I am somewhat older than that and I was told by my ophthalmologist that I have 6mm pupils.
-
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.
Aging eyes (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter black crow
- Start date
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
Attachments
mooreorless
Well-known member
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
I'll measure them soon, probably with a flash camera. I am pretty confident though that if my eyes DO dilate as most people's do, it is slow to happen and takes the dimmest of light.
I'll report what I find.
Cheers
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Kevin:
You need to go to an optometrist and get your eyes dilated to see how
large your pupils can get. If you have had that done, you will know what
I mean. They can measure it then.
It is not a do it yourself thing.
Jerry
One problem with flash very close to the eyes is that the camera autofocus light can be blinding.
The second is that many camera flashguns do not decrease their output enough at very close distance.
Also the flash cannot go down to perhaps 1/20,000 second duration or faster.
The Z5 and Z6 use a non visible autofocus beam. Whether this can do any damage I don't know, but it may be well into the infra red.
I do not think it is safe to expose a very bright and uncontrolled light to fully dark adapted eyes.
The second is that many camera flashguns do not decrease their output enough at very close distance.
Also the flash cannot go down to perhaps 1/20,000 second duration or faster.
The Z5 and Z6 use a non visible autofocus beam. Whether this can do any damage I don't know, but it may be well into the infra red.
I do not think it is safe to expose a very bright and uncontrolled light to fully dark adapted eyes.
NDhunter
Experienced observer
There is another subject that may or may not have anything to do with aging.
That is how some people judge the color cast of binoculars. I have found my eyes do differ in seeing reds, and it was striking to me one fall when watching the fall colors when I found my eyes differ in seeing color.
I made a special thread about this finding a while back, and there is a nice discussion of the issue.
I find it very bad when some on here, who admit they have a similar issue, like to evaluate color cast in various binoculars, and complain about some, and really like others. That is ridiculous.
That is one strong reason I do not comment on color cast when evaluating
and giving my opinion of binocular models.
Jerry
That is how some people judge the color cast of binoculars. I have found my eyes do differ in seeing reds, and it was striking to me one fall when watching the fall colors when I found my eyes differ in seeing color.
I made a special thread about this finding a while back, and there is a nice discussion of the issue.
I find it very bad when some on here, who admit they have a similar issue, like to evaluate color cast in various binoculars, and complain about some, and really like others. That is ridiculous.
That is one strong reason I do not comment on color cast when evaluating
and giving my opinion of binocular models.
Jerry
NDhunter
Experienced observer
black crow
Well-known member
There is another subject that may or may not have anything to do with aging.
That is how some people judge the color cast of binoculars. I have found my eyes do differ in seeing reds, and it was striking to me one fall when watching the fall colors when I found my eyes differ in seeing color.
I made a special thread about this finding a while back, and there is a nice discussion of the issue.
I find it very bad when some on here, who admit they have a similar issue, like to evaluate color cast in various binoculars, and complain about some, and really like others. That is ridiculous.
That is one strong reason I do not comment on color cast when evaluating
and giving my opinion of binocular models.
Jerry
Just to clarify for myself you are saying, that if you use the color cast to evaluate a binocular it might be your eyes rather than the actually color the binocular is showing? Is that right? I kind of think that is why my friend doesn't like her Kowa Genesis among other things. She often said it had a certain color that she wasn't that fond of. I find them to be what I call extremely neutral but at one time when I first saw them I thought they had a unusual tint to them. Something I never noticed in other binoculars. Now with more experience I think it might have had something to do with how bright they are. I still have a lot to learn about such things.
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
I actually had my eyes dilated last year by an ophthalmologist but didn't think about measuring my pupils. I do remember it was an unpleasant experience for the rest of the day however.
Mine uses reversal drops, doesn't yours?
NDhunter
Experienced observer
That is correct. That is why I find the entire personal color observation subject
very subjective. That means personal opinion comes into play.
I find it odd some can dismiss one quality binocular over another because
of color cast. I suppose that is just me.
I can find many more differences that are much more important to me.
I can tell if a binocular has a warmer or cooler view, and just leave it at that.
All binoculars have their own personality.
Jerry
black crow
Well-known member
I now suspect a lot of personal opinion comes into play when evaluating binoculars. More than I ever thought.
I can see how someone would prefer one tint or cast to another. I know that's what my friend liked about her Eagle Optics over the Kowa Genesis. I guess that's valid for her. What I don't see often is that thing they call fine detail differences. I took my inexpensive Celestron's over there today and I asked her if she could see any better detail in the Kowa Genesis over the Celestron and she said she thought the Celestron was a little sharper lol. I'm not making this stuff up LOL. I sure didn't see that but I really couldn't see the Kowa being better at least not in any way that made the view less stunning or showed more detail in casual viewing. We both really dug these $189 Celestron's and I totally love her Genesis. I think there is a tiny fraction more clarity maybe? That would be then that personal opinion you were talking about because I really wasn't very sure I saw that difference. I think because they were the Alphas my brain tried to make them better lol. Now if any difference is that hard for either of us to see then I feel either something is wrong with my eyes or my brain (and hers) or the differences are so miniscule that casual viewing won't pick it up. Well even though I use binoculars on my daily hikes year after year I have to assume that the viewing I do is casual because I really can't see these differences. Now I've looked through really crummy$35 dollar binoculars and I really can see that they are crummy but once I pick out a good value in binocular that's around $200 I no longer can see this big difference in detail. I wish I could see what others see when they look through binoculars. I it's not like I don't see detail so it doesn't matter which binoculars I use. I see a lot of detail to my mind but I see the same amount in the $200 binocular as I do in the $400 or even $2000 binocular as long as the $200 binocular is good quality. I remember when I inherited my 8x50 Swarovski. My first Alpha binocular. Sold for almost $2000. I took them out and was planning on going to a whole new and dramatic level than lets say my Zen 7x36 but I have to say I was a little surprised that I didn't see much difference at all. I did see that they were sharper going out to the edge and they were brighter a tiny amount in daylight but I saw wonderful detail in both binoculars about equally. So I'm kind of at a loss here.
I can see how someone would prefer one tint or cast to another. I know that's what my friend liked about her Eagle Optics over the Kowa Genesis. I guess that's valid for her. What I don't see often is that thing they call fine detail differences. I took my inexpensive Celestron's over there today and I asked her if she could see any better detail in the Kowa Genesis over the Celestron and she said she thought the Celestron was a little sharper lol. I'm not making this stuff up LOL. I sure didn't see that but I really couldn't see the Kowa being better at least not in any way that made the view less stunning or showed more detail in casual viewing. We both really dug these $189 Celestron's and I totally love her Genesis. I think there is a tiny fraction more clarity maybe? That would be then that personal opinion you were talking about because I really wasn't very sure I saw that difference. I think because they were the Alphas my brain tried to make them better lol. Now if any difference is that hard for either of us to see then I feel either something is wrong with my eyes or my brain (and hers) or the differences are so miniscule that casual viewing won't pick it up. Well even though I use binoculars on my daily hikes year after year I have to assume that the viewing I do is casual because I really can't see these differences. Now I've looked through really crummy$35 dollar binoculars and I really can see that they are crummy but once I pick out a good value in binocular that's around $200 I no longer can see this big difference in detail. I wish I could see what others see when they look through binoculars. I it's not like I don't see detail so it doesn't matter which binoculars I use. I see a lot of detail to my mind but I see the same amount in the $200 binocular as I do in the $400 or even $2000 binocular as long as the $200 binocular is good quality. I remember when I inherited my 8x50 Swarovski. My first Alpha binocular. Sold for almost $2000. I took them out and was planning on going to a whole new and dramatic level than lets say my Zen 7x36 but I have to say I was a little surprised that I didn't see much difference at all. I did see that they were sharper going out to the edge and they were brighter a tiny amount in daylight but I saw wonderful detail in both binoculars about equally. So I'm kind of at a loss here.
Last edited:
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
Apparently not
But what we’re looking for here is the ability to use a large exit pupil resulting from large objectives. Surely we should be testing in the kind of conditions we’ll be using the binoculars in? Eg semi dark. Perhaps having looked at a bright light a few seconds ago - sunset or a torch.
In those conditions, are even young pupils very big? If not, is there ever a time large objectives give you a brighter image for birding? People use them for astronomy, but for that it’s usually much darker, and people are careful not to look at lights.
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
Very good points pshute. I was just in my bathroom which has a dimmer light switch. Turned all the way down, with my face very close to the mirror, I was just able to even see my pupil. Quite low light. I didn't use a scale as it would be unreadable. My estimate is that my pupil didn't dilate more than about 3mm. Maybe I'm a freak, but my pupils just don't get very big. No drugs, BTW
NDhunter
Experienced observer
There are lots of times a larger objective size will give you a brighter and
better image when birding. If you think about viewing in a darker forested
area, or at dawn or dusk looking at waterfowl, bigger is better.
An example is comparing any 8x20 binocular vs. a 8x42 or larger.
We are now talking about ease of view also.
Jerry
But that’s comparing a 2.5mm exit pupil with a 5.25. Most people’s pupils can dilate bigger than 2.5. But would 8x56’s (7mm) benefit anyone there? Even people whose pupils can dilate to 7mm in darkness might not dilate that much in the conditions you describe.
I’d be interested to know what the range of dilations really is in real conditions.
That is correct. That is why I find the entire personal color observation subject
very subjective. That means personal opinion comes into play.
I find it odd some can dismiss one quality binocular over another because
of color cast. I suppose that is just me.
Jerry
No, its not just you Jerry. We have both read on here how different people have described the same model binoculars as yellow cast, green cast, warm, so bright the colours are washed out, neutral, realistic, real-life and so on. I don't doubt that the folks concerned are reporting what they see. Some have reported Leicas have a red tint others that Swaros have a blue tint, many more think they are just life-like and natural. I report what I see but nowadays I don't necessarily expect others to see the same. Me and Troubdoris often disagree about whether a colour is blue or green.
I have to say I never perceive a bino that is strong in the red, or strong in the blue or strong in the yellow-green as having a view that is tinted all the way across, has a 'colour-cast', with those colours. For example snow and sands that look pure white to my naked eyes look the same through Leicas, Zeisses or Swaros. But what is real to me might not be real to another observer.
Someone has said this long before me: its no wonder we disagree about binos, the amazing thing is that sometimes we agree.
Lee