That is a good idea!
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Why is it such a common problem now days for binoculars to have too much eye relief r (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
Thanks, for the explanation. Very helpful.
Last edited:
What binoculars have you guys used that have long enough eye cups for the eye relief so you don't get any dreaded black outs or you don't have to hold the binoculars away from your face.
IMO it's like this....
For ONE thing...I'm not sure optical designers use their product in the field. As silly as this sounds I really believe it. Too many issues get to the final product and to the market without even so much as a second thought. OR....manufacturers tell the brands "Here's what we HAVE and here's the PRICE...think you can market them?" Second issue is binocular brands want to make money. Selling something a manufacturer can do with their eyes closed is a good way to do that. A binocular doesn't HAVE to be innovative, the buyer just has to BELIEVE it is. OR....and a BIG or, it has to be CHEAP.
Too much eye relief...
I think there is more than one issue here. For ONE, there is no agreement on where eye relief is measured. From brand to brand no consistency whatsoever. Sometimes even WITHIN brands. The only MEANINGFUL measurement is from the top of the eyecup, not the top of the glass in the eyecup. Some still don't get that. SECONDLY.... Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for anyone that doesn't wear glasses and uses binoculars! Just kidding of course BUT, you can use practically every porro prism binocular on the planet with zero issues. You think I wouldn't have a Docter Nobilem if I could use them? So every porro is off the list for me, EVERY ONE. So YES....generally, most modern roof prism binoculars are made so MOST everyone can use them. Think about this....the "new" Leica Trinovid retro..I didn't pre-order as it would have probably been pointless. Eye relief stats are the FIRST thing I consider before digging any deeper into purchasing a binocular, spotting scope, etc. So what's the "correct" eye relief a binocular should have to accommodate a majority of users? I'm pretty sure I'm pretty average where ER is concerned. Maybe slightly below. So I'M SURE there are eyeglass wearers that require MORE ER than I do. I have several binouclars I really like where the eyecups are ALL THE WAY DOWN. So I'm SURE some cannot use these binoculars because of not enough eye relief. Remember, an eyeglasses wearer is SUNK if there is not enough eye relief. The binocular would be USELESS. So what figures does a binocular manufacturer pick? Who do they exclude or include? Some group is NOT going to be happy!
Where do you place your binoculars?
Before I basically HAD to wear eyeglasses I had a total of ZERO issues where ER is concerned. YES...SOME binoculars I was able to throw up against my eye and it was a perfect fit. MOST, however required me to pull them out a bit and rest the eyecup on the top ridge of my eye socket. No issues. WELL.... So I went and pulled out a couple of binoculars....Noctivid 8X42 AND SV 10X42.... The SV fit my eye socket like a glove. The material the SV eyecup is made of is absolutely second to none. It would be the PERFECT fit for me without eyeglasses. Next, the Noctivid... HONESTLY, I see no way I could use this binocular without eyeglasses for an extended session, i.e. BIRDING. More than one reason... In addition to have extra long eye relief, the eyecup is HUGE in diameter to accommodate the largest diameter eye-piece lens I have ever seen. The material is also rather hard and slippery...it had to be held so far from my eye I really could not get it to rest on my eyecup bridge in a comfortable manner. SO if I did NOT wear eyeglasses, I would give the SV a DEFINITE PASS and Noctivid and definite questionable. In other words, I see your point!
As Bruce mentioned...two different eyecups would be a step in the right direction. Innovations in eyecup design would help too. There seems to ALWAYS be a mm or two, usually MORE left on the table where eyecups are concerned.
For ONE thing...I'm not sure optical designers use their product in the field. As silly as this sounds I really believe it. Too many issues get to the final product and to the market without even so much as a second thought. OR....manufacturers tell the brands "Here's what we HAVE and here's the PRICE...think you can market them?" Second issue is binocular brands want to make money. Selling something a manufacturer can do with their eyes closed is a good way to do that. A binocular doesn't HAVE to be innovative, the buyer just has to BELIEVE it is. OR....and a BIG or, it has to be CHEAP.
Too much eye relief...
