Rifle Scopes Chromatic Aberration
- Thread starter hypno02
- Start date
I also made money behind a lens and had a production company.
I understand what your saying, BUT; camera lens and scopes are not anywhere similar in their primary rolls.
And one can easily pay $100,000 for a lens, well even over $200k.
Sure the run of the mill L-glass for a full sensor camera is nice and cheap in comparison.
But, put a more than a linear zoom and focus mechanism like a solid erector, have it 1/2 the weight and survive many, many thousands of harsh shocks, a fall or two and still work would be a tall order for any pro or prosumer camera lenses.
I think we are making a mistake trying to compare our high end scopes with a bit off CA, to high end camera lenses where all they are asked to do is focus and cleanly as possible.
Just my 2 cents
Happy Thanksgiving.
Yeah - I wasn't really making a 1:1 comparison between them. Just pondering how one can be so well controlled optically, and not the other. The camera lens has other advantages that help it out, too, like the "viewer" is always centered behind the lens perfectly, so CA only has to be controlled at one "point" - but they also have to perform optically in ways that scopes don't necessarily have to (flatness of field across the frame, lack of distortion, etc). And, of course, it's really only been the past decade or so that camera lenses have really gotten CA well under control. So, I'm probably being a little harsh, but still... some scopes control their optics beautifully, and others in the same price range don't. Still seems to me that for $2500-3500, really tight optics should be attainable without losing the rest of the feature set... Maybe there's an economy of scale factor at play or something.
Modern, pro-level still camera lenses are similar price range and weight to top shelf scopes (until we start talking super-telephoto stuff), and the still photo gear takes an awful lot of abuse (including falls to concrete, etc) and still keeps on ticking. Well, at least, mine has. If you crack open a modern lens, and look at the mechanics and electronics at play inside there, it's not exactly a meathead device. The zooms are pretty complex, and are potentially delicate - and their internal mechanics have to make huge numbers of adjustments through their life while being extremely precise. So... I don't think the comparison is so far off as to be nonsense, really. They're different tools for completely different jobs, but both are precision instruments that need to retain that precision through a lot of use and abuse.
Eh, anyway, just discussion and opinion...
As a former imagery analyst, I won't lie, CA bugs the crap out me. I suppose spending 12hrs a day staring at high resolution imagery for years has made me extremely sensitive/perceptive of visual abnormalities.
CA has never made me miss anything, but like I said above, if I don't have to put up with it, why would I?
CA has never made me miss anything, but like I said above, if I don't have to put up with it, why would I?
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
CA gets lumped into all sorts of aberrations. Which one it may be and you notice it then it is a problem. But for those old enough think Kodachrome to know CA must have something to do with colors.
http://www.revicoptics.com/research/optical-aberrations-in-rifle-scopes/
http://www.revicoptics.com/research/optical-aberrations-in-rifle-scopes/
Great article...
...But obviously false. Zero Compromise scopes will have no aberrations because of their refusal to compromise. Read it right here on SH!
I know, necro-thread revival...
But it's a great thread!
I think one of the reasons I don't pick up/see CA like some of you guys do, is that the most expensive scopes I have are in the $1500-1800 range
The branch pic that Fig posted, has an eye opening amount of CA in it! Thanks!
I know this is hard to do with cell phone cameras, but what is the best way to take a photo of CA in our scopes, so we can post pics of it?
Another question...if a scope has known CA, and we try to take a pic of it with our cell phones, do the lens of our cell phones magnify it?
Or do they minimize it through their lens systems?
Thanks
But it's a great thread!
I think one of the reasons I don't pick up/see CA like some of you guys do, is that the most expensive scopes I have are in the $1500-1800 range
The branch pic that Fig posted, has an eye opening amount of CA in it! Thanks!
I know this is hard to do with cell phone cameras, but what is the best way to take a photo of CA in our scopes, so we can post pics of it?
Another question...if a scope has known CA, and we try to take a pic of it with our cell phones, do the lens of our cell phones magnify it?
Or do they minimize it through their lens systems?
Thanks
Anytime you take a pic of an optical system with a different optical system you are going to introduce optical anomalies. It’s possible that your DSLR or phone has software algorithms to remove CA, but so far I’ve always seen it exacerbated vs what I see with the naked eyes.
If I take a through the scope image I try to always clarify - DO NOT use this image to judge optical performance of the scope, and then I try to explain what I saw with my naked eye vs what I see in the online image. So maybe there was purple fringing or yellow fringing but the digital image enhances it or lessons it, etc.
I’ve stopped doing a lot of through the scope images because too many people were evaluating the quality of the scope based on an imperfect method to capture what you actually see with your own eye.
I'm always surprised by how much attention is given to glass quality, when it is rarely the issue for getting the job done. Seems to me stability/tracking/durability/internal adjustment range/magnification range/repeatability/reticle design all trump glass quality (at least at a certain point). Sure some glass at the sub-500 end can be an issue when you start getting over 12-15x. But it seems to me that most glass above the $500 mark is plenty good enough to hit a 10" gong at a mile.
But I'm white trash. I never went on to get my PhD and I can barely taste the mellow oakiness, the hint of vanilla or the fruity undertones of my wine either.
They say ignorance is bliss; so be it.
But I'm white trash. I never went on to get my PhD and I can barely taste the mellow oakiness, the hint of vanilla or the fruity undertones of my wine either.
They say ignorance is bliss; so be it.
That sir is a masterpiece! Well done.While I applaud you smacking the beehive
This condition of being an unwashed cur, unable to discern the finer nuances of esoteric pleasures, living in a dirty hovel, and scratching an existence out of the earth permeates our whole dreary life unlike our betters who appreciate the finest things life has to offer, and they certainly deserve it! Ask them!
Never will you swirl your wine and enjoy notes of nutmeg, cherry, and iambic pentameter in the nose. Never will you sip and taste citrus, envy, and morendo. To you every huge pull, straight off the bottle, tastes like communion, and is only to further addle your already addled mind.
You're a beer swilling peasant. Either embrace that reality, or pretend to taste all the shit that the fancy people can taste. You are not going to be one of them unless you pretend just as vehemently as they do. Only in the milieu of The Hide will you fine fancy people MFing $3000 scopes and claiming they're not usable for the kind of shooting they do.
IMHO...If you're going to taste all that shit in the wine, you better be NUMBERFUCKING ONE (at least top ten) and have a big old pile of trophies to prove just how good you can shoot and how great your eyes are to have CA affect you so much. My guess is aaaaaaah-no.
