Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
ZEISS Summer Savings - Experience unique moments of nature. Save up to £250 on selected ZEISS Binoculars - limited time only!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

7x42s; High end versus mid range (oldies but goodies)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Tuesday 10th September 2019, 20:21   #26
wdc
Registered User
 
wdc's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Moraga, California
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
What 7X42, past and present has the largest apparent FOV.

Andy W.
That is an excellent question Andy. I was looking at AFOV regarding a thread a few weeks ago about the Noctivid. Here's a few of of them:

1. Nikon 7x42 EDG 52
2. Leica Ultravid 7x42 BR 52
3. Swarovski Habicht 7x42 43.3
4. Opticron 7x42 Discovery 50.5

I'm using an online calculator to generate these:
https://astronomy.tools/calculators/binoculars

For all the love and praise that 7x42's garner for better depth of field, wide field of view, less pronounced shake, etc. I would say the AFOV could be improved on every binocular in this format by a fair amount. If the Opticron is the NEWEST incarnation of this format, I'd say they're going the wrong direction with regard to AFOV, though the price is good. The rest of the bins are either no longer made, or will likely NEVER be upgraded with regard to this issue.

Why not make a widefield binocular more immersive?

I assume that eyepiece design needs to be more complex, or perhaps larger, in order to generate and correct a wider apparent field, while maintaining usable eye relief.

Maybe the new widefield Kowas will handle this much better. We'll know in a few more weeks, I expect.. ;-)

-Bill

Last edited by wdc : Tuesday 10th September 2019 at 20:33.
wdc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 10th September 2019, 20:45   #27
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,632
Thanks for the info Bill, it just conforms my lack of enthusiasm for the 7x42 format. The only 7X I felt that has a nice open view is my 7X40 NVA IF glass, that has an apparent FOV of 60 degrees; so much more open than my Meopta 7x42 B1, however it is not suitable for birding.

Regarding the eyepiece design, it would probably look like the WX 7X50.

I too am looking forward to the new WF Kowa models.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 00:06   #28
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,826
Andy,

The Zeiss Victory 7x42 T* FL uses an 8x eyepiece with shorter objective tubes to get 7x with a wider 8.5 FOV than the normal 8 FOV a standard 7x42 has with its perceived but "inadequate" AFOV.

I don't know what the new AFOV of this Zeiss Victory 7x42 is after this change but one of the results of making its FOV wider in this manner is astigmatic edges in the view.

I own this Zeiss 7x42 and I like using it very much (it is my favorite binocular) but I don't find its view more "immersive" than what I see when using my Swarovski SLC Neu 7x42 B; nor, for that matter, my Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN.

I think that all of the the proposed optical manipulations and changes needed to change the AFOV or other specifications of any 7x42 will have effects on the views it will offer to the users.

I think that the same goes for other binocular formats. They all have "ideal" specifications where they work best

Bob

Last edited by ceasar : Wednesday 11th September 2019 at 00:11.
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 00:20   #29
Pinewood
New York correspondent
 
Pinewood's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 3,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
The Zeiss Victory 7x42 T* FL uses an 8x eyepiece with shorter objective tubes to get 7x with a wider 8.5 FOV than the normal 8 FOV a standard 7x42 has with its perceived but "inadequate" AFOV.


Bob
Hello,

The Zeiss 7x42 ClassiC, also has an 8.5 FOV.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur
__________________
Bread is not enough. Give us circuses!
Pinewood is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 00:39   #30
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinewood View Post
Hello,

The Zeiss 7x42 ClassiC, also has an 8.5 FOV.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur
Thank you Arthur.

I have never had the opportunity to use the 7x42 ClassiC. I note that Allbinos lists 10 enthusiastic reviews from some fortunate owners and that the ClassiCs were manufactured from 1981 to 2004. The 7x42 Victory was made from 2004 until 2013. It has an excellent bloodline!

Bob
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 00:53   #31
wdc
Registered User
 
wdc's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Moraga, California
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
Andy,

The Zeiss Victory 7x42 T* FL uses an 8x eyepiece with shorter objective tubes to get 7x with a wider 8.5 FOV than the normal 8 FOV a standard 7x42 has with its perceived but "inadequate" AFOV.

I don't know what the new AFOV of this Zeiss Victory 7x42 is after this change but one of the results of making its FOV wider in this manner is astigmatic edges in the view.

I own this Zeiss 7x42 and I like using it very much (it is my favorite binocular) but I don't find its view more "immersive" than what I see when using my Swarovski SLC Neu 7x42 B; nor, for that matter, my Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN.

I think that all of the the proposed optical manipulations and changes needed to change the AFOV or other specifications of any 7x42 will have effects on the views it will offer to the users.

I think that the same goes for other binocular formats. They all have "ideal" specifications where they work best

Bob
Hi Bob, Interestingly your Zeiss pushes the envelope in a good way: a wider FOV by half a degree, and a wider AFOV by 3, compared to the rest of the 8 contenders. That stands out from the pack, at least on paper. It makes me wonder why it went out of production.

The only 7x42 I own is an Ultravid BR, which is, in my mind, 'less immersive' than some of the other bins I own. I attribute some of that effect to AFOV. Do you think you would find the 7x42 Habicht at 43 AFOV equally immersive to your Zeiss at 55?

I'm not slamming the format, or the bins, but I've observed that AFOV seems a bit low in the 7x42 format, with the exception of the Zeiss FL, compared to other formats.

-Bill
wdc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 00:59   #32
Pinewood
New York correspondent
 
Pinewood's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 3,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
Thank you Arthur.

I have never had the opportunity to use the 7x42 ClassiC. I note that Allbinos lists 10 enthusiastic reviews from some fortunate owners and that the ClassiCs were manufactured from 1981 to 2004. The 7x42 Victory was made from 2004 until 2013. It has an excellent bloodline!

Bob
Hello Bob,

I have a very late model, purchased after the FL line was announced. It has rather long barrels, suggesting a long focal length which supresses chromatic aberration. The 7x42 Fl uses fluoride lenses to handle CA and thus shortened the binocular. The FL probably has a different and more pleasing colour rendition.
In spite of its size, the 7x42 ClassiC is easy to handle but it does not focus as closely, because it lacks internal focussing.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur
__________________
Bread is not enough. Give us circuses!
Pinewood is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 02:00   #33
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,632
I have viewed many 7X42s and 7X50s, save the WX - they all appear to me like looking down a tube. Additionally I have used the FL 7X42, and I own many other FL configurations. I am not downgrading the configuration, but 8X or more to my eyes just offers more.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 03:01   #34
[email protected]ast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
I guess some folks like me can see a lot with 89-90% transmission and not needing 95%.

Andy W.
You don't need it but it sure is nice!
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 04:00   #35
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
See the Four accurate but less than enthusiastic individual reviews in Allbinos below.

It's overall Specifications are not impressive even with its well known very high transmission.

It has a very narrow FOV of 341' @ 1000yds and Short Eye Relief of 14mm and a long minimum focusing distance of 3.5 meters.

https://www.allbinos.com/270-Swarovs...fications.html

In short, it is not a very practically designed 7x42 binocular for general use and "General Use" is what 7x42 binoculars excel in! (For example almost every 7x42 binocular will come with a FOV 8 [420'@1000yds] or close to it. The eyepieces used in them also have long eye relief to go along with their wide fields.)

Bob
Bob. Have you ever actually looked through a Habicht? You can't always go by specifications. A lot of times binoculars will perform better than their specifications would indicate. It does have tube like FOV but the interesting thing about it is how bright the tube is. I agree that it is not the ideal general use birding binocular. An 8x32 is better for that. The Fujinon FMTR SX 7x50 is kind of like the Habicht 7x42. Both are very bright.

Last edited by [email protected] : Wednesday 11th September 2019 at 04:34.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 04:05   #36
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
I have viewed many 7X42s and 7X50s, save the WX - they all appear to me like looking down a tube. Additionally I have used the FL 7X42, and I own many other FL configurations. I am not downgrading the configuration, but 8X or more to my eyes just offers more.

Andy W.
Andy. I agree with you. That is the reason I didn't like the Nikon EDG II 7x42 or most 7x42's. The Nikon WX would probably be the only one that would WOW me. Maybe the new Kowa BDII XD 6.5x32 with a 65 degree AFOV would be ok. I am not sure until I try it in a couple weeks. The Habicht has a tube like FOV also but it is a bright tube. It's WOW comes from the brightness and very even field illumination. It's true that it was probably designed as an Alpine Hunting binocular for low light situations and spotting game and also has the advantage of being light and easy to carry with a simple eyepiece design. Like most 7x42's the Habicht does not have an immersive FOV. Your right most 8x and 10x binoculars are going to have a bigger AFOV and more WOW. My biggest WOW is my SV 12x50 and I think yours is your UVHD+ 10x50. Your UVHD+ have an AFOV of 67 degrees. That is lot of WOW. I think anything above a 60 degree AFOV is going to pretty good but WOW starts happening after 65 degrees.

Last edited by [email protected] : Wednesday 11th September 2019 at 09:15.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 04:08   #37
chill6x6
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post

I own this Zeiss 7x42 and I like using it very much (it is my favorite binocular) but I don't find its view more "immersive" than what I see when using my Swarovski SLC Neu 7x42 B; nor, for that matter, my Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN.

Bob
I agree, same here. I don't notice a lot of difference between the SLC, the UVHD+, or the FL. One is just as "immersive" as the next. Now throw the Meopta B.1 7X50 and the Habicht 7X42 into the mix with their 7.21 degree and 6.5 degree FOV respectively and the difference is quite noticeable, especially the Habicht.
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 06:15   #38
Boogieshrew
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 510
I have owned or still own Meopta, Zeiss FL, Ultravid +, SLC 7x42s and I never noticed any difference in immersive ness. They all feel wide to me. And I see the whole fov with my glasses on.
I did look through the opticron 7x42 roof once, with a 7* fov, that felt narrow and tubelike. I imagine it is the same with some of the old porro 7x42s with 6.5*
Boogieshrew is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 08:12   #39
temmie
Registered User
 
temmie's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,279
Dennis, do you have a link to the transmission curve of the 7x42 Habicht?
temmie is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 09:12   #40
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by temmie View Post
Dennis, do you have a link to the transmission curve of the 7x42 Habicht?
Sure, here it is. You have to open it also. Below is the methodology used.
https://www.birdforum.net/attachment...7&d=1558116954

There is detailed explanation with pictures:
original: http://astro-talks.ru/forum/viewtopi...p=54991#p54811

in Google translate:
https://translate.google.com/transla...54991%23p54811

The main measurement equipment is DSLR Canon 400d. It allows to make measurement through the color filters of the Bayer matrix on the chip of the Canon Eos. And there are some measurements through narrow band filters (Baader SC, Lumicon OIII and H-beta) are also available. It is not quite the common wavelength of RGB of a human eye. But better than nothing.

I believe that all data are correct and useful.

Last edited by [email protected] : Wednesday 11th September 2019 at 09:50.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 09:15   #41
Gijs van Ginkel
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: utrecht
Posts: 1,689
Temmie, post 39,
On the WEB site of House of Outdoor you can find transmission curves of different 7x42 binoculars among others from the 7x42 Habichts, Zeiss Dialyt 7x42, Zeiss Victory FL 7x2, Leica Ultravid 7x42 and Meopta Meostar B1 7x42. They can be found in different reports, but first go to : "Verrekijkers"and from there to "Verrekijkers testen en vergelijken" you will see all reports passing by.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 13:35   #42
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Bob. Have you ever actually looked through a Habicht? You can't always go by specifications. A lot of times binoculars will perform better than their specifications would indicate. It does have tube like FOV but the interesting thing about it is how bright the tube is. I agree that it is not the ideal general use birding binocular. An 8x32 is better for that. The Fujinon FMTR SX 7x50 is kind of like the Habicht 7x42. Both are very bright.
No Dennis, I've never had the opportunity to use one. I always felt that it would give me claustrophobia being familiar as I am with using 7x42 binoculars with 8 FOVs.

One thing we tend to forget is how wide the depth of field of these 8 7x42s can be when we are following a bird through the near undergrowth or branches of trees. These kinds of birding conditions are common in many birding areas in "Penn's Woods" where I live and likely not as common in the Rocky Mountains.

Bob
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 13:49   #43
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
No Dennis, I've never had the opportunity to use one. I always felt that it would give me claustrophobia being familiar as I am with using 7x42 binoculars with 8 FOVs.

One thing we tend to forget is how wide the depth of field of these 8 7x42s can be when we are following a bird through the near undergrowth or branches of trees. These kinds of birding conditions are common in many birding areas in "Penn's Woods" where I live and likely not as common in the Rocky Mountains.

Bob
I agree the 7x have the advantage when it comes to DOF and less hand shake. That is one reason I am anxious to try the new Kowa BDII XD 6.5x32. The first affordable 10 degree 6.5x.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 14:33   #44
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,632
"One thing we tend to forget is how wide the depth of field of these 8 7x42s can be when we are following a bird through the near undergrowth or branches of trees. These kinds of birding conditions are common in many birding areas in "Penn's Woods" where I live and likely not as common in the Rocky Mountains".

+1 on the depth of field for the 7X42 format, with less need to focus. I also get this feature with the 8X56 FL.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 15:06   #45
Tringa45
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdc View Post
I was looking at AFOV regarding a thread a few weeks ago about the Noctivid. Here's a few of of them:

1. Nikon 7x42 EDG 52
2. Leica Ultravid 7x42 BR 52
3. Swarovski Habicht 7x42 43.3
4. Opticron 7x42 Discovery 50.5

I'm using an online calculator to generate these:
https://astronomy.tools/calculators/binoculars
Bill,

I would agree that the ISO method is preferable to the simple calculation as it eliminates the tangent error and is more accurate at lower magnifications and wider fields. It is also used by Nikon in their specifications.
However, in practice things are usually a little better than the ISO value due to distortion.
If you want to measure AFOV, here's how: https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.p...05&postcount=1
The specified FOVs @ 1000 m of the 7x42 Meopta Meostar and 7x42 Swarovski SLC are 137 m and 140 m respectively and I measured 54 for both.
I have not measured any 7x Zeiss with 150 m FOV but suspect that they would better the ISO figure of 55,4 by two or three degrees.

John
Tringa45 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 15:41   #46
dwatsonbirder
Mostly off the radar
 
dwatsonbirder's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 2,658
I appreciate that the conversation has moved on somewhat, but I want to make an amendment; my first post erroneously claimed that the Opticron has a fov of 110m, however I have subsequently found out that it is actually 122m as per the Opticron website.
I'm still enjoying the bin, and have used it a fair amount this week. The focus wheel turning the opposite way to my Swaro's and Nikon's keeps catching me out, but I am very much enjoying the lower weight. I've used it in low light and it appears to hold up fairly well, also the glare control is pretty decent, highlighted by a bit of evening wadering this week looking into a low sun setting over the sea. I'll be using it on and off, and will be putting it through it's paces in Ethiopia in a couple of months time, will report back on how it is holding up!
__________________
Kind regards, Daniel

@axbridge_birder
dwatsonbirder is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 15:58   #47
Dd61999
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 115
I know its not a 7x42. But I too am excited about the new Kowa 6.5x32 with 10 degree FOV. Can’t wait to hear the feedback from some of you guys on this reasonably priced binocular
Dd61999 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th September 2019, 18:07   #48
Bob A (SD)
Registered User
 
Bob A (SD)'s Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Black Hills of South Dakota
Posts: 544
Wide FOV Junkie

I too have and enjoy my Swaro SLC 7x42. That said they are indeed heavy which is why I use a MadDog harness similar in design to the one pictured earlier in the thread.

And I admit to being a field of view junkie. :) That pursuit has seen me sample many vintage 7x wide field binoculars. It also lead me to the Zen-Ray 7x36 bins back when.

Anyhow, here's my bino battery with TFOV and AFOV specs. :)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	YrAj36a.jpg
Views:	39
Size:	63.3 KB
ID:	704626  
__________________
--Bob

Bins: Swaro 7x42 B SLC; ZenRay 7x36 ED2; Pentax 8x32DCF-WP/9x21UCF; Minox BD6.5x32 IF; Leupold GR 9x35IF/8x30Yosemite; Dakota 7x28; Binolux 7x35s 11 & 10.5; ZOMZ 6x30 12.5
Bob A (SD) is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 12th September 2019, 14:02   #49
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdc View Post
Hi Bob, Interestingly your Zeiss pushes the envelope in a good way: a wider FOV by half a degree, and a wider AFOV by 3, compared to the rest of the 8 contenders. That stands out from the pack, at least on paper. It makes me wonder why it went out of production.

The only 7x42 I own is an Ultravid BR, which is, in my mind, 'less immersive' than some of the other bins I own. I attribute some of that effect to AFOV. Do you think you would find the 7x42 Habicht at 43 AFOV equally immersive to your Zeiss at 55?

I'm not slamming the format, or the bins, but I've observed that AFOV seems a bit low in the 7x42 format, with the exception of the Zeiss FL, compared to other formats.

-Bill
Hi Bill,

I've never fully understood "AFOV." I have never been able to separate it, visually that is, from the actual FOV that I see when I use a binocular. Take my Nikon 8x30 EII with its 8.8 FOV for instance. I am not concerned with its AFOV. I have no idea what it is. I doubt if anyone does.

I started serious birding with a new but discontinued Leitz 7x42 Trinovid BA (Armored) about 1994/95 which I got for a good price from a Canadian dealer. It has an 8 field and it has Uppendahl Prisms. I used it for years. Then I got the Nikon 8x30 EII about the year 2001 and used it heavily. After that I purchased a new in box discontinued Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN with SP prisms from Cabelas in 2004 and used it for years.

The FOV I became used to was the one I saw while using these binoculars not the one I "perceived." That word never entered my mind.

As far as your question about me using the Swarovski 7x42 Habicht I did comment earlier here in another thread, in a joking manner, that I thought it might "give me claustrophobia! "

Bob

Last edited by ceasar : Thursday 12th September 2019 at 14:28.
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 12th September 2019, 14:41   #50
wdc
Registered User
 
wdc's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Moraga, California
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
Hi Bill,

I've never fully understood "AFOV." I have never been able to separate it, visually that is, from the actual FOV that I see when I use a binocular. Take my Nikon 8x30 EII with its 8.8 FOV for instance. I am not concerned with its AFOV. I have no idea what it is. I doubt if anyone does.
....

The FOV I became used to was the one I saw while using these binoculars not the one I "perceived." That word never entered my mind.

As far as your question about me using the Swarovski 7x42 Habicht I did comment earlier here in another thread, in a joking manner, that I thought it might "give me claustrophobia! "

Bob
Hi Bob, A narrow apparent field of view contributes to the perception of looking down a black tube at a small image circle when using binoculars or telescopes. The image contained in that circle could be a 1 FOV, it could be 10. Apparent field affects the relationship between the black 'tube' and the image circle contained there in. Its an angular measurement of how far your eye looks to either side to see the edge of the image circle. They are separate entities and measurements.

I agree, one adapts to an optical device, regardless of its AFOV.

If you've looked through a telescope with a range of eyepieces of different design and AFOV, the effect is very well illustrated. With fixed eyepieces, you need another binocular to see the difference...

-Bill

Last edited by wdc : Thursday 12th September 2019 at 16:31.
wdc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Leica 8x32 BN versus 7x42 BN. [email protected] Leica 46 Wednesday 13th May 2009 02:26
Meopta 7x42 versus Nikon 8x32 SE - what I found! The Kingfisher Binoculars 16 Saturday 21st February 2009 02:29
Multiple RAW convertion for high dynamic range nigelblake Photoshop, Paintshop and Printing 12 Friday 23rd February 2007 12:15
Leica 7X42 BN versus Ultravid 7X42 Pileatus Leica 10 Monday 6th September 2004 02:24

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.19443798 seconds with 40 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:19.