Is there an optimum FOV, or is bigger always better? (1 Viewer)

[John M Robinson]

Between my five quality bins, Leica 7x35 Retrovids, 8x42 Ultravids, 8x32 and 10x42 Nikon SEs and Fujinon 7x50s. I can notice larger-smaller FOVs as I change from one to the other but none of them are uncomfortably narrow for me, and I rapidly adapt. I think there is a difference between a nice big picture window image and field of view though both can coexist. I love that big picture view, some call it immersive, but you could have a big immersive view with a relatively smaller FOV by having more power in the same size bin.

I know there’s lots more factors that play a part in FOV and maybe some of you can educate me on that. I know from reading many post here that FOV is a major factor for some, while others put more emphasis on others. With the agreement that all the alphas are at the pinnacle of optics design and personal preference and individual taste push each of us one way or another.

For me a big, easy to view picture is prime. I hate blackouts. I also lean towards the Leica image, contrast. As long as the FOV is adequate, I’m happy. What about you guys?

 

[[email protected]]

For me, a big FOV that is sharp to the edge is my number one priority. The bigger, the better, as long as the edges are sharp. That is why I like the Swarovski NL about the best of the alphas. I am sure I would love the View through the Nikon WX, but I don't think I would care to carry 5 pounds around birding all the time.

I like contrast as much as the next guy, but the NL has enough contrast and I don't need the highly saturated colors of a Leica and Leicas do not have the huge FOV's that I prefer. I also hate blackouts, so having the eye cup length and eye relief match the depth and diameter of my eye sockets is very important also. I think most of the alpha level binoculars are about equal in resolution and on-axis sharpness, so that is not a big factor.

Brightness and color neutrality are also important, but most of the alphas are about equally bright. The Swarovski's tend to be a little more color neutral than Zeiss which can have a greenish tint and Leica's which can be more reddish or warmer, and I prefer the neutral color which in a lot of cases appears brighter.

I also have noticed lately some of the newer alpha level binoculars especially the NL have better transparency and that is a quality I look for also now that I realize there is a difference in different binoculars.

 

[Troubador]

I love the big fov of my SF 8x32s but just as important is the way they feel tailored to fit my hands. This latter characteristic makes it easy and comfortable to enjoy that wide-screen view. BUT, depending on the habitat we are exploring (exclusively coastal) my Leica Trinovid HD 8x32 can often be the better choice due to its close-focus distance of only 1 metre and despite the Trinovid's modest fov. It is a pleasure to be able to choose between these two and if I had to choose just one of them it would be the Zeiss as its combination of 150m fov and 1.5m close focus is excellent.

 

[Trinovid]

I'm still too new to the game I suppose, but while I like some wide view binoculars up into probably about 10º or so, wider than that and it starts being annoying for me. The widest I've used so far was about 12º I think, and it was not at all to my liking.

 

[wllmspd]

Something around 76degrees apparent field is nice, much bigger is hard to be sure you are actually seeing the field stop or not. The WX is so wide I couldn’t see the real edge unless I went looking for it… sharp. The mass and ergonomics are not good, but the view…..
I like the Morpheus eyepieces in my binoscope, impressed my optic Kowa/Leica loving friend.

Peter

 

[[email protected]]

I'm still too new to the game I suppose, but while I like some wide view binoculars up into probably about 10º or so, wider than that and it starts being annoying for me. The widest I've used so far was about 12º I think, and it was not at all to my liking.

I think that is because the 10 degree binoculars you tried probably had a lot of field curvature and soft edges. A lot of the old vintage WA porro binoculars were that way with their 10 degree FOV. About the only binocular around with a 10 degree FOV that is sharp to the edge is the WX and not many people have tried one or even seen one.

 

[GrampaTom]

Between my five quality bins, Leica 7x35 Retrovids, 8x42 Ultravids, 8x32 and 10x42 Nikon SEs and Fujinon 7x50s. I can notice larger-smaller FOVs as I change from one to the other but none of them are uncomfortably narrow for me, and I rapidly adapt. I think there is a difference between a nice big picture window image and field of view though both can coexist. I love that big picture view, some call it immersive, but you could have a big immersive view with a relatively smaller FOV by having more power in the same size bin.

I know there’s lots more factors that play a part in FOV and maybe some of you can educate me on that. I know from reading many post here that FOV is a major factor for some, while others put more emphasis on others. With the agreement that all the alphas are at the pinnacle of optics design and personal preference and individual taste push each of us one way or another.

For me a big, easy to view picture is prime. I hate blackouts. I also lean towards the Leica image, contrast. As long as the FOV is adequate, I’m happy. What about you guys?

Im with you John. I notice the difference in FOV and even AFOV between my various binoculars... when purposely looking for it on say the Kaiser hospital's wall concrete seams 75 yards away. "Oh yes, I see the difference. Thats kinda cool." I think. Then I go birding and never notice it. I dont do immersive. Im not trying to crawl into the things. Transparent? Why do I want to see through things? I am focused on the center of the view where a critter might be lurking. Im far more excited about the possibility of the Wood Ducks returning over in that corner, or gadzooks a Hooded Merganser just swam around the bend! In the latter case I move as rapidly as i dare down through the woods to try and recapture that moment. The Anna's Hummingbird flitting about on the Bay Trail 10' away is easy to pickup and track with whatever bino is to hand. I prefer to look through my binos at stuff, not at them.

 

[Maljunulo]

With the agreement that all the alphas are at the pinnacle of optics design ……..

From what I have seen, over the years here, we can’t even agree on that.

 

[[email protected]]

Im with you John. I notice the difference in FOV and even AFOV between my various binoculars... when purposely looking for it on say the Kaiser hospital's wall concrete seams 75 yards away. "Oh yes, I see the difference. Thats kinda cool." I think. Then I go birding and never notice it. I dont do immersive. Im not trying to crawl into the things. Transparent? Why do I want to see through things? I am focused on the center of the view where a critter might be lurking. Im far more excited about the possibility of the Wood Ducks returning over in that corner, or gadzooks a Hooded Merganser just swam around the bend! In the latter case I move as rapidly as i dare down through the woods to try and recapture that moment. The Anna's Hummingbird flitting about on the Bay Trail 10' away is easy to pickup and track with whatever bino is to hand. I prefer to look through my binos at stuff, not at them.

Transparent doesn't mean seeing through things. It means not seeing any aberrations or optical artifacts in your FOV. If a binocular is transparent, it seems like you have magically moved up to the bird 8x or 10x times closer without any glass or barriers in between you. The difference I notice between even an EL and an NL is with the NL it is almost like you have removed a layer of film off the binocular. It is almost like when you forget to take the protective film off your new cell phone screen.

 

[Troubador]

Im with you John. I notice the difference in FOV and even AFOV between my various binoculars... when purposely looking for it on say the Kaiser hospital's wall concrete seams 75 yards away. "Oh yes, I see the difference. Thats kinda cool." I think. Then I go birding and never notice it. I dont do immersive. Im not trying to crawl into the things. Transparent? Why do I want to see through things? I am focused on the center of the view where a critter might be lurking. Im far more excited about the possibility of the Wood Ducks returning over in that corner, or gadzooks a Hooded Merganser just swam around the bend! In the latter case I move as rapidly as i dare down through the woods to try and recapture that moment. The Anna's Hummingbird flitting about on the Bay Trail 10' away is easy to pickup and track with whatever bino is to hand. I prefer to look through my binos at stuff, not at them.

We have gnawed away at this topic before. For me a wide field of view doesn't give me 'immersive' what is gives me is the knowledge that as I pan across a bay of exposed rocks and skerries that I have better chance of more quickly spotting an Otter simply because the slice of world magnified by 8x that I can see through the binos is bigger. For me its not about looking at the binos, that is not why I have binoculars, its about more rapidly scanning a shoreline and bay and exposed rocks and finding stuff more quickly and then studying it to see what it is doing. I really think we are talking the same language here.

 

[GrampaTom]

Transparent doesn't mean seeing through things. It means not seeing any aberrations or optical artifacts in your FOV. If a binocular is transparent, it seems like you have magically moved up to the bird 8x or 10x times closer without any glass or barriers in between you. The difference I notice between even an EL and an NL is with the NL it is almost like you have removed a layer of film off the binocular.

Nah. I have both. I use both.

 

[GrampaTom]

We have gnawed away at this topic before. For me a wide field of view doesn't give me 'immersive' what is gives me is the knowledge that as I pan across a bay of exposed rocks and skerries that I have better chance of more quickly spotting an Otter simply because the slice of world magnified by 8x that I can see through the binos is bigger. For me its not about looking at the binos, that is not why I have binoculars, its about more rapidly scanning a shoreline and bay and exposed rocks and finding stuff more quickly and then studying it to see what it is doing. I really think we are talking the same language here.

Indeed we have. You like to look left and right within the field of view of your binos. I learned to move my head with binos affixed to face. Its 6 o' one... Whatever works is fine. At least we are looking through to stuff!

Ask me about my new lens Lee. Cataracts surgery was an adventure.

 

[Conndomat]

+- 60° degrees AFOV...

Andreas

 

[John M Robinson]

Indeed we have. You like to look left and right within the field of view of your binos. I learned to move my head with binos affixed to face. Its 6 o' one... Whatever works is fine. At least we are looking through to stuff!

Ask me about my new lens Lee. Cataracts surgery was an adventure.

I guess that’s it, whatever floats your boat. For me, just using my naked eye with no binoculars , I notice a very wide field of view through my periphery, but I’m really only able to focus on a fairly narrow spot in the center. That’s just the way my eye-brain works. It’s the same looking through my binoculars, I can see a nice sharp field edge all the way around, but my attention is on the center third of the view, so I pan a lot. If I see something of interest, I immediately center it in my image. I can’t imagine seeing something on the extreme edge out of the corner of my eye so to speak.

