I tried the Fujis and you are absolutely correct regarding eye relief. The deep recess seriously degrades reported eye relief. The moment I picked up the 10X50 SV I knew its eye relief was perfect for my eyes. Star fields are extremely relaxing and quite breathtaking in the SV, especially on a stable mount. Birds look pretty good too!
-
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.
10X50 Swarovision (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Pileatus
- Start date
dalat
...
The answer given in this link isn't correct, the context of the quote in the link (for which the OP is asking an answer) makes it clear that Randpupille is a parameter of the optical device and not of the eye (as dilated pupil), also the literal translation is straight forward (Randpupille = edge pupil).
The quote is interesting btw., as it refers to exactly the same issue raised by Dale.
The quote says: "An der Schnittstelle zum Auge ist der hoechstmoegliche Komfort zu erzielen, so dass das Durchsehen muehelos und entspannt erfolgt (z.B. durch richtige Dimensionierung von Austrittspupillenabstand und Randpupille"
Translated, this means: "At the interface to the eye, the highest possible comfort should be achieved, so that seeing through can be done relaxed and without effort (e.g. by correct sizing of eye relief and edge pupil/edge bundle).
This sounds like a well established term in textbooks...
Last edited:
dalat
...
Actually, if I look at the literal translation, it is not "edge of the pupil" or "pupil edge", because that would be called "Pupillenrand". Randpupille would be rather be "pupil at the edge". So Holger's guess is probabably exactly what it is, the pupil at the edge of the ocular...
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
I have long suspected that that stable exit pupil was the secret of the SV's uncanny "ease of view." I never mentioned it because I'm no expert, just a user.
Holger, I notice that you used an 8x32 SV for the photos. Take the same photos with an 8x32 FL and the results are quite different. Off axis, the FL exit pupil vignettes much more quickly. In my experience, especially with glasses, that means the FL has a fussy view, the 8x32 SE even worse. I no longer have the SE, in large part because of its "fussy" view, but photos of the SV, FL, and SE off axis would be instructive I think.
It's that "slap 'em on your face" ease of view that has me hooked on the SV's (8x32, 8.5x42). I'd bet good money that Zeiss keyed in on this for the SF. If they didn't, they should have.
I also suspect that larger exit pupils are perhaps less critical in this regard. I notice a bigger difference between the 8x32 SV and 8x32 FL than I do between the 8.5x42 SV and 8x42 Prime, just as an example.
Mark
henry link
Well-known member
Like Holger, I also thought the German term "Randpupille" might mean something like "exit pupil at the edge of the field". There is always vignetting of those exit pupils in binoculars, usually reducing the exit pupil area to about 50% of the center field exit pupil.
However, predicting how "relaxing" an image might be based on a simple measurement of vignetting at the field edge won't work for several reasons. First, the raw amount of vignetting at the edge increases with apparent field, so wide field binoculars will probably show more vignetting at their field edges compared to narrow field binoculars even when the curve of increasing vignetting is identical. Second, even if the amount of vignetting at the edge is identical between two binoculars the vignetting curve may be different depending on where the internal stops occur along the objective lens light cone. And finally the effective amount of vignetting varies in the same instrument depending on the size of the eye's pupil compared to the size of the exit pupil. One reason I like large exit pupil binoculars in daylight is that a combination of small eye pupil and large exit pupil results in very low or even no effective vignetting, even when the instrument shows plenty across the full aperture.
Another possibility is that Randpupille is what we call "spherical aberration of the exit pupil" in English, a condition where rays that form the outer edges of the exit pupil have different eye relief than rays that form the center of the exit pupil. That can cause blackouts, especially in daylight, when a small eye pupil may wander from an exit pupil's center to its edge.
Henry
However, predicting how "relaxing" an image might be based on a simple measurement of vignetting at the field edge won't work for several reasons. First, the raw amount of vignetting at the edge increases with apparent field, so wide field binoculars will probably show more vignetting at their field edges compared to narrow field binoculars even when the curve of increasing vignetting is identical. Second, even if the amount of vignetting at the edge is identical between two binoculars the vignetting curve may be different depending on where the internal stops occur along the objective lens light cone. And finally the effective amount of vignetting varies in the same instrument depending on the size of the eye's pupil compared to the size of the exit pupil. One reason I like large exit pupil binoculars in daylight is that a combination of small eye pupil and large exit pupil results in very low or even no effective vignetting, even when the instrument shows plenty across the full aperture.
Another possibility is that Randpupille is what we call "spherical aberration of the exit pupil" in English, a condition where rays that form the outer edges of the exit pupil have different eye relief than rays that form the center of the exit pupil. That can cause blackouts, especially in daylight, when a small eye pupil may wander from an exit pupil's center to its edge.
Henry
Last edited:
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Not sure it works that way, All of my abbe-koenig prism bins show less vignetting [or at least less collapse of the exit pupil] than my SP prism bins, when viewed in this way.
I can't say there is much correlation between which one provides a less fussy view though. Something like the Terra vignettes early but has an ''easy'' view.
Go figure.
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
I'm not sure either.
But something has to explain the difference between the 32mm FL and the SV and the only thing I can think of is the behavior of the exit pupil.
FOV is nearly the same (426 v 420). But the SV has that easy "roam around" view and the FL doesn't.
Left scratching my head. |:S|
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
I'm not sure either.
But something has to explain the difference between the 32mm FL and the SV and the only thing I can think of is the behavior of the exit pupil.
