3D in the roof and Porro image (1 Viewer)

[SuperDuty]

How much value do you place on the 3D effect seen in certain binoculars ? Do you find it natural, unnatural, pleasant, unpleasant ? I've owned a Nikon SE, Minox BP, 10X50 SV, 8.5X42 SV, I used to think the Porro view was more captivating, but 3D or not, the SVs have more Pop to my eyes. There isn't a set answer obviously, what do you think ?

Robert

 

[FrankD]

Depends on the day of the week. As strange as it may seem there are some days when I feel more comfortable with the roof image and some days I feel more comfortable with the porro.

 

[Theo98]

There isn't a set answer obviously, what do you think ?

Robert

As others comment to this topic Robert, there will probably be as many diverse answers. The porros I own (Habicht and some good Asian glass) to my eyes all have a 3D effect that during glassing sessions, cause me eye strain. It's similar to the effects I get when using 3D glasses at the theater, or on a good home theater 3D presentation. FOR ME, it doesn't look or feel very natural or comfortable and because of My reaction to what ever is going on (in my mind), the reverse occurs and I immediately Relax and become much more Immersed into the FOV, including their DOF, when using quality roofs! I know, weird, but that's me.

Certainly, others will "see" it differently and rightly so, praise the 3D wonders of the porros. It's All Good but what it really boils down to is, the Eyes of the Beholder!

Just my .02 cents!

Ted

 

[SuperDuty]

Neil at CameraLand once told me that Porro binoculars made him nauseous.:-O

 

[Boogieshrew]

My favourite view is still the Nikon SE 8x32, in large part because of the 3D but also because there is more to the view than the sum of its parts somehow. I prefer its view to my FL 7x42s and Swaro EL 8.5x42s (non-SV).

The SEs just suit me best and the 3D image is part of the equation. I like 7x roofs for the 3D image they provide too.

 

[WJC]

Neil at CameraLand once told me that Porro binoculars made him nauseous.:-O

We are all different. However, when we get THAT different it's time to look into the cause.

Years ago, a man came to my shop wanting to buy a monocular because "binoculars made [him] dizzy." Forcing the issue, I had him look through 3 binos. None made him dizzy. This fellow had been coming in once a year to buy 10 plastic paperweights for himself and the crew. He was entirely too CHEAP for his own good and had never looked through a quality instrument before.

The problem was not what was in front of his eyes, but, rather, what was between his ears. :cat:

Bill

 

[[email protected]]

How much value do you place on the 3D effect seen in certain binoculars ? Do you find it natural, unnatural, pleasant, unpleasant ? I've owned a Nikon SE, Minox BP, 10X50 SV, 8.5X42 SV, I used to think the Porro view was more captivating, but 3D or not, the SVs have more Pop to my eyes. There isn't a set answer obviously, what do you think ?

Robert

I prefer the view through a good roof like the Swarovision's. A roof definitely has an advantage at close range because of parallax. My porro's are all gone including the SE and EII. The alpha roofs now days are where it's at. Get ya an SV or SF and you will be happy. The "Top Guns" from two of the top manufacturers. Porro's are relic's.

 

[SuperDuty]

Neil has access to any Alpha binocular currently made any time he cares to look through them.

We are all different. However, when we get THAT different it's time to look into the cause.

Years ago, a man came to my shop wanting to buy a monocular because "binoculars made [him] dizzy." Forcing the issue, I had him look through 3 binos. None made him dizzy. This fellow had been coming in once a year to buy 10 plastic paperweights for himself and the crew. He was entirely too CHEAP for his own good and had never looked through a quality instrument before.

The problem was not what was in front of his eyes, but, rather, what was between his ears. :cat:

Bill

 

[[email protected]]

Neil at CameraLand once told me that Porro binoculars made him nauseous.:-O

I know what he means. The porro's don't seem to converge the image like a roof. Sometime your eyes have to adapt to bring the image together. It is like the image is more spread out.

 

[WJC]

Neil has access to any Alpha binocular currently made any time he cares to look through them.

I was in no way throwing stones, just relating an experience.

Bill

 

[SuperDuty]

I understand.

I was in no way throwing stones, just relating an experience.

