Really it is pretty simple to understand why the Canon 10x42 IS-L and the Swarovski 10x50 SV are such WOW binoculars. It is all about the huge AFOV they both have. The Canon has a 65 degree AFOV and the Swarovski has a 66 degree AFOV. Your eye can see a 90 degree AFOV so that means 2/3 of what your eye can see is filled up with these binoculars. No more tunnel vision. Also, the 10x plays a part in that it pulls you into the FOV closer than an 8x so it is more immersive. You feel like you are IN the FOV. Another factor playing a part in the WOW factor is the fact that both of these binoculars are sharp to the edge so you see 100% of that huge AFOV clearly. Also, both of these binoculars has great 3D effect leading to realism in the view and both have great color and contrast. Two WOW binoculars. It is all about AFOV.
-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Biggest WOW binoculars you have ever looked through? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Dennis:
You have posted about seeing artifacts with the Canon IS models.
What has changed ?
It seems your choices change often.
What should we believe?
Jerry
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
I haven't read through this thread, since I've got a feeling we've already done it half a dozen times before. I agree with Binastro though, how the Canon IS models work for you will depend on format (mag × objective size), physical size, grip, and handling, usage patterns/methods, transition periods, model year, and how this all gels with your own unique frequency and amplitude of tremors, fatigue levels, viewing scenarios, vision physiology, and psychological processing ....
I've looked through the 15x50 IS and have a distinct preference for leaving the IS = OFF, since it introduces visible artifacts to the view (for me, with that particular unit, at that particular time). I can actually hold that bin really steady due to good fit to the hands, but it's a heavy sucker, so only in short bursts ....
The 12x36 IS III that I viewed recently was different again - smaller, there's no way at the time I could get a good grip that wasn't shaking. I could resolve more detail with the IS = ON, and wouldn't say there were artifacts, but there was if you like a shimmy, or jitter in detectable, like minor buzzing to the view, but not in overly offensive ways, - especially as it helped with reading distant detail.
I think I've listed my WOW's before - 10x50 SV (big, crystalline view), 8x42 HT (clarity and macro colours), and I like the clarity of the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED (fuzzy edges though), and Canon IS models (weirdly flat plane view)
I don't think there's one bin that's put it all together for me yet .... :cat:
The king of all WOW's though, is the A-K prism 10x56 SLC ..... Wowsers that sucker is heavy !!!!!! This may be heresy, but the view didn't impress me as much as some of those I listed above - but I will never forget how heavy that lump was !!!!!! :eek!: WOW !!!!!!
Chosun :gh:
I've looked through the 15x50 IS and have a distinct preference for leaving the IS = OFF, since it introduces visible artifacts to the view (for me, with that particular unit, at that particular time). I can actually hold that bin really steady due to good fit to the hands, but it's a heavy sucker, so only in short bursts ....
The 12x36 IS III that I viewed recently was different again - smaller, there's no way at the time I could get a good grip that wasn't shaking. I could resolve more detail with the IS = ON, and wouldn't say there were artifacts, but there was if you like a shimmy, or jitter in detectable, like minor buzzing to the view, but not in overly offensive ways, - especially as it helped with reading distant detail.
I think I've listed my WOW's before - 10x50 SV (big, crystalline view), 8x42 HT (clarity and macro colours), and I like the clarity of the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED (fuzzy edges though), and Canon IS models (weirdly flat plane view)
I don't think there's one bin that's put it all together for me yet .... :cat:
The king of all WOW's though, is the A-K prism 10x56 SLC ..... Wowsers that sucker is heavy !!!!!! This may be heresy, but the view didn't impress me as much as some of those I listed above - but I will never forget how heavy that lump was !!!!!! :eek!: WOW !!!!!!
Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
I think Canon has made some changes in the newer models 10x42 IS-L as Binastro said or some obviously vary. I don't see the artifacts in this Canon like the previous models I had. It seems the IS system is faster or almost seamless. I really don't notice that adjustment or transition period. It stabilizes and there is no drift in and out of focus like some of the previous models I had.
SuperDuty
Well-known member
The sharp, flat field of the 8.5X42 and 10X50 SV, combined with the transmission and colors of the HT, and then FL CA control, I would spend $2500 on that one and actually keep it. 3
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Something similar ! ..... 9x50 HT Perger prisms, 137m flatish sharp to the edge FOV, 20mm ER, the crystallinity of the SV, the saturated colours and neutrality of the NV, brighter than the HT, more transmission than the 8x30 Habicht, the clarity of the Canon IS and Swift Audubon ED, Kowa Genesis CA control and FL Focusing speed with the knurled aluminum Minox wheel, Leica NV and Nikon EDG glare control ---- all in the weight of a 8x32 SV courtesy of the Carbon Fibre chassis and dual density lightweight armouring, and properly collimated by Bill Cook! All for $1888 (very lucky in China). Save the Zeiss and now Leica style marketing fluff and bunkum - these bins will speak for themselves! :king: :t:The sharp, flat field of the 8.5X42 and 10X50 SV, combined with the transmission and colors of the HT, and then FL CA control, I would spend $2500 on that one and actually keep it. 3
Chosun :gh:
My requirements for the WOW factor are 10x, AFOV of greater 65 degrees or greater, field flatteners with sharp edges and a 100% or close sharp FOV. The Canon 10x42 IS-L(AFOV 65 degrees) and the Swarovski 10x50 SV(AFOV 66 degrees) meet these requirements. Also, the Zeiss 10x42 SF(AFOV 65 degrees) would fill the bill also so I guess it is WOW.
Last edited:
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
WOW...as in Wonderful Optical Wizardry?
My My Potter, what do we have here?! |:x||8.||
|:clap:Ted
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Zeiss specs can be confusing because they sometimes use their own definitions, but do not explain them. In the case of the SF, they are showing "subjective viewing angle" rather than just viewing angle.
The Zeiss SF 10X42 has a field of view at 1,000 yards of 360 feet. This was verified in the Allbinos review.
Angle of view is computed by dividing the field of view (in feet) by 52.5. In the case of the 10X42 SF, this would be 360 ft divided by 52.5, giving 6.86 or rounded off, an angle of view of 6.9 degrees. (This compares to a subjective viewing angle of 6.5 shown in the Zeiss specs.)
The simple method to calculate the apparent FOV is to multiply the angle of view (6.9) by the binocular power (10X). This gives a simple apparent field of view of 69 degrees for the 10X42 Zeiss SF.
Using the same method, the simple apparent FOV of the Swaro EL SV 10X50 with a FOV of 345 ft is 66 degrees (345/52.5 =6.6 * 10 = 66 degrees). The result for the Canon 10X42 L IS at 341 ft (per B & H Photo) is 65 degrees (341/52.5 = 6.5 * 10 = 65 degrees).
Summary - Apparent FOV Using Viewing angle times power
- Zeiss SF 10X42 - 69 degrees
- Swaro EL SV 10X50 - 66 degrees
- Canon 10X42 L IS - 65 degeees
Here are the specs for FOV in degrees that are given in the manufacturers specs. They are based on something other than the simple method.
- Zeiss SF 10X42 - 64 degrees (from an older version of the website)
- Swaro EL SV 10X50 - 62 degrees
- Canon 10X42 L IS - 59.2 degrees
Which ever method is used, the SF has a larger apparent FOV which should give it a little more WOW.
The Leitz 10x40 Trinovids wouldn't be as Waawaaweewaa as the newer Zeiss SF 10x42 because it doesn't have flat fields or sharp edges.
But now quite as sharp of edges as either the SV 10x50 or Canon 10x42 IS-L so that subtracts a little from the WOW. The Canon has the best 3D by far of the three being a porro so that adds to it's WOW factor. The SV has really good 3D for a roof also which is weird but it gives it more WOW also.
henry link
Well-known member
Neither the simple method nor the ISO method is likely to be accurate for real binoculars since neither takes distortion into account. For the last few years Swarovski and Zeiss appear to have actually measured the true AFOV for their specs. The Canon spec looks like the ISO method.
Last edited:
Rathaus
Well-known member
For general viewing I don't really give a rat's about either. Like eyesight, most of the FOV is perceived..you don't/can't process it all at once.
I find the concept slightly strange - to keep a small nimble binocular stationary and then swivel your eyeballs nauseatingly to the absolute edges of its FOV to view objects. I certainly don't do that with my SV or cannon or Fujinons outside of novelty viewing or astronomy when they're on a tripod.
IMO The old Leitz certainly are WOW bins...especially considering they're over half a century old.
The nearly 60yo little Leitz Amplivid 6x24 have about a 12.1deg FOV/73deg AFOV. Outrageous little binoculars.
Last edited:
I have tried a few of the vintage binoculars including the Zeiss 7x42 BGAT and although they are nice I think the new stuff is better although they do have their positives. I know there are people who absolutely love the classic Zeiss but I just didn't think it measure up to a 10x50 SV. Sorry!
Rathaus
Well-known member
The SV 10x50 are indeed stunning binoculars! I'm glad you're enjoying them :t:
I know that the 10x50 is no doubt a more generally useful format, but Did you try the 12x50 as well? Any thoughts on them?
I don't think I could hold the 12x steady. 10x is about the limit for handheld for me anyway.
Last edited:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
You can say that again! I don't know what is in the air up there :hippy: but I think you've taken a short vacation to another planet! :bounce:
Dennis?! .... I'm pretty sure my Mark I eyeball sees about 180°, as it does for most other humans .... If yours is down to 90° then get yourself to a specialist stat ! :eek!:
You might want to start reading here .... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view
Whatchutalkinboutwillis ?!! :eek!: You are aware of course that the Canon IS uses Porro II type prisms aren't you? and that these are orientated vertically, ie the incoming Objective ray and the exiting Ocular ray are in pretty much the same horizontal alignment - no horizontal offset! This might change to some small extent depending on IPD adjustments ... can you measure the Ocular spacing when set to your IPD and also the corresponding Objective spacing? I've always found the Canon fields to be strangely (as in noticeably oddly different) flat :h?: Super 'clarity', but flat -- I'm pretty sure Ed would be most discombobulated by it!
Glad you like your Canon so much - sounds like a keeper! :t:
Chosun :gh:
"Dennis?! .... I'm pretty sure my Mark I eyeball sees about 180°, as it does for most other humans .... If yours is down to 90° then get yourself to a specialist stat !You can say that again! I don't know what is in the air up there :hippy: but I think you've taken a short vacation to another planet! :bounce:
Dennis?! .... I'm pretty sure my Mark I eyeball sees about 180°, as it does for most other humans .... If yours is down to 90° then get yourself to a specialist stat ! :eek!:
You might want to start reading here .... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view
Whatchutalkinboutwillis ?!! :eek!: You are aware of course that the Canon IS uses Porro II type prisms aren't you? and that these are orientated vertically, ie the incoming Objective ray and the exiting Ocular ray are in pretty much the same horizontal alignment - no horizontal offset! This might change to some small extent depending on IPD adjustments ... can you measure the Ocular spacing when set to your IPD and also the corresponding Objective spacing? I've always found the Canon fields to be strangely (as in noticeably oddly different) flat :h?: Super 'clarity', but flat -- I'm pretty sure Ed would be most discombobulated by it!
Glad you like your Canon so much - sounds like a keeper! :t:
Chosun :gh:
You might want to start reading here .... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view""Whatchutalkinboutwillis ?!!
"AFOV - 65 Degrees. The "Apparent Field of View" is a clear and sharp 65 degrees. AFOV defines the size of the image circles you see when looking through the binocs. This means, at 65 degrees, your eye must swing 65 degrees, (+/- 32.5 deg.) left to right (or up n down) to see the entire image circle. To put this in perspective, one unaided eye can see 90 deg. without swinging. So these binocs takes us to 2/3 rds of the AFOV we are accustom too...and therein lies one of the big breakthrough in newer binocs, as in yesterday, these numbers were in the 30-40 deg range, and in optics, slight gains are very hard to achieve due to the limitation of optical design, glass size, glass type, and of course, weight. Lower cost binocs often have 40-50 deg AFOV, which gives you a slight sensation of "looking through a tunnel". Too appreciate the impact of this, compare side by side, a 45 deg AFOV binoc with these 65 deg AFOV binocs - the difference is quite shocking, for all ages. AFOV is one of the most costly design features in all visual optics, specially telescope EP's."
You are aware of course that the Canon IS uses Porro II type prisms aren't you? and that these are orientated vertically, ie the incoming Objective ray and the exiting Ocular ray are in pretty much the same horizontal alignment - no horizontal offset! This might change to some small extent depending on IPD adjustments ... can you measure the Ocular spacing when set to your IPD and also the corresponding Objective spacing? I've always found the Canon fields to be strangely (as in noticeably oddly different) flat Super 'clarity', but flat -- I'm pretty sure Ed would be most discombobulated by it!"
From The Greatest Binocular Review(Canon 10x42 IS-L):
"Pros: The IS works very well and in handheld use this glass will outresolve many much better binoculars. IS is great and low in power consumption. The optical system is" transparent" and well collimated. I have used it for many hours a day and long periods and never felt eyestrain. This is quite remarkable in this price class. And unlike many other porros diopter adjustment does not change with temperature. Edge performance is good. It does have a great porroprism 3D effect."
Chosun. Have you ever looked through a Canon 10x42 IS-L? It is different than the other Canon IS's. I know the other Canon's have a flat field view but the Canon 10x42 IS-L is different. It has amazing 3D. Try one sometime.:gh:
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
