Jay_Feather
Birder
Thanks, what's the Aculon 12x50 like?
-
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.
Chromatic aberration (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jay_Feather
- Start date
I have the 12x50 and 16x50 Nikon Action VII.
The 16x50 I think has a binocular mount included for a tripod.
They are both O.K.
But mainly used for astronomy.
My standard astronomy binoculars were 12x50 Japanese Ultraview, best of six and 12x45 Russian best of six.
But for birdwatching, I think the Aculon 10x42 would be better.
It is a personal thing and the higher power ones need support. A tree, lamp post, fence or window etc.
B.
The 16x50 I think has a binocular mount included for a tripod.
They are both O.K.
But mainly used for astronomy.
My standard astronomy binoculars were 12x50 Japanese Ultraview, best of six and 12x45 Russian best of six.
But for birdwatching, I think the Aculon 10x42 would be better.
It is a personal thing and the higher power ones need support. A tree, lamp post, fence or window etc.
B.
Jay_Feather
Birder
Is this because of the magnified shaking?
Yes, even 10x is borderline for many to hold steady. 12x or more is quite hopeless for most - some get away with it but usually have to use something to brace themselves.
Also the true field of view gets kinda small with high magnification...
Joachim
little tremor
It sounds more like terrorism than good information.
I quietly use 25x hand-free to observe even the fishing tern, the bee-eaters hunting for insects and everything that flies or moves at a distance of over 30m from me (33yd).
Now that I'm used to 25x, when I use 10x it feels like I'm playing.
The flickering is not caused by enlargement, but by the user and his inability to stabilize his binoculars. And this will always happen regardless of the magnification used.
There is also a physical explanation for this. And certainly the explanation does not change based on what the majority of users do or not.
Let everyone evaluate their own needs and abilities for themselves, without conveying their thoughts with useless statements.
Do you agree?
Hi Joachim, I must admit that all the time when I read certain statements, I always accuse a little tremor.
It sounds more like terrorism than good information.
I quietly use 25x hand-free to observe even the fishing tern, the bee-eaters hunting for insects and everything that flies or moves at a distance of over 30m from me (33yd).
Now that I'm used to 25x, when I use 10x it feels like I'm playing.
The flickering is not caused by enlargement, but by the user and his inability to stabilize his binoculars. And this will always happen regardless of the magnification used.
There is also a physical explanation for this. And certainly the explanation does not change based on what the majority of users do or not.
Let everyone evaluate their own needs and abilities for themselves, without conveying their thoughts with useless statements.
Do you agree?
The movement is caused by the user, and the inertia, weight, length, and balance of the binocular.
The strength and fitness of the user. The breathing and pulse rate of the user.
Tiredness plays a big role.
Also by the magnification.
I used the 2.5 kg Celestron 20x80 hand held when younger for 20 minutes at a time.
I mainly use the Canon 18x50 IS now, which is wonderful.
Turning the IS off and the movement can be awful, especially at strange angles, where a tripod cannot reach.
I don't use tripods with binoculars.
I have no trouble using 12x50s, 12x56, 13x56 or low priced 15x70s hand held.
However, mounting a 15x70 Quantam on a tripod shows a dramatic improvement.
Birdwatchers prefer 7x to 10x binoculars hand held.
For stability and real fields of view.
Magnification, in my opinion, is a critical, but not the only factor.
B.
The strength and fitness of the user. The breathing and pulse rate of the user.
Tiredness plays a big role.
Also by the magnification.
I used the 2.5 kg Celestron 20x80 hand held when younger for 20 minutes at a time.
I mainly use the Canon 18x50 IS now, which is wonderful.
Turning the IS off and the movement can be awful, especially at strange angles, where a tripod cannot reach.
I don't use tripods with binoculars.
I have no trouble using 12x50s, 12x56, 13x56 or low priced 15x70s hand held.
However, mounting a 15x70 Quantam on a tripod shows a dramatic improvement.
Birdwatchers prefer 7x to 10x binoculars hand held.
For stability and real fields of view.
Magnification, in my opinion, is a critical, but not the only factor.
B.
No Bin, the magnification has no fault. It does not have anything to do with it.
Instead I understand that keeping 2.5kg with the arms stretched forward is much more difficult than keeping them close to the face (such as the shape of a 7x35 Porro-prism). In this case there is a great ergonomic difference that penalizes the 20x80.
In general, the magnification affects the field of view, although it depends exclusively on the eyepiece and the field diaphragm (not the magnification). But in practice it also conditions the observation distance, so it is very important and sometimes critical, with respect to the needs.
Needs are the most important point to understand which magnification to use.
If I want to observe the Moon, it will be preferable to use magnifications greater than 35x and up to about 120x, I will be able to see it all in the visual field.
Even if I want to observe a Kingfisher at 50-100m distance, I will need magnification between 35 and 100x.
But for an elephant at 3m, even 7x will be too much!
Hi Rico,
I disagree, the magnification has everything to do with it.
I also have an almost identical 30x80.
The 30x is too much because of increased movement.
In addition I have a well aligned 25x-135x80 Japanese very similar binocular.
Above 80x is empty magnification
Should this, by your reckoning, be as stable hand held at 80x80 as the 20x80?
One extra point is if the eyepieces fit snugly next to the eyes.
This greatly increases stability.
I hate binoculars with too much eye relief.
I don't wear glasses.
Have you seen an Italian Galileo make triple turret eyepiece 90mm aperture binocular?
My friend bought the broken tripod, but not the binocular.
It was going cheaply at auction.
I would have had it restored.
I don't know the date, but Zeiss made a magnificent triple turret binocular.
B.
I disagree, the magnification has everything to do with it.
I also have an almost identical 30x80.
The 30x is too much because of increased movement.
In addition I have a well aligned 25x-135x80 Japanese very similar binocular.
Above 80x is empty magnification
Should this, by your reckoning, be as stable hand held at 80x80 as the 20x80?
One extra point is if the eyepieces fit snugly next to the eyes.
This greatly increases stability.
I hate binoculars with too much eye relief.
I don't wear glasses.
Have you seen an Italian Galileo make triple turret eyepiece 90mm aperture binocular?
My friend bought the broken tripod, but not the binocular.
It was going cheaply at auction.
I would have had it restored.
I don't know the date, but Zeiss made a magnificent triple turret binocular.
B.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Binastro, David,
I have published a powerpoint about multifunctional binoculars and this contains also different binoculars with multiple turrets. It is published on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor under "verrekijkers testen en vergelijken".
Gijs van Ginkel
I have published a powerpoint about multifunctional binoculars and this contains also different binoculars with multiple turrets. It is published on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor under "verrekijkers testen en vergelijken".
Gijs van Ginkel
This is just what you see, but the blur is not the fault of the enlargements (it's your fault).
Yours is a beautiful point of view, but it is not the magnification that determines the visual field. As already mentioned, it is the eyepiece optical scheme and the field diaphragm (the field stop). In fact it is possible to have 7x and 10x binoculars both with 120m of field (for example).
Bin, this is not the right place to explain the question of enlargement, but I will gladly do so at the first right opportunity.
I have never seen the triple Galileo turret. But it's very interesting!
I think it was also used in the navy, to change the magnification.
Dear Rico,
so you are chastising me for generalizing my experiences but on the other hand quietly imply that whatever your experience might be with easily hand holding super high magnification bins without support might be valid for everybody...
Quietly ignoring that lots of other people have written about their not so positive experiences with that and various well respected optics suppliers have gone to great lengths to design and build different image stabilized binoculars - which are obviously completely useless in your opinion but have a lot of very satisfied users.
Sorry, but I beg to disagree and will continue to give the advice that 10x is the maximum which most people can hand hold without help by stabilization or bracing.
Those who absolutely want to try higher are of course welcome to do so - but please not as a first pair of bins and without trying.
And yes, there is an easy geometrical explanation why higher magnification binoculars get impractical when hand held. Everybody - yes, even you - has a certain amount of tremor when holding a pair of bins. In your case it might be less than with mere mortals like us - that is if you haven't just read my posts ;-)
This results in the bins pointing not quite in the direction you want to look but being a tiny angle off. For an 8x pair of bins this will result in the bird moving around a little bit inside the field of view but that is easily fixed by the brain.
