New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Big Three
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

The Big Three

 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/05/2005 at 18:03
Earl View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: January/05/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3
I am planning to buy 3x12x50 or 56 illuminated reticle scope. Has anybody out there actually compared the S&B Zenith, Swarovski PH 3x12x50's and ZeissVM 3x12x56 together in the field under low light conditions to see which one actually stays brightest the longest? On paper, the twilight factor gives the edge to Zeiss but I want to know what actually happens in the field. Any comments pro or con are welcome.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/05/2005 at 23:55
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5087
OPps I though the big 3 were Bushnell, Leo and Nikon.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/06/2005 at 09:13
Grubbs View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: August/18/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 123
Dale clifford......you thought wrong.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/06/2005 at 13:28
Brady View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Admin
TEAM SWFA - Admin
Avatar
Casino Cruiser

Joined: May/20/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1834
I've used the Swarovski in the field and could nearly hunt all night with the full moon. On the higher powers the 56mm VMV will be a tad bit brighter in low light conditions.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/06/2005 at 16:52
SAKO75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/29/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 246
you could hunt all night long with any of the big 3 from europe with their 56mm objective offerings.
I like my S&B, others like zeiss or swaro. there are different factors to choose from but brightness is pretty much to close to call across the board without optics testing equipment. The human eye needs at least a 3% difference in total light transmission to tell much difference, therefore 95%-93% light transmission are really going to look pretty damn close
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/07/2005 at 17:25
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5087
Ferrari, Porsche,and Maserati make fine autos, but they are not the big 3. I doubt if their total sales of S&B,etc. would beat Nikon etc. I also would guess that the total number of rounds fired under Nikon group etc. is more and Leo and group etc. are known by more "average" shooters. and last agreement amonst cognisente does not constitue statistical proof but only a contingency. Duplication of meaningful information of the "utility" of which scope amongst the top three is best would be hard enough, but an over all comparison of all scopes would amount to nothing more than opinion. Stays "brightest the longest" must be internally coated with day glo.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/07/2005 at 17:33
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5087
Optical researchers and engineers can build lenses and systems of lenses built upon desired physical parameters such as % transmission and other factors independent of the human response. Some companies such as Zeiss and as of lately Leo, have started using the parameters of the human perception system rather than the measurement of raw physical data. There are two stories the short one and the long one. The short one is that the eye is more responsive at certain "indexes" (Leos term) and the lenses system should include these responses. Zeiss, Hasselblad, Canon and Nikon have been doing this for years in their camera lenses. The long version is included for those interested.


In this report, a mathematical model of the human visual system's (HVS) frequency response is presented. The frequency response of the eye is defined as the sensitivity of the optical system to periodically varying luminance levels in a scene. A simple example: if the eye cannot detect the change in luminance of a particular scene, then the frequency response is zero. The HVS is very complex and, consequently, usually requires many types of models to accurately represent its performance. Nevertheless, the models are not perfect and they are only useful in specific applications or when the appropriate mathematical constraints are applied. For this discussion, consider a model of the eye's frequency response that is: (1) linear, (2) isotropic, (3) space-invariant, (4) monochromat, and (5) photopic.

A linear system is defined as a system that operates on an input function f(x,y) such that:

O{F(x,h)} = G(x,h) and O{aF(x,h)} = aG(x,h)

and O{a1F1(x,h) + a2F2(x,h)} = O{a1F1(x,h)} + O{ a2F2(x,h)} = a1G1(x,h) + a2G2(x,h)

where O{} is the operation of a system on an input signal, x and h are the spatial frequencies, F(x,h) is a two-dimensional representation of an object, a is a multiplicative constant, and G(x,h) is the image. Notice that the functions are represented in the frequency domain. This is because we are interested in modeling the frequency response of the eye. When modeling the eye as a linear system, assume that the eye operates on an input signal in the behavior described above. As it turns out, the eye's frequency response is non-linear. There are three reasons why this is true. First, the frequency response characteristics change depending on what range of luminance the eye is exposed to. This is because of the light adaptation of the eye. Second, the perception of brightness is driven not only by the physical capability of the eye's optical system but by the interaction with the brain and nervous system. The way the signal is processed by this neural network is inherently non-linear (If your interested I have this). Finally, the image perception is strongly influenced by subjective biases. Although the eye is non-linear, we can still assume a linear response over a limited range of luminance levels as it is done by the photopic model. Thus, by the linear model, the eye's frequency response is modeled by the modulation transfer function (MTF). In essence, an input signal's frequency remains unchanged by the optical system while changes in amplitude and phase are likely to occur. The MTF then is the ratio of the output modulation divided by the input modulation. The modulation of a signal is given by:
 
where Lmax and Lmin are the maximum and minimum luminance level amplitudes in a signal.

The isotropic aspect of the model assumes that the distribution of photoreceptors (rods and cones) in the eye is the same in all directions. The truth is that not only does the concentration of photoreceptors change as we move radially away from the fovea (where the eye is focused at), but where the highest concentration occurs is different for rods than for cones. However, this is a decent approximation if restricting the angular extent of the analysis over small angular distances where the concentration of the photoreceptors does not vary much.
By this describing the eye as space-invariant (or shift-invariant), it is assumed that the eye responds to a change in spatial location as follows:
O{F(xx0)} = G(xx0)

Thus, it is assumed that a shift in the spatial location of an object constitutes the same shift in the image plane (retina) of the eye. This is clearly not true since the eye actually magnifies luminance levels depending on the radiation wavelength (this is where the indexing starts). Again, this assumption can be used to obtain decent results if limiting the shift to small magnitudes. When combining this assumption with the isotropic model, it is implied that the MTF of the eye is the same no matter where the image forms in the retina. In order to reduce the error introduced by this assumption, restrict the analysis to a small region.

Finally, model the eye as being monochromat and photopic. This means that we do not account for variations of the frequency response with radiation wavelength and must choose the photopic (cone) response to brightness as our measure of luminance perception. This is clearly not true since the eye can perceive many wavelengths (about 400 to 700 nm) and has varying responses to red, green, and blue light. Also, the cones and rods have different responses. The photopic response is our "daylight" response and is able to distinguish color while the scotopic (rods) response is our "night" response and it is only sensitive in the blue region of the visible spectrum. Since the cones are mainly concentrated in the fovea, limit the analysis to this region so that our MTF estimations are tolerable.

PART II

The model developed in this report accounts for the optics of the ocular system lens (eye l
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/07/2005 at 18:30
okokdude View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/09/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 23
I have done a comparison of some of my best scopes and have found the following to be true
Schmidt Bender     2.5-10x56
zeiss conquest     3-12x56
black Diamond      3-12x50
nikon monarch gold 2.5-10x50

I used the lowest common setting of 3x and the highest of 10x to compare
side by side each scope during dusk to dark conditions.

only the Nikon was noticably brighter and clearer the darker it got
the rest were all very much the same which was very good, my eye could not tell a differance.

shon
lbearup@bellsouth.net
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/10/2005 at 09:19
Grubbs View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: August/18/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 123
Looks like Dale Clifford has been huffing glue again.  I wonder who he is trying to impress....I know I'm not.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/10/2005 at 13:05
gozarian View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: April/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 158
Dale, what are you on Dude?  The big 3 are Swarovski, Zeiss and Schmidt&Bender, not necessarily in that order.  All that brainwash you posted is pretty impressive if you're a scientist but not to me.  The 'BIG THREE" Earl was talking about when he started this topic are the 3 HIGHEST QUALITY manufacturers not the ones who produce the most. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/11/2005 at 20:37
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5087
If quality is your qualifing group then you must include Hakko which will make one anything you want for the money, (and probably Bushnell although they would probably want to make 5-6 of them). simply because other means of grouping the products exist doesn't make it inaccurate. I am personally more impressed by the scopes I see in the winner's area at the Soldier of Fortune shoot, IPSC 3 guns events and bench rest shoots. Which would make the big 3 Leo, Leo, and Leo. OKOKDUDE noticed the difference answering the question directly but you seem to have ignored it. The math stuff wasn't meant to impress only inform that the human element is often ignored (and for someone interested some insight into the relationships, if you don't like it don't read it) and that when the physics of optics is maximized toward it, rather than the QUality side (what ever that is) very good results are obtained. Besides the people that were meant to be impressed have already paid for the above work and were impressed. The only decision you get is where to spend your money.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/12/2005 at 16:21
Grubbs View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: August/18/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 123
DaleClifford...I haven't been to a shoot like you describe in, say.....EVER.  I don't shoot in broad daylight all the time.  You see, when you are in the field hunting, sometimes you may shoot in extremely low light, fog, rain, etc.  These situations are where the Swaros, Zeiss, etc. shine head and shoulders above any leupold that your buddies shoot in broad daylight.....get the picture?  By the way, save the big fancy explanations for your weekly nerd group meeting.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/12/2005 at 19:05
tbone1 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: May/31/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 195

Earl, I have a Zeiss VM/V 3-12x56 and a S&B 3-12x42 and have compared them for about two hours as the light faded.  They are extremely close optically.  Both had unsurpassed clarity and resolution.  I could'nt detect any difference in brightness at all until the last 3 or 4 minutes at dark and the Zeiss was slightly brighter.  By then it was way passed legal shooting time and even then the difference was very small.  I was pretty surprised that the S&B lasted as long as it did with a 42mm objective.  I had a Zeiss VM/V with a 42mm objective several years ago and it was also incredibly bright.  The Zeiss 3-12x56 did have better field of view and seemed to offer a bigger sight picture.  I have'nt been able to formally compare at dark a Swarovski PH side by side with the Zeiss or S&B yet but I will in the next month or so.  I don't have any experience with the Zenith series so I won't comment on it.  I hope this info will help.

 

I am not a fan of illuminated reticles though.  "From what I have read", illuminated reticles will make it easier to see the reticle but might make slightly harder to see the animal that you are looking at.  Keep in mind that I have never had one so take my opinion for what its worth.  At the least though, I don't really see a need for them, especially in a scope like this with a first plane reticle.  Thats one of the things I love about a 30mm scope with a first plane reticle.  It grows when you turn the power up so you can make it as thick as you need and still have sufficient exit pupil and brightness.  In my experience, I have never been able to see an animal and not been able to see the reticle to take the shot with either of these scopes.  However, I have had this happen with some of my other scopes with reticles in the second image plane.  Just some info you may want to consider. 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/13/2005 at 04:44
gozarian View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: April/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 158
tbone1, I think you are backwards with what you are saying in the bottom half of your second paragraph.  I experienced the complete opposite of what you did.  I'm not a fan of scopes that have their reticles in the ffp.  In my opinion, you might as well be looking through a scope that has two magnified fenceposts as your crosshairs!  They are horrible for long range shooting.  They don't work very well at the range either for load development/testing either.  One scope that may work(I've yet to try) is the Schmidt&Bender Precision Hunter with the P3 reticle with its fine expanding crosshair reticle.  Short of that, you can keep the ffp scopes!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/13/2005 at 17:04
Sako .308 Win View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: August/14/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 28
I am a fan of first plane reticles for hunting purposes as well. I don't no very many people that shoot at the range for long distances in low light any way. The first plane reticle is with out a doubt the best for low light hunting when you have  the magnification at 5 or above magnification. I've used Luepold Vari-X 3 for years which is a second planne reticle then I switched to a Zeiss VM/V with a first plane reticle that Zeiss calls the #11 three post German reticle and it is plain awesome for low light shots  Definetly not good for long distance target shooting!   Brian
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/13/2005 at 17:26
cheaptrick View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: September/27/2004
Location: South Carolina
Status: Online
Points: 20479

Originally posted by gozarian gozarian wrote:

  I'm not a fan of scopes that have their reticles in the ffp.  In my opinion, you might as well be looking through a scope that has two magnified fenceposts as your crosshairs!  They are horrible for long range shooting.  They don't work very well at the range either for load development/testing either.  One scope that may work(I've yet to try) is the Schmidt&Bender Precision Hunter with the P3 reticle with its fine expanding crosshair reticle.  Short of that, you can keep the ffp scopes!

 

Well, that's quite a statement.

 

Most of your "high-speed" operators, either in the military or LE, prefer a FFP reticle scope.

 

All the "P3" by S&B is, is a mil dot reticle. No big deal there.

Unless you plan on learning the mil dot system, stick to anougher reticle...YMMV of course.

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/14/2005 at 04:03
gozarian View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: April/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 158
I just don't see why you guys go crazy about ffp scopes!  When you turn up the magnification, the crosshairs cover up what you're shooting at unless you're at close range!  I understand the logic behind the theory with the ffp scopes but, the Europeans STILL DRIVE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD!  The reason I mentioned the S&B Precision Hunter with the P3 reticle wasn't to talk about their mil dot reticle but that they may have the perfect balance in a ffp scope that when magnified doesn't block out your target!   
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/14/2005 at 09:31
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5087
grubbs, why don't you just say you don't understand the explanation and ask something intelligent, such as why lateral inhibition would be more important than a physical factor such as lumens? Timed shooting events are there to help people improve their shooting skills and test equipment under competitive pressure and time constraints. Maybe you would receive some enlightenment if you talked to some people out of your closed shooting group. Most action shooting events that require a scope are seldom done in broad daylight (of course you wouldn't know that you've never been to one) and some groups practice and hold groups at night to test the best methods and scopes for these circumstances. Swat and LE do this all the time around here. Leo (not any of the big 3) Tacticals are used. My early and late hunting usually involves tracking (elk and bear), and coyote hunting in the full moon in the Salmon wilderness area where I was taught in which the method was more important than relying on the marginal difference in brightness between several makers of scopes .
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/14/2005 at 11:00
Grubbs View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: August/18/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 123
I didn't read your explanation....I could tell it would be BORING.  I like your hunting method though, just not the fact your in love with Leupold no matter what. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/18/2005 at 00:11
tbone1 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: May/31/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 195

I'm not sure what the arguement is here.  First of all, I agree with you that for long range shooting, precise range work, or varmint hunting, I would prefer a medium duplex or mil-dot in the second image plane.  But I was simply talking about a hunting scope which is what I assumed Earl was looking at.  I felt the way you did about ffps until I finally started using one and it changed my mind.  A ffp always stays the same size in relation to the target.  The reticle grows as the target grows so its not covering it up from view.  Having said that, I do see your point when you are doing precise range work at high magnification, it may be too thick.

 

The main point I was making was that ffp scopes have some advantages over scopes with reticles in the second image plane and that I didn't see a need for an illuminated reticle for a ffp scope.  When I bought my Zeiss conquest, I compared it to my VM/V extensively one afternoon and evening to see how much difference there was in brightness, clarity, resolution, etc.  Obviously the VM/V had much better optics.  A few days later I compared it against my S&B however this time I was trying to see how much later I could shoot with the S&B vs. the conquest.  I took them out and was looking across a grass field as the light faded to darkness.  Just before dark, I could still barely see through the conquest and could still have taken a shot in the field, but when I put the scope against the treeline where the deer were coming out, I couldn't see the reticle.  I could see the basic outline of the deer but not the reticle.  When I looked through the S&B against the treeline, not only could I see the deer more clearly than with the conquest, but I could still see the reticle with no problem.  I would have been able to take the shot.  As long as I could see deer, I could still see the reticle.   After hunting with Leupolds, Conquests, VM/Vs, S&Bs in the field, I have still found this to be true.  I personally have'nt found a need for an illuminated reticle on a ffp scope.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/18/2005 at 16:16
Imagunsmith View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/18/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 35
There are any number of good scopes out there. I have to wonder what type of recoil the rifle has that this large objective scope is going on, bigger is not always better. I've had guys in my shop that wanted coffee canned sized objectives mounted on there rifles. And when the pin sliding takes place, they wonder why the get sore cheeks. Because the bigger the objective the higher the scope has to be mounted, and in return the more momentum the gun has before contacting the cheek area. Guys I am curious, why does anybody insist on having twice the price in his/her optics than they has in his rifle? I have hunted for 35 years and have never missed a target due to the scope not being able to see more light than it should.        Just my 2 cents worth............ 
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "The Big Three"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Here is the BIG BIG one. LRSMike General Hunting 14
More than three weeks jaihohojaye General Hunting 1
Three types of red dot sights River Runner Rimfire / Airgun 3
Big Screen TV scope Match Rifle Scopes 9
Longer Eye-Relief Big Game Scope Hypnogator Rifle Scopes 12
best scope out of three doc1jr Rifle Scopes 15
Surprised - Prostaff vs S2 Big Sky and Elite 4200 ti-force Rifle Scopes 7
Choice of Three bigo_m Spotting Scopes 0
Opinions between three scope! rugershooter16 Rifle Scopes 5
Which of these three scopes... rfurman24 Rifle Scopes 13


This page was generated in 0.656 seconds.