• 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.

7x42’s; High end versus mid range (oldies but goodies) (1 Viewer)

Temmie, post 39,
On the WEB site of House of Outdoor you can find transmission curves of different 7x42 binoculars among others from the 7x42 Habichts, Zeiss Dialyt 7x42, Zeiss Victory FL 7x2, Leica Ultravid 7x42 and Meopta Meostar B1 7x42. They can be found in different reports, but first go to : "Verrekijkers"and from there to "Verrekijkers testen en vergelijken" you will see all reports passing by.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Bob. Have you ever actually looked through a Habicht? You can't always go by specifications. A lot of times binoculars will perform better than their specifications would indicate. It does have tube like FOV but the interesting thing about it is how bright the tube is. I agree that it is not the ideal general use birding binocular. An 8x32 is better for that. The Fujinon FMTR SX 7x50 is kind of like the Habicht 7x42. Both are very bright.

No Dennis, I've never had the opportunity to use one. I always felt that it would give me claustrophobia ;) being familiar as I am with using 7x42 binoculars with 8º FOVs.

One thing we tend to forget is how wide the depth of field of these 8º 7x42s can be when we are following a bird through the near undergrowth or branches of trees. These kinds of birding conditions are common in many birding areas in "Penn's Woods" where I live and likely not as common in the Rocky Mountains.

Bob
 
No Dennis, I've never had the opportunity to use one. I always felt that it would give me claustrophobia ;) being familiar as I am with using 7x42 binoculars with 8º FOVs.

One thing we tend to forget is how wide the depth of field of these 8º 7x42s can be when we are following a bird through the near undergrowth or branches of trees. These kinds of birding conditions are common in many birding areas in "Penn's Woods" where I live and likely not as common in the Rocky Mountains.

Bob
I agree the 7x have the advantage when it comes to DOF and less hand shake. That is one reason I am anxious to try the new Kowa BDII XD 6.5x32. The first affordable 10 degree 6.5x.
 
"One thing we tend to forget is how wide the depth of field of these 8º 7x42s can be when we are following a bird through the near undergrowth or branches of trees. These kinds of birding conditions are common in many birding areas in "Penn's Woods" where I live and likely not as common in the Rocky Mountains".

+1 on the depth of field for the 7X42 format, with less need to focus. I also get this feature with the 8X56 FL.

Andy W.
 
I was looking at AFOV regarding a thread a few weeks ago about the Noctivid. Here's a few of of them:

1. Nikon 7x42 EDG 52°
2. Leica Ultravid 7x42 BR 52°
3. Swarovski Habicht 7x42 43.3°
4. Opticron 7x42 Discovery 50.5°

I'm using an online calculator to generate these:
https://astronomy.tools/calculators/binoculars

Bill,

I would agree that the ISO method is preferable to the simple calculation as it eliminates the tangent error and is more accurate at lower magnifications and wider fields. It is also used by Nikon in their specifications.
However, in practice things are usually a little better than the ISO value due to distortion.
If you want to measure AFOV, here's how: https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3696705&postcount=1
The specified FOVs @ 1000 m of the 7x42 Meopta Meostar and 7x42 Swarovski SLC are 137 m and 140 m respectively and I measured 54° for both.
I have not measured any 7x Zeiss with 150 m FOV but suspect that they would better the ISO figure of 55,4° by two or three degrees.

John
 
I appreciate that the conversation has moved on somewhat, but I want to make an amendment; my first post erroneously claimed that the Opticron has a fov of 110m, however I have subsequently found out that it is actually 122m as per the Opticron website.
I'm still enjoying the bin, and have used it a fair amount this week. The focus wheel turning the opposite way to my Swaro's and Nikon's keeps catching me out, but I am very much enjoying the lower weight. I've used it in low light and it appears to hold up fairly well, also the glare control is pretty decent, highlighted by a bit of evening wadering this week looking into a low sun setting over the sea. I'll be using it on and off, and will be putting it through it's paces in Ethiopia in a couple of months time, will report back on how it is holding up!
 
I know its not a 7x42. But I too am excited about the new Kowa 6.5x32 with 10 degree FOV. Can’t wait to hear the feedback from some of you guys on this reasonably priced binocular
 
Wide FOV Junkie

I too have and enjoy my Swaro SLC 7x42. That said they are indeed heavy which is why I use a MadDog harness similar in design to the one pictured earlier in the thread.

And I admit to being a field of view junkie. :) That pursuit has seen me sample many vintage 7x wide field binoculars. It also lead me to the Zen-Ray 7x36 bins back when.

Anyhow, here's my bino battery with TFOV and AFOV specs. :)
 

Attachments

  • YrAj36a.jpg
    YrAj36a.jpg
    63.3 KB · Views: 97
Hi Bob, Interestingly your Zeiss pushes the envelope in a good way: a wider FOV by half a degree, and a wider AFOV by 3°, compared to the rest of the 8° contenders. That stands out from the pack, at least on paper. It makes me wonder why it went out of production.

The only 7x42 I own is an Ultravid BR, which is, in my mind, 'less immersive' than some of the other bins I own. I attribute some of that effect to AFOV. Do you think you would find the 7x42 Habicht at 43° AFOV equally immersive to your Zeiss at 55°?

I'm not slamming the format, or the bins, but I've observed that AFOV seems a bit low in the 7x42 format, with the exception of the Zeiss FL, compared to other formats.

-Bill

Hi Bill,

I've never fully understood "AFOV." I have never been able to separate it, visually that is, from the actual FOV that I see when I use a binocular. Take my Nikon 8x30 EII with its 8.8º FOV for instance. I am not concerned with its AFOV. I have no idea what it is. I doubt if anyone does.

I started serious birding with a new but discontinued Leitz 7x42 Trinovid BA (Armored) about 1994/95 which I got for a good price from a Canadian dealer. It has an 8º field and it has Uppendahl Prisms. I used it for years. Then I got the Nikon 8x30 EII about the year 2001 and used it heavily. After that I purchased a new in box discontinued Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN with SP prisms from Cabelas in 2004 and used it for years.

The FOV I became used to was the one I saw while using these binoculars not the one I "perceived." That word never entered my mind.

As far as your question about me using the Swarovski 7x42 Habicht I did comment earlier here in another thread, in a joking manner, that I thought it might "give me claustrophobia! ;)"

Bob
 
Last edited:
Hi Bill,

I've never fully understood "AFOV." I have never been able to separate it, visually that is, from the actual FOV that I see when I use a binocular. Take my Nikon 8x30 EII with its 8.8º FOV for instance. I am not concerned with its AFOV. I have no idea what it is. I doubt if anyone does.
....

The FOV I became used to was the one I saw while using these binoculars not the one I "perceived." That word never entered my mind.

As far as your question about me using the Swarovski 7x42 Habicht I did comment earlier here in another thread, in a joking manner, that I thought it might "give me claustrophobia! ;)"

Bob

Hi Bob, A narrow apparent field of view contributes to the perception of looking down a black tube at a small image circle when using binoculars or telescopes. The image contained in that circle could be a 1° FOV, it could be 10°. Apparent field affects the relationship between the black 'tube' and the image circle contained there in. Its an angular measurement of how far your eye looks to either side to see the edge of the image circle. They are separate entities and measurements.

I agree, one adapts to an optical device, regardless of its AFOV.

If you've looked through a telescope with a range of eyepieces of different design and AFOV, the effect is very well illustrated. With fixed eyepieces, you need another binocular to see the difference...

-Bill
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 5 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