3D in roof prism binoculars (1 Viewer)

Theo98 · Oct 4, 2015

To Porro or Not to Porro...?

henry link said:
Well, roofs with wider baselines will create a more Porro like presentation, if you consider that more pleasing and natural. Henry

Steve C said:
I see some stereopsis in any binocular, but don't see the huge amounts a lot of folks assign to a porro binocular.

SuperDuty said:
I hope to spend more time with them (10x50 SV's) soon when my work allows. There is an opening up, decompressing, easing, of the view that decreases the fatigue factor a significant amount.

Theo98 said:
...but what about this "porro" thing...something different there that my cheap-o pairs attempt to do, but screw up everything else.Ted

After owning a descent bushnell 12x50 for the past 30 years ($100 back then), I decided to see for myself if the latest alpha porro offerings sweetened up their different "porro-like 3D view" in reference to the current, engineering advanced, fully multi-coated alpha roof optics available today.

3D GAME ON!
In the "P" corner: various powered vintage Porros to play with (Sears-4, Jason Statesman, Manon, Bushnell) and the latest breed, a Yosemite BX-1, a Habicht 8x30 W and a Habicht 10x40 W GA.

In the "R" corner: The latest Roof 8x32 BX-3 Mojave (my choice after M7's, CL's, and SV's comparisons), a BX-3 Mojave 10x42 and of course, the EL 10x50 SV.

After collimating a couple of the Sears and spending detailed time to set IPDs, diopters and sharp focuses, spent 3-4 hrs each day this past week glassing with 12 pair of binos (pre-dawn through sunrise, various daylight times\lighting conditions and sunset through post-dusk lighting scenarios). Seems like a complicated comparative study, but in truth, a simple task of just being attentive to the 3D aspect of each optical instrument's presentation.

OPTICAL WARNING: My Vision, My Brain, My Findings - Your Discoveries Could\Will Differ:
Not surprising, All of the porros exhibited a 3D aspect that were a little greater than the roofs (from 25m to 100m viewings). Well, you might consider that more pleasing and natural (as Henry stated above). However, to me what Was Surprising in all 10 of the porros, I sensed a Definite Vertical Compression in the FOV, as if the image was being squeezed from above and below. The FOV's felt as if looking through a 40-50mm tube (but didn't look that way). It's hard to describe this weird feeling, but ever pair of poros (including the Habicht's) gave me immediate eye strain as I tried to consciously stabilize the effect I was sensing. Glassing for longer than 2-3 minutes with each would start up a headache (I know, a head like mine should hurt). 3

When I'd switch to one of the 3 roofs, the eye strains immediately subsided and a relaxed, comfortable view would take over, Especially when going to the 10x50 SV's (just like Robert described above)! I can steadily glass for as long as my arms hold up with these roofs and have -Zero- eye strain or fatigue! All 3 of the roofs, again Especially the 10x50's, present a FOV, DOF and perfect "very natural" spacial dimension that is as close to being there, but in an immersive view that is 8 to 10 times closer than my normal sight! I can easily feel and see the Stereopsis of the roofs that for me, carries no eye strain! :t:

I know weird, but for Me, the eye strain issues and the small incremental 3D enhancement of the "Porro Like" view has been Suspect!

Ted

Steve C · Oct 4, 2015

Theo98;3290967 I know weird said:
Well, Ted in many ways I agree with you, but I think you are being somewhat "enthusiastic" (in spite of your optical warning) in your BUSTED claim . We need to realize our own realities are not necessarily transferable to anybody else. For example, I do not think the SV EL 10x50 has much 3-D presentation. I think the Bushnell Rangemaster 7x35 (as one porro example) has more 3-D than about anything else. Some of my vintage porros don't seem to have as much as others. Some roofs have more than others.

I suppose it comes down to try before you buy, buy what you like and then use it. However the try period is often lengthy and exceeds many reasonable return policies, the trial period can be a year or more. We all evolve our preferences with experience with more optics.

Theo98 · Oct 5, 2015

Steve C said:
We need to realize our own realities are not necessarily transferable to anybody else....We all evolve our preferences with experience with more optics.

You are correct Steve, "busted" for me may be "blissful" for someone else! Actually, I really wanted the Habicht 10x40's to come Very Close to the 10x50's so that I could pocket the extra savings. Thus, I will need to spend a lot more time to see if the "porro issues" I experienced are long lasting or were maybe just a quirk during my short trial period.

Ted

AnalogJ · Apr 14, 2020

Differences In 3D Effect Between Various 8x42 Bins

Hi All -

My very first post ever here.

For the first time, my wife and I are considering a good pair of binoculars, primarily for birding.

Many years ago, we picked up a couple of cheap, small Nikons (on sale for $25 each). I also picked up a pair of 1970s pirro Minolta 8x40 bins. They're, of course, FAR superior to the cheap Nikons, but they're relatively large and heavy.

In any event, we thought it might be time to get some relatively good ones, and our budget has escalated a bit as we see the benefits of better ones.

Given the current need to practice social distancing due to COVID-19, I have been ordering many different bins to try (with easy return privileges). Currently we have tried 8x42 Nikon Prostaff 3S and 7S, Wingspan SkyView, Celestron Nature ED and Granite models. (I have Athlon Midas UHD, Carson 3D ED, and Nikon Monarch 5 bins on the way). We also have a pair of Granite 7x33 bins in the house to try.

