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.

Always used 10x but thinking about switching to 8x

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Friday 20th April 2018, 05:55   #126
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by adhoc View Post
?...... Even if you give me $130K to be quiet. (I hope you do. That is a Kowa Highlander plus $125K left.)
.....
.....
.....
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th April 2018, 06:36   #127
Gijs van Ginkel
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: utrecht
Posts: 1,377
adhoc, post 125,
You may get a problem if the messenger is armed and shoots back.. certainly when he had a thourough training.......
Well, the studies I referred to were as far as I can see done very carefully and the Russian studies explicitly mention weights of the binoculars in their tables.
I do not get why all the excitement about the outcome of these studies, since there is a very convincing fact to show that magnification of handheld binoculars influences image quality a lot and that is the introduction of stabilised binoculars as for example made by Canon. If you look at it from that point of view it is kind of surprising that not more binocular producers have followed this road.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th April 2018, 06:44   #128
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,512
Gijs,

As I made clear, I don't know the test parameters for the Zeiss study, so what I wrote was hypothetical.

I don't know who the test group were but there can't be many places you might go to find 70, 18-20 year olds, apparently selected for excellent eyesight, and trained in observation.

I don't know either when the original Zeiss study was done. Recent publications, like Yoder and Yukobratovich, usually cite the 1959 edition of König und Köhler's book. Brunnckow et al apparently used their data in 1944, but as the first edition of their book was in 1923, the study could even predate that. Several groups appear to have used this study for mathematical reinterpretation, but I'm not aware that any show subject variation, so presumably did not have access to the original data either. We have no idea of how variable those highly selected subjects were, let alone a totally random population of users like the forum.

One detail I found curious about that study was the loss of apparent acuity tripod mounted. (#108) From the plot it is apparently over 20% reduction at 14x magnification. With the highest resolving modern binoculars I've tested I've seen a 0% reduction. One publication I found suggested that this might be explained by the light loss and reduced contrast in uncoated optics at the time. The difference between handheld and tripod mounted was only about another 30% reduction. At face value, that would seem very good to me. I haven't tested any 14x binoculars, but I thought I was still doing OK with a couple of 12x I've tested. If I skipped the coffee and did some deep breathing I could get to about 40%. I know there are alternative interpretations, and other groups may get different results, but it just seems another reminder that there is no virtue in getting old.

David
typo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th April 2018, 07:06   #129
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 7,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canip View Post
Why not? I for myself see nothing wrong in shooting the messenger!!


My own opinion on the subject: Magnification may not be the only factor limiting handheld binocular performance, but is is probalbly the major one, as has been solidly established in a number of studies. So I will not be the one shooting Gijs.
Canip
Canip

Just because every able-bodied man of army-age in Switzerland has an army-issue assault rifle under his bed it doesn't mean that messenger-shooting is acceptable behaviour in the rest of the world.

I blame the cuckoo-clocks.

But you are right, what everyone guessed is true (the images from 10x binos are more wobble-prone than from 8x) has been proven experimentally even if this result varies from person to person, bino to bino, wind speed to wind speed, the extent of exertion etc etc.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th April 2018, 07:10   #130
Gijs van Ginkel
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: utrecht
Posts: 1,377
David, post 128,
I assume that you followed physiology lessons at school and, if that is the case, you know that muscle tremor is an inherent property of living persons. It can be completely avoided, but than you are dead.
Weight can have some effect is my experience on stabilisation of the image quality/stability at magnifications above 7x.
My example of military use of binoculars (6x30 for infantry who has to do heavy physical work and 7x50 for ships based on what can be seen in different publications and pictures) was to show that military leadership obviously had taken into account these physiological properties.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th April 2018, 07:47   #131
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gijs van Ginkel View Post
David, post 128,
I assume that you followed physiology lessons at school and, if that is the case, you know that muscle tremor is an inherent property of living persons. It can be completely avoided, but than you are dead.
...........
Gijs,

I don't recall physiological tremor being part of my school curriculum, but it did crop up a few times later. My entire working career was spent quantifying extremly diverse aspects of biological response and I definitely discovered mortality has it's consequences

Wouldn't field of view and exit pupil be important criteria for infantry use?

David

Last edited by typo : Friday 20th April 2018 at 08:02.
typo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th April 2018, 08:28   #132
Gijs van Ginkel
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: utrecht
Posts: 1,377
David, post 131,
Before I received a training in the airforce I had a training in the infantry for a fairly long time and believe me, you do not want to have to look at your opponent after running distances with package, gun etc. since than you need an image as solid as a rock to watch your enemy and the chances with a 6x30 are far much better than with a 10x42.
I visited the marine optical laboratory several times and I spoke with the persons responsible for buying and maintaining the equipment and they showed me part of their stock and that was at that time for the standard equipment mostly 7x50 for the reasons I mentioned.
I looked at the test reports I have published in the past in the Dutch journal Cameramagazine on image stabilised binoculars and at that time it were mainly:
- Zeiss 20x60S
- Russian Peleng 140GS 12x and other models
- Fujinon Stabiscope 10x40 and other models
- Canon 12x36IS and other models
So I was not quite correct in mentioning Canon only in my previous post as being the only company that makes image stabilised binoculars, other companies also did it.
Although it is no proof the models tested indicate that the designers of those image stabilised binoculars were aware of the loss of image quality at magnifications of 10x and more considering the chosen magnifications.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th April 2018, 15:13   #133
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,512
Gijs,

I may have run with a binocular on rare occasions, but I'm rather relieved that I've never had to run with a gun.

The US military have commissioned a number of studies over the years which might have been relevant to this discussion, but I don't think the details are in the public domain. There was a bit of a rethink on the army's needs a few years ago, and believe things may have changed again These may be of interest.
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/...ies/index.html
http://www.fraseroptics.com/company/history/
https://www.ausa.org/articles/soldie...nocular-update

David
typo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th April 2018, 16:06   #134
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 307
What, this is still going on?
I think I should have shot the messenger when I had a chance ... although I do support his position and view, but being a messenger has its inherent risks!!
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th April 2018, 17:51   #135
Gijs van Ginkel
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: utrecht
Posts: 1,377
Canip, post 134,
I am sorry for your pain, but my draw was faster than that of the most repected American gunfighter, so I am still there, using an 8x binocular with pleasure and sometimes a 6x. Still looking for a 6x30 with incredible FOV like a Hartmann Porlerim (hardly suffers from muscle tremor effects), but perhaps that binocular did not make it to Switzerland.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th April 2018, 18:47   #136
Gijs van Ginkel
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: utrecht
Posts: 1,377
Canip, post 134,
Am I correct that the Swiss army had 6x24 and 8x30 binoculars as standard binoculars? That is at least what my information is up to now. Since this topic is about the question: do I go from 10x to 8x, this looks a good argument in favor of the 8x for those who have a headache to solve this question.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th April 2018, 20:53   #137
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gijs van Ginkel View Post
Canip, post 134,
Am I correct that the Swiss army had 6x24 and 8x30 binoculars as standard binoculars? .....
.....
.....
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs,
In military service, I only encountered the 6x30 - which preceded the 8x30 - and the 8x30. From about 1950, officers were exclusively equipped with 8x30, and the 6x30 was used as a „staff instrument“.
There is a 6x24 from Kern, bit I only know it in it‘s „Pizar“, i.e. civil version.
See attached.
Canip
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	354BFD6C-B793-4577-9E46-1351016D3AD0.jpeg
Views:	10
Size:	279.0 KB
ID:	659983  
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th April 2018, 21:00   #138
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 720
Geeze Luise, it's either 8X or 10X. Pick one, the other or the one you do not own. It's only 2X more or less; more or less.

There can be a lot of variables to consider though perhaps the most daunting is the breadth und depth of ye olde wallet.

As Always, YMMV ...
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom
Nixterdemus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th April 2018, 21:25   #139
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gijs van Ginkel View Post
Canip, post 134,
I am sorry for your pain, but my draw was faster than that of the most repected American gunfighter, so I am still there, using an 8x binocular with pleasure and sometimes a 6x. Still looking for a 6x30 with incredible FOV like a Hartmann Porlerim (hardly suffers from muscle tremor effects), but perhaps that binocular did not make it to Switzerland.
Gijs van Ginkel
Yes, you are a fast draw, and I respect that ...

And you are right, the 6x30 Porlerim with 150m/1000m FOV didn‘t make it here, but the 7x35 Bushnell Rangemaster with 175m/1000m did just recently
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th April 2018, 21:46   #140
Gijs van Ginkel
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: utrecht
Posts: 1,377
Canip, post 139,
My mistake, I am not looking for the Hartmann Porlerim 6x30 but for the Hartmann Compact WW 6x30 with FOV 180m/1000m. Although I have visted the company a number of times, I forgot to ask for one and now the company does not exist anymore, a real pity. The search continues, sorry for the deviation of the topic.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st April 2018, 06:23   #141
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 307
Tks for clarifying, Gijs, I thought you had perhaps meant the Compact (looking at your website, it‘s clear you know Hartmann ...)

So let‘s leave the shooting, Kern, Hartmann and other deviations - do we now all agree that by using a 10x Conquest HD bino handheld we IN GENERAL lose more potential binocular efficiency than with the same shape, same weight, same dimensions 8x Conquest HD bino - individual physiological factors ignored for a moment?

Canip
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st April 2018, 06:46   #142
Gijs van Ginkel
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: utrecht
Posts: 1,377
Canip, post 141,
I agree.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st April 2018, 07:10   #143
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 7,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canip View Post
Tks for clarifying, Gijs, I thought you had perhaps meant the Compact (looking at your website, it‘s clear you know Hartmann ...)

So let‘s leave the shooting, Kern, Hartmann and other deviations - do we now all agree that by using a 10x Conquest HD bino handheld we IN GENERAL lose more potential binocular efficiency than with the same shape, same weight, same dimensions 8x Conquest HD bino - individual physiological factors ignored for a moment?

Canip


And with an 8x bino, due to the greater depth of field, IN GENERAL you need less re-focusing which can be very useful especially with a flying bird.

Lee
Troubador 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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Switching feeders franzsolo Hummingbirds 3 Saturday 19th December 2015 16:07
Switching systems squidge Micro Four Thirds 4/3 Photography 21 Friday 27th February 2015 13:12
Switching from Panasonic to SONY Paul Tavares Panasonic 9 Sunday 30th November 2014 02:06
PC switching off without warning The gaffer Computers, Birding Software And The Internet 1 Wednesday 6th January 2010 16:31
Desk top switching on problem help please. Cashie Computers, Birding Software And The Internet 14 Thursday 9th August 2007 17:55

{googleads}
Opticron - Imagic BGA VHD 8x42 – 2018 BBR Award Winner

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.17149806 seconds with 30 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:59.