• 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.

Nikon WX 10x50 IF reviewed by Allbinos (1 Viewer)

Bill post 18.
At night it is thought that a scene is about 40% brighter using two eyes rather than one with unaided eyes.
With severe light pollution I cannot verify this now, but it was I think clearly visible to me in the past.
Also my eyesight has got worse over time.

As to 20x80 and 8x32 binoculars.
Much fainter stars are seen with the larger binocular, both because of aperture and magnification.
Also much fainter galaxies would be seen.
The FOV would be larger with the 8x32.
A rich field telescope showing the greatest number of stars is generally thought to be around 5 inch aperture, short focus wide angle refractor.
With night time objects it very much depends on the object.
M31 is probably best seen in a 7x50.
But the main factor by far is how dark the sky is.

With daytime objects all bets are off, as there is such a vast array of brightness, objects looked at, FOV stability etc.
I personally never used a binoviewer so cannot comment.

I see much more now with two eyes than one without optical aid and without my glasses, although the difference was less when I was younger.
 
I'm a bit bemused, a figure higher than 85% at 450-500 Nm makes an excellent twilight binocular but clearly Nikon had different design priorities like ultra-wide FOV

Comparison with the new Steiner and exceptional but discontinued Docter porros

Post #17, first image:
100% (!) transmission for the Nobilem at 570 nm ???
As mentioned a few days ago, I have my reservations about some of allbinos measurements. This shows why ...
 
Post #17, first image:
100% (!) transmission for the Nobilem at 570 nm ???
As mentioned a few days ago, I have my reservations about some of allbinos measurements. This shows why ...

You're not alone... although I'm quite sure that the WX will have a lower transmission than the best roof examples (let alone the infamous Habicht) due to the number of optical surfaces and the long glass path. There might even be a certain decrease of transmission in the blue part of the spectrum - but I don't think it is going to be visible by looking through it and without comparing to another pair.

Joachim
 
Last edited:
Bill post 18.
At night it is thought that a scene is about 40% brighter using two eyes rather than one with unaided eyes.
With severe light pollution I cannot verify this now, but it was I think clearly visible to me in the past.
Also my eyesight has got worse over time.

Hi Binastro, My responses are in red. I think I'm in the same ballpark regarding age and eyesight, but can't claim to ever have been able to distinguish a difference between 1 and 2 eyes at night, even though, I can't deny that the logic and physics of it imply that there should be an increase in brightness. Please note that my comparison in the thread was an 8x32 Binocular vs. a 20x80 Monocular (telescope, and probably minus an erecting prism)

As to 20x80 and 8x32 binoculars.
Much fainter stars are seen with the larger binocular, both because of aperture and magnification.
Also much fainter galaxies would be seen.
The FOV would be larger with the 8x32.
A rich field telescope showing the greatest number of stars is generally thought to be around 5 inch aperture, short focus wide angle refractor.
With night time objects it very much depends on the object.

M31 is probably best seen in a 7x50.
But the main factor by far is how dark the sky is.


I agree with all of these comments, as they reflect my own experience


With daytime objects all bets are off, as there is such a vast array of brightness, objects looked at, FOV stability etc.


I think our image processing system strives for the most 'coherent' visual result, and so masks 'differences', hence why we don't notice a 50% reduction in brightness when we shut one eye, even if indeed there is a shift of that magnitude. I imagine that one pupil immediately opens up more if the other eye is shut, and that there is a massive processing scramble to even out the disparity in illumination. I'm pretty convinced the brain differentiates between external shifts in illumination vs. 'internal' shifts (driving from bright daylight with both eyes open into a tunnel, vs. shutting one eye in broad daylight).

If you want to really mess with your image processing system, keep one eye shut when you get up in the middle of the night, and require some illumination to get where you need to go...
When you've completed your task, open the closed eye, once you've suppressed your luminous navigational aids... The eye that was open the whole time is broadcasting a washed out signal of color and value, and the other eye has a wider pupil and has been less triggered... Sort it out. There is an enormous amount of noise from the 'illuminated' eye, and yet, both are 'broadcasting' contrasting signals to the brain...
 
You're not alone... although I'm quite sure that the WX will have a lower transmission than the best roof examples (let alone the infamous Habicht) due to the number of optical surfaces and the long glass path. There might even be a certain decrease of transmission in the blue part of the spectrum - but I don't think it is going to be visible by looking through it and without comparing to another pair.

