- Magnification and move vision: (1 Viewer)

Rico70 said:

Okay, and is there a need for solid research to understand this?
This applies to any magnification!

Click to expand...

Hi, Rico70,

I certainly don’t want to get in trouble with you, as I have my hands full with another on this forum. So, I will make it short:

There is no need for solid research on this.

— A 7x binocular (without a tripod) vibrates to a degree 7 times greater than one not using the bino.
— A 10x binocular (without a tripod) vibrates to a degree 10 times greater than one not using the bino.
— A 25x binocular (without a tripod) vibrates to a degree 25 times greater than one not using the bino.

A room full of Ph.Ds. do not have the horsepower to say anything different. How the body handles the vibrations may be slightly different. However, the instruments will vibrate to the degree mentioned above. :cat:

Cheers,

Bill

WJC said:

Hi, Rico70,

I certainly don’t want to get in trouble with you, as I have my hands full with another on this forum. So, I will make it short:

There is no need for solid research on this.

— A 7x binocular (without a tripod) vibrates to a degree 7 times greater than one not using the bino.
— A 10x binocular (without a tripod) vibrates to a degree 10 times greater than one not using the bino.
— A 25x binocular (without a tripod) vibrates to a degree 25 times greater than one not using the bino.

A room full of Ph.Ds. do not have the horsepower to say anything different. How the body handles the vibrations may be slightly different. However, the instruments will vibrate to the degree mentioned above. :cat:

Cheers,

Bill

Click to expand...

I'm w/Rico70 on one detail. All else being equal, I don't think that it's correct to say a 25x binocular vibrates more than a 7x bin which vibrates more than a 1x bin. The 7x bin simply shows the vibration magnified 7x more than the 1x.

Gijs van Ginkel said:

Rico70, post 34,
...with a handhold binocular at 25x magnification small objects are more "blurred" than when supported, so details are less clear (sharp)...

Click to expand...

How much detail can be seen (i.e. captured by the eye and understood by the brain) in the shaky 1x versus shaky 7x view is complicated. The 7x (of a bin with high resolving ability) reveals many details beyond the resolving limit of the eye at 1x, and the amount of apparent motion is modest enough that much of this detail is within the processing limits of the retinal ganglia and brain, so the 7x view is more useful than the 1x view even if, when shaky, it doesn't provide a full 7x more detail than the 1x. The 25x potentially delivers even more detail to the eye, but if the apparent motion of the image is high enough (i.e. apparently fast enough), it may be beyond the processing abilities of the retina and brain, and so much of it will not be perceptible. In a worst case scenario, one wouldn't even be able to understand the same level of detail that was available at 7x. For the details I need to ID birds at typical target acquisition distances when birding, a 7x is generally sufficient and enjoyable, whereas the view through a 25x would be hard to aim, focus, and interpret.

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

I'm w/Rico70 on one detail. All else being equal, I don't think that it's correct to say a 25x binocular vibrates more than a 7x bin which vibrates more than a 1x bin. The 7x bin simply shows the vibration magnified 7x more than the 1x.



How much detail can be seen (i.e. captured by the eye and understood by the brain) in the shaky 1x versus shaky 7x view is complicated. The 7x (of a bin with high resolving ability) reveals many details beyond the resolving limit of the eye at 1x, and the amount of apparent motion is modest enough that much of this detail is within the processing limits of the retinal ganglia and brain, so the 7x view is more useful than the 1x view even if, when shaky, it doesn't provide a full 7x more detail than the 1x. The 25x potentially delivers even more detail to the eye, but if the apparent motion of the image is high enough (i.e. apparently fast enough), it may be beyond the processing abilities of the retina and brain, and so much of it will not be perceptible. In a worst case scenario, one wouldn't even be able to understand the same level of detail that was available at 7x. For the details I need to ID birds at typical target acquisition distances when birding, a 7x is generally sufficient and enjoyable, whereas the view through a 25x would be hard to aim, focus, and interpret.

--AP

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Lee

Rico70, post 40,
In answer to your question: is it necessary to investigate this? Yes there was especially for the military, since it is of importance to know how well defined the image of your observed object is in order to be sure that you aim exactly at the right spot. That was even more important for the infantry in the old days, since soldiers had to run fast to escape military observation and gunshots. Therefore soldiers in the old days were equipped with 6x30 porro binoculars (after running your muscle system is kind of tense and you are breathing with higher frequency)so they would obtain a blur-free image of the opponent.
But the outcome of these studies are just as well applicable to birders.
Image stabilisation in binocular systems has overcome that to a large extent.
Gijs van Ginkel

I just counted up as many 15x and higher magnification binoculars that I have actually used for either terrestrial or astro observations.
These are all different types not duplicates.
I am currently up to 31 different types.
There may be a few more.
I am not unfamiliar with high powered binoculars.
They are almost never tripod mounted, but supported as well as possible by whatever is handy.

Short glimpsed observations using very high magnifications hand held will show detail, but it is tiring, and unreliable.

One only has to use a Canon 18x50 IS binocular for limiting views of Jupiter's moons.
With the stabilizer off one may see, say two or three moons.
One can be pretty certain of these.
When the stabilizer is switched on, suddenly one of the moons is seen to be actually two very close moons seen as one.
This is not even suspected with the stabilizer off.

Usually the Canon 10x42L IS shows Jupiter's moons just as well as the 18x50 IS.
But sometimes a further moon is suddenly seen almost touching Jupiter's limb with the 18x50 IS, which was not suspected with the 10x42L IS.

As to 'flags' on aircraft.
I see these routinely at 2kms without a binocular.
With an 8x or 10x binocular at 10 to 15kms.
With the Canon 18x50 IS, further.
But the flags differ in size and how easily they are seen.
It also depends on the orientation of the aircraft.
I routinely see the windows on aircraft with stabilized binoculars.

However, someone using the Takahashi 22x60 binocular, tripod mounted, says he saw the people inside the aircraft through their windows.
I am not sure if I have seen this with the Canon 18x50IS.

B.

I sometimes wonder if observation has any value in Internet debates.

Pileatus said:

I sometimes wonder if observation has any value in Internet debates.

Click to expand...

I can't be sure to what you are referring, but I think that Rico70 and most of the rest of us are talking past each other because we are interested in obtaining different things from our observations. Rico70 is in love with the fact that it is possible to see (even if only as a momentary glimpse) details with a hand-held 25x binocular that a 7x will never reveal to the eye. Most of the rest of us are more interested in using bins that resolve a level of detail that matches the maximum amount that we are able to see reliably through a typically shaky hand-held view, even at the cost of not being able to see the higher levels of detail that could be glimpsed with higher hand-held magnifications. In my own case, as explained in my original response in this thread (post #2), the reason for my lack of interest in high magnifications in a general purpose birding binocular is that I simply have _no need_ to see those details with which Rico70 is so enamored. As a birder, my interest is in bird identification, and in identifying as many species as possible in a day. At the distances at which a birder typically first takes notice of a bird, most are already identifiable at 7x (or 8x or 8.5x or 10x). Using a higher magnification such as 25x would be counterproductive and result in identifying many fewer birds since it would come at the expense of FOV, DOF, focus speed, and easy handling. I further argued that magnification is not a very important specification when it comes to birding binoculars. Choosing between, say 7x and 10x, is of little practical consequence for birding when it comes to costs/benefits of magnification itself. Rather, the confounded effects on FOV, DOF, and focus speed are more important. In birding situations that demand more magnification than 7x for identification (because the birds are first detected much farther away than is typical, and because they may not be approachable, e.g. on a mudflat or at sea or distantly on a lake), the increased detail available from a 10x bin will deliver a few more birds than does 7x, but in my experience, many birds in these situations will still be too far away (In other words, it is rare that the marginal increase in detail of 10x over 7x just happens to be just enough to deliver the detail needed to identify all the birds detected). In those cases, I employ a tripod-mounted scope, and typically, 30x is enough to do the job (i.e. to allow for identification of all birds detected), but sometimes higher powers are useful.

