Biggest WOW binoculars you have ever looked through? (1 Viewer)

[Chosun Juan]

Dennis, I don't know if you got the first lot of quoted stuff from the same source, but just because somebody wrote it on the internet, doesn't make it right! :eek!: :brains: :smoke:

Look straight ahead, then close one eye - that field will be way more than 90° (unless you've got a hooter like pinnocchio! ..... If you can only see 90° then get yourself to a specialist stat ! (or a toymaker! :-O

Have a look at the attached drawing of the Canon IS .... there's no way any fantasmagorical 3D effect is coming out of that set up ! Take that quoted source of yours with a grain of salt. Far better to rely on your own measurements .... :eat:

Can you measure the Centre line distances for Oculars/Objectives at 3 settings for us with your 10x42 IS ???
1. Bin's minimum IPD
2. Your IPD
3. Bin's maximum IPD.
These can be easily done by measuring from the far outside glass edge of one side to the near glass edge of the other side. :cat:


Chosun :gh:

 

[BruceH]

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?: .........

Chosun :gh:

Here are a couple of photos showing the IPD set at the two extremes. Hope that helps.



I also wondered about the 3D comments. The Canon gives a large image scale for me which is just the opposite of what I see in a Porro binocular like the Nikon EII. I was noticing that yesterday when comparing the Canon to the 10X Zeiss SF. The Canon had a noticeably larger image scale. Some of it may have to do with the much wder FOV with the SF? Beats me.

Followup:

Dennis..........

Can you measure the Centre line distances for Oculars/Objectives at 3 settings for us with your 10x42 IS ???
1. Bin's minimum IPD
2. Your IPD
3. Bin's maximum IPD.
These can be easily done by measuring from the far outside glass edge of one side to the near glass edge of the other side. :cat:


Chosun :gh:

To the best of my non engineering abilities, here are some approx. numbers for the Canon 10X42 L IS

1. Objective spacing approx. 70mm
2. Min. IPD spacing approx. 58mm
3. Max. IPD spacing approx. 75 mm
4. My IPD spacing approx. 70.5mm.
5. Dennis's IPD spacing when being closed minded 58mm.
6. Dennis's IPD spacing when being open minded 75mm.

Additional follow-up:

The Canon specs for IPD are 57 - 75 mm. Their 57 is close enough to my attempt at getting 58 so I would not quibble with a min. of 57.

 

[Binastro]

So there would be a reduction in the 3D effect when being open minded.

Much increased 3D effect when being closed minded.

Doesn't figure.

 

[Chosun Juan]

Hahaha! ) Thanks Bruce :t:

I'm not quite sure if or how the prism set up rotates with varying IPD, but from your photos and measurements it would seem that the Canon may exhibit some very slight (along the lines of an A-K FL, or HT, etc) increase to the 3D effect at minimum IPD. Mostly it would be neutral, and if you need the maximum IPD then the situation could reverse, and act like we are used to seeing in a reverse Porro I type - ie. an appearance of an increased image scale..


Chosun :gh:

 

[Troubador]

So there would be a reduction in the 3D effect when being open minded.

Much increased 3D effect when being closed minded.

Doesn't figure.

You are failing to take into account Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which although commonly thought to apply only to sub-atomic particles may well apply to the perception of 3D as derived from IPDs, not to mention the effect of Feynman's Sum Over All Histories. This is what happens when bins get binary.

Lee

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis, I don't know if you got the first lot of quoted stuff from the same source, but just because somebody wrote it on the internet, doesn't make it right! :eek!: :brains: :smoke:

Look straight ahead, then close one eye - that field will be way more than 90° (unless you've got a hooter like pinnocchio! ..... If you can only see 90° then get yourself to a specialist stat ! (or a toymaker! :-O

Have a look at the attached drawing of the Canon IS .... there's no way any fantasmagorical 3D effect is coming out of that set up ! Take that quoted source of yours with a grain of salt. Far better to rely on your own measurements .... :eat:
View attachment 599528
Can you measure the Centre line distances for Oculars/Objectives at 3 settings for us with your 10x42 IS ???
1. Bin's minimum IPD
2. Your IPD
3. Bin's maximum IPD.
These can be easily done by measuring from the far outside glass edge of one side to the near glass edge of the other side. :cat:


Chosun :gh:

Chosun, instead of coming up with all kinds of theories of why the Canon 10x42 IS-L couldn't possibly have good 3D why don't you try looking through them. My eyes tell me they have good 3D and Tobias agrees so I am not going to change my opinion based on some amateur's theories. The Canon 10x42 IS-L is a very complex instrument and I am sure spacing of the IPD's is not the only factor coming into play when talking about 3D effect. Now if you were an Optical Engineer you would have more validity. The Canon 10x42 IS-L's have good 3D. Try them some time. The SV 10x50's have good 3D also and I don't think their IPD spacing is that great. Maybe some things are just a mystery and should be left as is.

 

[IAN JAMES THOMPSON]

The binocular that gives me the wow factor is the Zeiss 8x42 HT Binoculars as since I bought them approx 2 years ago the picture is so sharp, very bright colours and still excellent, clear and sharp with bright colours even at dusk when it's starting to get dark.
Ian.

 

[james holdsworth]

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.

Easy to understand as you own them both.....geez. Do they hand out the kid gloves here upon registration or something?

 

[etudiant]

The only binocular that ever gave me a 'Wow!' initial impression was a Zeiss 7x42BGA some decades back, it offered truly a picture window view compared to what I was getting from an old Sears 10x50 porro.
Sad to say, nothing since has come close. My Canon 10x42 is a really fine tool for birding, but does not create a 'Wow!'.

 

[[email protected]]

You are failing to take into account Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which although commonly thought to apply only to sub-atomic particles may well apply to the perception of 3D as derived from IPDs, not to mention the effect of Feynman's Sum Over All Histories. This is what happens when bins get binary.

Lee

Troub. Have you been down to the pub again?:B

 

[Chosun Juan]

Chosun, instead of coming up with all kinds of theories of why the Canon 10x42 IS-L couldn't possibly have good 3D why don't you try looking through them. My eyes tell me they have good 3D and Tobias agrees so I am not going to change my opinion based on some amateur's theories. The Canon 10x42 IS-L is a very complex instrument and I am sure spacing of the IPD's is not the only factor coming into play when talking about 3D effect. Now if you were an Optical Engineer you would have more validity. The Canon 10x42 IS-L's have good 3D. Try them some time. The SV 10x50's have good 3D also and I don't think their IPD spacing is that great. Maybe some things are just a mystery and should be left as is.;-)

dennis, we all see things differently, and no one can ever see exactly what you are seeing - in fact Quantum Mechanics dictates it so. :bounce: That said I have more than enough Engineering and Psychology under my belt to know what I am looking at in terms of bins, 3D, (or even 4D or more! ..... and, forum posts! I also have enough preschool geometry still retained in ma noggin to know a straight line on a technical drawing when I see one. You and James may be in some alternate owners universe that operates under its own laws of physics :brains: ...... and that's fine :bounce: My posts were more for our newer members, and to put a more rational slant on some of the wild hyperbole flying about - after all, we wouldn't want to be carried away with unbridled emotions now, would we?! hahaha :cat: (o)< :flyaway: ||

If the 10x42 Canon IS exhibits any significant 3D then it is because of a narrow IPD setting (which I never said was the only ingredient btw , and because it must be an outlier in the family - because none of the others do for me (my IPD is just under near ~70mm ...) , and because, quite frankly, you would be talking in relative terms. At least you've back-pedalled and buttoned it off a bit from "amazing 3D" to "great 3D", and now down to "good 3D". If you really want to see real 3D effect then get yourself a Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED and be prepared for a real WOW! :king:

Of course you will need to send that off to Bill Cook for a full tear down and customisation job to get rid of the woeful veiling glare .... yep! that's where it's going to be at for you - custom binoculars - no more mucking around with big, heavy bins (I'm sure you'd see more detail with the much lighter Canon 12x36 IS III anyway , or bins with restricted AFov's like your 8x ..... )

Now since you do still have the Canon 10x42 IS (for the moment? could you impress James and help us all out by doing those 3 different IPD and Objective spacing measurements for us? )

Chosun :gh:

 

[Troubador]

Troub. Have you been down to the pub again?:B

No, but a mixture of a heavy cold, a high temperature and a stiff Dutch Jenever might have contributed.

Lee

 

[[email protected]]

dennis, we all see things differently, and no one can ever see exactly what you are seeing - in fact Quantum Mechanics dictates it so. :bounce: That said I have more than enough Engineering and Psychology under my belt to know what I am looking at in terms of bins, 3D, (or even 4D or more! ..... and, forum posts! I also have enough preschool geometry still retained in ma noggin to know a straight line on a technical drawing when I see one. You and James may be in some alternate owners universe that operates under its own laws of physics :brains: ...... and that's fine :bounce: My posts were more for our newer members, and to put a more rational slant on some of the wild hyperbole flying about - after all, we wouldn't want to be carried away with unbridled emotions now, would we?! hahaha :cat: (o)< :flyaway: ||

If the 10x42 Canon IS exhibits any significant 3D then it is because of a narrow IPD setting (which I never said was the only ingredient btw , and because it must be an outlier in the family - because none of the others do for me (my IPD is just under near ~70mm ...) , and because, quite frankly, you would be talking in relative terms. At least you've back-pedalled and buttoned it off a bit from "amazing 3D" to "great 3D", and now down to "good 3D". If you really want to see real 3D effect then get yourself a Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED and be prepared for a real WOW! :king:

Of course you will need to send that off to Bill Cook for a full tear down and customisation job to get rid of the woeful veiling glare .... yep! that's where it's going to be at for you - custom binoculars - no more mucking around with big, heavy bins (I'm sure you'd see more detail with the much lighter Canon 12x36 IS III anyway , or bins with restricted AFov's like your 8x ..... )

Now since you do still have the Canon 10x42 IS (for the moment? could you impress James and help us all out by doing those 3 different IPD and Objective spacing measurements for us? )

Chosun :gh:

The Canon 10x42 IS-L is a different animal than the rest of the Canon's. I don't really like any of the other models and I have tried them all. Like you said they have a flat field and to my eyes not much contrast. They don't have the "punch" of an alpha binocular. The L glass in the 10x42 really makes a big difference. It puts it in the alpha league. These were from Bruce's post. Thanks Bruce.

1. Objective spacing approx. 70mm
2. Min. IPD spacing approx. 58mm
3. Max. IPD spacing approx. 75 mm
4. My IPD spacing approx. 70.5mm.

 

[BruceH]

Dennis ..... What is your personal IPD? If it is less than the objective separation of 70mm (an my 70.5), that may explain why you see more of a 3D image than me (according to CJ's comments).

I had never consciously noticed before that the IPD was not coupled with the objective spacing until CJ pointed it out. Nothing like missing the obvious! It must have been an interesting engineering challenge for Canon to address the issue. The binocular is an engineering wonder to me with just with the image stabilization.

 

[ceasar]

Bruce, See your post #94.

It is still binocular vision. Without it we don't see 3D. So would the way the IPD is set really make a difference in our 3D vision or Depth of Field vision which I take to be the related?

Shouldn't the objective lenses still be neutral players in this even if their objective barrels do not move like they do in the traditional binoculars?

Doesn't one keep the same IPD and with it the same binocular vision one was born with on any binocular one uses no matter how setting the IPD on each binocular is accomplished?

Bob

 

[elkcub]

Here are a couple of photos showing the IPD set at the two extremes. Hope that helps.

View attachment 599539

I also wondered about the 3D comments. The Canon gives a large image scale for me which is just the opposite of what I see in a Porro binocular like the Nikon EII. I was noticing that yesterday when comparing the Canon to the 10X Zeiss SF. The Canon had a noticeably larger image scale. Some of it may have to do with the much wder FOV with the SF? Beats me.

Followup:



To the best of my non engineering abilities, here are some approx. numbers for the Canon 10X42 L IS

1. Objective spacing approx. 70mm
2. Min. IPD spacing approx. 58mm
3. Max. IPD spacing approx. 75 mm
4. My IPD spacing approx. 70.5mm.
5. Dennis's IPD spacing when being closed minded 58mm.
6. Dennis's IPD spacing when being open minded 75mm.

Additional follow-up:

The Canon specs for IPD are 57 - 75 mm. Their 57 is close enough to my attempt at getting 58 so I would not quibble with a min. of 57.

Thanks for the pictures, Bruce. They clarify the situation quite a bit.

It would appear that the objective separation is fixed at 70mm on these binoculars, which I didn't realize before, but the eyepieces can be matched to the observer's IPD within a range of 57 to 75mm. That being the case, there are three possibilities. Recognizing that magnification and FOV are constant:

1. The user's IPD is smaller than 70mm, in which case the stereo base will be increased and stereopsis enhanced. This is typical of regular Porro prism instruments. Image size "appears" smaller than for a roof.

2. The user's IPD is 70mm, in which case the stereo base is unaltered. This is typical, or close to typical, for roof prism instruments.

3. The user's IPD is greater than 70mm, in which case the stereo base is smaller. This is typical of reverse Porro instruments. Stereopsis is diminished, but the image "appears" larger than for a roof.

Depending on which group you fall in, different perceptions will result, — so there is no common answer to be had. As Chosun has suggested several times, the user's IPD is all important.

Ed

 

[etudiant]

Bruce, See your post #94.

It is still binocular vision. Without it we don't see 3D. So would the way the IPD is set really make a difference in our 3D vision or Depth of Field vision which I take to be the related?

Shouldn't the objective lenses still be neutral players in this even if their objective barrels do not move like they do in the traditional binoculars?

Doesn't one keep the same IPD and with it the same binocular vision one was born with on any binocular one uses no matter how setting the IPD on each binocular is accomplished?

Bob

All interesting questions, still unresolved in my view.
I can't see any 3D effect in binoculars, whether roof or porro, so I have no dog in the fight.
I do remember Zeiss Jena producing the OEM-2, an optical distance measurement device for the East German artillery. which relied on the operator for recognizing the right distance from his 3D perception of the marker relative to the target. About a third of the candidates could not perform the measurement, presumably because they lacked the needed 3D sensitivity.
I also remember some old Ebay offerings of a Japanese binocular with the objective lenses at the ends of long arms, so the glass had maybe an 18" baseline. Purportedly this gave great 3D views.
So the ability to see the 3D effect is not universal and a wider baseline helps. The Canon 10x42 objectives baseline is pretty small, about 70mm, so pretty neutral in terms of 3D effect.
Clearly there is more to this than just geometry.

 

[DavKany]

I bet. Where do you get them?

Sorry for the late response. Adorama was dumping them for $900, a few years ago, and I had to pull the trigger.
On a different note I thought this thread was for the largest binocular that I
have looked through. No, its the most wow. In that case I must say it is the
SV 12x50.

Dave

 

[Binastro]

The problem with very long baseline instruments seems to be collimating them properly.
They may be O.K. new but once out of collimation I don't think many people can repair them nowadays.

 

[elkcub]

Bruce, See your post #94.

1. It is still binocular vision. Without it we don't see 3D. So would the way the IPD is set really make a difference in our 3D vision or Depth of Field vision which I take to be the related?
   
2. Shouldn't the objective lenses still be neutral players in this even if their objective barrels do not move like they do in the traditional binoculars?
   
3. Doesn't one keep the same IPD and with it the same binocular vision one was born with on any binocular one uses no matter how setting the IPD on each binocular is accomplished?

Bob

Bob,

See my earlier post, #96 and Bruce's, #94. He and Chosun are right on.

1. Yes, the IPD setting really does make a difference for 3D vision. Since magnification is fixed, however, there is no effect on DOF.

2. It's the size relationship between the IOD and the IPD that's important.

3. Well, yes, which means that if we have different IPDs we're going to have different perceptions — particularly in this case if mine is less and yours is greater than the fixed objective spacing of 70mm. I would have a Porro-like experience with 65mm IPD, and Bruce has a reverse-Porro experience with 70.5mm IPD. What is yours?

Ed

PS. Incidentally, just for comparison my Swift 804ED has an IOD of 130mm when the IPD is set to 65mm. That is a 100% increase in the stereo base, which accounts for its huge stereo effect. The Canon 10x42 would only have an 8% increase for me.

PPS. For a person with a narrow IPD, like 58mm, the stereo base using the Canon would increase by 21% —*which might be enough to elicit a WOW! experience (depending on one's inter-ocular sensitivity).