Nice summation, Henry. That is exactly my point. I agree with your 57-58 degree AFOV number.
Reasonably steady. I think as I get older, I couldn't be bothered walking closer to things....Sancho. But as you get older can you hold a 10x steady?B
As much as I can handle...How much FOV do you prefer in an 8x birding binocular? I find 400 to 420 feet about optimum. Under 400 feet is a tad too small and starts to feel tunnel like and over 420 feet I think there begins to be more optical aberrations and it seems to make it hard to see all the field. What do you think? Also, how important is a big FOV to you?
That stuff is $$$$$! Do you really drink it?BAs much as I can handle...
http://www.sippingmalt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/長頸-FOV2.jpg
...8º real FOV, for instance, looks tunnel like at 6x (48º apparent FOV)...
I have always had a problem getting a handle on apparent FOV as opposed to actual FOV and and the above definitions of "immersive," if they apply to either, are not helping me any.
If I see the same FOV with both a 7x binocular and with an 8x binocular the 7x will look smaller to me than the 8x will.
I'm not being snarky here. That is how it looks to me. I certainly don't get an altered mental state from the 8x!:eek!:
Bob
That is the opposite of most people's reactions to a flat field binocular. Usually with the larger sweet spot and sharp edges a smaller FOV is satisfactory. You are saying you want a bigger FOV because you can now see the edges clearly. I have never heard that before. Interesting!I used a Swaro EL 10x32 WB for a decade and never thought once about a larger field of view. I think it was the same back then as it is today regarding fov, 360 ft.
When I use the 7x42 EDG, I frequently find I would like to have more fov than the specified 420'. Can't say I've experienced this until using this glass.
Go figure??? :smoke:
OK, I don't have the answer for this but think I got a clue when I briefly owned a Swaro EL 8x32 SV and felt something similar. I believe it has to do with the field flattener lens and having a more in focus image pushing to the edges of the view. My natural vision doesn't do this; it drops off in focus and sharpness at the periphery and is something of a natural and comfortable frame for the central/in front of me view. SO... I think I look for a similar view simulation in a binocular (some drop off at the edge to naturally frame the view), and if it is not there than I want to expand/widen the view until it is present. So I'm not so sure I can say I'm looking for more field of view, but instead just a familiar viewing representation.
I haven't heard anyone mention something like this around this forum so I'm running for cover - now!.... :egghead:
CG
Digital can do a lot that optics can't. Maybe someday binoculars will benefit from digital technology.Well, the only time I ever had a 'WOW' experience from the FoV was when I first looked through a Zeiss 7x42, which really gave the 'picture window' effect, particularly as compared to what was provided by my then glass, a 10x50 of unknown provenance.
I'd absolutely love to have a wider field, it greatly improves awareness of what the birds are doing. Unfortunately, binocular technology is frozen, because there is no money in it.
A modern design would offer a 25-30 degree FoV at minimal magnification, perhaps 2x, zooming as needed to focus on points of interest at 10-15x. Any cheap digital camera can do that today, but alpha binoculars can't even manage two powers effectively.
Dennis the Nikon 8x30 EII doesn't really work with my glasses. I want 462ft clear to the edge, sufficient ER for me (~17 or 18mm), and a proper 8x roof image size.Chosun. Do you like a Nikon 8x30 EII? It is right at about 462 feet FOV. Would you rather have a 420 foot FOV sharp to the edge or a 450 foot FOV with soft edges?
So you like the perceptual bigger image scale of roofs and you need more eye relief. A 9x50 with a 420 foot FOV sharp to the edge would be awesome.Dennis the Nikon 8x30 EII doesn't really work with my glasses. I want 462ft clear to the edge, sufficient ER for me (~17 or 18mm), and a proper 8x roof image size.
The only way 420 foot FOV sharp to the edge would satisfy me is if it was in a 9x50 magnification ...... now we're talking ! :king:
Chosun :gh:
Digital can do a lot that optics can't. Maybe someday binoculars will benefit from digital technology.
Roofs do have a larger image scale.
To construct 10x optical zoom binoculars would mean significantly larger units than anyone would like to carry (they could be made small, but due to the resulting small exit pupil you'd better be a hamster to use them).
//L
Yup. Your right about where I am. Why do you think a bigger FOV say 450 feet is unnecessary?Apparent field or whatever has never mattered to me nearly as much as the true field, as I tend to pan often during viewing anyways, although I bird differently/for different reasons that most. I am fine with about 360' @ 1000yds, anything less and I feel a bit confined; this is why I've not liked many of the 10x I've used, although some of the new models have definitely gotten better in this respect. 400'+ at 7/8x is probably "ideal".