Posted: 5/27/2003 2:32:04 PM EDT
| One would think that binoculars of a given aperture would be twice as good as a scope of the same aperture. But I suspect this is not true. Anybody know the scoop on this? |
|
Define "good". Rarely will you see a telescope as low powered as 8x or 10x which are typical binocular powers. If you're talking about brightness or twilight factor I would think that both eyes receiving light would be better than just one eye. Probably 3 dB better which although technically twice as much light it's just barely noticable to the eye. The eye (unlike a video camera) has a vision ratio measured at about 1:100,000 (60 dB dynamic range?). More of a question for a medical doctor than an engineer [:)] I do like binoculars for long term observation rather than squinting though a telescope. |
|
A friend of mine took his brother in law deer hunting. brother in law comments: "I could see you all the way accros the field in your treestand." "How could you see me that far away?" "Uh, . . I was lookin' at you through the scope" ! ! ! ! He didn't get invited after that. |
|
To oversimplify things a bit, binoculars are two scopes attached to each other!! Binoculars are much more comfortable to use, especially for extended periods of time, since both eyes are being used. I don’t believe there’s any substantial benefit to them beyond that. My understanding is that resolution increases as aperature increases. Thus a 60mm scope and a 60mm pair of binoculars should be the same. IMHO, for looking at bullet holes at 200 yards (especially if you’ve got a black bullseye and/or you’re looking at .223 holes) a spotting scope is the only way to go. I suspect one of those humongous tripod-mounted large-aperature binoculars like the military uses would also work, but they’re very bulky and horrendously expensive. |