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

I can't be sure to what you are referring, but I think that Rico70 and most of the rest of us are talking past each other because we are interested in obtaining different things from our observations. Rico70 is in love with the fact that it is possible to see (even if only as a momentary glimpse) details with a hand-held 25x binocular that a 7x will never reveal to the eye. Most of the rest of us are more interested in using bins that resolve a level of detail that matches the maximum amount that we are able to see reliably through a typically shaky hand-held view, even at the cost of not being able to see the higher levels of detail that could be glimpsed with higher hand-held magnifications. In my own case, as explained in my original response in this thread (post #2), the reason for my lack of interest in high magnifications in a general purpose birding binocular is that I simply have _no need_ to see those details with which Rico70 is so enamored. As a birder, my interest is in bird identification, and in identifying as many species as possible in a day. At the distances at which a birder typically first takes notice of a bird, most are already identifiable at 7x (or 8x or 8.5x or 10x). Using a higher magnification such as 25x would be counterproductive and result in identifying many fewer birds since it would come at the expense of FOV, DOF, focus speed, and easy handling. I further argued that magnification is not a very important specification when it comes to birding binoculars. Choosing between, say 7x and 10x, is of little practical consequence for birding when it comes to costs/benefits of magnification itself. Rather, the confounded effects on FOV, DOF, and focus speed are more important. In birding situations that demand more magnification than 7x for identification (because the birds are first detected much farther away than is typical, and because they may not be approachable, e.g. on a mudflat or at sea or distantly on a lake), the increased detail available from 10x bin will deliver a few more birds than does 7x, but in my experience, many birds in these situations will still be too far away (in other words, it is rare that the marginal increase in detail of 10x over 7x just happens to be just enough to deliver the detail needed for all the birds detected). In those cases, I employ a tripod-mounted scope, and typically, 30x is enough to do the job (i.e. to allow for identification of all birds detected), but sometimes higher powers are useful.

--AP

Click to expand...

I also use 7/8/10X bins and we used an ED82/30X scope for more than 10 years until I broke down and purchased a 25-75 zoom and later a new Kowa 883 with zoom. Your personal observations, developed over a number of years, are virtually identical to mine.

Regarding handshake...
I purchased a 10X50 Swarovision to use for stargazing and immediately constructed a mount for it. The difference between handheld and stabilized views of the stars is like on/off. One works, the other doesn't. Daytime use is obviously different but the same rule applies...handshake eventually renders the image useless.

The image shows a mounted 7X42 SLC.

Pileatus,

Nice mount and counterweight.

I suppose the controller is to bring the binocular to the eyes.

Regards,
B.

Binastro said:

Pileatus,

Nice mount and counterweight.

I suppose the controller is to bring the binocular to the eyes.

Regards,
B.

Click to expand...

The Manfrotto ball head mount allows full and precise movement. Basic operation requires a few manipulations that can be performed in the dark.

A few more views...
The smaller mount is for my wife's 8X32 SV.
The other photo shows the 10X50 SV mounted. The SV's IPD can easily be adjusted by loosening the wing nut. The bin is safe and secure.

Alexis Powell said:

I'm w/Rico70 on one detail. All else being equal, I don't think that it's correct to say a 25x binocular vibrates more than a 7x bin which vibrates more than a 1x bin. The 7x bin simply shows the vibration magnified 7x more than the 1x.

Click to expand...

Hi Alexis, I think our friend WJC is saying the same thing (I believe).

Rather, the cardinal point that still does not seem well defined and focused is this:
someone thinks and believes (sometimes or often without having ever tried it), that a 25x provides less detail, in proportion to a 7x.
But this undoubtedly clashes with what instead we agree I, Alexis and WJC (and also others, together with Physics).

Here we should not defend a compromise choice that was considered by the military more than 70 years ago, even if this could prove useful (and I doubt it) to someone for the action of the birder on every occasion. But this is not the purpose of this discussion, since as I have already said, the discussion must be valid in general, and should evaluate (at least initially) the fundamental theoretical bases on which to build a new functional idea (for different events).

I am not a birder and I could not be even if I wanted to, because in my area I would be able to identify perhaps only 40 different species of birds (on average 10-20 in a day). Despite this, I happily use binoculars to observe the local fauna as well, which for natural reasons does not come easily. So, I ask myself: how many of us can say that we normally observed Terns and Bee-eaters, when hunting for food, at distances of 10-15m?

