Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics light gathering?

It’s not made up, fighter Pilots are born with it as are some of the best shooters and others that play hand eye games, such as those who can consistently hit over .300 in MLB.

Average is average. Average is normal. All are not so handicapped.

Yep, people are born with different eyesight, in several ways. Many perceive colors slightly differently, and I'm not talking about "color blindness," but seeing the same colors slightly differently.

Also, 20/20 vision is not "perfect" vision, as so many believe. It's average vision: You can see at 20 feet what most people see at 20 feet.

Vision critical is a made up term, never heard of it until now.

The concept you are talking about is not - spatial recognition ability definitely exists and is not equal for all people. The potential for being above average with respect to hand-eye coordination may be genetic, but hand-eye coordination is learned, and just like some people are smarter than others, some people will learn to have better hand-eye coordination. Best example I can think of is kids who learn how to stack cups, but just because they are good at stacking cups doesn't tell you whether they see well. Not all fighter pilots can hit a 80mph curveball, and not all MLB players can fly a fighter jet. Mike Trout would not be in the MLB today if he had swung a bat for the first time yesterday. It takes decades of repetition to develop such skills. You're getting way off topic here, so let me put it this way:

Do you think Mike Trout can see in complete darkness because he has good hand eye coordination or was born with 20/10 vision?

We're not talking about the vision he was born with, the issue at hand is what would affect the image he'd see when looking through a scope. Answer is the same things that affect you and me. The laws of physics apply to everyone, regardless of how good your hand-eye coordination is.

I don't think there's anything they can do about it. The Japs can make anything just as good or better than the Euros, only cheaper. The Chicoms are fast getting there.

Ok, believe what you like.

If you don’t have the inmate visual skills you can repeat until the day you die and not excel at the highest level. And just because you are old, doesn’t mean your exit pupil-and with certain individuals, regardless of its size-will not allow you to gather light better than Mr average. While physics remains physics, some can do and see things you and I can’t. Repeat the old age exit pupil/light gathering ability all you want. But it isn’t true for all.

Addition vision critical was made up. Made up by an optomotrist who specializes in catering to shooters and travels the country doing so. He exact usage was shooters are more critical of their visual skills because many of them that excel are acutely aware of their vision. My apologies if I bastardized it. But I don’t think I did and we have discussed the issue on more than one occasion.

I’ll leave with this re hand eye coordination. The hands follow the eyes. Always. (There is a big hint there. 😉)

And you can be born with the best eyesight in the world and strike out on fastballs if you've never swung a bat (or in our context, never spotted game).

Some people absolutely have better eyes, and have more acuity than others. Nevertheless, they benefit from optics like you do. Exit pupil affects light transmission regardless of a person's visual acuity (or retinal sensitivity), as do other factors mentioned in the thread (i.e. lenses and their coatings).To suggest otherwise is asinine.

I’m an ass, and have little problem with it in this particular case. Thanks, appreciate the compliment. 👍

Addition: skill development or refining it was not the issue. Even scratching your azzz requires a certain amount of repetition to get it right.

If one compares say a Minox 13X56 with a Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 with the scope set on 13X and the scope lasts two minutes longer, how would that be caused by a small (or large) pupil in the eye? One has two 56mm objectives and the other a single 50mm objective.

I sure would like to read about others' comparisons and their results instead of assuming what has been spouted in the past was actually tried instead of using theory.

A friend I know can see better than anyone else I have hunted with. He can see deer at a mile and a half and tell if it has good horns at a mile. His low light vision is in the same stratosphere. He is truly amazing.

Once I got on a plane and sat down beside a tall man. I asked what,
"What kind of work do you do?
"I play for the Portland Blazers."
"That's interesting. When did you discover you were better than others?"
"One time in the eight grade some kids were playing basket ball and needed one more guy. They asked me to play. I never played before but agreed."
"Was it then you noticed something?"
"Oh yea. It was obvious I was better than any of them. I guess I was born that way."

Even cheap Chicom scopes are often pretty bright, brighter than some more expensive scopes from the past. A scope is more than a looking glass, it's an aiming device. Brightness doesn't guarantee a good scope.

Technology has progressed, seems bright optics are now more common, even at lower prices.

DF

First off, it makes no difference that the bino has two objectives, each side is independent.

The scope "lasting longer" points to two things - the scope's light transmission is better (better lenses/coatings) and the observer's pupil may not have been large enough to take advantage of the bigger objective of the bino (in this case smaller than about 4mm).

If you want to see the effects of a smaller exit pupil, just crank up your scope's magnification to 30x and see how much dimmer that image becomes. Or if you want to know whether you're wasting objective size, start low and increase magnification until the image starts to dim.



People like this absolutely exist. You should have your friend try the test that you did above, and have him move the magnification range of the scope. He'll make the same observations you do about perceived brightness as magnification increases.

Considering anecdotal comparisons from the internet:

A guy with 20/10 vision is likely to get more out of the very best glass than a guy with 20/20 (average) vision.

The aging process takes a toll on acuity. As we get older, our eyes don't get better.

I'm the guy that used to have 20/10 vision until about 10 years ago. I never could tell a buck from doe at 1 1/2 miles though even though my Eye Dr said he had never seen a patient with eyesight that good. Big change when I started wearing glasses for the worse.

Yeah, after a couple of eye surgeries, several decades of degradation, accuity isn't what it was.

Oh well...

At least I'm still on the green side of the grass...

DF

Part of the equation re what you can see at any given time involves contrast. One of the reasons the eye chart is not red and maroon.

Grin--I did too, but corrected with contacts. Two of my kids do....or did...:)

Hey man, you just gotta look for bigger racks at a mile and one-half!!

Walking in the woods at night with a kid who has great vision will tell you all you need to know about age differences...

You're right, but I wasn't only referring to the optical qualities nowadays. The Euros don't have a monopoly on tough and durable anymore, and there's nothing they can do about it, IMO.

Yep, Japs are neck and neck, in some cases ahead of the Euros...

DF

I once hunted Antelope with a guy who said there are a least a couple over there. I don't know how far away they were, but it was a long hike and they were there. An honest mile if not a little more.