Choosing a 7x42 between UVHD+ and EDG (1 Viewer)

[HenRun]

So the AFOV numbers on that site (EDIT: Canip has done a great job, as always) corresponds well with my recollection/perception of binos I have used:

Leica 7x42 FOV 140 AFOV 55.5 Lowest of the bunch, low magnification and wide field.
Zeiss 8x32 FL 140 AFOV 60
Zeiss 8x40 SFL FOV 140 AFOV 60 felt a bit larger to me than the FL, in direct comparison but apparently the same!
Meopta 8x32 B1N FOV 138 AFOV 61
Swaro NL Pure 8x32 FOV 150 AFOV 65 most impressive.

Leica UVHD+ 12x50 AFOV 68.5 This is impressive! One of the reasons I enjoy it so much.
Zeiss 12x45 AFOV only 55

No numbers for the Meostar 12x50. Less than the UVHD though.
No AFOV listed for the Swaro EL 12x50.

 

[HenRun]

Here I go again: did not post the AFOV of the Noctivid in the table above, also because I have no experience with it.

But, going by numbers I think you can expect that the Noctivid is "significantly" more generous in the AFOV than the UVHD+ as the difference is about the same between them as it is with the ones I have used.

My threshold for great AFOV seems to be around 60. But, it does not rhyme with my recollection of the 8x32 FL...
Anything below that I feel is a bit narrow.

Again, I am surprised to see the Leica 12x50 has a whopping 68.5. I was going to head out an hour ago with it, but it started snowing...
...now the sun is back out! April in Sweden does that...

A plug for the Sirui SVM 165 monopod with tripod base, one handed extension and collapsing. Excellent monopod "system" with detachable joints and heads through quick release sockets. A bit of a game changer for my use and stands very stable with the tripod base. I have a 30cm extension for it as well (weighs nothing and can be used with the tripod base as a stand alone bench rest) and I usually leave it on as it shortens the length of travel when extending. I have it slung over the shoulder in any case.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Zeiss 8x32 FL 140 AFOV 60
Zeiss 8x40 SFL FOV 140 AFOV 60 felt a bit larger to me than the FL, in direct comparison but apparently the same!

I thought I understood AFOV but now I'm befuddled. I have owned both of these, and compared them side by side (caveat: I wear specs - but I could see field-stop clearly with eye-cups all the way 'in' on both bins). The 8x40SFL is one of my favorites simply because the view/eyebox is big and relaxed. The 8x32FL 'worked' but it was much more like looking through a peephole. FOV seemed pretty similar when looking at a mid-range (75-100yd) scene. I've always attributed it to the diameter of the oculars. So yes, maybe the AFOV's are the same, but one feels like a wide screen TV and the other not so much (in comparison).

 

[HenRun]

Middleriver: same for me, I did the very same comparison, 8x32FL <> 8x40SFL and I had the same experience with glasses.
Field stops clearly visible on both but less relaxed view and a bit of peep hole experience with the FL, with glasses.

I am a bit confused by them having the same FOV and AFOV on paper when the viewing experience is quite different.

8x32FL was (in my experience) closer to the UVHD 7x42 in regards to AFOV and I thought they were fairly similar and both a step under the SFL8x40.
But if calculations say the UVHD is lesser than FL I have no objections, I just felt they were close.

I don't fully understand how AFOV is calculated and what factors (FOV and ER and others) will affect the calculation.
Some of them wiser guys can probably elaborate on that.

 

[agus_m]

The AFOVs of swaros are listed on their website if i am not mistaken

 

[Conndomat]

8x32FL was (in my experience) closer to the UVHD 7x42 in regards to AFOV and I thought they were fairly similar and both a step under the SFL8x40.
But if calculations say the UVHD is lesser than FL I have no objections, I just felt they were close.

In fact, both binoculars have 140m/1000 according to data sheet, but the 8x32 has a slightly higher magnification. I have both binoculars available and in direct comparison I find the AFOV on the 8x32 FL to be a bit larger.

I don't fully understand how AFOV is calculated and what factors (FOV and ER and others) will affect the calculation.
Some of them wiser guys can probably elaborate on that.

You can measure the AFOV yourself; you will need a tripod with a degree scale.

Place the binoculars horizontally on the tripod and look through a front lens. The edge of a house is a good choice. Position the edge exactly at the very edge so that you can just see it. The degree scale should be at "0".

Now swivel the binoculars to the other side so that the edge is just visible and read the degree on the scale. This method is pretty reliable. With some Swarovski binoculars I got exactly the AFOV that the manufacturer specifies and Swarovski is pretty reliable in this regard.

Andreas

 

[MiddleRiver]

In fact, both binoculars have 140m/1000 according to data sheet, but the 8x32 has a slightly higher magnification. I have both binoculars available and in direct comparison I find the AFOV on the 8x32 FL to be a bit larger.

You can measure the AFOV yourself; you will need a tripod with a degree scale.

Place the binoculars horizontally on the tripod and look through a front lens. The edge of a house is a good choice. Position the edge exactly at the very edge so that you can just see it. The degree scale should be at "0".

Now swivel the binoculars to the other side so that the edge is just visible and read the degree on the scale. This method is pretty reliable. With some Swarovski binoculars I got exactly the AFOV that the manufacturer specifies and Swarovski is pretty reliable in this regard.

Andreas

Understood. I think the broader question is how AFOV relates to actual impression of an 'expansive' or 'immersive' view. The 32FL vs 40SFL numbers suggest that AFOV alone does not determine how they 'feel' in use?

 

[HenRun]

Thank you Andreas, I will try that with the Meopta 12x50. 😊

Yes, I also found the AFOV a bit larger on the FL vs the UVHD.

The confusing part for me is the FL vs the SFL where I (and Middleriver) think the AFOV on paper does not line up with how we experience it.

Not saying the specs are incorrect, just wondering if there is another factor at play that explains the discrepancy.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I thought I understood AFOV but now I'm befuddled. I have owned both of these, and compared them side by side (caveat: I wear specs - but I could see field-stop clearly with eye-cups all the way 'in' on both bins). The 8x40SFL is one of my favorites simply because the view/eyebox is big and relaxed. The 8x32FL 'worked' but it was much more like looking through a peehole. FOV seemed pretty similar when looking at a mid-range (75-100yd) scene. I've always attributed it to the diameter of the oculars. So yes, maybe the AFOV's are the same, but one feels like a wide screen TV and the other not so much (in comparison).

I think you are correct in that the Zeiss 8x40 SFL has a more comfortable eye box than the 8x32 FL. I have found the eye box on the SFL 8x40 to be one of the most comfortable around. The Swarovski CL 8x30 also has a very comfortable eye box. Also, the 8x40 SFL has a bigger EP than the 8x32 FL, which makes eye placement easier and allows you to move your eyes around more when using the binocular.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Understood. I think the broader question is how AFOV relates to actual impression of an 'expansive' or 'immersive' view. The 32FL vs 40SFL numbers suggest that AFOV alone does not determine how they 'feel' in use?

EP size and eye box comfort also makes a big difference in a binocular having an expansive and immersive view because when the EP hits your cornea correctly, the binocular will feel more comfortable. That is a big reason a 8x42 always feels more comfortable than a 8x32.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Here I go again: did not post the AFOV of the Noctivid in the table above, also because I have no experience with it.

But, going by numbers I think you can expect that the Noctivid is "significantly" more generous in the AFOV than the UVHD+ as the difference is about the same between them as it is with the ones I have used.

My threshold for great AFOV seems to be around 60. But, it does not rhyme with my recollection of the 8x32 FL...
Anything below that I feel is a bit narrow.

Again, I am surprised to see the Leica 12x50 has a whopping 68.5. I was going to head out an hour ago with it, but it started snowing...
...now the sun is back out! April in Sweden does that...

A plug for the Sirui SVM 165 monopod with tripod base, one handed extension and collapsing. Excellent monopod "system" with detachable joints and heads through quick release sockets. A bit of a game changer for my use and stands very stable with the tripod base. I have a 30cm extension for it as well (weighs nothing and can be used with the tripod base as a stand alone bench rest) and I usually leave it on as it shortens the length of travel when extending. I have it slung over the shoulder in any case.

View attachment 1637801View attachment 1637803

April in Sweden sounds much like Colorado, US. The weather changes minute by the minute like that. That is a very nice monopod. That would work great carried over your shoulder. Is it easy to adjust the height? I don't mean to be nosy, but I am curious what that is in the square plastic bucket on the table off to the left of the monopod?

 

[Dennis Mau]

So the AFOV numbers on that site (EDIT: Canip has done a great job, as always) corresponds well with my recollection/perception of binos I have used:

Leica 7x42 FOV 140 AFOV 55.5 Lowest of the bunch, low magnification and wide field.
Zeiss 8x32 FL 140 AFOV 60
Zeiss 8x40 SFL FOV 140 AFOV 60 felt a bit larger to me than the FL, in direct comparison but apparently the same!
Meopta 8x32 B1N FOV 138 AFOV 61
Swaro NL Pure 8x32 FOV 150 AFOV 65 most impressive.

Leica UVHD+ 12x50 AFOV 68.5 This is impressive! One of the reasons I enjoy it so much.
Zeiss 12x45 AFOV only 55

No numbers for the Meostar 12x50. Less than the UVHD though.
No AFOV listed for the Swaro EL 12x50.

That is interesting that the Leica UVHD+ 12x50 has a 68.5 degree AFOV. That is impressive. Even the Leica UVHD+ 10x50 and Leica Trinovid 10x50 have a 66 degree AFOV. I didn't realize the big 50mm Leica's had that big of a AFOV.

 

[Conndomat]

Understood. I think the broader question is how AFOV relates to actual impression of an 'expansive' or 'immersive' view. The 32FL vs 40SFL numbers suggest that AFOV alone does not determine how they 'feel' in use?

That's true!
It also depends on the eyepiece design whether binoculars appear more immersive despite having a similar AFOV.

As an example, two telescope eyepieces: Nikon NAV 10mm (74°) and Delos 10mm (72°)

The AFOV in the Delos actually appears slightly larger, making you "deeper" in the image, but if you place two stars directly at the outer edges, you can see that the Nikon actually has a slightly larger AFOV.
It also depends on the construction and our facial physiognomy whether a similar AFOV is perceived slightly differently.
I notice this effect particularly strongly with the Swarovski SLC 8x56; the AFOV seems much larger to me than the stated 60° degrees.

Andreas

 

[hopster]

Hopster: interesting that they observe that Noctivid has slightly worse CA suppression than UVHD+.

Yes I noticed that too. I have not looked through the 8x42 UVHD+ myself but from everything I have read it seems that most people think the opposite.

 

[hopster]

Thank you Andreas, I will try that with the Meopta 12x50. 😊

They give the Meopta 12x50 as 62 degrees here: Meopta MeoStar B1 12×50 HD – Binoculars Today

 

[HenRun]

Hopster: oh, good find!

I was guesstimating 60-62 😁.

 

[hopster]

So the AFOV numbers on that site (EDIT: Canip has done a great job, as always) corresponds well with my recollection/perception of binos I have used:

Leica 7x42 FOV 140 AFOV 55.5 Lowest of the bunch, low magnification and wide field.
Zeiss 8x32 FL 140 AFOV 60
Zeiss 8x40 SFL FOV 140 AFOV 60 felt a bit larger to me than the FL, in direct comparison but apparently the same!
Meopta 8x32 B1N FOV 138 AFOV 61
Swaro NL Pure 8x32 FOV 150 AFOV 65 most impressive.

Leica UVHD+ 12x50 AFOV 68.5 This is impressive! One of the reasons I enjoy it so much.
Zeiss 12x45 AFOV only 55

No numbers for the Meostar 12x50. Less than the UVHD though.
No AFOV listed for the Swaro EL 12x50.

Meopta MeoStar B1 12×50 HD – Binoculars Today gives Meopta 12x50 as 62 degrees so actually a little better than the NV 8x but quite a bit less than the UVHD 12x50 which seems to score remarkably high i.e. ~NL 8x.

The pattern seems to be that higher mags tend to get better AFOVs in general, so that suggests that it's easier to move towards higher mag than wider field.

 

[hopster]

I thought I understood AFOV but now I'm befuddled. I have owned both of these, and compared them side by side (caveat: I wear specs - but I could see field-stop clearly with eye-cups all the way 'in' on both bins). The 8x40SFL is one of my favorites simply because the view/eyebox is big and relaxed. The 8x32FL 'worked' but it was much more like looking through a peehole. FOV seemed pretty similar when looking at a mid-range (75-100yd) scene. I've always attributed it to the diameter of the oculars. So yes, maybe the AFOV's are the same, but one feels like a wide screen TV and the other not so much (in comparison).

I'm also a little skeptical that AFOV is a reliable and directly comparable single measure for the scale or immersiveness of the view.

 

[HenRun]

Yes, I kind of figured out that high mag binos seem to have pretty good AFOV and that it is not necessarily directly related to ER.

In the case of the Meopta 12x50 the AFOV is very good to excellent. On paper short ER.
On the 12x50 UVHD it is excellent to superb, a little more finicky with eye placement but not a big issue. On paper short ER.

 

[HenRun]

April in Sweden sounds much like Colorado, US. The weather changes minute by the minute like that. That is a very nice monopod. That would work great carried over your shoulder. Is it easy to adjust the height? I don't mean to be nosy, but I am curious what that is in the square plastic bucket on the table off to the left of the monopod?

No worries. 😊
It is birdballs, tallow and birdseed.

I bet Colorado weather is similar, I spent a few weeks in Boulder and did some hiking there, beautiful!