WJC

Please keep in mind that Parallax and Collimation are NOT the same. Bill Cook, Chief Opticalman US Navy Ret.

I've over 12,000 repair and collimation jobs. I think that'll do me. But I'll be buried in my Navy Mk5 collimator. Bill

One fellow who was not at all at home with the English language and had a much larger ego than a sense of humor said the following was nonsense. However, with 52 years in military and consumer optics and more than 12,000 binocular repair and collimation jobs under my belt, I will stand by it.

The higher the magnification, the more prominent collimation error.

Having been in military and civilian optics for over 50 years, and owned telescope of all sizes and configurations, you will find no dispute from me. But I was amazed that is all the words so far, no one even mentioned the size of the secondary obstruction.

So far, on this thread, I have seen talk of aperture and focal length. “Mushiness” is NOT an optical term. You should be talking about contrast and resolution. That would tell you a lot. Not only would your view be affected by temperature and humidity. It would be wildly affected by the size of the secondary! If you think you have pinpoint stars, that thought would be out the window by taking a photo with an 8-inch SCT and another with a 6-inch apochromatic refractor. Everything is relative. Too many people blame “anomalies” in viewing on the instrument without considering obstruction size, weather conditions, physiological considerations, and what they don’t know about optics ... on the scope.

I would like to address a couple of things here. There are no NON-ELECTRONIC “auto-focus” binoculars ... period! That was a scam that I believe Steiner started in the 1990s. It is thoroughly explained in the first 3 attachments. As for as numbers: the Japanese know 3 important things about the western market: 1) Overall, we believe EVERYTHING we read regardless of the truthfulness. 2) Most know NOTHING about optics or binoculars. And that ... 3) We love BIG NUMBERS, whether or not they mean anything. The final photo is of a garden-variety 7x50 binocular that was advertised as a 120x120 binocular. The first 120 meant the objective was 120 millimeters (4.77 inches in diameter). Does that look like a 4.77-inch diameter to you? The second 120 was supposedly the magnification. Even if the aperture was as advertised, objects seen at that magnification would be as bright as a black cat, at midnight ... in a cave. But do you think the people who gave money to those charlatans understood any of that? No! I have been fighting this insanity for 46 years in lectures, articles, and books, but I have yet to make a dent. “Good advertising need not be accurate or even meaningful. It has only to be believed!”

Just wondering if anyone knows what these numbers relate too. Yes, it means a bigger fraud than that the original poster was asking about! And "Stein" was just an effort in selling a Steiner ... to the in experienced observer!

Just, for the first time ... watched "My Fair Lady"! Your poor deprived child! For my wife, Debbie, and me it would be a dozen or more.

ABSOLUTELY! But ... I feel my opinion is just as valid as those of anyone else that haunts these forums. And that opinion is the language should be altered by those a little farther up the academic and linguistic food chain and not those who do so out of ignorance. In some ways, we are all ignorant. But then, those of us who are should not be left to alter the language for the others. Today, we hear, read, and see, "FOR FREE" everyday, even though it is incredibly poor grammar.

This is just how a valuable language is destroyed. It is accepted by the uncaring.

Than you very much. 'Next time I post, I'll give that a try!

Please Help: I have tried to shrink the last few graphics I have posted. But each effort has failed! For example, that least image would do the job if it were 1/8th the size.