OakStuddedAcres
Active member
Thanks for this link!
...I'm one of those who simply has no interest in trying to look at the image at the field stop. It seems a terribly unnatural thing to do. One never looks at an image at one's natural field stop after all, and even if you move your eyes to the extremities of the FOV of your vision, the image remains the same because the pupil is centred on the image. But one never even does that - you move you head if moving your eyes more than a few degrees in any direction. Trying to look at the field edge in a binocular feels as unnatural to me as not moving my head whilst looking around. I simply move the binocular, and do the same even if it's mounted on a tripod...
Moreover, your point about not looking at our own eyes' field stops (i.e. that we do not, except in rare circumstance, view critically using peripheral vision) is a completing irrelevant misdirect. It does not at all describe what is happening when looking through a bin off-axis. When viewing off-axis though a bin, one is (as you say, and I agree) using one's central vision, just (as I say) as when looking around a scene normally. I expect, when I look this way and that around the world by moving my eyes, for my central vision to remain comfortably high resolution and in focus, not to be (as in a bin with off-axis astigmatism or field curvature) challenged by all-of-a-sudden needing a different glasses prescription (as is effectively the case when looking off-axis through a bin with off-axis astigmatism or field curvature)!--AP
...I DO understand your point, and if I was like you I would probably demand a flat field, but I'm not, so I don't!...
One needs to remember that flat field designs do come with their own, built-in draw backs as well. I find most flat fields to possess some degree of rolling-ball, or at least unusual bending of lines while panning, as well as AMD at the edge. Also, to me at least, these flat fields lack some of the dynamic perception of depth that a curved design shows and gives me the impression of looking at a screen image, rather than something from life.
To each his own.
One needs to remember that flat field designs do come with their own, built-in draw backs as well. I find most flat fields to possess some degree of rolling-ball, or at least unusual bending of lines while panning, as well as AMD at the edge. Also, to me at least, these flat fields lack some of the dynamic perception of depth that a curved design shows and gives me the impression of looking at a screen image, rather than something from life.
To each his own.
As I understand things, one difference is that you feel the bins as extensions of your eyes, whereas I feel them as a windows that I look through with my eyes.
--AP
Glad to know we understand each other, because I think we do. As I understand things, one difference is that you feel the bins as extensions of your eyes, whereas I feel them as a windows that I look through with my eyes.
--AP
I have a more specific question for anyone who has looked through both the 10x42NV and the 10x50HD+ (or even the 10x42HD+, for that matter). Chromatic aberration (CA).
I have not had the opportunity to test the 10x50HD+ in person, although I have tested the NV. I did detect a little CA in the NV, and didn’t have to go all the way to the edge of the field of view to see it. I am susceptible to two things, CA and rolling ball. So, no flat field bins for me, which knocks out the SV and SF for me (too much distortion in both of those when panning, and I’ve looked extensively through both). But I also am no fan of CA, as I can see it pretty clearly when present.
My favorite bin is the 7x42HD+ (No CA, except at the very edge and only during less then perfect atmospheric conditions). I live on the Texas Gulf Coast, and a 10x is useful, particularly at the shore and during winter while viewing raptors when the vegetation has died out over the marshes. Looking for a 10x to compliment my 7x for these situations.
I owned the 10x50SV for a while, and it handled beautifully. No real CA, but over time I still could not get over the RB. The one 10x42NV I looked through had noticeable CA, and I didn’t like the ergonomics as much as my 7x HD+.
Can anyone comment on their experience with CA in either the 10x42 or 10x50 HD+? Is it more, less or the same as the NV (if you’ve had the chance to look through both - or all three)?
Zeiss 10x42 HT - ''no CA for you!''
I would try the HD+ 10X50, it is the one glass that provides SV views with out the flat field/panning/RB issues, but I would try before you buy, at these $$$, highly necessary. Personally I get much more pleasure viewing with 10X50+ than any 10X42 especially for long distance viewing sessions, so much more comfortable on the eyes.
Andy W.
the HD and HD+ models were improved in the handling of CA over the BR.
That is exactly my feeling also. I find actual distortion at field edges distracting (think Zeiss) but am usually not looking for perfect sharpness there, though it's nice for astronomy. It's the central sweet spot (area of sharpness really) that matters most to me, and is improved by flat(ter) field designs. And then on the other hand they tend to have a smaller AFOV, which is less appealing...But I've noticed that well designed binoculars with flat fields that I have used have a larger area of sharpness in their overall view than binoculars without flat fields.
Not sure what you mean in this context by "SV views"... I'm not sure I ever tried the HD+ 10x50, and if not I probably should have. But no one stocks it in my area. Does it not have the traditional optical design like other Leica UVs? (Which I like very much in my 10x32 by the way, but less so in the 42...) How does the eye relief feel, not for eyeglasses but just viewing ease and comfort?I would try the HD+ 10X50, it is the one glass that provides SV views with out the flat field/panning/RB issues...