Rifle Scopes K525 SUCKS !!!!! SB PM2 5-25 vs K525 VS TT525P

[5RWill]

It doesn’t suck ILya has noted that in his k318i review. It just didn’t pan out to what we thought it would be which was a TT rival for less. They fixed some aspects from the k624i but regressed in areas. Fov mainly but holding resolution past 20x also. But yeah it’s a little underwhelming but by no means a bad optic.

 

[craigos]

K525i doesn’t suck. May have just got a lemon? Had a minor issue with mine and got a new one 3 days later.

my 3 kahles are very nice.

 

[DDT]

every time I hear about IQ "wow factor" my mind starts to tell me "beware". If wow factor is complete with shiny colours, brightness, DOF, CA etc. then I found myself be very carefull of that particular optic. This is like sound quality war at high-end audio systems. Spending 25 years in audio circles I have learned one usefull (the most important) thing: the best systems are neutral. No pop up at all. Simply truthful, original to the source as much as possible and close to that "standard" (when recording music at studio, live music, etc.).

Back to optical systems like scopes. While someone likes more colours and more pop, I think it is not the "standard" I (we?) should look for - in parallel with sound quality I described above. For me, more neutral scope image with the lowest distortion - closer to the reality I see with my eyes, it deserves higher rank in image quality.

just my opinion about whole TT and other "wow factor" scope madness...

 

[beenjammin]

Just wish the Minox was not so large. Wish they would look into a more compact ZP line. Something along a 20x max mag and 50mm obj. Not everyone likes a hubble or a scope that's just about even with their muzzle.

 

[918v]

every time I hear about IQ "wow factor" my mind starts to tell me "beware". If wow factor is complete with shiny colours, brightness, DOF, CA etc. then I found myself be very carefull of that particular optic. This is like sound quality war at high-end audio systems. Spending 25 years in audio circles I have learned one usefull (the most important) thing: the best systems are neutral. No pop up at all. Simply truthful, original to the source as much as possible and close to that "standard" (when recording music at studio, live music, etc.).

Back to optical systems like scopes. While someone likes more colours and more pop, I think it is not the "standard" I (we?) should look for - in parallel with sound quality I described above. For me, more neutral scope image with the lowest distortion - closer to the reality I see with my eyes, it deserves higher rank in image quality.

just my opinion about whole TT and other "wow factor" scope madness...

That’s not what people are talking about in regard to TT or other high end scopes. The wow factor refers to the scope’s ability to render a lifelike image when lesser scopes cannot. If you look at things through two scopes, the one that wows you will reproduce the colors more vibrantly like you are standing directly in front of the object. The lesser scope will render a more dull image, like you are looking through dust or fog. This is especially noticeable at high magnification.

 

[koshkin]

That’s not what people are talking about in regard to TT or other high end scopes. The wow factor refers to the scope’s ability to render a lifelike image when lesser scopes cannot. If you look at things through two scopes, the one that wows you will reproduce the colors more vibrantly like you are standing directly in front of the object. The lesser scope will render a more dull image, like you are looking through dust or fog. This is especially noticeable at high magnification.

Spot on. Add to that the lifelike reproduction of subtle color and texture variations.

Generally, comparison of audio (recorded then reproduced) to passive imaging is not valid.

ILya

 

[DDT]

Generally, comparison of audio (recorded then reproduced) to passive imaging is not valid.

ILya

With high respect to you, why do you think so? In both cases (audio vs. optics) we only try to get as close as we can to the source quality. No any audio or optics can reproduce 100% what original source does (human voice live, what eye see naturally). All we can do is try to get as close to that standard.

Sound: you can use high-end microphones, mixing desks, AD/DA converters, HD recording systems and other gear at studio which help you get the record as possible to the source. Now you have a great record and someone at home is listening to it. This person has low/mid/high end audio system where you can/can not enter to the character of record by using bass/treble/loudness etc. options to correct that record to your system quality or to your ears preference.

Optics (scopes): during manufacturing scopes you can use low/high quality raw glass material with (expensive) grinding and different coatings to get the (best possible) lenses, use one/two/three? pieces main tube from alloy and put all together with other LQ/HQ components (screws, grease, springs,...) to made the scope. Determining the scope cost for customers leads to some compromises you have to make, the same with audio. So you can use ED glass, CNC milling on each component but the main important thing is design from engineers to achieve such a good (variable) scope in the end. All above things determine how it will work in reality.

In both cases, you can influence the quality of the result (saving cost using low quality materials/equipment, low quality coatings on lenses, different grinding geometry...) which have impact on perfomance. Variable scope is a compromise of many demands (brightness, wide FOV, CA, magnifications, image distortion, weight...), so engineer have to choose what is more important and where withdraws. From your perspective, we are all passive consumers (listening / observing) in both scenarios, because we are not (my premise) owning recording studios nor plant for making optics. But before end users in both cases, things are not passive at all, you can bring them where you are able to / willing to.

(sorry for my English, is it not my native language)

 

[koshkin]

With high respect to you, why do you think so? In both cases (audio vs. optics) we only try to get as close as we can to the source quality. No any audio or optics can reproduce 100% what original source does (human voice live, what eye see naturally). All we can do is try to get as close to that standard.

Sound: you can use high-end microphones, mixing desks, AD/DA converters, HD recording systems and other gear at studio which help you get the record as possible to the source. Now you have a great record and someone at home is listening to it. This person has low/mid/high end audio system where you can/can not enter to the character of record by using bass/treble/loudness etc. options to correct that record to your system quality or to your ears preference.

Optics (scopes): during manufacturing scopes you can use low/high quality raw glass material with (expensive) grinding and different coatings to get the (best possible) lenses, use one/two/three? pieces main tube from alloy and put all together with other LQ/HQ components (screws, grease, springs,...) to made the scope. Determining the scope cost for customers leads to some compromises you have to make, the same with audio. So you can use ED glass, CNC milling on each component but the main important thing is design from engineers to achieve such a good (variable) scope in the end. All above things determine how it will work in reality.

In both cases, you can influence the quality of the result (saving cost using low quality materials/equipment, low quality coatings on lenses, different grinding geometry...) which have impact on perfomance. Variable scope is a compromise of many demands (brightness, wide FOV, CA, magnifications, image distortion, weight...), so engineer have to choose what is more important and where withdraws. From your perspective, we are all passive consumers (listening / observing) in both scenarios, because we are not (my premise) owning recording studios nor plant for making optics. But before end users in both cases, things are not passive at all, you can bring them where you are able to / willing to.

(sorry for my English, is it not my native language)

A conventional riflescope can not boost any portion of an image.

If you compare an audio recording reproduction with how a video camera works, than there are some grounds for comparison, since the information is first recorded and then reproduced.

In a conventional riflescopes, there is no recording happening. Passive optical elements are transmitting light, changing angles, etc. However, at no point is there anything that gets recorded and then reproduced.

ILya

 

[DDT]

Yes, that way it is true. My point was (maybe badly explained), that in both cases, equpiment (sound system / scope) distorts the original source (record / natural view).

Thanks

 

[koshkin]

Yes, that way it is true. My point was (maybe badly explained), that in both cases, equpiment (sound system / scope) distorts the original source (record / natural view).

Thanks

An active system like an audio or video reproduction depending on frequency or wavelength can attenuate some portions, boost others and vary the modulation in both space and time.

A passive system like a conventional riflescopes can attenuate some parts of an image, but can not amplify anything and does not offer any sort of a temporal modulation.

ILya

 

[Sylvertiger]

Anyone here tried the K525i DLR? Any changes or improvements with that scope that are actually noticeable?