New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Steiner Sports Focus
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Steiner Sports Focus

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/16/2007 at 00:40
Dave Edwards View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/16/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Gang
Just bought a pair of Steiner Night Hunter XP's in 10X50.  Purchased due to pure hunting need and low light performance although I do take frequent hikes and always bring a pair of binocs.  I hunted with them this weekend after setting Sports Focus in accordance with manual.  I am impressed, specifically the low light performance, but maybe just not used to sports focus.  Seems like I can tweak the focus and make the image sharper at various distances which is not how I understood the sports focus capability to perform....Am I just being too picky, not doing something right, etc?  Comments?  Thanks, Dave Edwards
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/16/2007 at 10:33
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436

Dave,

 

1st - Welcome to the forum.

 

2nd - There is a thread close to yours entitled "Steiner Optics (why so bad?)" that you should read.  It addresses pretty well your questions.

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/16/2007 at 11:31
www.technika.nu View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/02/2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 611

Hi Dave

 

Welcome to the forum

 

When it comes to individually focues (if) binoculars the opinions about their use and userfriendlyness goes apart quite a lot here at the forum.

 

I do however own plenty of binoculars some with IF and som with centerfocus (cf)

 

When using IF I foucs them 50 -100yards away and then I don't touch the focus again.

 

My eyes do the work instead wish in my opinion is much faster and easyer.

That is not anymore strange than you at this second is focusing on the computer, and two seconds later at your wife 8 yards away and 10 seconds later 300 yards away through the window.

For the eyes there is no differance in focusing through an optical system than naked.

 

The advantage with IF is speed and easyness, espesially in low light, when there is not sufficient with light for focusing.

 

The disadvantage is for those who want to be able to focus at a very short range, like a few yards.

Many birders do that and the eyes can't manage it and you have to adjust the binoculars instead, so in those cases are the CF binos an advantage.

 

There is also disadvantage with IF for older people with tired eyes.

I can focus with a good pair of 7X down to about 10 yards without adjustment on the binocular, while somebody that is 60 years old maybe just can get down to 40 yards.

 

However it's rarely that a hunting binocular is used on shorter distances than 20 yards, at least for me.

 

But I suppose there is no advantage with IF binoculars until you have get used to the way of looking through them.

 

Regards Technika

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/16/2007 at 14:33
Dave Edwards View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/16/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Lucznik and Technika:  Thanks for the responses.  I will continue to experiment and be a little more patient in the process of use and getting used to the capability.  I am 52.  hope it isn't my old eyes....:-)
Regards and thanks again...
Dave
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/16/2007 at 16:42
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436
Originally posted by www.technika.nu www.technika.nu wrote:

The disadvantage is for those who want to be able to focus at a very short range, like a few yards.

Many birders do that and the eyes can't manage it and you have to adjust the binoculars instead, so in those cases are the CF binos an advantage.

 

There is also disadvantage with IF for older people with tired eyes.

I can focus with a good pair of 7X down to about 10 yards without adjustment on the binocular, while somebody that is 60 years old maybe just can get down to 40 yards.

 

However it's rarely that a hunting binocular is used on shorter distances than 20 yards, at least for me.

 

Ah Hah!!

 

So... you are finally starting to see the light!!!

 

Don't worry, the journey from the Dark Side is not so difficult as it appears!

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/16/2007 at 17:12
www.technika.nu View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/02/2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 611

Luznic

 

This is no news for me, and it's not the light either.

 

I suppose there is not to much age differance betwen us, I am 35 and I have no problems to use IF binoculars at all.

 

So to continue the old debate I still belives that  you not have tried enough with quality optics.

Leupold is not quality optics, at least none of the leus I have seen.........

 

Regards Technika

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/16/2007 at 18:53
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436

Don't worry; I was just mess'n with ya.

 

 

I will have to continue to disagree with you as to the quality of Leupold optics. 

