Depth Of Field - bins to match or exceed Fujinon FMTR-SX 7x50 (1 Viewer)

I've been enjoying and immersing myself in the wonders of the depth of field these binos offer. From my elevated position I've been able to topographically map out my district due to this property giving me a far greater understanding of the surrounding terrain. Hills and trees just pop out in their proper respective order and all is revealed with outstanding ease...no focusing required.

I'm relatively new to the better 7x50 binos and do realise that this is one of the properties of their 7x50 specification and Porro design...but I've never seen depth of field layed out quite so effortlessly. I've been watching dust particles through the view lit up at sunset and I feel I can almost infinitely slice up the view depth like an MRI scan - like I have some kind of bionic eyeballs. This week using the fujis I followed a sulphur crested cockatoo from a distance as it flew towards me for about two minutes, following its path through taller trees and hills and over a ridge top. No focusing required. The terrain and topography (all laid out so clearly) this bird followed was astonishing. So here's the compromise I guess - for reference - for all its strengths my Swarovski 8.5x42 SV or cannon obviously can't match this particular performance.

I'm a bit of a Habicht fan but haven't tried the narrow fov 7x42 for depth of field performance. Has anybody got any feedback regarding binoculars matching that dof eye candy view the Fuji 7x50 offers? It's a whole world I'm exploring. What about the 10x70 fujis? I see that albinos and Holger put the 7x50 Fuji at the apex so maybe it's as good as it gets re depth of field? How much depth of field is lost when using the 10x50 fujis? I don't want to be blind or ignorant of other options. Well that's enough of my verbose ranting!

Cheers - Rathaus

There are two very different meanings to "depth of field".

I believe you are referring strongly to the 'apparent 3D depth',
which is made by the eye seeing subtle differences between L and R sides.
That requires a sharp focus over most of the field, and even more, the objectives to
be spaced out. Big Porros take the cake on the spacing. Other sharp 50 or 70 mm
Porros that are sharp across the field would be useful too. Extra-wide-fields, which almost
always get more fuzzy near the edges, have less 3D effect.
Neither of the designs you refer to is very wide field...and that's OK.

But...the 3D effect does fade after a few hundred yards.

Professionally, there are means to increase the 3D effect:

Aerial photos taken a ways apart have a tremendous 3D effect at great distance.
This is used quite often for forestry and mapping. The two photos are laid under
a stereo viewer, and actual measurements of trees, houses, ravines, etc are made by eye.
Taking two sharp photos with the same center 5-10 ft apart can give you 3D pretty far away.

If you want binoculars that have 'extra 3D', technically, those Y-shaped trench/rangefinder
binoculars are ideal. They were used for rangefinding mostly, but they have a tremendous
3D effect as well.

Theese aren't much more 3D than Porros, due to fixed spacing:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Stereo-Bino...174?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item3cf520a17e

But these suckers (rabbit ears) have it big-time:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/german-ww2-...004?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35e9e9e2f4

Something professional could probably be done using a nice camera and two positions.
It must be very sharp+small pictures, though.

Then, do like the foresters and use these viewers on the two photos on the table:
http://www.forestry-suppliers.com/product_pages/Products.asp?mi=58771

Thanks for the response

Yes I do mean apparent 3D depth. Also, without touching the focusers, the ability for my eyes to snap from a crystal clear object thirty metres away to an object a few Km away all within the same fov...all stunningly crystal clear. Perhaps my eyes work a little, but it's imperceptible and virtually instantantaneous. Can anybody remark on the ability of a current model 7x42 Swarovski Habicht to do this? Wouldn't this be the benefit of its small apfov?

The optical party line is that depth of field varies inversely with magnification, and 3D effect varies directly with the separation between the objectives. There are a few lower powered binoculars, but very few broader.

There are plenty of binoculars with greater apparent field of view, less weight, better handling, and quicker focusing, which make better birdwatching tools. There are plenty with greater aperture, magnification, and edge sharpness which make better stargazing tools. But fundamental view quality wise, you are pretty much on top of the mountain right there. That 7x50 Fujinon was my first really good binocular and I set off in earnest to find something that would beat it. I am now 3 more Fujinons, 4 Leicas, 2 Zeisses, a Docter Nobilem, and 2 Swaros further along. It's been a fascinating journey, although basically unsuccessful.

Ron

"
Also, without touching the focusers, the ability for my eyes to snap from a crystal clear object thirty metres away to an object a few Km away all within the same fov...all stunningly crystal clear.
"
This is mainly a function of the 7x power.
Eyepieces can make a difference, but when they are all very good,
the lower power makes the difference, with more depth (in focus)..

"
Perhaps my eyes work a little, but it's imperceptible and virtually instantantaneous.
"
Well, it's 7x50s being very kind to your eyes. Depth of field also
translates into a generous focusing margin. Add a huge exit pupil,
so tere is a generous margin for placing your eyes, and you can't
go wrong.


"
Can anybody remark on the ability of a current model 7x42 Swarovski Habicht to do this? Wouldn't this be the benefit of its small apfov?
"
I see it's a Porro too. I'm sure it would have the same or slightly better
effect, but as said above, you're very close to the best for this already.
If the smaller apfov means even sharper at the edge, maybe a bit better
3D....but the Fujis are about as good as it gets. The problem is, your eyes
can only get down to 30-60 arc-seconds resolution, so you can only
get so much 3D without prying apart the view more, and then it's not a
handy neck-carried thing anymore.

People do get more 3D, and even better measurements of depth,
but you need something more than binoculars for that, like photos taken
a bigger distance apart.

Yeah the fujis are huge, heavy and low mag with low apfov - but what a view. they remind me a bit of an ugly old custom made tube amp I've got. It weighs 35kgs, takes up too much space on a concrete plinth, runs hot and puts out 25 watts - of sweet sweet silky smooth sound.

Anyway, I'll hopefully just use and enjoy those fujis, faults and all, instead of turning things into an epic grail search for an eccentric Fuji beater. I can certainly see many reasons why a vast majority would prefer different binos.

ronh said:

...
...
It's been a fascinating journey, although basically unsuccessful.

Ron

Click to expand...

Is that eye issues the binos can't overcome?

OPTIC_NUT said:

"
Also, without touching the focusers, the ability for my eyes to snap from a crystal clear object thirty metres away to an object a few Km away all within the same fov...all stunningly crystal clear.
"
This is mainly a function of the 7x power.
Eyepieces can make a difference, but when they are all very good,
the lower power makes the difference, with more depth (in focus)..

"
Perhaps my eyes work a little, but it's imperceptible and virtually instantantaneous.
"
Well, it's 7x50s being very kind to your eyes. Depth of field also
translates into a generous focusing margin. Add a huge exit pupil,
so tere is a generous margin for placing your eyes, and you can't
go wrong.


"
Can anybody remark on the ability of a current model 7x42 Swarovski Habicht to do this? Wouldn't this be the benefit of its small apfov?
"
I see it's a Porro too. I'm sure it would have the same or slightly better
effect, but as said above, you're very close to the best for this already.
If the smaller apfov means even sharper at the edge, maybe a bit better
3D....but the Fujis are about as good as it gets. The problem is, your eyes
can only get down to 30-60 arc-seconds resolution, so you can only
get so much 3D without prying apart the view more, and then it's not a
handy neck-carried thing anymore.

People do get more 3D, and even better measurements of depth,
but you need something more than binoculars for that, like photos taken
a bigger distance apart.

Click to expand...

Great responses. You really are an optic nut!
I see this place can be a goldmine of knowledge. Cheers

Rathaus said:

Yeah the fujis are huge, heavy and low mag with low apfov - but what a view. they remind me a bit of an ugly old custom made tube amp I've got. It weighs 35kgs, takes up too much space on a concrete plinth, runs hot and puts out 25 watts - of sweet sweet silky smooth sound.

Anyway, I'll hopefully just use and enjoy those fujis, faults and all, instead of turning things into an epic grail search for an eccentric Fuji beater. I can certainly see many reasons why a vast majority would prefer different binos.

Click to expand...

I have some Swift Skippers that are pretty light and very sharp...
no thick rubber, a 'featherweight-style' chassis.
My favorites are SeeFar 7x50s with the 'microscrew', but I only have
the one pair after 3 years. The JTI years produced large numbers
of awesome 7x50s, even special lightweights..

I just upgraded the strap widths....that helps a lot with carrying.

OPTIC_NUT said:

I have some Swift Skippers that are pretty light and very sharp...
no thick rubber, a 'featherweight-style' chassis.
My favorites are SeeFar 7x50s with the 'microscrew', but I only have
the one pair after 3 years. The JTI years produced large numbers
of awesome 7x50s, even special lightweights..

I just upgraded the strap widths....that helps a lot with carrying.

Click to expand...

Cheers I'll have a look at those.

Something surprising...good for me... is the price reduction of the fujis in Australia over the last decade or so. They're a Little under seven hundred dollars now but were much more previously..double at least. I've also looked through a much cheaper version of 7x50 marine fujis that looked like they were made from grey plastic and were about two hundred dollars....they were really quite good!

Hi Rathaus,

I too have the Fujinon FMTR-SX 7x50 and find the view amazing in the same regard you have expressed.
The focus accommodation for me is roughly 12m to infinity of beautifully sharp 3D viewing with an ample field of view.
While I have quite a few good pairs of binoculars that offer good views also, I don't think you'll find what the Fujinon 7x50 offer particularly in a smaller pair or even much higher price bracket.
My advice would be to go for a quality 8x32 or 42 roof (or porro) prism pair when you're more mobile and just enjoy the Fujinon for their amazing view and embrace the weight and size for providing that top class view.

bhphotovideo has a lot of specs for each model...
..you may be able to shop around for the lower weight.

The FHTR-SX is 54 ounces.

The Fujinon 7x50 WP-XL (polycarb) weighs 29 ounces.
About half the weight. While it isn't all the FMTR-SX is,
and the price seems like 'slumming it' ,
you might be surprised how good the view is.
the 7x and the 50mm get any design off to a head start,
give you a giant 'eye-placement egg' and 'target in-focus egg'.

Good point on the 8x30//32s ... there is tremendous competition now.
Slightly different creature, of course.

"Is that eye issues the binos can't overcome?"

Psychological more likely.

Ron