A lot of the older porro's with huge prism housings had huge FOV's with 10 degree fields. Problem was the edges were not usually very good. I was trying some of them when I made that post.
-
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.
How much FOV do you like? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
Which one do you prefer? The FL has a bigger FOV than the Ultravid HD.
Mike F
Well-known member
Excellent!
Mike F
Well-known member
dries1
Member
Fov
The UV hands down, I prefer viewing with a 8X42 these days and the UV though lacking a bit of FOV is so much more relaxing to look through IMO any premium 8X32.
The EDG is still my fav 8X42, and after looking through glass from the European three premiums I find Leica the best built by far. I am looking forward to my next Leica, this one for Astro, coming soon.
A.W.
The UV hands down, I prefer viewing with a 8X42 these days and the UV though lacking a bit of FOV is so much more relaxing to look through IMO any premium 8X32.
The EDG is still my fav 8X42, and after looking through glass from the European three premiums I find Leica the best built by far. I am looking forward to my next Leica, this one for Astro, coming soon.
A.W.
Noctivid? Do you get any blackouts with the UV? So you would rather have a little smaller FOV and a bigger exit pupil for eye placement with the 42mm?
Last edited:
dries1
Member
When prices fall, and if the focus mechanism proves itself over time-maybe, after all I have the EDG in all formats except the 7X42 of which I have the Meopta B1. Lately I have been hesitant with new models, the overly high prices and questions of reliability and no major changes in optics in the last 7-10 years or so, buying a new in box older/ proven (and reliable) model is good for me.
A.W.
A.W.
dries1
Member
Fov
Dennis,
Sorry to have not answered your question, No not the Noctivid, it is slightly larger from an objective lens standpoint.
No blackouts with the UV, the eye relief is quite sufficient at 16mm or so. The eyecups do fit my face perfectly and I feel they are the best design for me.
I use the 8X32 in the field, and when I turn to the 42s, viewing is so much more relaxed, so yes my eyes appreciate the larger exit pupil.
I do however appreciate the EIIs for panoramic viewing, and the 10X35 EII as well-I am impressed with the 7 degree FOV. For a 10X it is quite rare.
A.W.
Dennis,
Sorry to have not answered your question, No not the Noctivid, it is slightly larger from an objective lens standpoint.
No blackouts with the UV, the eye relief is quite sufficient at 16mm or so. The eyecups do fit my face perfectly and I feel they are the best design for me.
I use the 8X32 in the field, and when I turn to the 42s, viewing is so much more relaxed, so yes my eyes appreciate the larger exit pupil.
I do however appreciate the EIIs for panoramic viewing, and the 10X35 EII as well-I am impressed with the 7 degree FOV. For a 10X it is quite rare.
A.W.
In astronomical eyepieces, wide field is usually used to describe an apparent field of view (AFOV) of >60 degrees. In the 1980s we went from Erfle eyepieces with 60-65 degree AFOV to a new generation of much better corrected wide field eyepieces with AFOV of 68, then 82, and lately 100 degrees. So in some sense, how wide is not only "how long is a piece of string, but how wide is a moving target.
In astronomy in the 1980s when the Nagler 82 degree AFOV eyepiece became available, they advertised the porthole effect--it was as if you were looking around "inside" the eyepiece. To me, the major advantage of these wide field eyepieces in astronomy was that it allowed me to go to a bit higher magnification for low and medium power viewing while maintaining a sufficient field of view for star or galaxy hopping. BTW, something I noticed using a binoviewer with a telescope is that eyepieces with a narrower field of view, ~50 degrees, seemed much less restrictive in the binoviewer compared with the view using a single eyepiece in the telescope.
In binoculars during the day, I find 50 AFOV a bit restrictive, 60 good, 65 excellent. Most of the binoculars I use regularly are 60-68 degrees. As others have mentioned, AFOV (and actual field of view) is just part of the equation, and even that is kind of a misnomer, because there really isn't a good formula that I have found. Each binocular seems to be a kind of blue plate special, it is a whole series decisions and compromises.