 

My uncle's binocular has optics that are quite good. They are at least as good as anything else in their relative price class.

 

I have a Vari-X III scope on one of my rifles that has always given Yeoman's service.  My dad has a couple of Vari-X IIIs on some of his rifles and they also all have good glass. So, unless we are just lottery-like lucky, I don't think this can be chalked up to our having received only the unusually good samples. 

 

I have one of the little 10-20x40 Gold Ring spotting scopes for packing in the backcountry and I am regularly being amazed at how well it performs.

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/16/2007 at 23:27
www.technika.nu View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/02/2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 611

When comparing leupolds to top ends optics, it's really stands clear out how big the differance are.

 

It's like cars, when a person drove a new WW in the 80th he was very satisfied, low noise etc. etc.

Now the first people complain about in a 20-30 year old ww is the high noice.

 

Or early 80th everybody bought instamatic cameras, and they was very impressed with it.

How many do you hear those daysthat are impressed with an instamatic? or even shows you pictures taking with one.......

 

So if you first compare leupolds field of view, you see that they really are missing something.........

The non constant eye relief on their variable riflescopes drives me mad, and that was on of the prime reasons for selling the two 6,5-20 I have had.

 

Looking for clearity and brightness, comparing to high end stuff makes me never to choose leupolds.

 

And most importantly of all, the light.

Leupolds are lightthiefs and looses far to much.

 

Now I don't have that much of experience of their binoculars, but the scopes are really way behind better european optics when it comes to the optics.

But they are very strong and held up for the recoil very well but that is all good I can say about them.

 

I bought leupolds in the beginning cause everybody said they where great, but I sold them cause I made up my own opinions about them. However if they turns out some quality optics in the future I don't mind buying and using them.

 

So good or bad, it depends what you compare them to.

 

Regards Technika

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/17/2007 at 10:56
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436

It's amazing how some of these threads wander around to different topics.  This started out as a discussion on Steiner's Sport Focus system and now isn't even dealing with Steiner at all.  I'm not complaining, just commenting on how interesting it is.

 

 

 

Originally posted by www.technika.nu www.technika.nu wrote:

When comparing leupolds to top ends optics, it's really stands clear out how big the differance are...  Now I don't have that much of experience of their binoculars, but the scopes are really way behind better european optics when it comes to the optics.

 

Not according to industry experts, writers, retailers, guides, etc. as well as the millions of sportsmen (myself included) who buy Leupolds in droves. Clearly inferior products do not survive in competitive marketplaces.  Especially not at the fairly high prices they command. Your absolute distain for them and unwillingness to recognize that they could not hold such a strong presence in the marketplace if they were so obviously terrible, reveals a bias toward other products on the basis of their name cache, rather than their optical or build qualities.

 

Don't be too concerned about it though, lots of people just want a majestic eagle, a exotic Z, or a cute little red dot on their optics and aren't really concerned with anything else. You're in the happy company of the very "high class" here.

 

Originally posted by www.techika.nu www.techika.nu wrote:

It's like cars, when a person drove a new WW in the 80th he was very satisfied, low noise etc. etc.

Now the first people complain about in a 20-30 year old ww is the high noice.

 

Or early 80th everybody bought instamatic cameras, and they was very impressed with it.

How many do you hear those daysthat are impressed with an instamatic? or even shows you pictures taking with one.......

 

So if you first compare leupolds field of view, you see that they really are missing something.........

The non constant eye relief on their variable riflescopes drives me mad, and that was on of the prime reasons for selling the two 6,5-20 I have had.

 

This seems a very intersting comment to me, considering it comes from someone with a penchant for suggesting that people should buy second-hand military glass - which would seem akin to recommending that 80's VW beetle to someone desiring a small car.

 

My dad as a Vari-X III 6.5-20x40 scope on his .264 Win Mag.  If I could get away with stealing it from him and putting it on my rifle, I would do it in an instant. I wear a very powerful eyeglass prescription and so; you'd think I would be among those who had the worst trouble with the eye-relief "problem" you mention.  Yet, I've never noticed any handicap at all.

