The images are in focus. The contrast on the ZCO sucks.
Going through camera lenses with their own coatings is not the same as what you see through your eye...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The images are in focus. The contrast on the ZCO sucks.
Going through camera lenses with their own coatings is not the same as what you see through your eye...
Are you saying they didn’t use the same iso, aperture and shutter for the ZCO?
I’m saying that the conditions might not have been exactly the same, and I’m not a camera expert like @Glassaholic so maybe he can answer if all those settings need to be changed for each scope to show the best image or if those settings are all the same across the board.
So in your opinion the ZCO doesn’t look like that at 35x in real life? Which is better at 35x, ZCO or Kahles from what you have seen. Is the Kahles brighter?
Have you watched the complete video? The Kahles is known to be very bright for the coatings they use, there are pros and cons to that.
Starting a Teams meeting soon, so I might not respond for awhile.
This is exactly why I frown upon through the scope imagery, you are expecting or hoping that the stars aligned for each scope with everything else being equal (but was everything else equal?). Was everything exactly the same and was there perfect alignment of the camera and lens behind the scope? I can tell you from experience that sometimes everything "looks" right but without calibrated equipment it is more an exercise of "I think this is aligned" but if the system was slightly off for one scope it could really skew results (with both through the scope video and stills). I agree that based on the above images, the atmospherics in the bottom shot labeled ZCO appears to be playing a bigger factor; was it the atmospherics, was it from the camera system being slightly off or was it because the TT out resolves and has better contrast vs ZCO? I couldn't tell you because I wasn't there and I did not witness the scene using both scopes calibrated for my eye which is what really needs to happen - and then lots of back and forth looking and checking off between different categories.
I asked that very question and they have not responded to this question.Are you saying they didn’t use the same iso, aperture and shutter for the ZCO?
A rifle scope is its own optical system that is specifically designed for the human eye to be behind the scope. A camera with a lens is calibrated to present an image in perfect alignment with the focal plane of the camera (where the digital sensor resides), if you put another optic that is not designed for the camera system in front of the lens of the camera you have now introduced additional elements the system was not designed for and if you are not in perfect alignment you introduce optical aberrations through which the light from the scope is doing things the camera system is not designed for. Even slightly off axis can yield a result that would skew the image the digital sensor "sees".Agreed but please explain how this could have happened.
But what???
In viewing we did the ZCO 8-40 is very good ,,, BUT the TT 7-35 is noticeably superior in every way!
In viewing we did the ZCO 8-40 is very good ,,, BUT the TT 7-35 is noticeably superior in every way!
How does the PM2 6-36 compare?In viewing we did the ZCO 8-40 is very good ,,, BUT the TT 7-35 is noticeably superior in every way!
It's Nov/Dec build..What is the born on date of that scope out of curiosity?
S&B 6-36 and ZCO 8-40 are very close..How does the PM2 6-36 compare?
Every manufacturer makes improvements over time to the same model, well maybe not "every" manufacturer, but most who care about their product line. Some will put out Gen 2, Gen 3, etc. but most will make incremental updates over time to the optical formula to improve upon performance without doing any kind of press release or official announcement. That being said, the Schmidt 5-45 I had a few years back was extremely impressive for a 9x erector design.The other higher mag scope that has surprised the crap out of me is the S&B 5-45 High Power.....I have 2 now and am extremely impressed with the sheer clarity and resolution.......especially at the top end of the power range!!!
Both the 5-45 are NEW production....and it appears S&B may have improved somehow the 5-45!!
I was comparing both of mine (PMII 6-36 and TT735) last week at the range and I'd agree with the general consensus is that the TT is the better scope (subjective), but I certainly would not turn my nose up at the Schmidt. It's been said before a thousand times, but at this level of scope, I don't think that there's a bad choice - pick the reticle that you like and forget about the rest of the noise. None of these scopes should really hold you back compared to others. If I'm missing a shot, I can be damn sure that it's the indian, not the arrow.How does the PM2 6-36 compare?
Every manufacturer makes improvements over time to the same model, well maybe not "every" manufacturer, but most who care about their product line. Some will put out Gen 2, Gen 3, etc. but most will make incremental updates over time to the optical formula to improve upon performance without doing any kind of press release or official announcement. That being said, the Schmidt 5-45 I had a few years back was extremely impressive for a 9x erector design.
What surprised me and others when we compared the S&B 5-45 to the other optics .. ZCO ,TT and S&B,s own 6-36...... is at 30x and above the S&B 5-45 comes into its own !! It resolves fine detail and clarity better than the rest.That being said, the Schmidt 5-45 I had a few years back was extremely impressive for a 9x erector design.