How much FOV do you like? (1 Viewer)

denco@comcast.n · Feb 22, 2018

How much FOV do you prefer in an 8x birding binocular? I find 400 to 420 feet about optimum. Under 400 feet is a tad too small and starts to feel tunnel like and over 420 feet I think there begins to be more optical aberrations and it seems to make it hard to see all the field. What do you think? Also, how important is a big FOV to you?

ceasar · Feb 23, 2018

[email protected] said:
How much FOV do you prefer in an 8x birding binocular? I find 400 to 420 feet about optimum. Under 400 feet is a tad too small and starts to feel tunnel like and over 420 feet I think there begins to be more optical aberrations and it seems to make it hard to see all the field. What do you think? Also, how important is a big FOV to you?

It is both overrated and underrated depending on the size of the sweet spot of your binocular (excluding the 8x30E2 which cannot be overrated.)

Nikon does not consider its 7x42 EDG to be a wide field binocular although its FOV is 8º or 420'@1000yds.

It considers its Monarch 7 8x42 to be a wide field binocular with its 8º FOV also 420'@1000yds.

What's the difference? 420'@1000 yards with a 7x is still 420'@1000yds with an 8x.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/sportoptics/binoculars/pdf/Performance_Icons_Compatible_Chart_En.pdf

Personally I don't think I am looking into a tunnel when I use my Nikon 10x35 E2 which has a 7º FOV. Nor with my 10x42 SE which has a 6º FOV or 315'@1000 yds. Here the 10x35 is overrated and the 10x42 is underrated.

Bob

dries1 · Feb 23, 2018

I am coming to the realization that for me, viewing out to 200 meters with a 8 degree vs a 7.4 degree FOV glass, the difference is almost negligible.

A.W.

black crow · Feb 23, 2018

How much FOV do you like?

LOTS! I love looking at wildflowers on sunny days with the Zens 477 ft Fov. Or gazing on bright sunny grassy hillsides on the mountains across the valley.

I get SAD in winter and on bright days looking on sunny areas really does help with that if I just draw in lots of sunny scenes for 30 min. or so and the more FOV the better. I like that wide open feel. However I usually prefer and 8 or 10x as my eyes have aged but when I look for a new binocular FOV is one of my most important criteria. I don't like tunnel effect and the first time I really experienced that was in a pair of Nikon 8x42. I was new to understanding optics and I don't think I even knew why something felt so wrong in them. By the time I sold them I understood and from then on I've always looked for the widest FOV I can find that is still decent optically.

denco@comcast.n · Feb 23, 2018

ceasar said:
It is both overrated and underrated depending on the size of the sweet spot of your binocular (excluding the 8x30E2 which cannot be overrated.)

Nikon does not consider its 7x42 EDG to be a wide field binocular although its FOV is 8º or 420'@1000yds.

It considers its Monarch 7 8x42 to be a wide field binocular with its 8º FOV also 420'@1000yds.

What's the difference? 420'@1000 yards with a 7x is still 420'@1000yds with an 8x.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/sportoptics/binoculars/pdf/Performance_Icons_Compatible_Chart_En.pdf

Personally I don't think I am looking into a tunnel when I use my Nikon 10x35 E2 which has a 7º FOV. Nor with my 10x42 SE which has a 6º FOV or 315'@1000 yds. Here the 10x35 is overrated and the 10x42 is underrated.

Bob

The AFOV of the Monarch 7 8x would be greater than the EDG 7x so the 8x would have a more "immersive view". Doesn't the 8x seem more immersive?

denco@comcast.n · Feb 23, 2018

dries1 said:
I am coming to the realization that for me, viewing out to 200 meters with a 8 degree vs a 7.4 degree FOV glass, the difference is almost negligible.

A.W.

So pushing out beyond 200 meters makes no difference in FOV? It is just under 200 meters that FOV makes a difference?

denco@comcast.n · Feb 23, 2018

black crow said:
LOTS! I love looking at wildflowers on sunny days with the Zens 477ft Fov.

I get SAD in winter and on bright days looking on sunny areas really does help that and the more FOV the better. I like that wide open feel.

You probably like the Nikon EII 8x30 then also? Do you feel that the huge FOV's are hard to take in at times?

ceasar · Feb 23, 2018

[email protected] said:
The AFOV of the Monarch 7 8x would be greater than the EDG 7x so the 8x would have a more "immersive view". Doesn't the 8x seem more immersive?