It seems logical to me that for these events (and many others) more magnifications will be needed compared to 6x. I like it and I can also observe nature for dozens of continuous minutes freehand with the 25x (not only for 2-3 sec), satisfactorily. The important thing is that if I want to observe the more stable fauna (or the moon), I can do it in the most peaceful calm of resting the 25x on something solid and thus enjoying more details, but much more enlarged and detailed than a 6x or of an 8x.

Rico70 said:

Hi Alexis, I think our friend WJC is saying the same thing (I believe).

Rather, the cardinal point that still does not seem well defined and focused is this:
someone thinks and believes (sometimes or often without having ever tried it), that a 25x provides less detail, in proportion to a 7x.
But this undoubtedly clashes with what instead we agree I, Alexis and WJC (and also others, together with Physics).

Here we should not defend a compromise choice that was considered by the military more than 70 years ago, even if this could prove useful (and I doubt it) to someone for the action of the birder on every occasion. But this is not the purpose of this discussion, since as I have already said, the discussion must be valid in general, and should evaluate (at least initially) the fundamental theoretical bases on which to build a new functional idea (for different events).

I am not a birder and I could not be even if I wanted to, because in my area I would be able to identify perhaps only 40 different species of birds (on average 10-20 in a day). Despite this, I happily use binoculars to observe the local fauna as well, which for natural reasons does not come easily. So, I ask myself: how many of us can say that we normally observed Terns and Bee-eaters, when hunting for food, at distances of 10-15m?

It seems logical to me that for these events (and many others) more magnifications will be needed compared to 6x. I like it and I can also observe nature for dozens of continuous minutes freehand with the 25x (not only for 2-3 sec), satisfactorily. The important thing is that if I want to observe the more stable fauna (or the moon), I can do it in the most peaceful calm of resting the 25x on something solid and thus enjoying more details, but much more enlarged and detailed than a 6x or of an 8x.

Click to expand...

Again there appears to be a contradiction here. One of the problems inherent in Rico's posts is the stated idea he can freehand high magnification binoculars. Lots of people, including me, are understandably perplexed by this. I dug out a 20x60 Pentax porro, the largest magnification binocular I have. I most assuredly am unable to use it in the manner I think Rico is saying. Again, maybe the translation is somehow inaccurate.

Steve C said:

Again there appears to be a contradiction here. One of the problems inherent in Rico's posts is the stated idea he can freehand high magnification binoculars. Lots of people, including me, are understandably perplexed by this. I dug out a 20x60 Pentax porro, the largest magnification binocular I have. I most assuredly am unable to use it in the manner I think Rico is saying. Again, maybe the translation is somehow inaccurate.

Click to expand...

The largest magnification bino I have is a Conquest 15x56 and very early in my time with it, in a fit of enthusiasm, I took it as my only bino on trip to a nature reserve about 100 miles away and then to a weekend away on the coast. In the nature reserve, resting my elbows on the hide/blind shelves the image was tolerable if a little 'twitchy' but my time on the coast was mostly a disaster because I could only hold the bino steady for a minute or two. This might have been OK if all I wanted to do was identify species and tick them off a list, providing no difficult species turned up requiring extended viewing. But I enjoy watching behaviour rather than listing species and my performance those days with the 15x was lamentable. Since then the big Conquest has accompanied us on holidays and set up on a tripod indoors overlooking sea lochs and bays and has give wonderful views. So I am absolutely clear that I could not enjoy the image through a 25x bino that was hand-held. However I am of retired age and do not have the muscle-mass I had when I was younger. Maybe a stronger person who can train themselves to tolerate the image can be happy with it.

Lee

Rico70 said:

...the cardinal point that still does not seem well defined and focused is this:
someone thinks and believes (sometimes or often without having ever tried it), that a 25x provides less detail, in proportion to a 7x...

Click to expand...

I think there is plenty of agreement that it is possible for 25x to show more detail than 7x in hand-held viewing. We just don't agree that it is a good overall choice for hand-held viewing.

Rico70 said:

...we should not defend a compromise choice that was considered by the military more than 70 years ago, even if this could prove useful (and I doubt it) to someone for the action of the birder on every occasion...

Click to expand...

Many birders already agree that the "military" ideal compromise for handheld magnification of 7x is not accurate as a practical limit for birding. We tend to think more towards 10x (but certainly not 12x or 15x or 25x!). Even so, we often still choose 7x or 8x for advantages of FOV and DOF.

Rico70 said:

...But this is not the purpose of this discussion, since as I have already said, the discussion must be valid in general, and should evaluate (at least initially) the fundamental theoretical bases on which to build a new functional idea (for different events)...

Click to expand...

I think that many of us are open to the idea of considering different magnifications and viewing techniques for different purposes.

Rico70 said:

...I am not a birder and I could not be even if I wanted to, because in my area I would be able to identify perhaps only 40 different species of birds (on average 10-20 in a day). Despite this, I happily use binoculars to observe the local fauna as well, which for natural reasons does not come easily...

Click to expand...

I understand that birding, exclusively, might not be satisfying if you live in an area with very low species diversity. Around here, it is possible to find over 200 species in a day in spring, and in winter we hope for over 75 species on a good day. Still, I have many other interests besides birding.

Rico70 said:

...So, I ask myself: how many of us can say that we normally observed Terns and Bee-eaters, when hunting for food, at distances of 10-15m? It seems logical to me that for these events (and many others) more magnifications will be needed compared to 6x. I like it and I can also observe nature for dozens of continuous minutes freehand with the 25x (not only for 2-3 sec), satisfactorily. The important thing is that if I want to observe the more stable fauna (or the moon), I can do it in the most peaceful calm of resting the 25x on something solid and thus enjoying more details, but much more enlarged and detailed than a 6x or of an 8x...

Click to expand...

As a point of fact, please know that in the course of birding, even small birds are routinely detected and identified at distances well beyond 10-15 m. I think 75 m is perhaps a more realistic measure of the typical limit for the high-comfort zone for detection and identification of most small birds in a familiar setting. Bee eaters are medium sized birds and terns are large.

That point aside, I'm sure many of us agree that higher magnifications are often useful for natural history pursuits. That's why we often own and use scopes on tripods. Believe me, we'd love it to be true that we could use 25x scopes or binoculars handheld. We'd love not to have to haul that tripod. And our conviction that we can't hand hold 25x is not a result of being brainwashed by the 7x military paradigm. Rather, it is based on our own practical experience. We've tried to hand hold 25x and found that we failed. I know that I have! My Nikon 27x50ED Fieldscope with Velbon 455 Ultra tripod and RRS bh-25 head is extraordinarily compact and lightweight for travel, but if I could get away with leaving the tripod behind, I would! For daily birding, I have little trouble managing an ~80 mm scope on a sleek but robust CF tripod with good fluid head, so I'm not much tempted to go lighter by hand-holding a conventional optic or by carrying along high power IS binoculars in addition to my 8x standard bins.

So if you really want to move the discussion forward and convince us of the feasibility of a

Rico70 said:

...a new functional idea (for different events)...

Click to expand...

, you are going to have to explain more about how it is that you are able to use 25x for extended comfortable hand-held observation. If you don't tell us more, and if you don't tell us something new and surprising that we can do ourselves, we are going to conclude that we've already been where you are (i.e. that we've already tried what you are doing) and have found the quality of viewing unsatisfactory by our standards, or that you have superhuman abilities that we cannot employ. For example, consider Steve C's reaction:

Steve C said:

...One of the problems inherent in Rico's posts is the stated idea he can freehand high magnification binoculars. Lots of people, including me, are understandably perplexed by this. I dug out a 20x60 Pentax porro, the largest magnification binocular I have. I most assuredly am unable to use it in the manner I think Rico is saying...

Click to expand...

So Rico70, again, if you want to get traction with your argument, you've got to tell us more. We want to believe what you are saying, but just hoping that what you are saying is true has not been sufficient for us to find the promised land. Some, like Troubador, have already (in the past) tried a leap of faith

Troubador said:

The largest magnification bino I have is a Conquest 15x56 and very early in my time with it, in a fit of enthusiasm, I took it as my only bino on trip ...and my performance those days with the 15x was lamentable...

