To all the lovers of the EII - Allbinos test (1 Viewer)

ceasar · Feb 1, 2014

Kevin Conville said:
Bob,
You seem concerned with these numbers, so I thought I'd point out a discrepancy. Your sentence below seems to be factually incorrect.

According to Leica's catalog of the time, the 8x42BN has a 7.4 degree field, or 389'. The 8x32BN has a 7.7 degree view, or 404'

I'm sorry Kevin. That was a mistake on my part.

I do not have an 8x42 Trinovid BN and never did have one. I do have a 7x42 Trinovid BN and I meant that one. I have corrected the error now. In a PS to a later post I mentioned comparing the FOVs of the 3 7x42s I own and noted that the Leica was 8º.

The link I provided from Company7 library of the Leica Catalog does show the 8x32 Trinovid specs at p 31 of 35. Will try it again here.

http://www.company7.com/library/leica/Leica03SOBrochure.pdf

I checked it and it works for me. It should take you directly to p.31. There is a picture of them on page 13.

Bob

Grando · Feb 1, 2014

I'm confused. So do EIIs have an ultra-wide FOV? I've never looked through a pair but this feature makes me want to. I have owned Leica BA 8x32 and Nikon HGL 8x32 though and the Nikons had a wider FOV, as you'd expect from published specs...

Binastro · Feb 1, 2014

. The E II binoculars do have a wide field of view but it is not spectacularly wide although it is a very good quality image.
Many older Japanese 8×40 binoculars have genuine fields of 9.5° or even more. These include Minolta, Swifts etc. Some go up to 10.0°.
the only reason that the E II binoculars have such a reputation for being very wide field is the lack of wider field binoculars, which is a great shame. However, the overall quality of the E II binoculars is very good.

As to Leica binoculars the specifications given are usually accurate. I wouldn't think that the specification would vary as much as mentioned above. However, some of the earlier Leitz binoculars had particularly wide fields so maybe it is one of these that might be wider than the E II.

The 12×50 Ultravid has an apparent field of view of 69° in simple measure which is similar to the 10×35 and 8×30 E II fields of 70°.
these are all good quality binoculars and a pleasure to use.

ceasar · Feb 1, 2014

Grando said:
I'm confused. So do EIIs have an ultra-wide FOV? I've never looked through a pair but this feature makes me want to. I have owned Leica BA 8x32 and Nikon HGL 8x32 though and the Nikons had a wider FOV, as you'd expect from published specs...

They have a very wide FOV of 8.8º at 1000 yards. (Some people might call that "Ultra" wide.) That is 462'@1000 yards or 42 feet more than what is generally considered the standard for a wide field binocular of 8º or 420 feet.

It is noticeable if you look for it.

Bob

Binastro · Feb 1, 2014

. I consider that 8.5° is a wide field for a 8×30 binocular.
The Soviet and Zeiss binoculars in 8×30 had 8.5° fields although the eye relief was poor.
It is to me a great pity how narrow the fields of view are in some modern binoculars.
It is easily within the capabilities of designers to make widefield binoculars but they don't.

kabsetz · Feb 2, 2014

Concerning the field width of the Leica 8x32 Trinovid/Ultravid/Ultravid HD's, I don't have my own measurements for it, but Jan Meijerink has published his on the Twentse site. He tends to be very reliable, and has 7,6 degrees real field for the Trinovid and 7,66 degrees for the Ultravid HD, or 134 m/km. He has not tested the E II.

Kimmo

brocknroller · Feb 2, 2014

Binastro said:
. I consider that 8.5° is a wide field for a 8×30 binocular.
The Soviet and Zeiss binoculars in 8×30 had 8.5° fields although the eye relief was poor.
It is to me a great pity how narrow the fields of view are in some modern binoculars.
It is easily within the capabilities of designers to make widefield binoculars but they don't.

Probably because of the cost involved in making a more complex EP that can deliver a triple play -- high ER, wide FOV, and good control of distortion/aberrations.

While it might have been acceptable at one time to make WF bins such as the Celestron Nova series (7x50 - 10*, 10x50 - 8*) with low ER (10mm), few people today would be interested in cleaning their eyelash wax off the EPs every time they used their bins.

Low ER can also make it difficult to see the entire FOV, particularly if you have facial features that set your eyes back farther from the EPs such as a high bridged nose, deep set eyes, or protruding cheek bones.

Consequently, until you get to the higher price points, the choices are usually low/moderate ER and WF or high ER and moderate/narrow FOV.

Brock

Sancho · Feb 2, 2014

joe101 said:
I own the Zeiss HT , Nikon se 10x42 and the nikon 8x30 eII
My fav is the 8x30 eII.
The most relaxed view you will find

I´m of the same opinion, having been through SV, EDG, and currently SE and EII. I think the sharpest was the EDG 7x42, but the EII is simply a joy to use.

Highway Dog · Feb 2, 2014

About Nikons, the rubber eyecups are slightly stiff. Combine that with a slight puffiness around my eyes, and I cannot see the entire FoV with the eyecup extended. I suggest rolling the eyecups down, and then testing the FoV. It is my experience that I mistakenly thought I was seeing the entire view when it proved that my eyes were truely too far back (or slight pressure was distorting my eyeball). Could this be involved with your viewing experience?

Sincerely,
Rob.

brocknroller · Feb 3, 2014

Highway Dog said:
About Nikons, the rubber eyecups are slightly stiff. Combine that with a slight puffiness around my eyes, and I cannot see the entire FoV with the eyecup extended. I suggest rolling the eyecups down, and then testing the FoV. It is my experience that I mistakenly thought I was seeing the entire view when it proved that my eyes were truely too far back (or slight pressure was distorting my eyeball). Could this be involved with your viewing experience?

Sincerely,
Rob.

Rob,

I am told that cold cucumbers work wonders on puffy eyes.

Are you talking about the EII? Although stiff, the eyecups are rather short due to the 13.5mm ER, so I don't have any trouble myself with seeing the entire FOV, but I do have deep set eyes, and I do have trouble seeing the entire FOV with the longer eyecups of the 8x32 SE unless I dig my eyes into the eyecups, which THEN gives me puffy eyes!

So I feel your pain, literally.

Brock

To all the lovers of the EII - Allbinos test (1 Viewer)

More options

ceasar

Well-known member

Grando

Well-known member

Binastro

Well-known member

ceasar

Well-known member

Binastro

Well-known member

kabsetz

Well-known member

brocknroller

porromaniac

Sancho

Well-known member

Highway Dog

Well-known member

brocknroller

porromaniac

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread