james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Some of us actually use the close focus to infinity a lot, with insects for instance. I actually find the turn and half for the HT and FL a bit slow - the Conquest HD at one full turn is marvelous and precise.
-
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.
New binoculars from leica (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter PIER PAOLO
- Start date
Some of us actually use the close focus to infinity a lot, with insects for instance. I actually find the turn and half for the HT and FL a bit slow - the Conquest HD at one full turn is marvelous and precise.
DavidBowman
Active member
Yes, we're all different. I do a lot of insect/butterfly/dragonfly watching as well as birding but can't ever recall needing to go from close-up to infinity or vice versa with such rapidity. Not sure of the technicalities behind it but I know that Leica assert that too fast a focus can reduce focus accuracy. In their blurb on the Noctivids they empahsise "precision of focus". There's rarely a free lunch where optical design is concerned and we all make our choices based on how we use our binos.
Cheers David
Hi David.
Me and Troubadoris visit the south of France every few years, when we can tear ourselves away from the Scottish Islands and there are many places down there where you can be looking at a dragonfly very close by and then something like a Marsh Harrier or Squacco Heron or Short-toed Eagle might suddenly appear in the far distance and no sooner have you decided what the distant bird is, some exotic Hairstreak or blue butterfly flutters by and in the space of a minute you have gone from closest focus to near-enough infinity and back again. We find this can happen just about anywhere though. On the Western Isles the sequence might be from Large Heath to Great Skua and back to a Magpie Moth then out to a distant Otter. Probably reserves like Minsmere, Walberswick and Leighton Moss are good candidates for this.
Like James I find the Conquest HD 8x32 perfect for this type of usage.
Lee
Is it (are we) there yet Dave? 8-P
It'll be here as soon as I can focus to infinity and back........ a few million times
Sorry, what is the matter with me? Ok forget that. Don't tell me, please.
Make a nice Xmas present. Sorry. Message to self. Shut it. Zipped. |:x|
Calm down Clive. Have a Guinness or something.
This hot weather does strange things to the thought-processes :-O
Lee
DavidBowman
Active member
Yes, I do a lot of similar birding/insect/mammal watching around the Med., in Scotland and across other continents and wasn't really saying that I never switched from insects to birds and back again
just that I can't remember any occasion on which another half turn or so of a focussing wheel (which must take, what, 0.1 of a second?) made any difference to confirming an ID Cheers David
DavidBowman
Active member
Is it (are we) there yet Dave? 8-P
It'll be here as soon as I can focus to infinity and back........ a few million times
Sorry, what is the matter with me? Ok forget that. Don't tell me, please.
Make a nice Xmas present. Sorry. Message to self. Shut it. Zipped. |:x|
Still waiting, Clive - I'm sure they won't arrive before I head off to Falsterbo next Wednesday. I keep telling myself I'm not bothered and they'll be something to look forward to when I get back
Cheers David
Yes, I do a lot of similar birding/insect/mammal watching around the Med., in Scotland and across other continents and wasn't really saying that I never switched from insects to birds and back again
Cheers David
OK gotcha. But lets say you have just decided that the distant small eagle is a Short-toed and as you walk along by a river you spot a large dark dragonfly over the water! Is it Macromia? Your fingers pump the focus wheel to get from infinity down to the dragon but by this time the dragon has gone. You wait for it or another when over the trees in the distance comes a kite and its sideways on to you so doesn't give you a helpful silhouette. Black or Red? More finger pumping but too late because it dips behind the trees.
Its these sorts of scenarios that make the Conquest with its faster focus than HT or SF so useful in those situations.
In the Western Isles, this sort of thing doesn't happen with the same frequency or intensity so I only use the Conquest occasionally there, prefering the wider FOV of SF.
Lee
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Yes, I do a lot of similar birding/insect/mammal watching around the Med., in Scotland and across other continents and wasn't really saying that I never switched from insects to birds and back again
Cheers David
Happens to me all the time, which is why I use Zeiss 8x32 FL for most butterflying+birding (rather than e.g. Swarovski 8.5x42 EL). Most birds that I need the bins for are far away and most insects are very close. It's kind of like tripods in nature photography. The most useful heights are ground level and high as it goes, so how well one can switch back and forth is critical to a tripod's utility.
Although there is no "free lunch", a binocular need not sacrifice focusing precision at distance to gain fast near-range focus. Several less-than-top-end bins (Brunton Epoch, Pentax Papilio, Minox HG) have successfully employed a variable-ratio focus drive to get around the limitations of conventional focus mechanisms, but so far we've not seen this from the top European makes (or from Nikon). It took forever for the Euro brands to take "field flattening" seriously, but now that they have done so (first Swarovski, followed by Zeiss, and now Leica), perhaps they will give attention to variable-ratio focus as they look for something else to improve.
--AP
DavidBowman
Active member
It may be because some people don't find it a problem
Also, some people (like me!) can't stand field flatteners due to the rolling globe problem - makes me want to keel over when I'm panning! Hope Leica never go down that road.Cheers David
It may be because some people don't find it a problem
Cheers David
Each to his own David. Leica say that a flattener is not fitted to Noctivid so they are aware of the concerns of folks like yourself although it does seem to have one but used in a different and milder way than Swaro or even Zeiss. Henry posted a possible explanation of how it works.
Lee
I've already had the something and it just so happens Dave is heading to the source of it, Snus. Now this can't be a coincidence surely?
I quit drinking (and thought I would be saner?) but I might still have the odd one, still love Guinness especially with a steak)
Still waiting, Clive - I'm sure they won't arrive before I head off to Falsterbo next Wednesday. I keep telling myself I'm not bothered and they'll be something to look forward to when I get back
Cheers David
Bring me back a truck load of Snus :-O
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
This is another area of confusion and misinformation. Correcting peripheral astigmatism, peripheral focus, or both (as done by various field flatteners in the broad sense) does not have to come at the cost of inducing rolling ball. No one complains of rolling ball in the Fuji and Nikon porros (and the Nikon 8x40 Classic Eagle roof) with field flatteners. The Nikon Venturer/HG roofs were notorious for it, but do folks complain about rolling ball in the EDG bins? I don't recall that they do. Sorry to inform, but happily, for those of us who don't like suboptimal optical performance outside the center of the field, it seems Leica has already started down that road with the Noctivids (despite their statements to the contrary).
--AP
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
I'll say this is an area of "confusion and misinformation."
Field flatteners control field curvature, which is an aberration of focus, while "rolling ball" is a perceptual response to distortion, which is an aberration of magnification. Correcting either aberration does not require correcting the other. For terrestrial applications (as opposed to astronomy) an optimal design arguably includes enough field curvature to support 'spatial presence,' and enough distortion to nullify the 'globe illusion.' Both criteria are perceptual, and Leica may well have come up with an optimized design to satisfy both. We shall see soon enough.
Ed
"No one complains of rolling ball in the Fuji and Nikon porros"
That is because the users are mostly big hairy chested sailor dudes who are hardly affected by such trivial fluff.
My 140 lb. and easily injured self, however, having been sensitized (educated!) by this very forum, and seeing the very tiny if any pincushion or barrel distortion in these Fujinons, unfortunately does notice the dreaded RB. This is quite inoffensive in the 7x50 due to the narrow 52deg apparent field, just not much ball there to roll. In the 8x30 however, with its pleasant 60deg field, it's quite noticeable...for about the first 5 minutes, about the same as in the Swarovision for me. I can take it.
Indeed, Ed, a field flattener might reasonably be expected to flatten the field or reduce field curvature, but that is not what they seem to do in the FMT-SX Fujinons, which have a considerable 3 diopters center to edge. Their "field flatteners" apparently correct off axis astigmatism, and as a result the binoculars can be focused sharp as you please at the edge, except for lateral color. I expect that Fujinon's "false advertising" is necessitated by intelligible product naming. FMT is bad enough, a ROAAMT-SX would be kind of scary.
Ron
That is because the users are mostly big hairy chested sailor dudes who are hardly affected by such trivial fluff.
My 140 lb. and easily injured self, however, having been sensitized (educated!) by this very forum, and seeing the very tiny if any pincushion or barrel distortion in these Fujinons, unfortunately does notice the dreaded RB. This is quite inoffensive in the 7x50 due to the narrow 52deg apparent field, just not much ball there to roll. In the 8x30 however, with its pleasant 60deg field, it's quite noticeable...for about the first 5 minutes, about the same as in the Swarovision for me. I can take it.
Indeed, Ed, a field flattener might reasonably be expected to flatten the field or reduce field curvature, but that is not what they seem to do in the FMT-SX Fujinons, which have a considerable 3 diopters center to edge. Their "field flatteners" apparently correct off axis astigmatism, and as a result the binoculars can be focused sharp as you please at the edge, except for lateral color. I expect that Fujinon's "false advertising" is necessitated by intelligible product naming. FMT is bad enough, a ROAAMT-SX would be kind of scary.
Ron
Are people who don't like roller coaster fairground rides or those with occasional vertigo or ear balance problems more likely to experience rolling ball?
The 12x40 Russian and 7x30, 10x42 Russian binoculars I don't like at all.
Partly, the full Moon looks stupid squashed near the edge.
When I was young I had good sea legs. Not nowadays.
Young people can apparently stand on one leg for 15 seconds without toppling.
65 year olds 4 seconds.
The 12x40 Russian and 7x30, 10x42 Russian binoculars I don't like at all.
Partly, the full Moon looks stupid squashed near the edge.
When I was young I had good sea legs. Not nowadays.
Young people can apparently stand on one leg for 15 seconds without toppling.
65 year olds 4 seconds.
The-Wanderer
Well-known member
73 year olds difficult with two feet; I need another.
Similar threads