 

Originally posted by www.technika.nu www.technika.nu wrote:

And most importantly of all, the light.  Leupolds are lightthiefs and looses far to much.

 

Now, I'm ready to concede here that differing rules/regulations (in the American West the most common rule is hunting can be done between 1/2 hour before sunrise until 1/2 hour after sunset whereas in many European locales it is common to hunt at night) might be the source of some of our differing opinions as to the light-gathering capabilities of some scopes.  However, a few years back I used my dad's aforementioned .264 WM (long story as to why my rifle wasn't going to work that night) at 20x magnification -which would be its dimmest possible setting- to take a mule deer buck in the very last minute of legal hunting light at a laser measured 435 yards. The scope exhibited more than sufficient brightness for the task and was clear enough that I could readily identify the various characteristics of the buck's rack allowing me to both ensure that I was shooting the correct deer and to gaurantee proper bullet placement. 

 

What more could I possibly ask for from an optic that is only used as a sighting device?



Edited by lucznik
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/17/2007 at 12:07
www.technika.nu View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/02/2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 611

Leupolds are very strong scopes that held up very well for recoil and severe use.

But as soon as I compare the optical data Leupolds does seems so interesting anymore, and when I look through the scopes side by side with top ends stuff the Leupolds are loosing a lot.

 

The 6,5-20 eyerelief is changing 44mm betwen lowest to highest magnification.

That is a lot.

When I rise my guns to the shoulder regardless of magnification I am looking right troguh the scope without changing my head.

Even with high magnification I do see through the scope and have the reticle on the target or at least very close.

With the 6,5-20 it worked well on 20X but as the magnification fell the eyerelief gets extended and I cant just rise the gun and shoot, as i first have to adjust my head to the gun.

And while Zeiss have made varibles since 1922 without changing eyerelif , Leupold can still not do it.

 

When it comes to the lightthief there is plenty of situations when you can fire the gun, but the scope is not very confortable to look through because it's to dark. And this is espesially true on the 6,5-20 set on high magnification.

While the Zeiss and Swarovski is not at all that much affected by the magnification.

 

The differance betwen a 1,25-4 Leupold and the same Kahles is close to 50% field of view.

That is not very impressing at all.

On short ranges with running game, the FOV is really important. There is huge difference in the speed if you have big FOV or not.

 

When it comes to binoculars went through a very big development during the war, espsially in the third reich.

The binocular then was much more important than it's today, as the did not have sonar and all the electronics devices of today, they had to use the Binocular to find the enemy with.

As a result Germany in particular spent huge amount of money in developing the binocular further and they did very well, therefor is the binoculars much more developed than the riflescope.

 

Any german 7x50 binocular from ww2 have bigger FOV than a Zeiss 8x56 classic to take one example.

To take the extremely good examples the 8x60 they are still some of the best binoculars that can be found. Unfortunately are they extremely expensive due to collectors and not many people have the pleasure to use them.

To compare military optics from the 60th-80th with cars from teh 80th can only be done by people who not are familiar with quality optics.

 

Zeiss 8x60 made around 1940. please observ the okularlenses, the FOV is 160 meters at 1000 meters or 9,1 degree....

 

Basicly is a the German military Zeiss 7x50B marine (that is still in production) very similar to the ones produced 60 years earlyer and the 6x30B that have been sold out of some armies made in the 60th -80th very similar to the Silvamar and MArineglass that is earlyer than ww2.

 

So not so much have happend in the optical development of binoculars and many times are the well made high end military stuff from the 60-80th better than many things sold today, but for a fraction of the cost.

 

Zeiss 7x50B surplus, those can be had for around 400 USD, and they cost now around 1500 USD when bought new( still produced).

Maybe a just some surplussh*t for some (who havent tried them), but for those who have used them it's one of the best binoculars ever.

 

When it comes to the very modern roof prism construktion that many here prefers.

The first roofs came on the market early in the 1900, produced by Hensoldt.

Here is one  1910-1924. 8x50 Hensoldt Marinedialyt

The roof prism didnt came on the market to be better than porros, but because Zeiss was the only manufaturer allowed to produce Porros with bigger distance betwen the objektives than the eyes due to patents. The patent expired 1906.

I don't mind roofs, they are good if they are well made, and they have some very good side like the compactness. But I prefers Porro and Porro2.

 

Luzcnik

I am never able to convince you that Leupolds are optically a lot less than the better "german speaking" optics, regardless of how I try and what numbers I give you.

Cause you seems still to be on the "Kodak Instamatic" level.

I don't mind if you and a lot of other people stays there, that is just fine.

But if you really wanna stay there, don't borrow or buy and high end stuff in the same magnification range or objetive size as the Leupolds you have because that is just going to get expensive for you and you are going to sell your leupolds.

Just like I did.

 

Not all German scopes are top ends, Pecar, Nickel and Kaps are some example on not top end stuff.

 

Regards Technika

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/17/2007 at 16:43
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436

This is too fun. Finally, a debate about optics rather than politics...

 

Yeah, you're probably right (NOT!) Why, the only advances in binoculars ove the last four decades have involved minor, dare I say insignificant issues like:

  • eyecup designs  (I notice your preferred optics don't seem to have them at all.)
  • close focus (perhaps you don't adjust your binoculars simply because they can't focus close enough to begin with.)
  • waterproofing (including nitrogen, argon, etc. purging)
  • weight reductions
  • CAD design systems
  • Center Focus Mechanisms
  • etc.

and most importantly (though still completely insignificant)

  • advances in degree of perfection in grinding/polishing lens elements.
  • enhancements and changes in both the quality and quantity of lens coatings.
  • phase correction coatings
  • hydrophobic coatings
  • changes in prism glass (BAk4 as opposed to Bak7)
  • etc.

All of them, of course, completely insignificant to the optics consumer.

 

I believe you meant to say the difference in eye relief is 1.4mm (ranging from 5mm to 3.6mm) not 44mm - which would be ridiculous. That still may or may not be a significant difference to a particular individual but, as it's never caused me any difficulty, I see no need to buy a Zeiss to fix the nonexistant problem.

 

Again, your discomfort at looking through a Leupold is not one that I have ever experienced.  Nor have millions of other sportsman who continue to buy (and even to prefer) Leupold products.  Our collective experience cannot be simply chalked up to mass-ignorance. Especially since some of us have spent significant amounts of time and effort studying optics. I suspect your discomfort comes from the fact that there was an "L" logo on the side of your scope rather than a "Z" (or a bird or a red dot.) 

 

I know that there are many people who believe that the optics offered by the "Big 3" are superior to any other optics on the planet.  In some cases, such individuals have legitimate, well thought out arguments for their preferences.  Most of the time, they don't.  Those who insist that noone else makes a quality product however, are so deep in their own dillusions that nothing is going to help them. When I find such people,  I usually leave them to their opinions knowing that neither of us are going to convince the other that they are wrong.   If they prefer an eagle on their binocular and believe that it makes the image brighter and clearer and increases the resolving capacity of the optic, so be it. However, to unilateraly suggest that a binocular made by one of these "elite" companies over 40 years ago is superior to the top-end offerings of the various non-German speaking firms of today, represents an idea that is utterly and completely absurd.  Talk about trying to convince someone of the virtues of pictures taken with an Instamatic camera.

 

Even the insane can delude themselves only so far before the have to deal with some basic truth and you have definately gone beyond that point.



Edited by lucznik
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/17/2007 at 23:53
www.technika.nu View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/02/2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 611

To start from the top the latest four decades have of course resulted in better optics than what previulsy have been possible. Things such as fluorite glss, better centerfcus mechanisms, and design and light weight.

When it comes to waterproffing that is no news and mostly older navy binoculars are well waterproofed.

I wouldent say the eyecup designs have been very much better, the designs of good eyecupshave been known for a long time, but few binoculars had them in the past.

All binoculars had eyecups but 60 years destroys rubber so it often just fells apart.

Opticsvise binoculars are cheaper and better than ever before.

But that said I still think you get a better binocular when buying a 30 year old top end binocular for a low price than a cheapy asian with an american name new for about the same price.

And the differance is not very strange the military binoculars are made to see hard use by conscripts who hate all their equipment and threat it like sh*t, while the modern asian consumer product is never intended for such use.

 

When it comes to really top end stuff, like the most modern and best optical binoculars, riflescopes and spotting scopes that can be had for money there is no doubth that those has to be very modern.

For example a Zeiss 8x42 FL is sharper than my fauvered 7x50B marine when bought new today, there is no question about it. My reason to still continue to use the 7x50 B that is not really as sharp as the newest binocular is that the other advantages as IF, ruggedness etc still makes the 7x50 as one of the best binoculars for my hunting use. While for a birder the situation is problably the opposite.

 

The cheaper end of the optics have not yet got the benefits of the latest techniques and therefor are they not optically better than somewhat older top end stuff.

 

When it comes to the 44 mm change in eyerelief that measuement is for the Leupold 6,5-20X riflescope.

On the latest production 6,5-20 they have actually got it down to 35mm, but that is still terrible.

Here is the data copied from leupold.com

 

Product Specifications
Actual Magnification: 6.5(6.5x) 19.20(20x)
Length (in): 14.3
Eyepiece Length (in): 3.20
Objective Length (in): 4.66
Objective Diameter (in): 1.8
Eyepiece Diameter (in): 1.55
Tube Diameter: 30mm
Weight: 16.0 oz. / 453.6 grams
Eye Relief (in): 5.0(6.5x) 3.6(20x)
Eye Relief (mm): 128(6.5x) 93(20x)

Obj. Lens Diameter: 1.6in / 40mm
Max. Adjustment @ 100 yds (in): 72
Max. Adjustment @ 100 m (cm): 200
FOV @ 100 yds (ft): 14.3(6.5x) 5.6(20x)
FOV @ 100 m (m): 4.8(6.5x) 1.9(20x)

 

As you clearly can see the eyerelief is changing much considerably.

 

There is made other good optics on the globe than in Germany, take the trijicon 2,5-10x56 for example.

It's fairly good for the money, with decent optics and CONSTANT eyerelief.

I would surely own one of those if the illumination system had been perfected.

But they are to bright to the darkest nights so therefor I don't use them.

 

On the other hand the Trijicon 1,24-4X suffers from the same problem with eyerelief as the leupolds do, and that makes them unsutable for a rifle for driven game.

 

Looking on other Leupolds like the 1,25-4X the FOV is that poor that I can buy a old second hand german 1,5-6x42 and get a much more versalite scope that have the same FOV, but also is possible to use at low light.

non illuminated 20-30 year old german scopes are here in the same pricerange as Leupolds or even cheper so why go for the less good optical example?

 

Another scope that actually is the worst example of eyerelief is the 2.5-8X EER pistolscope.

Many shooter can use the scope up to 3-5X and then not more because their arms is far to long.

But due to the changing eyerelief they can use them at low power.

 

And lastly when it comes to eyerelief i repeat my question from my last message.

Zeiss did manage to produce constant eyerelief scopes for 85 year ago, why can't leupold do it today?

 

You have never noticed any discomfort with leupolds cause you have never used anything else.

Your eyes are not used to anything else so you are still att the "instamatic" level.

And that is just fine, quality optics costs and when someone get used to high quality optics he is not so interested in substandard anymore.

