![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions. |
Rating matrix needed for binoculars |
Post Reply ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Wally ![]() Optics Apprentice ![]() Joined: November/08/2006 Location: 4 Corners Status: Offline Points: 124 |
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Publications/LivingBird/winter2 005/Age_Binos.html
Try this link. I've been doing some research on binoculars, and I found this very interesting.
This link was also interesting.
Hope this helps.
Steve |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1stscope ![]() Optics GrassHopper ![]() Joined: January/14/2007 Status: Offline Points: 66 |
I'll propose that astronomy places the most stringent demands on binoculars and scopes as point souces are often used to test optics, and the night sky is full of them :^) Aside from optical quality one needs consider price, weight, eye relief, etc., and what I call 'individual compensation', which I'll babble about later. For astronomy porro prisms seem to be most common as roof prism models need to work hard to be almost as good so they typically cost more for a given quality level, but they're still used as they're popular for birding and such. For optical quality the size of the sweet spot is the primary criteria, and the best models are well corrected to the edge of the field. On good models even 7x need to be on tripod in order to realize all the resolution available. Wide field models tend to have more problems at the edges. 'Color' seems to be essentially a product of overall light transmisson, where the best models seem to set the industry standards. Another factor is how one's eye's interact with an optical system as designers make assumptions about curvature of field and such, so regardless of how well regarded a model is its' best to look thru it before dropping lots of money on it. Along with curvature of field aberrations in a specific model may also be 'compensated' by aberrations in one's eyes, as the aberrations may cancel each other to some degree.
Anyway, after looking thru lots of different models, including lots of fancy German stuff, I ended up choosing between the Nikon 7x50 Prostar and the 7x50 Fujinon FMT-SX. It was to be a lifetime buy, primarily for astronomy but also for general use. Build quality ws the same for both, the Nikons were sharper to the edge but I liked the color better in the Fujinons, the Fujinons had a tripod mount, and since the Fujinons were less than half the price at the time price I ended up with them. Years later I'm still amazed at good they are, esspecially when glassing while they're on a tripod, which is what is needed for maximum resolution. People complain about the weight (about 48oz or 4 cans of soda), but other smaller models are available.
Anyway, look at some astronomy sites too for comparisons. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
SAKO75 ![]() Optics Apprentice ![]() Joined: February/29/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 246 |
I'll take a stab
10: Swarovski EL & SLCneu, Zeiss FL, Leica Ultravid, NIKON LX 9: Leica Trinovid, Swaro SLC old, Zeiss Victory, Leupold GOlden RIng HD 8: Vortex Razor, Pentax DCF ED, Minox HG, Kahles, Bushnell ELite 7: Pentax DCF SP 6: Nikon Monarch you guys finish it |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
lucznik ![]() Optics Master ![]() Joined: November/27/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1436 |
A ratings matrix would not involve a simple list of preferred binoculars. It involves assigning value (generally somewhat weighted for the individual's personal preferences) to specific elements (FoV, eye relief, weight, physical size, exit pupil, coatings (their quantity and quality) cost, etc. etc.) and then calculating out a final score for individual models. Knowing what specific elements are being considered as categories for ratings and how each individual binocular is being scored within those categories is at least as important as knowing an optic's final score.
|
|
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
SAKO75 ![]() Optics Apprentice ![]() Joined: February/29/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 246 |
couldnt the same be said about scopes? eye relief, FOV, 1/4, 1/3, or 1/2 MOA, turrets or no turrets, AO, etc.?? its just a starting point, a ball park generalization?
I dont think a monarch is a zeiss no matter what the FOV is, for instance.... |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Meibanfa ![]() Optics GrassHopper ![]() ![]() Joined: December/08/2007 Location: Los Lunas, NM Status: Offline Points: 5 |
Interestingly enough, the latest reveiw from Birdwatcher's digest and the review from Cornell both rated the Nikon Monarchs higher than the Pentax DCF SP. I have a pair of the Pentax in 8x42 and like them but I would like to put them up against the Monarchs and if there really is a noticeable difference.
Regards,
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Meibanfa ![]() Optics GrassHopper ![]() ![]() Joined: December/08/2007 Location: Los Lunas, NM Status: Offline Points: 5 |
Interestingly enough, the latest reveiw from Birdwatcher's digest and the review from Cornell both rated the Nikon Monarchs higher than the Pentax DCF SP. I have a pair of the Pentax's in 8x43 and like them but I would like to put them up against the Monarchs and if there really is a noticeable difference.
Regards, |
|
Post Reply ![]() |
|
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 |
Similar Threads: "Rating matrix needed for binoculars" | ||||
Subject | Author | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
There are no similar posts. |