Biggest WOW binoculars you have ever looked through? (1 Viewer)

[ceasar]

Ed,

My IPD is approximately 68.5 mm. When I had the opportunity to compare my Nikon 10x32 EDG with a Canon 10x42 IS I didn't notice any Porro effect and I didn't expect any even though I did know that the Canon was a Porro prism binocular.

In truth it never occurred to me, and I'm not sure if I would have noticed a Porro effect if the difference between them was 5mm as yours is. In any case I expect that I probably would not have thought about looking for it. :h?:

Bob

 

[elkcub]

Ed,

My IPD is approximately 68.5 mm. When I had the opportunity to compare my Nikon 10x32 EDG with a Canon 10x42 IS I didn't notice any Porro effect and I didn't expect any even though I did know that the Canon was a Porro prism binocular.

In truth it never occurred to me, and I'm not sure if I would have noticed a Porro effect if the difference between them was 5mm as yours is. In any case I expect that I probably would not have thought about looking for it. :h?:

Bob

Hi Bob,

From an ergonomics perspective I think it's worth noting that one can obtain three different stereo configurations depending on what the observer's inter-pupil distance happens to be. With all other binoculars that I'm familiar with the stereo base relationship remains essentially constant regardless of the user's IPD setting. To my mind that goes a long way towards explaining why opinions differ widely, and also suggests that there will never be a consensus about the Canon's three-dimensional effects.

I wouldn't have thought about it either had it not come up in this WOW! thread, but I guess we all get our WOW!s in different ways. o
Ed

 

[[email protected]]

Hi Bob,

From an ergonomics perspective I think it's worth noting that one can obtain three different stereo configurations depending on what the observer's inter-pupil distance happens to be. With all other binoculars that I'm familiar with the stereo base relationship remains essentially constant regardless of the user's IPD setting. To my mind that goes a long way towards explaining why opinions differ widely, and also suggests that there will never be a consensus about the Canon's three-dimensional effects.

I wouldn't have thought about it either had it not come up in this WOW! thread, but I guess we all get our WOW!s in different ways. o
Ed

Why does the Swarovski 10x50 SV's have more 3D than most roof prisms then IMHO? I really don't understand it but based on my viewing experience it has more 3D than a lot of roofs I have looked through and others have remarked on it also.

 

[ceasar]

Why does the Swarovski 10x50 SV's have more 3D than most roof prisms then?

Who said they did and did they supply documentation to prove it or was it their "impression?"

 

[Stanbo]

Why does the Swarovski 10x50 SV's have more 3D than most roof prisms then?

Can I respectfully suggest wishful thinking.

Many years ago I was involved in photogrammetry using aerial photographs to produce maps. Although there were some sophisticated instruments to do this, I also had a stereoscopic magnifier to carry out an initial assessment of what was on the photographs. This was a very simple instrument with a lens for each eye and two arms to rest it over the photographs at a set distance for the set magnification of the lenses - looking much like a pair of glasses used the wrong way round. Think of this as the eyepieces of a binocular.

If I looked at a photograph it showed no 3D effect whatsoever. However if I viewed two adjacent photographs taken at a set distance apart by the camera in the aircraft, then the 3D effect was amazing with buildings standing up like sentinels. Why should this be?

Because of the distance apart that the photographs were taken, the view of the same area for each one was significantly different. The spacing of these photographs is the equivalent of the spacing of binocular objective lenses. In effect you can see different sides of the object you are viewing which is what is needed in order to produce a 3D image.

What is happening is that instead of the 3D effect being provided by the the wide spacing of the IOD of, say, 140mm as in a porro prism binocular, it is being provided by taking the photographs at, say, 100m IOD apart and then moving them together to view. Hence the superb 3D view.

In order to achieve a true 3D view it is essential for each eye to view a subject from a different angle. In the case of photogrammetry it is easy achieved by moving the images (photographs) closer together. With binoculars, any significant 3D image can only be achieved by having a much larger IOD than IPD. Only porro prism binoculars are able to provide this and then only to a limited degree. Roof prism binoculars can't.

My Nikon 8x32 se and Audubon 840, both porro prisms, give a pleasing 3D view, but I have yet to see a roof prism that can provide a 3D view, simply because both eyes see virtually the same image.

The layout of the lenses on the Canon 10x42L means that the it is more akin to a roof prism binocular than a poro, so no 3D effect either.

Stan

 

[Torview]

As a huge porro fan I will say that my 8.5x42 SV has the best 3d I`v ever seen in a roof, its astounded me, and I enjoy it just as much as the 3d in my EII.

 

[Binastro]

Binoculars produce 3D because of separate tubes and magnification.
But some people see better 3D than others, and it seems some see none.
I see stereo with any type of binocular.

When leaving La Palma or Tenerife by air, I cannot remember which, I took a series of photos as we flew in a straight line not very high up. Nice cumulus clouds and mountain or mountains.
The photos made lovely stereo pairs.

Some people can view two stereo photos in stereo without a viewer. I cannot, but with an ancient stereo viewer I see good stereo.
I think the viewers have an objective split in two and then opposite halves are put in the viewers.

Brian May has recently produced a stereo viewer for hand held devices. He is keen on stereo.

I got a translated large Russian book on photogrammetry copied and bound. Most interesting.

There was a Vinten wide angle panoramic camera that I think took 12 frames a second.
Used lots of film from large rolls.
These provided stereo pairs.

 

[Theo98]

Why does the Swarovski 10x50 SV's have more 3D than most roof prisms then IMHO? I really don't understand it but based on my viewing experience it has more 3D than a lot of roofs I have looked through and others have remarked on it also.

Agree Dennis!

With binoculars, any significant 3D image can only be achieved by having a much larger IOD than IPD...but I have yet to see a roof prism that can provide a 3D view...

I Have!

As a huge porro fan I will say that my 8.5x42 SV has the best 3d I`v ever seen in a roof, its astounded me, and I enjoy it just as much as the 3d in my EII.

I also enjoyed the 8.5x42 SV immersive view (never measured possible offsets)!

As I see it...

We're probably talking about 2 different birds, 3D vs Stereopsis vision. To my eyes, all Porro optics present an exaggerated 3D effect that doesn't look natural as per my normal vision (may not be so normal?!). At around >5 EP in the eyepiece, I'm more sensitive to the deep stereopsis that ratio seems to create in roof prism optics. IMHE, I would state similar 3D\stereopsis satisfaction findings between my 10x50 SV (SP prisms w\objectives +9mm offset from ocular centers) and my 7X42 & 10X40 Habicht porros (w\objectives +54mm offset from ocular centers), at all IPD settings! Although 3D depth appears a little greater with the porros, I enjoy the realistic immersive view of the 10x50 SV Much More (possibly due to bigger EP and IOD\IPD natural offset)!! FWIW, my IPD is 61mm.

I've said it before...if you're not ready to buy em, don't look through em... :eek!: :t: :king:

Ted

 

[BruceH]

Bruce, See your post #94.

It is still binocular vision. Without it we don't see 3D. So would the way the IPD is set really make a difference in our 3D vision or Depth of Field vision which I take to be the related?

Shouldn't the objective lenses still be neutral players in this even if their objective barrels do not move like they do in the traditional binoculars?

Doesn't one keep the same IPD and with it the same binocular vision one was born with on any binocular one uses no matter how setting the IPD on each binocular is accomplished?

Bob

Bob,

I think the key to following my previous post is to know that the Canon has a solid body rather than a hinged body like most binoculars. That means the spacing between the objectives is always 70mm. As mentioned by Ed, most folks who do not own one do not realize the body is one solid piece and only the eye pieces move when adjusting the IPD.

I noticed Ed already went into this so hopefully we are now on the same page. If not, I look forward to your comments.

The one piece body actually took a little bit of adjustment after getting the Canon. For the first week I continually tried to bend the body to adjust the IPD. Old habits are hard to break.

 

[BruceH]

Why does the Swarovski 10x50 SV's have more 3D than most roof prisms then IMHO? I really don't understand it but based on my viewing experience it has more 3D than a lot of roofs I have looked through and others have remarked on it also.

It could be that the Swaro 10X50 EL SV has more offset than the other roofs you have used. I measured my Swaro 10X50 and I am getting an offset just over 7 mm give or take a little.

What is your IPD? If it is 63mm, then the expectation is that the 3D should be about the same with your Canon 10X42 L IS (70mm objective distance - 63mm IPD = 7mm offset). If your IPD is more narrow than 63mm, then the Canon should give you more of a 3D effect than the Swaro, if it is greater than 63mm, the 3D should look less than the Swaro.

For me, the offset in my Canon is zero because of my 70mm IPD but as stated above, it is approx. 7mm for me and everyone else with the Swaro 10X50. The 3D is somewhat more noticeable in the Swaro. The biggest noticeable difference for me is the image scale. When looking at a bird feeding on the ground in front of me, it looks noticeably larger in the Canon compared to the Swaro.

This will go counter to what some others have posted, but I am not seeing anything magical in the Swaro 10X50 when it comes to 3D. It does have a nice 3D effect, but so do other roofs I have. Maybe it is expectations. After getting some spectacular views with a Nikon 8X30 EII, the 3D in a roof is not in the same league.

If you would like to do some measurements of your own, here is a handy tool from Harbor Freight that I use. Just measure from like edges of the housing and you do not need to touch the glass. This is made out of plastic so chances are less to do harm if you slip.

http://www.harborfreight.com/6-inch-utility-caliper-7914.html

 

[[email protected]]

It could be that the Swaro 10X50 EL SV has more offset than the other roofs you have used. I measured my Swaro 10X50 and I am getting an offset just over 7 mm give or take a little.

What is your IPD? If it is 63mm, then the expectation is that the 3D should be about the same with your Canon 10X42 L IS (70mm objective distance - 63mm IPD = 7mm offset). If your IPD is more narrow than 63mm, then the Canon should give you more of a 3D effect than the Swaro, if it is greater than 63mm, the 3D should look less than the Swaro.