 

Technika

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/18/2007 at 08:57
anweis View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional


Joined: January/29/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 971

The Leupold Golden Ring porro prism rubber armored fully multicoated 9x35 was an awesome binocular, top of the line. Too bad that it also was individual focus.

I'll use my center focus Leupold Yosemite 6x30 over some "heavier than bricks" individual focus junk anyday, anytime.



Edited by anweis
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/18/2007 at 13:23
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436

Ah Technika, you just slay me.

 

I concede that I was looking at the eye relief in inches not mm so, you've got me on that figure.  We both were correct, just using different measuring systems. I still don't see where the issue is one of significance but,...

 

To answer your question I will have to ask you one in return. If eye relief is sufficient for comfortable use throughout the magnification range (which, when dealing with Leupold scopes has always been true for me - and untold numbers of other sportsmen,) why would we care if it is not exactly the same as that of other makers' scopes or if it is not exactly the same throughout that range of magnification. 

 

To illustrate this idea further: Using the 6-20x40 Vari-X III as the example. When I look through the scope as 6x, I see the full FOV. When I look through the scope at 20x, I see the full FOV.  This remains true throughout the intermediate magnifications as well.  Thus the eye relief (regardless of its technical measurement) is sufficient throughout the scope's adjustment range. Of what value is it going to be to have this measurement a mm or two longer?  Will I see more than the full FOV? No.  Of what value is it going to be if that eye-relief is the same throughout the magnification range?  Will it allow me to see more than the full FOV? No.  Gee, sounds like I really need that Zeiss... NOT! 

 

You've fallen prey to clever advertising.  You assume that something is better because its different, not because it actually is adding value to the product. What you haven't understood is that raw numbers don't tell the whole story.  You have to understand what those numbers are actually telling you about the product and be able to place them in their relative value. 

 

Don't fret though, as it's a very common malady. Sportsmen fall victim to it in relation to a lot of things incuding camo patterns, scent-locking materials, minimum caliber requirements, and especially the quality of optics as well as a great many other things. So again, you're in popular company.

 

Actually, I have used (though admittedly not owned) scopes (and other optics) from just about every major manufacturer on the (American) market.  That would include the various German firms. Some of it is very nice indeed but, not worthy of their lofty price tags.

 

So, the rubber fell off your 60 year old eyepeices.  And yet you contend that the modern, multi-position, twist-up, plastic eyecups which are not subject to such deterioration would not be considered a design advancement?

 

I suppose it's cool that you like some of that old stuff from the 20's to the mid 40's.  Antiquing is a popular activity of the aged and infirm - or so I'm told. I'm sure your favorite Instamatic camera looks real good on the shelf next to these optics. I am suspicious however, that you still are basing their perceived value on the presence of a particular badge/symbol rather than actual optical or build quality.  There is no possible way that these optics from WWII and before with their (at best) single layer coatings are optically superior to high-quality optics made today with better glass, better (and more) coatings, lighter and more rugged materials, CNC machining, CAD design, etc.  Better than a $30 Tasco?  Sure.  Better than the mid to high offerings of companies like Bushnell, Burris, Pentax, Nikon, and yes, even Leupold?  Not a chance in Hades.

 

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/18/2007 at 15:02
www.technika.nu View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/02/2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 611

Lucnik

There is no reason what so ever to try to have a technical discussion when you should insult me with insunations of age, health or political views.

If that is the way you want to keep the technical disucions you better talk to someone else.

 

Technika

 

 



Edited by www.technika.nu
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/18/2007 at 16:28
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436
Originally posted by www.technika.nu www.technika.nu wrote:

Lucnik

There is no reason what so ever to try to have a technical discussion when you should insult me with insunations of age, health or political views.

If that is the way you want to keep the technical disucions you better talk to someone else.

 

Technika

 

What?

 

You think that my referring to antiquing as an activity for the aged and/or infirm is an insult of greater magnitude than the numerous times you have inferred that I don't know anything or that my knowledge base is comparable to a guy with an "Instamatic Camera" trying to show someone with good equipment what great pictures they have?

 

You are way too thin skinned, my friend. 

 

I don't know what you mean by "political views."  I was unaware of any politics being bantered around in this particular thread. 

 

Perhaps you will remember the following tidbits you presented...

 

  1. I still belives that  you not have tried enough with quality optics.
  2. Or early 80th everybody bought instamatic cameras, and they was very impressed with it. How many do you hear those days that are impressed with an instamatic? or even shows you pictures taking with one.......
  3. I am never able to convince you that Leupolds are optically a lot less than the better "german speaking" optics, regardless of how I try and what numbers I give you. Cause you seems still to be on the "Kodak Instamatic" level.
  4. You have never noticed any discomfort with leupolds cause you have never used anything else. Your eyes are not used to anything else so you are still at the "instamatic" level.

 



Edited by lucznik
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/19/2007 at 02:39
www.technika.nu View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/02/2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 611

 

You have missunderstood me when I said instamatic level.

That is not meant as an insult but as a description of how far you have got with your optics sensitivity.

 

This is difficult to explain, but take whisky for example.

If someone thinks that Famous Grouse (low priced standard whisky) tastes great and not can taste any differance from a 5 times expensive Ardbeg then it would be stupid to drink the Ardbeg or Glenmorangie.

That doesent mean that this person is lower valued but his taste have not got to that level where he can taste the differance. Like in optics the better quality is addicting when you have reach to a point where you can see or feel the differance.

 

Same things with Cars, I drive a year old Mitsubishi L200 that costed far to much than it was worth.

I am therefor planning to sell it because I don't appreicitate it enoguh to justifi the cost.

I am not saying it's not better, because it is, but my interests in cars is not high enough to justifi the cost and honestly I would be perfectly well off with an old rusty 4 wd WW from the 80th.

The L200 is still better, but I don't have the taste for cars that developed yet and probably never will.

 

When it comes to optics there is many quality issues, it not just light transmission, colours, distorsion, (to meantion a few) but also ruggedness and FOV and stability etc.

When it comes to the first 3 issues the 60 year old stuff cant compete with the newer ones, but well with the FOV, ruggedness and stability.

When it comes to the 60-80 military stuff they are certainly better in every way than a burris leupold level binocular is, optically and rugged at least.

 

History has a lot to learn us as well as when it comes to technical and optical problems.

As a inventor I am many times looking back on other older solutions to see if there is sollutions I can "recycle" or avoid. Without the Historical background many mistakes or just made again.

 

But really I think it's better that we close this discussion.

You will not change your mind, and I will not based on what you say as its just the opposite against my experience.

 

 

Technika

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/19/2007 at 18:36
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436
Maybe you should just lay off the whiskey all together for a little while...


Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/21/2007 at 15:56
www.technika.nu View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/02/2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 611

I don't drink whiskey................

 

Technika

 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Steiner Sports Focus"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Focusing Steiner Peregrine XP FastJimmy Binoculars 11
steiner 8x30 nighthunter vs steiner 210’s Exoman Binoculars 19 12/6/2006 12:33:10 AM
Nikon Sports and Marine 7x50 koshkin Binoculars 2 7/24/2007 4:00:47 PM
Weaver V16 or Mueller Sport dot 4-16 ghost82 Rimfire / Airgun 5
Sports Shop visit frankb Rifle Scopes 2
Hawke Sport Optics SR? Chem-man Varmint Scopes 12
Browning 425 Sporting.....SOLD !!! Blackbird Firearms For Sale 2
Bushnell Yardage Pro Sport 450 Laser Rangefinder Tibetanmonk Laser Rangefinders 6
Hawke Sport HD scope neilbilly Rimfire / Airgun 8
Hawke sports HD 3-9x50, any experience? kjeg1 Rifle Scopes 3


This page was generated in 0.359 seconds.