Oh dear,oh dear,oh dear Sancho. It's just not your day!!
Most kindest regards,********************** young Ian.
-
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.
Nikon ED50 Mini Review (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Kevin Conville
- Start date
Oh dear,oh dear,oh dear Sancho. It's just not your day!!
Most kindest regards,********************** young Ian.
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
Relax Sancho, take some deep breaths, and go pet that good dog of yours.
NoSpringChicken
Well-known member
This is where I display my ignorance. Can someone explain to me in simple terms what the difference is between 'Real' and 'Apparent' angular field of view?
Ron
Ron
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
Here's a concise explanation.
http://intheheavens.org/fas/junefom.htm
If you google "actual vs apparent FOV" you'll get more
joannec
Well-known member
Hi everyone
Rons second link in post 37 to the Nikon eyepieces has me confused. In the column labeled 'relative brightness', what do the numbers mean? I would assume that a higher number is desirable. I have an EDIII with a zoom eyepiece, with a relative brightness of 9, (number 8 in the picture) and was thinking of getting a 30x fixed eyepiece as well, (number 4 in the picture) which has been previously recommended highly on BF and by the guy who sold me the scope. But according to the table it only has a relative brightness of 4 on the EDIII. If a low 'relative brightness' score is undesirable, why is this eyepiece so highly recommended? I think I'm missing something or is it actually number 3 in the picture that people like so much? Can someone clarify this for me.
(Sorry to hijack your thread Kevin.)
Joanne
Rons second link in post 37 to the Nikon eyepieces has me confused. In the column labeled 'relative brightness', what do the numbers mean? I would assume that a higher number is desirable. I have an EDIII with a zoom eyepiece, with a relative brightness of 9, (number 8 in the picture) and was thinking of getting a 30x fixed eyepiece as well, (number 4 in the picture) which has been previously recommended highly on BF and by the guy who sold me the scope. But according to the table it only has a relative brightness of 4 on the EDIII. If a low 'relative brightness' score is undesirable, why is this eyepiece so highly recommended? I think I'm missing something or is it actually number 3 in the picture that people like so much? Can someone clarify this for me.
(Sorry to hijack your thread Kevin.)
Joanne
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
joannechattaway
Rons second link in post 37 to the Nikon eyepieces has me confused. In the column labeled 'relative brightness', what do the numbers mean?
The Relative Brightness figures are simply the exit pupil squared.
I find these figures wildly misleading myself. As you pointed out a 30x EP on a 60mm scope gives a RB figure of 4.
(Objective Diameter/Magnification, Squared)
A 20X on an 82mm scope yields a RB of almost 17.
So what does RB mean? Good question. Does anyone think that the view through the 82 will appear 4 times brighter?
Maybe, but only under the very lowest of light conditions I'm sure. Most people don't bird at night, and even then a factor of 4 doesn't seem right.
I wouldn't get too worked up about RB or Twilight Factor (though this is of more value IMO) Joanne. The 30XW on your scope WILL be brilliant for lots of reasons beyond numbers on a chart, count on it.
Rons second link in post 37 to the Nikon eyepieces has me confused. In the column labeled 'relative brightness', what do the numbers mean?
The Relative Brightness figures are simply the exit pupil squared.
I find these figures wildly misleading myself. As you pointed out a 30x EP on a 60mm scope gives a RB figure of 4.
(Objective Diameter/Magnification, Squared)
A 20X on an 82mm scope yields a RB of almost 17.
So what does RB mean? Good question. Does anyone think that the view through the 82 will appear 4 times brighter?
Maybe, but only under the very lowest of light conditions I'm sure. Most people don't bird at night, and even then a factor of 4 doesn't seem right.
I wouldn't get too worked up about RB or Twilight Factor (though this is of more value IMO) Joanne. The 30XW on your scope WILL be brilliant for lots of reasons beyond numbers on a chart, count on it.
Last edited:
Hi Joanne,
I am probably one of the least qualified to answer your question, so please use this info accordingly. As I understand it, the more that the magnificaion is increased, then the more that the relative brightness is reduced. This is due to the fact that as the mag. is increased, then the area observed is reduced (as well as the total amount of light gathered). Think of the total amount of light gathered from many birds in a flock (at lower mag.) vs. the total amount of light gathered from only one of the birds in the same flock (at higher mag.).
Your zoom eyepiece (#8 in chart) has a relative brightness of 9.0 @ its lowest mag. (20x for your scope). The relative brightness for this eyepiece would reduce as the mag. increased.
Eyepiece #4 has a 30x mag. for your scope, and relative brightness of 4.0.
Eyepiece #3 has a 24x mag. for your scope, and a relative brightness of 6.3.
They are both excellent eyepieces. You will need to decide whether you wish the higher mag. at the lower relative brightness, or the lower mag. at the higher relative brightness.
I hope that this info is both correct and helpful to you. Best Wishes.
Ron Davidson
I just noticed that Kevin has already posted an answer to your question. I concur with Kevin. Best to all.
I am probably one of the least qualified to answer your question, so please use this info accordingly. As I understand it, the more that the magnificaion is increased, then the more that the relative brightness is reduced. This is due to the fact that as the mag. is increased, then the area observed is reduced (as well as the total amount of light gathered). Think of the total amount of light gathered from many birds in a flock (at lower mag.) vs. the total amount of light gathered from only one of the birds in the same flock (at higher mag.).
