[bluespiderweb]

Has anyone felt that the Porros promote a less tiresome or stressful view, especially for older eyes, possibly more forgiving to aging eyes?

I had not felt this way until just recently, when I had started having some problem in my one eye, due to fluid loss, and an increase in floaters. It seems once you pass 60 or so, these things occur often, and are just a part of the life cycle for some of us when age catches up with our eyes!

My preference has always been for Porros, though I have other roof prism binos that I like a lot too. Until I started to notice a difference in a much easier view from my Porros (just today), and more eye strain from my roofs in the same conditions.

Anyone else have been there with this, or am I just letting my aging, and also fatigued eyes (due to bad sleep, and allergies) dictate what seems best at this moment in binos?

Or is it possible that I just happened on a new roof bin that was not collimated well enough, that it seemed that my view was more stressful than normal, and owing to my aging eyes, I may have just attibuted it to that? I know it's hard to say for each individual, but maybe you've noticed something along the same lines as I have?

[[email protected]]

What porro's and roof's are we talking about? A lot of times a lower end roof can cause eye strain, whereas, the more expensive roof's are less likely to cause strain if they are collimated properly.

[bluespiderweb]

Well, specifically, I just got the Sightron 10x32 SII Blue Sky roofs, and found that either my cheap Nikon Aculon 10x42's, and my 8x32 EII's both gave an easier view to my eyes, than even the Sightron 8x32 SII Blues Sky roofs too. No fighting with focus with the Porros, to find the best view, and less eye strain, it seemed in the process.

The EII's have a superior focus wheel, that allows precise focus, as does the Aculon, in comparison. The BSII 8x32 is better than the 10x32 BSII's in that respect though, in my 2 examples.

But the Porros just seem easier in focus, and ease of view to my old eyes. I do realize that 10x32's have a very short field of focus, so you need to keep focusing on exactly what you want in focus, which I imagine that takes a toll on the eyes as well, promoting eye strain in the process, I would think. So, sure, it may be down to just the 10x32 format, with shallow depth of focus, but those with the EII 10x32's could shed some light on this, from that perspective?

[Pinewood]

Originally Posted by bluespiderweb

Well, specifically, I just got the Sightron 10x32 SII Blue Sky roofs, and found that either my cheap Nikon Aculon 10x42's, and my 8x32 EII's both gave an easier view to my eyes, than even the Sightron 8x32 SII Blues Sky roofs too. No fighting with focus with the Porros, to find the best view, and less eye strain, it seemed in the process.

The EII's have a superior focus wheel, that allows precise focus, as does the Aculon, in comparison. The BSII 8x32 is better than the 10x32 BSII's in that respect though, in my 2 examples.

But the Porros just seem easier in focus, and ease of view to my old eyes. I do realize that 10x32's have very short fields of focus, so you need to keep focusing on exactly what you want in focus, so I imagine that takes a toll on the eyes as well, so promoting eye strain in the process, I would think.

Hello Bluespiderweb,

I do not think that comparing a 10x32, with a 3.2 mm exit pupil, with either a 10x42 or an 8x32, with 4.2 mm and 4 mm eye pupil, respectively, is a fair test of roof vs. Porro. Mixing magnifications also affects the comparisons. An 8x is easier to hold steady than a 10x, larger exit pupils allow easier alignment of the objective, the ocular and the human eye.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

[Maljunulo]

I have to agree with what Arthur said.

[[email protected]]

I had the Sightron Bluesky SII Roofs and I never liked them because I felt the focus was too stiff. Your right the focus on your porro's are better because Nikon is known for their silky smooth focus wheels. An 8x is going to be less finicky also because of it's bigger exit pupil and it well have a greater DOF than a 10x so that will make your view more comfortable also. The SII is a relatively low priced roof also and low priced roofs will generally cause more eye strain than a more expensive roof prism binocular. Some birders buy alpha roofs because they tend to cause less eye strain when viewing for long periods. Try a better quality roof prism like a Nikon 8x42 MHG or Zeiss Conquest 8x42 HD and I think you will change your mind about roofs being tiresome. A porro prism binocular is a simpler optical system than a roof so it is easier to make it perfect. A good roof is more difficult and expensive to make. To get the same transparency and ease of view of your E2 which probably cost about $500.00 you have to spend about $1000.00 for a roof.