What I find most appealing is when nothing about the binocular bugs me or distracts me from what I am trying to see. What happens across the field of view when I concentrate on the center or move to get on or follow something is much more important to me than carefully examining whether the image is sharp to the edge of the field. I end up finding a binocular really comfortable and appealing, or not. And because they appeal in different ways, there is no absolute scale of rating the binoculars I own, but rather I prefer different binoculars at different times for different uses.
In astronomy in the 1980s when the Nagler 82 degree AFOV eyepiece became available, they advertised the porthole effect--it was as if you were looking around "inside" the eyepiece. To me, the major advantage of these wide field eyepieces in astronomy was that it allowed me to go to a bit higher magnification for low and medium power viewing while maintaining a sufficient field of view for star or galaxy hopping. BTW, something I noticed using a binoviewer with a telescope is that eyepieces with a narrower field of view, ~50 degrees, seemed much less restrictive in the binoviewer compared with the view using a single eyepiece in the telescope.
In binoculars during the day, I find 50 AFOV a bit restrictive, 60 good, 65 excellent. Most of the binoculars I use regularly are 60-68 degrees. As others have mentioned, AFOV (and actual field of view) is just part of the equation, and even that is kind of a misnomer, because there really isn't a good formula that I have found. Each binocular seems to be a kind of blue plate special, it is a whole series decisions and compromises.
What I find most appealing is when nothing about the binocular bugs me or distracts me from what I am trying to see. What happens across the field of view when I concentrate on the center or move to get on or follow something is much more important to me than carefully examining whether the image is sharp to the edge of the field. I end up finding a binocular really comfortable and appealing, or not. And because they appeal in different ways, there is no absolute scale of rating the binoculars I own, but rather I prefer different binoculars at different times for different uses.
60-68 degrees AFOV. You like a pretty wide field of view. Nice explanation of what you like.
Have you ever tried the 8x32 SV? Just curious. It is a lot like 8x32 FL that you like.
wdc
Well-known member
I am really aware of a relaxed view with my Ultravid BR 7x42, as I can actually roam my eyes a bit toward the edges of the field, something that I can't do at all in, say, an 8x32 format, without rapidly encountering blackouts. I am quite comfortable with an 8x42 view as well, as long as I can set the IPD to the center of my accommodation. Some of the bins I own are on the fringe of that.
It is only by owning and using several bins over time that one becomes aware of the subtle complexities of fit and ease of view for the individual. Part of the fun of it!
-Bill
Yes, the EDG 8x32 is pretty much the equivalent of the SV 8x32. The SV's have really climbed in price with the FP package.
It is funny how all those adjustments like IPD and eye cups affect blackouts isn't. Then some binoculars even of the same size are more finicky than others. Why couldn't somebody make you a custom made binocular based on your facial structure, eye socket depth, known eye relief and measured exit pupil so it would fit you like a glove.
Last edited:
Lee got it right. In most cases an 8X with 370ft@1000 yard FOV is just fine. But there are times when the birds are close or in heavy cover when I want all I can get.
I agree but I also think the tunnel like view 370ft@ 1000 yard at 8x gives you can just be unappealing to some people including me regardless of the habitat. Give me 400ft@ 1000 yard at 8x or better and I am a happy camper.
Last edited:
I'm sure it can Dennis and this casts a light on another of those areas of personal preferences that probably give the bino brands nightmares. For me the question of field of view is not so much whether it is visually appealing but whether it will suit the birds, beasts, insects or flowers or aquatic life that I will be looking at and the habitat in which I will be observing. Unless I am field testing in order to write a review I don't really think about how appealing the fov is and for example the concept of apparent field of view doesn't concern me at all.
I hasten to add this is purely personal and I can absolutely understand that if someone always wants big vista or panorama they can be disappointed by fields of view below a size that is a threshold for them. Its the same with 'sharp to the edge' fields of view. For me this is not critical, as long as my peripheral vision can pick up on something being there, I centre it to take a look. All of these aspects of personal preference are things that make discussion about binos so interesting and every preference is valid for the person holding it.
Lee
Similar threads
