A few images behind Tangent Theta 525P and Kahles K525i scopes

sonichanxiao

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Dec 24, 2018
117
20
22
I just had chance getting behind these two scopes and took some photos. I am not a pro at all in both photo taking and scope adjustment. But I use my best understanding to adjust the scopes as I can.

Here are some photos I took at 12x and 25x at only about 280-300 yards. (Sorry, I know it is not far enough, would try to take some more photos when in the outdoor range at 1000 yards). And I was using smartphone camera phone instead of a digital camera (would there be much difference?)

12x
TT525P
IMAG0428 1.jpg

Kahles K525i
IMAG0429 1.jpg


25x
TT525P
IMAG0430 1.jpg

Kahles K525i
IMAG0431 1.jpg

What I found are:
1.TT525P image seems darker than K525i, I am not sure if it is because Tangent Theta tries to make the image more close to what the real colour/darkness of the object is, K525i's image looks sharper or bright to me. Is this normal?
2.In the Kahles K525i 12x image, I saw the image is bit blur around the 10 to 12 o'clock direction, where the door is, the colour of the door frame at 10 o'clock is bit purple, is this the CA issue what people were talking about in Kahles scope or it might be my phone's camera? Cause I found similar thing in TT525P's 25x image, at around 5 to 6 o'clock
3.The field of view in TT525P is notice more than the K525i at higher magnification x25.
4.The SKMR3 reticle in the K525i looks more clear than TT525P, not sure if it is because TT's Gen3 XR reticle is too thin? Different minimum measurement unit I guess?
5.Because the Kahles scope image looks more brighter and the reticle is thicker(due to minimum measurement unit if I am right), at lower magnification( I would say around 15x or less, sorry too difficult to take photo behind the scope using phone), personally I feel the Kahles K525i is taking less time to see the reticle details than the TT525P.


Overall I don't see that much differences in terms of clarify, image sharpness between these two scopes. Especially many people have mentioned before how disappointing the K525i is. Maybe from there, I have set my expectation on TT525P so high, which I am expectation to see 20-30% image quality difference when comparing with the K525i.


Something else I noticed:
a.The illumination on Kahles K525i during day light time still can be seen, maybe because of the thicker reticle? TT525P, you can only see it at night time, which is by design I think?
b.Left windage and top parallax adjustment on the Kahles K525i and tool less zeroing on the TT525P are really useful design to me.


This is what I can tell from a quick look and comparison behind these two scopes, not sure what I see and described above is correct. If I am wrong or too subjective, please do comment and let me know what I may did wrong when I adjusted and compared these two scopes. And I do apologize the photos I took are not as clear and good as what I see, these are the best shots I took after many retries.
 

sonichanxiao

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Dec 24, 2018
117
20
22
As far as reticle blur, did you adjust both diopters correctly for your eyes?
You mean the focus adjustment behind the magnification?

If yes, I did. To my eye, I reduce the adjustment towards the front of the scope/negative to make both scopes' imaging clear. The adjustment I made may not be at the perfect focus point, but as least it is to a level where I can't tell the difference no matter it goes negative(forwards) or positive(backwards).

Or anywhere I should pay more attention when I adjust the scope? It was a quick look. If any advise or suggestions, I can try it again.

The only obvious difference I notice when I look behind these two scopes are colour brightness and reticle thickness. Those blur/purple area, I only noticed after I download the photos from phone to computer, spot it at a much larger image.
 

Covertnoob5

Major Hide Member
Belligerents
Feb 12, 2017
1,737
593
119
SoCal
Looking at photos taken from behind scopes is never a good way to compare anything you see through a scope as far as image quality. Cameras just can’t pick up what the eye sees. The only thing pics through a scope are good for is judging what a reticle looks like.
As far as reticle thickness, I’m not sure what the skmr3 specs are.

If you want to compare them better, go look at actual targets at a range. You can compare which scope stays in focus longer before having to adjust parallax. You can focus on finer details like the edges of bullet holes to see which has better resolution and image quality, you can move your head behind both to see which has better image distortion control, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sonichanxiao

sonichanxiao

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Dec 24, 2018
117
20
22
Looking at photos taken from behind scopes is never a good way to compare anything you see through a scope as far as image quality. Cameras just can’t pick up what the eye sees. The only thing pics through a scope are good for is judging what a reticle looks like.
As far as reticle thickness, I’m not sure what the skmr3 specs are.

If you want to compare them better, go look at actual targets at a range. You can compare which scope stays in focus longer before having to adjust parallax. You can focus on finer details like the edges of bullet holes to see which has better resolution and image quality, you can move your head behind both to see which has better image distortion control, etc.
Thank you.

Will give it a try this weekend. What is the preferred distance to find out the difference? 5-700 yards? or something around 1000?