Joachim

I agree with everything you say.

In his „Field Test“, without even measuring it, Holger Merlitz had estimated transmission to be slightly below 90% (the reason being the one you mention). This has in fact little effect on image quality.

On Sunday, I placed a 7x50 WX side-by-side with an 8.5x42 EL SV, an 8x42 SF and an 8x42 Noctivid to check color fidelity, using W. Schön‘s paper test.
To my eyes, none of the four shows a substantial tint or significant hue; if I want to find differences, the SF and the EL SV show a slightly „cooler“ image, the Noctivid and the WX a very slightly „warmer“ one. In fact, the WX and the Noctivid show colors very similarly, their color tone is almost undistinguishable (disclaimer: as perceived with my eyes; no measurements etc. made).

So I couldn‘t find any of allbinos‘ „green-yellow hue“ in the WX. This would also somewhat contradict their transmission curve, the shape of which is similar to the Ultravid (and the Noctivid?), and the Ultravid is known, if anything, for it‘s color saturated slightly warm image, if I am not mistaken.
 
Last edited:
Post 18.
This morning after 4 1/2 hours I awoke in a dark room.
My eyes were dark adapted and there was faint light illuminating the bookcase with white and various dark objects.
With both eyes open I reckoned that the image was 20% to 30% brighter than with either left or right eye alone.
I tried this several times.

When younger, at night I think the difference was very clear with two eyes compared to one just looking at the stars and sky background.

In the day I doubt that it makes much if any difference, but I am not sure.
 
Post 18.
This morning after 4 1/2 hours I awoke in a dark room.
My eyes were dark adapted and there was faint light illuminating the bookcase with white and various dark objects.
With both eyes open I reckoned that the image was 20% to 30% brighter than with either left or right eye alone.
I tried this several times.

When younger, at night I think the difference was very clear with two eyes compared to one just looking at the stars and sky background.

In the day I doubt that it makes much if any difference, but I am not sure.

I tried this the other morning as well. I also noticed an increase in brightness, but attributed it to the larger illuminated field that both eyes provided. When I specifically tried to focus on a singular surface or object, I couldn't say for sure that it got brighter. I think 2 variables changing at the same time is enough to confuse the issue for me. Perhaps a more subtle way of describing brightness in low light is to consider whether shadowed areas reveal more detail, vs. increasing the intensity of the brighter elements. I will try it again with that consideration in mind.

Bill
 
Here's an easy way to see the increase in apparent brightness from using two eyes instead of one. All you need is the computer screen you're looking at now and a small dark object, like a black cell phone or black piece of paper.

The photo below simulates what you will see if you focus on the computer screen and then place the dark object between your eyes and the screen. Keep your eyes focused on the screen, not the object. Where both eyes are blocked from seeing the screen you will see only black. On either side of the black shape there will be a kind of penumbra where only one eye sees the screen. Outside those areas both eyes see the screen.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0595.jpg
    DSC_0595.jpg
    170 KB · Views: 47
Here's an easy way to see the increase in apparent brightness from using two eyes instead of one. All you need is the computer screen you're looking at now and a small dark object, like a black cell phone or black piece of paper.

The photo below simulates what you will see if you focus on the computer screen and then place the dark object between your eyes and the screen. Keep your eyes focused on the screen, not the object. Where both eyes are blocked from seeing the screen you will see only black. On either side of the black shape there will be a kind of penumbra where only one eye sees the screen. Outside those areas both eyes see the screen.

Hi Henry, Thanks for the suggested experiment. There's other artifacts at play in my case, so I can't confirm the effect you're describing. Sometimes I see a brighter edge right next to the dark object. Given that I'm perpetually mildly cross-eyed, have a dominant eye, and wear glasses probably gum up the works with regard to a consistent result. I'll keep trying.
 
Henry and Binastro, I made a photoshop file of white with a black stripe running vertically down the center, and set it to full screen. I am able to see briefly the effect Henry describes, but as soon as there is any motion of my head or eyes, I get the reverse effect of a brighter edge outboard of the black.
 
Is this thread still about the Nikon WX ? Reading the last few posts feels like having fallen asleep in front of TV and waking up in the middle of the next movie ... ;)
 
I apologize for helping derail the thread. I feel like I attended a lecture, but started talking to someone seated next to me...

Bill
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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