• 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.

Always used 10x but thinking about switching to 8x (1 Viewer)

Thank you Gijs.

The re-graphings with axes used for new parameters are difficult to track!

It seems that it is most useful to focus on the relationship indicated in the final result, that is, your graph copied at post #101.

But, as David says, there are several other parameters essential to consider. They need to be included to make it relevant to most users of binoculars.

Also, and perhaps this was done, each resolution test should be across several minutes and the results noted at the ends of such periods, to simulate actual use in nature watching or pretty much any other purpose for which a binocular is hand held. Even in youthful subjects steadiness will then deteriorate. The first few seconds after the instrument is brought up to the eyes are of limited use.
 
adhoc, post 121,
The Russian scientists took all into account as far as I can see, they listed weight, took in the two different papers I have trainde obervsers of different ages in the second paper etc. etc.
David, post 120,
I nowhere mentioned and I also did not read that young military were used as test panel. With regard to the effect of magnification on resolution you can also look at the SPIE book by Yoder and Vukobratovitch, they reach the same conclusions on the basis of their data as the older German and more recent Russian publications.
I can not help so do not shoot the messenger.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Given that the results seem to vary with observer and with binoculars weight and shape, I wonder if people should be doing tests for themselves (hand held 8x vs handheld 10x). I'd give it a try, but only have access to some 8x.

And given the differences claimed for handheld vs supported, it's interesting that so so few people bother supporting them. I guess they mostly use a scope instead.
 
.....
.....
.....
I can not help so do not shoot the messenger.
Gijs van Ginkel

Why not? I for myself see nothing wrong in shooting the messenger!!
;)

My own opinion on the subject: Magnification may not be the only factor limiting handheld binocular performance, but is is probalbly the major one, as has been solidly established in a number of studies. So I will not be the one shooting Gijs.
Canip
 
...do not shoot the messenger.
It seems nowadays I should! Even if you give me $130K to be quiet. (I hope you do. That is a Kowa Highlander plus $125K left.)

Okay I will take on the Russians. Addressing the weight of the instrument alone is not enough. For steadiness, as David and a few others of us have said often on this forum, balance and grip matter, and different combinations of those three factors work best for different magnifications. From what I gather, among manufrs. this has been best addressed by Meopta.

For a test such as this, ideal will be a model for each x that is found to be steadiest for most of the human subjects. (I too had pictured them as young soldiers and sailors!) Then, of course, all the instruments need to be of comparable, preferably very high, optical quality...
 
Last edited:
adhoc, post 125,
You may get a problem if the messenger is armed and shoots back.. certainly when he had a thourough training.......
Well, the studies I referred to were as far as I can see done very carefully and the Russian studies explicitly mention weights of the binoculars in their tables.
I do not get why all the excitement about the outcome of these studies, since there is a very convincing fact to show that magnification of handheld binoculars influences image quality a lot and that is the introduction of stabilised binoculars as for example made by Canon. If you look at it from that point of view it is kind of surprising that not more binocular producers have followed this road.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Gijs,

As I made clear, I don't know the test parameters for the Zeiss study, so what I wrote was hypothetical.

I don't know who the test group were but there can't be many places you might go to find 70, 18-20 year olds, apparently selected for excellent eyesight, and trained in observation.

I don't know either when the original Zeiss study was done. Recent publications, like Yoder and Yukobratovich, usually cite the 1959 edition of König und Köhler's book. Brunnckow et al apparently used their data in 1944, but as the first edition of their book was in 1923, the study could even predate that. Several groups appear to have used this study for mathematical reinterpretation, but I'm not aware that any show subject variation, so presumably did not have access to the original data either. We have no idea of how variable those highly selected subjects were, let alone a totally random population of users like the forum.

One detail I found curious about that study was the loss of apparent acuity tripod mounted. (#108) From the plot it is apparently over 20% reduction at 14x magnification. With the highest resolving modern binoculars I've tested I've seen a 0% reduction. One publication I found suggested that this might be explained by the light loss and reduced contrast in uncoated optics at the time. The difference between handheld and tripod mounted was only about another 30% reduction. At face value, that would seem very good to me. I haven't tested any 14x binoculars, but I thought I was still doing OK with a couple of 12x I've tested. If I skipped the coffee and did some deep breathing I could get to about 40%. I know there are alternative interpretations, and other groups may get different results, but it just seems another reminder that there is no virtue in getting old. :-C

David
 
Why not? I for myself see nothing wrong in shooting the messenger!!
;)

My own opinion on the subject: Magnification may not be the only factor limiting handheld binocular performance, but is is probalbly the major one, as has been solidly established in a number of studies. So I will not be the one shooting Gijs.
Canip

Canip

Just because every able-bodied man of army-age in Switzerland has an army-issue assault rifle under his bed it doesn't mean that messenger-shooting is acceptable behaviour in the rest of the world. :-O

I blame the cuckoo-clocks. :eek!:

But you are right, what everyone guessed is true (the images from 10x binos are more wobble-prone than from 8x) has been proven experimentally even if this result varies from person to person, bino to bino, wind speed to wind speed, the extent of exertion etc etc.

Lee
 
David, post 128,
I assume that you followed physiology lessons at school and, if that is the case, you know that muscle tremor is an inherent property of living persons. It can be completely avoided, but than you are dead.
Weight can have some effect is my experience on stabilisation of the image quality/stability at magnifications above 7x.
My example of military use of binoculars (6x30 for infantry who has to do heavy physical work and 7x50 for ships based on what can be seen in different publications and pictures) was to show that military leadership obviously had taken into account these physiological properties.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
David, post 128,
I assume that you followed physiology lessons at school and, if that is the case, you know that muscle tremor is an inherent property of living persons. It can be completely avoided, but than you are dead.
...........

Gijs,

I don't recall physiological tremor being part of my school curriculum, but it did crop up a few times later. My entire working career was spent quantifying extremly diverse aspects of biological response and I definitely discovered mortality has it's consequences;)

Wouldn't field of view and exit pupil be important criteria for infantry use?

David
 
Last edited:
David, post 131,
Before I received a training in the airforce I had a training in the infantry for a fairly long time and believe me, you do not want to have to look at your opponent after running distances with package, gun etc. since than you need an image as solid as a rock to watch your enemy and the chances with a 6x30 are far much better than with a 10x42.
I visited the marine optical laboratory several times and I spoke with the persons responsible for buying and maintaining the equipment and they showed me part of their stock and that was at that time for the standard equipment mostly 7x50 for the reasons I mentioned.
I looked at the test reports I have published in the past in the Dutch journal Cameramagazine on image stabilised binoculars and at that time it were mainly:
- Zeiss 20x60S
- Russian Peleng 140GS 12x and other models
- Fujinon Stabiscope 10x40 and other models
- Canon 12x36IS and other models
So I was not quite correct in mentioning Canon only in my previous post as being the only company that makes image stabilised binoculars, other companies also did it.
Although it is no proof the models tested indicate that the designers of those image stabilised binoculars were aware of the loss of image quality at magnifications of 10x and more considering the chosen magnifications.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Gijs,

I may have run with a binocular on rare occasions, but I'm rather relieved that I've never had to run with a gun.

The US military have commissioned a number of studies over the years which might have been relevant to this discussion, but I don't think the details are in the public domain. There was a bit of a rethink on the army's needs a few years ago, and believe things may have changed again These may be of interest.
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/optical_devices/government-binoculars/army-series/index.html
http://www.fraseroptics.com/company/history/
https://www.ausa.org/articles/soldier-armed-binocular-update

David
 
What, this is still going on?
I think I should have shot the messenger when I had a chance ... although I do support his position and view, but being a messenger has its inherent risks!!
 
Canip, post 134,
I am sorry for your pain, but my draw was faster than that of the most repected American gunfighter, so I am still there, using an 8x binocular with pleasure and sometimes a 6x. Still looking for a 6x30 with incredible FOV like a Hartmann Porlerim (hardly suffers from muscle tremor effects), but perhaps that binocular did not make it to Switzerland.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Canip, post 134,
Am I correct that the Swiss army had 6x24 and 8x30 binoculars as standard binoculars? That is at least what my information is up to now. Since this topic is about the question: do I go from 10x to 8x, this looks a good argument in favor of the 8x for those who have a headache to solve this question.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Canip, post 134,
Am I correct that the Swiss army had 6x24 and 8x30 binoculars as standard binoculars? .....
.....
.....
Gijs van Ginkel

Gijs,
In military service, I only encountered the 6x30 - which preceded the 8x30 - and the 8x30. From about 1950, officers were exclusively equipped with 8x30, and the 6x30 was used as a „staff instrument“.
There is a 6x24 from Kern, bit I only know it in it‘s „Pizar“, i.e. civil version.
See attached.
Canip
 

Attachments

  • 354BFD6C-B793-4577-9E46-1351016D3AD0.jpeg
    354BFD6C-B793-4577-9E46-1351016D3AD0.jpeg
    279 KB · Views: 33
Geeze Luise, it's either 8X or 10X. Pick one, the other or the one you do not own. It's only 2X more or less; more or less.

There can be a lot of variables to consider though perhaps the most daunting is the breadth und depth of ye olde wallet.

As Always, YMMV ...
 
Canip, post 134,
I am sorry for your pain, but my draw was faster than that of the most repected American gunfighter, so I am still there, using an 8x binocular with pleasure and sometimes a 6x. Still looking for a 6x30 with incredible FOV like a Hartmann Porlerim (hardly suffers from muscle tremor effects), but perhaps that binocular did not make it to Switzerland.
Gijs van Ginkel

Yes, you are a fast draw, and I respect that ... ;)

And you are right, the 6x30 Porlerim with 150m/1000m FOV didn‘t make it here, but the 7x35 Bushnell Rangemaster with 175m/1000m did just recently |:d|
 
Canip, post 139,
My mistake, I am not looking for the Hartmann Porlerim 6x30 but for the Hartmann Compact WW 6x30 with FOV 180m/1000m. Although I have visted the company a number of times, I forgot to ask for one and now the company does not exist anymore, a real pity. The search continues, sorry for the deviation of the topic.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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