chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>It's probably better that you should buy a good monocular or binoculars.
>
Good = big, heavy and $$, and yup, better than adapter. But the adapter
is not bad at all.
>The eyepiece on these inexpensive camera lens adapters is probably not
>very good and is unlikely to have a prism to right the image since there
>isn't much back focal length. In other words, everything will be upside
>down. I would also suspect some serious vignetting with some or even
>all lenses or else a very narrow angle of view.
>
Possibly reasonable speculation, but quite inaccurate. The Vivitars I
have use 3 fully coated elements and a roof prism. The image is right
side up and nice and clear and bright. I've never really checked the
angle of view, but it is not 'looking down a long tunnel' like cheap
telescopes. These things aren't designed to compete with serious scopes,
but to offer a small, light way to use a camera lens already on hand as
a scope in the field.
>The magnification will depend on the eyepiece focal length which I would
>guess would be somewhere between 12 and 25mm. Divide objective focal
>length by eyepiece focal length to get magnification. Probably
>somewhere around 8-16X.
>
Again, I can give more accurate info. They are not designed to work with
lenses less than 50mm and magnification is fl/10, so a 50mm lens gives
5x. The instructions show rations for 50, 100 and 200mm lenses, but just
as with binoculars, holding anything over 10x steady is not easy for
long. The 85/2 is a good match, a nice bright 8.5x scope. It seems to me
a good design choice, as one can get to the limit of hand holdability
with relatively small, light, fast lenses.
>You can probably buy some used Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Nikon or other
>camera manufacturers binoculars for about the same amount of money and
>have a much better optical instrument with a right-side-up, wide field
>of view.
>
The cheaper, smaller, lighter models from these folks aren't all that
great. Only Nikon is in the top tier, and only their top lines, at that.
>I have a very nice pair of Minolta wide-field 7x35 binoculars complete
>with case that I bought on *bay for USD 16. Not Leitz or Swarokski but
>they didn't cost $800 either.
>
And I have some nice 7x35 wide field Nikons often recommended for
beginning bird watchers. They can't hold a candle to my old Leitz
7x35Bs, which, in turn, were tops in their day, but can't measure up to
my B&L Waterproof Elite 8x42s. There really is a difference in
brightness, resolution, clarity and color rendition between modest, mid
priced and top rank binoculars. Whether it is worth it to a particular
person or not, that money really does buy performance. I was birding in
S. Ariz once and saw a Lucifer hummingbird up in a tree silhouetted
against a bright overcast sky. The bird stayed there long enough to
compare the Elites with some very good mid price roof prism binocs. With
the Elites, I could see detail and some color in the body of the bird,
enough to confirm the shape of the gorget. With the others, it was just
a nice sharp shilouette.
Moose
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|