-
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.
The Easy View (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Lightbender
- Start date
bonesmalones
Well-known member
I have the Nikon EII 8x30 and it is an easy view. I also have Kowa 8.5x44 Genesis XD and those are an easy view as well just not as wide as the Nikon.
What binoculars (8x or 10x) has the most EASY and stress free view? Any opinions?
That's kind of a vague question... I don't use a binocular that's NOT an easy, stress-free view. I can tell you a few binoculars that I believe that the vast majority of users will find easy to use and are easy to get used to. Personally, I'll pick 7X42s as mentioned above. A large FOV and exit pupil covers up a lot of user sins.
7X42 Leica Ultravid- I have the HD+ model. VERY easy to use and when I lend it out it's hard to get back. Smooth/easy adjustments.
7X42 B.1 Meopta Meostar- again VERY easy to use and a repeat of the above.
7X42 Opticron Discovery WP PC- much less expensive than the above view but very easy to use.
WJC
Well-known member
What binoculars (8x or 10x) has the most EASY and stress free view? Any opinions?
The keys to “easy / stress-free” viewing, at ANY magnification, do not relate to ANY brand or model:
1. Be sure the bino is collimated—NOT conditionally aligned.
2. Focus by STARING and let the bino’s focus mechanism do its job. People who refuse to know any better continually dance around this one. Thus, they continually have something to chat about on bino forums. Many incredibly important things seem too simple to be bothered with. One could just LOOK upon the brass serpent and live. Fiery serpents ... scads; know-it-alls ... 0.
3. Be sure the eye relief is adequate and appropriate for your facial characteristics.
4. Do not try to use a bino without a tripod that’s to heavy for you or has poor ergonomics.
5. Don’t waste time worry about those bloody numerals. Just focus the binocular and enjoy. When distance to your target changes ... refocus. And if you have bought into all that fraudulent “auto-focus” crap. Please let me know. I have some lovely ocean-front property just northwest of Wichita on which I could make you such a deal! :cat:
Bill
PeterPS
Well-Known Member
Bill,
Porros have a significantly larger distance between the objective lenses than your IPD. Consequently, a nearby object has a larger parallax when viewed thru a porro than when viewed thru a roof of the same magnification (for distant objects the difference in parallax is insignificant). This larger parallax makes nearby objects seem visibly smaller when viewed thru a porro (such as your SE 8x32). Btw, while I love the SEs I don't use mine much because of this parallax effect.
Peter
justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
What binoculars (8x or 10x) has the most EASY and stress free view? Any opinions?
To my eyes, of the 30+ pairs I've owned over the years, these three offer the easiest and most stress-free view:
1) Nikon LX-L
2) Zeiss Conquest HD
3) Sightron Blue Sky II 8x32
I've literally spent hours behind all three of these with zero eye strain, headaches and essentially no adjustment period between looking through the bins and looking without them. My eyes prefer a slightly warmer image as it tends to be the easiest on my eyes.
If I had to pick only one, it would be the Nikon LX-L
If you like a warmer image I am curious why you liked the Zeiss Conquest HD. I would describe that one as a more neutral color bias. The other two are certainly warmer with a definite red bias.
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
In my experience the optically "easiest" view requires that nearly every item on the list of criteria below be present in the same binocular, which is rare. The list is arranged roughly in order of importance.
1) very low axial aberrations and defects in daylight when eyesight is good enough to notice their effects.
