Opticron spotters - don't overlook them

[feanor]

It sounds like something in my wheelhouse. I’m definitely interested.

 

[sndmn11]

It sounds like something in my wheelhouse. I’m definitely interested.

Come on up!

The bird store has a good view of the hogback and you can put a bunch of optics side by side for comparison. They are cool with hunters too.

 

[Newtosavage]

I’m not sure what in my post led you to get defensive.

I was just trying to discuss the scope and get a better understanding about what you liked about it and how you came to those conclusions. Your original post only listed your preference and nothing about the optical characteristics you preferred about it.

Thanks for letting me know about your resolution evaluation with the golf scramble schedule. That helps me understand more.



This is really interesting. You star tested the scope? That is awesome, you really are a technical reviewer! I have star tested a few. I am still looking for the best system though. Maybe you could help me…

What did you use for the point of light? At what distance did you test it? At what magnification? What did the test show on the Opticron?

Thanks again.

Wasn't defensive at all actually. Just explaining to you that my post was never intended to lead people to believe I was conducting some kind of scientific "technical" review. I'm not sure what about it made people start asking "how" or "what" I based my tests on. I thought it was pretty clear it was just a casual review from a user and in no way did I present myself as some kind of authority.

Like I told the other guy, believe me or not. I don't really care. I don't feel the need to defend my opinions.

Not sure why you felt the need to be sarcastic. But yet...

 

[Newtosavage]

Any chance you could post a couple of the pictures you took with it?

I suppose I could when I get around to it.

 

[Newtosavage]

Perhaps I misinterpreted what you wrote here.

You don't have a use for magnification above 30x which is totally fine. Everyone has their own needs and it seems that imaging is more important than viewing for you?

And you think that most people don't have sufficient support and even if so, the environment won't allow more than 30x.

That's what you wrote. Maybe you can help me understand what you really meant, as I don't agree but want to understand your side of it.

How is what I wrote not clear? I mean exactly what I said. "I" have no use for scopes above 30x because I can see just as much detail at 30x as I can at 40-45x in every single scope I've tried, and that includes Swaro STS and STX. If someone else loves 30+X then more power to them. Good for them I say.

And no, most people DON'T have enough support for scopes above 30x. I've spent my life around birders and photographers (two avid hobbies of mine for the past 30+ years) and frankly the number of cheap and flimsy tripods under $2k scopes is nauseating. Hunters are basically no different. Spending $1500 on optics and $100 on the support. Not all mind you (before you misquote me again), but most.

And yes, the environmental conditions typically murder images above 30x for a good chunk of our time in the field. Whether that's heat waves, smoke particles, rain or fog, chances are you aren't going to be able to take advantage of that high magnification even if you have it.

 

[Newtosavage]

A member here compared the MM4, 554, and EDIII at another forum. In the end he found them all pretty similar across the same zoom range which is not super surprising. But the MM4 is a higher cost scope compared to the OP's MM3.

But he didn't have a fixed mag eyepiece either.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Wasn't defensive at all actually. Just explaining to you that my post was never intended to lead people to believe I was conducting some kind of scientific "technical" review. I'm not sure what about it made people start asking "how" or "what" I based my tests on. I thought it was pretty clear it was just a casual review from a user and in no way did I present myself as some kind of authority.

Like I told the other guy, believe me or not. I don't really care. I don't feel the need to defend my opinions.

Not sure why you felt the need to be sarcastic. But yet...

I wasn’t being sarcastic. Everything I posted was genuine.

I am really interested in your star testing.

What observations did you have of the airy discs inside and outside focus? At what magnification?

Just for the record, there is no sarcasm in this post. I am genuinely interested in how you star tested the Opticron, and what you saw.

 

[Newtosavage]

Stepped out back and snapped a few of a distant tree line and cell tower. Tree line is 260 yards and cell tower is 1 mile.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Those pics show quite a bit of CA, even near the centerfield on the cell tower pic, but that may have been introduced by the camera.

There is also a chance (especially if it was taken with a phone camera) that the phone already automatically reduced the CA when processing the file.

Do you see much CA when viewing?

 

[Newtosavage]

Those pics show quite a bit of CA, even near the centerfield on the cell tower pic, but that may have been introduced by the camera.

There is also a chance (especially if it was taken with a phone camera) that the phone already automatically reduced the CA when processing the file.

Do you see much CA when viewing?

Those were taken with an Iphone SE that's about 3 yrs. old. I don't notice CA like some folks do, and I don't go looking for it either. Those images show very little CA in fact, but I suspect you know that. I'd suggest if the view doesn't suit you, don't buy an Opticron MM3 with the fixed 23x eyepiece (pretty simple really) but you'd never buy one to begin with so I'm not sure why I bother saying that.

I think the purpose of optics is to see things at a distance. If I can make out cables on a cell tower a mile away, there's a good chance I can see the deer/elk/bird I'm looking for too. As a hunter and bird watcher, that's all that really matters to me.

 

[4th_point]

FYI - Matt Cashell isn't just an Admin here. He's also an author at this site. He writes about optics.

That might explain why he's been commenting in this thread. And maybe why someone suggested having Matt test the scope in question.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Those were taken with an Iphone SE that's about 3 yrs. old. I don't notice CA like some folks do, and I don't go looking for it either. Those images show very little CA in fact, but I suspect you know that. I'd suggest if the view doesn't suit you, don't buy an Opticron MM3 with the fixed 23x eyepiece (pretty simple really) but you'd never buy one to begin with so I'm not sure why I bother saying that.

I think the purpose of optics is to see things at a distance. If I can make out cables on a cell tower a mile away, there's a good chance I can see the deer/elk/bird I'm looking for too. As a hunter and bird watcher, that's all that really matters to me.

Well I guess we have differing opinions on what constitutes a lot (or little) CA fringing. That's ok. Certainly some people are more sensitive to it than others. I don't have access to this scope currently, which is why I asked if you noticed it during observation given there certainly is some fringing in the photos you posted.

I very well could buy an Opticron spotter, especially if it outperforms a Swarovski STX. I am asking these questions because I am interested in learning more. I certainly wouldn't make a purchase decision based on digiscoped photos alone. I see a lot of optics, but this is one I haven't seen. I am trying to see if I should investigate further.

I am not sure why you started this thread if you don't want to discuss the subject of the thread.

You still haven't posted about the star test you mentioned you performed. I would certainly appreciate if you would answer my questions on that topic. I think many of the other members reading this thread would appreciate it as well. Many of us really like geeking out about optics and are interested in hearing more about this affordable spotter.

 

[Newtosavage]

Well I guess we have differing opinions on what constitutes a lot (or little) CA fringing. That's ok. Certainly some people are more sensitive to it than others. I don't have access to this scope currently, which is why I asked if you noticed it during observation given there certainly is some fringing in the photos you posted.

I very well could buy an Opticron spotter, especially if it outperforms a Swarovski STX. I am asking these questions because I am interested in learning more. I certainly wouldn't make a purchase decision based on digiscoped photos alone. I see a lot of optics, but this is one I haven't seen. I am trying to see if I should investigate further.

I am not sure why you started this thread if you don't want to discuss the subject of the thread.

You still haven't posted about the star test you mentioned you performed. I would certainly appreciate if you would answer my questions on that topic. I think many of the other members reading this thread would appreciate it as well. Many of us really like geeking out about optics and are interested in hearing more about this affordable spotter.

What in everything I wrote would make anyone believe an Opticron outperforms an STX? I hope you don't think that's what I am saying here. But at half the weight and half the size with optical performance this good, I think this little 60 is going to be all the backcountry spotter most people ever need, which is why I bothered to start this thread. The fact that it sells for under $500 is a huge consideration for a lot of working folks.

As for the image above, remember that's zoomed in on my iPhone SE (not known for it's optics at all) to max digital magnification, and the fact that I can see individual needles on the pines from 260 yards away is what matters to me, not that there is the slightest amount of purple fringing. Frankly I think CA is grossly overblown by people who enjoy nitpicking for the sake of arguing, and there are plenty of actual optics experts who agree with me on this. There are also plenty of alpha class optics that exhibit CA, (including several Swaro models), and their owners happily ignore it and enjoy the view they get. I'm a lot more interested in resolving power from a spotter because that's why I use a spotter in the first place.

If you know of other 60 class spotters that are as small and light as this one and produce a better image for under $500, why don't you post pictures from those so people can benefit from reading all this by having some choices?

If you're not sure why I started the thread, I don't know what to tell you Matt. I thought I was being helpful I guess.

 

[Newtosavage]

FYI - Matt Cashell isn't just an Admin here. He's also an author at this site. He writes about optics.

That might explain why he's been commenting in this thread. And maybe why someone suggested having Matt test the scope in question.

Yup, I know all that. Thanks.

I don't profit at all from sharing my experiences here other than knowing I might help someone make a decision or save some money or both. I never claimed to be an optics expert - just some dude that enjoys trying out different optics and who loves sharing a good buy when I find one. I guess you could say I also "write about optics." If that's not enough for some people, I don't see how that's my problem. They are welcome to "write about optics" too, if they want. Most of us have exactly the same capability to obtain any of the optics I mention, test them in their own way, and either share their opinions here, or not. Their choice.

 

[Newtosavage]

I'd say at this point we need to see how some other spotters stack up. Anyone care to post similar images (tree leaves/needles or other objects against a clear sky) from their spotters so we can compare? That might be a useful exercise for some folks following this thread. I'll try to get some from my EDIII/Pentax combo and post them later. It's the only other scope I own at the moment. It's been relegated to range spotter duty since the MM3 arrived.

 

[Matt Cashell]

What in everything I wrote would make anyone believe an Opticron outperforms an STX?

Probably because you said the STX was the equal to your EDIII, and the MM3 is better in every way to your EDIII.

Initially I bought an open box Swaro STX with the 65mm objective, thinking that spotters just don't get any better right? After using it for a few days, I was disappointed with how heavy it was compared to my Nikon ED III and frankly the image quality in the center wasn't any better than the ED III.

Comparing it to my Nikon ED III and Pentax eyepiece, there was simply no comparison. The tiny, lightweight MM3 from Opticron was better in every way.

I posted on this thread to learn about the scope you like so much. I agree there is a lot of interest in a sub-$500 scope that performs well. That is why I was asking about the scope in more detail. I was NOT claiming there is a better competitor out there. In fact, most spotters under $500 have pretty poor optical performance in my experience, and a scope that has even decent performance at that price is worth looking at closer.

I have posted and written often about the pitfalls of using digiscoped photos to compare optical performance of optics. I saw the CA in the photos, and didn't know if it was the optic or phone, and to what level it was each. That is why I asked what you saw through the optic during observation.

You have repeatedly ignored my questions about your claimed star test. I am starting to believe you didn't star test the scope at all.

 

[Newtosavage]

Probably because you said the STX was the equal to your EDIII, and the MM3 is better in every way to your EDIII.



I posted on this thread to learn about the scope you like so much. I agree there is a lot of interest in a sub-$500 scope that performs well. That is why I was asking about the scope in more detail. I was NOT claiming there is a better competitor out there. In fact, most spotters under $500 have pretty poor optical performance in my experience, and a scope that has even decent performance at that price is worth looking at closer.

I have posted and written often about the pitfalls of using digiscoped photos to compare optical performance of optics. I saw the CA in the photos, and didn't know if it was the optic or phone, and to what level it was each. That is why I asked what you saw through the optic during observation.

You have repeatedly ignored my questions about your claimed star test. I am starting to believe you didn't star test the scope at all.

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!

 

[PHo]

Why don’t you just answer Matt’s questions? They’re legitimate questions and I, as a non-expert on the subject, would like to know, especially from people who seem to be more experienced like yourself. It sure would’ve been a lot easier rather than typing all these long-winded responses

 

[Newtosavage]

Why don’t you just answer Matt’s questions? They’re legitimate questions and I, as a non-expert on the subject, would like to know, especially from people who seem to be more experienced like yourself. It sure would’ve been a lot easier rather than typing all these long-winded responses

LOL I spend my time the way I choose to. I hope you do as well.

I'll say it again, I'm not an optics expert and don't try to pass myself off as one.

Can you be more specific about which question I haven't answered? Also, can you tell me why (specifically) I'm obligated to answer any questions at all? Is offering my experiences not enough? If not, then please explain why exactly.

 

[Gutshotem]

In this thread I learned that savage is going to post his opinion. If anyone else has a different opinion, or fact, he doesn't care, go buy something else.
You guys are acting like this is some kind of discussion forum or something.