I really don't care. You got that right.
Well, it is my full time job to review hunting gear, with an emphasis on optics, so it was really just a Monday to me.Man, you must have a lot of spare time on your hands to pursue someone you've never even met in this way. I don't know whether to feel honored, or creeped out tbh.
Your reading comprehension could use some work too. (hint - "in the center...")
You have basically questioned everything I've written, even going back and digging up quotes to support your pursuit. Ask yourself why, and what you stand to gain. Or is it that you have some internet "credibility" to maintain at this point? Again, weird.
From where I'm sitting you don't deserve a response after the way you've questioned my opinion (with no facts of your own) multiple times. I couldn't care less whether you believe me or not. I have my opinions and never tried to pass myself off as some kind of "technical" optics expert. I never asked you to agree with my opinions. I'll say it again just so I'm not misunderstood again. I never asked you to agree with my opinions. Let that sink in.
Now go find a cold beverage and chill the h*ll out man. And while you're at it, If it bothers you so much, just order your own damn Opticron scope like I did and see for yourself!
Wait, it's your full time job to review gear with an emphasis on optics, and you haven't spent any time with an Opticron scope, much less done a review on one? I'm not an optics reviewer and only do this in what little spare time I have, and I knew about Opticron. I'd say you need to broaden your search a bit in an effort to better serve your customers. Granted, there are a lot of new and fly by night optics "companies" these days, but Opticron is not one of them. They have been around for a long time and have one hell of a reputation amongst some of the pickiest optics snobs on the planet.
I'm happy for you. I wish a couple folks hadn't come along and tried to "melt" this thread because it really is about the gear and whether it works for us or not.This thread has kind of turned into a dumpster fire but I got my mm4 60.
Packaging could’ve been better, even pretty cheap spotters come with laser cut foam packaging and this was just a box. the machining isn’t as refined as i expected but not horrible from looking with a flashlight.
The dual focus knobs are really cool and smooth, I can’t believe all spotter don’t have the kowa style knobs.
The brightness holds up much better than I expected. I think my ares got noticeably dimmer above 30x and I don’t notice hardly any change in brightness until 40x and it’s still very usable at 45x
It was just south of 37 ounces on my scale with both of the included lens covers. I think it’s what I was after weight and performance wise, and the cost will hold up if I am able to use my current eyepiece on a 77mm body I scoop up on sale.
I may try to point it at a resolution chart, take some scopecam pics, and share some more thoughts in a different thread that isn’t melting.
I’m talking about the questions that Matt posed to you about the star test, they seem rather interesting to me. But whatever, it’s pretty obvious that you’re not going to answer said questions for whatever reason, so you do you.
I was satisfied with the results of the test. No optic is perfect. The "star test" is just one way to see what you have. Exactly what kind of response were you looking for? Are you familiar with that test?
Uh, a star? You tell me the distance. I already explained the magnification. The test showed acceptable results to me (reasonably concentric rings).
I hate to beat a dead horse but I don't think that is correct.
Most of what I know about optics, I learned through members on BirdForum, some of whom are actual optical engineers, others are in the optics business as distributors or they work directly for optics companies. So I tend to pay close attention to what those certain members have to say. If you think we have heated debates about optics here, you should spend some time over there. ha, ha.
www.birdforum.net
It doesn't sound correct to me either, based purely on the 12mm designation, but when adapting that eyepiece to the Nikon (using adapter rings provided to me by an engineer who frequents BirdForum) I removed one lens that was in the barrel of the Pentax eyepiece. So I based my magnification calculation on comparisons with several other scopes that had both fixed and variable eyepieces. That's how I arrived at the 22x. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I can see how it could be confusing if you're looking at what other eyepieces would offer on the same scope.
I contacted Opticron on the differences between MM3 and MM4. This was the response from Sales:
