What binoculars (8x or 10x) has the most EASY and stress free view? Any opinions?
What binoculars (8x or 10x) has the most EASY and stress free view? Any opinions?
I'm not familiar with "exaggerated parallax." Could you please break that down for me? :cat:
Bill
What binoculars (8x or 10x) has the most EASY and stress free view? Any opinions?
If you like a warmer image I am curious why you liked the Zeiss Conquest HD. I would describe that one as a more neutral color bias. The other two are certainly warmer with a definite red bias.To my eyes, of the 30+ pairs I've owned over the years, these three offer the easiest and most stress-free view:
1) Nikon LX-L
2) Zeiss Conquest HD
3) Sightron Blue Sky II 8x32
I've literally spent hours behind all three of these with zero eye strain, headaches and essentially no adjustment period between looking through the bins and looking without them. My eyes prefer a slightly warmer image as it tends to be the easiest on my eyes.
If I had to pick only one, it would be the Nikon LX-L
Henry,
Why is 8 necessary? (all other criteria are pretty obvious).
It eliminates all porros I.
Peter
The parallax from widely spaced objectives forces the eyes to view centered objects at close range too far off-axis for comfort or good alignment with the optical axes of the binocular telescopes. For me that does eliminate all Porros with widely spaced objectives from being "relaxed" at distances below about 6-7m and unacceptable below about 3-4m.
Henry
For objects at such a close range there is no question that porros are far from ideal. But for more distant objects have you found any porros that satisfy the remaining criteria?
Many times, when looking at an object close-up, those fields (formed at the field stop, not at the objective) will appear to be in separate counties. Yet, if one concentrates on the object, it may appear precisely formed with no double image, indicating there is really no problem with collimation.
Bill
I've heard you say this before, but it must apply more to lower magnifications with plenty of DOF (7x, maybe 8x max) than to 10x+, where I just don't find that it works.2. Focus by STARING and let the bino’s focus mechanism do its job.
Wow, you must go back further than I thought (Cretaceous). But have you taken a good look in that direction recently?I have some lovely ocean-front property just northwest of Wichita on which I could make you such a deal!
I have a very nice cathedral for sale in Paris, needs a new roof so fair price.
Edmund
I've heard you say this before, but it must apply more to lower magnifications with plenty of DOF (7x, maybe 8x max) than to 10x+, where I just don't find that it works.
Wow, you must go back further than I thought (Cretaceous). But have you taken a good look in that direction recently?
Hi, Tenex:
‘Sorry, but no cigar, this time.
You’ve also heard me say that unfounded opinions—even those that have been around for decades—will never trump the laws of physics or physiological realities. Yet, I rarely say anything of value on a binocular forum without someone coming along right behind me to challenge or circumvent something I’ve tried to teach, either from years of experience or proven scientific notation. Example: Last week, in post #4—relating to the “focus drift” thread—on Cloudy Nights (attached), I had a friend post something from my book, dealing with that very issue. But by post #6, someone who refused to read the blurb, take the time to think it through, or simply knew better, chose to evade the realities of the matter and posit that all the binos he’s used must continually be refocused. He concluded, “It’s the eyes.”
The eye has the capacity, depending on age and other factors, to accommodate dioptric and spatial disparities. Thus, STARING, and letting the focus mechanism do its job is incredibly important, whether the observer wants to believe it or not. The blurb attached thoroughly explains the problem and solution. In the vast majority of cases, the problem lies not with the eyes but with the brain and its too rapid instructions to the ciliary muscles.
The bottom line? The observer can either learn to stare and enjoy a good image—refocusing only for a new distance—or he can spend the rest of his life fiddling constantly with the focus and enjoy a less than pleasant image all the while.
More often than not, our understanding rests with the magnitude of our humble willingness to understand.
Finally, okay, okay, so it’s a little dry there, now. A few thousand hard rains and the area could be oceanfront, again. Look at the Mississippi flood plain of 1929. :cat:
Bill
Bill,
roof lines never "snap" and drive me crazy when I try to "feel" the texture of stones and chimneys. I would be delighted on a comment about this, it's my main "official" use of my binoculars and what they do least well in fact. I can see very car and pedestrian a mile away, but the statues on cathedrals and inscriptions on monuments simply don't "pop".
Edmund