[bluespiderweb]

Originally Posted by Pinewood

Hello Bluespiderweb,

I do not think that comparing a 10x32, with a 3.2 mm exit pupil, with either a 10x42 or an 8x32, with 4.2 mm and 4 mm eye pupil, respectively, is a fair test of roof vs. Porro. Mixing magnifications also affects the comparisons. An 8x is easier to hold steady than a 10x, larger exit pupils allow easier alignment of the objective, the ocular and the human eye.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

Thank you Arthur, yes, I understand what you are saying, and of course it makes sense. I don't have any other 10x32's to compare with the Sightrons, so was just using what I had to try and understand the differences. I will have a Mojave to compare soon though.

One odd thing I did notice was that it seems I am able to hold the lighter 10x32 Sightron more steady than the Aculon 10x42 though, I don't know why. I would have thought the opposite would be more likely.

[sbb]

Barry,
I hypothesize and suggest the steadiness has to do with the balance and weight of the binos. With the Aculon, the focus wheel is a bit closer to the objective lens, hence hands are further from face. The binos are harder to handle as they are heavier resulting in "bigger shake" vs the Sightron. The Sightron the focus wheel is closer to the occcular lens and lighter, hence there will be less shake . Ergonomics has a big part of binos which is why "Try before you buy".

Anyway will be interesting to see what the other people think.
Alex

[bluespiderweb]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

I had the Sightron Bluesky SII Roofs and I never liked them because I felt the focus was too stiff. Your right the focus on your porro's are better because Nikon is known for their silky smooth focus wheels. An 8x is going to be less finicky also because of it's bigger exit pupil and it well have a greater DOF than a 10x so that will make your view more comfortable also. The SII is a relatively low priced roof also and low priced roofs will generally cause more eye strain than a more expensive roof prism binocular. Some birders buy alpha roofs because they tend to cause less eye strain when viewing for long periods. Try a better quality roof prism like a Nikon 8x42 MHG or Zeiss Conquest 8x42 HD and I think you will change your mind about roofs being tiresome. A porro prism binocular is a simpler optical system than a roof so it is easier to make it perfect. A good roof is more difficult and expensive to make. To get the same transparency and ease of view of your E2 which probably cost about $500.00 you have to spend about $1000.00 for a roof.

My 8x32 Sightron is pretty much perfect in regard to smoothness, whereas the 10x32 has just the tiniest amount of stiction when you are trying to fine tune it after you stop and manoever back and forth. But I have tried other SII's that weren't as nice as either of these also. What I think makes it a little harder to fine focus is that it seems to have a quicker focus ratio, so little movements of the wheel can make larger changes to it that what is sometimes needed, it seems.

Yes, thanks Dennis, the depth of field might have an effect on eyestrain, as you suggest-I can see that it might be so. It was just puzzling to me why my eyes weren't comfortable using the 10x32 for such a short period of time. But that also could be my tired eyes! I have been having some allergy problems with them, and also some drying, and a couple of weeks ago, I had pink eye, so maybe that has had an after effect too, even though the infection cleared up with medication.

Anyway, sure I can see your point about Porros being more easily made better without spending lots of money, where they can compete with more expensive roofs. I just never felt that kind of eye strain before with any of the ones I've ever had, unless you include the out of collimation ones.

Just wondering whether Porros tend to be easier on the eyes in general, but I guess that is just too general a question to really answer. This probably can be explained better by my eyes present state of flux right now, and maybe the shallower depth of field of the 10x32s. Might that be another reason most lower end 10x32 roofs aren't too well received, and often even some higher priced ones too? Where you need to spend more to get that little bit of extra quality that you need to move beyond the harder to make good 10x32's?

[bluespiderweb]

Originally Posted by sbb

Barry,
I hypothesis and suggest the steadiness has to do with the balance of the binos. With the Aculon, the focus wheel is a bit closer to the objective lens, hence any hand shake will result in "bigger shake" vs the Sightron where the focus wheel is closer to the occcular lens. Ergonomics has a big part of binos which is why "Try before you buy".

Anyway will be interesting to see what the other people think.
Alex

Good point, Alex. Balance could indeed have a good or bad effect, but I didn't think of that for being able to hold lighter bins more steady. Makes sense too!

Nice to have more than one head to use, isn't it, when you are looking for answers?! ; )

[bluespiderweb]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Try a better quality roof prism like a Nikon 8x42 MHG or Zeiss Conquest 8x42 HD and I think you will change your mind about roofs being tiresome.

Dennis, I was only referring to the one roof my eyes were having trouble with, the Blue Sky II 10x32.

Now I'm going to have to pull out all my roofs and see if my eyes don't like them now too! But I never felt like this before about them, just since trying this new one out, and comparing with the other Porros I had out at hand, which didn't seem to tire my eyes. Could be just 10x32's in general, and my eyes, even that aren't mixing well. Like I said above, I'll have another here in a little while, and then I can see what is what.

[Maljunulo]

Originally Posted by bluespiderweb

Just wondering whether Porros tend to be easier on the eyes in general, but I guess that is just too general a question to really answer.

I'm afraid that someone is going to have to explain to me how using a different configuration of glass prisms to bounce light around is going to make one type "easier on the eyes" than another.

[The-Wanderer]

Barry,

Have you checked that your and the IPDs are the same?

[WJC]

Originally Posted by Maljunulo

I'm afraid that someone is going to have to explain to me how using a different configuration of glass prisms to bounce light around is going to make one type "easier on the eyes" than another.

Don't hold your breath for THAT explanation. I think the post above me has nailed it. Just remember, on bino forums perception can be reality. Barry's is innocent and truthful. Some on bino forums are the reason for my current signature from Dr. Hawking.

Bill

[bluespiderweb]

Originally Posted by The-Wanderer

Barry,

Have you checked that your and the IPDs are the same?

Another sensible answer and comment, thank you-I set my IPD to what seems right, until I get the one circle without any blur in the middle. But I do sometimes move it around when I am looking very much closer to me, or very much farther away, depending on the binocular. If it doesn't seem off, I leave it alone, but never check to see if it's at my best distance, because I actually don't know what it is anymore. Guess I'll have to check and see if that helps my eyestrain on that bin, thank you for that, Wanderer!

[bluespiderweb]

Originally Posted by WJC

Don't hold your breath for THAT explanation. I think the post above me has nailed it. Just remember, on bino forums perception can be reality. Barry's is innocent and truthful. Some on bino forums are the reason for my current signature from Dr. Hawking.

Bill

Yes Bill, you are correct about my query being innocent that truthful. I'm not saying there is a difference, and I really didn't think it through-just surmised at that moment because the Porros seemed so easy to look through, and it seemed I was having a tough time with the roof, so it led me to wonder about it.

I don't pretend to know things that I don't, nor say something is true unless I know it is so. Which is why I was asking those who do know. Most have been very helpful. And thank you Bill for seconding the IPD answer-that means to me that I better check it out!

[wdc]

Originally Posted by Maljunulo

I have to agree with what Arthur said.

Ditto. Its not a porro vs. roof issue. A 10x32 just may not be comfortable for the user, or at least that specific model.

Bill

[[email protected]]

A 10x32 seems to be a more difficult binocular to make good partly because of it's small exit pupils. There are quite a few threads on Bird Forum discussing that. A lot of members say you have to buy a more expensive 10x32 to get satisfactory performance.

[[email protected]]

Originally Posted by Maljunulo

I'm afraid that someone is going to have to explain to me how using a different configuration of glass prisms to bounce light around is going to make one type "easier on the eyes" than another.

A porro prism binocular is a much simpler design than a roof prism with fewer optical pathways. For that reason a good porro-prism is easier and less expensive to make than a good roof prism. That is why a porro is always better optically for the dollar spent than a roof. Also, because of the simpler optics in a porro they transmit light better in general than a roof. A lot of the porro's easily achieve 95% transmission and not to many roofs hit that number. Unless you are talking an alpha roof a porro will seem more transparent because of these reasons also. There have been a lot of threads discussing this. If you compare a roof and porro binocular like the Nikon 8x30 E2 and the Sightron 8x32 SII Blue Sky the E2 will give you an easier view.

[Patudo]

Originally Posted by bluespiderweb

I set my IPD to what seems right, until I get the one circle without any blur in the middle.

Hey all... does everyone here do this? I almost always open up the barrels till I get the classic overlapping circles (like how an image viewed through binoculars is normally depicted in films). Closing the IPD to the point I get the single circle, for me, makes the view too constricted, and I also feel the distance between barrels is too narrow for my eyes. I have noticed though - with a binocular like my 8x30 Oberkochen (which has quite poor light transmission by today's standards), if you close up the barrels to a certain point the image seems to get quite a bit brighter.

[bluespiderweb]

Originally Posted by Patudo

Hey all... does everyone here do this? I almost always open up the barrels till I get the classic overlapping circles (like how an image viewed through binoculars is normally depicted in films). Closing the IPD to the point I get the single circle, for me, makes the view too constricted, and I also feel the distance between barrels is too narrow for my eyes. I have noticed though - with a binocular like my 8x30 Oberkochen (which has quite poor light transmission by today's standards), if you close up the barrels to a certain point the image seems to get quite a bit brighter.

I don't have a particular way to set it, whether opening or closing to it-just til it feels right. I just measured my IPD in the mirror, and then went and measured the BS 10x32s, and they were open a little further than my measured distance. But yes, me too-if it feels constricted, I open it up some to where it feels better-again, it seems this is an individual thing, and so hard to say pat that it should be this way or that, because each of us is different, with different eyesight parameters.

Interesting observation though, Patudo.

[Maljunulo]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

A porro prism binocular is a much simpler design than a roof prism with fewer optical pathways. For that reason a good porro-prism is easier and less expensive to make than a good roof prism. That is why a porro is always better optically for the dollar spent than a roof. Also, because of the simpler optics in a porro they transmit light better in general than a roof. A lot of the porro's easily achieve 95% transmission and not to many roofs hit that number. Unless you are talking an alpha roof a porro will seem more transparent because of these reasons also. There have been a lot of threads discussing this. If you compare a roof and porro binocular like the Nikon 8x30 E2 and the Sightron 8x32 SII Blue Sky the E2 will give you an easier view.

That's fine, but the question was how the different configuration of prisms made one glass "easier on the eyes" than the other one.

You have simply enumerated the differences, of which I was already aware.

I don't imagine there is any literature to cite, because I'm pretty sure that "easier on the eyes" cannot be quantified.

[bluespiderweb]

Originally Posted by The-Wanderer

Barry,

Have you checked that your and the IPDs are the same?

OK, just played around with this, and the BSII's were open slightly more than my measured IPD, so maybe it had some effect on my eyestrain. But I don't remember having any trouble setting the IPD in any bins before-it is a pretty natural step for me in using binoculars.

But, what has always caused me more trouble setting is the diopter, since my left (non-dominant) eye is somewhat worse in vision than my dominant right eye, and most times I pick a spot to set it at a mid distance from my usual focusing points for near and far use, if I have the lighting conditions I need to set it easily.

So, I reset the diopter a couple of times (bad lighting-harsh high contrast and then low contrast), and now the setting is more + than before, and it seems to be working for me now-no eystrain to speak of, other than typical allergy symptoms that work against viewing through binoculars any day. But maybe the diopter setting was the problem in the first place? I remember looking through them, and then taking them away, and getting that strange feeling like the collimation was off-so could that be down to the diopter setting moreso than the ipd setting?

[The-Wanderer]

The last opticians I used have IPads that measure fittings for frames. These measure IPD.

I use an inexpensive stick sliding micrometer to set the IPD and leave it that way.

[WJC]

Originally Posted by Patudo

Hey all... does everyone here do this? I almost always open up the barrels till I get the classic overlapping circles (like how an image viewed through binoculars is normally depicted in films). Closing the IPD to the point I get the single circle, for me, makes the view too constricted, and I also feel the distance between barrels is too narrow for my eyes. I have noticed though - with a binocular like my 8x30 Oberkochen (which has quite poor light transmission by today's standards), if you close up the barrels to a certain point the image seems to get quite a bit brighter.

It certainly SHOULD NOT make it too restricted. If you are getting the overlapping circles (the figure 8) like in the movies, you’re way out of collimation, unless you're looking at a VERY close target. The movies offer such an image to show the moviegoer that someone is looking through a binocular—it’s strictly a Hollywood crutch. That view has nothing to do with what a well-adjusted bino SHOULD be offering your eyes.

Bill