I think they are trying to say the AFOV is so wide you don't notice the field stop. If you look through super wide telescope eyepieces, like 90-110° AFOV, you have to move your eye just to see the field stop. I think they are saying it is much like that experience. I'm sure the field stop will be sharp. Wide AFOV optics are so much more immersive than soda straw optics.
-
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 Product Introduction Today From Swarovski ? (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter John A Roberts
- Start date
I think they are trying to say the AFOV is so wide you don't notice the field stop. If you look through super wide telescope eyepieces, like 90-110° AFOV, you have to move your eye just to see the field stop. I think they are saying it is much like that experience. I'm sure the field stop will be sharp. Wide AFOV optics are so much more immersive than soda straw optics.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
For me the discussion about the field stop looks as kind of a linguistic problem here perhaps. I understand from it: can you see the rim of the image circle? Of course you can and I could see that but, as Jan already wrote, outside the image circle there is darkness-nothing-no image.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Jan,
Hmmm. I think the way it works must be that the CL30 has very good control of spherical aberration at the exit pupil, which is definitely not a strong point for the Swaro 8x30 WB. If fact, quite to the contrary, it's a definite problem.
Ed
Hi Ed,
The eyepieces of my CL Companion 8x30B come with an "optical box" in their construction.
I understand that they are supposed to work like a rifle scope works. One can move one's head forward or backward and still see the full view without getting black outs.
It works for me. I can place the eye cups back into my eye sockets or, alternatively, brace them up against and slightly under my brow ridge and still use the binocular without getting black outs.
I suppose, if the new Swarovski NA has eye pieces with this so called "optical box," one could also use the optional head brace to help steady the binocular.
Of course, one can also purchase a Canon Image Stabilized 12x36 for much less money!
Bob
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Gijs, I think there is more chance of you understanding our English, than you understanding our Dutch - especially if you are with Jan because then everything would be Double Dutch ! :-O
I'm still trying to sift through the actual (and expected) viewing experience with regard to Swarovski's statements about the edges ?? :cat:
I take it from those who have viewed through the bin so far that there is a sharp edge viewable, and that everything is clear right up to the edge of this circle, and then everything outside of this circle is all black. So far so good.
What I (and I think others?) would like confirmed is:-
When the binocular has been set up correctly for your IPD and ER ....... AND you are looking straight ahead at the CENTRE of the view AND not moving your gaze from the centre of the view (not even subconciously - as in microsaccades etc) ...... THEN are you aware of that sharp edged field stop (by sight - not memory) ?? :cat:
It would seem to me that from their statements, Swarovski expects that people would NOT be aware of those edges when fixated on the centre point view. Is this correct ? :brains:
Chosun :gh:
henry link
Well-known member
The AFOVs of the NLs are only 69º-71º. There is no reason why an observer with normal eyesight wouldn't be able to see their field stops when looking straight ahead. Since by all accounts the eyepiece of the NL can form a reasonably sharp image at the field edge it almost certainly can form a reasonably sharp image of the field stop at the field edge.
At this point I imagine Wolfgang at Swarovski wishes he had never said what he said about "invisible" field edges.
At this point I imagine Wolfgang at Swarovski wishes he had never said what he said about "invisible" field edges.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Chosun Juan, post 665,
The image of the NL I could use for a very short time was sharp up to the rim of the field and you could see the end of the image as a sharp and over the image line it became image-less/dark.
Hope that is clear.
Gijs van Ginkel
The image of the NL I could use for a very short time was sharp up to the rim of the field and you could see the end of the image as a sharp and over the image line it became image-less/dark.
Hope that is clear.
Gijs van Ginkel
Hermann
Well-known member
I read a brief remark somewhere in the old literature that experiments showed an AFOV of >90 degrees didn't work for most observers in terrestrial viewing. Apparently not seeing the edge of the field of view is something most observers find hard getting used to. Can't remember the reference, it was probably in one of the old articles from the "Zeiss Werkszeitschrift".
Now, 70 degrees isn't anywhere near that, and I can see the edge clearly in the old Zeiss 10x50 Porro.
Hermann
John A Roberts
Well-known member
Some additional images from Sport Optics at: https://www.sportoptics.com/swarovski-nl-pure-12x42-binocular-36012.aspx
The first shows the diopter scale on the rear of the bridge, along with the serial number
Interestingly the number has an A prefix as is also used on the centre focus Porro prism Habichts
However, the unit numbering sequence for the NL’s runs from 40000 to 49999 (as it also does for the EL’s and SLC’s) verses 10000 to 19999 for the Habichts
The second shows another view of the FSB bag
And the last shows both the new UCS neck strap along with the strap for the FSB bag
John
The first shows the diopter scale on the rear of the bridge, along with the serial number
Interestingly the number has an A prefix as is also used on the centre focus Porro prism Habichts
However, the unit numbering sequence for the NL’s runs from 40000 to 49999 (as it also does for the EL’s and SLC’s) verses 10000 to 19999 for the Habichts
The second shows another view of the FSB bag
And the last shows both the new UCS neck strap along with the strap for the FSB bag
John
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks, John. I wonder how the headrest installs? Do you have to remove those little allen screws?
