• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Porro or Roof ? Your choice. (1 Viewer)

Leif and Ed,

Thanks for the response Now I really do not want to sound foolish, but a question remains here.

My educational background is a graduate Degree in Zoology, specifically Mammalogy. The field of Ethology was a strong secondary interest. When dealing with Mammalian behavior (or any form of Animal Behavior) a critical facet to understand is how your study subjects see their world. So I really do think I have a pretty good handle on stereopsis.

The only way any of this makes sense is to come to the conclusion that even though the beam of light from wide spaced objectives is moved to pass through the narrower space provided by the eye, is that somehow the 3-D aspect remains. Even though (of 4 total) there are two 90* passes which physically move the beam toward center of the ocular. Obviously the eyes can't be widened out to match the objective spacing. The fact that stereo effect is not lost in those moves is where I have a hard time with the perceptual handle. I assumed that one focused beam of light from a roof was the same as the same focused beam of light from a porro. Evidently not. ;)
 
Leif and Ed,

Thanks for the response Now I really do not want to sound foolish, but a question remains here.

My educational background is a graduate Degree in Zoology, specifically Mammalogy. The field of Ethology was a strong secondary interest. When dealing with Mammalian behavior (or any form of Animal Behavior) a critical facet to understand is how your study subjects see their world. So I really do think I have a pretty good handle on stereopsis.

The only way any of this makes sense is to come to the conclusion that even though the beam of light from wide spaced objectives is moved to pass through the narrower space provided by the eye, is that somehow the 3-D aspect remains. Even though (of 4 total) there are two 90* passes which physically move the beam toward center of the ocular. Obviously the eyes can't be widened out to match the objective spacing. The fact that stereo effect is not lost in those moves is where I have a hard time with the perceptual handle. I assumed that one focused beam of light from a roof was the same as the same focused beam of light from a porro. Evidently not. ;)

Steve,

This is a very good question. I did quite a good job of "confuddling" :h?: the issue for myself, as I was having the same conceptual difficulty, and it has taken me quite a while to wrap my head around it.

Not until I read Leif's comment did the penny finally drop ..... :t:
Ed, I am sure that two slightly different viewpoints provide a more 3D answer. |=)|

"The 3-D aspect" for a PorroI does remain effectively (through all the prism contortions), since, from each side:-

the original view (toward the viewed object) is from the perspective of the objective lens and it's corresponding additional offset from the exit pupil offset (from the centreline).

Think of the view from the objective lens toward the viewed object as "the input". The "input" is the visual information (the view) that comes out exactly the same (ok, except for magnification, abberations, distortions, etc) at the "output" (the exit pupil).

The fact that you have two "inputs" (one from each objective lens) delivered to two "outputs" (exit pupils - hopefully in-line with your eyes - barring facial asymmetry, and all the other clarence the cross-eyed lion antics of setting that for different distances), goes to make up the viewed image (magnification notwithstanding). So the objective spacing relative to your IPD does matter.

I'm sure that would've been easier with pictures, but at least now I think I get it?!! :hi:

I have no comment to make about magnification, other than I'm damn glad it helps me see better!

I also prefer a 70° Afov over a 60°, or 50° one. I don't have a frame of reference for anything wider in binocular world save from memory which has now vanished!


Chosun :gh:
 
Last edited:
Steve,

This is a very good question. I did quite a good job of "confuddling" :h?: the issue for myself, as I was having the same conceptual difficulty, and it has taken me quite a while to wrap my head around it.

Not until I read Leif's comment did the penny finally drop ..... :t:


"The 3-D aspect" for a PorroI does remain effectively (through all the prism contortions), since, from each side:-

the original view (toward the viewed object) is from the perspective of the objective lens and it's corresponding additional offset from the exit pupil offset (from the centreline).

Think of the view from the objective lens toward the viewed object as "the input". The "input" is the visual information (the view) that comes out exactly the same (ok, except for magnification, abberations, distortions, etc) at the "output" (the exit pupil).

The fact that you have two "inputs" (one from each objective lens) delivered to two "outputs" (exit pupils - hopefully in-line with your eyes - barring facial asymmetry, and all the other clarence the cross-eyed lion antics of setting that for different distances), goes to make up the viewed image (magnification notwithstanding). So the objective spacing relative to your IPD does matter.

I'm sure that would've been easier with pictures, but at least now I think I get it?!! :hi:

I have no comment to make about magnification, other than I'm damn glad it helps me see better!

I also prefer a 70° Afov over a 60°, or 50° one. I don't have a frame of reference for anything wider in binocular world save from memory which has now vanished!


Chosun :gh:

Whether it is good thing remains to be seen, but that is how it seems to me, so I guess we're in agreement. Truth be told, I never thought much about this before now.
 
Steve,

You may have already had your "Eureka" moment about this, but I think it might be be easier to grasp if simplified to one eye. The off-set of a single barrel of a Porro binocular acts just like a horizontal periscope, albeit a very short one. Obviously a periscope only works because the eye sees the world from the POV of the periscope's entrance, not it's exit.

Henry
 
Last edited:
Steve,

You may have already had your "Eureka" moment about this, but I think it might be be easier to grasp if simplified to one eye. The off-set of a single barrel of a Porro binocular acts just like a horizontal periscope, albeit a very short one. Obviously a periscope only works because the eye sees the world from the POV of the periscope's entrance, not it's exit.

Henry

Thanks Henry. Oddly enough I was working through the periscope comparison, so it makes some more sense now. ;) I admit it is something I never thought about much...everybody said there was more 3-D, so I was fine with that. As I can do sometimes, I tended to take the wrong path at first when the question actually occurred.
 
Lee,

that's a good and interesting point. The question is why do Zeiss (and most other manufactorers) only use S-P prisms with their range of monoculars? With monoculars the ascendancy of the S-P prism over the porro is still even greater than with binoculars.

Steve
I do see how folks may find those dogleg "half a porro binocular" monoculars ugly. As for the Carl Zeiss Jena "Turdmon" 8x21, well that looks like a dog's digested dinner. The Docter version looks OK though.
 
I do see how folks may find those dogleg "half a porro binocular" monoculars ugly. As for the Carl Zeiss Jena "Turdmon" 8x21, well that looks like a dog's digested dinner. The Docter version looks OK though.

Norm, if you have to choose a monocular for occasional birdwatching and the optical quality is the same, would you prefer the porro or the roof version?

Steve
 
Norm, if you have to choose a monocular for occasional birdwatching and the optical quality is the same, would you prefer the porro or the roof version?

Steve
As you know Steve, this forum has a very long and proud tradition of doing the utmost to dissuade anyone making enquiries about monoculars from going out and actually purchasing one |:D| The arguments against always given are regarding the ergonomics. No question I have been affected by that.
There was a thread a while back where those little folding porro monoculars were discussed and I suggested I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese clones performed OK. I wondered whether it would be possible to press part of it against the eyebrow to get extra stability which would not be possible with a straight tube. Since that time I saw this page advocating this technique :
http://www.opticsreviewer.com/docter-monocular.html
I think monoculars' poor reputation for ergonomics might lead me to consider something very outlandishly shaped or with some attachment to aid a stable view. But like that of most folk on this forum, I suspect this view may be atypical.

I suppose "back in the day" that awkward time when roof prism models were just being adopted as the choice of those who could afford them even though they didn't perform as well optically as porro prism models had elements of the Apple Mac/PC analogue/digital audio compact cassette/eight track cartridge (and many other) scenarios all mixed in. The commitment of the top marques to the roof prism design as "the future" no doubt played a big part in its success.
 
I have a 1989 set off Bausch & lomb Discoverers in 7x50 .They are the only set of bins I have ever owned.They seem very nice. I am thinking of going to a set of high quality roofs to get away from the heavy 7x50 B&LD. and a set of water proofs. I want to stay at 7 or 6 power because at 61 it is getting hard to keep them steady.
 
I have a 1989 set off Bausch & lomb Discoverers in 7x50 .They are the only set of bins I have ever owned.They seem very nice. I am thinking of going to a set of high quality roofs to get away from the heavy 7x50 B&LD. and a set of water proofs. I want to stay at 7 or 6 power because at 61 it is getting hard to keep them steady.

You probably can't use the 7mm exit pupils, so you're carrying more glass than you can use and really need for birding. Only two of the alpha brands make 7x bins now - the Nikon 7x42 EDG and the Leica 7x42 Ultravid HD. The specs are similar, and they both have a "warm" color bias.

nikon-edg-7x42-binocular

leica-ultravid-hd-7x42-binocular

Porros give a better 3-D effect than roofs, something you will probably notice especially if you try a midsized roof, but fortunately, the difference is less obvious @7X, so you can enjoy the 3-Dish views and get a much more vibrant image in a top of the line roof because it has the latest coating technologies and ED glass for reduced color fringing (reduced at least compared to other roofs) and enhanced color fidelity and contrast.

Brock
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I think I will change my answer from "porro" to "I can't choose between porro and roof".

The last weeks I have used my Nikon 8x32 SE. I would choose the SE for it's sharpness, the 3D and the natural view. But yesterday I was birding with my Nikon EDG 8x42..and it is a very nice binocular. Very good focus, easy to use, you dont get so cold in freezing temperatures when holding it, bright, accurate colors, water resistant etc. It is privileged to have the opportunity to choose between two such fine binoculars!

But..if I really had to choose between the SE and the EDG..maybe I would choose the EDG after all. It may not be as sharp as the SE and the view is not as natural either. But it has so many strong features and basically not one real weakness, making it by far the best all round binoculars of the two. So..if someone had pointed a gun to my head I think I had picked the Nikon EDG 8x42 roof after all. Problably.. ;)

And if I would regret that choice, I can always sell the EDG and buy two new Nikon SE instead.. :-D
 
Last edited:
Coonan, the steadiness problem may be with that particular model: its weight and/or balance. Better not rule out higher x till you try a fair slection of them. With lighter weight and/or better balance some 8/9/10x models maybe steadier in your hands than your present bin.
 
I think I will change my answer from "porro" to "I can't choose between porro and roof".

The last weeks I have used my Nikon 8x32 SE. I would choose the SE for it's sharpness, the 3D and the natural view. But yesterday I was birding with my Nikon EDG 8x42..and it is a very nice binocular. Very good focus, easy to use, you dont get so cold in freezing temperatures when holding it, bright, accurate colors, water resistant etc. It is privileged to have the opportunity to choose between two such fine binoculars!

But..if I really had to choose between the SE and the EDG..maybe I would choose the EDG after all. It may not be as sharp as the SE and the view is not as natural either. But it has so many strong features and basically not one real weakness, making it by far the best all round binoculars of the two. So..if someone had pointed a gun to my head I think I had picked the Nikon EDG 8x42 roof after all. Problably.. ;)

And if I would regret that choice, I can always sell the EDG and buy two new Nikon SE instead.. :-D

I like this !
 
The optics on the 7x50 B&L Dis.are great and no shake from them. They are to heavy any more.

It's possible their weight helped contribute to the steadiness of the view but now they are getting to be a burden to lug around.

All 50mm binoculars are heavy as anvils IMO. And all top rated 7 x 42 Roof Prisms are heavy and expensive and getting to be hard to find. As Brock noted, the only ones left are the Nikon EDG and Leica Ultravid. You might be able to find a recently discontinued Zeiss 7 x 42 Victory T* LT at a good price if you look around. I picked up one recently and it is fantastic.

As far as porros here is a very high quality 7 x 42 Porro Prism made by Swarovski


http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/swarovski.pl?page=swarovskihabicht7x42



It weighs 24 ounces. It's FOV is rather narrow and it's eye relief of 14mm is on the short side and it is also a special order binocular. Proud Papa56 who posts here and lives near Brock sells them and might have one in stock.


The only inexpensive 7 x 42 roof prism that I know of is Leupold's Hawthorne. Check their specs on the Eagle Optic's website.

Eagle Optics has a very liberal return policy. Inquire about it. You could try out the Meopta Meostar 6.5 x 32. It has an exit pupil of nearly 5mm. If you like it your problem will be solved and you will have saved a lot of money.

Bob
 
Last edited:
....... The only inexpensive 7 x 42 roof prism that I know of is Leupold's Hawthorne. Check their specs on the Eagle Optic's website........

Bob

There's also the Zen-Ray 7x43 ED3 with dielectric coatings, 440ft FOV, and ED glass.

Optics are top notch, though a smidge below the 'alpha' Zeiss FL's, Nikon EDG's, and Swarovski Habicht's ...... but the price is mere fractions - so great bang for the buck.

The open bridge design, and moderate weight (27oz - though well distributed so it feels less) should help a wide variety of hand sizes /strengths /steadinesses to gain a clear, stable view.

Just make sure you get a good example with focusing action (tension /backlash) to your tastes /standards. You might be pleasantly surprised.


Chosun :gh:
 
All things being equal, optics, build, weather protection, what would your preference be?
And a brief description why?

I often look at your collection Simon, it's superb, I LOVE Porro glasses, have several including Zeiss West and East, Hartmanns (which surprise in their optical quality given they were a budget end binocular), British Ross, a very sharp Japanese 8x30, and just picked up a pair of Leitz Binuxit 8x30 to restore.
I get a lot of pleasure from using them, but for practical purposes I have now purchased a modern roof prism Zeiss for my own regular use. There is a slight compromise on the 3-D effect given by a good porro, I notice it, but all round, the latest roof prism models with the latest coatings, are sharper, brighter, with dust/water proofing, easy to focus, rugged, and they seem to be very hard to fault.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top