FOV is nearly the same (426 v 420). But the SV has that easy "roam around" view and the FL doesn't.
Left scratching my head. |:S|
Eye relief is much better on the SV,
the 8x32 FL have 16mm according to spec. My 7x42 FL I measured to 15mm effective, so I suspect that the 8x32 might have a bit less, and I got that impression when testing. The view is a bit more cramped.
The 8x32 SV have 20mm ER according to specs and effective ER might be around 18mm?
AFOV for the Zeiss FL 8x32 is 64°, and for the 8x32 SV is 61°.
I think that too big APOV might not be the best solution for a relaxed view.
Last edited:
I am looking for a good 10x50 for astronomy and really like the hefty design of Fujinon. While I usually prefer center focusing I can accept individual focusing for an instrument which is intended mainly for long range use, and tripod mounted.
Pentax DCF ED 10x50 surely is a high class binocular, but I guess SV 10x50 is superior. The much larger FOV is a great advantage. Therefore I really regret that the Fujinon has the adequate eye relief and wider FOV like the Swaro but it's wasted for eyeglasses users by a bad eyepiece design!
Apart from that the Fujinon is lower priced than pentax DCF ED and almost 1/3 of the price of SV 10x50!
A long ER isn't any good if you can't make use of it. So therefore the choice will be between DCF ED and SV. Both alternatives costs a lot, and SV10x50 a fortune...
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Hermann
Well-known member
Good idea. Or the good old Docter Nobilem 10x50. Huge field of view, good optics. Weighs about half a ton, but that doesn't matter when it's on a tripod. Maybe not ideal for eyeglass-wearers though.
Hermann
bh46118
Well-known member
Be careful in noticing the good view of your SV. You will likely offend several people.
It seems good. But when I search on it I find dfferent numbers of eye relief: 15,5, 16 and 18mm dependent of site. The question is if that's enough. Also I see there is a new HD version. Zeiss claims 18mm for that version. The price is then higher than Pentax DCF ED 10x50.
I need to try before I buy!
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
sorry, I was not clear, I meant the latest HD-version, the older conquest models were not of the same quality concerning FOV and eye relief etc.
http://www.zeiss.com/sports-optics/...binoculars/conquest-hd-binoculars.html#models
but it's a lot bigger than the 10x50 SV,
personally I would save money and buy the Swaro…
Ok, understand. I am a bit tempted to follow your advice. But it's always hard to wait and save money some year to get what one want, instead of instantly getting a cheaper still decent alternative for a lower price. But surely; I really believe it will be worth it! Of course, today there are many possibilities to installments...
When I see the pictures of the new SV 10x50 I just becomes excited: such a large ocular lenses, and if this binocular provides full and clear FOV with eyeglasses on it just has to be an awesome experience!
Re: 10X50 Swarovision
The FOV with eyeglasses is excellent due to more than adequate eye relief. As a plus, the AFOV is addictive as it draws you into the scene. A big surprise for me was how well balanced it was in my hand during many hours of hawk watching.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
This speculation is partly based on the Google, Bing, and Babylon translations of "Randpupille," which is "edge of (the) pupil," or "pupil edge," and Dale's reference in post #22 to the "edge bundle." There he intimates that it is a measurable property of the instrument, and that an increase in FOV sacrifices viewing comfort. To me this doesn't add up to Holger's interpretation of off-axis vignetting, or Henry's SAXP explanation (no offense, guys).
So what could it be? Although this is nothing new, paraphrasing from Freeman and Hull's Optics (pg. 535), it is notable that with a photopic eye pupil (e.g. 2.5-3mm), and a large XP, (e.g., 5mm-6mm) the outer zones of an instrument's exit pupil and associated aberrations play no role in the formation of the instrument-eye image on the retina. In other words, this donut-shaped area at the outer edge of the XP prevents a large percentage of the instrument's aberrations contained in the outer edge of the "light bundle" from degrading the retinal image. Hence, it may be the co-called "randpupille," and a direct correlate of 'viewing comfort.'
Increasing the field of view doesn't change the XP, so Dale may have meant that the effectiveness of the randpupille is diminished with increasing field, not its physical size. That would make sense since as FOV increases all the oblique aberrations increase exponentially with field angle. Hence, for a given randpupille, increasing the field significantly increases the aberrations and reduces relative image quality (or 'viewing comfort'). I would guess that to compensate one would need to increase the aperture or decrease the magnification, i.e., enlarge the XP.
If true, this notion fits rather well with binocular configurations, large and small, that were historically thought to be "comfortable." Moreover, if the metric were something like the aberration density thwarted by the randpupille, expressed as a percentage of total instrument aberration, this might have evolved as a binocular design objective/guideline. Of course, using it would also require a standard observer operating under standard lighting conditions.
Ed
Last edited:
bh46118
Well-known member
I don't know if a concerted effort was made to achieve fatigue free viewing in the model I have, but it definitely is there. I will be interested to hear if Mr. Dobler was able to achieve the same effect with the SF.
dalat
...
Regarding this Randpupille thing, I had a look at binoculars (only two). The Nikon EII 8x30 shows little vignetting, while the Leica Ultravid HD 8x42 does show quite some. However, I find the Leica much easier and comfortable on the eye than the Nikon, so at least for these two, vignetting of the EP at the edge doesn't seem to mean much for ease of view.
What's the point in getting a 10x50 if you intend to use it on a tripod?You might as well get a 10x56 or a 10x70!
Similar threads