For a 25x pair of bins on the other hand this means that the bird moves 3 times as much and might even leave the field of view entirely. This is usually too much for the brain to compensate and results into less detail being perceived.
For a more scholarly but still readily understandable explanation I recommend Holger Merlitz, Handfernglaeser, Europa Lehrmittel, 2013 chapter 8.3. This is unfortunately only available in german so far.
He quotes two relevant papers on this which are available in english but might be a bit more scientific and also not easily available unless you happen to have access to a well sorted library on optical engineering or the online archives of the journals in question. I'll give the sources anyways...
H. Schober, U. Miller and B.Huber, Measurement of the Muscle tremble Associated with Hand-Held Field-Glasses, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 53 p. 1336 (1963)
D. Vukobratovich, Binocular performance and design, Proc. of SPIE 1168, Current Developments in Optical Engineering and Commercial Optics, ed. R.E. Fischer, H.M. Pallicove, W.J.Smith (1989)
The latter one can be easily found online via google atm - see figure 1 for Mr Vukobratovich's results.
Joachim
Rico, Post 28.
I am one of the few here who routinely uses high magnifications, both terrestrially and astro.
But I use scopes not binoculars.
I consider most spotting scopes woefully underpowered.
I think the makers just don't want to show the faults in their scopes when pushed to higher magnifications, although some provide for astro eyepieces or Barlows.
20x-60x is just too little for me when viewing at 100 metres to 10 kms and more.
With 80mm to 120 mm scopes I often use 60 times to 120 times during the day.
Sometimes more.
At 3 a.m. I have had superb results at 250x with 120mm scopes terrestrially, resolving 1 arcsecond markings.
So I agree with you that the further the distance the greater the aperture and magnification is needed within the constraints of our atmosphere.
I can still use 0.3mm exit pupils if necessary.
However, my PST solar telescope is used at 32x for over 2,000 days observing, even though I have 60x and 80x eyepieces.
If I want resolution with handheld binoculars, the Canon 18x50 IS is only bettered by the Zeiss 20x60S.
Unstabilised binoculars don't come close.
I use a Kowa 20x50 scope handheld and an Opticron 13x-39x50 MM2.
But usually the scopes have good tripods.
Today I received a photo from an astro colleague.
It shows craters on the Moon 250 metres across. About 0.15 arcsecond resolution.
He did use a 1 metre aperture scope.
I have a framed photo on my wall from a friend of the crater Tycho with similar resolution.
He only used a 14 inch Celestron SCT.
Regards,
B.
I am one of the few here who routinely uses high magnifications, both terrestrially and astro.
But I use scopes not binoculars.
I consider most spotting scopes woefully underpowered.
I think the makers just don't want to show the faults in their scopes when pushed to higher magnifications, although some provide for astro eyepieces or Barlows.
20x-60x is just too little for me when viewing at 100 metres to 10 kms and more.
With 80mm to 120 mm scopes I often use 60 times to 120 times during the day.
Sometimes more.
At 3 a.m. I have had superb results at 250x with 120mm scopes terrestrially, resolving 1 arcsecond markings.
So I agree with you that the further the distance the greater the aperture and magnification is needed within the constraints of our atmosphere.
I can still use 0.3mm exit pupils if necessary.
However, my PST solar telescope is used at 32x for over 2,000 days observing, even though I have 60x and 80x eyepieces.
If I want resolution with handheld binoculars, the Canon 18x50 IS is only bettered by the Zeiss 20x60S.
Unstabilised binoculars don't come close.
I use a Kowa 20x50 scope handheld and an Opticron 13x-39x50 MM2.
But usually the scopes have good tripods.
Today I received a photo from an astro colleague.
It shows craters on the Moon 250 metres across. About 0.15 arcsecond resolution.
He did use a 1 metre aperture scope.
I have a framed photo on my wall from a friend of the crater Tycho with similar resolution.
He only used a 14 inch Celestron SCT.
Regards,
B.
Ever louder tremors
Since you are 1.50 m tall, should all doors be only 1.60 m high?
Is that what you think is right?
I have never forced anyone to use 25x and I will never do it, but instead I stressed that everyone must opt for the magnification value that best suits their needs. Maximum freedom to try and evaluate with your own eyes and with your own hands. Because I believe that this is right and more honest.
You (and the other usual 8x) have instead established, absolutely, that over 10x it is not possible to observe freehand. And you did it trying to build on the hypothesis that this is the case for most users. Yours is a habit
But I do not want to punish you, but at least you will admit that this is quite absurd and illogical. And that excludes me from your group!
I also add, poor Holger Merlitz and the others, often used as a fulcrum to give themselves a reason at all costs (which is not there).
I say all this, absolutely without any grudges towards anyone and with all possible respect.
Here we are just talking about our passion for binoculars and all the fantastic observations they give us, of our beautiful world.
peace and love
Excuse me Joachim if I am direct (you are not the cause), but anyone who brings his own experience of enlargements like absolute dogma, warning other users with terror that it is practically forbidden to use larger enlargements ... always makes me tremble.
Since you are 1.50 m tall, should all doors be only 1.60 m high?
Is that what you think is right?
I have never forced anyone to use 25x and I will never do it, but instead I stressed that everyone must opt for the magnification value that best suits their needs. Maximum freedom to try and evaluate with your own eyes and with your own hands. Because I believe that this is right and more honest.
You (and the other usual 8x) have instead established, absolutely, that over 10x it is not possible to observe freehand. And you did it trying to build on the hypothesis that this is the case for most users. Yours is a habit
But I do not want to punish you, but at least you will admit that this is quite absurd and illogical. And that excludes me from your group!
I also add, poor Holger Merlitz and the others, often used as a fulcrum to give themselves a reason at all costs (which is not there).
I say all this, absolutely without any grudges towards anyone and with all possible respect.
Here we are just talking about our passion for binoculars and all the fantastic observations they give us, of our beautiful world.
peace and love
Last edited:
You (and the other usual 8x) have instead established, absolutely, that over 10x it is not possible to observe freehand. And you did it trying to build on the hypothesis that this is the case for most users. Yours is a habit
Dear Rico,
let me quote myself (from post #24): "Yes, even 10x is borderline for many to hold steady. 12x or more is quite hopeless for most - some get away with it but usually have to use something to brace themselves."
Where in this sentence did I say that it is absolutely not possible to observe hand-held at magnifications over 10x?
But I have met only one person who was using a 12x pair for general birding, which is still only half of your 25x (this is not counting a few with stabilized bins).
And please excuse that I quoted some people who know a thing or two about optics and have come to the same result by calculation rather than my crude observation and have published those findings.
Joachim
We are now very off-topic ...
It is not clear to me why one person takes all this trouble to convince another, that "12x or more is quite hopeless for most".
For me it is as if you were telling me: "take chocolate ice cream, because very few people like pistachio".
In the background there is always this "lever" of the most part, used to influence others. As if eating pistachio was stupid or not very normal.
Do you understand that this doesn't make any sense, or not?
And then, there is the vice of using the famous name (of the technician who made the calculations) as the fulcrum.
Calculations with the pistachio taste? :eek!:
ps: try to honestly answer the questions I asked you.
Joachim, I don't think it's the automatic translator's fault, I really think it's a mindset, difficult to eradicate.
It is not clear to me why one person takes all this trouble to convince another, that "12x or more is quite hopeless for most".
For me it is as if you were telling me: "take chocolate ice cream, because very few people like pistachio".
In the background there is always this "lever" of the most part, used to influence others. As if eating pistachio was stupid or not very normal.
Do you understand that this doesn't make any sense, or not?
And then, there is the vice of using the famous name (of the technician who made the calculations) as the fulcrum.
Calculations with the pistachio taste? :eek!:
ps: try to honestly answer the questions I asked you.
Last edited:
Good choice, John - I also got more and more the impression that we have to do with trolling here (84 posts !! since joining on Dec.8) and also activated „Ignore“.
Thank you guys for pointing out the obvious to the one who had taken the bait... Also ignored... first on the list...
Joachim
Similar threads
