if we could make a sticky of images shot with a digital camera through the oculars of various scopes side by side. I wonder if optical performance would be distinguishable enough to compare scopes online?
Rifle Scopes U know what would be cool...
- Thread starter 918v
- Start date
Re: U know what would be cool...
do you mean this??
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=136130&nt=8&page=1
do you mean this??
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=136130&nt=8&page=1
Re: U know what would be cool...
Kinda.
I mean a comparison of scopes side by side under the same conditions. I think the pictures would come out better if taken through a black hood and a table-top tripod to eliminate the background light and camera shake.
Kinda.
I mean a comparison of scopes side by side under the same conditions. I think the pictures would come out better if taken through a black hood and a table-top tripod to eliminate the background light and camera shake.
Re: U know what would be cool...
I think that would be a waste of time.
I've looked through a lot of scopes. I've rarely seen one where the optical quality made a difference to the shooter's ability to see the target well enough to shoot it, except in low-light conditions - and it's really hard to determine that difference except first-hand in low-light conditions.
The primary items of interest to me in a scope are, with the highest preference first:
1. Reticle - is it one suitable for all lighting conditions, and can I use it easily for holdovers, holdunders, moving target leads, and wind holds? (That pretty much means a FFP reticle.)
2. Reliability. That means the scope must be rugged <span style="font-style: italic">and</span> the adjustment system must be repeatable and reliable.
3. Power Range. I'd like at least a 4-1 zoom ratio. For tactical shooting, I like a power range of 4-16. If I can get a 5-1 zoom ratio, I'd prefer 4-20.
4. Eye relief. Generous eye relief, and one which changes little with power changes.
5. Optical quality.
6. Price.
Getting wrapped around the axle about optical quality is, IMO, not useful. Yeah, a pretty picture is nice, and high magnifications are good at long distance - until the mirage kicks up, which pretty well moots optical quality.
Your mileage may vary.
I think that would be a waste of time.
I've looked through a lot of scopes. I've rarely seen one where the optical quality made a difference to the shooter's ability to see the target well enough to shoot it, except in low-light conditions - and it's really hard to determine that difference except first-hand in low-light conditions.
The primary items of interest to me in a scope are, with the highest preference first:
1. Reticle - is it one suitable for all lighting conditions, and can I use it easily for holdovers, holdunders, moving target leads, and wind holds? (That pretty much means a FFP reticle.)
2. Reliability. That means the scope must be rugged <span style="font-style: italic">and</span> the adjustment system must be repeatable and reliable.
3. Power Range. I'd like at least a 4-1 zoom ratio. For tactical shooting, I like a power range of 4-16. If I can get a 5-1 zoom ratio, I'd prefer 4-20.
4. Eye relief. Generous eye relief, and one which changes little with power changes.
5. Optical quality.
6. Price.
Getting wrapped around the axle about optical quality is, IMO, not useful. Yeah, a pretty picture is nice, and high magnifications are good at long distance - until the mirage kicks up, which pretty well moots optical quality.
Your mileage may vary.
Re: U know what would be cool...
It would not be a waste of time. It would allow the consumer to make better decisions without having to buy the scope. You can't just go to a store and do a valid comparison. For one, most stores do not carry USO, NF, S&B, etc. Second, you cannot properly evaluate the scope inside a store. And if you are lucky enough to get permission to go outside, there's too much shaking going on to make a valid comparison.
Because image quality is such a subjective area of comparison, the only way to do it right is to look at the image yourself.
It would not be a waste of time. It would allow the consumer to make better decisions without having to buy the scope. You can't just go to a store and do a valid comparison. For one, most stores do not carry USO, NF, S&B, etc. Second, you cannot properly evaluate the scope inside a store. And if you are lucky enough to get permission to go outside, there's too much shaking going on to make a valid comparison.
Because image quality is such a subjective area of comparison, the only way to do it right is to look at the image yourself.
Re: U know what would be cool...
I'm currently building a setup that would allow this plus also allow me to take HD video through my rifle scopes with the scopes mounted to a tripod.
Should be an industry first.
I'm currently building a setup that would allow this plus also allow me to take HD video through my rifle scopes with the scopes mounted to a tripod.
Should be an industry first.
Re: U know what would be cool...
First, even the best picture though a scope does not represent how the human eye will percieve it.
Second, you you have to have about $50K worth of scopes set up in the same place at the same time, all with the exact same high end camera model attached to each. The pictures would have to be taken near simultaniously for this to be valid.
You would have to repeat this in lots of different ambient light conditions to get a good assesment. Different scopes perform better/worse than other in different conditions i.e. a S&B may look better than a Hensoldt in glaring sunlight, but on an over cast day, the Hensoldt may look better than the S&B.
And, even if you were able to get every scope in every condition and have a truely ballanced data set (pictures), refer to my first point above.
But, if someone is handing out grants for this, I am willing to give it a go...for science of coarse.
Unfortunately, there is no good way to compare high end optics. The only way is to run each for a long time and make the best choice from personal experience.
First, even the best picture though a scope does not represent how the human eye will percieve it.
Second, you you have to have about $50K worth of scopes set up in the same place at the same time, all with the exact same high end camera model attached to each. The pictures would have to be taken near simultaniously for this to be valid.
You would have to repeat this in lots of different ambient light conditions to get a good assesment. Different scopes perform better/worse than other in different conditions i.e. a S&B may look better than a Hensoldt in glaring sunlight, but on an over cast day, the Hensoldt may look better than the S&B.
And, even if you were able to get every scope in every condition and have a truely ballanced data set (pictures), refer to my first point above.
But, if someone is handing out grants for this, I am willing to give it a go...for science of coarse.
Unfortunately, there is no good way to compare high end optics. The only way is to run each for a long time and make the best choice from personal experience.
Similar threads
