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

[Hauksen]

Hi again,

I haven't tried a head brace yet, but it should be a fairly simple thing to design a 3D printable one that screws into the tripod thread of the Nikon pictured above ...

Here's my print:



It seems to give a at least a slight improvement in steadiness. I'll have to give it a more thorough test, I guess. With the shoulder stock, the improvement was immediately evident, so I would say the headrest alone is less effective than the shoulder stock.

Here's a secondary benefit of the headrest:



I'm not entirely serious about this secondary application, but when I was printing, I thought, "Hey, why not!"! ;-)

Regards,

Henning

 

[[email protected]]

Hi again,



Here's my print:

View attachment 738504

It seems to give a at least a slight improvement in steadiness. I'll have to give it a more thorough test, I guess. With the shoulder stock, the improvement was immediately evident, so I would say the headrest alone is less effective than the shoulder stock.

Here's a secondary benefit of the headrest:

View attachment 738505

I'm not entirely serious about this secondary application, but when I was printing, I thought, "Hey, why not!"! ;-)

Regards,

Henning

What magnification is your binocular? Do you feel the head rest helped stabilized it? Nice design! Does the head swivel at all or is it just stationary?

 

[Whiterain]

If artificial stabilization helps holding binos at 12x, it helps an identical amount with 8x's which are, to the hand, identical. We might not perceive the aid as helpful, or less so, but to dismiss it entirely is at best an attempt to graft your eyes and perceptions into someone else. Best of luck.

On a practical note, everyones hands shake 50-100 microns under ideal circumstances, at roughly 10Hz. Coffee, fatigue, nerve damage, stress, and muscle condition might exaggerate this significantly.

For me, my tremors are in my arms, and seem to be inversely proportional to fitness at any given time. Where these forehead braces best affect stability is probably a longer discussion. Although I dont personally feel the need to slap one on an 8x, it would be naive to think that IF it works at 10x that I would not also see a more stable, and likely crisper image, when snapping the same thing onto an 8x bino.

 

[Hauksen]

Hi,

What magnification is your binocular? Do you feel the head rest helped stabilized it? Nice design! Does the head swivel at all or is it just stationary?

It's an 8 x 42.

I would say that the view is in fact more stable, mainly by dampening the high frequency shake. It doesn't help much with slower deviations from the desired aim direction.

The head rest is stationary, I planned on printing a rubber (TPU, actually) pad to allow a slightly softer contact patch. If I'd use mine for more than a couple of minutes, I'd probably end up with a hexagonal headrest imprint on my forehead!

I'd think that length adjustment might be more important that swiveling, and so far, I have to change the distance block that contacts the forehead for that, which is not really user friendly. (I could probably clamp the distance block to the NATO rail and thus adjust it in 10 mm steps, or print a rail with smaller steps.)

Swiveling parts would introduce some complexity ... I'd not like them to shake freely, so I'd need some dampening element. For ease of use, a freely swiveling headrest would be preferrable though, so I'd like to avoid a tightening nut approach. Maybe a spring-loaded friction generator would work ... sounds like this would be a fun design exercise, if I find the time.

Regards,

Henning

 

[[email protected]]

Hi,



It's an 8 x 42.

I would say that the view is in fact more stable, mainly by dampening the high frequency shake. It doesn't help much with slower deviations from the desired aim direction.

The head rest is stationary, I planned on printing a rubber (TPU, actually) pad to allow a slightly softer contact patch. If I'd use mine for more than a couple of minutes, I'd probably end up with a hexagonal headrest imprint on my forehead!

I'd think that length adjustment might be more important that swiveling, and so far, I have to change the distance block that contacts the forehead for that, which is not really user friendly. (I could probably clamp the distance block to the NATO rail and thus adjust it in 10 mm steps, or print a rail with smaller steps.)

Swiveling parts would introduce some complexity ... I'd not like them to shake freely, so I'd need some dampening element. For ease of use, a freely swiveling headrest would be preferrable though, so I'd like to avoid a tightening nut approach. Maybe a spring-loaded friction generator would work ... sounds like this would be a fun design exercise, if I find the time.

Regards,

Henning

Sounds very interesting! I am not familiar with 3D printing but it is an interesting concept. I would imagine it would help with the high frequency shake more than slower movements as you say. It would be nice to compare the efficiency of the head rest in stabilizing the binocular compared to IS. I wonder if it would be 50% as efficient.

 

[[email protected]]

If artificial stabilization helps holding binos at 12x, it helps an identical amount with 8x's which are, to the hand, identical. We might not perceive the aid as helpful, or less so, but to dismiss it entirely is at best an attempt to graft your eyes and perceptions into someone else. Best of luck.

On a practical note, everyones hands shake 50-100 microns under ideal circumstances, at roughly 10Hz. Coffee, fatigue, nerve damage, stress, and muscle condition might exaggerate this significantly.

For me, my tremors are in my arms, and seem to be inversely proportional to fitness at any given time. Where these forehead braces best affect stability is probably a longer discussion. Although I dont personally feel the need to slap one on an 8x, it would be naive to think that IF it works at 10x that I would not also see a more stable, and likely crisper image, when snapping the same thing onto an 8x bino.

I don't think Swarovski would have developed the head rest if they thought it would just be a gimmick. It has to be beneficial with shake.

 

[Hauksen]

Hi Denco,

Sounds very interesting! I am not familiar with 3D printing but it is an interesting concept. I would imagine it would help with the high frequency shake more than slower movements as you say. It would be nice to compare the efficiency of the head rest in stabilizing the binocular compared to IS. I wonder if it would be 50% as efficient.

3D printing is quite cheap ... I'm using an Anycubic i3 Mega printer, which comes at around EUR 300. Prints run around 20 EUR/kg, and the adapter probably weighs no more than 60 g, so the cost is EUR 1.20.

However, to get the most out of your printer, you have to be able to draft your own designs, which is not an easy skill to master, unless you happen to have some programming skills already ... in that case, you can apply them to OpenSCAD, which includes a programming language for sort-of-drafting.

My only experience with active image stabilization is in photography, and I don't think the headrest comes anywhere close to that. I'm not sure how I'd measure stabilization efficiency, but to pull a subjective number out of my hat, I'd say the headrest probably is not more than 25% as efficient.

For me, the interesting thing is that it's more than 0% efficient, which I wasn't sure of before I tried it! I'll probably keep it on for a while to see how well it works in the field.

Regards,

Henning

 

[[email protected]]

Hi Denco,



3D printing is quite cheap ... I'm using an Anycubic i3 Mega printer, which comes at around EUR 300. Prints run around 20 EUR/kg, and the adapter probably weighs no more than 60 g, so the cost is EUR 1.20.

However, to get the most out of your printer, you have to be able to draft your own designs, which is not an easy skill to master, unless you happen to have some programming skills already ... in that case, you can apply them to OpenSCAD, which includes a programming language for sort-of-drafting.

My only experience with active image stabilization is in photography, and I don't think the headrest comes anywhere close to that. I'm not sure how I'd measure stabilization efficiency, but to pull a subjective number out of my hat, I'd say the headrest probably is not more than 25% as efficient.

For me, the interesting thing is that it's more than 0% efficient, which I wasn't sure of before I tried it! I'll probably keep it on for a while to see how well it works in the field.

Regards,

Henning

I am not 25% efficiency would be enough for me to use the head rest. I am still debating whether to get one or not. Let us know your feelings after you have tried it for a while.

 

[Mark9473]

If artificial stabilization helps holding binos at 12x, it helps an identical amount with 8x's which are, to the hand, identical.

The angular displacement of the image seen by the eyes is a direct function of magnification. Therefore 12x will require more stabilisation than 8x to give the same perception of acceptably steady.

 

[[email protected]]

The angular displacement of the image seen by the eyes is a direct function of magnification. Therefore 12x will require more stabilisation than 8x to give the same perception of acceptably steady.

It seems logical to me that you would need more stabilization at 12x than at 8x because of the increased magnification of the image. I know I can see myself shaking more at 12x than 8x.

 

[Hauksen]

Hi,

I am not 25% efficiency would be enough for me to use the head rest. I am still debating whether to get one or not. Let us know your feelings after you have tried it for a while.

First experience: If you attach the headrest by one screw only, it can torque itself loose. Not a big issue, probably a rubber washer will fix that.

If you have the dimensions of the attachment holes on the Svarovski, I can see if I can design a compatible version of my 3D-printable adapter so you can try the principle for cheap before you decide on buying the real deal ...

Regards,

Henning

 

[[email protected]]

Hi,



First experience: If you attach the headrest by one screw only, it can torque itself loose. Not a big issue, probably a rubber washer will fix that.

If you have the dimensions of the attachment holes on the Svarovski, I can see if I can design a compatible version of my 3D-printable adapter so you can try the principle for cheap before you decide on buying the real deal ...

Regards,

Henning

Thanks, for the offer but I went ahead and ordered the Swarovski head rest. I will post my feedback after I tried it for a while on my NL 8x42.

 

[Thomas_M]

A head rest should not be needed on any 8X binocular. You should be able to handhold a binocular in this size.

Jerry

May be you should be able, but who is able? My personal experience and it agarees very well with scientific literature there is a serious loss even at 8x, a simple rule

Neff= N/1/1+0.05N were N is the magnification and an Neff the effective magnification (taken from Holger Merlitz on Binoculars).

So even at 8x you loose a lot, a 5.7x binocular on a tripod or IS should show the same. I would compare the 10x NL with the Canon 10x42 IS and try to read text. This is a real test. Has anybody done such test?

 

[[email protected]]

May be you should be able, but who is able? My personal experience and it agarees very well with scientific literature there is a serious loss even at 8x, a simple rule

Neff= N/1/1+0.05N were N is the magnification and an Neff the effective magnification (taken from Holger Merlitz on Binoculars).

So even at 8x you loose a lot, a 5.7x binocular on a tripod or IS should show the same. I would compare the 10x NL with the Canon 10x42 IS and try to read text. This is a real test. Has anybody done such test?

Not with the NL but Kimmo has done similar testing with the Canon 10x42 IS-L binoculars vs hand-held.

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

 

[Thomas_M]

Not with the NL but Kimmo has done similar testing with the Canon 10x42 IS-L binoculars vs hand-held.

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

Thanks for the link, that's interesting, I have done similar tests myself. Essentially, with IS go get close to 100% performance of using a tripod.

Now the interesting question, how does the NL with headrest compares with one on a tripod or an IS binocular, e.g. the Canon 10x42 IS.? This is not a difficult test, it takes a quarter of an hour or so, but you need an NL with headrest.

 

[kabsetz]

A few weeks back I had a 10x42 NL with a headrest on loan for a day, and did a quick, non-rigorous comparison between it and the Canon 10x42 L IS.

For me (my eyes, my hands and my test targets), with IS off and the NL with its headrest, the two were about equal at resolving detail. With the IS engaged, there was no contest, the Canon gets near to tripod-mounted detail retrieval. When both are mounted on a tripod, they again are about equal in resolution. Differences would be unit-dependent.

In the thread Dennis linked, I have done the same thing but much more methodically, with the Nikon 10x42 SE as the reference. That Nikon has very high resolution.

- Kimmo

 

[Binastro]

My 20 year old Canon 18x50 IS has almost tripod steady resolution with the IS on.
But it must be held steadily to achieve the best results.
It resolves better than the Canon 10x42 IS on critical resolution.
This is despite colour fringes on the 18x50 IS from off axis prisms etc.
I resolved 8.5 arcseconds double stars with the 18x50 IS.
I am still amazed whenever I use this binocular for critical resolution.

The Canon 10x42 IS is close to tripod steady with the IS on.

One of the three Canon 8x25 IS resolves better than nearly any hand held non IS binocular, whatever the binocular, on moving aircraft.

The Canon 10x30 MK2 is tripod steady with the IS on.

With the c.2000 Canon IS 10x30 Mk1 held against the inside of double glazing I rather easily resolved Mizar, an unequal 14.4 arcsecond double star.
I achieved about the same with a Conquest HD 10x42 held firmly against the window glass and jammed gently against the wood window frame.

A Zeiss 20x60S binocular resolved 6.5 arc second double stars.

The 30x50 Yukon folded refractor binocular equals the Zeiss 20x60S when held against the window glass and jammed against the wooden frame. It resolves 6.5 arcsecond double stars. The problem is the 30x50 binocular is dim from poor coatings. Star images are good in the 30x50 but not as good as the Zeiss 20x60S.

When using a binocular against window glass both barrels must touch the glass rotating the binocular if necessary.

The 12x45 Russian Porro equals the Canon 10x30 IS Mk1 when held against the window glass. It separates Mizar.

The 12x45 Russian binocular easily outresolves the Nikon 10x35 E II hand held no bracing because of superb balance.

With my head resting against a lamp post unaided eyes and using a safe solar filter I resolved penumbral sunspots 34 arcseconds diameter. With my head unbraced 38 arcseconds.
Bracing my head against the lamp post increases resolution by 10% unaided eyes.

So not only does the binocular need to be ultra steady, so does ones head.

In bright light the Minolta 8x23 Autofocus binocular is sharper than non IS binoculars hand held on faces of people walking 15 metres away. The autofocus locks on almost instantly. It is pin sharp.
However, a Canon IS binocular is in general sharper on most targets.

Regards,
B.

 

[[email protected]]

A few weeks back I had a 10x42 NL with a headrest on loan for a day, and did a quick, non-rigorous comparison between it and the Canon 10x42 L IS.

For me (my eyes, my hands and my test targets), with IS off and the NL with its headrest, the two were about equal at resolving detail. With the IS engaged, there was no contest, the Canon gets near to tripod-mounted detail retrieval. When both are mounted on a tripod, they again are about equal in resolution. Differences would be unit-dependent.

In the thread Dennis linked, I have done the same thing but much more methodically, with the Nikon 10x42 SE as the reference. That Nikon has very high resolution.

- Kimmo

Kimmo. Did you mean with the Canon and the IS off and with the NL using the headrest that both binoculars were equal in resolution? I am a little confused. Did the head rest make any difference in resolution on the NL and how did it compare to the Canon with the IS on and what NL were you testing the 8x, 10x or 12x? Thanks!

 

[[email protected]]

My 20 year old Canon 18x50 IS has almost tripod steady resolution with the IS on.
But it must be held steadily to achieve the best results.
It resolves better than the Canon 10x42 IS on critical resolution.
This is despite colour fringes on the 18x50 IS from off axis prisms etc.
I resolved 8.5 arcseconds double stars with the 18x50 IS.
I am still amazed whenever I use this binocular for critical resolution.

The Canon 10x42 IS is close to tripod steady with the IS on.

One of the three Canon 8x25 IS resolves better than nearly any hand held non IS binocular, whatever the binocular, on moving aircraft.

The Canon 10x30 MK2 is tripod steady with the IS on.

With the c.2000 Canon IS 10x30 Mk1 held against the inside of double glazing I rather easily resolved Mizar, an unequal 14.4 arcsecond double star.
I achieved about the same with a Conquest HD 10x42 held firmly against the window glass and jammed gently against the wood window frame.

A Zeiss 20x60S binocular resolved 6.5 arc second double stars.

The 30x50 Yukon folded refractor binocular equals the Zeiss 20x60S when held against the window glass and jammed against the wooden frame. It resolves 6.5 arcsecond double stars. The problem is the 30x50 binocular is dim from poor coatings. Star images are good in the 30x50 but not as good as the Zeiss 20x60S.

When using a binocular against window glass both barrels must touch the glass rotating the binocular if necessary.

The 12x45 Russian Porro equals the Canon 10x30 IS Mk1 when held against the window glass. It separates Mizar.

The 12x45 Russian binocular easily outresolves the Nikon 10x35 E II hand held no bracing because of superb balance.

With my head resting against a lamp post unaided eyes and using a safe solar filter I resolved penumbral sunspots 34 arcseconds diameter. With my head unbraced 38 arcseconds.
Bracing my head against the lamp post increases resolution by 10% unaided eyes.

So not only does the binocular need to be ultra steady, so does ones head.

In bright light the Minolta 8x23 Autofocus binocular is sharper than non IS binoculars hand held on faces of people walking 15 metres away. The autofocus locks on almost instantly. It is pin sharp.
However, a Canon IS binocular is in general sharper on most targets.

Regards,
B.

Binastro. Thanks, for all that good information! That is an excellent way to test for resolution using the binocular to see how close of a double star it will separate in arc seconds. When you say your head has to be steady, as well as, the binocular that makes me wonder how helpful the Swarovski head rest would be because your head is still going to be moving even with the head rest. Do you have a Zeiss 20x60S? How is it overall on the night sky?

 

[Binastro]

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.