Bill

 

[CliveP]

I was outdoors trying my little Carson Mini Scout 7x18 reverse porro yesterday but for years I have always used only roofs (except my 15x70 porro on tripod).

When I tried my roofs later on at home after a few hours using the small rev porro my eyes couldn't collimated the roofs image until after I rested them for a few minutes and even then the roofs still seemed a little strange.

Now this morning the roofs seem absolutely normal again, which I like, so I am now somewhat wary of the reverse porro as it seems to do something to my eyes or brain or both. Never had this effect with my Papilio II 6.5x21 though but it has some eye relief whereas the Carson has very little so I think it's something eye relief related?

The Carson does maybe have some sort of 3Dness to it (maybe just good dof) but this is a weird effect with using a roof after the rev porro and is a new phenomenon for me.

It was also not as noticeable with larger roofs though.

Strangely also when out with the rev porro I seemed to enjoy the simpler view with my roof monoc but the porro was much more effective over distance - 7x18 bin v 6x16 monoc - and great for about 2m closeup so was the winner really. I think my monoc and 10x25 roof bins a better combo but the 7x18 is definitely great for a small jacket pocket or shirt pocket.

I filed a bit off the Carson focus wheel to allow my eyes to get close enough to the lenses but then maybe this has enhanced the strange effect. It definitely improved the rev porro 9.3 deg fov though.

I also like the little bit of extra transmission the porro gives or better contrast/sharpness not having to bounce off an extra mirrored and phase corrected roof surface but I do seem to find roofs easier to cope with as far as ease on the eyes, maybe just the plainer less 3D view or flatland as it has been described but that's really a monoc and even then it's not that bad. I actually like to have my monoc here to hand to have a quick one handed grab initial look and if I need more then grab the bin.

The other day I went out with the 6x16 monoc and my 8x32 bin and the bin stayed in the bag but I was trying to get a handle on the monoc and it did provide enough entertainment and yesterday I had it on a lanyard around my neck and found that good also for quick grab and look around the 6x16 being steady enough for one hand and the 10 deg fov giving a nice vista.

 

[mfunnell]

Porro's are relics.

That's one for the ages!

...Mike

 

[Pileatus]

How much value do you place on the 3D effect seen in certain binoculars ? Do you find it natural, unnatural, pleasant, unpleasant ? I've owned a Nikon SE, Minox BP, 10X50 SV, 8.5X42 SV, I used to think the Porro view was more captivating, but 3D or not, the SVs have more Pop to my eyes. There isn't a set answer obviously, what do you think ?

Robert

The 3D porro advantage diminishes with distance so it all depends on the type of birding one does. Distant hawks, for example, all appear on a thin, flat plane, regardless of binocular format. Up close and personal, the 3D effect is rather captivating.

 

[Chosun Juan]

How much value do you place on the 3D effect seen in certain binoculars ? Do you find it natural, unnatural, pleasant, unpleasant ? I've owned a Nikon SE, Minox BP, 10X50 SV, 8.5X42 SV, I used to think the Porro view was more captivating, but 3D or not, the SVs have more Pop to my eyes. There isn't a set answer obviously, what do you think ?

Robert

Robbo, as far as I know I have a pretty standard set of eyes (though doe-sized and myopic) in a pretty normal head! I find the Zeiss 8x42 HT is a pretty nice compromise - not to mention pretty nice glass! :t: The A-K prisms give the objectives a slightly wider spacing though not hammerhead-like as in the real deal Porro I. This means that you get a slight 3-D effect which is perceptually enhanced somewhat by the circle of condition design pincushion optics, but not at the expense of any detectable ity-bity-teeny-weeny Porro I image scale reduction ..... 8x still seems 8x. Also, there's that lovely Porro-like clarity too.

The 10x50 SV's through some process of esoteric magic that I don't quite fully understand also have a very nice 3-D effect --- the best of any roof I have seen :king: The view is crystalline for sure, the sharpness across the large field very satisfying, and the range of colours outstanding, yet they just don't quite have that last p**fteenth of a % of Porro 'clarity' .... not a criticism - just an observation ..... though they do stand out as a genuine 'WOW' view.

