Nice summation, Henry. That is exactly my point. I agree with your 57-58 degree AFOV number.
-
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.
How much FOV do you like? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
Reasonably steady. I think as I get older, I couldn't be bothered walking closer to things....Sancho. But as you get older can you hold a 10x steady?B
That stuff is $$$$$! Do you really drink it?B
chris6
Well-known member
Like that stuff too :bounce: but...
Re. a 6x example, 6.5x32 Fury, 8.5 Degree Angle of View: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=111123
"...Field of view is in large part a function of ocular design. The oculars of the Fury are twice the size of the Eaglet. It seems to me that if we insist on ever bigger FOV, then the binocular will have to get ever larger and who knows what the cost might be. The Fury is exceeded in FOV (to my limited knowledge) only by the $1,900 Zeiss 7x42, and then only by five feet. Fanciers of FOV should rejoice here..."
...Field of View and view quality:
There is some softness around the outer edge of the field in both the Fury and Yosemite. That’s kind of hard for me to quantify, for when I look for the edge of the sweet spot, the edge fuzziness tends togo away. My dominant eye wants to rule the proceedings and I can get a slight barrel separation effect if I pay much attention to the edge of the field. This may well be why I prefer center field image to a wide FOV. With the Fury and Yosemite there is sort of a peripheral realization that it exists, but I give it no credence since it does not annoy me. The Sweet spot on these two (to me anyway) is at least 80% of the field, if not more. Others will see this differently. The Swift is almost all “sweet spot”. I get no sense there is any edge fuzziness when I use it...."
Re. 8x and 10x examples, Nikon SE 8x32 and SE 10x42, which illustrate f.ov.s 7.5 degrees and 6 degrees respectively, I think the a.f.o.v.s are both 60 degrees (but stand to be corrected). For several years I used these exclusively, but intermittently:
If a.f.o.v.s were really the same, and at least in those cases, I concluded that (in effect) the magnification 'reduced the f.ov.' and rendered the 10x less "immersive".
In exchange I felt I could see a bit more detail with 10x but, up to the limit of the user's own capacity and to a lesser extent the steadiness of the view, guess this depends upon the available optic resolution.
When making a comparison, and apart from detail, there are so many other factors...
Re. Meopta Meostar HD 12x50, f.o.v. 5.2 degrees (afov 62.4?):
With this example the whole view is clear (while again immersion does not come into it) ++detail yet the gradation of colours is even more remarkable.
Re. Pentax DCF ED 8x32, f.o.v. 7.5 degrees (afov 60.0?)
The whole view is clear, lovely rich colours, and plenty of 'sparkle' but, surprisingly:
[Decent f.o.v. + relatively poor resolution of detail = realistic, lively, and immmersive]
Perfect for short/medium range but at long range not so much detail.
Re. a 6x example, 6.5x32 Fury, 8.5 Degree Angle of View: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=111123
"...Field of view is in large part a function of ocular design. The oculars of the Fury are twice the size of the Eaglet. It seems to me that if we insist on ever bigger FOV, then the binocular will have to get ever larger and who knows what the cost might be. The Fury is exceeded in FOV (to my limited knowledge) only by the $1,900 Zeiss 7x42, and then only by five feet. Fanciers of FOV should rejoice here..."
...Field of View and view quality:
There is some softness around the outer edge of the field in both the Fury and Yosemite. That’s kind of hard for me to quantify, for when I look for the edge of the sweet spot, the edge fuzziness tends togo away. My dominant eye wants to rule the proceedings and I can get a slight barrel separation effect if I pay much attention to the edge of the field. This may well be why I prefer center field image to a wide FOV. With the Fury and Yosemite there is sort of a peripheral realization that it exists, but I give it no credence since it does not annoy me. The Sweet spot on these two (to me anyway) is at least 80% of the field, if not more. Others will see this differently. The Swift is almost all “sweet spot”. I get no sense there is any edge fuzziness when I use it...."
Re. 8x and 10x examples, Nikon SE 8x32 and SE 10x42, which illustrate f.ov.s 7.5 degrees and 6 degrees respectively, I think the a.f.o.v.s are both 60 degrees (but stand to be corrected). For several years I used these exclusively, but intermittently:
If a.f.o.v.s were really the same, and at least in those cases, I concluded that (in effect) the magnification 'reduced the f.ov.' and rendered the 10x less "immersive".
In exchange I felt I could see a bit more detail with 10x but, up to the limit of the user's own capacity and to a lesser extent the steadiness of the view, guess this depends upon the available optic resolution.
When making a comparison, and apart from detail, there are so many other factors...
Re. Meopta Meostar HD 12x50, f.o.v. 5.2 degrees (afov 62.4?):
With this example the whole view is clear (while again immersion does not come into it) ++detail yet the gradation of colours is even more remarkable.
Re. Pentax DCF ED 8x32, f.o.v. 7.5 degrees (afov 60.0?)
The whole view is clear, lovely rich colours, and plenty of 'sparkle' but, surprisingly:
[Decent f.o.v. + relatively poor resolution of detail = realistic, lively, and immmersive]
Perfect for short/medium range but at long range not so much detail.
Last edited:
Henry, Surely not in all binoculars? What about the popular Leupold Yosemite/Kowa YF (near-"clones") 6x30? My impression and of many other users is actually of a notably wide and easy view.
looksharp65
Well-known member
AFOV is important, yes, and the Meostar 8x32 with its 139 m/1000 m has a more expansive view than the EDG II 7x42 with its 140 m thanks to more magnification.
Another important trait, becoming apparent with the eyecups down, is what I chose to call PFOV.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=220415
//L
I used a Swaro EL 10x32 WB for a decade and never thought once about a larger field of view. I think it was the same back then as it is today regarding fov, 360 ft.
When I use the 7x42 EDG, I frequently find I would like to have more fov than the specified 420'. Can't say I've experienced this until using this glass.
Go figure??? :smoke:
OK, I don't have the answer for this but think I got a clue when I briefly owned a Swaro EL 8x32 SV and felt something similar. I believe it has to do with the field flattener lens and having a more in focus image pushing to the edges of the view. My natural vision doesn't do this; it drops off in focus and sharpness at the periphery and is something of a natural and comfortable frame for the central/in front of me view. SO... I think I look for a similar view simulation in a binocular (some drop off at the edge to naturally frame the view), and if it is not there than I want to expand/widen the view until it is present. So I'm not so sure I can say I'm looking for more field of view, but instead just a familiar viewing representation.
I haven't heard anyone mention something like this around this forum so I'm running for cover - now!.... :egghead:
CG
When I use the 7x42 EDG, I frequently find I would like to have more fov than the specified 420'. Can't say I've experienced this until using this glass.
Go figure??? :smoke:
OK, I don't have the answer for this but think I got a clue when I briefly owned a Swaro EL 8x32 SV and felt something similar. I believe it has to do with the field flattener lens and having a more in focus image pushing to the edges of the view. My natural vision doesn't do this; it drops off in focus and sharpness at the periphery and is something of a natural and comfortable frame for the central/in front of me view. SO... I think I look for a similar view simulation in a binocular (some drop off at the edge to naturally frame the view), and if it is not there than I want to expand/widen the view until it is present. So I'm not so sure I can say I'm looking for more field of view, but instead just a familiar viewing representation.
I haven't heard anyone mention something like this around this forum so I'm running for cover - now!.... :egghead:
CG
Well, the only time I ever had a 'WOW' experience from the FoV was when I first looked through a Zeiss 7x42, which really gave the 'picture window' effect, particularly as compared to what was provided by my then glass, a 10x50 of unknown provenance.
I'd absolutely love to have a wider field, it greatly improves awareness of what the birds are doing. Unfortunately, binocular technology is frozen, because there is no money in it.
A modern design would offer a 25-30 degree FoV at minimal magnification, perhaps 2x, zooming as needed to focus on points of interest at 10-15x. Any cheap digital camera can do that today, but alpha binoculars can't even manage two powers effectively.
I'd absolutely love to have a wider field, it greatly improves awareness of what the birds are doing. Unfortunately, binocular technology is frozen, because there is no money in it.
A modern design would offer a 25-30 degree FoV at minimal magnification, perhaps 2x, zooming as needed to focus on points of interest at 10-15x. Any cheap digital camera can do that today, but alpha binoculars can't even manage two powers effectively.
That is the opposite of most people's reactions to a flat field binocular. Usually with the larger sweet spot and sharp edges a smaller FOV is satisfactory. You are saying you want a bigger FOV because you can now see the edges clearly. I have never heard that before. Interesting!
Digital can do a lot that optics can't. Maybe someday binoculars will benefit from digital technology.
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Dennis the Nikon 8x30 EII doesn't really work with my glasses. I want 462ft clear to the edge, sufficient ER for me (~17 or 18mm), and a proper 8x roof image size.
The only way 420 foot FOV sharp to the edge would satisfy me is if it was in a 9x50 magnification ...... now we're talking ! :king:
Chosun :gh:
Dennis
The question of how much fov I want has a different answer depending on the habitat I am visiting. Most of the time I am not really bothered with notions about AFOV and 'walk-in' views because I am more concerned with the birds or animals or insects that I am looking at.
For a lot of our time in Scotland I want a big field of view so preferably 135m or more and over 145m is super. But in some habitats a 10x is preferable and I accept whatever fov comes with it.
If we are carrying a lot of photo gear and/or scrambling over difficult terrain like boulders and steep slopes and tidal channels or cascading streams then a 32mm makes more sense and they can offer 130m or more so are a good compromise.
I have mentioned this before on BF but in many places we go a big fov gives us more chances of finding diving birds, otters, seals and cetaceans when they re-surface, and is also great for scanning expanses of sea for seabirds, big skies for eagles and falcons and big areas of hillside for harriers and owls. In summer in insect-rich habitats a 135m+ fov helps to get a look at flying dragonflies and butterflies.
Lee
The question of how much fov I want has a different answer depending on the habitat I am visiting. Most of the time I am not really bothered with notions about AFOV and 'walk-in' views because I am more concerned with the birds or animals or insects that I am looking at.
For a lot of our time in Scotland I want a big field of view so preferably 135m or more and over 145m is super. But in some habitats a 10x is preferable and I accept whatever fov comes with it.
If we are carrying a lot of photo gear and/or scrambling over difficult terrain like boulders and steep slopes and tidal channels or cascading streams then a 32mm makes more sense and they can offer 130m or more so are a good compromise.
I have mentioned this before on BF but in many places we go a big fov gives us more chances of finding diving birds, otters, seals and cetaceans when they re-surface, and is also great for scanning expanses of sea for seabirds, big skies for eagles and falcons and big areas of hillside for harriers and owls. In summer in insect-rich habitats a 135m+ fov helps to get a look at flying dragonflies and butterflies.
Lee
So you like the perceptual bigger image scale of roofs and you need more eye relief. A 9x50 with a 420 foot FOV sharp to the edge would be awesome.
Last edited:
Apparent field or whatever has never mattered to me nearly as much as the true field, as I tend to pan often during viewing anyways, although I bird differently/for different reasons that most. I am fine with about 360' @ 1000yds, anything less and I feel a bit confined; this is why I've not liked many of the 10x I've used, although some of the new models have definitely gotten better in this respect. 400'+ at 7/8x is probably "ideal".
looksharp65
Well-known member
True. The reason superzoom cameras are usable is the extreme in-camera processing taking care of the very massive distortions.
The consequence of this digital "cleaning" of the optically projected image is that the sensor isn't used at its full pixel count.
Furthermore, the portability of cameras with huge zoom ranges depends on the fairly small image sensors, making the focal lengths (and physical dimensions) modest. To construct 10x optical zoom binoculars would mean significantly larger units than anyone would like to carry (they could be made small, but due to the resulting small exit pupil you'd better be a hamster to use them).
...which in turn leads back to digital binoculars, and when they're digital anyway, why not use them for taking pictures as well?
I think I have provided enough reasons to safely dismiss the idea of portable binoculars with a 10x zoom range.
No they don't. It's an exclusively perceptual phenomenon, and when using binoculars at extremely long distances without foreground objects, there's even no difference at all.
If you distrust me in this, visit your optometrist and ask him/her to introduce a three prism diopters prism with base out in front of your eye.
It will force you to converge with your eyeballs and you will recalculate the cues from retinal image size, eyeball convergence and accommodation, in short making things appear smaller. The wider-spaced objectives of porri force the eyes to converge more when looking at objects within finite distance.
//L
Last edited:
Yup. Your right about where I am. Why do you think a bigger FOV say 450 feet is unnecessary?
Last edited:
Hi denco - for me, you cannot have too much. The bigger the field of view the more you can cover with every sweep to find that elusive and sometimes tiny "reversed anchor" in the sky, and the better the chance you have of following a bird travelling at speed, which may change direction radically and with very little warning. More than once I have had birds simply turn on the afterburners and just disappear from the center of my field of view as I was following them down, and caught a disappearing streak right at the edge only just in time. The wider the FOV the better the chance of finding that bird before it is gone for good. I had a look through all the alphas at last year's Birdfair and they were all great in their own way, but although the SF did not have (to my eyes) the nicest image it would have best suited what I do because of that very wide field of view. Others may differ of course. NB. regarding technology - I would dearly love to see how metalens technology (see link - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36438686 might be a game-changer when incorporated into binoculars.
I just think for example the Nikon 8x30 EII's FOV of 462 feet or 8.8 degree's is about the upper limit I can effectively utilize. I think you can have almost to wide of a FOV. 8.8 degree's is almost too much information to take in at one time but you do have a point in following a fast moving bird but wouldn't it take a pretty fast bird to move out of 462 foot FOV field? I guess you could lose them right at the edge.
Similar threads
