David Swain
Well-known member
That is the Global site; on the Americas/USA site they don't exist. (I was also similarly confused recently)
-
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.
To all the lovers of the EII - Allbinos test (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter james holdsworth
- Start date
That is the Global site; on the Americas/USA site they don't exist. (I was also similarly confused recently)
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
This is something that gets parroted a lot. I think some have read a number on a page somewhere sometime and repeated it and over time has become one of those thing "we know is true". The perception of wideness may contribute to this.
But, much like in politics, saying something over and over doesn't necessarily make it fact.
Here is a fact, and one I wrote about a few years back on these pages. My Leica 8x32 Trinovids have a wider field than my 8x30 EIIs. Let me be specific. The Leicas show more stuff between the field stops than the EIIs.
Assuming the 8x32 Trinovids are probably not unique for their FOV per their design, one can probably figure that the EIIs are about the same or slightly narrower in view than other top shelf roofs of 8x32ish configuration.
Regarding the EIIs generally, I am also a fan. Great bin, with a few limitations.
Last edited:
looksharp65
Well-known member
That's utterly strange. My 8x30 E II is considerably wider than my Meostar 8x32, which in turn is wider than average with its 140m/1000m.
Right away, I can ony think of the Kite Lynx HD and the Monarch 7 8x30 when we're speaking about modern roofs wider than 140m/1000m.
Do you see the fieldstop in the E II?
With spectacles, I prefer the Meostar as it shows more than the E II.
With contacts, the E II is very immersive and similar to the view with the Fieldscope Wide eyepieces.
EDIT: Now I have found the Trinovid's FOV specifications (439 ft/1000 yds or 146m/1000m) and they are indeed impressive.
But wider than the E II? I'm in doubt. On the other hand I have a feeling that the E II has more than 8x magnification. As a porro, it should seem to have less magnification than a roof counterpart, but I feel it's rather slightly more. So the AFOV might be very wide but due to more magnification the FOV smaller than the specifications. I just don't know.
//L
Last edited:
See Leica Brochure below from 2003 (PDF, p13 of 35) which states that the Leica 8x32 Trinovid BN had a FOV of 135m or 405'@1000 yards. That's one degree less than the Nikon 8x30EII. See pages 30 & 31 for complete specs of the Trinovid line.
http://www.company7.com/library/leica/Leica03SOBrochure.pdf
I have an 7x42 Trinovid BN which has an 8º (420'@1000yds)FOV and I've compared it with my Nikon 8x30EII. The latter has a much wider FOV.
Bob
http://www.company7.com/library/leica/Leica03SOBrochure.pdf
I have an 7x42 Trinovid BN which has an 8º (420'@1000yds)FOV and I've compared it with my Nikon 8x30EII. The latter has a much wider FOV.
Bob
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
The same is true about repeating that the 8x32 Trinnie has a wider FOV than the 8x30 EII.
Have you tested them side by side using star fields? Perception is a very malleable thing when it comes to terrestrial viewing. Binoculars with a lot of pincushion stretch the image at the edges, which can give the illusion of the FOV being wider than it really is. Of course, the 8x EII has a goodly amount of pincushion itself, so that's probably not a factor. Where they do differ in in the "roof illusion," which creates the impression of a larger magnification in the Trinnie. Larger image can be interpreted as a larger FOV. How easily your eyes fit into the eyecups can affect the perception of AFOV.
I've never had the pleasure of trying "the Brick," so you could be right, though it's curious about why Leica would understate its FOV.
Perhaps Astro Bob can give us an asterism that spans around 8.8* so we can test each model under the night sky and compare notes.
Brock
Last edited:
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
OK L, Bob, and Brock. With a stable rest, tripod, fence rail, whatever, with the inter ocular distance set for a clean circle, aligning either the left or right side of the field stop with some point of reference, the opposite side will show more things looking through the Trinovids than the EIIs.
Look, I've done this 20 times, at different distances, with different objects.
I'm not delusional.
Recounting the specification is pointless, and, that IS my point. I suggest you all try it for yourselves.
Look, I've done this 20 times, at different distances, with different objects.
I'm not delusional.
Recounting the specification is pointless, and, that IS my point. I suggest you all try it for yourselves.
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
The same is true about repeating that the 8x32 Trinnie has a wider FOV than the 8x30 EII.
Yeah, that's cute Brock. The obvious difference is that I'm the only one you've read saying this v countless people lauding the wideness of the EII.
Look, the EII does appear to be very wide when viewing through it. What I'm saying is that it is an illusion, to a degree, and that at least one other common 8x32 has a wider field, between the stops.
brocknroller
porromaniac
I wouldn't discount a member's subjective impressions. I once wrote that the image in the EII appeared brighter than the SE, and I had three people agree with me, and two agree with Henry that the SE looked brighter. Even given AR coatings of equal transmission, the SE should be brighter because of the 2mm additional aperture, but if you check out their light transmission charts on allbinos, you will see that they are not the same. Color contrast plays a role in this illusion. The wider FOV might, as well.
I also wrote that in comparing the 10x42 SE and 10x42 LX side by side, the LX appeared to have a wider FOV even though the both have the same specifications. I did a star test on this one and that difference held up, though it was not as great as it appeared during daytime observation.
I repeated your quote because you said: Here is a fact, and one I wrote about a few years back on these pages. So you've said it before and are repeating it again.
The question I had is which was the illusion? The "fact" that the 8x32 Trinnie has a wider TFOV or the EII? Or the "fact" that others find the EII's FOV larger?
A star test would eliminate the illusion aspect of ground based observations since you're focusing on points of light at infinity and the width of certain asterisms has been accurately measured in degrees. I thought Bob might have some suggestions for "test subjects" since he is well acquainted with the night sky.
Astro Bob's Website
<B>
Last edited:
I don't have to do this.
And I don't have to go outside at night and look for an asterism to use for testing their FOVs. Everybody knows that the Nikon EII has a great amount of pincushion and soft edges which can be dialed into sharpness. I don't have a Leica 8x32 (I wish I did) but the link to the 2003 Leica brochure that I posted above says that it has a FOV of 7.7º.
I have a cathedral window in my bedroom overlooking a hardwood forest with some pine trees. In the middle of the view is a tall isolated Oak Tree about 200 yards away with two tall Pine trees equidistant from it on both sides of the Oak which are closer to me. I can center a binocular with an 8º field on the Oak Tree and just see the tops of both Pine trees. The view of the Nikon 8x30 with an 8.8º field clearly gives a much wider view well past the tops of the Pine Trees.
I've done this test numerous times with every binocular I own and I can tell you that it is pretty difficult to see much difference between binoculars that have 7.8º and 8º FOVs but it is easy to see the difference between 7.5º and 8º and real easy to tell the difference between 8º and 8.8º.
Bob
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
Well Brock, et al,
Tonight I found a pair of stars that just fit within the EIIs field. With the Trinovids they didn't quite fit, though by the smallest of margins. Bins were stabilized on a tripod.
So, by my accounting the Leicas have a slightly wider view at birding range and the EIIs are oh so slightly wider at infinity looking at stars. Either way the differences are not much.
As I've mentioned already, the EIIs have a view that appears to be wider as the image circle is a little larger. But, there is no more information within that image circle.
The real point to all this isn't that one is wider than the other but that they are pretty much the same in contrast to the ever present references to the EIIs extra wide view. Bob's (and maybe others) mileage may vary, though I'm at a loss to understand how that could be. Maybe I'm the only one to have compared them in this regard in a somewhat systematic fashion.
Tonight I found a pair of stars that just fit within the EIIs field. With the Trinovids they didn't quite fit, though by the smallest of margins. Bins were stabilized on a tripod.
So, by my accounting the Leicas have a slightly wider view at birding range and the EIIs are oh so slightly wider at infinity looking at stars. Either way the differences are not much.
As I've mentioned already, the EIIs have a view that appears to be wider as the image circle is a little larger. But, there is no more information within that image circle.
The real point to all this isn't that one is wider than the other but that they are pretty much the same in contrast to the ever present references to the EIIs extra wide view. Bob's (and maybe others) mileage may vary, though I'm at a loss to understand how that could be. Maybe I'm the only one to have compared them in this regard in a somewhat systematic fashion.
Jason Bugay Reyes
Well-known member
Questions.
I have the 8x32 SE, do you think I should get the EII for collection?
I have the 8x32 SE, do you think I should get the EII for collection?
joe101
Well-known member
Yes. You will love it
Jason Bugay Reyes
Well-known member
Hehehe thanks Joe because my friend has the 10x35 EII left only one now...
David Swain
Well-known member
If you can take care of the SE in your local conditions, you should certainly get the 8x30 EII. For birding in forests, however, the 10x35 might be less friendly.
Kevin,
I've compared other 8x32 binoculars FOVs with the Nikon 8x30 FOV. Specifically the Nikon 8x32 LX L; Swarovski 8x30 SLC, and Kahles 8x32. These all have, to my eyes, the same FOVs of about 411'@1000 yards as claimed by Nikon and Swarovski. It is easy for me to see that their FOVs are much smaller than the Nikon 8x30 EII.
I would have to try a Leica 8x32BN myself to be convinced it has as wide or wider FOV than the Nikon 8x30. But that means it would have at least an 8.8º or larger FOV and I think if it did everybody would know that by now.
Bob
PS: All of these comparisons were done with the binoculars focused at infinity. I have also compared my 3 7x42's in the the same manner on the same objects described earlier in post #49 herein. The Swarovski 7x42SLC B and the Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN have FOVs of 420'@1000 yards and the Zeiss 7x42 T*FL Victory has a FOV of 450'@1000yards. That is approximately 1/2º and I can see that difference with my eyes.
Last edited:
Yes.
You should get an EII to keep in your Dry Box for dry days
and for traveling with to more moderate climes!:king:Bob
brocknroller
porromaniac
Kevin,
As I suspected, something - pincushion or the larger apparent image in roofs - is causing you to see a larger apparent FOV in the Leica at birding distances, however, I'm surprised that the TFOV is so close to the 8x EII while looking at "fixed" stars.
Assuming you did your test carefully (easy to mistake one star for another, particularly under a dark sky that shows lots of stars, which is why I suggested using a known asterism, which can be recognized by their shape), your comparison suggests that the Leica 8x32 Trinnie's actual FOV is greater than its listed FOV of 7.7*, because you could easily discern a whole degree difference using a star test.
EDz over at Cloudy Nights has done many FOV tests, and he often finds that the FsOV listed by manufacturers don't match up to what he measured, although more often than not the FOV is less than stated, but occasionally it is greater, usually slighter more, measured in tenths of a degree.
Until somebody else does a star test and finds different, we'll have to assume that Leica's specs were too conservative.
Thanks for doing that test for us.
Brock
Last edited:
Last edited:
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
Bob,
You seem concerned with these numbers, so I thought I'd point out a discrepancy. Your sentence below seems to be factually incorrect.
According to Leica's catalog of the time, the 8x42BN has a 7.4 degree field, or 389'. The 8x32BN has a 7.7 degree view, or 404'
Added: the link you provide above does not include either the 8x32BN or the 8x42BN
The BR specs may be the same, but that another topic
The jpegs below are from Leica's catalog from the time.
You seem concerned with these numbers, so I thought I'd point out a discrepancy. Your sentence below seems to be factually incorrect.
According to Leica's catalog of the time, the 8x42BN has a 7.4 degree field, or 389'. The 8x32BN has a 7.7 degree view, or 404'
Added: the link you provide above does not include either the 8x32BN or the 8x42BN
The BR specs may be the same, but that another topic
The jpegs below are from Leica's catalog from the time.
Attachments
Last edited:
