Can a binocular have too big of a FOV? (1 Viewer)

[bockos]

Всъщност не говорех за отблясъци, а само за необходимостта да се избягва самото слънце на полето. Мисля, че Денис ме остави с преувеличена представа колко голямо би било полето! Тази сутрин успях да опитам NL и можете да видите много положителната ми реакция тук . Точно обратното на заключението на Денис: очевидно какъв отблясък е за него, тунелното зрение е за мен. Колкото и да ми харесва серията SLC (имам два 56-та), бих взел NL 42 пред SLC 42 с един удар.

Преди имах 10x50 Zeiss Jenoptem ... 128m /1000m...Това широко поле беше много приятно за мен! Благодаря на екипа на Swarovski за направата на този бинокъл 8x42 NL ... 159m и 10x42 NL ..133m бинокъл ... това е много добро нещо за мен ... както цветът, контрастът, прозрачността и ергономичността, така и FRP..Благодаря. ..Определено ще остана с Swarovski NL.

 

[[email protected]]

Преди имах 10x50 Zeiss Jenoptem ... 128m /1000m...Това широко поле беше много приятно за мен! Благодаря на екипа на Swarovski за направата на този бинокъл 8x42 NL ... 159m и 10x42 NL ..133m бинокъл ... това е много добро нещо за мен ... както цветът, контрастът, прозрачността и ергономичността, така и FRP..Благодаря. ..Определено ще остана с Swarovski NL.

"I used to have 10x50 Zeiss Jenoptem ... 128m /1m ... This wide field was very nice for me! Thanks to the Swarovski team for making these binoculars 8x42 NL ... 159m and 10x42 NL ..133m binoculars ... this is a very good thing for me ... both the color, contrast, transparency and ergonomics, and FRP .. Thanks. ..I will definitely stay with Swarovski NL."

The Zeiss Jenoptem does have a wide FOV for a 10x. The NL is a fine binocular, and I am glad it worked well for you!

 

[dries1]

It can if it is one of these.

 

[[email protected]]

It can if it is one of these.

What is that? A Bushnell?

 

[dries1]

Yes a 7X32 Bushnell.

 

[[email protected]]

Yes a 7X32 Bushnell.

Do you have one? How is it. That is a wide FOV!

 

[dries1]

Like any other 7X35 wide field porro, the outer 30% is.......er ...... vague.

 

[[email protected]]

That is what I figured. I have tried a lot of older super wide angle binoculars over 10 degrees, and they get pretty fuzzy at the edges.

 

[Quak]

This will be an unpopular opinion but so be it. I think FOV is the most over rated spec on binos period...for me at least.

Too much noise in the peripheral confuses the image for me. If i wanted a massive FOV in my 8x glasses id have purchased a 7 or a 6. Give me a decent FOV...say between 330 and 400ft and tack sharp images edge to edge any day over these panoramic wide field rage of the age glasses today.

Perfect example are my Monarch 5 and 7 8x glasses i have. The 5 is much better...images are equal in the sweet spot but the 5 is very sharp edge to edge while the 7 drops off sharply at about 75%...and I've looked through several pairs to determine if mine were a bad example. Whats the advantage of a wider field if its out of focus or the image is blown out?

Again...its just my opinion but I think FOV is over rated. Edge to edge and CA control is far more important to me. I can't justify buying the newest gen if FOV is the only upgrade...so I've got more stuff in my peripherals that i could care less about.

 

[fazalmajid]

After having the new Swarovski NL 8x42 it made question if there is a limit to how big of a FOV is actually usable.

Yes, 180°

 

[etudiant]

FoV is useful both for scanning areas of interest as well as for keeping up with small flighty warblers and such.
Obviously there is a trade-off with magnification, something selected bridge cameras deal with by offering a 'back off' button to quickly reduce the zoom in order to re-find the target.
Sadly there are no zoom binoculars, nor even any sensible dual power designs. Yet a dual power glass with perhaps a 20* true FoV at 3 power and maybe 6* at 10x should be a very effective birding tool, allowing effective low power area surveillance as well as normal bird observations.
Presumably the optics needed for such a design are impossible to make..

 

[Binastro]

The Bushnell 7x32 has a field of more than 13 degrees.
It gives me a headache as the aberrations are awful.

A dual power 3x with 20 degrees and 6x with 10 degrees is probably fairly easy to make.

The Bushnell 4x21 (3.5x21) has a measured field of 18.5 degrees.

The 4x22 Dowling and Rowe 16.5 degrees.

The 5x25 VisionKing over 15 degrees.

There is a rare Russian 8x30 with 13 degree field.

However, there probably isn't the market for extra wide angle binoculars as eye relief is often limited.

I prefer binoculars with simple apparent fields of 75 degrees, but make do with 70 degrees or so.

Regards,
B

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

dries1, post 45,
The Bushnell 7x32 has an FOV of 233m/1000m, close focus of 2,9 m and an eyerelief of 9 mm (!), transmission 76-77% and costs 30-80 euros on the used items market.
Compare that with the Libra 6x30, close focus 6,2 m, FOV 200m/1000m, eyerelief 12 mm, transmission around 62%, price 15-40 euros or
the Libra 4x22, 386 gr, close focus 2 m, FOV 30m/1000m, eyerelief 13 mm, transmission around 64%, price 15-30 euros.
Another price range are the Leitz Amplivd 6x24 and the Leitz Trinovid 6x24 (both FOV 212m/1000m)
So you do not need a heavy purse to realise purchase of a binocular with a large FOV, see also the test results of these binoculars on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor of binoculars with a large FOV.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[etudiant]

A dual power 3x with 20 degrees and 6x with 10 degrees is probably fairly easy to make.

Regards,
B

Would that still be true for a wider power range, say 3x and 10x, or do the complications mount as the spread widens?
I really like the idea of watching over a big field and then getting a good but narrow binocular view with just a switch, never losing sight of the target.

I could not see the benefit of the Leica Duovid, 8x and 12x, with mediocre FoV even at 8x, but Leica is not dumb, they must have had reasons for that choice.

 

[quincy88]

Hey Denco,
Are you saying that the NL field of view was too wide? You and I conversed about that on another thread and I thought you were saying you especially liked the NLs because of the exceptionally large field. Maybe I misunderstood?
I understand you have gotten rid of them because of the glare? Is that right? Interesting. I do like the SLCs too. I owned a pair of 10s briefly and kind of wish I hadn't gotten rid of them.

 

[dries1]

dries1, post 45,
The Bushnell 7x32 has an FOV of 233m/1000m, close focus of 2,9 m and an eyerelief of 9 mm (!), transmission 76-77% and costs 30-80 euros on the used items market.
Compare that with the Libra 6x30, close focus 6,2 m, FOV 200m/1000m, eyerelief 12 mm, transmission around 62%, price 15-40 euros or
the Libra 4x22, 386 gr, close focus 2 m, FOV 30m/1000m, eyerelief 13 mm, transmission around 64%, price 15-30 euros.
Another price range are the Leitz Amplivd 6x24 and the Leitz Trinovid 6x24 (both FOV 212m/1000m)
So you do not need a heavy purse to realise purchase of a binocular with a large FOV, see also the test results of these binoculars on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor of binoculars with a large FOV.
Gijs van Ginkel

The Leitz Trinovid 6X24 would be my choice, however all the good ones have been taken. The Bushnell 7X32 is not a very good glass esp. on the night sky, stars are like seagulls near and at the field stop, coupled with short eye relief, my eyes are on the glass.

 

[Binastro]

Hi etudiant,

The problems do increase with a wider spread.

The Leica Duovid 1.5x spread is I think because of the necessity for high quality views.

Most extra wide angle binoculars sacrifice some quality for the wide field.

The Nagler 82 degree eyepieces are high quality over the whole field but with distortion.
Large size Naglers wouldn't fit in binoculars.

There have been turret eyepiece binoculars with two or three pairs of eyepieces, but these wouldn't be very useful for birdwatching I suppose.

Regards,
B.

 

[wllmspd]

13mm Naglers do show some distortion if you pan too fast. It’s hard to make use oft he edges beyond 75degrees or so, eye placement is key, sometimes the edge you see isn’t the real edge and moving your eyes about can reveal more, though not with both eyes as your pupils need to align to the exit pupils. At some point I’ll probably get some Baader morpheus eyepieces, only 76degreea but good eye relief and good performance. Not sure my eye spacing would enable me to try 100degree eyepieces.

peter

 

[etudiant]

Hi etudiant,

The problems do increase with a wider spread.

The Leica Duovid 1.5x spread is I think because of the necessity for high quality views.

Most extra wide angle binoculars sacrifice some quality for the wide field.

The Nagler 82 degree eyepieces are high quality over the whole field but with distortion.
Large size Naglers wouldn't fit in binoculars.

There have been turret eyepiece binoculars with two or three pairs of eyepieces, but these wouldn't be very useful for birdwatching I suppose.

Regards,
B.

Thank you for the added insight, it very much helps clarify Leica's Duovid design decisions.
I'd accept a mediocre 3x 20* FoV provided the high power 10x delivered decent views. Use the 3x to scan and the 10x to look.
There are so many instances where a bird is somewhere in a shrub or a tree, hard to see with the naked eye, but easily missed if the binoculars are pointed the wrong way.
Too bad no manufacturer offers such an instrument, marketing presumably vetoes unproven designs.