For me, the offset in my Canon is zero because of my 70mm IPD but as stated above, it is approx. 7mm for me and everyone else with the Swaro 10X50. The 3D is somewhat more noticeable in the Swaro. The biggest noticeable difference for me is the image scale. When looking at a bird feeding on the ground in front of me, it looks noticeably larger in the Canon compared to the Swaro.

This will go counter to what some others have posted, but I am not seeing anything magical in the Swaro 10X50 when it comes to 3D. It does have a nice 3D effect, but so do other roofs I have. Maybe it is expectations. After getting some spectacular views with a Nikon 8X30 EII, the 3D in a roof is not in the same league.

If you would like to do some measurements of your own, here is a handy tool from Harbor Freight that I use. Just measure from like edges of the housing and you do not need to touch the glass. This is made out of plastic so chances are less to do harm if you slip.

http://www.harborfreight.com/6-inch-utility-caliper-7914.html

Interesting, I measured my IPD at about 60mm and I do see a little more 3D in the Canon's 10x42 IS-L than the Swarovski 10x50 SV.

 

[typo]

About 250 yards from my back door is a bank trees about 100 yards deep. Using one eye through a binocular the leafy domes of the tops appear be more or less continuous with only the DOF giving some clue to their relative distance.

With two eyes you obviously get better spacial separation. Moving up from 7x through 8x, 10x and 12x the appreciation of the relative distance between the tree tops improves significantly. I see no real difference between a flat field and curved field with my 10x roofs in the centre of the view (though the curved field gives the impression of a better DOF). At my 63mm IPD the objective separation on the 12x roof is 68mm, but on my 12x porro it's 122mm. The perceived difference isn't as big as the step up in magnification but the porro has the clear advantage.

Using the binoculars I have to hand, it seems to me that for perceived spacial separation two eyes is obviously most important followed by magnification and then objective separation. Just my $0.02.

David

 

[JabaliHunter]

The Swaro EL 8.5x42 when it first came out... no bin has wowed me as much as this one, period; including later releases of the EL (SV & field pro).

CG

I agree. For me it was the original 10x42 EL. It was just such a revelation compared to anything I had seen before.
The Zeiss FL 10x56 also, although I did not buy one.
The EL 10x50 suits my eyes better than the 10x42 did, but the wow was already there from the earlier EL.

When I get around to it, I want to see the Leica 7x42 HD+, the Leica Geovid (500) 8x56 and the Swarovski SLC 8/10x56. Those I feel sure will have a wow factor...

As an aside, while not a binocular the Pulsar XQ50 thermal spotter certainly has a wow factor...

 

[Troubador]

the Pulsar XQ50 thermal spotter certainly has a wow factor...

Up here in the frozen north, as opposed to tropical Surrey, when we refer to thermals, we mean extra warm winter undergarments.

It interesting that folks in Surrey need a Pulsar XQ50 to find their winter underwear when they can't remember where they put them...........:-O

Lee

 

[Binastro]

£3,000 seems a lot even for hot underwear.

 

[mfunnell]

The Zeiss FL 10x56 also, although I did not buy one.

I did. There's a wow in the view, for sure. But even more so in size and weight! (Not that I'm complaining. They're worth it.)

...Mike

 

[[email protected]]

About 250 yards from my back door is a bank trees about 100 yards deep. Using one eye through a binocular the leafy domes of the tops appear be more or less continuous with only the DOF giving some clue to their relative distance.

With two eyes you obviously get better spacial separation. Moving up from 7x through 8x, 10x and 12x the appreciation of the relative distance between the tree tops improves significantly. I see no real difference between a flat field and curved field with my 10x roofs in the centre of the view (though the curved field gives the impression of a better DOF). At my 63mm IPD the objective separation on the 12x roof is 68mm, but on my 12x porro it's 122mm. The perceived difference isn't as big as the step up in magnification but the porro has the clear advantage.

Using the binoculars I have to hand, it seems to me that for perceived spacial separation two eyes is obviously most important followed by magnification and then objective separation. Just my $0.02.

David

Interesting that 3D improves with increased magnification. I guess you get less DOF but better 3D with the higher magnifications.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Stanbo, post 105,
Thank you for your input on 3D, it is for me the most convincing post of all the posts published on this topic. I never see 3D with any roofs.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Troubador]

Stanbo, post 105,
Thank you for your input on 3D, it is for me the most convincing post of all the posts published on this topic. I never see 3D with any roofs.
Gijs van Ginkel

Yes but Gijs, now that you are 78 years old perhaps this inability to see 3D is age related.

Lee

 

[Binastro]

Hi Gijs,
Just used Nikon Monarch 8x42 HG in poor light, overcast.
Saw 4 levels of 3D. Very well defined each plane.
Roof at about 20m, tree 1, tree 2, building at 100m. Dull sky.

I have no idea why some people see 3D and some don't.
Eyes, brain?

I'm catching up with Gijs, but still see 3D fine.

Mind you I keep off the Genever.