Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Tuesday 28th March 2017, 22:40   #51
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by kabsetz View Post
Steve,

A very simple way of comparing the subjective FOV of two binoculars with different real fields and unknown distortion characteristics is to view sky through both binoculars at the same time, with one eye viewing through one binocular and the other eye through the other one. You don't need to align the images precisely to see which eye sees a larger circle and by roughly how much.

Kimmo
Thanks Kimmo. I do set up binoculars side by side on a tripod and use one eye then the other on a back and forth. However the sky with its no need to have them perfectly aligned is a good idea for fov. I'm usually trying to decide about sharpness etc.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 29th March 2017, 03:11   #52
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lawrence, Kansas, USA
Posts: 2,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
You come across like you are handing down a regal proclamation engraved on a stone tablet with your focus direction rant. Not to be rude, but you seemed rude in the way you went after the point. To repeat, because you feel that is natural, there are other who don't. Pretty simple.
Sorry I rubbed you the wrong way. I'm sure I haven't communicated my point because I never said anything about what feels natural. I think you are reading too much into my words and not reading my words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
Me thinks you missed the point I made in the B2 thread. I have owned the Swarovski SV EL in 8.5x42, 10x42, and 10x50. I now own the B2, none of the Swaros. Rolling ball killed the deal. I have as yet not seen the Zeiss SF. I am aware there may be an alpha glass out there to make me fork over the $$. Maybe the SF is the one. Till I see it I have no idea. My ideal is not named Swarovski SV EL.
All good to know, but I don't see what any of this has to do with whether a bird can be seen sharply off-axis (or, more literally, whether a duck can be identified off-axis) in these bins. I was responding to your claim that a duck has to be centered in the FOV to be identified, a claim which you seem to think is an argument against the value of FOV for finding birds. I don't agree with either of those claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
Good techniques facilitate finding. Too many people rely far too much on the binocular for that, and don't use their eyes nearly enough,and often don't use either very efficiently. I'm not saying wide fov is not needed, or somehow a bad thing. One of the things I like about the B2 is at 9x it has 404' fov, old fashioned afov nearly 70*. Proof enough I'm not anti wide fov. Just attempting to make the point that in my opinion the GPO will not hinder finding birds. If you can't find stuff with that, then the problem is not with the binocular. I'm fine with the notion more people will always go for the wider fov. Me too (usually) if all else is equal.
I don't disagree about the value of good technique and using eyes. I do disagree that a tool with inferior specs will not hinder (judged against a higher standard) accomplishing its purpose. A large well can be dug with a teaspoon, but one who has to dig wells with a teaspoon is, practically speaking, held back by lack of a shovel.

--AP
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st March 2017, 09:34   #53
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexis Powell View Post
On the general point, me thinks you haven't had a look through a Swarovski EL SV, Zeiss SF, or similar.
--AP
Originally Posted by Steve C
Me thinks you missed the point I made in the B2 thread. I have owned the Swarovski SV EL in 8.5x42, 10x42, and 10x50.


All good to know, but I don't see what any of this has to do with whether a bird can be seen sharply off-axis (or, more literally, whether a duck can be identified off-axis) in these bins.

--AP[/quote]

Alex

Looks like Steve hasn't been around for a few days so I will just remark here that it was yourself who introduced the question of whether Steve had experience of EL SV or SF (see above), so it was a bit unfair to bat away his reply to this by saying it was irrelevant.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 02:54   #54
mooreorless
Registered User
 
mooreorless's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntingdon,Pa.
Posts: 3,387
Hi Lee, I would have to agree with you and Steve C thanks for taking the time to review the GPO Passion HD 8x42!
mooreorless is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 16:23   #55
Pileatus
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,346
Without evaluating the bin under discussion...

I accept a minimum IPD of 56mm and prefer 54mm. It helps a lot on close ups.

I reject CCW focus to infinity. We have a 6X32 that operates in this manner and it's a pain because it challenges muscle memory. Follow the leader(s) seems like the smart play.

I like as much useful FOV as possible along with sharp edges. A walk-in view is instantly addictive.

Eye relief is probably number one on my elimination list. Picking up the Zeiss SF showed me just how limiting my Nikon and Swaros are...in spite of the joy those models have delivered over the years.

Finally, online sales are based primarily on published specifications and personal reviews/recommendations. Steve's review offers acute insights that are both useful and welcome.
Pileatus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 3rd April 2017, 18:34   #56
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
Originally Posted by Steve C
Me thinks you missed the point I made in the B2 thread. I have owned the Swarovski SV EL in 8.5x42, 10x42, and 10x50.


All good to know, but I don't see what any of this has to do with whether a bird can be seen sharply off-axis (or, more literally, whether a duck can be identified off-axis) in these bins.

--AP
Alex

Looks like Steve hasn't been around for a few days so I will just remark here that it was yourself who introduced the question of whether Steve had experience of EL SV or SF (see above), so it was a bit unfair to bat away his reply to this by saying it was irrelevant.

Lee[/quote]

Yes, I've been gone for a few days. I've had the cold from hell and wonder od wonders, we've had a couple of gorgeous days, which I have been enjoying, so not much posting.

I agree with your assessment of AP's reaction.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 3rd April 2017, 18:34   #57
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooreorless View Post
Hi Lee, I would have to agree with you and Steve C thanks for taking the time to review the GPO Passion HD 8x42!
Steve

Thanks!
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 3rd April 2017, 18:48   #58
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pileatus View Post
Without evaluating the bin under discussion...

I accept a minimum IPD of 56mm and prefer 54mm. It helps a lot on close ups.

I reject CCW focus to infinity. We have a 6X32 that operates in this manner and it's a pain because it challenges muscle memory. Follow the leader(s) seems like the smart play.

I like as much useful FOV as possible along with sharp edges. A walk-in view is instantly addictive.

Eye relief is probably number one on my elimination list. Picking up the Zeiss SF showed me just how limiting my Nikon and Swaros are...in spite of the joy those models have delivered over the years.

Finally, online sales are based primarily on published specifications and personal reviews/recommendations. Steve's review offers acute insights that are both useful and welcome.
John,

Well this is an opinion worth discussion

I have no issue with the fact people prefer different focus arrangements, or that they prefer different fov parameters either. It is neither good nor bad, it is just the way things are .

I agree with your eye relief comments. One of my big beefs with the binoculars on the market is that the eye cup assemblies seem to be an afterthought instead of a design consideration, something GPO seemed to address. Out of curiosity does the eye cup extension of the SF match the stated eye relief figure?

I do wonder if the issue is really the eye relief per se. It seems the eye relief is a product of the design. It seems that is the stated eye relief is 15 mm, then that is what it probably is. I think when we get into problems the issue is not so much eye relief, but one of eye cup extension/retraction. Many eye cups are pretty thick and don't let the eye glass wearer get close enough to the lens. Conversely if the eye relief is , say, 15 mm, and the eye cup extension is only 14 mm, then the eye can't be gotten far enough away for proper placement. Call that effective eye relief if you will (which seems to be the case), but maybe we should be thinking eye cup movement. It does no good to offer a long eye relief binocular unless the eye cups will lay close enough to the lens, or to extend to the stated eye relief distance. If you need 17 mm, you won't be happy with 12 mm if that is all the extension you get. Doesn't matter what it costs either. I like the Leica Ultravid, but it has in no way enough eye cup extension for me.

You are correct in your online assessments, that is pretty indispensable in due diligence in selection options.

I'm glad you find this useful in that regard.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.

Last edited by Steve C : Monday 3rd April 2017 at 18:53.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Troubador's Review of GPO Passion 8x42 HD Troubador GPO 29 Thursday 23rd March 2017 15:23
Opticron DBA VHD 8x42 Review FrankD Opticron 26 Saturday 19th March 2016 11:04
Swarovski EL 8.5x42 review, and updated SLC 8x42 W B review Tobias Mennle Swarovski 35 Wednesday 18th March 2015 16:14
Mega Review of the best 8x42... binomania Binoculars 135 Friday 8th July 2011 22:29
A comparative review between the Zen-Ray ZRS HD 8x42 and Nikon Monarch 8x42 Intjmastermind Binoculars 7 Monday 11th April 2011 17:51


£100 Cashback on Opticron DBA VHD Binoculars. Click to find out more.

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.16532111 seconds with 17 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:03.