Click to expand...

and still didn't find the heavenly paradise you describe for yourself and (in past posts) for naive users who haven't been corrupted by the nothing-higher-than-7x dogma (or blasphemy, depending on your perspective).

I think you've got to tell us more if any of us are to follow this discussion any further with any real interest.

--AP

Excellent post, Alexis. You have the patience of Job!

I'm glad to see this discussion start to get somewhere. I think we all want to understand the experience Rico is describing handholding 25x or even 100x, even if it may not be relevant to our own usual purposes. A while ago Binastro raised a question that occurs to me also: for how long at a time can you actually get this highly detailed view of the target, and how is that useful or enjoyable?

Rico, do you find yourself largely having to remember all the details that you so briefly glimpsed? Are you sure that you remember them accurately? Do you perhaps have what's called photographic memory that would allow this?

Once one has viewed steady, high powered images (say 15x and more), the value of a good support system is made exceedingly clear, whether it is IS, a tripod, or some other means. I have had difficulty in this thread fully grasping whether Rico has been saying that 25X hand held will yield more detail, just because of the increased magnification, or whether it is actually a useful, everyday practice to handhold optics at that magnification. If its the latter, I don't agree at all, admittedly based on a lack of experience with such an endeavor, save comparing Canon 15 x50 views with the IS on and off, as well as using a spotting scope at 25x while sitting down, with it in my lap.

Since he's already made clear he is no birder, then I'm not sure what the basis of his rationalizations are for this thread. Some of the magnification 'jumps' seem like useful measures for thinking practically about relationships between binoculars and fixed mag. eyepieces on a scope, when one is hauling all that gear around. Otherwise, the supposition that just because one might fleetingly be able to see 'more' detail at 25x handheld, than without is more or less a beer drinking discussion, not a practical piece of advice for field use. Alexis has already said it better, which I do appreciate. Thank you Alexis! And, Rico, I'm not sure that google translate is doing you any favors in this, or other threads. I do appreciate your enthusiasm though!

Cheers to all,

Bill

Brilliant post Alexis and you didn't mention astigmatism once!

Cogently explained in a friendly and constructive manner.

Lee

Troubador said:

Brilliant post Alexis and you didn't mention astigmatism once!...

Click to expand...

...or variable-ratio focus, ...or "darting eyes", ...or hang!

Seriously though, I may give this one more go to address some points in the original post that caught my interest.

--AP

Familiarity with the target helps with glimpsed views.

We have persistence of vision, even without a photographic memory.

My understanding is that photographic memory needs more than a fraction of a second.

In the 1950s when nearly all aircraft looked different, I could reliably identify numerous aircraft in 1/10th second, sometimes even 1/30th second or less.
But this depended on the orientation of the aircraft.
With some orientations I might not be sure in even ten seconds.

With unfamiliar targets it is my opinion that with a hand held 100x binocular the true fine detail would just not be identified at all.

I do not accept that hand holding a 100x binocular will ever reveal the detail that the 100x binocular has on a firm tripod.

The tune has changed in some of these claims.
Initially, only hand held, but now with a firm base.
These are quite different.

I use high power binoculars, but when at all possible they have the firmest support I can find without using a tripod.

Touching both front barrels on window glass, using the window frame, if possible below and to the side.

Telephone catalogues, car roof, fence, tree, lamp post etc.

Being flat on my back on the grass.

Then there is tying a cord to the end of a long lens and standing on the other end.

With cameras the strap was always the right length to wrap round my elbow and keep the strap taught without breaking it.

With the G15 camera I jam the camera gently against the window. The body is flush against the window frame, angled to the sky.
The one second exposures have sharp stars even at maximum zoom on display.
The shutter is squeezed with no movement. The grip of my hand is firm but not stressed.

Basically, it is technique.

But I don't accept the premise that hand holding a 100x binocular can ever give the detail that would be seen if the binocular was firmly tripod mounted.
Assuming of course that the binocular works at 100x.

B.