John A Roberts
Well-known member
Hi Dennis,
At this stage I’m not certain, as we’ve only seen a limited number of images. Though Jan or Gijs may be able to offer more information
based on their hands-on experience with the NL/ FRP combination
In 2018 Swarovski filed a patent in Austria that covered how to attach a forehead support to binoculars
The patent includes various ways to allow for IPD adjustment with the rest attached. However, all seem more complicated than what’s actually used on the FRP
See the attached images (Figures 2 and 3 may be conceptually closest to that of the FRP)
John
At this stage I’m not certain, as we’ve only seen a limited number of images. Though Jan or Gijs may be able to offer more information
based on their hands-on experience with the NL/ FRP combination
In 2018 Swarovski filed a patent in Austria that covered how to attach a forehead support to binoculars
The patent includes various ways to allow for IPD adjustment with the rest attached. However, all seem more complicated than what’s actually used on the FRP
See the attached images (Figures 2 and 3 may be conceptually closest to that of the FRP)
John
Attachments
Hello,
however, Dennis is not entirely wrong with his advice that the ELs sell extremely well, that is of course not only due to the sharp edges but also!
I myself also prefer the Flatfield glasses, my impression, the overall sharpness of the image makes it appear more harmonious and balanced.
I had the Zeiss 7x42 Victory for a while, due to the lack of edge sharpness and extreme astigmatism it spoiled my vision, I sold it.
When I look through binoculars with normal edge blurring for a while and then switch to Swarovski 8.5x42, I always think what an incredible optical performance!
It is not so easy to say that sharp edges are unnecessary because you only look through the middle anyway, flat fields are becoming more and more popular, why only?
Andreas
Apologies for dredging the edge performance thing from way back in the thread, but I find the perception of edge performance in myself and other users, and the issue of its desirability in binoculars, quite interesting.
I wear glasses, so if my eye travels beyond the area covered by my glasses everything blurs out. But within those limits my perception of sharpness is pretty good - not as sharp as dead center, but pretty decent. I would say, looking at the diagram that denco (please excuse me while I go and wash my mouth out with soap...) attached to his post #490, that my perception of sharpness over the central, paracentral, macular and I think most all of the "near peripheral" regions is pretty good. That's just under 80 degrees AFOV, and because my own personal "sweet spot" is reasonably good, I do often move my eyeballs when searching for things within that sweet spot, rather than moving my head. I read a book, magazine or computer monitor similarly.
When using binoculars, after having experienced binoculars that are sharp to the edge, I do notice when the edges are less sharp. I can't say that I take in the entire field of view all in at once, like denco says he does; but I can see why he says that (did I really just say that?), because I normally make myself aware of what's in that central and near peripheral sector by flickering my eyes around - but that is a pretty quick process in real time (I wouldn't say instantaneous, but a process that takes place over only a few seconds). When using binoculars, I do the same flickering around, but mostly within the limits of the binocular's sweet spot. A binocular with a smaller field of view but large sweet spot, therefore, can to some extent compensate for one with a larger field of view but smaller sweet spot - because that larger sweet spot increases the actual zone that my eyes spend most of their time scanning to a comparable or sometimes even greater level. Binoculars that have the so-called field flatteners achieve the effect of being sharp virtually all the way to the edge, and, like Condomat in the post I quoted above, I do notice this - to me the effect is that what I see is almost all sweet spot. I have tried my 8x42 FL black alongside my brother's 8.5x42 Swarovision on several occasions and when doing so I find the superior edge performance of the latter does makes itself apparent, although I quickly adapt back to the FL (which is an excellent binocular in its own right, more than good enough for me).
That said, a larger field of view, even if not sharp to the edge, is still useful, as motion beyond the sweet spot can still be detected in one's peripheral vision, and may alert you to something interesting. I also think that a larger field of view, even though not sharp to the edge, is aesthetically pleasing. The perception (and I guess the reality too) is that one is seeing more, and it helps give that "open window" feeling. Binoculars that combine a large field of view with edge sharpness most closely match the natural sweet spot of my eyes, and my experience when looking through the 10x50 WX, especially when tripod-mounted, is almost as though my natural vision has been magnified. Presumably the NL is designed to offer a similar sort of experience.
It would be interesting to hear from other users how their sharpness perception is across their naked eye AFOV, and how they observe both with and without binoculars. It's pretty clear from this and other discussions that edge performance is a quality that some users appreciate a great deal, and others don't particularly care for. I recall Alexis Powell has said he flickers his eyes around the field of view of his binoculars, while others, it seems, prefer to move their entire head in order to keep things in the center field. The differences between how we observe must be part of the reason why some of us find edge performance more important than others.
Edge performance, its perception by us users, and its desirability in binoculars is one of these subjects that deserves a separate thread. I've read, and found very interesting, three discussions on field flatteners (here , here and here). One thing I don't fully understand, though, is that, per this post by jring, "in order to get edge to edge sharpness over a wide true field of view, field flatteners are very much necessary". Yet it seems possible to design binoculars with a large/very large sweet spot without the use of field flattening lenses. Can anyone explain how a large sweet spot without the use of field flatteners is achieved?
jan van daalen
Well-known member
jan van daalen
Well-known member
For those who are planning to visit The Netherlands in August, on the 7th and 8 we have the introduction of the NL for the public.
Jan
Jan
PYRTLE
Old Berkshire Boy
Will any units be available to purchase on the day, or does that remain as probably September? Thank you.
jan van daalen
Well-known member
LOL, I wish
No, it's just an introduction weekend for customers to meet the new bin.
Delivery will be on September 1.
Jan
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Don't temp me
......but after every country 14 days in lockdown.....nehh.
Jan
You could do it on Zoom.
Lee
