Optic Comparison - What am I seeing?

[AllenOne1]

Was at the range yesterday and had two higher end optics side by side looking at the same target area, same power setting.

Scope #1 had a clear sharp image that was very bright and showed a slight amount of mirage.

Scope #2 had a clear sharp image that was darker than #1, was a little harder to get fit into the eye box and showed a lot of mirage.

Based mostly on the mirage which of the two would be the better quality glass/scope? Does higher quality glass cut through the mirage or does it let you see the mirage better?

 

[Covertnoob5]

Hard to say. Could be a lot of things. Were both scopes setup for you? Diopter etc. If they were how was parallax ? Usually what really high eve scopes allow you to see is exactly where the mirage is. Example on a TT ZCO you can focus it in a way that allows you to see the mirage is at 390 let’s say but your target Is 699 yds. That’s the depth of field in a scope. On the flip side Something like the gen 2 razor you’ll see the mirage but it’s all flat so the mirage looks like it’s on the whole image.

 

[AllenOne1]

Hard to say. Could be a lot of things. Were both scopes setup for you? Diopter etc. If they were how was parallax ? Usually what really high eve scopes allow you to see is exactly where the mirage is. Example on a TT ZCO you can focus it in a way that allows you to see the mirage is at 390 let’s say but your target Is 699 yds. That’s the depth of field in a scope. On the flip side Something like the gen 2 razor you’ll see the mirage but it’s all flat so the mirage looks like it’s on the whole image.

I was able to spend a little time and adjust the scopes. Diopter seemed good, parallax on both was set to obtain a clear target image. I wasn't backing off scope #2 to allow for more mirage.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Backing power down can help see less mirage, but the natural DOF from the scope design will sort of place things in layers or make it look more 3D.
To answer one of your questions, no scope can cut through mirage. That’s an environmental effect. But good quality scopes can allow you to almost see past it if you will. Like it’ll be easier to see and say oh yea that boil is around 400yds while my target is 600. And adjusting focus you can actually focus on the mirage or focus on target. Mirage won’t go away but you can make deliberate adjustments like that.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

There are resources out there if you want to learn about this stuff. Its not something you are going to get in a forum post. Go watch Ilya and Covertnoobs video on then gen 3 razor specifically, it goes over some of the things you are asking. You will start to get idea what the engineers are trying to do, the tradeoffs between certain things (like DOF and size of optic, ect) and you will appreciate why certain things cost what they do, and why certain things are massively overpriced because they don't do those things well, but have the price tag (cough *Kahles*)

If Mirrage was the only thing that mattered, everyone would be shooting a TT. Its just one factor in deciding which optic to choose, and how important it is, depends on alot of different things. Nothing handles mirrage like the TT if thats all you care about.

 

[Denys]

Maybe provide the specs for each scope and the power setting you were using?

 

[AllenOne1]

Maybe provide the specs for each scope and the power setting you were using?

Both optics are 5-25x56
34mm main tube
Scope #1 has 95mm of eye relief
Scope #2 has 90mm of eye relief

Both scopes were adjusted to approximately 22 power

 

[BAMCIS]

Both optics are 5-25x56
34mm main tube
Scope #1 has 95mm of eye relief
Scope #2 has 90mm of eye relief

Both scopes were adjusted to approximately 22 power

What where the scopes,,both same manufacturer ?

 

[AllenOne1]

What where the scopes,,both same manufacturer ?

Different manufacturers. I'm not interested in peoples personal views on different manufacturers so I'm not going to list them. I'm just trying to learn what a person should be looking for in a quality optic (Glass) and maybe why those qualities are important.

 

[912173]

It's probably because of slight differences elsewhere in the scopes. There's usually no free lunch with optics. Making one thing better will make something else worse. Rifles Only has had this guy on a few times talking about it. Give it a listen, it's definitely worth the time.

The 20 min mark for this topic.

 

[Denys]

Different manufacturers. I'm not interested in peoples personal views on different manufacturers so I'm not going to list them. I'm just trying to learn what a person should be looking for in a quality optic (Glass) and maybe why those qualities are important.

Understood. What is the overall length for the riflescopes?

 

[AllenOne1]

Understood. What is the overall length for the riflescopes?

The length of #1 is 377mm
The length of #2 is 425mm

 

[Covertnoob5]

The length of #1 is 377mm
The length of #2 is 425mm

So based on those measurements it’s hard to say, but the shorter one being only 14ish inches probably has a little shallower DOF. If we’re assuming they’re both tier 1 optics. The other thing that might matter is how the parallax is. If the parallax goes way low like 10-20yds or so that’s also a compromise and may affect other areas vs something like 50yds min parallax. Say for example you’re talking TT vs Kahles. They have similar dimensions to what you’re referring too, but the Kahles goes down to 25yds vs the TT goes down to 50yds. The parallax on the Kahles will be a little pickier throughout.

