Collimation (3 Viewers)

[WJC]

The original post:

Hi Optic_Nut:

——“Sorry....I will not guess, but the original is missing concerete tractable information.”

While the “original” may not have offered the copious side issues necessary to cover your agenda, it stated the question I wanted answered quite well and thoroughly.

——“RE: point 1: How can I tell it's needed for a given pair, from usage?”

My comment was NOT directed at the AMOUNT of the error—in any particular instrument—at all. I don’t have time to chase my tail; thus, I won’t bother to type it a third time. You are a native English speaker, right?

——“RE: point 2: I will stop guessing.”

That would be a treat.

——“Please give something concrete, something that can be observed in normal usage.”

My comment was as “concrete” as it needed to be. I truly mean no undue offense, but I feel this is a nonsensical, self-serving, and totally irrelevant comment. I will answer questions from a sincere questioner as soon as I can get around to it. Perhaps it is me, but I find so many of your questions based in frivolous speculation and theory, serving no apparent purpose (to me anyway) other than to draw attention to your optical knowledge—or the lack thereof. If I were to try to second guess you concerning YOUR profession, I would fall on my face; I’m not qualified, just as I’m not qualified to address any number of other issues. But then, I have the judgment to be silent on those issues.

“It is better to keep silent and let people think you’re an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”—Mark Twain

You may take heart in knowing there are others waiting in the wings to pounce on my motives, call me arrogant, or say that I “look down” on others. Yes, it hurts. But, they have not walked in my shoes.

——“RE: point 3: I NEED TO OBSERVE WHAT'S ACTUALLY WRONG w/the view. Please give something concrete, something that can be observed in normal usage.

Why must MY thread turn into something to satisfy what YOU NEED? What is the purpose? What do you get from the wasted words?

Sadly, you are once again (as I see it) wanting me to spend time generating some hypothetical … whatever … into something you can use as a rhetorical football. I really don’t have time for such nonsense.

There is no doubt that at times I can be pretty verbose. But when I come across a question that can be stated in a few words or answered with 2 or 3, I choose to take that tact.

BirdForum is a site I visit while strapped to my computer every day, dealing with dozens of RELEVANT (often profitable) projects. It is NOT a way of life, like it is for some. And, I don’t have time to allow it to get that way. I don’t dig up monsters merely to kill them, any more than I would add things that have already been done to my TO DO list, just for the purpose of marking them off.

Thus, I will be happy to leave you to your own agenda; long may it wave. I feel certain ours rarely cross paths. So, in the end I don’t think we have a lot of beneficial thoughts to share and I would be happy to do as a wise man once said: Let’s agree to disagree agreeably.

Kindest Regards,

Bill

 

[WJC]

Bill,

After consulting my shrink I think I understand the essence of your question.
That is: Why do people take time for verbal communication on this subject and still don't want to take time for studying that subject so they could understand.
My answer is "coldwater fever. The fear for the unknown. Messing with a binocular is asking for more trouble".
Even after studying this collination material of yours it takes "guts" to screw on optics.
Not everybody is an OPTIC NUT

Since Leica was so kind to teach me the (very) basic principles of bin repair I felt confidence enough to try to repair donated bins for the Second Life Optics initiative and still I ruine more than I repair.
I have hundreds of broken down bins waiting for repair so my skills will eventualy grow, but should I do that on my own bin...... I think I would send it to a trustworthy repairman/lady.

If this answer is not forfilling your question.... sorry mate, best I could do.

Jan

Your answer was the kind I am looking for. As far as complexity, if you had the correct collimator, I'm sure you could do two before breakfast.

Bill

 

[jan van daalen]

Your answer was the kind I am looking for. As far as complexity, if you had the correct collimator, I'm sure you could do two before breakfast.

Bill

In that case I'll keep the Fujinon

 

[WJC]

In that case I'll keep the Fujinon

Show off! I bought the U.B.M.M for Captain's but that's where I'm afraid it will forever be. Even my FRIENDS in Asia refuse to answer me with the REAL cost, knowing I couldn't afford a photo, and not wanting to embarrass me. Even so, a MK V setup would be wonderful.

Regardless of the technology, the binocular is collimated or it's not. But, hey, leave me in your will. :eek!:

Bill

 

[OPTIC_NUT]

"

Why must MY thread turn into something to satisfy what YOU NEED? What is the purpose? What do you get from the wasted words?
"

Because you said:

"However, with all those who never cease talking about getting their binocular to perform to a standard above that which it is capable, I am amazed that there is so little emphasis on collimation. "


I'm just speaking what others dare not to. To support a practice in excess,
many find it important to see why it matters to them personally.