So, back to this thread - today I noticed focusing on a statue in our yard next to a small, bare Japanese maple tree about 40 feet away, that the Granite bins render the statue and the thin branches of the tree quite 3-dimensionally, whereas both Prostaff models render the images rather flat. Through the Granites, I can see that there are branches both in front of the plane of the statue as well as behind the plane of the statue. The statue itself also has some 3-dimensionality to it through the Granite. But with the Prostaff models, the images are flat (reminding me more of the type of 3D you get through the Viewmasters, which provide layers, but very flat images.). The Granite bins make the image more vivid, not regarding the perceived layered 3-dimensionality of the image, but the colors pop more as well.

The old Minolta porro prism bins, of course, have more of a pronounced 3D effect, but it's clear that the Granites provide some whereas the Prostaff provide none.

Jeff

NDhunter · Apr 14, 2020

SuperDuty said:
When someone describes a pronounced 3D view in a roof, the Zeiss HT and SF most recently, what combination of optical traits would be the reason for what they see. It's always been my understanding that 3D is exclusive to the Porro binocular due to the wider objective spacing.

Robert

I think the 3D thing is over hyped, I don't ever find if it is there, to matter much at all to me.
I just evaluate the entire viewing experience of the binocular, and they are all
different.
Scoring the trait, must be fun for those who are just wondering, and if what
they find would make any different in an optics purchase, is doubtful.

Jerry

dries1 · Apr 14, 2020

This thread is from 2015.

Andy W.

AnalogJ · Apr 15, 2020

NDhunter said:
I think the 3D thing is over hyped, I don't ever find if it is there, to matter much at all to me.
I just evaluate the entire viewing experience of the binocular, and they are all
different.
Scoring the trait, must be fun for those who are just wondering, and if what
they find would make any different in an optics purchase, is doubtful.

Jerry

The affect can be dramatic, more like watching the real thing.

Patudo · Apr 15, 2020

Theo98 said:
OPTICAL WARNING: My Vision, My Brain, My Findings - Your Discoveries Could\Will Differ:

...However, to me what Was Surprising in all 10 of the porros, I sensed a Definite Vertical Compression in the FOV, as if the image was being squeezed from above and below. The FOV's felt as if looking through a 40-50mm tube (but didn't look that way). It's hard to describe this weird feeling, but ever pair of porros (including the Habicht's) gave me immediate eye strain as I tried to consciously stabilize the effect I was sensing. Glassing for longer than 2-3 minutes with each would start up a headache (I know, a head like mine should hurt). 3

When I'd switch to one of the 3 roofs, the eye strains immediately subsided and a relaxed, comfortable view would take over, Especially when going to the 10x50 SV's (just like Robert described above)! I can steadily glass for as long as my arms hold up with these roofs and have -Zero- eye strain or fatigue! All 3 of the roofs, again Especially the 10x50's, present a FOV, DOF and perfect "very natural" spacial dimension that is as close to being there, but in an immersive view that is 8 to 10 times closer than my normal sight! I can easily feel and see the Stereopsis of the roofs that for me, carries no eye strain! :t:

I know weird, but for Me, the eye strain issues and the small incremental 3D enhancement of the "Porro Like" view has been Suspect!

Ted

Ted's observations struck a chord with me, as I experience something similar, although not exactly the same, when using porros (or at least the great majority of the ones I have, or have tried). With all, or almost all of my porros, you have to almost learn to look through them in a way that doesn't seem necessary with roofs. Porros seem to require more observation time to achieve that sense of comfortable familiarity with them, whereas the image presented by most roofs seems more immediately "accessible" (a term I recall another Birdforum member using, which I have most gratefully pirated).

I'm not sure why this is so - it may in part be because my roofs allow me to use them with glasses, whereas the short eye relief of my porros requires me to use them straight to my eyes. The wider spread of most porro objectives likely also has something to do with it, as when I tried the Canon 10x42 IS-L (a Porro II design, of course) I found it as immediate and accessible to "get into" as a roof.

I don't get a headache when using my porros and find using binoculars straight to my eyes to be a more immersive experience than using them with glasses. There are some aspects of my favourite porros (field of view in particular) I greatly enjoy. But virtually all of them require some getting used to. I well remember that when I first started using the 10x50 Zeiss West that the "getting to know you" stage was more troublesome with this binocular than any other I've tried - something I was reminded of when I started using it again a few days ago. Both afternoons I tried it, it took about one hour of fidgeting with IPD, focus and diopter settings, how close I should hold them to my eyes and so on - in general repeating the learning to look through them phase - before everything clicked and I could see through them instinctively and naturally. My experience when starting to use the 12x50B again earlier in the year was very similar, although eye-placement of this binocular was easier than with the venerable 10x50, with the rubber eyecups fitting more naturally. Both binoculars are still good and in their day must have been superb, but both, I find, need some time behind them to really show their qualities.

This isn't to do with the supposed 3D qualities of porros, which I personally don't notice, likely because of the distances I observe over.

3D in roof prism binoculars (1 Viewer)

More options

Theo98

Eurasian Goldfinch

Attachments

Steve C

Well-known member

Theo98

Eurasian Goldfinch

AnalogJ

Active member

NDhunter

Experienced observer

dries1

Member

AnalogJ

Active member

Patudo

sub-200 birding aspirant

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread