Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

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.

How much FOV do you like?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Thursday 22nd February 2018, 22:47   #1
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,336
How much FOV do you like?

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?

Last edited by [email protected] : Thursday 22nd February 2018 at 22:52.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 00:21   #2
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
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 8 or 420'@1000yds.

It considers its Monarch 7 8x42 to be a wide field binocular with its 8 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/spor...e_Chart_En.pdf

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

Bob

Last edited by ceasar : Friday 23rd February 2018 at 00:23.
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 00:47   #3
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,012
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.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 00:47   #4
black crow
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: ashland oregon
Posts: 2,056
Quote:
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.
__________________
Beneath the civilized veneer, man remains the supreme predator. Cursed with what he believes is understanding, his true soul blossoms godlike in the heart of the nuclear inferno.

Last edited by black crow : Friday 23rd February 2018 at 09:38.
black crow is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 04:56   #5
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
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 8 or 420'@1000yds.

It considers its Monarch 7 8x42 to be a wide field binocular with its 8 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/spor...e_Chart_En.pdf

Personally I don't think I am looking into a tunnel when I use my Nikon 10x35 E2 which has a 7 FOV. Nor with my 10x42 SE which has a 6 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 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 04:58   #6
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
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 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 05:00   #7
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by black crow View Post
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?

Last edited by [email protected] : Friday 23rd February 2018 at 05:02.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 05:36   #8
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
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!

Bob
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 05:40   #9
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,336
Because the 8x is bigger doesn't it pull you into the view more than the 7x? Kind of like a big screen tv.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 05:43   #10
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
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
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 07:58   #11
chris6
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants uk
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
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?

Last edited by chris6 : Friday 23rd February 2018 at 14:03. Reason: corrections
chris6 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 09:50   #12
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 4,706
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
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!?

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! That's where it's at



Chosun
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 10:11   #13
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,611
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
typo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 10:29   #14
Sancho
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
Sancho's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 8,791
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.
Sancho is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 13:06   #15
Kammerdiner
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 1,766
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.
Kammerdiner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 13:48   #16
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,161
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.

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

I've found that about 57-58 AFOV is my lower limit to avoid a sense of constriction regardless of the magnification, and that is a measured true 57-58 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 - 57.5
Nikon 8x30, 10x35 EII - 66.5
Zeiss 8x42 FL, HT - 60
Zeiss 8x56 FL - 57.5

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 7.5 and 7.4. The reason is higher pincushion distortion in the FL.
henry link is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 14:34   #17
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris6 View Post
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 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 14:36   #18
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,336
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?

Last edited by [email protected] : Friday 23rd February 2018 at 15:03.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 14:37   #19
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,336
Sancho. But as you get older can you hold a 10x steady?

Last edited by [email protected] : Friday 23rd February 2018 at 15:04.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 14:39   #20
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kammerdiner View Post
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.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 14:42   #21
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,336
Nice summation, Henry. That is exactly my point. I agree with your 57-58 degree AFOV number.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 17:18   #22
Sancho
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
Sancho's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 8,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Sancho. But as you get older can you hold a 10x steady?
Reasonably steady. I think as I get older, I couldn't be bothered walking closer to things....
Sancho is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 17:23   #23
Pileatus
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
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?
As much as I can handle...
http://www.sippingmalt.com/wp-conten...A0%B8-FOV2.jpg
Pileatus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 17:51   #24
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pileatus View Post
That stuff is $$$$$! Do you really drink it?
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd February 2018, 17:53   #25
chris6
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants uk
Posts: 197
Like that stuff too 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.

Last edited by chris6 : Friday 23rd February 2018 at 21:08. Reason: afov
chris6 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

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.21449494 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:21.