2) very large exit pupil for uncritical pupil position, 6-7mm
3) low enough magnification for wide DOF, 8x or less
4) large enough sweet spot for comfortable pupil roaming, about 25º AFOV minimum
5) low veiling glare
6) at least moderately wide true AFOV, about 58º minimum
7) low enough spherical aberration of the exit pupil to avoid kidney-beaning
8) objective spacing narrow enough to avoid large parallax effects at close distances, maximum not much wider than eye spacing
9) distortion managed for moderate pincushion and low angular magnification
The only binocular in my collection that meets all these requirements (some just barely) is the Zeiss 8x56 FL, which I've used as a primary birding binocular for the last 12 years. I imagine there are a few others that are just as good or maybe a little better, like the Swarovski 8x56 SLC, but I've found no smaller binocular that equals it for a totally relaxed, easy and transparent view. Certainly nothing in the 30-32mm class comes even close (I own the 8x30 Swarovski Habicht, Nikon 8x30EII and 8x32 SE and have fully evaluated the Swarovski 8x32 SV). Unfortunately every large exit pupil binocular is not equal. The Zeiss 8x54 HT I tried completely failed the first item in the list.
1) very low axial aberrations and defects in daylight when eyesight is good enough to notice their effects.
2) very large exit pupil for uncritical pupil position, 6-7mm
3) low enough magnification for wide DOF, 8x or less
4) large enough sweet spot for comfortable pupil roaming, about 25º AFOV minimum
5) low veiling glare
6) at least moderately wide true AFOV, about 58º minimum
7) low enough spherical aberration of the exit pupil to avoid kidney-beaning
8) objective spacing narrow enough to avoid large parallax effects at close distances, maximum not much wider than eye spacing
9) distortion managed for moderate pincushion and low angular magnification
The only binocular in my collection that meets all these requirements (some just barely) is the Zeiss 8x56 FL, which I've used as a primary birding binocular for the last 12 years. I imagine there are a few others that are just as good or maybe a little better, like the Swarovski 8x56 SLC, but I've found no smaller binocular that equals it for a totally relaxed, easy and transparent view. Certainly nothing in the 30-32mm class comes even close (I own the 8x30 Swarovski Habicht, Nikon 8x30EII and 8x32 SE and have fully evaluated the Swarovski 8x32 SV). Unfortunately every large exit pupil binocular is not equal. The Zeiss 8x54 HT I tried completely failed the first item in the list.
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
The parallax from widely spaced objectives forces the eyes to view centered objects at close range too far off-axis for comfort or good alignment with the optical axes of the binocular telescopes. For me that does eliminate all Porros with widely spaced objectives from being "relaxed" at distances below about 6-7m and unacceptable below about 3-4m.
Henry
PeterPS
Well-Known Member
For objects at such a close range there is no question that porros are far from ideal. But for more distant objects have you found any porros that satisfy the remaining criteria?
WJC
Well-known member
One of the bugbears of binocular use is that if the fields don’t perfectly overlap, there must be a problem with collimation. But as Aristotle was prone to say ... “BULL!” That’s just one of the many diehard urban legends created by those not at home with stereopsis.
Many times, when looking at an object close-up, those fields (formed at the field stop, not at the objective) will appear to be in separate counties. Yet, if one concentrates on the object, it may appear precisely formed with no double image, indicating there is really no problem with collimation. There has always been a misunderstanding between the words “collimation” and “parallax,” which should not be used interchangeably. Is it affect or effect, bare or bear, born or borne? Physics 10; urban legend 0. :cat:
Bill
Bill is right.
Assuming your binos haven't been knocked out of collimation, when looking at objects very near close one eye and look through one tube of your binos. Your subject looks good! Close the other eye and look at your subject through the other tube. This looks good too!
Look through both sides and the figure of 8 view (laying on its side) with the two circles of view only overlapping a little looks disconcerting. Remind yourself that these are two perfectly acceptable views but now viewed simultaneously, and concentrate on the subject and most of the time you will find that you can enjoy your close look at what your subject is.
Lee
tenex
reality-based
I've heard you say this before, but it must apply more to lower magnifications with plenty of DOF (7x, maybe 8x max) than to 10x+, where I just don't find that it works.
Wow, you must go back further than I thought (Cretaceous). But have you taken a good look in that direction recently?
LOL. Edmund if you throw in that unfinished Eiffel Tower, which is still only steel scaffolding after all these years, then we might be able to come to a deal!
Lee
WJC
Well-known member
I've heard you say this before, but it must apply more to lower magnifications with plenty of DOF (7x, maybe 8x max) than to 10x+, where I just don't find that it works.
Wow, you must go back further than I thought (Cretaceous). But have you taken a good look in that direction recently?
Hi, Tenex:
‘Sorry, but no cigar, this time.
You’ve also heard me say that unfounded opinions—even those that have been around for decades—will never trump the laws of physics or physiological realities. Yet, I rarely say anything of value on a binocular forum without someone coming along right behind me to challenge or circumvent something I’ve tried to teach, either from years of experience or proven scientific notation. Example: Last week, in post #4—relating to the “focus drift” thread—on Cloudy Nights (attached), I had a friend post something from my book, dealing with that very issue. But by post #6, someone who refused to read the blurb, take the time to think it through, or simply knew better, chose to evade the realities of the matter and posit that all the binos he’s used must continually be refocused. He concluded, “It’s the eyes.”
The eye has the capacity, depending on age and other factors, to accommodate dioptric and spatial disparities. Thus, STARING, and letting the focus mechanism do its job is incredibly important, whether the observer wants to believe it or not. The blurb attached thoroughly explains the problem and solution. In the vast majority of cases, the problem lies not with the eyes but with the brain and its too rapid instructions to the ciliary muscles.
The bottom line? The observer can either learn to stare and enjoy a good image—refocusing only for a new distance—or he can spend the rest of his life fiddling constantly with the focus and enjoy a less than pleasant image all the while.
More often than not, our understanding rests with the magnitude of our humble willingness to understand.
Finally, okay, okay, so it’s a little dry there, now. A few thousand hard rains and the area could be oceanfront, again. Look at the Mississippi flood plain of 1929. :cat:
Bill
Attachments
Bill,
I think subjective focus and sharpness are a function of the optics transfer functions, contrast at various scales, false color, glare, sharpness across the field and a bunch of other factors, and also of the ability of each binocular to maintain sharpness when focused closer than infinity, which is not an obvious property.
An interesting side effect of buying binoculars, for me, has been a huge improvement in my ability to discriminate detail at a distance. My eyes got trained within a few weeks, to the point where now I see little reason to use the binoculars most of the time!
I know that as an engineer I shouldn't say such things, but usually with these high-end psychophysiological instruments - binoculars, camera optics, loudspeakers, headphones pianos, computer screens and TVs- the user feeling becomes as important to the customer-base as the tech performance and is hard to quantify.
By accident, I tested a bunch of alphas on some crows at about 500m, and had no problem focusing with any of them, static or in flight, Zeiss, Swaro or Leica.
It's quite possible that some people get something out of fiddling with the focus knob, and also that field curvature on some binoculars has something to do with it. I know that birds are always no-problem sharp on my Ultravid HD, and so is infinity, but roof lines never "snap" and drive me crazy when I try to "feel" the texture of stones and chimneys. I would be delighted on a comment about this, it's my main "official" use of my binoculars and what they do least well in fact. I can see very car and pedestrian a mile away, but the statues on cathedrals and inscriptions on monuments simply don't "pop".
Edmund
Last edited:
Edmund
It seems likely to me that these subjects don't snap or pop into focus because they lack contrast. When a subject has highly contrasting parts, especially the 'edges' between different features, even small ones, and they come into focus together, the impression of immediate sharpness can be very powerful. Without these contrasting parts your eyes and brain are struggling to find those 'edges' that give form and shape to the subject and it hard to be sure when the best focus has been achieved.
Thinking about roof lines, I would expect the line between dark roof and pale sky to come into focus easily enough but if the roof itself lacks features that have contrasting parts, then you might be unconvinced that the image is in focus.
Even complex buildings like the Sacre Coeur Basilica is more or less all the same colour, but I remember there are buildings mainly of brownish stone that nevertheless have balconies with black-painted railings and black roofs and these details ought to help these buildings to easily come into focus.
Lee