Im perfectly happy with my 8x42 Ultravids, nice big picture window view, sharp as anything I can see with my 20-15 vision, they are in the ballpark of their competition FOV wise, but slightly less. I’m in the market for some nice 10x42s, Noctovid, EL, NL Pure or Zeiss, I’ll compare every aspect of them and pick what’s best for me. I don’t think that between the four, FOV is going to be a major consideration.

 

[Scott98]

FWIW John your post articulates my thoughts on FOV almost exactly. It's something I notice when I first pick up the binos and look through them. But after a few minutes of observing, I don't notice if the field is wide or narrow, I mentally adjust and anything over 50 degrees just seems normal. And blackouts/ease of viewing is huge, it doesn't show up in specs but it's the biggest factor in how much I like the optics, definitely more than AFOV.

 

[Troubador]

Indeed we have. You like to look left and right within the field of view of your binos. I learned to move my head with binos affixed to face. Its 6 o' one... Whatever works is fine. At least we are looking through to stuff!

Ask me about my new lens Lee. Cataracts surgery was an adventure.

No, I don't look right and left within the fov (that is something Swaro owners often say when they are praising Swaro's sharp edges) like you look at the centre of the fov and move the binos to get any object of interest in the centre, hence in post 10 I mention "I pan across a bay".

Sounds like your cataract surgery has been a success. I am very happy for you, tell us more.

 

[William Lewis]

There seems to be a bit of fov obsession going around at the moment, its how the top marques are differentiating their top models from lesser ones - wide, flat, c.a free but not necessarily ultimately bright fields of view.

I don't mind a wide field of view but all the glass involved contorting light this way and that as well as the inherent need for either a fair amount of pincushion distortion or Rolling ball is the price you pay along with the weight of the glass itself for these wide, flat fields.

I'm on the fence as to whether it's worth it or to be more specific how much compromise is worth is. There is something lost along the way that's hard to pin down but when I was comparing my habicht 7x42 with my SLC and even my e2 8x30 there is certainly something lost as well as gained.

I remember watching a grey heron flying off through my 7x42 habichts and it was so clear, so sharp, reality bright and just natural, but 7x closer. My other glass is great but not quite the same, slightly less natural, it can be harder to navigate a scene to a point of interest - the scene isn't as similar to the one you see with your eyes, there is more of it though which helps tip the balance back.

I don't have quite the same impression with more "advanced" binoculars packed full of glass, it's different, not necessarily better or worse. Objectively though they are surely better, empirically better too all of which must help sales but qualitatively, I'm not so sure.

I suppose what I'm saying is there is a degree of trade off, how much is too much? That's up to you.

Here's a small section of the world through my old habichts, narrow, blurry at the edges but nice!

Will

 

[Maljunulo]

This is a general statement and observation, not directed at anyone.

It seems to me that many, if not most, of those who pose the question “Is this worth it?“ have already decided the answer is “no”.

Again, just an observation.

 

[GrampaTom]

There seems to be a bit of fov obsession going around at the moment, its how the top marques are differentiating their top models from lesser ones - wide, flat, c.a free but not necessarily ultimately bright field of views.

I don't mind a wide field of view but all the glass involved contorting light this way and that as well as the inherent need for either a fair amount of pincushion distortion or Rolling ball is the price you pay along with the weight of the glass itself for these wide, flat fields.

I'm on the fence as to whether it's worth it or to be more specific how much compromise is worth is. There is something lost along the way that's hard to pin down but when I was comparing my habicht 7x42 with my SLC and even my e2 8x30 there is certainly something lost as well as gained.

I remember watching a grey heron flying off through my 7x42 habichts and it was so clear, so sharp, reality bright and just natural, but 7x closer. My other glass is great but not quite the same, slightly less natural, it can be harder to navigate a scene to a point of interest - the scene isn't as similar to the one you see with your eyes, there is more of it though which helps tip the balance back.

I don't have quite the same impression with more "advanced" binoculars packed full of glass, it's different, not necessarily better or worse. Objectively though they are surely better, empirically better too all of which must help sales but qualitatively, I'm not so sure.

I suppose what I'm saying is there is a degree of trade off, how much is too much? That's up to you.

Here's a small section of the world through my old habichts, narrow, blurry at the edges but nice!View attachment 1499202

Will

We can think about this stuff forever. Lots of glass? I dont know. Special curves for various pieces, (of it)? I imagine. Change is hard... for most of us humans. If youre used to one thing, the next best may be a challenge. Luckily as a user and not a collector, Im not constantly checking one against the other looking for nuances that I may or may not like. Im way more interested in finding birds. Lee and a couple others here know I busted my ankle while birding several months ago. Thats far more attention grabbing than 5 degrees of AFOV (present or missing). But Oh the views that day, with my skinny FOV ELS!

 

[Conndomat]

Lee and a couple others here know I busted my ankle while birding several months ago. Thats far more attention grabbing than 5 degrees of AFOV (present or missing). But Oh the views that day, with my skinny FOV ELS!

Oooh Tom get well soon!
I hope everything grows well again?!

Andreas