My former Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED's on the other hand had a very nice pronounced 3-D effect, although at the cost of an image scale that looked more like 7x magnification most-wheres at less than moonshot distances, especially close-up ..... a little bit annoying :cat:

The 3D porro advantage diminishes with distance so it all depends on the type of birding one does. Distant hawks, for example, all appear on a thin, flat plane, regardless of binocular format. Up close and personal, the 3D effect is rather captivating.

Yes and No Pilly. I agree that the 3-D effect wanes as distance increases, and thankfully the image-scale returns back toward the normal roof fold, and yet, I was struck once by a comparison on a fullish moon between the aforementioned Swift Porro, and the distinctly pincushion bowl like Zen ED3 roof. The moon that resembled a flattish disk with the Zen roofs transformed into an actual sphere hanging in space through the Swift Porro's ......

If I had to try and figure it out, I would say that it was probably due to about 4 things ......
1) the Porro 'clarity'
2) the 'extreme' contrast of the deep blackness of space and the bright moon, and the literally 'infinite' distance between subject and background
3) the slightly better (different? coz the Zen's pretty good) CA handling, so more defined edge, and yes,
4) the 3-D effect

Just what I saw at the time is all ..... :cat:


Chosun :gh:

 

[Theo98]

The 10x50 SV's through some process of esoteric magic that I don't quite fully understand also have a very nice 3-D effect --- the best of any roof I have seen :king: The view is crystalline for sure, the sharpness across the large field very satisfying, and the range of colours outstanding, yet they just don't quite have that last p**fteenth of a % of Porro 'clarity' .... not a criticism - just an observation ..... though they do stand out as a genuine 'WOW' view.

Agreed! Even though their 3D effect is hard to explain for SP prisms, IMO their stereopsis prowess could be attributable to the 15mm offset centers between their objectives and oculars! :king:

My former Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED's on the other hand had a very nice pronounced 3-D effect, although at the cost of an image scale that looked more like 7x magnification most-wheres at less than moonshot distances, especially close-up ..... a little bit annoying
Chosun

CJ,

Before reading your comments, I thought I was the only person who while glassing with porros (including my Habichts), experienced what seems like a reduction in stated power. The reduction to me appears more vertical than horizontal, creating an image that seems to be compressed down from the top and up from the bottom. I've not glassed with the Swifts, but all porros I've looked through quickly induce enough eye strain that I have to put them down. The AK prisms of the HT 10x42 to me, didn't offer any more 3D or stereopsis than the SLC's...but as been reported on BF, seems like the HT 8x42's may work better in that regard.

Either way, my porros are classics and will probably keep for the near future.

Ted

 

[SivaL]

I have noticed objects appearing smaller with the Nikon EII. When I searched I found that it was already discussed in BF, as usual

This is Henry's comment from 10 years back http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=265267&postcount=2

...illusion of higher magnification in roof (or reverse pro) compared to traditional pro. It results from the closer spacing of the objectives and is most pronounced at short distances. The difference in the angles of the triangle made by the objectives and the object being observed fools the brain into believing that the object in the roof prism bin is farther away and therefore absolutely larger. Close one eye and it goes away. Your objection to the images separating at close distances in the SE also results from it's wider objective spacing. The only thing you can do about that is to narrow the interpupilary distance a bit when you are looking at something close up.

Henry

CJ,

Before reading your comments, I thought I was the only person who while glassing with porros (including my Habichts), experienced what seems like a reduction in stated power. The reduction to me appears more vertical than horizontal, creating an image that seems to be compressed down from the top and up from the bottom. I've not glassed with the Swifts, but all porros I've looked through quickly induce enough eye strain that I have to put them down. The AK prisms of the HT 10x42 to me, didn't offer any more 3D or stereopsis than the SLC's...but as been reported on BF, seems like the HT 8x42's may work better in that regard.

Either way, my porros are classics and will probably keep for the near future.

Ted

 

[[email protected]]

I have noticed objects appearing smaller with the Nikon EII. When I searched I found that it was already discussed in BF, as usual

This is Henry's comment from 10 years back http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=265267&postcount=2

That is one of the things I don't like about Porro's. The smaller image scale.

 

[Chicolom]

So do reverse porros give the illusion of higher magnificent than roofs at short distances, since their objectives are closer together?

 

[henry link]

Yes, they do.