• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

- Magnification and move vision: (1 Viewer)

because magnification provides more detail (so long as the resolution of the bin is beyond human vision, which most are), it isn't the case that high magnifications will show less detail than low magnifications, even when the image is shaky. High mags will, instead, show _more_ detail, even if shaky.
Exactly Alexis. This is certainly one of the fundamental points to be able to evaluate things correctly. The speech of the flickering vision is certainly much more complex than what we could only imagine. But I have always heard and read various comments (not only here) that do not start from these assumptions. When I was starting out, a stupid thing I heard from almost everyone was that besides 8x I couldn't handle binoculars. Then I saw that many of us can manage 15x 25x 35x, without worrying too much (even women and children).

So, where is the truth?
Maybe it's a topic that has been developed abnormally on the internet?
Maybe there is laziness and not wanting to understand how things really are?
Perhaps out of inertia people insist on repeating like a parrot the same tale they told him from the beginning, but without trying or understanding?

I don't know and I don't intend to do controversy or psychology. Of course I don't want to force anyone to do something (like using 25x) if they don't want to or don't feel. I just try to clarify the subject, to give those interested a chance.
So the discussion should be centered on how the eye works, the resolution of the detail, how to improve the grip and stability of the binoculars, how to get the eyes and sight used to movement and activate the stabilization that we have by nature. Plus many other useful topics to stimulate (and not to suppress) a more open approach towards magnifications beyond 9x.

The practical limit to the higher magnification is not the flickering, but rather the too narrow field of vision, which makes it more difficult to center the target. Think about telescopes that use low-magnification finders, despite being attached to the tripod. In addition to the various individual difficulties, which however may also be overcome or mitigated (but I am not a doctor).

What I can say with certainty (and I have already said it) is that in direct proportion to the magnification, we will all see the "shaky moved" that our hands pass to binoculars (this is another fundamental point).
So, with magnifications beyond 9x, it is certain that all of us will have a clearer and more detailed view of the shaking of our hands before our eyes.

Do you want to hide your blur from view and continue to believe you see more detail?
Use magnifications below 9x and have no other worries!
 
Last edited:
OK, AP's post above begs a question. I don't doubt that higher magnification and resolution are pretty well joined at the hip. However, it seems to me that if you compare an 8x42 and a 10x42 of the same make and model, that we are asking more work (magnification) from the same amount of light energy (what falls on the objective). It always seems to me that in the above scenario that the 8x is a bit sharper. The 10x is a bit larger, but not as sharp. In many instances the extra magnification is enough to carry the point, but not always.

When you compare the same make and model of the same two binoculars in 10x42 vs 10x50, then, for me, the 10x becomes both bigger and sharper. For an example, anybody who has side by side compared the Swarovski SV EL 10x42 and 10x50, should have gotten the impression of an image superiority of the 10x50.

Seems like the ratio of light energy to magnification (same size exit pupil) has to play into the equation, not just magnification by itself.
 
Last edited:
Alexis Powell said:
because magnification provides more detail (so long as the resolution of the bin is beyond human vision, which most are), it isn't the case that high magnifications will show less detail than low magnifications, even when the image is shaky.

Exactly Alexis.

Rico,

You should be very grateful to Alexis Powell. He wrote -in a single sentence- what your first post failed to communicate using 2580 words. If the forum moderators allow, you may want to edit your original post and replace it with this very sentence. You may also want to edit the title of this thread so that it becomes more clear. The phrase "move vision" is meaningless in English. A title like "Can we see more detail at increased magnification using hand-held binoculars?" would be more appropriate.

Now, regarding the technical question posed: Increased magnification causes two adverse affects: a) magnifies the effect of handshake b) reduces the diameter of the exit pupil. These effects add up to make the viewing of the image extremely difficult in the field. It is my experience that even if I use a tripod, it is very difficult to see a clear image through my Swarovski ATS 80 HD spotting scope on a windy day even at moderate magnifications such as 30X. Due to this, I don't take a spotting scope with me when hunting. It is practically useless.

The combination of wide field of view, generous exit pupil and good eye relief make low power binoculars such as 7X42 or 8X42 most appealing for field use. If you are not walking around with your binoculars, a good 12X50 (e.g. Leica Trinovid) will provide more detail of course but it is heavy and needs a solid rest.

Finally, as you said yourself in you latest post, very narrow field of view of high-power instruments (e.g. spotting scopes) makes their utility very limited.

Regards,
-Omid
 
Last edited:
I was using the Canon 10x42L IS yesterday, and in connection to the best of the best thread, I would say that this is it.
However, it is heavy and bulky, so maybe only the best of the best for the fit and strong user.

Looking at the chimney pot at 124 metres, unfortunately without the magpie, and holding the binocular steady it was pin sharp with the IS on. Tripod steady, and a good tripod at that.
I doubt that any hand held unbraced binocular would equal it.
The edge performance is also very good with just a small amount of false colour.

As to the whole discussion here, it reminds me of Galileo's opinion against the religious leader's viewpoints.
Looking at the night sky, it really doesn't matter whether the Sun goes round the Earth or the Earth goes around the Sun.
To the observer the sky moves about one degree in 4 minutes, say for Orion's belt stars.

Similarly, it doesn't matter whether the Earth is flat or an approximate sphere for observing birds 15 metres away.

It doesn't matter why the image in hand held binoculars moves, it just does.

Using a 30x binocular hand held will probably just give me headache trying to chase the detail.
The OP finally admits to bracing the 25x binocular.
Why, if hand holding the binocular is so straight forward, and even 100x binoculars are considered as hand held instruments?

I had no trouble hand holding the Celestron 20x80 binocular viewing the stars, but the binocular was inclined upwards, so the force went almost straight down.
However, the 30x80 binocular had too much movement.

The hypothesis that increases of 3.24x or 3x are necessary to see more detail seems at odds with practice.
1.5x seems more likely in the real world.
The Leica Duovids are 8x/12x or 10x/15x, not 8x/24x and 10x/30x.

In photography lenses go from 135mm to 200m to 300mm.
With cameras with in between shutters in the lenses, and interchangeable front elements it is 35mm, 50mm, 80mm.

Even with four speed gearboxes in older cars, I don't see 3x jumps.
This is not a visual device, but I am trying to think where 3x increases actually occur.
They might exist, but I don't think commonly.

B.
 
I don't doubt that higher magnification and resolution are pretty well joined at the hip.
Hi Steve, this is a great start! :t:

However, it seems to me that if you compare an 8x42 and a 10x42 of the same make and model, that we are asking more work (magnification) from the same amount of light energy (what falls on the objective). It always seems to me that in the above scenario that the 8x is a bit sharper.
Here it really depends on what you mean by "sharper".
If you mean "higher resolution of details", I answer that it is only your appearance-imagination. Which comes into logical conflict with your first sentence (which was "a great start" instead).
If, on the other hand, you mean "cleaning the image" from AC and other optical dirt, in this case I say that it depends too much on the binoculars project and therefore nothing can be generalized (it becomes subjective and therefore useless, without being able to specify case by case).

Leave the thought that a "greater exit pupil" (or greater aperture) is synonymous with greater resolution, in the binocular field. Indeed, it is generally a symptom of greater optical aberrations and greater aberrations of the eye. So, no 8x42 will see better details than a 10x42, if both are built to the best of their ability.
Seems like the ratio of light energy to magnification (same size exit pupil) has to play into the equation, not just magnification by itself.
Of course, in this case I can't deny. But don't confuse "8x42 vs 10x42" in daylight, where the only theoretical difference is precisely the magnification.
 
Omid, I want and will want to take-collect only the interesting parts of what you say.
... a good 12X50 (e.g. Leica Trinovid) will provide more detail of course but it is heavy and needs a solid rest.
Finally, as you said yourself in you latest post, very narrow field of view of high-power instruments (e.g. spotting scopes) makes their utility very limited.
As I have already said, it is logical that binoculars with higher magnification will be physically larger and heavier (greater tonnage) and will tend to have an increasingly narrow field (unfortunately).

But there was no need to repeat it.

Omid, if you really want to participate in the discussion with me (without controversy), you could try to avoid unnecessary nonsense. If you are interested in the topic, I am sure you will have interesting questions and answers, like all the others. Let's leave the controversies at home.
 
I was using the Canon 10x42L IS yesterday...
...I doubt that any hand held unbraced binocular would equal it.
I believe you! ... but I would like to do a detail reading comparison against binoculars of the same weight, built according to my specifications (with the same price).
I am still convinced that it is possible to read the same detail as your Canon, without stabilization, but of course with a longer reading time (for example, a license plate of the distant car).
By the way, I have a good 7x50 with fantastic ergonomics and excellent collimation, but in direct comparison with any 10x, even inexpensive, the reading of the sign "do not place motorbikes and bicycles" at 80m distance, will always be faster and more resolute with 10x.

As to the whole discussion here, it reminds me of Galileo's opinion against the religious leader's viewpoints.
Looking at the night sky, it really doesn't matter whether the Sun goes round the Earth or the Earth goes around the Sun.
This comparison is an honor for me. But, I hope not to burn likeGiordano Bruno ;)

... It doesn't matter why the image in hand held binoculars moves, it just does.
Of course, for you, but not for everyone! ... this is their discussion.

The OP finally admits to bracing the 25x binocular.
Why, if hand holding the binocular is so straight forward, and even 100x binoculars are considered as hand held instruments?
Because it is paradoxically more difficult to use 10x than 100x!

The hypothesis that increases of 3.24x or 3x are necessary to see more detail seems at odds with practice.
1.5x seems more likely in the real world...
You keep confusing "popular offer" and "boundary conditions".
Also the criterion of Rayleigh (1,22x) and the criterion Nyquist's (2x) are two more criteria that probably you never have knew anything about.
For once, can't you do 2+2 about the need to have at least 3 pixels (or 3 photoreceptors) to generate a complete spatial information of two white lines alternate of a test "black/white" or two separate stars?
 
Last edited:
I don't doubt that higher magnification and resolution are pretty well joined at the hip.
Hi Steve, this is a great start! :t:

However, it seems to me that if you compare an 8x42 and a 10x42 of the same make and model, that we are asking more work (magnification) from the same amount of light energy (what falls on the objective). It always seems to me that in the above scenario that the 8x is a bit sharper.
Here it really depends on what you mean by "sharper".
If you mean "higher resolution of details", I answer that it is only your appearance-imagination. Which comes into logical conflict with your first sentence (which was "a great start" instead).
If, on the other hand, you mean "cleaning the image" from AC and other optical dirt, in this case I say that it depends too much on the binoculars project and therefore nothing can be generalized (it becomes subjective and therefore useless, without being able to specify case by case).

Leave the thought that a "greater exit pupil" (or greater aperture) is synonymous with greater resolution, in the binocular field. Indeed, it is generally a symptom of greater optical aberrations and greater aberrations of the eye. So, no 8x42 will see better details than a 10x42, if both are built to the best of their ability.
Seems like the ratio of light energy to magnification (same size exit pupil) has to play into the equation, not just magnification by itself.
Of course, in this case I can't deny. But don't confuse "8x42 vs 10x42" in daylight, where the only theoretical difference is precisely the magnification.
 
I will give personal thoughts here.

I cannot see through other people's eyes, only my own eyes.

In general, I think that the oscillations from hand holding a binocular are a rough circle with possibly additional darting movements.
As the magnification increases the apparent size of the rough circle increases.

With a 100x binocular the field is about the size of the Moon, about 0.5 degrees.
Looking at a nearly full moon I think that most of the time the moon would be in the field hand holding the 100x binocular.
One may get glimpses of say 1/30th second duration where quite fine detail is seen, finer than a hand held 10x binocular.

However, if the 100x binocular was firmly mounted on a good tripod finer detail would be seen, and the reliability of that detail would be high.

The reasonably fine detail hand holding the 100x binocular, glimpsed for perhaps 1/30th second, would have a low reliability.

The reliability of the detail hand holding a 10x binocular would be high, even though a little blurred.

Mistakes using glimpsed detail for small fractions of a second are numerous.

I would give a very low value to any detail in an observation made with a hand held 100x binocular.
As a section director of a national astronomy association, I would just exclude any observation made with a hand held 100x binocular because it had too low a reliability.
In fact I have never had such an observation submitted to me, or seen any such observation in any world recognised astronomy group in the last fifty years.

Regarding post 27.
I don't speak Italian.

The last paragraph is insulting.

We have had theorists here before, trying to convince us of their take on the optical world.
When the theories don't agree with actual empirical results, personally I don't take the theories as having much weight.

B.
 
Rico 70,
I followed the discussion a bit and my understanding is, that you are able to hand hold binoculars with magnifications more than 8x, so lets say 15x, 20x, 25x etc. so steady that you are able to observe objects perfectly sharp without vibration unsharpness /perfect resolution?
Did I understand that correctly?
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Rico

Quote:
Certo, per te, ma non per tutti! ... questa è la loro discussione.
Perché è paradossalmente più difficile usare 10x che 100x!

Post in English please. It is ok to use occasional words from other languages but answers and comment like this should always be in the English language.

Lee
Moderator
 
I assume that Rico simply overlooked those two lines in running the translator. Google does a good job:

Certo, per te, ma non per tutti! ... questa è la loro discussione.
Of course, for you, but not for everyone! ... this is their discussion. [i.e. it's for them?]

Perché è paradossalmente più difficile usare 10x che 100x!
Because it is paradoxically more difficult to use 10x than 100x!

The latter is an interesting argument Rico has made before, though I'm not convinced.
 
you are able to hand hold binoculars with magnifications more than 8x, so lets say 15x, 20x, 25x etc. so steady that you are able to observe objects perfectly sharp without vibration unsharpness /perfect resolution?
I think "perfectly sharp" is not the correct term.
I prefer to say that the 25x vision is sharp enough to see 3 times larger and 3 times more detail than the 8x.

So is it clearer?
 
Rico70, post 34,
No it is not clearer to me, since with a handhold binocular at 25x magnification small objects are more "blurred" than when supported, so details are less clear (sharp).
Are you familiar with very solid published studies with regard to this matter by different reserach groups? I ask it, since we discussed this some time go also on BF.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Gijs,

post 35.

I am with you here.

3 times larger, 25 times compared to 8 times.
Yes it is.

3 times more detail than 8x.
No it isn't.
At least not hand held.

I have no objection at all to anybody using a 25x70 binocular hand held unsupported or braced.
But to say that 3x more detail is seen than at 8x is I think not found by any studies.

Claims have to be verified by ones peers.

Regards,
B.
 
Because it is paradoxically more difficult to use 10x than 100x!

The latter is an interesting argument Rico has made before, though I'm not convinced.
I can understand you Tenex, I never would have thought it, without seeing it with my own eyes.
I'm not sure how to explain it, but keep in mind that the 10x's micro-shake is sufficiently visible observing a star in the night sky, but it is impossible to "counter-react (solve)" with your hands or eyes, because it is a too much fine-small figure. In fact, the Moon (30') with 10x is clearly visible without blur.

I don't know how much the "10x figure" can measure in arc seconds, because I never measured it (but then each one will have a different subjective value, different in different circumstances). I only know that once that figure becomes 10 times greater (with 100x) it is no longer a micro-shake, but a large-wide movement, which the eye is able to react and stabilize with its "tricks".

The final feeling is that, although the vision of the visual field is constantly moving, because we are trying to support a 100x binoculars freehand, the vision of the details of the 100x are revealed to the eye, in a much better way than what is possible see in proportion with 10x. I'll give you an example: of the Pigeon on the ledge about 80m away I could see the dried poop on the legs and all the nuances of the wrinkles of the orange skin. I tried to mount the 25x on the tripod and I couldn't even get the feeling that the legs were dirty with dry poop. I could only see that it was a pigeon perched on the ledge.
 
Last edited:
say that 3x more detail is seen than at 8x is I think not found by any studies.
Why, instead you have studied the thing and therefore you can pronounce on it?
So pass me the physical law which explains the phenomenon you affirm, refuting what I say. I want to read it reported by a book of Physics for university study, not by the blogger "quiquoqua of my boots".

Or since you proceed only for empiricism, you cannot make use of any theoretical physical law, because the other theorists of the forum have already burned them (?!)

:C

Do you think you're less offensive than me?
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top