• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Do you like the VIEW better through a Porro or a Roof prism binocular? (1 Viewer)

I long ago came around to the view that the extra stereopsis of Porros with wide objective spacing is in balance a negative feature. I don't see anything more natural or more useful about a bit more stereopsis at mid distances before the effect fades away at long distance and it's a distinct disadvantage at close range where it hinders the centering of an object of interest in both telescopes simultaneously.

As for "flat fields", I much prefer them, at least when properly defined as fields corrected for astigmatism and field curvature and my preference for distortion is mild to moderate pincushion. Of course neither of those has anything to do with prisms.
Good answer! How do you like the "flat field" on your NL 8x42 compared to the not as "flat field" Zeiss 8x56 FL?
 
Ok. Let me change the question around. If you had a Porro prism binocular and a Roof prism binocular with an identical view in every respect EXCEPT the Porro had a 3D view and the Roof prism was a flat field which would you prefer?
Aha, I didn't know we were in one of those movies from a trial where the lawyer twists his questions in order to get the witness on the box to confess he or she did murder the victim :p
Following your simplistic approach:
Yes I looove Porro prism binoculars, I use them on a daily basis and love what they can offer.
No, I don't think that a Porro is better than a roof, because, as I said, the view is made up of many aspects, and the prisms used are just one part of the equation.

If I could daydream my perfect binocular yes it would be a Porro prism binocular. It would be a 7x32 Swarovski PL (a new series they come up with in my dreams, taking the NL into Porro territory), with 9º FOV, the grip and feel of an EL, a weight of 450-480 g (around a pound) and the size of a Leupold Yosemite/Kowa YF, with the eyecups of the 8x32 EL and the contrast of the 7x35 Retrovid. There you go ;)
 
I long ago came around to the view that the extra stereopsis of Porros with wide objective spacing is in balance a negative feature. I don't see anything more natural or more useful about what I see as a fairly modest increase in stereopsis at mid distances before the effect fades away at long distance and it's a distinct disadvantage at close range where it hinders the centering of an object of interest in both telescopes simultaneously.
Interesting points. I personally like the stereopsis at mid distances a lot. Not that it offers any "real" advantages, I just like the image more. It looks "more natural" to me. You're right of course about close range observations, however, I rarely observe butterflies and so on, and at 6 m or more porros work OK for me.
As for "flat fields" and distortion, I much prefer flat fields, at least when properly defined simply as fields well corrected for astigmatism and field curvature. I can personally tolerate any of the forms of distortion I've seen in binoculars, but I prefer mild to moderate pincushion, a bit less than is strictly required to completely correct angular magnification distortion. Of course, neither of those things has anything to do with prisms.
I always put the bird or whatever it is that I oberve in the center. I rarely scan the whole field of view, so I don't care all that much if a binocular has a flat field or not. I find both work just fine for me provided there is some pincushion.

One additional point: I find I can hold porros better than roofs. It's hard to describe but I find I can hold higher magnifications with porros better than with roofs, probably becuase the hands are wider apart.

Hermann
 
Hi Hermann,

I spent some time yesterday comparing the view through my 8x42 FL and my Zeiss West 8x50 B to see what I thought about the effect of the extra stereopsis in the Porro. A side effect of that exercise was that I noticed that the AFOV, the off-axis corrections and the amount of pincushion distortion were nearly identical. Apparently Zeiss changed their thinking about off-axis corrections very little between the 1950s Porros all the way down to the FL and HT series. I certainly agree with you that the 8x50 is optically the best of the Oberkochen Porros, besides being a beautiful and beautifully made object. A modern re-issue would certainly light a fire under all the Porro fans around here.

Henry
 
Aha, I didn't know we were in one of those movies from a trial where the lawyer twists his questions in order to get the witness on the box to confess he or she did murder the victim :p
Following your simplistic approach:
Yes I looove Porro prism binoculars, I use them on a daily basis and love what they can offer.
No, I don't think that a Porro is better than a roof, because, as I said, the view is made up of many aspects, and the prisms used are just one part of the equation.

