Binoculars convention should be Aperture Divide Magnification, not Magnification x Aperture... ? (1 Viewer)

[Binocollector]

Just thought of SxSW -- "south by south-west" -- doesn't mean "multiply", or does it?
Fun fact, in Germany the "x" is not used to mean "multiply" since I first went to school in 1983. Instead a simple dot is used -- like this: 10 • 50. Strangely enough -- this cannot be done with a single key on a German keyboard. The sign that is used instead is * on the numbers block of the keyboard.
For the proper "Malpunkt" -- "multiplication dot" you need to press ALT + 7 on the numbers block •

 

[GrampaTom]

You won $1million.

Except that isn't a dollar sign, it is S and I overlapped which just looks like a dollar sign by coincidence.

If 10x50 isn’t meant to be mathematical, perhaps they should stop using this ambiguous label.

My point is, it is rather convenient for the marketers, that 10x50mm convention is written like maths, so that some subconscious part of you thinks 100x50 is better than 10x50.

Uh perhaps I haven’t been clear. Kimmik as you know I usually enjoy your technical postings.

This one? Why….

It’s a label - period, full stop. Too many examples here from all of us where, numbers, signs and words get used in just this way all the time. They can be a mathematical expression or not. It’s not a thing, nor does it have to be.

It’d be cool if we stopped blaming marketing managers for everything we don’t understand, or like.

 

[kimmik]

I provided detailed logic to support my perspective and readers can think for themselves.

 

[GrampaTom]

I provided detailed logic to support my perspective and readers can think for themselves.

Not all logic is logical...

We are

 

[Maljunulo]

An impeccable train of logic can lead to a conclusion that is total ********.

 

[CharleyBird]

An impeccable train of logic can lead to a conclusion that is total ********.

Flawless reasoning must surely lead to a correct conclusion. Otherwise the logical train of thought is not impeccable, it's wrong. (?)

 

[kimmik]

“It just is”

“That is how it has always been”

“Not ambiguous to me, so you are reading it wrong”

“Why fix whats not broken”

 

[GrampaTom]

“It just is”

“That is how it has always been”

“Not ambiguous to me, so you are reading it wrong”

“Why fix whats not broken”

It just is... Well, yes thats true.
Always been. Always is a long time... But why not a long standing precedent? An accepted thing?
Lots of things seem ambiguous, till they're explained, context supplied. Is your suggested better? Or worse?
Indeed if it aint broke. Is this? Is yours less so?

Binoculars convention should be Aperture Divide Magnification, not Magnification x Aperture​

Letters, words, numbers, symbols are commingled as we attempt to communicate with one another all the time. Convention allows. Your convention would make exit pupil a key descriptor of a binocular. Should it be? Isnt X what a bino is fundamentally about? Why else do they exist? As above, objective/aperture do sort of describe a binos size AND enables the EP calculation. Good enough, as EP is important but subordinate in importance to all that a bino does. Why does the presence of a symbol require for you a math function is inferred? This is not convention.

 

[kimmik]

Good post, I think I see the fundamental difference in our reasoning now.

You propose magnification to be more important than aperture.

I propose aperture to be more important than magnification.

 

[GrampaTom]

Good post, I think I see the fundamental difference in our reasoning now.

You propose magnification to be more important than aperture.

I propose aperture to be more important than magnification.

Well sure. Are you really proposing the opposite? I wondered initially if thats what you meant, but confess I dismissed the idea. You couldn't possibly be thinking that... could you?

If you subtract magnification from the reason a bino exists, what is it then? Why does it exist? Ive been yelled at for this before. Its OK. The primary function of a binocular is to bring things closer, make them bigger - you get to choose how you think of it. Everything else is subordinate to that goal. Resolution for me would be right up there next to mag. Mag without sharp and clear isnt so good. But then FOV, AFOV, DOF, EP, Transmission, Haptics, Ergos, weight, size are valueless things without magnification. Is this deniable?

In fact Id suggest the reason the industry chooses the convention to put that foot forward first in labeling, is because this is the point, why folks buy binos. THAT is not only the convention, it is why we have them.

 

[Maljunulo]

Aperture (light gathering) is more important if you are thinking like an astronomer.

Stars are (mostly) point sources, so there is no way to make them closer, but with more aperture we can see more of them. They are self-luminous and some are dimmer and/or farther away than others.

Birds are diffuse objects, not point sources, and we see them only by reflected light.

 

[kimmik]

I don’t have much to add at this point. Using your example, 1000x mag with 1mm aperture is also useless.

We just differ fundamentally in our priorities, and seems like most people are happy with mag being more important than aperture, leading to the existence of 30x50mm etc.

 

[GrampaTom]

Cool.

To wander a bit, but maybe this is heading to a relevant place. Here’s a thought I suspect is only mine. This is Birdforum. We are interacting in the binocular sub group. Shouldn’t we then be orienting the conversation to binoculars for birding? I get discussions of astronomy augment understanding of a Bino, scopes sort of even more, but we wander afield at our peril.

I get there are the Bino junkies here, remember I’m a recovering gear head so get to throw around terms like that…. And so many will take the convo around binos waay beyond what’s relevant or needed for birding. It’s OK, there are things to be gleaned from those convos.

Missing to my mind tho, because we are birders and might offend sensibilities, is participation of the hunting community. I know many here are or were, but respect the rules. But, if you think about it, hunters experience is rather more valuable, relevant to Bino use than astronomers, I suspect.

 

[kimmik]

I don't recall seeing a single star in my recent binoculars. They are for nature and travel, if that clarifies my use for you.

If you wish to discount the opinion of astro users on birdforum, I am the least of your "concern".

 

[GrampaTom]

I don't recall seeing a single star in my recent binoculars. They are for nature and travel, if that clarifies my use for you.

If you wish to discount the opinion of astro users on birdforum, I am the least of your "concern".

Cool! Context IS critical. We do too little of it.

Re astro users, please no, it's not a zero sum thing. I dont want to dis Henry, Tringa, Hermann others who do love looking at Saturn's rings. It does though seem clear (pun intended), what they do, look for, evaluate in an optic, is different from a birder or hunter's perspective.

Mal's comment above in 51 for instance. Or a recent post by Henry, (if I have it right), acknowledged his preference for AFOV is do to the fact that scopes come without eyepieces and AFOV informs his evaluation of a scope's FOV ability when eyepiece is not involved. Please dont ask me to explain that... Just sayin.

 

[Binocollector]

It does though seem clear (pun intended), what they do, look for, evaluate in an optic, is different from a birder or hunter's perspective.

That is very true. I have one bino especially that is barely usable during the day because of some ugly reflections in form of a "light ring" around the FoV. It's an old Japanese 9x63 with Abbe-Koenig-prisms. It has a tiny FoV of 5.5° on top. But it delivers stunning views on the night-sky just because of the light-gathering power of a 9x63 and the strange ring doesn't occur at night, not even when looking at the moon.