Your zoom eyepiece (#8 in chart) has a relative brightness of 9.0 @ its lowest mag. (20x for your scope). The relative brightness for this eyepiece would reduce as the mag. increased.
Eyepiece #4 has a 30x mag. for your scope, and relative brightness of 4.0.
Eyepiece #3 has a 24x mag. for your scope, and a relative brightness of 6.3.
They are both excellent eyepieces. You will need to decide whether you wish the higher mag. at the lower relative brightness, or the lower mag. at the higher relative brightness.
I hope that this info is both correct and helpful to you. Best Wishes.
Ron Davidson
I just noticed that Kevin has already posted an answer to your question. I concur with Kevin. Best to all.
Last edited:
joannec
Well-known member
Thanks Kevin and Boomer
So...is the 30xW number 4 in the pictures? Where does the W come from? I guess I need to try both the 24x and 30x side by side. Anyone got any opinions which is best on the EDIII? Thanks.
Joanne
So...is the 30xW number 4 in the pictures? Where does the W come from? I guess I need to try both the 24x and 30x side by side. Anyone got any opinions which is best on the EDIII? Thanks.
Joanne
Joanne,
You have been asking some great questions.
The 'W' stands for 'wide' as in 'wide angle.' Both #3 & #4 in the chart are wide angle eyepieces, and yes, you should certainly opt for a wide angle eyepiece. I really don't believe that there is a huge difference in the eyepieces when used with a 60mm scope. The difference between the eyepieces would be much more apparent when used with a larger scope, such as the ED82. If it were me, I would probably opt for the 24xW. This eyepiece would give me 24x (well within 'the optimal mag.' for most bird-watching), and would still give me a reasonable amount of light (for overcast days or early/late in the day).
However, I really don't think that you would be making a mistake by getting the 30xW. Stop fretting and treat yourself to the one of your choice. Either one that you choose will be the 'right' one (as long as it is 'wide angle'). Best Wishes.
Ron Davidson
joannec
Well-known member
LOL3
You've given me some good answers too Ron. Thanks. I've only had my EDIII for about 6 months. I love it, with the zoom I've got. A friend might be selling a fixed eyepiece secondhand but I'm not sure which one it is. ...want to get the right one.
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
The differences in magnification, FOV, DOF, and brightness are all slight, so you're probably safe going with your personal biases (are you obsessed more with magnification than brightness, pick the 30x, or vice-versa). You could approximate the choice using your zoom under appropriately low lighting and looking at a test target/object at the farthest distance that you'd hope to regularly view similar objects. The FOV won't be the same as the fixed, and the brightness of the zoom might be very marginally higher, but that aside, set your zoom at 24x and take a look, then switch to 30x, and compare back and forth. If you consider one view better combo of mag and brightness than the other, go with that power of fixed. I'm inclined to think that in a scope that the difference in brightness might be more significant than the magnification. On the other hand, the edge of field performance (flatness, lack of aberrations) of the 30x might be slightly better since it has a slightly narrower true field. Probably going with whichever is the cheapest is the best way to go!
--AP
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
That's a good idea. Both have their merits.
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
huh?
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
The zoom has fewer elements than the 30x so its transmission should be a bit higher.
--AP
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
That surprises me Alexis, as zooms almost always have more elements. Number of elements also doesn't necessarily mean less light through put as compared to a more complex lens like a zoom, which are almost always optically slower as well for a given focal length.
If this is just deductive reasoning I'd be curious how it pans out by eye.
If this is just deductive reasoning I'd be curious how it pans out by eye.
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Truth be told, I don't actually know the exact number of elements in the zoom compared to the fixed, but I do know that the nikon fixed WA eyepieces with the exception of the one that is 24x on the 60mm are all fairly complicated because they are equivalent or near equivalent to the 24x but have a built in barlow-like lens system to achieve their different magnifications. My zoom is a smidge brighter than my fixed eyepieces, but my fixed are the older (perhaps not fully MC) versions. I don't think the difference is of practical significance, but I mentioned it in my earlier post because I wanted to point out that the fixed eyepieces do not offer a brighter view as many suppose they do.
--AP
joannec
Well-known member
Thanks guys to all of you who have offered advice. I don't understand all that technical stuff about elements but thanks.......I just wanna see the birds.
No Alexis, I am not obsessed with magnification. I have recently (with the large numbers of passage seabirds along the South coast of England) got into sea watching. Too much mag and it's not clear so think it's likely that I will go for clarity.
No Alexis, I am not obsessed with magnification. I have recently (with the large numbers of passage seabirds along the South coast of England) got into sea watching. Too much mag and it's not clear so think it's likely that I will go for clarity.
John Fleet
Finally reached 300!
Come September, we're visiting New York to start a touring holiday. Whilst birding isn't the main purpose, I intend to do as much as possible. The Leica 8 x 32s are definitely going but what about a scope? I see that I can get the ED50 with the zoom for $700 from B&H or Adorama in New York, which is just over £350. The same combination in the UK would set me back £468 here in the UK.
Of course if HM Customs rumble me on the way back I'm liable for VAT and maybe duty - but assuming that they don't are there any other downsides to buying the scope in the States - how will I stand re. warranty for example?
Of course if HM Customs rumble me on the way back I'm liable for VAT and maybe duty - but assuming that they don't are there any other downsides to buying the scope in the States - how will I stand re. warranty for example?
As I understand it you could well have problems with the warranty if you were ever to have problems - Nikon do seem to be very anti grey imports.
