Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Noctivid 10x42 vs Ultravid HD+ 10x50

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Friday 5th October 2018, 16:33   #1
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 124
Noctivid 10x42 vs Ultravid HD+ 10x50

Does anyone have any experience of both of these bins? I'm interested in the optical performance and differences rather than the ergonomic. I have the NV but have always been interested in a 10x50 UV. Apart from slightly longer viewing times with the extra light capture of the 50 are there any other reasons why I might either want both, or indeed the UV instead of the NV?
Mike F is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 5th October 2018, 17:48   #2
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 1,988
Both are reviewed here:

http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/BinoReviews.htm
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 5th October 2018, 23:59   #3
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,203
Resolution of the UV 10X50 will be better than the NV 10X42.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 6th October 2018, 20:06   #4
Tringa45
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
Resolution of the UV 10X50 will be better than the NV 10X42.
If that were the case, it might be detectable if you had 20/10 VA and compared them on tripods.

John
Tringa45 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th October 2018, 20:11   #5
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tringa45 View Post
If that were the case, it might be detectable if you had 20/10 VA and compared them on tripods.

John
Do you think it would be the case?
Mike F is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th October 2018, 20:28   #6
Tringa45
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
Do you think it would be the case?
Theoretically perhaps, but would you ever be in a position to notice it?

John
Tringa45 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th October 2018, 20:36   #7
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tringa45 View Post
Theoretically perhaps, but would you ever be in a position to notice it?

John
I would think not. My guess is that any advantage of the larger objective lens of the UV would be offset by the superior optics of the NV, but I'd be interested in some opinions from first hand experience.
Mike F is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 8th October 2018, 09:53   #8
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post
Vespobuteo, Thanks for this. I had seen some of those reviews before, but not all in one place. I've read a number of them including the 10x42 NV, 10x50 UV, 12x50 UV, 10x42 SF and 10x42 EL.

I didn't glean any useful or meaningful information with regard to a comparison of the 10x50 UV vs 10x42 NV, but it did become apparent that the reviewer likes flat fields and sharpness to the field stop. He was very complementary in his reviews about nearly every aspect of the three Lieca's except for criticising them for not having flat fields and edge-to-edge sharpness. He consistently gave the nod to Swarovski's for that reason and dismissed Ziess due to poor build quality.

I suppose that one has to read any review with the reviewers bias's in mind. That's fine, but it would have been nice if he had acknowledged, if only once, the fact that many people don't regard curved fields and soft edges as a fault. I'm one of those who simply has no interest in trying to look at the image at the field stop. It seems a terribly unnatural thing to do. One never looks at an image at one's natural field stop after all, and even if you move your eyes to the extremities of the FOV of your vision, the image remains the same because the pupil is centred on the image. But one never even does that - you move you head if moving your eyes more than a few degrees in any direction. Trying to look at the field edge in a binocular feels as unnatural to me as not moving my head whilst looking around. I simply move the binocular, and do the same even if it's mounted on a tripod.

Oh well, each their own, but an acknowledgement that field curvature and soft edges are a design choice made by the manufacturer rather than a fault would have been nice in what otherwise are excellent reviews.

Any more opinions regarding the 10x42 NV and 10x50 UV?

Last edited by Mike F : Monday 8th October 2018 at 09:59.
Mike F is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 8th October 2018, 10:46   #9
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 1,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
Vespobuteo, Thanks for this. I had seen some of those reviews before, but not all in one place. I've read a number of them including the 10x42 NV, 10x50 UV, 12x50 UV, 10x42 SF and 10x42 EL.

I didn't glean any useful or meaningful information with regard to a comparison of the 10x50 UV vs 10x42 NV, but it did become apparent that the reviewer likes flat fields and sharpness to the field stop. He was very complementary in his reviews about nearly every aspect of the three Lieca's except for criticising them for not having flat fields and edge-to-edge sharpness. He consistently gave the nod to Swarovski's for that reason and dismissed Ziess due to poor build quality.

I suppose that one has to read any review with the reviewers bias's in mind. That's fine, but it would have been nice if he had acknowledged, if only once, the fact that many people don't regard curved fields and soft edges as a fault. I'm one of those who simply has no interest in trying to look at the image at the field stop. It seems a terribly unnatural thing to do. One never looks at an image at one's natural field stop after all, and even if you move your eyes to the extremities of the FOV of your vision, the image remains the same because the pupil is centred on the image. But one never even does that - you move you head if moving your eyes more than a few degrees in any direction. Trying to look at the field edge in a binocular feels as unnatural to me as not moving my head whilst looking around. I simply move the binocular, and do the same even if it's mounted on a tripod.

Oh well, each their own, but an acknowledgement that field curvature and soft edges are a design choice made by the manufacturer rather than a fault would have been nice in what otherwise are excellent reviews.

Any more opinions regarding the 10x42 NV and 10x50 UV?
Well, he's an astro-guy, and not a birder, so you will have to read it from that POV. He's reviews are quite balanced but he seems to miss the greatest advantage with the NV:s though, superior glare control.

Haven't yet seen a flat-field design binocular that can control glare in the way that the NV:s do.

I would pic the NV over the UV because the EP is so much better with glasses.

Any (theoretical, 50mm vs 42mm = 19%) resolution difference would need the usage of a doubler and bin mounted on a tripod to see.

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Monday 8th October 2018 at 10:57.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 8th October 2018, 17:41   #10
maico
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Somerset UK
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
Vespobuteo, Thanks for this. I had seen some of those reviews before, but not all in one place. I've read a number of them including the 10x42 NV, 10x50 UV, 12x50 UV, 10x42 SF and 10x42 EL.

I didn't glean any useful or meaningful information with regard to a comparison of the 10x50 UV vs 10x42 NV, but it did become apparent that the reviewer likes flat fields and sharpness to the field stop. He was very complementary in his reviews about nearly every aspect of the three Lieca's except for criticising them for not having flat fields and edge-to-edge sharpness. He consistently gave the nod to Swarovski's for that reason and dismissed Ziess due to poor build quality.

I suppose that one has to read any review with the reviewers bias's in mind. That's fine, but it would have been nice if he had acknowledged, if only once, the fact that many people don't regard curved fields and soft edges as a fault. I'm one of those who simply has no interest in trying to look at the image at the field stop. It seems a terribly unnatural thing to do. One never looks at an image at one's natural field stop after all, and even if you move your eyes to the extremities of the FOV of your vision, the image remains the same because the pupil is centred on the image. But one never even does that - you move you head if moving your eyes more than a few degrees in any direction. Trying to look at the field edge in a binocular feels as unnatural to me as not moving my head whilst looking around. I simply move the binocular, and do the same even if it's mounted on a tripod.

Oh well, each their own, but an acknowledgement that field curvature and soft edges are a design choice made by the manufacturer rather than a fault would have been nice in what otherwise are excellent reviews.

Any more opinions regarding the 10x42 NV and 10x50 UV?
Tobias Mennle writes excellent binocular reviews from the point of a photographer/cameraman rather than a stargazer


http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/al...ivid10x42.html

Last edited by maico : Monday 8th October 2018 at 17:48.
maico is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 8th October 2018, 23:41   #11
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 45
Hi Mike,

why so angry about Roger's review?
This was your Question and Roger testet both glasses!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
Does anyone have any experience of both of these bins? I'm interested in the optical performance and differences rather than the ergonomic. I have the NV but have always been interested in a 10x50 UV. Apart from slightly longer viewing times with the extra light capture of the 50 are there any other reasons why I might either want both, or indeed the UV instead of the NV?
He also writes that the Noctivid is very good during the day, just not for Astro!
I can confirm his information where I had the NV 10x42 only too early onset distortion and CA.
Tobias Mennle is a Leica fan, just like Roger is a Swarovski fan.
By the way, Bino's is best to test it yourself, or you are looking for reviews that you want to hear ...

Andreas
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 10th October 2018, 09:37   #12
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conndomat View Post
Hi Mike,

why so angry about Roger's review?
This was your Question and Roger testet both glasses!

Andreas
Hi Andreas,

I think you must have misunderstood what I wrote. I'm not angry at all about Roger's review. In fact I thought it was excellent. I just thought it was a shame that he didn't acknowledge that what he considers to be a fault is not considered to be a fault by many others.

'Oh well, each their own, but an acknowledgement that field curvature and soft edges are a design choice made by the manufacturer rather than a fault would have been nice in what otherwise are excellent reviews.'


There's no anger there!

And to reiterate in case you missed it, 'Does anyone have any experience of both of these bins? I'm interested in the optical performance and differences rather than the ergonomic. I have the NV but have always been interested in a 10x50 UV. Apart from slightly longer viewing times with the extra light capture of the 50 are there any other reasons why I might either want both, or indeed the UV instead of the NV?'

Best regards,

Michael.

Last edited by Mike F : Wednesday 10th October 2018 at 09:42.
Mike F is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 10th October 2018, 13:17   #13
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 8,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post

I'm one of those who simply has no interest in trying to look at the image at the field stop. It seems a terribly unnatural thing to do. One never looks at an image at one's natural field stop after all, and even if you move your eyes to the extremities of the FOV of your vision, the image remains the same because the pupil is centred on the image. But one never even does that - you move you head if moving your eyes more than a few degrees in any direction. Trying to look at the field edge in a binocular feels as unnatural to me as not moving my head whilst looking around.
Couldn't agree more with this Michael. I do twist my eyes nearly out of their sockets (at least thats what it feels like) to try to look at field edges when reviewing but every time I do it I always wonder why it is so popular. But there is no denying lots of folks love sharp edges and flat fields.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 10th October 2018, 15:12   #14
PHA
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bariloche-Argentine Patagonia
Posts: 301
Hi Michael,

Me too, couldn´t agree more with you about this.
And, of course with you, Troubador.

Best!

PHA
PHA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 10th October 2018, 15:15   #15
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,452
Most of the time I move my head to see what is at the edge of the view. But I've noticed that well designed binoculars with flat fields that I have used have a larger area of sharpness in their overall view than binoculars without flat fields.

I began noticing it when I started moving my eyes left and right toward the edge of the view which was more of an exploratory glance for me than anything else.

I didn't do this when I used my Nikon 8x30 EII which had out of focus edges while looking at close birds. I began doing it when I purchased a flat field Nikon 8x32 SE. I still moved my head when it was necessary. The SE's FOV is much smaller than the EIIs but its flat field made it seem larger than it really was.

It find this flat field with its larger area of sharpness is helpful with binoculars that are designed with wider than average FOVs like my new Monarch 8x42 HG with its FOV of 435'@1000yds. It would normally have a FOV of 409'@1000yds with out of focus edges.

Bob

Last edited by ceasar : Wednesday 10th October 2018 at 15:29.
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 10th October 2018, 16:01   #16
[email protected]
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,498
"Most of the time I move my head to see what is at the edge of the view. But I've noticed that well designed binoculars with flat fields that I have used have a larger area of sharpness in their overall view than binoculars without flat fields." I have to agree with Ceasar. A flat field binocular with sharp edges seems to me to have a bigger FOV because it has a bigger sweetspot. Even though I am not constantly looking at the edges I know if they are sharp or not because I am aware of my peripheral vision. If a binoculars edges are soft I know they are soft without directly looking at them. I can "feel" it. I would say to Mike F. I have not directly compared the NV 10x42 to the UV 10x50 but I have compared the SV 10x42 to the SV 10x50 and the SV 10x50 is better because the bigger aperture gives you more advantages optically than advances in coatings will. The bigger EP in the 10x50 and the bigger objective will give you an easier more aberration free image than the 10x42 and it will be better in lower light plus it has a bigger FOV. If I were you I would go with the 10x50 UV if the additional weight and size are not an issue. Also, check out the SV 10x50 unless you are sold on the Leica view. They are very good and even though they are flat field with sharp edges they have more 3D than the smaller apertures like the 10x42 SV. They might surprise you.

Last edited by [email protected] : Wednesday 10th October 2018 at 17:56.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 10th October 2018, 20:53   #17
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
I would say to Mike F. I have not directly compared the NV 10x42 to the UV 10x50 but I have compared the SV 10x42 to the SV 10x50 and the SV 10x50 is better because the bigger aperture gives you more advantages optically than advances in coatings will. The bigger EP in the 10x50 and the bigger objective will give you an easier more aberration free image than the 10x42 and it will be better in lower light plus it has a bigger FOV. If I were you I would go with the 10x50 UV if the additional weight and size are not an issue. Also, check out the SV 10x50 unless you are sold on the Leica view. They are very good and even though they are flat field with sharp edges they have more 3D than the smaller apertures like the 10x42 SV. They might surprise you.
denco, I'm sure you're right that bigger apertures give more advantages optically than advances in coatings will, but the NV isn't the same as the UV optically, so there are more fundamental differences than the coatings which might offset the advantages of the larger aperture. The 10x50 would certainly be better in low light, and yes, the FOV is a little bigger, but I'm not sure that the actual image quality (resolution) is any better. I'm actually very happy with the NV, but one always wonders...... If I get the chance to try a 10x42 SV I certainly will!
Mike F is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 10th October 2018, 21:06   #18
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
Most of the time I move my head to see what is at the edge of the view. But I've noticed that well designed binoculars with flat fields that I have used have a larger area of sharpness in their overall view than binoculars without flat fields.

I began noticing it when I started moving my eyes left and right toward the edge of the view which was more of an exploratory glance for me than anything else.

I didn't do this when I used my Nikon 8x30 EII which had out of focus edges while looking at close birds. I began doing it when I purchased a flat field Nikon 8x32 SE. I still moved my head when it was necessary. The SE's FOV is much smaller than the EIIs but its flat field made it seem larger than it really was.

It find this flat field with its larger area of sharpness is helpful with binoculars that are designed with wider than average FOVs like my new Monarch 8x42 HG with its FOV of 435'@1000yds. It would normally have a FOV of 409'@1000yds with out of focus edges.

Bob
Thanks for this, Bob. I think that flat field and edge to edge sharpness may well enhance the perceived FOV and general view for some, and I'm sure some people like to look out towards the edge of the field, but personally I'm more than happy to trade the possible advantages of the above for the (to me) more involving view of a bin with some field curvature, and honestly the 'sweet spot' in the NV is huge and I get eye strain trying to look outside of the central 70%. Plus there really isn't a great deal of softening towards the edges anyway. I think it's great that there are a variety of top end bins that cater for different tastes. It would be boring if they all tried to achieve the same result!
Mike F is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 11th October 2018, 09:07   #19
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
Most of the time I move my head to see what is at the edge of the view. But I've noticed that well designed binoculars with flat fields that I have used have a larger area of sharpness in their overall view than binoculars without flat fields.

I began noticing it when I started moving my eyes left and right toward the edge of the view which was more of an exploratory glance for me than anything else.

I didn't do this when I used my Nikon 8x30 EII which had out of focus edges while looking at close birds. I began doing it when I purchased a flat field Nikon 8x32 SE. I still moved my head when it was necessary. The SE's FOV is much smaller than the EIIs but its flat field made it seem larger than it really was.

It find this flat field with its larger area of sharpness is helpful with binoculars that are designed with wider than average FOVs like my new Monarch 8x42 HG with its FOV of 435'@1000yds. It would normally have a FOV of 409'@1000yds with out of focus edges.

Bob
Hi Bob,

That is also my statement!
I think the overall view in a good flat-field look much more harmonious and brilliant.
If I watch for a while with conventional optics, so with "normal" edge sharpness and then to Swarovski grab I always think wow, what a brilliant picture.

Andreas
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 12th October 2018, 21:10   #20
Patudo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: London
Posts: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
The SE's FOV is much smaller than the EIIs but its flat field made it seem larger than it really was.

Bob
Hi Bob, Andreas and others - forwhat it's worth, that is what I have found as well. The 8.5x42 Swarovision I have used on several occasions - and had additional opportunities to assess closely over the last week - gives the impression of having a very large field of view because it is virtually all "sweet spot".

Regards
Patudo
Patudo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 14th October 2018, 21:36   #21
OakStuddedAcres
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: California
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post


Thanks for this link!
OakStuddedAcres is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 16th October 2018, 15:55   #22
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LY+DG counties, Kansas, USA
Posts: 2,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
...I'm one of those who simply has no interest in trying to look at the image at the field stop. It seems a terribly unnatural thing to do. One never looks at an image at one's natural field stop after all, and even if you move your eyes to the extremities of the FOV of your vision, the image remains the same because the pupil is centred on the image. But one never even does that - you move you head if moving your eyes more than a few degrees in any direction. Trying to look at the field edge in a binocular feels as unnatural to me as not moving my head whilst looking around. I simply move the binocular, and do the same even if it's mounted on a tripod...
Ah well, to each their own, as you say, but just to underscore this point, what you write (quoted above) makes ABSOLUTELY no sense to me. Absolutely none. I move my eyes when looking about, not so much my neck or my body. When looking through a bin that doesn't have a wide field that is well corrected to the edge, I am forced to move my neck/body to re-position the binocular for every small change in viewing angle, which is a movement that feels very unnatural.

Moreover, your point about not looking at our own eyes' field stops (i.e. that we do not, except in rare circumstance, view critically using peripheral vision) is a completing irrelevant misdirect. It does not at all describe what is happening when looking through a bin off-axis. When viewing off-axis though a bin, one is (as you say, and I agree) using one's central vision, just (as I say) as when looking around a scene normally. I expect, when I look this way and that around the world by moving my eyes, for my central vision to remain comfortably high resolution and in focus, not to be (as in a bin with off-axis astigmatism or field curvature) challenged by all-of-a-sudden needing a different glasses prescription (as is effectively the case when looking off-axis through a bin with off-axis astigmatism or field curvature)!

For me, the analogy would be to a window made of warped glass that was only transparent and undistorting when looking through it normal (90 degrees) to the plane of the window. I like a bin to be like a proper undistorting window pane (that, in the case of a bin, also presents a magnified view of the world), such that I can look left/right/up/down at the scene visible through the window (yes, using my central vision!) without interference imposed by distorting degrading window glass. Tangential point of fact: some modern windows are not so good in this regard. I find the windshields/windscreens of most cars very irritating while birding because of the distortions and degradation in resolution that they impose, even when viewing normal to the glass (but especially when attempting to see through them at other angles).

--AP
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 16th October 2018, 18:14   #23
Mike F
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexis Powell View Post
Moreover, your point about not looking at our own eyes' field stops (i.e. that we do not, except in rare circumstance, view critically using peripheral vision) is a completing irrelevant misdirect. It does not at all describe what is happening when looking through a bin off-axis. When viewing off-axis though a bin, one is (as you say, and I agree) using one's central vision, just (as I say) as when looking around a scene normally. I expect, when I look this way and that around the world by moving my eyes, for my central vision to remain comfortably high resolution and in focus, not to be (as in a bin with off-axis astigmatism or field curvature) challenged by all-of-a-sudden needing a different glasses prescription (as is effectively the case when looking off-axis through a bin with off-axis astigmatism or field curvature)!--AP
Alexis, this just goes to prove how different we are. I totally except that people have different preferences, and indeed, this is not a point of contention for me, but I wanted to comment on one issue that you raised.

I can agree with everything you say (or at least not dispute it, as we've said, each to their own), but I think you have, in the above quote, misunderstood my point about looking at our own eye's field stops. I understand your comments, but my point was that it's actually impossible to do that without the target of our attention remaining in the centre of the perceived field - even if we cannot look any further up, down, left or right. In other words we cannot centre the focus of our vision in our periphery vision, When I look through a binocular the FOV I see is to me like the FOV I see with the naked eye (although obviously much more restricted), with a centre and periphery. Certainly, in practice, I look around the central 60-70% area without moving the bin, just as I would look around the central 60-70% of my naked eye FOV without moving my head, but beyond that, moving the bin seems as natural to me as moving my head, and looking at the field stop instead of moving the bin seems as unnatural as looking as far up, down, left and right as I can instead of moving my head.
I DO understand your point, and if I was like you I would probably demand a flat field, but I'm not, so I don't! Furthermore, that allows me to enjoy what I consider to be a much more natural (or at least enjoyable, as what's 'natural' is a matter of opinion) image.
Mike F is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 16th October 2018, 18:42   #24
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,146
One needs to remember that flat field designs do come with their own, built-in draw backs as well. I find most flat fields to possess some degree of rolling-ball, or at least unusual bending of lines while panning, as well as AMD at the edge. Also, to me at least, these flat fields lack some of the dynamic perception of depth that a curved design shows and gives me the impression of looking at a screen image, rather than something from life.

To each his own.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 16th October 2018, 18:58   #25
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LY+DG counties, Kansas, USA
Posts: 2,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
...I DO understand your point, and if I was like you I would probably demand a flat field, but I'm not, so I don't!...
Glad to know we understand each other, because I think we do. As I understand things, one difference is that you feel the bins as extensions of your eyes, whereas I feel them as a windows that I look through with my eyes.

--AP
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Swarovski SV 10x50 vs Leica ultravid HD PLUS 10x50 bockos Leica 22 Monday 14th December 2015 15:47
Leica Ultravid 10X50 HD Plus VS Swarovski SV 10X42. GLOBETROTTER Leica 8 Thursday 27th August 2015 19:02
Ultravid 10x42 or 10x50 Dr. Amnon Duvdevany Leica 13 Monday 27th October 2008 07:29
Swarovski SLC 10x50 VS Leica Ultravid 10x50 szybszy Swarovski 19 Sunday 6th July 2008 10:46
Leica Ultravid 10x50 or 10x42 Birding michaelboustead Leica 11 Saturday 31st January 2004 19:13

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.24977207 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:00.