13181
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 14:59
A while back I wrote a lengthy and wordy article I called Riflescope Fundamentals.  The section on optical quality is relevant to binoculars and talks a little about light transmission:


A couple of other things that came up in this thread while skimming through it that I do no think I addressed in that article:

If the exit pupil of the binocular is larger than your eyepupil, your eye naturally moves a little within the exit pupil and gives you better image fidelity.  If your eye pupil is 3mm and the exit pupil of the binocular is also 3mm, it will look a little worse than an otherwise identical binocular that gives your a 4mm or greater exit pupil at the same magnification.

When it gets dark and your eye pupil dilates, the imaging performance of your eye drops a little, since its effective F/# changes.

The overall amount of light scales with the square of the diameter: as far as total amount of light goes, a 50mm objective delivers 41.7% more light overall than a 42mm objective, assuming the same transmission ratios.  That does not mean that the image will look 40% better.  Image perception is complicated.

Now, on light transmission: there is a standardized way of measuring it.  For a few years I used to make customized equipment that did just that for a variety of electro-optical devices (and MTF stations, camera testers, night vision testers, spectral projectors, spectroradiometers, etc).  What is not standardized, is how that information is used in marketing materials. 

If you want to measure light transmission of optical devices in the Vis/NIR range, this is is the simpelst way to go:
Calibrated detector: https://www.newport.com/p/1936-R

These two plus some mechanics get you a calibrated, industry standard transmission tester for optical systems.  I am pretty sure I still have one of these mothballed somewhere.  When I first started looking at scopes, I used it on a bunch of riflescopes.

ILya
Back to Top
Brocksw View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: October/20/2016
Status: Offline
Points: 57
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brocksw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 15:39
Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

A while back I wrote a lengthy and wordy article I called Riflescope Fundamentals.  The section on optical quality is relevant to binoculars and talks a little about light transmission:


A couple of other things that came up in this thread while skimming through it that I do no think I addressed in that article:

If the exit pupil of the binocular is larger than your eyepupil, your eye naturally moves a little within the exit pupil and gives you better image fidelity.  If your eye pupil is 3mm and the exit pupil of the binocular is also 3mm, it will look a little worse than an otherwise identical binocular that gives your a 4mm or greater exit pupil at the same magnification.

When it gets dark and your eye pupil dilates, the imaging performance of your eye drops a little, since its effective F/# changes.

The overall amount of light scales with the square of the diameter: as far as total amount of light goes, a 50mm objective delivers 41.7% more light overall than a 42mm objective, assuming the same transmission ratios.  That does not mean that the image will look 40% better.  Image perception is complicated.



This is perhaps a stupid question but... why is diameter used in scaling light transmission instead of area?  Also, 41.7% is mentioned but I am not sure where that number is coming from.  Am I missing an obvious calculation?  I keep finding a figure in the 30 percent range when squaring objective or exit pupil.
Back to Top
WJC View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: May/28/2014
Location: Twin Falls, ID
Status: Offline
Points: 328
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WJC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 15:49
The diameter is inextricably connected to the surface area. And since the aperture has been used by engineers, and professional optical specialists, for decades, it just makes sense not to reinvent the wheel.

PS BrockSW: How many smokestacks did RMS Titanic have? I am asking for a reason.
“Water, water everywhere nor any drop to drink.” — Samuel Taylor Coleridge
“Social media everywhere but not a thought to think.” — me

Back to Top
Brocksw View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: October/20/2016
Status: Offline
Points: 57
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brocksw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 16:15
Originally posted by WJC WJC wrote:

The diameter is inextricably connected to the surface area. And since the aperture has been used by engineers, and professional optical specialists, for decades, it just makes sense not to reinvent the wheel.

PS BrockSW: How many smokestacks did RMS Titanic have? I am asking for a reason.


I see what you mean about proportional relationships between diameter and area...no matter how you run the numbers, using area or diameter, the percentages remain the same.

That was a stupid question on my part...however, I'd still like to know where he got the 41% number.
Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13181
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 16:20
Originally posted by Brocksw Brocksw wrote:

Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

A while back I wrote a lengthy and wordy article I called Riflescope Fundamentals.  The section on optical quality is relevant to binoculars and talks a little about light transmission:


A couple of other things that came up in this thread while skimming through it that I do no think I addressed in that article:

If the exit pupil of the binocular is larger than your eyepupil, your eye naturally moves a little within the exit pupil and gives you better image fidelity.  If your eye pupil is 3mm and the exit pupil of the binocular is also 3mm, it will look a little worse than an otherwise identical binocular that gives your a 4mm or greater exit pupil at the same magnification.

When it gets dark and your eye pupil dilates, the imaging performance of your eye drops a little, since its effective F/# changes.

The overall amount of light scales with the square of the diameter: as far as total amount of light goes, a 50mm objective delivers 41.7% more light overall than a 42mm objective, assuming the same transmission ratios.  That does not mean that the image will look 40% better.  Image perception is complicated.



This is perhaps a stupid question but... why is diameter used in scaling light transmission instead of area?  Also, 41.7% is mentioned but I am not sure where that number is coming from.  Am I missing an obvious calculation?  I keep finding a figure in the 30 percent range when squaring objective or exit pupil.

The square of the diameter scales linearly with area.

(50/42)^2=1.41723356 which rounds to a ratio of 1.417 or 41.7% increase. 

ILya
Back to Top
WJC View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: May/28/2014
Location: Twin Falls, ID
Status: Offline
Points: 328
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WJC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 16:21
I haven't found a need to research that. However, if you will answer my question, I think a bit more will be opened to you.
“Water, water everywhere nor any drop to drink.” — Samuel Taylor Coleridge
“Social media everywhere but not a thought to think.” — me

Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13181
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 16:22
Originally posted by Brocksw Brocksw wrote:

Originally posted by WJC WJC wrote:

The diameter is inextricably connected to the surface area. And since the aperture has been used by engineers, and professional optical specialists, for decades, it just makes sense not to reinvent the wheel.

PS BrockSW: How many smokestacks did RMS Titanic have? I am asking for a reason.


I see what you mean about proportional relationships between diameter and area...no matter how you run the numbers, using area or diameter, the percentages remain the same.

That was a stupid question on my part...however, I'd still like to know where he got the 41% number.

If you use the diameter, the percentages are not the same as when using area.

When you use the square of the diameter, they are.

ILya
Back to Top
WJC View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: May/28/2014
Location: Twin Falls, ID
Status: Offline
Points: 328
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WJC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 16:26
Ilya:

I said "inextricably connected," not the same; just sayin'.
“Water, water everywhere nor any drop to drink.” — Samuel Taylor Coleridge
“Social media everywhere but not a thought to think.” — me

Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13181
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 16:38
Originally posted by WJC WJC wrote:

Ilya:

I said "inextricably connected," not the same; just sayin'.

Bill, I know you are on to of this.  My post was mostly a clarification for the original poster's benefit.

ILya
Back to Top
vortech347 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: February/19/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 39
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote vortech347 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 17:04
Sorry I meant ocular in my post.  

Originally posted by Kickboxer Kickboxer wrote:

Originally posted by vortech347 vortech347 wrote:

A great topic and conversation.

If I'm way off base just say so.  In a very simplistic way, isn't it similar to lumens vs. Lux with flashlights.

One is total amount of light and one is intensity.

So you have 90% light transmission through the glass.  With a certain exit pupil size you could calculate the total amount of light being transmitted through the objective.

Increase that exit pupil size with the same transmission efficiency and the total amount of light passing through to the objective is greater.

Now, if your eye's pupil is only dilated to 3mm and your binocular has a 5mm exit pupil, you most likely won't see much difference compared to a binocular with the same 90% light transmission but only has a 3mm exit pupil.

BUT, your eyebox could be more forgiving since you have some margin of error for eye placement.

Here is an example I've personally experienced.

I have Nikon Monarch ATB 10x32's and a buddy has Leica 10x50 Ultravids.  In bright daylight the images are fairly comparable between the two.  The image is nicer through the Leicas but both are bright and clear and it's easy to view wildlife through either.

Now let's move to dusk.  The Leica's keep looking great while the Nikon get's dimmer and dimmer much faster.  It was truly night/day difference at sunset looking through both.

In that case I suspect both light transmission AND exit pupil both played roles in showing the drastic difference in quality between the two binoculars.  

Sound reasonable?

Way off base. 

somewhere on this site is a pretty good discussion of light transmission through a scope, I just don't have time to look for it right now... but the OBJECTIVE is the beginning point, the OCULAR, where EXIT PUPIL exists, receives the transmitted light... the last surface before impacting the eye.


Back to Top
WJC View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: May/28/2014
Location: Twin Falls, ID
Status: Offline
Points: 328
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WJC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 17:05
Ilya:

Are you a Zemax user?
“Water, water everywhere nor any drop to drink.” — Samuel Taylor Coleridge
“Social media everywhere but not a thought to think.” — me

Back to Top
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 23679
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kickboxer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 17:22
Originally posted by vortech347 vortech347 wrote:

Sorry I meant ocular in my post.  

Originally posted by Kickboxer Kickboxer wrote:

Originally posted by vortech347 vortech347 wrote:

A great topic and conversation.

If I'm way off base just say so.  In a very simplistic way, isn't it similar to lumens vs. Lux with flashlights.

One is total amount of light and one is intensity.

So you have 90% light transmission through the glass.  With a certain exit pupil size you could calculate the total amount of light being transmitted through the objective.

Increase that exit pupil size with the same transmission efficiency and the total amount of light passing through to the objective is greater.

Now, if your eye's pupil is only dilated to 3mm and your binocular has a 5mm exit pupil, you most likely won't see much difference compared to a binocular with the same 90% light transmission but only has a 3mm exit pupil.

BUT, your eyebox could be more forgiving since you have some margin of error for eye placement.

Here is an example I've personally experienced.

I have Nikon Monarch ATB 10x32's and a buddy has Leica 10x50 Ultravids.  In bright daylight the images are fairly comparable between the two.  The image is nicer through the Leicas but both are bright and clear and it's easy to view wildlife through either.

Now let's move to dusk.  The Leica's keep looking great while the Nikon get's dimmer and dimmer much faster.  It was truly night/day difference at sunset looking through both.

In that case I suspect both light transmission AND exit pupil both played roles in showing the drastic difference in quality between the two binoculars.  

Sound reasonable?

Way off base. 

somewhere on this site is a pretty good discussion of light transmission through a scope, I just don't have time to look for it right now... but the OBJECTIVE is the beginning point, the OCULAR, where EXIT PUPIL exists, receives the transmitted light... the last surface before impacting the eye.



THank you for clarifying… I hoped that was the case...
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living
Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13181
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2016 at 23:03
Originally posted by WJC WJC wrote:

Ilya:

Are you a Zemax user?


Not for a long time now.

My field of expertise is more on the side of image sensors, multispectral imaging systems, targeting pods, etc.

ILya
Back to Top
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 23679
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kickboxer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/27/2016 at 04:18

Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

Originally posted by WJC WJC wrote:

Ilya:

Are you a Zemax user?


Not for a long time now.

My field of expertise is more on the side of image sensors, multispectral imaging systems, targeting pods, etc.

ILya

PM me your email address.  I have something for you to look at.

Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.254 seconds.