You get what you pay for As a photographer, good glass has the advantage for a 1-6 scope f(For me anyway) I'll save $700 and buy the Viper thanks for the comparison regards, Rick
Yes, I assumed they were compared at the same magnification, but when comparing mid- and high-level scopes it's informative to see how quality compares from low to high magnification. The real question is where image quality begins to drop off with the mid-level contender, IMO.
The colour bleeding is called chromatic aberation often referred to as CA
You get what you pay for
As a photographer, good glass has the advantage
for a 1-6 scope f(For me anyway) I'll save $700 and buy the Viper
thanks for the comparison
regards, Rick
I wonder how the Razor compares to the NF ATACR and the S&B.
I think that was a good review. You get what you pay for.
dreadjavapirate not sure if you’ve ever priced the viper. But it’s not a cheap scope ! I know the razor is double the price. But just saying
Good real world views. Thanks
The word is chromatic abboration not sure on the spelling.
yeah, noticeably less on the Razor line
You should really include additional details in regards to magnification/camera settings when comparing image quality.
+Kovacs in the scope review video? I used my phone for the pics so the mag and settings were the same
Yes, I assumed they were compared at the same magnification, but when comparing mid- and high-level scopes it's informative to see how quality compares from low to high magnification. The real question is where image quality begins to drop off with the mid-level contender, IMO.
+Kovacs oh right. The image quality with the Viper dropped off basically immediately when zooming. To me it wasn't useful beyond it's base mag.
Marginal.