• 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.
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

Does the Head Rest help on the NL 8x42? (1 Viewer)

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I have used a Zeiss 20x60S in the past and it is excellent on the night sky.
I consider it to be the best quality binocular I have used, but it has an annoying curved field.
It is also quirky. The button needs to be pressed so it is virtually a one handed binocular.

But these are too heavy for me nowadays.

I would not like to drop one, as it might be an expensive mistake.

I also don't know how long the magnets last.

The warranty was 5 years.

For me, the Canon 18x50 IS was a much more practical binocular, and a much more acceptable price.
I am surprised it has lasted 20 years.

Regards,
B.
Interesting. I have always wondered how good the Zeiss 20x60S binoculars were. Do you think the head rest on the NL would even be close to IS or a tripod as far as stabilization or do you think it would be a waste of time at 8x?
 

dries1

Member
I think the head rest on the 8X42 would depend on the individual, and some compromise for others, additional weight on a slightly top heavy glass (eye piece) or slightly more shake with out it. I have no need for it on the 8X42.

Andy W.
 

Binastro

Well-known member
The only NL I would consider would be the 12x42, and I would get the head rest.

However, if there are glare problems, I would not spend that money on one.

My eyes are not as good as they used to be, so I really don't need any more binoculars.

Regards,
B.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I think the head rest on the 8X42 would depend on the individual, and some compromise for others, additional weight on a slightly top heavy glass (eye piece) or slightly more shake with out it. I have no need for it on the 8X42.

Andy W.
That is pretty much how I feel. It depends on how much you shake and If you think the extra weight and bulkiness are worth it.
 
Last edited:

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
The only NL I would consider would be the 12x42, and I would get the head rest.

However, if there are glare problems, I would not spend that money on one.

My eyes are not as good as they used to be, so I really don't need any more binoculars.

Regards,
B.
Thanks, for your well qualified opinion. My eyes aren't either!
 

Stanbo

Well-known member
I find it strange that people are asking others to give them an opinion on how beneficial the NL headrest is when each person's benefit will differ, depend on the amount of shake they have.

As I have mentioned in a previous post, if you have little or no shake there is nothing for the headrest to compensate for so those people are likely to say that it doesn't work.

Then there will be the rest of the people, all with varying amounts of shake and therefore varying degrees of how effective each individual views the headrest benefit. In these cases any two people will to need to have similar amounts of shake in order for them to have a reasonable chance of having the same benefit from the headrest. Unfortunately, I don't know how you can simply measure the shake variation, although there might be a sophisticated way. But until some way found, just asking someone what the benefits of the headrest are in practical terms will, most probably, give you the wrong answer.

Stan
 
Last edited:

Binastro

Well-known member
Not only that.

The amount of shake depends on fatigue levels.

This variable might be different with or without the headrest.

I think that everyone has some shake with hand held binoculars.
It varies from person to person and day to day.

B.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I find it strange that people are asking others to give them an opinion on how beneficial the NL headrest is when each person's benefit will differ, depend on the amount of shake they have.

As I have mentioned in a previous post, if you have little or no shake there is nothing for the headrest to compensate for so those people are likely to say that it doesn't work.

Then there will be the rest of the people, all with varying amounts of shake and therefore varying degrees of how effective each individual views the headrest benefit. In these cases any two people will to need to have similar amounts of shake in order for them to have a reasonable chance of having the same benefit from the headrest. Unfortunately, I don't know how you can simply measure the shake variation, although there might be a sophisticated way. But until some way found, just asking someone what the benefits of the headrest are in practical terms will, most probably, give you the wrong answer.

Stan
I think the only way to objectively measure the benefit of head rest is to test it like Kimmo did in the test above. That way you eliminate the variability of different users' ability to hold the binoculars steady.

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=297776
 

nzwild

Well-known member
I think the only way to objectively measure the benefit of head rest is to test it like Kimmo did in the test above. That way you eliminate the variability of different users' ability to hold the binoculars steady.

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=297776

The headrest could help with accurate head positioning when using NL on a tripod (as per BTX headrest). For some this could be the main advantage and it would be good to compare.
 

etudiant

Registered User
Supporter
While the head rest on the NL will surely be somewhat helpful, it is unlikely to be as effective as a stabilized glass. The joy of the stabilization is that it removes the micro jitters inherent in hand holding.
Those are not removed by an added rest, whether on the forehead or on a finnstick.
At least in my experience, even if resting my Canon 10x42 on my glasses while looking at a bird high above me, engaging the IS greatly improves the ability to discern the details.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
While the head rest on the NL will surely be somewhat helpful, it is unlikely to be as effective as a stabilized glass. The joy of the stabilization is that it removes the micro jitters inherent in hand holding.
Those are not removed by an added rest, whether on the forehead or on a finnstick.
At least in my experience, even if resting my Canon 10x42 on my glasses while looking at a bird high above me, engaging the IS greatly improves the ability to discern the details.
I agree. What I would like to know and you would only know with some testing is what % improvement in stability the head rest gives you versus IS or a tripod. Maybe 20%?
 

Thomas_M

Active member
I agree. What I would like to know and you would only know with some testing is what % improvement in stability the head rest gives you versus IS or a tripod. Maybe 20%?

Head reasts are not new, these german binoculars manufactured more than fifty years ago had sort of bolt between the eyepieces which you can srew into the right position

http://www.astrotreff.de/upload/TGM/20170912/Marox 8x32.jpg

http://www.astrotreff.de/upload/TGM/20170912/P1000711_klein.jpg

The reduction of shake is minimal, 20 % or so ?

I am not using them and any more and would be interested whether the Swaro head rest does a better job.


p.s. IS has a very different effect, I enjoy the Canon 10x42 IS and especially the 14x32 IS, although the latter has a lot of CA. The amount of detail is amazing, especially in fast changing scences.
 
Last edited:

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Not only that.

The amount of shake depends on fatigue levels.

This variable might be different with or without the headrest.

I think that everyone has some shake with hand held binoculars.
It varies from person to person and day to day.

B.

Yes to all this but it also varies with the wind and depends not only wind speed but also whether the wind is steady at a more or less constant speed or is gusting or pulsing. I am doubtful whether a head rest can compensate for a pulsing side-wind that is affecting your head and your arms.

Lee
 

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
Additional Specatross Detail

Following on from posts #35 and 36, some more detail

The first 2 images are from the most comprehensive source of historical flyers, pamphlets and catalogues for binoculars that’s available online,
from Mark at Miniature Binoculars: https://www.miniaturebinoculars.com/part3/Page21529.htm

The images are from a 1960 Ross pamphlet, and show both the 8x40 Spectaross, and the 8x35 Spectacle Solaross (the Solaross being a lower cost line)

- - - -

The British patent for the forehead rest was filed by Owen George Hay in November 1950
See the detail from Terence Wayland’s comprehensive research on Ross of London that can be found on Peter Abrahams classic Europa site,
at: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/Ross/


John
 

Attachments

  • Ross A.jpg
    Ross A.jpg
    231 KB · Views: 23
  • Ross B.jpg
    Ross B.jpg
    277.4 KB · Views: 19
  • 1950 Hay patent application details.jpg
    1950 Hay patent application details.jpg
    198.4 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:

Stanbo

Well-known member
Not only that.

The amount of shake depends on fatigue levels.

This variable might be different with or without the headrest.

I think that everyone has some shake with hand held binoculars.
It varies from person to person and day to day.

B.

Exactly, and that is why I suggested that for one person to ask another what the percentage difference is between the NL with the headrest or without, the figure is unlikely to be correct. If each person goes through the same procedure to establish the strength of their shake, including the variables you suggest, it will never produce a reliable result. As I've said before, the only way to be sure is "TRY BEFORE YOU BUY"

Stan
 
Last edited:

Hauksen

Forum member
Hi John,

The first 2 images are from the most comprehensive source of historical flyers, pamphlets and catalogues for binoculars that’s available online,
from Mark at Miniature Binoculars: https://www.miniaturebinoculars.com/part3/Page21529.htm

The images are from a 1960 Ross pamphlet, and show both the 8x40 Spectaross, and the 8x35 Spectacle Solaross (the Solaross being a lower cost line)

Excellent, thanks a lot!

Reading between the lines, I wonder if the head rest was actually more of a device to ensure that the spectacle wearer would manage to hit the small sweet spot regarding correct eye placement more easily, and not so much one primarily intended to reduce image shake ...

Regards,

Henning
 

Hauksen

Forum member
Hi again,

Reading between the lines, I wonder if the head rest was actually more of a device to ensure that the spectacle wearer would manage to hit the small sweet spot regarding correct eye placement more easily, and not so much one primarily intended to reduce image shake ...

Oops ... actually, if I follow the link, the caption for patent #687383 clearly states:

"A pad to be used by spectacle wearers on binoculars with long eye relief. The pad screws on to the top of the focussing spindle and rests against the forehead. This keeps the eyepiece at the correct distance."

So, no reading between the lines on my part should have been necessary :)

Regards,

Henning
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Head reasts are not new, these german binoculars manufactured more than fifty years ago had sort of bolt between the eyepieces which you can srew into the right position

http://www.astrotreff.de/upload/TGM/20170912/Marox 8x32.jpg

http://www.astrotreff.de/upload/TGM/20170912/P1000711_klein.jpg

The reduction of shake is minimal, 20 % or so ?

I am not using them and any more and would be interested whether the Swaro head rest does a better job.


p.s. IS has a very different effect, I enjoy the Canon 10x42 IS and especially the 14x32 IS, although the latter has a lot of CA. The amount of detail is amazing, especially in fast changing scences.
I agree on the IS binoculars showing an amazing amount of detail. I have the Canon 12x36 IS III and the new Nikon 10x25 IS, and they both show way more detail than any unstabilized binocular I have tried especially as you say on fast moving objects like an airplane or bird in flight. I couldn't open your links for some reason.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Hi John,



Excellent, thanks a lot!

Reading between the lines, I wonder if the head rest was actually more of a device to ensure that the spectacle wearer would manage to hit the small sweet spot regarding correct eye placement more easily, and not so much one primarily intended to reduce image shake ...

Regards,

Henning
That is interesting. The advantage of the head rest for spectacle wearers is logical.
 
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia

Users who are viewing this thread

Top