Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Line test with Swarovski, Bushnell, NightForce |
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Author | ||
Rich Coyle
Optics Apprentice Blind as a bat Joined: October/22/2010 Location: Grants Pass, OR Status: Offline Points: 231 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: November/13/2010 at 18:52 |
|
Sergeant Joe Friday used to say, “Nothing but the facts, ma’am.” Well, here are more facts. The sky was totally overcast with an occasional sprinkle. That takes care of the weather. Now the glass.
The test compared a Swarovski Z5 5-25X52, Bushnell 6500 4 ½-30X50 and a NightForce NP-R2 12-42X56. It took about two hours to complete the test. I made a testing chart with five lines on an 8 1/2X11 copy sheet, laminated it to keep it dry and taped it to a cardboard box. The lines are 5/16” wide with 5/16” spaces between the lines. With the trusty Leica 1200 in tow I stepped back from said test sheet till I could no longer distinguish lines. In other words it looked like a grey rectangle on the page. The Leica read 40 yards. The lines were crystal clear in the 7X21 monocular (To my surprise the Leica made the lines with ease out to 236 yards.). Therefore I drove down the road a ways. The test idea was to see at what range I could no longer see lines, but a grey rectangle. Here are the yardages and magnification results: 202 - Swarovski: 5, but barely. Bushnell: 4 ½ with ease 236 – Swaro: 6X Bush: 5 ½ 309 – Swaro: 8 ¼ Bush: 7 ½ 393 – Swaro: 10 Bush: 10 ½ 470 – Swaro: 14 Bush: 15 521 – Swaro: 16 ½ Bush: 15 ½ NighForce: 12 572 – Swaro: 17 ½ Bush: 17 Night: 12 ¼ 690 – Swaro: 24 Bush: 24 Night: 18 706 – Swaro: 24 Bush 24 Night: 18 724 – Swaro: 25 Bush: 27 Night: 20 The day was quickly closing so I think the ability of the Swarovski’s low light superiority over the Bushnell started to come into play. I am sorta impressed with the Leica 1200 reading the bush next to the box above 572 yards. But the biggest surprise came at 202 yards. If I didn’t know they were lines, I almost couldn’t make them out with the Swarovski on 5X and yet the Bushnell showed them with ease. Who would have guessed it? I wanted to include some of my lesser glass, but knew there was not enough time. Maybe next time. |
||
jonoMT
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: November/13/2008 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 4853 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
So Rich, if I understand your test correctly, you might state the results this way: "At 706 yards, the NF only needed to be on 18X, while the Bushnell and Swaro both needed to be on 24X." Please correct me if I'm wrong because if I'm not, then the results seem somewhat surprising. I would expect the Swaro glass to be the best and all three of these scopes are close enough in objective size for that not to greatly effect resolution or light transmission.
|
||
Reaction time is a factor...
|
||
Rich Coyle
Optics Apprentice Blind as a bat Joined: October/22/2010 Location: Grants Pass, OR Status: Offline Points: 231 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
jonoMT,
Your understanding is correct.
The NightForce is definately better than either of the others for resolving detail. It is also better in low light.
The Sworovski is better than the Bushnell in low light. Value goes to the Bushnell for dollars spent. I think they go for about $750. The Swarovski about $1650 and the NightForce is about $1450.
The Bushnell is twenty-one ounce. The Swarovski is seventeen and a half. It's been a long time since I weighed the NightForce but it is over thirty.
|
||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Apparently we need another thread on this.
To re-iterate for those who did not see the earlier thread on the subject. Rich Coyle suffers from night blindedness, hence his eye pupils do not dilate very much. On top of that, it is very likely the the concentration of rods in his retina (I am guessing here, but it is an educated guess) is comparatively low, making his eyes less sensitive to certain wavelengths (blu-green spectrum, largely) that are prominent in low light conditions. The results of his (any way flawed due to very different scope configurations) tests are only relevant for him. For 99.9% per cent of the people out there, they are misleading, which is worse than useless. Now, I am done with this argument. ILya
|
||
Rich Coyle
Optics Apprentice Blind as a bat Joined: October/22/2010 Location: Grants Pass, OR Status: Offline Points: 231 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
koshkin,
Are the results of the following flawed? If so, please let me know so I can learn from this discussion.
202 - Swarovski: 5, but barely. Bushnell: 4 ½ with ease
236 – Swaro: 6X Bush: 5 ½ 309 – Swaro: 8 ¼ Bush: 7 ½ 393 – Swaro: 10 Bush: 10 ½ 470 – Swaro: 14 Bush: 15 |
||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Here are a few things to consider: -did you check the actual magnifications of the scopes? -did you try to dig into the light transmission profiles of the two optics? considering that you likely have decreased blue light sensitivity in your eyes and that Swarovski coatings somewhat overemphasize blue (for better low light performance), that is very relevant. -were there any specific image degrading artefacts present? flare, for example? was the test done with sunshades or without them? -did you readjust side-focus for every distance? how many passes did it take? -did you always look through the scopes in the same sequence? were you looking through one scope longer than the other? did you go back and forth between them or did you just browse through them sequentially? -did your eyes have a chance to rest through this procedure? and so on and so forth. Aside from that all, for good or bad, your eyes are very unusual. If you post test results, you have to make that disclaimer, otherwise it is confusing for those who read them. ILya |
||
pyro6999
Optics Retard OT TITAN Joined: December/22/2006 Location: North Dakota Status: Offline Points: 22034 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
||
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead" 343 we will never forget God Bless Chris Ledoux "good ride cowboy" |
||
Rich Coyle
Optics Apprentice Blind as a bat Joined: October/22/2010 Location: Grants Pass, OR Status: Offline Points: 231 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Thanks, koshkin. With me saying it you alresady knew I am not a professional optics checker outer. I didn't realize until yesterday that I am different from most folks. I do remember being called "Weird richard" by my inlaws. My name was not included on the Christmas card for the first twenty years.
There was no noticable flare; and no sunshades on the Bushnell or Swrovski. The NightForce has a 4" shade that was on it when I purchased it.
I readjusted the scopes at every range; a lot. I didn't keep track of how many passes it took. The A.O. on the NightForce was usually instantly good. The others, both side focus, require more attention up and down the scale for me. Therefore, like I stated, they definately were adjusted a lot. I looked through them randomly. Some times I looked through a scope longer than the others because I tried to give them all a fair shake at each distance. The second I could absolutely see the lines, I called it good.
My eyes had a chance to rest only in the concept that I checked one scope and put it in a "safe" place so I would not knock it down. Then I drove up the road a little ways.
What is signifiant to me is that I am the only one of me. Therefore I test things for my use and pleasure. The things I post are fun for me thinking they are fun for others. Maybe it isn't.
|
||
grimreaper21
Optics Apprentice Joined: October/25/2010 Status: Offline Points: 182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
im sure its fun for others to read, but perhaps the confusion is some are taking it as purported evidence when really there are too many factors for any validity. maybe a "these results mean absolutely nothing" disclaimer would help the hostilities.
|
||
Roy Finn
MODERATOR Steiner Junkie Joined: April/05/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4856 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I think the confusion started when the OP made it sound that his findings were factual for anyone trying this and left out that fact that he suffers from a night vision impairment.
|
||
mike650
Optics God Joined: May/14/2006 Location: West of Rockies Status: Offline Points: 14569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
||
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear
|
||
Rich Coyle
Optics Apprentice Blind as a bat Joined: October/22/2010 Location: Grants Pass, OR Status: Offline Points: 231 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Roy Finn,
If you run a test with your eyes, ears or whatever can you say the results are not the facts? Just curious.
|
||
mike650
Optics God Joined: May/14/2006 Location: West of Rockies Status: Offline Points: 14569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Rich, no disrespect but you created two threads full of tests involving three scopes (with different size objectives) and did not include all the facts. When people questioned you, all the facts still did not come out. It was only after ILya pointed out that you maybe suffering from night blindness that you did. Most on this site that are looking for assistance and answers probably don't suffer from this, some may have been steered in the wrong direction from your comments which only leads to confusion and frustration. It's also not fair to some of the optic manufactures you've listed as well. Roy and the rest are only trying to help. (edited for grammar) Edited by mike650 - November/15/2010 at 09:30 |
||
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear
|
||
Roy Finn
MODERATOR Steiner Junkie Joined: April/05/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4856 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I believe what you have posted are personal findings, not universally accepted facts. If I repeated your test, I would not have experienced what you did as I have normal healthy vision for my age.
|
||
Rich Coyle
Optics Apprentice Blind as a bat Joined: October/22/2010 Location: Grants Pass, OR Status: Offline Points: 231 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
What facts are there that you want? I don't think about night blindness unless it is brought up. All the facts that are pertinate to me at the time were brought out. As others had qustions, I tried to answer them. No matter if somene does or does not suffer from something they have some valid comparisons of three nice scopes. There is no way to get around the opinion by the gunsmith that when the sun was out the Bushnell is brighter. When the sun is behind a cloud the Swaroski is brighter. The Gunsmith is about thirty-two or three years of age. The other gunsmith, who didn't see any difference, is aproaching fifty. Neither have an axe to grind here. I do business with both. I let them check out the things I buy.
My son-in-law compared the Swaroski and the Bushnell from the same porch and discovered the same thing I did about the Swarovski having better low light perfomance than the Bushnell. He also noticed that when he turned up the magnification he saw more detail as the darkness encroched. He also says there is no comparison between the Swaro, Bush and NightForce. For him the NighForce is above the other two in brightness and resolution.
He has the oposite of night blindness. He takes the dog out at night without a flashlight; something I could never do.
By the way the doctor recomended heavy dose of vitamin A. My vison is clear up to 24 on the scale. With 36 being blind and 0 seeing the same in the night or day I am still in terible shape if the lights go out.
|
||
mike650
Optics God Joined: May/14/2006 Location: West of Rockies Status: Offline Points: 14569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I don't think I need any more facts. What your seeing is just what Roy pointed out, your personal experience through your eyes. Now that we know about your "night blindness" we can better understand your findings and why your seeing some of these anomalies.
|
||
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear
|
||
Rich Coyle
Optics Apprentice Blind as a bat Joined: October/22/2010 Location: Grants Pass, OR Status: Offline Points: 231 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
If you answered my question about you conducting a test is it someone elses experience that you would report on?
|
||
Phoenix356
Optics GrassHopper Joined: October/19/2010 Location: Southwest Status: Offline Points: 9 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
You might want to try taking the protective lens caps off the Swarovski for the test. |
||
pyro6999
Optics Retard OT TITAN Joined: December/22/2006 Location: North Dakota Status: Offline Points: 22034 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
||
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead" 343 we will never forget God Bless Chris Ledoux "good ride cowboy" |
||
tman1965
Optics Master Joined: July/20/2010 Location: South Georgia Status: Offline Points: 1456 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
||
Sometimes my tongue outruns my brain and I say something I haven't thought of yet!
|
||
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |