The good glass part around minute 13:30 is gold. All the marketing mumbo jumbo about lens origins and coatings is a bit like car dealers selling you on the interest rate for a lease without telling you the calculatory residual value. You only care about the total cost. Same here, you care about light transmission if all else is equal. How the manufacturer got there is completely irrelevant
I put a Vortex Viper HD 2-10x42 in my cart and I'm $500 short, maybe next year. I also have a AGM rattler thermal in my cart, so it will depend on the hog population around my woods in which one I buy first. I'm currently chasing them with digital night vision, but sometimes it ain't enough.
Ryan was correct. Big topic and maybe not a 10 min talk. I only took a few college level physics courses but would want more on different densities and transmission. Maybe a trade secret. Love y’all.
Is it exit pupil that gives you a view through a binocular or scope that seem like you can look around within the image? Maybe its better to describe the opposite, a view that seems to have a small field of view that is like looking through a pipe regardless of power. I ask this because I have some scopes or binoculars that seem to have a open field of view, when looking through the optic you can see a larger image, that compared to another optic at same magnification gives you a smaller circle of world in the glass. You feel like you can look to the left and right in the image. I am assuming that it's a combination of Field of View and exit pupil. Or is that just a result of the exit pupil, being larger than you need so you can focus your view on different areas of that large exit pupil? Good optics like Vortex have that ability and cheep optics seem to have that fixed image that is only visible in that one small spot. Yet when you look at the optic lens size and power the cheep scope should have a larger exit pupil, but you don't get that same effect of being able to look around in the image
I recently listened to the .30-30 podcast where Ryan mentioned Little Crow which is where I recently purchased 2 firearms from, cool to know the same gun shop I shop at is where Ryan worked at!
Another great show, i do miss jimmy and the car analogies. But im with ryan, this could be longer. And mark knowing it was going long before it stated.
26:26 HI density glass could almost be considered to have higher purity. In terms of Clear Glass vs Gas Bubbles or Foreign Occlusions. 'Pure glass' I think is something people can understand. And I also like the idea of taking a glass of still, pure water, or oil. Shining the light through, then shaking the bottle to infuse bubbles... And perhaps even suspended solids... And shining the light through... A very visual macro demonstration, of what kinds of Impurities, Could be inside of low density glass...
Gentlemen, you are unnecessarily confusing the people. Optimal light transmission is so simple: it is a product of the price of the scope. Multiply what you paid for your rifle by 0.5 to 1.0 and you have the price range of the scopes compatible with your gun. It’s just that easy guys
very cool video and interesting. It's sorta like the more i know the more I realize I don't know. Meaning I still have no idea how to understand from looking at spec's which optic is better than the other.
Maybe my question is answered later in the video but I want to ask before I forget to. I recently bought a vintage weaver 1.5-4.5 with a 1” tube and same sized objective and dialed back to 1.5 it’s comparable under low light to my modern nikon 3-9x40 1” tube despite the significantly reduced objective diameter and assuming inferior glass/coatings. With exit pupil being irrelevant would the reduced magnification explain this or is simpler design/fewer lenses the better explanation? How does magnification factor into this more generally, such as why a 3-9x40 on 3 seems brighter than on 9? Again, Sorry if this is answered later on.
This happens with every optic. It is because when you zoom in the prizms are moving to only show a smaller portion of the field of view, and trying to stretch it to fill the eye piece. That is why every optic with zoom adjustment looses light and field of view at higher zooms. Its no different that taking a picture to microsoft paint and stretching the corners to make it fill a page. Same count of pizels, but now each pixel covers a larger area.
All the scopes I have purchased in the last 20yrs or so, expensive and cheaper have brighter images than that of the surroundings. So wouldn’t that be 100% or greater light transmission?
Noit would not because the scope is condensing a large objective lense down into a small eye piece. There is still some light being lost. I recently looked through a pair of vortex uhd 10x42 glass. It was very bright on a sunny day it was like when you wake up at 2 am and look at your cell on full brightness.
How about have two light meters next to each other one through a scope with no lenses one through the scope you're testing and then just put in the description under the same lighting conditions this was X percentage difference.
For getting my Hunting License here in Germany at the age of 19 i bought me a Zeiss Victory 8x56 Binocular 25 Years ago cause they where the first ones that done Binos wright for people that wear Eyeglases till today they go strong yes they are hvy but at the grey Hours of the day they are unbeatable i looked through many other Binos from Friends and so on but i allways go back to my (even if i wish sometimes to carry lighter Binos 😜 wich i also have for day Stalking Vortex Viper HD 8x42 but most time i carry the old)
When Rob mentioned having a large "objective lens" is like having a large funnel gathering more light, he should have continued with that analogy. Imagine having a funnel with a large cone that transitions into a very small neck. Anything poured into the funnel will overflow because of the restriction caused by the difference in diameter. The same could be said with a rifle scope with a 50 mm objective lens and a 1 inch (25.4 mm) main tube diameter. All things being equal, you should have better results (better light transmission) with a 50 mm objective lens and a 34 mm main tube. But then the trade off is the extra glass which translates into extra weight and extra cost.
That is not at all how light works. Is the light coming through a hole in the wall any less bright than the sunny day outside because the hole is small? Your pupils are only about 5mm.
I’ve asked for this talk many times. To say you are not giving a number on any of your products doesn’t help anyone. All the other scopes I look at give me something. Yes they are all different but at least I have something to start thinking about. European scopes for me until you give me something. Sorry. You said so much without saying anything at all.
Numbers dont really matter because one guy will be blind as a bat and the next will be stoned with 8mm pupils. Me with diamondback will see way more than someone with 30% vision loss using uhd vortex
![เขามัทรี - เอ็กซ์ ศุภกฤต - จอนนี่มิวสิค [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AS9ufKuQIVs/mqdefault.jpg)
![HIWWHEE | OHM [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OJJLtTLqLag/mqdefault.jpg)
Love the 10min talks, great discussions.
The good glass part around minute 13:30 is gold. All the marketing mumbo jumbo about lens origins and coatings is a bit like car dealers selling you on the interest rate for a lease without telling you the calculatory residual value. You only care about the total cost. Same here, you care about light transmission if all else is equal. How the manufacturer got there is completely irrelevant
Thank you, I love forward button when seeing 44 minutes long video, but have 20 minutes in hand before heading to work
I put a Vortex Viper HD 2-10x42 in my cart and I'm $500 short, maybe next year.
I also have a AGM rattler thermal in my cart, so it will depend on the hog population around my woods in which one I buy first.
I'm currently chasing them with digital night vision, but sometimes it ain't enough.
Best of luck to you sir! been there done that lol
Ryan was correct. Big topic and maybe not a 10 min talk. I only took a few college level physics courses but would want more on different densities and transmission. Maybe a trade secret. Love y’all.
Is it exit pupil that gives you a view through a binocular or scope that seem like you can look around within the image? Maybe its better to describe the opposite, a view that seems to have a small field of view that is like looking through a pipe regardless of power. I ask this because I have some scopes or binoculars that seem to have a open field of view, when looking through the optic you can see a larger image, that compared to another optic at same magnification gives you a smaller circle of world in the glass. You feel like you can look to the left and right in the image. I am assuming that it's a combination of Field of View and exit pupil. Or is that just a result of the exit pupil, being larger than you need so you can focus your view on different areas of that large exit pupil? Good optics like Vortex have that ability and cheep optics seem to have that fixed image that is only visible in that one small spot. Yet when you look at the optic lens size and power the cheep scope should have a larger exit pupil, but you don't get that same effect of being able to look around in the image
I recently listened to the .30-30 podcast where Ryan mentioned Little Crow which is where I recently purchased 2 firearms from, cool to know the same gun shop I shop at is where Ryan worked at!
Another great show, i do miss jimmy and the car analogies. But im with ryan, this could be longer. And mark knowing it was going long before it stated.
26:26
HI density glass could almost be considered to have higher purity.
In terms of Clear Glass vs Gas Bubbles or Foreign Occlusions.
'Pure glass' I think is something people can understand.
And I also like the idea of taking a glass of still, pure water, or oil.
Shining the light through, then shaking the bottle to infuse bubbles... And perhaps even suspended solids...
And shining the light through...
A very visual macro demonstration, of what kinds of
Impurities,
Could be inside of low density glass...
Gentlemen, you are unnecessarily confusing the people. Optimal light transmission is so simple: it is a product of the price of the scope. Multiply what you paid for your rifle by 0.5 to 1.0 and you have the price range of the scopes compatible with your gun. It’s just that easy guys
Awesome information and topic. Thanks for tackling!
I was always curious why you didn't. Thanks for making this video.
very cool video and interesting. It's sorta like the more i know the more I realize I don't know. Meaning I still have no idea how to understand from looking at spec's which optic is better than the other.
Maybe my question is answered later in the video but I want to ask before I forget to.
I recently bought a vintage weaver 1.5-4.5 with a 1” tube and same sized objective and dialed back to 1.5 it’s comparable under low light to my modern nikon 3-9x40 1” tube despite the significantly reduced objective diameter and assuming inferior glass/coatings. With exit pupil being irrelevant would the reduced magnification explain this or is simpler design/fewer lenses the better explanation? How does magnification factor into this more generally, such as why a 3-9x40 on 3 seems brighter than on 9? Again, Sorry if this is answered later on.
This happens with every optic. It is because when you zoom in the prizms are moving to only show a smaller portion of the field of view, and trying to stretch it to fill the eye piece. That is why every optic with zoom adjustment looses light and field of view at higher zooms. Its no different that taking a picture to microsoft paint and stretching the corners to make it fill a page. Same count of pizels, but now each pixel covers a larger area.
All the scopes I have purchased in the last 20yrs or so, expensive and cheaper have brighter images than that of the surroundings. So wouldn’t that be 100% or greater light transmission?
Noit would not because the scope is condensing a large objective lense down into a small eye piece. There is still some light being lost. I recently looked through a pair of vortex uhd 10x42 glass. It was very bright on a sunny day it was like when you wake up at 2 am and look at your cell on full brightness.
16:21 Well done Wagyu? Don't scare us like that Mark
Where is the real expert @ Vortex on this subject... McDowell ? Ha ! Ha! Great Podcast Guys !
How about have two light meters next to each other one through a scope with no lenses one through the scope you're testing and then just put in the description under the same lighting conditions this was X percentage difference.
I quit buying top end optics because when i go hunting it is either dusty foggy or snowy
On the next 10 minute talk the 340 weatherby magnum
Did Ryan undergo mitosis?
For getting my Hunting License here in Germany at the age of 19 i bought me a Zeiss Victory 8x56 Binocular 25 Years ago cause they where the first ones that done Binos wright for people that wear Eyeglases till today they go strong yes they are hvy but at the grey Hours of the day they are unbeatable i looked through many other Binos from Friends and so on but i allways go back to my (even if i wish sometimes to carry lighter Binos 😜 wich i also have for day Stalking Vortex Viper HD 8x42 but most time i carry the old)
That has got to be nuts. I use 15x56 on a tripod and love them.
When Rob mentioned having a large "objective lens" is like having a large funnel gathering more light, he should have continued with that analogy. Imagine having a funnel with a large cone that transitions into a very small neck. Anything poured into the funnel will overflow because of the restriction caused by the difference in diameter. The same could be said with a rifle scope with a 50 mm objective lens and a 1 inch (25.4 mm) main tube diameter. All things being equal, you should have better results (better light transmission) with a 50 mm objective lens and a 34 mm main tube. But then the trade off is the extra glass which translates into extra weight and extra cost.
That is not at all how light works. Is the light coming through a hole in the wall any less bright than the sunny day outside because the hole is small? Your pupils are only about 5mm.
I’ve asked for this talk many times. To say you are not giving a number on any of your products doesn’t help anyone. All the other scopes I look at give me something. Yes they are all different but at least I have something to start thinking about. European scopes for me until you give me something. Sorry. You said so much without saying anything at all.
Numbers dont really matter because one guy will be blind as a bat and the next will be stoned with 8mm pupils. Me with diamondback will see way more than someone with 30% vision loss using uhd vortex