If I could daydream my perfect binocular yes it would be a Porro prism binocular. It would be a 7x32 Swarovski PL (a new series they come up with in my dreams, taking the NL into Porro territory), with 9º FOV, the grip and feel of an EL, a weight of 450-480 g (around a pound) and the size of a Leupold Yosemite/Kowa YF, with the eyecups of the 8x32 EL and the contrast of the 7x35 Retrovid. There you go ;)
I think that binocular would deny the laws of physics. I would prefer a bigger aperture. I think 32 mm is too small. Not enough light coming in for low light use. Do you think Porros are a better bargain?
 
Interesting points. I personally like the stereopsis at mid distances a lot. Not that it offers any "real" advantages, I just like the image more. It looks "more natural" to me. You're right of course about close range observations, however, I rarely observe butterflies and so on, and at 6 m or more porros work OK for me.

I always put the bird or whatever it is that I observe in the center. I rarely scan the whole field of view, so I don't care all that much if a binocular has a flat field or not. I find both work just fine for me provided there is some pincushion.

One additional point: I find I can hold porros better than roofs. It's hard to describe, but I find I can hold higher magnifications with porros better than with roofs, probably because the hands are wider apart.

Hermann
Hermann! We see eye to eye on every thing you said! I agree with you totally. I can hold Porros better too, especially the bigger 50 mm and above Porros because of their wider shape.
 
Hi Hermann,

I spent some time yesterday comparing the view through my 8x42 FL and my Zeiss West 8x50 B to see what I thought about the effect of the extra stereopsis in the Porro. A side effect of that exercise was that I noticed that the AFOV, the off-axis corrections and the amount of pincushion distortion were nearly identical. Apparently Zeiss changed their thinking about off-axis corrections very little between the 1950s Porros all the way down to the FL and HT series. I certainly agree with you that the 8x50 is optically the best of the Oberkochen Porros, besides being a beautiful and beautifully made object. A modern re-issue would certainly light a fire under all the Porro fans around here.

Henry
Which view did you prefer the 8x42 FL or the Zeiss West 8x50 B? I like that size 8x50.
 
I think that binocular would deny the laws of physics. I would prefer a bigger aperture. I think 32 mm is too small. Not enough light coming in for low light use. Do you think Porros are a better bargain?
Well, I said I was daydreaming.
But then, while the weight would surely be higher, I don't know why a 7x32 top Porro is not feasible. There was a 8x32 SE that weighted 630 g (mine feels way lighter), so I think that, while not very likely, one of the top brands (or something like Kowa for that matter) could build a contemporary x32 Porro with the latest and greatest. I find x32 to be a perfect device for 95 % of what I do without the burden of the weight/bulk. And then, if I'm going to use them in dark conditions, I rather carry a dedicated instrument (8x56, 10x50, 10x56) that will outperform a 8x42.
Regarding the value of porros, absolutely. Things like the Kowa YF/L. Yosemite or Vixen Foresta Porro, to name a couple of contemporary Porro prism devices show that you can reach pretty impressive performance with very little money (in two different price categories, that is).
 
Perhaps the thread starter could inform us what the "F" in "FMTR" means?
"The FMTR, MTR, and WPC models are often used on terra firma as well as in marine environments. The "F" stands for Fujinon's flat-field technology which is used to achieve a crisp image. The "MT" stands for Marine Tested and "C" stands for Compass. The "R" in a designation means the binocular is rubber armored."
 
Well, I said I was daydreaming.
But then, while the weight would surely be higher, I don't know why a 7x32 top Porro is not feasible. There was a 8x32 SE that weighted 630 g (mine feels way lighter), so I think that, while not very likely, one of the top brands (or something like Kowa for that matter) could build a contemporary x32 Porro with the latest and greatest. I find x32 to be a perfect device for 95 % of what I do without the burden of the weight/bulk. And then, if I'm going to use them in dark conditions, I rather carry a dedicated instrument (8x56, 10x50, 10x56) that will outperform a 8x42.
Regarding the value of porros, absolutely. Things like the Kowa YF/L. Yosemite or Vixen Foresta Porro, to name a couple of contemporary Porro prism devices show that you can reach pretty impressive performance with very little money (in two different price categories, that is).
The little Kowa YF/L 6x30 is good example of Porro value. It is amazing how good it is for around $100. You might me interested in the new APM Porro 6x30 when it comes out in the end of February for around $200.
 
"The FMTR, MTR, and WPC models are often used on terra firma as well as in marine environments. The "F" stands for Fujinon's flat-field technology which is used to achieve a crisp image. The "MT" stands for Marine Tested and "C" stands for Compass. The "R" in a designation means the binocular is rubber armored."

So ... do you prefer the flat field view of your Fujinon versus the...

... or is the Steiner your new number one? ...
 
So ... do you prefer the flat field view of your Fujinon versus the...

... or is the Steiner your new number one? ...
The Fujinon FMTR-SX 7x50, Fujinon FMTR-SX 10x50 and the Steiner Shadowquest 8x56 are all the number one ranked binoculars in their class according to Allbinos and I agree with them. I like them all equally well but of course they are different magnifications and apertures. Because of their very wide objective spacing they have sensational 3D. I would say the Steiner is the brightest in low light, but you can see more detail with the Fujinon FMTR-SX 10x50 because of the higher magnification. I have an APM APO 12x50 Porro coming, so it will be interesting to see how it measures up.

 
I bought my Nikon EII's when they were still being produced for £360. I know there are better porros, but if the weather is good and we are out for a family walk which (normally) involves a great English pub, they always come with me for the balance between a bright, sharp and dynamic image with their great portability.
 
I bought my Nikon EII's when they were still being produced for £360. I know there are better porros, but if the weather is good and we are out for a family walk which (normally) involves a great English pub, they always come with me for the balance between a bright, sharp and dynamic image with their great portability.
The only issues I have with the Nikon EII is lack of contrast, and they are darker than the Habichts, Fujinons or APM Porros because of lower transmission and a red bias. Once you are used to the any of these three it is hard to go back to the EII. Of course the Fujinon and APM are much bigger apertures.
 
Dennis you seem to think that the view through the EII is dark/sinister....perhaps what Ivydwg meant, if the weather is good, (I would infer sunny with comfortable temperature), the EII provides some nice views which they do, I will attest to that; and hell, it is a lot easier than the 7X50 porro to lug around for a walk with the family.

Andy W.
 
Dennis you seem to think that the view through the EII is dark/sinister....perhaps what Ivydwg meant, if the weather is good, (I would infer sunny with comfortable temperature), the EII provides some nice views which they do, I will attest to that; and hell, it is a lot easier than the 7X50 porro to lug around for a walk with the family.

Andy W.
Yes, but once you are used to the Habicht the EII is almost depressing to go back to IMO. It lacks the brightness and high transmission "sparkle" of the Habicht. Once I had a Habicht I sold my EII. The Habicht 10x40 GA isn't much heavier than the EII and built better also. True the focus on the Habicht is not as smooth as the EII, but once I got used to it I would never go back to an EII. The view is what is important to me. IMO the EII has almost TOO big of a FOV also. It is hard to take it in all at once and seems like an IMAX movie where you have to move your eyes all around to see everything. I have changed my opinion on huge FOV binoculars after having the NL. Enough is enough when it comes to FOV. I would rather have the more natural bright 3D image of a Habicht, Fujinon, Steiner or APM Porro with a slightly smaller FOV than the huge "synthetic" flat FOV of the NL. After comparing the Fujinon with my NL I quickly decided I liked the Fujinon view better than the NL. Just preference I guess.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 3 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top