• 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.

Do non glass binocs using sensors exist? (1 Viewer)

M

Mac29

New member
I've been searching the internet trying to discover if binoculars have been produced that don't use glass lenses but instead use sensors like in digital cameras.

All I've received back is yes they exist but only for ships, satellites, etc. and wouldn't work for hand held b/c you'd need a tripod. I answered that image stabilization already is offered in $$$$ binocs.

So I'm wondering if Japanese or German, etc. companies have developed these. Pretty simple Q. Anyone heard of this?


Thank you,

Mac29
 
The closest things I know of are night-vision and infrared binoculars. There is nothing for visual use that I am aware of.

There are some binoculars touted as "digital." These are basically cheap binoculars with a digital camera scabbed on. Not really good at either task.

I do know several people who use super-zoom cameras in lieu of binoculars. Making a digital binocular from a super-zoom camera would basically consist of adding an overly complicated viewfinder. I don't see this as a priority for manufacturers of either binoculars or cameras.
 
There are some digital binoculars out there. Sony makes the Dev-3 and Dev-5, they also
record the images.
Price range up to over $4,700.00.

There was some talk about these on BF a few years ago, not sure if anyone had tried them.

Jerry
 
While there's been various attempts at this sort of hybrid/ fusion technology, to date there's not been a success - at least at the level of consumer products
As Jerry indicates, the technology has been discussed before on the forum, with perhaps the most recent instance at:
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=383344


A) SONY
Sony has developed two lines of combined digital binoculars/ digital recording cameras, without significant market impact

Sony DEV-3 and DEV-5
There’s a two page article dating from the 2011 release in Digital Camera Review at: http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/news/sony-dev-3-and-dev-5-binoculars-record-stills-and-hd-video/


Sony DEV-30 and DEV-50
These date from 2013, and were 30% smaller and lighter. See the attached image of the DEV-50
The basic details can be found at: https://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/sony-unveils-dev-50-digital-recording-binocular/
And there is also a 1 3/4 minute video by Sony on youtube (dramatic music and images, basic technical detail) at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG4Y9mKmHOU

Usefully there's a review of the DEV-50, by the late Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape at: https://luminous-landscape.com/sony-dev-50/
Along with a review of the DEV-30, compared to a conventional camera at: https://thenaturaltraveller.net/2014/01/26/the-sony-dev-30-vs-lumix-fz200-for-bird-photography/
And another critical review of the DEV-50 at: https://jamesrome.net/drupal/DEV-50V



B) RICOH
In 2016, the Ricoh NV-10A digital binocular (actually a binoviewer) was introduced. The recommended retail price was US $4.2k

It used a 1/3” colour CMOS sensor, and provided magnification from around 6.6x to 13.2x
Each eyepiece provided an image of 720 x 480 effective pixels
The external dimensions were 225 x 166 x 83 mm, and the weight was 1.3 kg without the battery (nearly twice that of the Sony DV-50)

It included image stabilisation, and used digital processing to both:
- remove atmospheric interference such as rain, snow, fog and smoke (!), and
- enhance twilight viewing

There’s some information on Cloudy Nights at: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/549427-see-through-fog/
And the original link to the Ricoh site included in the thread is still active
See the attached brochure along with some clearer images

However, the fact that there is so little information on the net indicates that production/ demand was again very limited


John
 

Attachments

  • Sony DEV-50.jpg
    Sony DEV-50.jpg
    142.1 KB · Views: 31
  • NV 1.jpg
    NV 1.jpg
    95.3 KB · Views: 26
  • NV 2.jpg
    NV 2.jpg
    89.6 KB · Views: 23
  • NV 3.jpg
    NV 3.jpg
    58.9 KB · Views: 27
  • Ricoh NV-10A.pdf
    472.8 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:
Presumably, marrying a high resolution Oculus Rift type system with modern stabilised camera sensors must be just round the corner since the required technology is all but here today. This will be revolutionary and hopefully lead to somewhat lighter and brighter binoculars.

Maybe Huawei will become a rival to the "alpha" manufacturers in the not too distant future.
National security concerns aside. LOL.
 
fazalmajid said:
Image quality reminiscent of 1998 vintage digicams.

Here's a sample, I had to resize it to 1600x1200 due to BF limitations, but the original is at https://majid.info/images/DSC00016.JPG

The view from the viewfinder was even worse.

Compare with the shots from my Canon:

https://blog.majid.info/galleries/parrots/
Click to expand...

That's not as bad as I was expecting. Not as much detail as from the Canon, and what I think is motion blur on the bill. The EXIF information says it was taken at 1/90, but I can't see any ISO information. Also some fringing and flaring? It's not nice, but you can certainly tell what it is.

I can't tell what speed the equivalent Canon photo was taken at. Depth of field looks greater. What model and lens is it?

I'm not sure if I can get an idea of how good or bad it is from that. How far away was it? I can imagine it might not be pleasant looking through them.
 
pshute said:
The EXIF information says it was taken at 1/90, but I can't see any ISO information.
Click to expand...

Neither can I, not a very common model so Lightroom can't decode that.

I can't tell what speed the equivalent Canon photo was taken at. Depth of field looks greater. What model and lens is it?
Click to expand...

Canon 5DmkIII, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS @ 300mm, ISO 800, f/7.1 or f/8.

I'm not sure if I can get an idea of how good or bad it is from that. How far away was it? I can imagine it might not be pleasant looking through them.
Click to expand...

probably 5-10m away.

The EVF had 852 x 480 resolution, so barely better than NTSC low-def TV.
 
Last edited:
fazalmajid said:
Neither can I, not a very common model so Lightroom can't decode that.
Click to expand...
I used Picture Information Extractor. I don't think the ISO setting is stored in the photo at all, as there's plenty of other information.

The EVF had 852 x 480 resolution, so barely better than NTSC low-def TV.
Click to expand...

That's 0.4 megapixels. Would that be equivalent to 1.2 megadots, as they specify them now? And how would that compare to the Powershot Zoom's 2.36 megadot vewfinder? The DEV-3's dual EVFs might count for more if one eye fills in detail missing for the other side.
 
pshute said:
I used Picture Information Extractor. I don't think the ISO setting is stored in the photo at all, as there's plenty of other information.
Click to expand...

The EXIF format is poorly specified and there are "manufacturer's notes" fields camera makers can use to store extra information, usually in proprietary formats software makers have to write code for. Focus distance and focus point are some of these fields, but ISO is bog-standard, Sony chose not to write it.

That's 0.4 megapixels. Would that be equivalent to 1.2 megadots, as they specify them now? And how would that compare to the Powershot Zoom's 2.36 megadot vewfinder? The DEV-3's dual EVFs might count for more if one eye fills in detail missing for the other side.
Click to expand...

I recall the Fuji X-T1 being the first EVF I found acceptable (if not as lovely as the Leica SL's), and it had a 2.36M dot EVF. The current best-in-class EVFs like the Canon R5's have 5.76M dots (OLED) and 120Hz refresh rate, i.e. 2K/1080p resolution, as do VR goggles, although the quality of the optics matter at least as much. I would expect the PowerShot Zoom to have an acceptable viewfinder, within the sensitivity limits of its tiny 1/3" sensor, of course.
 
Last edited:
fazalmajid said:
Image quality reminiscent of 1998 vintage digicams.

Here's a sample, I had to resize it to 1600x1200 due to BF limitations, but the original is at https://majid.info/images/DSC00016.JPG

The view from the viewfinder was even worse.

Compare with the shots from my Canon:

https://blog.majid.info/galleries/parrots/
Click to expand...

(Sorry: a bit off topic...) Do these parrots still exist? I'm just down the road but never seen this species here [edit: perhaps not.... I missed the San Fransisco tag]
 
Last edited:
THE_FERN said:
(Sorry: a bit off topic...) Do these parrots still exist? I'm just down the road but never seen this species here [edit: perhaps not.... I missed the San Fransisco tag]
Click to expand...

If you are referring to the parakeets in London that escaped during the great storm of 1987 and went feral, yes, they still exist, I saw some in Hampstead in October of last year (sorry for the weak detail in the photo, a 28mm lens is not ideal for this, which is why I preordered the Canon Powershot Zoom). They are not red-ringed, however.

The ones in San Francisco are also there as well, but fewer are seen on Telegraph Hill itself.
 

Attachments

  • R0000785.jpg
    R0000785.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 23
Londoners parakeets (spreading far more widely) are rose ringed parakeets, we gave lots in SW London. People are divided over where they came from and whether they like them. Another non-native invasive species.
Binocukars combine wide field and sharpness, having a display that could give the detail over the required area would be hard unless it moved as we moved our eyes, our peripheral vision being less detailed.

Peter
 
wllmspd said:
Londoners parakeets (spreading far more widely) are rose ringed parakeets, we gave lots in SW London. People are divided over where they came from and whether they like them. Another non-native invasive species.
Click to expand...
If they're non-invasive, why are they "spreading far more widely"?

Binocukars combine wide field and sharpness, having a display that could give the detail over the required area would be hard unless it moved as we moved our eyes, our peripheral vision being less detailed.
Click to expand...
Assuming these have the field width but not the sharpness, the zoom might help with that. Zoom in for detail, zoom out for field width.
 
They are invasive and non-native... most invasive species seem to have negative consequences, but not sure if the Parrot impact has been assessed - probably too many now to do anything about it anyway,
Like the grey squirrels that have pushed the native reds to near extinction.

What’s good with Binos is the width of sharp field, so you eyes decide what to focus on and you have the peripheral vision to catch stuff that might happen... if you zoom in, you are blind to the wider picture (unless you maybe fusion several different sensors together....) I’m sticking with my 60+ yr old glass tech for the moment.

Peter
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 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.

Similar threads

C
NL 12x42 Optimisation
Replies
12
Views
2K
hopster
hopster
G
New March Drawing for Kowa Optics
Replies
12
Views
1K
gr8fuldoug
G
W
Swarovski twilight glass
Replies
12
Views
3K
dries1
dries1
J
My First Experience Purchasing Birding Binoculars
Replies
11
Views
2K
tenex
tenex
G
  • Article
The Dracula's Castle Approach To Birding
Replies
3
Views
755
Stonefaction
Stonefaction

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top