"These are good to see FOV and reticle at different magnifications, but through the scope images do not do any scope justice, everything must be perfect and exact between all scopes and I've found it's just about impossible to do that without some serious calibration equipment. Rather than images I'd rather hear your comments on how each scope performed, how was edge to edge sharpness, how was color, how was contrast, how was CA..."
Pics can be a problem.
There should be admiration for folks who work up quite a bit of "sweat equity" in trying to present the impressions/differences of various scope on here and everywhere else.
Set that aside, because the problems w/picking out some aspect of an optics performance after it's been combined w/another optical system has nothing to do with sweat equity, nor is it a criticism of these folks. U go to a restaurant and order a new dish, so before they bring it out, they swamp it w/hot sauce, and then ask U what do you think? It's impossible to taste anything other than both the dish, and the shit they put on it.
The interplay between optical systems, even how an image is uploaded here can disquise/change what things seem to look like.
Most venues like this have a white screen/background, even that contributes to your eyes playing tricks on U/seeing something other than what U think you're seeing.
The two images above show how even the simple act of uploading an image to this forum will change how what's inside your image looks. The two images look like they're presenting two oval shapes w/one darker than the other. They're not.
THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME SPOT. One oval is surrounded by white (like the white screen in this forum), of course the background is bright, so your eyes will close down, making the tone of the oval appear darker.
The other oval is surrounded by black (blocking out some of the white) and since it's darker than the oval it surrounds, that makes the oval appear lighter.
The spots didn't change, WHAT WAS AROUND THEM CHANGED, but it STILL made/makes the ovals themselves LOOK DIFFERENT.
SAME THING happens when you upload UR pics to this or any other venue, including taking pics of what you think U see INSIDE a scope. When I take a shot, I tweak it in an image editing prograpm/CS6 against a midscale grey background.
The response of some will be "so fucking what".
Because midscale grey is the exact midpoint between white and black, which means w/that background I get what I want. When I upload here, I'll take a duplicate of the image and present it against a white background, and it will look dark, so I'll increase the exposure by a stop(100%), which makes it look right against a white background, or I'll surround the image/subject matter w/a thick dark grey border to get the same effect.
The illusion applies to what you think you're seeing when you look at a pic of what seems to be coming through a scope, and the fact that the screen/what's surrounding the image can affect/change/darken/lighten that image.
Colors. There's also colorspace. The digital device you took the pic with, what colorspace is it going by.
If you were to get an expensive scope, no matter how good it looks through the eyepiece, if the rear element is "cockeyed"/not plano parallel w/it's optical center not in line w/the optical centerline axis of the rest of the lens elements, U send it back because even if it looks good, it ain't right.
Same issue exists with substituting an optical system for the rear element that was "out of whack" and placing behind an optic, if it isn't lined up right, it may even look good, but it won't perform what it was designed to do, that's just the way it is.
REPEAT, this ain't a knock on folks trying to help, only drawing attention to the problem itself. Please take it that way.
www.opticsplanet.com
sunwayfoto-store.com
patriotvalleyarms.com
They are the Chinese knockoff of RRS, but admittedly make some pretty well machined gear.
www.snipershide.com
