Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

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.

Allbinos.com review - New Swarovski CL Companion 8x30 B

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Thursday 9th May 2019, 17:51   #26
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,858
What is really interesting is you need three times as much light to see clearly at 60 than you did at 20. When dark adapted the 20 year old receives 16 times more light than the 80 year old. That is scary!

https://seniordriving.aaa.com/unders...-requirements/

Last edited by [email protected] : Thursday 9th May 2019 at 19:39.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th May 2019, 22:38   #27
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Normal, but not exceptional. An 8 degree FOV on a 7x only gives you a 56 degree AFOV
No...https://www.nikon.de/de_DE/product/s...x42#tech_specs
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Now the Nikon EDG 10x32 which I have has a 6.5 degree FOV which gives you a 65 degree AFOV.
No...https://www.nikon.de/de_DE/product/s...x32#tech_specs
The values ​​determined by Nikon, here again the distortion was considered, the only correct way to determine the AFOV.

Andreas
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th May 2019, 22:54   #28
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,858
As quoted by Henry Link from a thread on AFOV. The thread link is at the bottom.

"Nikon has just adopted the method described here for AFOV specifications:
http://www.ave.nikon.co.jp/bi_e/prod.../chart_001.jpg
Others may follow (or already have done) in order to conform to the ISO standard. In the meantime Nikon specs will be confusing when compared to other manufacturers. I think it's probably best to continue to compare approximate apparent fields by multiplying the real angular field by the magnification like it's always been done in marketing materials."

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=109343

Last edited by [email protected] : Thursday 9th May 2019 at 23:01.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th May 2019, 23:34   #29
Pileatus
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
What is really interesting is you need three times as much light to see clearly at 60 than you did at 20. When dark adapted the 20 year old receives 16 times more light than the 80 year old. That is scary!

https://seniordriving.aaa.com/unders...-requirements/
Or headlights...
Pileatus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th May 2019, 02:38   #30
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,376
As quoted by Henry Link from a thread on AFOV. The thread link is at the bottom.

"Nikon has just adopted the method described here for AFOV specifications:
http://www.ave.nikon.co.jp/bi_e/prod.../chart_001.jpg
Others may follow (or already have done) in order to conform to the ISO standard. In the meantime Nikon specs will be confusing when compared to other manufacturers. I think it's probably best to continue to compare approximate apparent fields by multiplying the real angular field by the magnification like it's always been done in marketing materials."

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=109343

Dennis,

I wouldn't make that last statement now. When that thread appeared back in 2008 I didn't yet realize that the true AFOV, including distortion, can be measured pretty easily with the binocular mounted on a panoramic tripod head with a degree scale. What's the point in advocating for either the ISO or the simple calculation when both are likely to be wrong?

If you look at the current AFOV specs from Swarovski and Zeiss you'll find that they don't match either calculation. That means they're either accurately calculated by including known amounts of distortion or they're measured. Hopefully everyone else will eventually do the same
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th May 2019, 03:26   #31
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
As quoted by Henry Link from a thread on AFOV. The thread link is at the bottom.

"Nikon has just adopted the method described here for AFOV specifications:
http://www.ave.nikon.co.jp/bi_e/prod.../chart_001.jpg
Others may follow (or already have done) in order to conform to the ISO standard. In the meantime Nikon specs will be confusing when compared to other manufacturers. I think it's probably best to continue to compare approximate apparent fields by multiplying the real angular field by the magnification like it's always been done in marketing materials."

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=109343

Dennis,

I wouldn't make that last statement now. When that thread appeared back in 2008 I didn't yet realize that the true AFOV, including distortion, can be measured pretty easily with the binocular mounted on a panoramic tripod head with a degree scale. What's the point in advocating for either the ISO or the simple calculation when both are likely to be wrong?

If you look at the current AFOV specs from Swarovski and Zeiss you'll find that they don't match either calculation. That means they're either accurately calculated by including known amounts of distortion or they're measured. Hopefully everyone else will eventually do the same
You're correct. I was reading about your measurement method over at Cloudy Nights. I believe it was Dr. Ed that was explaining it. I have used the simple calculation method because at least it is relative to every binocular. That is good to know that Swarovski and Zeiss are using the more accurate method of determining AFOV. It would be nice if the rest of the manufacturers would do the same because it makes it impossible to compare binoculars across the board. Thanks for the update on the methodology.

Last edited by Troubador : Friday 10th May 2019 at 14:11.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th May 2019, 08:56   #32
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post

I wouldn't make that last statement now. When that thread appeared back in 2008 I didn't yet realize that the true AFOV, including distortion, can be measured pretty easily with the binocular mounted on a panoramic tripod head with a degree scale. What's the point in advocating for either the ISO or the simple calculation when both are likely to be wrong?

If you look at the current AFOV specs from Swarovski and Zeiss you'll find that they don't match either calculation. That means they're either accurately calculated by including known amounts of distortion or they're measured. Hopefully everyone else will eventually do the same

Quote Holger Merlitz ...
"The question of why manufacturers calculate their visual angles with inaccurate formulas (rather than simply specifying the laboratory values), I have often asked myself and never received a convincing answer.As long as you still consistently used the angle condition, the subjective visual angle was usually overestimated - it So it seems obvious that marketing could live well with this approximation. "
https://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/read.php?9,443747
Only in German...

Andreas
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th May 2019, 14:17   #33
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conndomat View Post

Quote Holger Merlitz ...
"The question of why manufacturers calculate their visual angles with inaccurate formulas (rather than simply specifying the laboratory values), I have often asked myself and never received a convincing answer.As long as you still consistently used the angle condition, the subjective visual angle was usually overestimated - it So it seems obvious that marketing could live well with this approximation. "
https://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/read.php?9,443747
Only in German...

Andreas
It would be nice like Henry said if all the manufacturers would use the same method of figuring AFOV. Either by measuring it or specifying lab values. Nikon's ISO method is very confusing. At least Zeiss and Swarovski are doing it correctly and are consistent so you can compare AFOV values.

Last edited by [email protected] : Friday 10th May 2019 at 14:24.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th May 2019, 14:39   #34
SeldomPerched
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: England
Posts: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
So Dennis, are all middle aged folks required to use a 8X32 and 10X32, I know many men in their mid 60s still using 8X42s and 10X50s.

Andy W.
This 63 year old is hoping that his weight training will help keep the 8x56 FL steady for a few years more .... I made the mistake of using it the other day, and immediately wanted to throw away all the smaller glass. Boy, it's that good!

Tom
SeldomPerched is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th May 2019, 17:30   #35
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
It would be nice like Henry said if all the manufacturers would use the same method of figuring AFOV. Either by measuring it or specifying lab values.


Hi Dennis,

Zeiss is only correct for the SF models, the Conquest are not correct again!
Only Swarovski determines the right AFOV for his entire range of binoculars.
Measuring yourself is the only way for the other manufacturers to determine the correct AFOV.

Andreas
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th May 2019, 20:48   #36
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conndomat View Post


Hi Dennis,

Zeiss is only correct for the SF models, the Conquest are not correct again!
Only Swarovski determines the right AFOV for his entire range of binoculars.
Measuring yourself is the only way for the other manufacturers to determine the correct AFOV.

Andreas
How do they accomplish this, and how do we know it's the "right" AFOV?

I'm interested.
Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 10th May 2019, 21:28   #37
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 101
Hallo Ed,

The best way to measure the AFOV is to mount the binoculars horizontally on a tripod, set the focus to infinity, and direct the eyepieces to a distant edge of the building. By a LENS !!! If you look at it, note the degree measurements on the panoramic head where the edge of a building just disappears to the left and right. The AFOV is the difference between the two readings. At distances of about 50 m, the parallax error, caused by the tilt of the eyepiece, is negligible.With this method you can check all values ​​of Swarovski and the Zeiss SF. All measurements comply with the manufacturer's specifications!
The values ​​with the simple method degree x magnification differ from the measured values ​​up to 6 degrees!

Andreas

Edit:In the case of ambiguity, I hope that Henry Link can explain the measurement method more clearly and in correct English!

Last edited by Conndomat : Friday 10th May 2019 at 22:03.
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th May 2019, 00:40   #38
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,477
Thanks, Andreas.

Henry, your clarification would be appreciated, indeed. But to be fair, my question is somewhat skeptical because a human observer is involved and human observers differ.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 11th May 2019, 00:52   #39
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conndomat View Post


Hi Dennis,

Zeiss is only correct for the SF models, the Conquest are not correct again!
Only Swarovski determines the right AFOV for his entire range of binoculars.
Measuring yourself is the only way for the other manufacturers to determine the correct AFOV.

Andreas
Figures!
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th May 2019, 06:52   #40
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,785
In the notes for the 2015 revision of ISO14132-1 it says "in the absence of distortion" their formula will give the image angular field of view. Models with a flattened field of view, like the Nikon EDG, Swarovski ELFP and Zeiss SF have angular distortion. Does that mean their values using the ISO method are erroneous as the angle is compressed? Does it also mean that where there is no flattening, that the linear and angular method should give the same result?

Just food for thought.

I'm not really bothered which method manufacturers use, providing the values are accurate and they tell us which one. It seems to me that the linear is probably the easiest to understand as it tells you how much real estate you can actually see.

I've tried using the real (not the published) ER values and the diameter of the eyepiece lens to estimate the AFoV as a check on the published values. It's been quite revealing.

David

Last edited by typo : Saturday 11th May 2019 at 06:59.
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th May 2019, 07:17   #41
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 101
Hi,

Quote: Holger Merlitz,
The confusion arises from the contradictory claims of the manufacturers. While the objective visual angle can be converted exactly into the visual field, a calculation of the subjective visual angle, requires knowledge of the distortion. Unfortunately, the manufacturers do not indicate the distortion of their optics. Alternatively, they could at least publish the actual subjective visual angle, but only a few do (Swarovski, and Zeiss only in his SF series, but not in the other models!). In all other cases, they use standard conversion formulas that either overestimate or underestimate the subjective visual angle.

Nikon consistently uses the ISO 14132-1: 2002 conversion formula

a = 2 atan [m tan (A / 2)] (1)


where 'a' is the subjective visual angle and 'A' is the objective angle of vision, and 'm' is the magnification. This formula is valid only in the absence of distortion (strictly speaking, in the absence of the radial distortion V), and this condition is almost never fulfilled in practice. In the presence of a radial distortion, the above formula must be extended to

a = 2 atan [m (V + 1) tan (A / 2)]


where 'V' indicates the relative radial distortion at the field of view. If this equals zero, then you immediately get the ISO formula again. Almost always V is a positive number, one speaks then of a pillow-shaped distortion. Stupid only that no manufacturer indicates the value of V. A special case is of interest, namely the so-called angle condition in which

tan (mA / 2)
V = ------------ - 1 (angle condition)
m tan (A / 2)


applies. This leads to the well-known simple conversion formula

a = m A (2) (angle condition)


It can be shown that this special case, if satisfied for each pixel, leaves the angular distances of all pixels unchanged when panning across the entire field of view. In astronomy, this means, for example, that an open star cluster is represented in the center of the image as well as at the edge of the field of view (when the eye follows the position of the cluster in the direction of the edge of the field of view). In the English-speaking world one speaks then of the absence of an angular magnification distortion (AMD) - for which there does not seem to be any expression in German (one could speak somewhat casually of 'angular distortion').
Historically, the manufacturers initially aimed for a distortion-free image (V = 0), since about 1950 then increasingly on the angular condition set (in which V> 0 and a significant pincushion distortion exists) to avoid the globe effect when pivoting the binoculars. In almost all binoculars currently on the market, the value of the distortion lies somewhere between V = 0 and the angle condition, so that neither (1) nor (2) reflects the correct ratios. We then have no choice but to measure the apparent visual angle ourselves."
https://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/...808#msg-443808

Andreas
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th May 2019, 13:00   #42
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,785
Andreas,

Thanks for translating Holger's explanation.

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th May 2019, 16:28   #43
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 101
Hello David,

with pleasure!
Holger is simply an absolute optics expert, I've already benefited a lot from his knowledge!

Andreas
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th May 2019, 21:37   #44
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,785
Andreas,

It's a shame Holger hasn't found an English publisher for his book yet, but I know a number here have had the pleasure of discussing some topics with him.

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 12th May 2019, 21:11   #45
Tringa45
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posts: 260
In case anyone missed it, my simplified adaptation of Walter E Schn's AFOV measurement: https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.p...05&postcount=1

John
Tringa45 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th May 2019, 18:00   #46
Elkhornsun
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Elkhorn, CA
Posts: 29
The field of view is going to be different with the eyecups extended and different for someone using eyeglasses. It is a relative measure to use as a guideline. Does anyone buy bino XXX with a published FOV of 370 feet over another bino that has a FOV of 365 feet?

It also seems silly to compare a 8x32 that sells for $2200 with a 8x30 that sells for less than $1100 (I paid $1046 for my Swarovski 8x30 CL B Companion bino). It assumes that cost is unimportant as we Americans are so rich. At least we don't have the 25% Trump tax hitting us for optics coming from Germany and Austria.
Elkhornsun is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 21st May 2019, 22:13   #47
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 101
I'm afraid they did not understand ... but it does not matter.

Andreass
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 29th May 2019, 11:01   #48
SeldomPerched
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: England
Posts: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Allbino's complained about the Swarovski CL Companion 8x30 B but sill ranked it 4th over some highly touted 8x32's like the Nikon SE, Leica Ultravid HD and the Zeiss Conquest HD. That is pretty impressive for a smaller 30mm binocular. If Allbino's tested the Swarovski SV 8x32 it would be interesting to see if it could could edge(play on words) the Nikon EDG 8x32 out of first place. The EDG would beat the SV on CA and internal reflections or glare and the SV would dominate in astigmatism, coma, and darkness at the edge of the field. Things Allbino's don't test are important also. The EDG has by far the smoothest focuser and the SV has the best accessories like objective covers, rainguard, strap and case. What I don't understand is why Nikon went through the trouble to put a little bump to hold their objective covers on and THEN they made them too small to fit tightly in the opening so they keep popping out and they have NEVER fixed them. You can't even replace them with a different objective cover because of the darn bump! The SV's edges are slightly sharper and the field is slightly flatter than the EDG but this can create rolling ball caused by AMD distortion for some people. If you are bothered by RB the EDG is a better binocular for you than the SV. It is less likely to show RB. The SV has a slightly bigger FOV than the EDG also but the EDG has a very large FOV except in the 7x42 which is kind of small for a 7x42. Also, Swarovski has by far the best customer service and the best warranty and will bend over backwards to satisfy you. Nikon is a distant 2nd in my experience. I have the SV 8x32, SV 8.5x42, SV 10x32, Swarovski 8x25 CL-P, Ultravid 8x20 BCR, Nikon 7x15 reverse porro and the Nikon EDG 10x32. The SV and EDG are both excellent in the 10x32 format and each has it's strong points and weak points. I like them both. It is weird that Nikon can manufacture such great optics as in the EDG binocular but then conversely be so lame when it comes to designing an objective cover. Maybe they need more mechanical engineers instead of optical engineers to design their accessories.
Hi Dennis,
My new EDG is a 7x42, not the 32 you are discussing here, but you might be interested that the semi-soft objective covers snap/pop into place with a snug fit and then have to be snapped/popped out again. I don't know if my example is newly made or old stock lying around in a warehouse for years (no. is 000581, so presumably not very new or not many were made) but perhaps this was one thing they updated. I know every comment I have read mentions the looseness but unless they get loose with age my experience has got off to a good start.

Added since first posting: I see you have had this with the 7x42 and others too, not just the 32s I first thought. Problem with my reading your post too fast!

All the best,
Tom

Last edited by SeldomPerched : Wednesday 29th May 2019 at 11:04. Reason: Addendum
SeldomPerched is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 29th May 2019, 14:29   #49
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,858
My 7x42 EDG objective covers fit pretty good. They had a double lip that you had to really push on hard but once on they stayed on. It was my 10x32 EDG that had loose objective covers. Maybe the loose objective covers are on just some of the EDG's. The reason I sold my 7x42 EDG mainly was because IMO I felt it had a small AFOV for a 7x. It didn't WOW me like my 10x32 SV but it does have a very relaxing, easy view being a 7x. If you get a good one they are a nice binocular. I bought two of mine from Japan and I think the Japanese sellers might be selling returns because both of them had play in the focusers. They looked like they had been opened.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A review of the CL Companion 8x30 oetzi Swarovski 23 Sunday 30th March 2014 17:14
Allbinos review the Nikon M7 8x30 FrankD Nikon 7 Tuesday 25th March 2014 09:14
Oct. 2013 Allbinos Nikon 8x30 EII Review ceasar Nikon 3 Wednesday 29th January 2014 17:21
New Swarovski CL Companion 8x30 / 10x30 venezuelajoe Swarovski 0 Thursday 11th August 2011 12:13

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.31917191 seconds with 39 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:20.