If the request to demonstrate relevance itself seems irrelevant, that answers
the most important question I have now. The practical ones can be answered elsewhere.

So thanks. No more fussing from me on this.

 

[Maljunulo]

At least half the time here, I have no idea what people are talking about.

 

[WJC]

At least half the time here, I have no idea what people are talking about.

Hi Maljunulo:

To make my point a different way:

So many people want to be brain surgeons, but faint at the sight of blood. Will they make it? If not, the desire is futile--a pipe dream!

So many of the things people talk ENDLESSLY about on this and other binocular forums are inherent to a given bino and the observer can do NOTHING but talk or complain about what they see as a problem.

Small errors in alignment, can degrade an image more than a handful of those non-removable aberrations and short comings. Yet, alignment is RARELY mentioned, although it is ONE problem that CAN be addressed.

To me this just seems odd. If you don't agree, please tell me why; It will tie into my original question.

Cheers,

Bill

 

[Maljunulo]

Hi Maljunulo:

To make my point a different way:

So many people want to be brain surgeons, but faint at the sight of blood. Will they make it? If not, the desire is futile--a pipe dream!

So many of the things people talk ENDLESSLY about on this and other binocular forums are inherent to a given bino and the observer can do NOTHING but talk or complain about what they see as a problem.

Small errors in alignment, can degrade an image more than a handful of those non-removable aberrations and short comings. Yet, alignment is RARELY mentioned, although it is ONE problem that CAN be addressed.

To me this just seems odd. If you don't agree, please tell me why; It will tie into my original question.

Cheers,

Bill

Thanks, and I'll be quiet, while I still think I understand, now.

 

[WJC]

Thanks, and I'll be quiet, while I still think I understand, now.

If you don't care . . . be quiet. If you want to know, keep talking until you get your answer. At the core of every great achievement lies a heart of perseverance. If I can help, let me know and if nothing else I'll do so by PM.

Bill

 

[Maljunulo]

No, I understand your point, now ... so thanks for the clarification.

 

[WJC]

No, I understand your point, now ... so thanks for the clarification.

U betchum!

Bill

 

[stereotruckdriver]

So thanks. No more fussing from me on this.

Thanks Opticnut! : )

Bryce...

 

[Alexis Powell]

...So many of the things people talk ENDLESSLY about on this and other binocular forums are inherent to a given bino and the observer can do NOTHING but talk or complain about what they see as a problem.

Small errors in alignment, can degrade an image more than a handful of those non-removable aberrations and short comings. Yet, alignment is RARELY mentioned, although it is ONE problem that CAN be addressed.

To me this just seems odd...

Here's my answer:

Alignment is very important to me. When I buy a cheap bin, I very often look at several units before I buy, and very often the differences in performance among individual units are due to alignment. I have also sent in quite a number of bins, both cheap ones and alphas, for correction of their alignment. However, I don't talk about alignment much precisely because it _is_ something I can deal with, either through careful initial purchase or through repair (not by myself, but through the repair depts at Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski, and at least in the past, Bushnell). The only thing worth talking about is whether a given model holds its alignment well once properly set (a common topic of birding bin discussion in the porro days, not so relevant now in the roof prism era).

I have no direct control over the optical design of a bin, but I have always been interested in discussing aspects of binocular performance that relate to their design rather than precision of individual unit assembly. Back when I first got interested in bins (~1990), a savvy person could buy a really great bin for birding for <$250, or they could buy junk. I was interested in reading binocular reviews in the _Living Bird_ and _Better View Desired_ to learn which were the best models, and to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of different models. It was all about managing trade-offs, and finding the best bin I could afford that matched my preferences for how to manage those trade offs.

Nowadays it's harder to buy junk, and most bins have excellent specs, so it is less important to be savvy in order to make a good purchasing decision (It's really hard to go wrong these days) when it comes to design aspects of performance (Of course it is still useful to be savvy about bins in order to ensure that the individual unit one purchases has been assembled properly and precisely). But I am still interested in discussing design aspects of performance. Right now, we are very nearly at the point of having conventional bins that do _everything_ that we wanted them to do in 1990. No trade-offs. No compromises. A reasonably wide FOV with excellent eye-relief, close-focus, low CA, flat field, high contrast, high brightness, good build and ergonomics etc. I want to know which bins come closest to perfection, I want to build interest in other consumers for such products, and I want the optics companies to know that there is a small but vocal and electronically very visible constituency looking for them to put forth their best efforts in producing such products. I'm not sure that we'd have ED glass in bins, flat-field euro bins like the SV and upcoming SF, and other recent design improvements if it weren't for pressure from consumers via the competition for bragging rights in birding and hunting optics fora, and in magazine and past BVD reviews. I can't design bins, and I can't re-engineer the bins I buy, but I can (indirectly, through discussion fora) tell the designers what I want performance-wise in hopes that the folks in the marketing dept will decide it is worth trying to sell and thus design and make bins that satisfy my desires.