As mentioned there’s no free lunches. I’ve been shooting with the March 5-42x56 the last couple matches. On paper it’s an outstanding scope with all the features anyone could want. 10yd parallax, 40mils of adjustment, 5-42 mag range. 34oz. 14inches long. Wide angle eyepiece for crazy big FOV. So on and so on.

In actual use it certainly isn’t bad, but parallax being that “versatile” means it’s pickier throughout. I have to be constantly adjusting it for different distances in PRS vs my ZCO for example I really don’t touch it the whole match.
My ZCO is way longer, way heavier, a lot less elevation, etc. Less mag in both directions (8-40x56)

So it really comes down to what you want and what’s most important. On a lightweight rig or Rimfire the March makes sense. On traditional PRS the ZCO makes sense.

 

[918v]

Scope #1 (Kahles?) has shallower dof so when you focus on the target the mirage is out of focus.

Scope #2 (Minox?) has broader dof so the mirage is in focus.

I’d take scope #2 because reading mirage is important.

 

[AllenOne1]

So based on those measurements it’s hard to say, but the shorter one being only 14ish inches probably has a little shallower DOF. If we’re assuming they’re both tier 1 optics. The other thing that might matter is how the parallax is. If the parallax goes way low like 10-20yds or so that’s also a compromise and may affect other areas vs something like 50yds min parallax. Say for example you’re talking TT vs Kahles. They have similar dimensions to what you’re referring too, but the Kahles goes down to 25yds vs the TT goes down to 50yds. The parallax on the Kahles will be a little pickier throughout.

As mentioned there’s no free lunches. I’ve been shooting with the March 5-42x56 the last couple matches. On paper it’s an outstanding scope with all the features anyone could want. 10yd parallax, 40mils of adjustment, 5-42 mag range. 34oz. 14inches long. Wide angle eyepiece for crazy big FOV. So on and so on.

In actual use it certainly isn’t bad, but parallax being that “versatile” means it’s pickier throughout. I have to be constantly adjusting it for different distances in PRS vs my ZCO for example I really don’t touch it the whole match.
My ZCO is way longer, way heavier, a lot less elevation, etc. Less mag in both directions (8-40x56)

So it really comes down to what you want and what’s most important. On a lightweight rig or Rimfire the March makes sense. On traditional PRS the ZCO makes sense.

You're really good at this game.

So, I'm I getting this right? A shallower depth of field allows you to have your parallax adjusted on the target while at the same time allowing you to accurately read mirage (more visible), while a deeper field of view cuts down on the amount of mirage that is available to read.

Does "pickier" mean that it is harder to adjust parallax (narrower adjustment window)? I think @918v may have just answered this.

After looking through these two on just one day I would pick Scope #1 because it seemed clearer and brighter. But it does lack the mirage view which I agree is very important at medium to long distances. I don't think most scope reviews touch on this aspect. I may be trying to picking a scope based on the wrong criteria it seems.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Lol I’ve memorized more scope specs than I care to admit. Aside from the fact that both those scopes are sitting on my dining room table at the moment, but I do appreciate trying to keep it as unbiased as possible.
So color brightness etc is the subjective part of scopes. That’s going to be based on your individual eye and what you prefer. Do you prefer warmer tones, cooler tones, etc. Some scopes will blow out colors to make them appear brighter than they really are and some people prefer that vs other scopes that are extremely color accurate so they may appear more muted, but that’s based on what you’re looking at.

When scopes blow out colors that’s when you’ll start to get some CA (purple edge fringing) this is noticeable on something like a freshly bright white painted target against a berm in the middle of the sunlight.

Shallower DOF is a flat image with mirage. You’ll see the mirage but won’t be able to tell where it is and it’ll just be in your face. You typically do not want this. The gen 2 razor has this. So next time you’re at the range look at a gen 2 razor. That’ll be a flatter image vs something like ZCO TT etc. With a TT what you’ll see is you can actually tell where something is. For example have you ever looked at a target in a field and the backstop is actually 50-100yds behind it? With a TT it’ll be easier to tell that the backstop is significantly further than the target. The razor for example will kinda mesh it all together. You might know it’s further but it’ll be harder to tell and harder to tell how much further.

 

[Covertnoob5]

You're really good at this game.

So, I'm I getting this right? A shallower depth of field allows you to have your parallax adjusted on the target while at the same time allowing you to accurately read mirage (more visible), while a deeper field of view cuts down on the amount of mirage that is available to read.

Does "pickier" mean that it is harder to adjust parallax (narrower adjustment window)? I think @918v may have just answered this.

After looking through these two on just one day I would pick Scope #1 because it seemed clearer and brighter. But it does lack the mirage view which I agree is very important at medium to long distances. I don't think most scope reviews touch on this aspect. I may be trying to picking a scope based on the wrong criteria it seems.

Also what I meant by pickier is yes a narrower window in which your target will be parallax free and in focus especially when changing distances. Example with my Kahles if I’ve got 1 target at say 300 and my next target is 1000 I’m gonna have to adjust the focus. My ZCO, don’t need to touch it.

 

[AllenOne1]

Also what I meant by pickier is yes a narrower window in which your target will be parallax free and in focus especially when changing distances. Example with my Kahles if I’ve got 1 target at say 300 and my next target is 1000 I’m gonna have to adjust the focus. My ZCO, don’t need to touch it.

Thank you, this information is extremely helpful. I have a few new things to check out next time I get a chance.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Thank you, this information is extremely helpful. I have a few new things to check out next time I get a chance.

Yea man optics are a learning experience! One thing to keep in mind, a lot of these things are not gonna be like going from a black white tv from the 60’s to an 85” Samsung of today. But it’ll be like going from 1080p to 4k some people see a big difference some people see little difference and cost for “4K” if you will isn’t worth it.

 

[TheOE800]

Yea man optics are a learning experience! One thing to keep in mind, a lot of these things are not gonna be like going from a black white tv from the 60’s to an 85” Samsung of today. But it’ll be like going from 1080p to 4k some people see a big difference some people see little difference and cost for “4K” if you will isn’t worth it.

And 1440p is the value play where screens cost less, capable graphics cards cost less, and it’s harder to differentiate image quality to 2K, 4K, etc

 

[Denys]

The length of #1 is 377mm
The length of #2 is 425mm

Ok. From that, I would think the F number on #1 is smaller (bigger aperture) than #2. This would make #1 appear brighter but with a smaller DOF compared to #2. I don't know about eyebox, that may be a function of the eyepiece itself. Do you know the respective diameter of the eyepieces? Do you have the same FOV at equivalent magnification?

 

[AllenOne1]

Ok. From that, I would think the F number on #1 is smaller (bigger aperture) than #2. This would make #1 appear brighter but with a smaller DOF compared to #2. I don't know about eyebox, that may be a function of the eyepiece itself. Do you know the respective diameter of the eyepieces? Do you have the same FOV at equivalent magnification?

Field of View at 100 yards
Scope 1 - 7.1m at 5 power / 1.5m at 25 power
Scope 2 - 7.6m at 5 power / 1.6m at 25 power

Not sure about the diameter of the eyepiece

 

[Denys]

Field of View at 100 yards
Scope 1 - 7.1m at 5 power / 1.5m at 25 power
Scope 2 - 7.6m at 5 power / 1.6m at 25 power

Not sure about the diameter of the eyepiece

Yeah, close enough to each other. Not sure that I can explain the extra difficulty getting behind door #2. It's pretty subjective at this point.

Well, we covered brightness and DOF, the rest is differences in overall design and what choices the engineers made.

 

[Covertnoob5]

I’m actually filming my big scope review right now. Should be finished up filming tomorrow. I’ll be comparing all my scopes plus a few others that I got on loan. TT, ZCO, Kahles, MK5, March, razor 3, Revic PMR, 735 ATACR, S&B PM2. That video will be out hopefully soon but also moving to a new place so gotta get everything setup to edit first.

 

[Covertnoob5]

And 1440p is the value play where screens cost less, capable graphics cards cost less, and it’s harder to differentiate image quality to 2K, 4K, etc

Yea I game on a 1440 monitor even tho my buddies have stepped up to 4k monitors I don’t think it’s worth the money for something with a good refresh rate. Not enough difference to me yet. And I don’t play much other than COD, nba 2k, and madden anymore anyway.

 

[Denys]

I have been using a 4K TV as a monitor for 6+ years now. Just connect it using HDMI. I've upgraded the TV over time and my laptop now has two 4k monitors connected to it both running at 60Hz. My main monitor is a 49 inch Samsung and it's nice to have spreadsheets with a hundred columns or writing code, run running it in gdb with full display and checking SQL Developer as the test progresses.