I think there is more than one issue here. For ONE, there is no agreement on where eye relief is measured. From brand to brand no consistency whatsoever. Sometimes even WITHIN brands. The only MEANINGFUL measurement is from the top of the eyecup, not the top of the glass in the eyecup. Some still don't get that. SECONDLY.... Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for anyone that doesn't wear glasses and uses binoculars! Just kidding of course BUT, you can use practically every porro prism binocular on the planet with zero issues. You think I wouldn't have a Docter Nobilem if I could use them? So every porro is off the list for me, EVERY ONE. So YES....generally, most modern roof prism binoculars are made so MOST everyone can use them. Think about this....the "new" Leica Trinovid retro..I didn't pre-order as it would have probably been pointless. Eye relief stats are the FIRST thing I consider before digging any deeper into purchasing a binocular, spotting scope, etc. So what's the "correct" eye relief a binocular should have to accommodate a majority of users? I'm pretty sure I'm pretty average where ER is concerned. Maybe slightly below. So I'M SURE there are eyeglass wearers that require MORE ER than I do. I have several binouclars I really like where the eyecups are ALL THE WAY DOWN. So I'm SURE some cannot use these binoculars because of not enough eye relief. Remember, an eyeglasses wearer is SUNK if there is not enough eye relief. The binocular would be USELESS. So what figures does a binocular manufacturer pick? Who do they exclude or include? Some group is NOT going to be happy!
Where do you place your binoculars?
Before I basically HAD to wear eyeglasses I had a total of ZERO issues where ER is concerned. YES...SOME binoculars I was able to throw up against my eye and it was a perfect fit. MOST, however required me to pull them out a bit and rest the eyecup on the top ridge of my eye socket. No issues. WELL.... So I went and pulled out a couple of binoculars....Noctivid 8X42 AND SV 10X42.... The SV fit my eye socket like a glove. The material the SV eyecup is made of is absolutely second to none. It would be the PERFECT fit for me without eyeglasses. Next, the Noctivid... HONESTLY, I see no way I could use this binocular without eyeglasses for an extended session, i.e. BIRDING. More than one reason... In addition to have extra long eye relief, the eyecup is HUGE in diameter to accommodate the largest diameter eye-piece lens I have ever seen. The material is also rather hard and slippery...it had to be held so far from my eye I really could not get it to rest on my eyecup bridge in a comfortable manner. SO if I did NOT wear eyeglasses, I would give the SV a DEFINITE PASS and Noctivid and definite questionable. In other words, I see your point!
As Bruce mentioned...two different eyecups would be a step in the right direction. Innovations in eyecup design would help too. There seems to ALWAYS be a mm or two, usually MORE left on the table where eyecups are concerned.
Yes, GREAT explanation! THANKS!
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Yes. Basically the MOLCET technique mentioned by Ceasar and Steve and the term coined by Brock.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3500370&postcount=5
tenex
reality-based
Thanks everyone for this thread. The issue keeps coming up, and I'm sure every non-eyeglass wearer eventually wonders as I did whether it's just them. Obviously it's a general and growing problem. It varies even within a single brand: I found the ER-vs-eyecup problem ruled out all the 10x42 Ultravids for me, whereas I've happily used Leica 10x32s for years. And the 2011-2015 Trinovid 10x42 somehow did work for me, which is why I finally gave that a try, although it ultimately didn't grab me (too little real need, limited FOV relative to the 32s).
On a related note, the greater AFOV that comes with shorter FL and lower ER is a major reason (along with magnification itself) why I've always preferred 10x to 8x. That's providing the "immersion" experience I want from binos. And all this suffers when ER is increased to 17-20mm, even if the eyecups accommodate that properly, as they increasingly don't or can't. (At least given all the other constraints of size etc)
Ultimately I think what we need is a variety of designs to suit different users, glasses or not -- some degree of specialization by model or brand. But what I see in the world today is ever less choice, as every manufacturer goes after exactly the same target market segment and ignores everyone else. This must be what they teach in business school now. It's too bad, I found consumer choice pleasant.
On a related note, the greater AFOV that comes with shorter FL and lower ER is a major reason (along with magnification itself) why I've always preferred 10x to 8x. That's providing the "immersion" experience I want from binos. And all this suffers when ER is increased to 17-20mm, even if the eyecups accommodate that properly, as they increasingly don't or can't. (At least given all the other constraints of size etc)
Ultimately I think what we need is a variety of designs to suit different users, glasses or not -- some degree of specialization by model or brand. But what I see in the world today is ever less choice, as every manufacturer goes after exactly the same target market segment and ignores everyone else. This must be what they teach in business school now. It's too bad, I found consumer choice pleasant.
tenex
reality-based
No. I've tried far fewer binos than you, but I do have the same problem with the Zeiss. I forgive it because with eyecups this small I couldn't rest them comfortably in my sockets even if they were deep enough. So I found a way to hold them resting the top of the cup under my brow, or with my fingers against my brow. (I did have to return them due to defects, so haven't finally decided whether to purchase again.)
Yes. The eyeglass crowd per se must be a minority, compared to naked eyeballs (lasered or not) and contact lenses. Why binocular design is shifting so much in this direction, especially at the upper end of the market, remains a mystery to me.
Steve C
Well-known member
I never viewed this as a too much eye relief problem. It seems to me that eye relief is a function of design, so that if a certain eye relief is desired, that is a design attainable goal, within optical design parameters and restrictions. So the eye relief is what it is based on design. It has always seemed to me to be a problem of inadequate eye cup extension, as has been referenced by more than one post in this thread.
It seems to me to be a simple problem of using inexpensive, already available, off the shelf design eye cups, which as a result of being generic in the middle of the road designs, are far too often lacking in needing another detent to increase extension.
It seems offering some sort of longer eye cup, either to replace the original screw on the already threaded eye piece or as a longer rubber cup to replace the standard offering would be a pretty simple offering as an accessory..
It seems to me to be a simple problem of using inexpensive, already available, off the shelf design eye cups, which as a result of being generic in the middle of the road designs, are far too often lacking in needing another detent to increase extension.
It seems offering some sort of longer eye cup, either to replace the original screw on the already threaded eye piece or as a longer rubber cup to replace the standard offering would be a pretty simple offering as an accessory..
Last edited:
Somebody should make one as an accessory. That is a good idea. I guess you can buy those Field Optics winged eyecups but they create other problems like fogging lenses so I don't know what the solution is.
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Didn't I hear a great appreciated optical constructer say that when you win some here, you're gonna loose some other thing there.
I have never had any problems with Tract, Maven or Swarovski binoculars in regards to having too much eye relief in relation to eye cup extension. Do you think it is because these manufacturers are more closely matching eye relief to eye cup length?
The little Zeiss Victory's 8x25 were some of the worst binoculars I have seen in this regard. It is like the eye cups are not at all long enough for the eye relief. Very poor mismatch.
Last edited:
Steve C
Well-known member
Dennis,
Personally I think you have this backwards.
The eye relief is set by design. What has to be done is to match the eye cup extension to the eye relief, the opposite of your quoted line above. Maybe that is what you meant and I don't want to seem to be nit picking here.Many binocular eye relief specifications are pretty close to the same. This means many binoculars can be used with the same or similar eye cups. There are a lot of people, those clustered close to the mean in the eye relief bell curve who can use most any eye cup assembly. There is a lot of variation in users, so there is no one size fits all. I know Maven tries to adhere to the extension vs eye relief and GPO has done an exemplary job with the eye cup assemblies on their new binoculars. It seems to me the greater the actual eye relief, the greater the need for extra extension. However, I can't speak for manufacture of binoculars in general as regards your question. In general I would venture to comment that most of the binoculars in my experience have less eye cup extension than specified eye relief.
Last edited:
That is exactly what it is. It is an optical concept, and as Steve has so neatly pointed out it is a consequence of the optical design of the binos.
One factor that Pete Gamby of Opticron drew my attention to is that the ISO standard governing ER allows very little minus tolerance i.e the manufacturer is only allowed to drift a tiny bit towards a smaller ER, whereas the standard allows much more tolerance on the plus side. This would seem to encourage or at least allow a certain drift towards a somewhat longer ER than the nominal during manufacturing. This seems a possibility to me but is just a guess and I don't have any evidence to support this.
Thats the optical side. Now as Steve pointed out comes the bit that concerns viewing comfort. The eyecups need to be the right length to deliver the eye of as many people as possible to the right position relative to the ER. With the variety of facial structures and spectacles designs there will never be an eyecup/ER combo that works for everyone.
Lee
That is a good idea. I think there could be more innovation in the design of the eye cups instead of just a circular design. I mean your eye sockets are not just a circle.
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Mmmmm, first I'll have to write a program for the 3D print eyecup and than printing it in aluminium and rubber with a folding mechanism.
That's gonna be an expensive cup.
Jan
