Sakorick - A proposed 'scope test

[gitano]

Rick,
 
I was rereading some of the 'scope threads, and I remembered that I have a good light meter. It would be suited to objectively testing the light transmission capabilities of various 'scopes. Since I have mostly "cheap" 'scopes, and you have mostly, well... not cheap 'scopes, I thought we might conduct a little controlled experiment.
 
I'll set up a light source in windowless room (in my basement). I'll then put my various 'scopes a uniform distance from the light source and measure the through-the-'scope light transmission using the light meter. When I'm finished, I'll send the meter to you, and you can test those 'scopes of yours.
 
When finished, we can compare the transmission values with published data on the human eye's ability to differentiate between the intensity of two light sources.
 
Whadyathink?
 
Paul

[sakorick]

Rick,
 
I was rereading some of the 'scope threads, and I remembered that I have a good light meter. It would be suited to objectively testing the light transmission capabilities of various 'scopes. Since I have mostly "cheap" 'scopes, and you have mostly, well... not cheap 'scopes, I thought we might conduct a little controlled experiment.
 
I'll set up a light source in windowless room (in my basement). I'll then put my various 'scopes a uniform distance from the light source and measure the through-the-'scope light transmission using the light meter. When I'm finished, I'll send the meter to you, and you can test those 'scopes of yours.
 
When finished, we can compare the transmission values with published data on the human eye's ability to differentiate between the intensity of two light sources.
 
Whadyathink?
 
Paul

That sounds resonable, Paul. I'm not sure we can match environments as I have no basement. Let me ponder this.

[gitano]

We never "made this happen". You now most certainly have a basement, and I'm fairly certain we can get the variables between our two locations sufficiently similar so that the comparison is legitimate. I'm bringing my light meter down with me when I come down next month.

Paul

[branxhunter]

I reckon it sounds like a great experiment to try. Light transmission is very important, but is one of a few key aspects to consider. Contrast, definition, focus across the full field of view etc are also important.

That being said I'm looking forward to seeing the results!

Marcus

[gitano]

Even as an inveterate "cheap scope" user, I must admit that 'clarity' is one characteristics  that separates 'cheap scopes' from 'expensive' scopes. That said, I have noticed that in the  recent decade, the clarity and the focus-from- edge-to-edge of  'cheap scopes' has started to approach that of 'expensive scopes'. In other words, while 'expensive scopes' remain better in clarity and field of view focus, in my experience, the gap between 'expensive' and 'cheap' has narrowed.

Another characteristic that has significantly improved in 'cheap scopes' is the repeatability associated with windage and elevation adjustments. "Used to be", one got their cheap scope sighted in, and then DIDN'T TOUCH the turrets. The reason being, that ALL scopes, including all but the absolute best (most expensive), could NOT be relied on to "return to zero" after adjusting for windage or elevation. Nowadays, all but the cheapest scopes are highly reliable in that respect.

You may have noticed that the original post was dated January 3, 2006: Only 17 years ago.:D I would argue that scopes have improved significantly in those 17 years. Add another 10 years to that, and the improvements are even greater. Of course, the gap in the price between 'cheap scopes' and expensive ones, has also narrowed, and none of them have gotten CHEAPER!


PAUL

[sakorick]

Ok, sounds like fun!