Dennis,

I decided to look up the definition of "immersive" and I found out that there are two of them and one deals with digital technology:

"Immersive | Define Immersive at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/immersive

noting or relating to digital technology or images that actively engage one's senses and may create an altered mental state: immersive media; immersive 3D environments. 2. noting or relating to activity that occupies most of one's attention, time, or energy: her many years of immersive sociological fieldwork.

The other one is from Merriam-Webster:

Immersive | Definition of Immersive by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immersive

"Definition of immersive. : providing, involving, or characterized by deep absorption or immersion in something (such as an activity or a real or artificial environment) … when game designers began creating realistic, immersive game environments such as World of Warcraft."

I have always had a problem getting a handle on apparent FOV as opposed to actual FOV and and the above definitions of "immersive," if they apply to either, are not helping me any.

If I see the same FOV with both a 7x binocular and with an 8x binocular the 7x will look smaller to me than the 8x will.

I'm not being snarky here. That is how it looks to me. I certainly don't get an altered mental state from the 8x!:eek!:

Bob

denco@comcast.n · Feb 23, 2018

Because the 8x is bigger doesn't it pull you into the view more than the 7x? Kind of like a big screen tv.

ceasar · Feb 23, 2018

[email protected] said:
Because the 8x is bigger doesn't it pull you into the view more than the 7x? Kind of like a big screen tv.

No. I have binocular vision with both of them and I am looking at things in real life which have real depth of field. A TV screen is different.

Bob

chris6 · Feb 23, 2018

[email protected] said:
Because the 8x is bigger doesn't it pull you into the view more than the 7x? Kind of like a big screen tv.

Me too, currently prefererring greater magnification to be able see more detail, which usually means 'only' 5 or 6 degrees but while trying out different binoculars have come to think that it is probably enough:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_span
"...The visual field of the human eye spans approximately 120 degrees of arc. However, most of that arc is peripheral vision."
"...The field of view that is observed with sufficient resolution to read text typically spans about 6 degrees of arc,..."

- and with higher magnification I believe that d.o.f. tends to be reduced
so that when looking at a distant object, or into trees or bushes, usually with a narrower field e.g. at 10/12x:

[big objects/s - less context/f.o.v. - shallow d.o.f. = subject emphasised] ...like 'bokeh' in photography?

ceasar said:
No. I have binocular vision with both of them and I am looking at things in real life which have real depth of field. A TV screen is different.

ceasar,
Yes, for occasional vistas and close range, I do prefer lower magnification,
to make the view seem more natural, usually with a wider field e.g. at 6/7x:

[small object/s + more context/f.o.v. + greater d.o.f. = immersion] ...which may also need less adjustment to focus?

Chosun Juan · Feb 23, 2018

[email protected] said:
How much FOV do you prefer in an 8x birding binocular? I find 400 to 420 feet about optimum. Under 400 feet is a tad too small and starts to feel tunnel like and over 420 feet I think there begins to be more optical aberrations and it seems to make it hard to see all the field. What do you think? Also, how important is a big FOV to you?

Dennis - how long is a piece of string!? :brains:

Human physiology has some of your answers as to why less than ~60° AFov (~400ft in an 8x) can start to feel confining. 420ft is nice, sharp to the edge is even nicer. I actually like the 444ft of the Zeiss SF (the colour cast, difficulty of viewing for me - to do with setting the ER, the smoke and mirrors ergonomics which aren't as nice as the Zen ED3's for me, the $30 eyecups, and the ~$35 million price tag out here - not so much). Zeiss lists the SF's AFov at 64° which is to do with the distortion profile.

I found the 69° AFov of my Swift Audubon 8.5x44 820ED to be quite nice, though not sharp enough at the edges. I'd like to see 70° AFov's in all my bins - sharp to the edge, with sensible gentle distortion profiles and edge pincushion, and only slight field curvature that could be accommodated by under 40's (sorry for anyone older than that - you're on your own!

That would be something around 462ft Fov in an 8x ..... yup! :cat: That's where it's at :t: :king:

Chosun :gh:

typo · Feb 23, 2018

I appreciate a wide field of view as much as anyone else, but have realised there is a difference between static evaluation, and what I notice in the field.

As mentioned above, the fovea, the high resolution part of the retina only comprises about 2% of the AFOV. Outside that, acuity and colour discrimination declines and beyond about 55° both drop significantly. As long as a binocular is sharp over 55° I'm pretty content. 65° with edge astigmatism is annoying.

