I've re-read some of Steven Ingraham's articles from "Better View Desired." In particular I note his use of "NEED" measurements to quantify resolution in binoculars of various types and powers. His figures for the Nikon Superior E in the 8 x 32 are worth noting, as they compare to some 8 x 42 models. NEED seems to have superceded his earlier use of arcsecond resolution figures.
For those unfamiliar with it, a "NEED" figure represents the distance, in feet, at which one can determine that a certain "gray" tone on the back of a dollar bill is actually a series of closely spaced lines. 16 feet or so for an 8X is typical, the Nikon SE 8 x 32 does 18 feet, while the Nikon 10 x 42 SE are in the 22+ foot range. (Ed Zarenski would likely have us note that the 20% improvement can be explained by magnification alone.)
That the very best Nikon SE 10 x 42 can resolve 3.58 arcseconds is of interest, i.e., it can split a single degree into more than a thousand parts. So is his determination that a Zeiss 7x42 can do 4.50 arseconds, a split of that degree into 800 parts. But, the NEED, which is much easier done, seems more real world. (And its hard to beat the price of that government-engraved resolution target!)
Perhaps some of the debate on this web page might benefit from the illumination of actual testing, and real data. Wouldn't it be interesting for someone with access to, say, the Nikon Venturer LX in both the 8 x 42 and the 8 x 32, provide some results? Or perhaps the Swarovski EL 10 x 42 vs. the just announced 10 x 32?
Maybe we don't really NEED to know, but when it comes to arguments, might not FACT be better than FRICTION!?
For those unfamiliar with it, a "NEED" figure represents the distance, in feet, at which one can determine that a certain "gray" tone on the back of a dollar bill is actually a series of closely spaced lines. 16 feet or so for an 8X is typical, the Nikon SE 8 x 32 does 18 feet, while the Nikon 10 x 42 SE are in the 22+ foot range. (Ed Zarenski would likely have us note that the 20% improvement can be explained by magnification alone.)
That the very best Nikon SE 10 x 42 can resolve 3.58 arcseconds is of interest, i.e., it can split a single degree into more than a thousand parts. So is his determination that a Zeiss 7x42 can do 4.50 arseconds, a split of that degree into 800 parts. But, the NEED, which is much easier done, seems more real world. (And its hard to beat the price of that government-engraved resolution target!)
Perhaps some of the debate on this web page might benefit from the illumination of actual testing, and real data. Wouldn't it be interesting for someone with access to, say, the Nikon Venturer LX in both the 8 x 42 and the 8 x 32, provide some results? Or perhaps the Swarovski EL 10 x 42 vs. the just announced 10 x 32?
Maybe we don't really NEED to know, but when it comes to arguments, might not FACT be better than FRICTION!?