--AP

 

[WJC]

Here's my answer:

Alignment is very important to me. When I buy a cheap bin, I very often look at several units before I buy, and very often the differences in performance among individual units are due to alignment. I have also sent in quite a number of bins, both cheap ones and alphas, for correction of their alignment. However, I don't talk about alignment much precisely because it _is_ something I can deal with, either through careful initial purchase or through repair (not by myself, but through the repair depts at Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski, and at least in the past, Bushnell). The only thing worth talking about is whether a given model holds its alignment well once properly set (a common topic of birding bin discussion in the porro days, not so relevant now in the roof prism era).

I have no direct control over the optical design of a bin, but I have always been interested in discussing aspects of binocular performance that relate to their design rather than precision of individual unit assembly. Back when I first got interested in bins (~1990), a savvy person could buy a really great bin for birding for <$250, or they could buy junk. I was interested in reading binocular reviews in the _Living Bird_ and _Better View Desired_ to learn which were the best models, and to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of different models. It was all about managing trade-offs, and finding the best bin I could afford that matched my preferences for how to manage those trade offs.

Nowadays it's harder to buy junk, and most bins have excellent specs, so it is less important to be savvy in order to make a good purchasing decision (It's really hard to go wrong these days) when it comes to design aspects of performance (Of course it is still useful to be savvy about bins in order to ensure that the individual unit one purchases has been assembled properly and precisely). But I am still interested in discussing design aspects of performance. Right now, we are very nearly at the point of having conventional bins that do _everything_ that we wanted them to do in 1990. No trade-offs. No compromises. A reasonably wide FOV with excellent eye-relief, close-focus, low CA, flat field, high contrast, high brightness, good build and ergonomics etc. I want to know which bins come closest to perfection, I want to build interest in other consumers for such products, and I want the optics companies to know that there is a small but vocal and electronically very visible constituency looking for them to put forth their best efforts in producing such products. I'm not sure that we'd have ED glass in bins, flat-field euro bins like the SV and upcoming SF, and other recent design improvements if it weren't for pressure from consumers via the competition for bragging rights in birding and hunting optics fora, and in magazine and past BVD reviews. I can't design bins, and I can't re-engineer the bins I buy, but I can (indirectly, through discussion fora) tell the designers what I want performance-wise in hopes that the folks in the marketing dept will decide it is worth trying to sell and thus design and make bins that satisfy my desires.

--AP

Alexis:

Thank you very much!

“Holding” collimation is a very important aspect of the picture. And, while it’s true that even some of the moderately priced units are better than some of the best in the past. A few companies are willing to make their fortunes serving the less savvy observer; like the company that sold the 120x120 bino, that was really a 7x50. They knew Aunt Myrtle and Uncle Fred would go bonkers over the big numbers, which would give them endless bragging rights among their equally savvy friends.

There are many “repair” departments out there in which the technicians are clueless when it comes to a true, 3-axis collimation—including some MAJOR players. But, you seem savvy enough to stick with the top drawer guys, so you won’t have to worry. Those who base optical quality on low-ball cost always will.

Unless I knew both telescopes had been damaged in a fall, I would simply settle for Conditional Alignment on mine—since I’m the only user. But, for me it’s a choice. Some know no better.

Thanks again for you thoughtful input.

Bill

 

[jan van daalen]

Hi Bill,

Found a nice pic that might interest you for your collimator collection.
Ik don't know who or what it is.
Do you

Jan

 

[jan van daalen]

Hi Bill,

Found a nice pic that might interest you for your collimator collection.
Ik don't know who or what it is.
Do you

Jan

Aha, now we've got the pic

 

[jan van daalen]

Aha, now we've got the pic

Part three.

Houston do we have a picture?

 

[jan van daalen]

Part three.

Houston do we have a picture?

Sorry Bill,

I give up!!
Was a nice pic though8-P
I'll ask my gals wtf I'm doing wrong.

Jan

 

[ceasar]

Part three.

Houston do we have a picture?

Maybe you are in a "Time Warp?"3

Bob

 

[jan van daalen]

Maybe you are in a "Time Warp?"3

Bob

Ha, more in a Digibatic Warp