David

Sancho · Feb 23, 2018

I think it depends on the binocular. I used to love the EII 8x30 for its wide FOV, but kept a SE 8x32 even though it's narrower. Like others, the sharp area became more important. Also, AFOV matters more to me now; I've taken a liking to 10x (oddly, as I get older), and as long as it's 60 degrees or thereabouts, I'm happy.

Kammerdiner · Feb 23, 2018

About 400' for 8x is good for me. I use 3 pair of 8x with fields 420-426' and although I notice the extra it doesn't seem to do anything for me as a (mostly) birder. Doesn't hurt, doesn't help. The 8.5 SV at 399' has been my fav for years now.

On the other hand I also use the 8x25 CL at about 360' (I think) and I notice that because it often seems a little narrow.

I do like a wide AFOV though. That's where "immersive" comes from as I understand it.

I've also become fond of flat field/sharp edges. In fact, fuzzy edges have become distracting to me. Optically spoiled I guess.

henry link · Feb 23, 2018

This discussion brings back the question of real FOV vs apparent FOV. A wide real FOV at low magnification may look tunnel like compared to the very same real FOV at high magnification because the apparent field at low magnification is too small.

8º real FOV, for instance, looks tunnel like at 6x (48º apparent FOV) and expansively wide at 10x (80º AFOV).

I've found that about 57-58º AFOV is my lower limit to avoid a sense of constriction regardless of the magnification, and that is a measured true 57-58º including distortion.

Here are the measured true AFOVs including distortion for a few of the binoculars that have been mentioned:

Nikon 8x32, 10x42, 12x50 SE - 57.5º
Nikon 8x30, 10x35 EII - 66.5º
Zeiss 8x42 FL, HT - 60º
Zeiss 8x56 FL - 57.5º

Notice that the Zeiss 8x56 FL and the Nikon 8x32 SE have exactly the same AFOV (at the absolute minimum for me) even though their real fields are 7.5º and 7.4º. The reason is higher pincushion distortion in the FL.

denco@comcast.n · Feb 23, 2018

chris6 said:
Me too, currently prefererring greater magnification to be able see more detail, which usually means 'only' 5 or 6 degrees but while trying out different binoculars have come to think that it is probably enough:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_span
"...The visual field of the human eye spans approximately 120 degrees of arc. However, most of that arc is peripheral vision."
"...The field of view that is observed with sufficient resolution to read text typically spans about 6 degrees of arc,..."

- and with higher magnification I believe that d.o.f. tends to be reduced
so that when looking at a distant object, or into trees or bushes, usually with a narrower field e.g. at 10/12x:

[big objects/s - less context/f.o.v. - shallow d.o.f. = subject emphasised] ...like 'bokeh' in photography?

ceasar,
Yes, for occasional vistas and close range, I do prefer lower magnification,
to make the view seem more natural, usually with a wider field e.g. at 6/7x:

[small object/s + more context/f.o.v. + greater d.o.f. = immersion] ...which may also need less adjustment to focus?

"...The field of view that is observed with sufficient resolution to read text typically spans about 6 degrees of arc,..."

So anything beyond 6 degrees is not clear? That makes sense. That is why you do not see the edges clearly on a big FOV.

denco@comcast.n · Feb 23, 2018

Chosun. Do you like a Nikon 8x30 EII? It is right at about 462 feet FOV. Would you rather have a 420 foot FOV sharp to the edge or a 450 foot FOV with soft edges?

denco@comcast.n · Feb 23, 2018

Sancho. But as you get older can you hold a 10x steady?B

denco@comcast.n · Feb 23, 2018

Kammerdiner said:
About 400' for 8x is good for me. I use 3 pair of 8x with fields 420-426' and although I notice the extra it doesn't seem to do anything for me as a (mostly) birder. Doesn't hurt, doesn't help. The 8.5 SV at 399' has been my fav for years now.

On the other hand I also use the 8x25 CL at about 360' (I think) and I notice that because it often seems a little narrow.

I do like a wide AFOV though. That's where "immersive" comes from as I understand it.

I've also become fond of flat field/sharp edges. In fact, fuzzy edges have become distracting to me. Optically spoiled I guess.

I agree with you 100%. I am getting spoiled with flat fields and sharp edges also. It is like you can carefully examine the whole field even though it might be unnatural.

How much FOV do you like? (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread