• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

First binoculars: Nikon Vs Celestron (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

WJC

Well-known member
Bill,
I thank you for the clarification, I always read your posts with great interest and have learn a lot (for example, to be wary of advertising bloating specs). However, there's two things that escape me.

- It is a proven fact that sometimes manufactures cheat in the advertising, bloating the performance of their devices, but then... why would anyone in their own mind advertise a product being worse than it is in reality. Why would you say your product has a 6,4º FOV when in reality it has 7,1º? (Yes, I know that in a few cases the brands err for good, and declare worse performance, but I guess this is quite scarce).

- On the other hand, just like Rob, as a lay person I'm a bit confused about your explanation of FOV being a simple division of objective mm and magnification.



I thought this was actually exit pupil in millimeters. But maybe I'm missing something or there's a technical explanation to it.

Furthermore, how is it possible then, that there exist binoculars with the same format and very different FOV. Without leaving the 7x50 and the very same brand.

Nikon 7x50 Aculon: 6,4º (advertised)
Nikon 7x50 IF SP WP: 7,3º (advertised, tested by Allbinos at 7,24º)
Nikon 7x50 WX: 10,7º (advertised, Allbinos tested the 10x50 WX and it was in accordance with the brand specs)

Then if we check other formats, there are varying (and pretty different, sometimes extreme) FOV for any given format. Maybe I'm misinterpreting some information or mixing different concepts.

Hi Yarellii,

Thanks for your kindness and your willingness to see things from other angles. Many people refuse to do so.

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” — Aristotle

Considering differing advertising specs from empirical specs.

1) Uncaught human errors. Why would an optical giant like Fujinon advertise their best 7x50 binocular as having an apparent field of 7.5-degrees instead of the actual 52.5-degree? ‘Seems to me that the missing 45 degrees would make a big difference to buyers.

2) The only reason I can see for the downgrading the field of view—instead of using the tried and true “7.14 degrees” that has been used for years is that they stopped down the field to make what WAS presented to the eyes optically superior. The Swift Ultra Lite, Celestron Ultima, and the Adlerblick Fernglasser (all the same basic binocular) have a narrower field of view than possible. However, the image presented to the eyes competes well with some binoculars costing a great deal more. What is more important to the consumer with dollars to spend?

You may take an unmounted objective lens and hold it in front of you and tilt it at huge angles. You will note that being ... glass, light still passes through. You will also note that you can see objects on the other side. Further, an image can be formed. Will that image be garbage? Absolutely! Some people base their ideas concerning the size of the Field of View solely on the size of the objective lens. I’ve even seen that promoted by the source of all knowledge and wisdom ... Wikipedia!

That is massively oversimplified! An objective lens with the capacity to form a useless 90-degree FOV has to be restricted by field stops and a practical optical system. The primary field stop with others potentially in the ocular—as well as the DESIGN of that ocular. In optics, one size does not fit all. The engineer has control over that which is mathematically possible but optically foolish. Math doesn’t care what the image looks like; the engineer does.

3) My comment about FOV calculations was based on approximations. Those observers interested in stacking BBs will find the information in the following of interest: https://www.optics-trade.eu/blog/field-of-view-calculations/

But, when you are done, please determine—in a practical sense—which doctrine is most useful TO THE AVERAGE OBSERVER. Another helpful website might be: https://www.birdwatching.com/optics/binoculars5_fov.html

I don’t need time-wasting mathematical gyrations; I can measure FOV directly with my collimator. (See Attached)

Finally, I just try to make things easily understandable. Pontification may be great for ego-stroking but it falls short in useful communication. There are two kinds of light. Reasonable glows that illuminate and obfuscative glares that obscure. I will forever be taken to task for the route I have chosen. However, you’re worth it. :cat:

I hope this has been helpful.

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” — Dr. Richard Feynman
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2020-08-03 at 12.30.37 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2020-08-03 at 12.30.37 PM.png
    262.7 KB · Views: 23

normjackson

Well-known member
Yarrellii I thought yout first post was excellent and Royfinn's mention to consider eye relief proved apposite. Rassati I leave you to judge which advice has been useful to you and which obfuscation bordering on manic gibberish. Good luck with whichever bins you decide on and don't forget to drop a line on your thread on CloudyNights.
Oh, and if, as I suspect, you are entering higher education hope that goes well :t:
 

WJC

Well-known member
Yarrellii I thought yout first post was excellent and Royfinn's mention to consider eye relief proved apposite. Rassati I leave you to judge which advice has been useful to you and which obfuscation bordering on manic gibberish. Good luck with whichever bins you decide on and don't forget to drop a line on your thread on CloudyNights.
Oh, and if, as I suspect, you are entering higher education hope that goes well :t:

Hi Norm,

I’ve read with interest, both of your thinly disguised unkind digs at me. Don’t you think that rather than offer unsupported snide remarks, it would be beneficial to your cause and this forum if you would state your own experience or credentials in optics and binoculars? Without doing so, you’re just peeing up a rope.

Doing so might illustrate the validity in your condemning of one who has been in optics professionally for 50 years, who was a Chief Opticalman for the Navy, who has made more than 12,000 binocular repair customers happy, who has taught professors at the University of Arizona’s Optical Sciences Center and the optical engineers of SPIE, has produced 4 books on optics and who for 10 years published an international Optical Journal, and why some of his comments are in the Best Of section of Cloudy Nights? (see attached)

I am not a stranger to people finding tremendous fault with many of my presentations. Thus, you are not alone. I find it odd, however, that most rarely find fault with my data ... just the presentation, for which there is a valid—and honorable—reason.

But then:

“The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who can’t fly.”
— Friedrich Nietzche

Have a great day and, while I will pay no attention to further unsupported criticism, I will be immensely interested in the knowledge you have that allows you to offer it. :cat:

Bill
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2020-08-03 at 2.53.43 PM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2020-08-03 at 2.53.43 PM.jpg
    237.3 KB · Views: 26
Last edited:

Patudo

Well-known member
The math behind the observation that has ruled the roost for more than 100 years is:

Field of view equals the objective diameter in millimeters divided by the magnification. 50mm / 7 = 7.14 degrees.

Bill

... A 7x50 has ~ a 7-degree FOV. A 7x35, 8x40, or 10x50 has ~ a 5-degree FOV. A 20x80 has ~ a 3.7-degree FOV. For practical purposes that’s 4-degrees.

Bill

I think you should write Nikon and ask why their 7x50 has a 6.4-degree field of view when everybody else’s has a 7.1-degree field of view. I think this information would be of interest to the whole forum.

Bill

By the math you presented above, field of view of an 8x32 would be 4 degrees, and an 8x30 3.75 degrees. :cat:

Maybe you should write Nikon and ask how it is that they state the field of view of the 8x32 SE you owned is 7.5 degrees, when "the math behind the observation that has ruled the roost for more than 100 years" says that it should be 4 degrees? That their stated field of view of the 8x30 EII is 8.8 degrees when your math says it should be 3.75? That their stated field of view for their Action EX 7x35 (9.3 degrees) is out - according to your math - by a whopping 4.3 degrees?

Do make sure in your letter to mention your 50-year list of optical achievements, too - just to make the people you're writing to aware that you know what you're talking about...

I think their reply would be of interest to the whole forum. :cat:
 

WJC

Well-known member
By the math you presented above, field of view of an 8x32 would be 4 degrees, and an 8x30 3.75 degrees. :cat:

Maybe you should write Nikon and ask how it is that they state the field of view of the 8x32 SE you owned is 7.5 degrees, when "the math behind the observation that has ruled the roost for more than 100 years" says that it should be 4 degrees? That their stated field of view of the 8x30 EII is 8.8 degrees when your math says it should be 3.75? That their stated field of view for their Action EX 7x35 (9.3 degrees) is out - according to your math - by a whopping 4.3 degrees?

Do make sure in your letter to mention your 50-year list of optical achievements, too - just to make the people you're writing to aware that you know what you're talking about...

I think their reply would be of interest to the whole forum. :cat:

Yes, Patudo, I remember well. As a matter of fact, the following is the first of a letter sent to you last November 11.

*********************

“I think it has been a long time since I’ve seen anyone so bent on a fight ... which I won’t oblige. One of the bad things about most of these forums is that you never know if you speaking to an inexperienced 13-year old, an over-experienced 90-year old, or someone in between with cranial challenges.

“At any rate, I will address your concerns—hopefully for the last time. Being a 10th generation American, I would have thought previous comments would have been sufficient.

“Those who have paid attention know WHY the “bluster” and know I have NOT been, as you say “backpedaling” — not then; not now; not ever...”

********************

But seeing that you seem to have something to prove, I will waste more time answering your latest.

Your concern #1)

I plainly stated in my point 3) in post #21 that my data was only approximations and gave directions to the scientific data. I am not a BB stacking nitnoid and don’t give a whit about certain things that make others lose sleep. The data presented is plenty good enough for me. From what I have seen, there is only one member on BF whose eyes are calibrated to the point that they can tell an 8-degree field of view from an 8.0003415-degree field of view and know the difference relates exclusively to the size of the objective and not some other factor(s).

Your concern #2)

Relates totally to your first concern. I said, “A 20x80 has ~ a 3.7-degree FOV. For practical purposes that’s 4-degrees.” 80 divided by 20 is—drumroll, please—4! And, again, I can check a field of view empirically with my collimator. Yet, the way you have belittled me in the past, I guess I should apologize for even having this device, considering that just having it makes me somehow an arrogant, condescending person.

Your concern #3)

Just to make people know that I know what I’m talking about. You are correct there. There are some people who have a sick desire to make others think they know much more about optics that they really do. This can cost the unwary a minimum of time and a maximum of money. Some of these people have learned that those who can string 3 coherent sentences can easily raise themselves to the rank of an expert. Right or wrong, I try to step into the breach. I could name 3 such who were once here but are now building their egos by plying their craft over on brand X.

I do what I do to be taken seriously, to speak to be heard over the din of the endless opinionators. Knowing high blood pressure can clean out your arteries, I thought I would do you a favor by offering you the following.

 First professional binocular repair: Sept 10, 1970
 Joined Navy as an Opticalman after leaving college: June 1974
 Served aboard USS Grand Canyon until May 1978
 Senior Optical Tech Bostrom-Brady Surveying Instruments: 1978
 Optical Mechanic, WG-11, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard: 1981
 Joined Naval Reserves as Second Class Opticalman: 1983
 Created and managed the Optical Instrument Repair Facility for the 123-year old Captain’s Nautical Supplies, in Seattle. Doing opto-navigational instrument repair for the Navy, Coast Guard, NOAA, Alaskan fishing fleet, and the general public: 1987
 Became the top of Zeiss’s US non-warranty repair facility: 1990
 Imported Cory Suddarth from Florida to help me catch up my optical repair work in 1990. Although he is recognized as a world-class optical repair tech, when I hired him, he had been out of optics for over 10 years.
 Was interviewed for the entire business section of the Herald of Everett, Washington, a city 30 mile north of my shop in Seattle: June 1991.
 Only Opticalman First Class promoted to Chief Opticalman: 1991
 Selected Chief Opticalman to head SIMA San Diego (Ships Intermediate Maintenance Activity): 1991 (Reserves)
 Verified design specs for University of Chicago’s 24-inch f/10 Cassegrain telescope, bound for Antarctica and the university’s “CARA Project”: 1991
 Editor of international optical engineering and telescope making magazine, ATM Journal, ISSN 1074:2697: 1991
 Designed Cook-Houghton Telescope. Design packaged with ZEMAX, the most popular professional lens design software: 1993
 Designed “Captain’s Baywatch Telescope,” an all-brass refracting telescope that has sold all over the globe and generated almost $1,000,000 ... by word of mouth: 1993
 Produced two 450-page optical books from the best of the ATMJ articles. These were requested from me by publisher Willmann-Bell: 1994
 Increased writing articles on optics and optical instruments: 1994
 Honorable Discharge for Naval Reserve, Chief Opticalman: 1995
 Admitted to the American Society of Journalists and Authors, which is only open to those with a track record of being published consistently: 2004
 Had a stroke and, at 21 years with Captain’s, retired from there: 2008
By request, joined the optical / night-vision repair team at Ft. Lewis, WA: 2008
 Started working with ophthalmic optics for the Department of Defense: 2012
 Retired from daily work with optics: 2015

Do you think there are enough people associated with the above who could verify I know what I'm talking about? Your turn; share your list.

And whether YOU like it or not, I would do what I do as much for your benefit as anyone else. Furthermore, I would like, very much, to be your friend. To this point, however, the price is too high for me. But I will leave you in charge. If you are so opposed to me, just create a thread in which you ask me to leave BF. If you do this, I will disappear for at least 90 days, perhaps longer without squawk or appeal. The ball is in your court. :cat:

"Seize on the truth, where'er tis found
On Christian, or on heathen ground
Among our friends; among our foes
Neglect the prickle and assume the rose.
"
—Rev. Isaac Watts,
Nickerbocker Magazine, New York, Oct. 1836

Bill
 

Attachments

  • O'GARA 1992 180312 copy 3.jpg
    O'GARA 1992 180312 copy 3.jpg
    223.6 KB · Views: 23
  • Screen Shot 2020-07-13 at 5.22.26 PM copy.jpg
    Screen Shot 2020-07-13 at 5.22.26 PM copy.jpg
    202.3 KB · Views: 27
  • Screen Shot 2018-05-10 at 10.07.00 AM copy 3.jpg
    Screen Shot 2018-05-10 at 10.07.00 AM copy 3.jpg
    245.9 KB · Views: 26
Last edited:

Patudo

Well-known member
Your concern #1)

I plainly stated in my point 3) in post #21 that my data was only approximations and gave directions to the scientific data. I am not a BB stacking nitnoid and don’t give a whit about certain things that make others lose sleep. The data presented is plenty good enough for me. From what I have seen, there is only one member on BF whose eyes are calibrated to the point that they can tell an 8-degree field of view from an 8.0003415-degree field of view and know the difference relates exclusively to the size of the objective and not some other factor(s).

Your concern #2)

... And, again, I can check a field of view empirically with my collimator.

Bill

You plainly stated, in so many words, in your post #8 that:

The math behind the observation that has ruled the roost for more than 100 years is:

Field of view equals the objective diameter in millimeters divided by the magnification. 50mm / 7 = 7.14 degrees.

Since you have a collimator, please check the field of view of your 8x32 SE, empirically, and let us know whether it's 7.5 degrees, as stated by Nikon, or 4 degrees, as your "Field of view equals the objective diameter in millimeters divided by the magnification" says it should be.

If your 8x32 SE accords to the Nikon specs (Allbinos found their example of the 10x42 SE in spec), either:

  • a difference of over 45% between the official spec (7.5 degrees) and what you say it should be (4 degrees) is "BB stacking nitnoid" territory, or;

  • your "math behind the observation that has ruled the roost for more than 100 years" is quite simply er... wrong. :cat:
 
Last edited:

WJC

Well-known member
You plainly stated, in so many words, in your post #8 that:



Since you have a collimator, please check the field of view of your 8x32 SE, empirically, and let us know whether it's 7.5 degrees, as stated by Nikon, or 4 degrees, as your "Field of view equals the objective diameter in millimeters divided by the magnification" says it should be.

If your 8x32 SE accords to the Nikon specs (Allbinos found their example of the 10x42 SE in spec), either:

  • a difference of over 45% between the official spec (7.5 degrees) and what you say it should be (4 degrees) is "BB stacking nitnoid" territory, or;
  • your "math behind the observation that has ruled the roost for more than 100 years" is quite simply er... wrong. :cat:

200804

Well, that’s better; thank you. My comment was correct if you’re not getting into BB stacking minutia. I thoroughly understand that I represent a dichotomy. On one hand, I stand for accuracy and “truth in advertising.” At the same time, I use “minutia,” “BB stacking,” and the like to point out what I CONSIDER things that are inconsequential wastes of time that certain subjects are driven into the ground through seemingly never-ending misunderstanding.

Patudo, we are all products of our environment and experiences. Please have a little mercy on me by trying to understand.

Several times a week for 21 years at Captain’s I would be on the optics sales floor as an inexperienced optics shopper was there with his local optical “expert” who dominated the conversation with facts THAT WEREN’T. My nerves were raw. I wanted the shopper to know what was important to his or her viewing experience and what was not. [One such situation is attached] But I was forced to be wedged between trying to be kind and politically correct and see to it that my customer got the best information.

I’ve seen bird watchers—in by themselves—“try out” the same two binoculars for 2 to 3 hours, knowing it was a tremendous waste of time and that should they do that in another store they would be sending a message to the salesperson that they were ripe for the picking.

With a large customer base of commercial fishermen, I spent hours trying to expose the “auto-focus” fraud that Steiner started and competing with people who only knew what some dubious article had told them to believe. Then, there was getting people to understand that Leupold didn’t “manufacture” binoculars and getting them to learn there was no consumer line of binoculars made in America. I’m still fighting that one. “I know there ARE! Meopta is made in Florida.” Yes, Meopta has a facility in Florida. But no binoculars are produced there. They’re developing AR coatings; that’s all. And through an interview, our own Lee has verified this. Next, we try to get people to understand that a “night glass” is NOT the same as a "night-vision” instrument or that IS instruments temper short-term vibrations and not “pitch and roll” as some articles and conversations portray.

This list could be MUCH larger, but I hope you get the picture. The second attachment will illustrate what I have endured so many times while trying to protect the observer from himself or herself. I hope you will develop a little pity for what I try to do. You seem hell-bent on bringing me down. Well, I have never professed to be infallible. Just last month I was corrected twice within one week! I make mistakes and often misspeak. Whether as the result of the stroke or just being stupid, I rarely know.

But I will never lie to you and, in my own way, I’m trying to raise the bar of understanding. Sadly, I’m not always understood. Yet, I’ll stay the course. I believe everyone who draws a breath should strive to leave the planet a little better than he found it. There are so few ways I can do this.

“In seeking truth, you have to get both sides of a story.” — Walter Cronkite

Please TRY to understand mine.

Cheers,

Bill

PS Tomorrow, I will put my SE on the collimator and report to you.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2020-08-04 at 10.54.06 AM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2020-08-04 at 10.54.06 AM.jpg
    155.4 KB · Views: 27
  • Screen Shot 2020-08-04 at 11.28.07 AM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2020-08-04 at 11.28.07 AM.jpg
    283.3 KB · Views: 26

WJC

Well-known member
Hi Patudo.

As promised, I put my 8x32 Nikon SE on the collimator. The stated field of view was 7.5 degrees, or 7 degrees and 30 minutes. The actual was 7 degrees and 23 minutes. Was the difference of 7 minutes due to the size of the objective lens or the size of the field stop? And, did it really matter? To me, no! Human error is always a possibility. I once restored a Carl Zeiss binocular that had a field lens with 1mm of wedge. There were only two places where that could have occurred, the factory or as the result of a desperate repair technician replacing a lost or damaged lens with a lens KNOWN to be faulty—at least if he were observant enough or cared enough.

Now that I have verified your observation or contention, will you offer me the same consideration?

Somewhere on here, I placed a URL where one could find the doctrine to calculate a binocular’s angular field of view. Did it not take several webpages to explain?

“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.”
— Albert Einstein

Even when I was in the market for a new binocular, I didn’t feel the need to go to the store with a slide rule, calculator, or laptop with a spreadsheet. Not being a nitnoid, I felt the objective lens in millimeters divided by the magnification was adequate for me and required nothing more than a tiny bit of thinking power. Of course, as Rob from Galveston Bay has pointed out, the objective in millimeters divided by the magnification gives the size of the exit pupil in millimeters. BUT, is that all? Shouldn’t the exit pupil be a miniature of the entrance pupil? In addition, I don’t ever recall looking through a bino and thinking, “This field of view is too small"; I would simply move on to another instrument.

Attached is a shot of the right backplate of a binocular I have in for repair. It’s a 10x50 and the manufacturer plainly says it has a 5-degree field of view which, of course, was MY take on the matter from the start and which caused this brouhaha in the first place.

As I pointed out previously, an objective lens CAN provide a HUGE field of view ... if there are optics or film to capture it. But in speaking solely about binoculars, there are limitations based on the size of the field stop before the field lens and restrictions in the ocular. This is why there are some binoculars with a SMALL hi-res field of view and others with a HUGE field of view, the outer 50% of which is of considerably lower quality. The engineer works for the supervisor, who works for the manager, who works for the CEO, who works for the consumer, and what the engineer has told him CAN be done and what financial wizards have told him the consumer WILL be willing to pay for.

The Nikon 8x32 SE (and other expensive binoculars) may beat my observations to a pulp. But how did they do it? With larger field stops and superior optics $$$$$ that allow that to happen. But will you not admit that there are far more binoculars in the world with fields that more closely resemble the approximations I have offered ... BB stacking precise or not?

Considering you’ve found fault with me more than once; I don’t expect you buy into any of this. But don’t I deserve to have my own opinions? After all, bino forums are built on such. I think through my time in optics I deserve that right. I have admitted that working through the artifacts of a stroke I make mistakes and have episodes of MISSPEAK and that correcting real errors bring me pleasure in that I will either learn more for myself or better learn how to explain some concepts to others. And I will continue doing the best I can.

I have tried to write this post as the desired Snowflake. Now, may a please go back to putting my curmudgeon hat on. More folks appreciate that than you know.

Still wanting to be your friend, :cat:

Bill
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2020-08-05 at 9.59.48 AM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2020-08-05 at 9.59.48 AM.jpg
    158.4 KB · Views: 27
Last edited:

NDhunter

Experienced observer
United States
I would prefer a binocular made by Nikon over Celestron. Nikon has been making optics and cameras
for over 100 years. They make some of the best optics available in all price ranges.

Jerry
 

WJC

Well-known member
I would prefer a binocular made by Nikon over Celestron. Nikon has been making optics and cameras
for over 100 years. They make some of the best optics available in all price ranges.

Jerry

And these days, 100% of Celestron's bino inventory comes off-the-shelf from China and the company has NEVER "MADE" A BINOCULAR. Nikon is heavily into rebranding and some Chinese companies have the interest and ability to produce binoculars that will go toe to toe with Europe's best. If YOU have the money, THEY have the product. But you must choose wisely. :cat:

Bill
 
Last edited:

Patudo

Well-known member
As promised, I put my 8x32 Nikon SE on the collimator. The stated field of view was 7.5 degrees, or 7 degrees and 30 minutes. The actual was 7 degrees and 23 minutes.

Thanks for confirming that your 8x32 SE's field of view is - as expected - far closer to Nikon's spec of 7.5 degrees than the 4 degrees that your "Field of view equals the objective diameter in millimeters divided by the magnification" says it should be.

You have stated:

My comment was correct if you’re not getting into BB stacking minutia.

Well, the difference between your SE's field of view (7.4 degrees, as measured by yourself) and the figure given by your "math behind the observation that has ruled the roost for more than 100 years" - 3.4 degrees - is over 45% of the binocular's field of view. So tell us:


  • Is 45% a percentage that only BB stacking nitnoids need be concerned about? Or...

  • Could it be that the formula you provided - "Field of view equals the objective diameter in millimeters divided by the magnification" - is either less than helpful (I'm putting it very mildly here...), or might actually be the result of human error on your part? :cat:

But will you not admit that there are far more binoculars in the world with fields that more closely resemble the approximations I have offered ... BB stacking precise or not?

Are there many 8x32 with 4 degree fields of view? 8x30 with 3.75 degree fields of view? 10x42 with 4.2 degree fields of view? 10x30 with 3 degree fields of view? I'm not aware of many, or indeed any - but I'll be the first to admit I haven't worked on thousands of binoculars. Maybe you could list some examples?

But don’t I deserve to have my own opinions? I think through my time in optics I deserve that right.

You're welcome to hold whatever opinions you wish - far be it for me, or anyone else, to prevent you from doing so. But if Denco, say, had come out with a statement like "Field of view equals the objective diameter in millimeters divided by the magnification", he would have been absolutely, pitilessly, and delightedly crucified. Is there any reason why exactly the same statement, coming from you, should not be questioned?

I have admitted that working through the artifacts of a stroke I make mistakes and have episodes of MISSPEAK and that correcting real errors bring me pleasure...

Perhaps, if you had admitted much earlier in the thread that your "math behind the observation that has ruled the roost for more than 100 years" was one such mistake, you might have saved yourself typing out those hundreds of words (and hundreds more to come, no doubt) of prevarication and posturing...
 
Last edited:

WJC

Well-known member
Patudo,

I needed to read only the first snippet above to see that you are not only one of those who can read faster than you can reason. Your last list of endless contentions illustrates that you have a problem with reading too.

More than once, I have thoroughly explained my reasoning on this matter—including offering graphics—and have sincerely extended the hand of fellowship to you. Yet, apparently, you have such an elevated opinion of optical knowledge, past and present, that you’re above dealing with know-nothings like me. I invited you to present your credentials and experience in optics that we may all understand why you seemingly want to contradict and persecute me. I guess that list didn't come because reading posts on bino forums full of errors and speculations don't count for much.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” — Theodore Roosevelt :cat:

Bill
 
Last edited:

Patudo

Well-known member
Patudo,

You are full of yourself aren't you, I never liked you from day one, and only don't wish you the best.

Andy W.

dries1, do you think that "Field of view equals the objective diameter in millimeters divided by the magnification" is helpful in figuring out what the field of view of a binocular might be - especially the most popular formats such as 8x32/30, 8x42/40, 10x42/40, 10x32/30?

If yes, why so?

If not, why not?
 

NDhunter

Experienced observer
United States
Thanks for confirming that your 8x32 SE's field of view is - as expected - far closer to Nikon's spec of 7.5 degrees than the 4 degrees that your "Field of view equals the objective diameter in millimeters divided by the magnification" says it should be.

You have stated:



Well, the difference between your SE's field of view (7.4 degrees, as measured by yourself) and the figure given by your "math behind the observation that has ruled the roost for more than 100 years" - 3.4 degrees - is over 45% of the binocular's field of view. So tell us:


  • Is 45% a percentage that only BB stacking nitnoids need be concerned about? Or...

  • Could it be that the formula you provided - "Field of view equals the objective diameter in millimeters divided by the magnification" - is either less than helpful (I'm putting it very mildly here...), or might actually be the result of human error on your part? :cat:



Are there many 8x32 with 4 degree fields of view? 8x30 with 3.75 degree fields of view? 10x42 with 4.2 degree fields of view? 10x30 with 3 degree fields of view? I'm not aware of many, or indeed any - but I'll be the first to admit I haven't worked on thousands of binoculars. Maybe you could list some examples?



You're welcome to hold whatever opinions you wish - far be it for me, or anyone else, to prevent you from doing so. But if Denco, say, had come out with a statement like "Field of view equals the objective diameter in millimeters divided by the magnification", he would have been absolutely, pitilessly, and delightedly crucified. Is there any reason why exactly the same statement, coming from you, should not be questioned?



Perhaps, if you had admitted much earlier in the thread that your "math behind the observation that has ruled the roost for more than 100 years" was one such mistake, you might have saved yourself typing out those hundreds of words (and hundreds more to come, no doubt) of prevarication and posturing...

Patudoo:

You seem to be in a foul mood, and like to argue quite a bit.

The mods. on this forum seem to be quite active. I do hope you don't get a warning.....
But since you are from London, that should cut you a break....;)

Jerry
 

WJC

Well-known member
Patudoo:

You seem to be in a foul mood, and like to argue quite a bit.

The mods. on this forum seem to be quite active. I do hope you don't get a warning.....
But since you are from London, that should cut you a break....;)

Jerry


I have removed my last post and chosen instead to replace it with this one because I realized that Patudo, ignoring my reasoning (which wasn’t up to his version) was not listening to me, and that I was beginning to lower myself to his standards of communication, which I found the equivalent of wrecking the car to turn the radio off. Heck, I need to repent for even allowing myself to approach that level.

— More than once I’ve explained my reason for the APPROXIMATING of non-essential data.
— How that information—back up with photographic evidence—applies to more binoculars than he is willing to admit.
— Leaving no doubt, to a rational thinker, I’ve clearly stated my belief that the matter dealt with non-essential data.
— I see no reason for my opinions to be something less than his because he refuses to see them.
— More than once I’ve tried to bury the hatchet and asked to be his friend, all in vain.

Thus, in order to please his ego and make him happy, I feel I must slit my throat and, in blood, scribble my belief that he alone is the undisputed king of all things optical and binocular. :cat:

Bill
 
Last edited:

Ries

Well-known member
Netherlands
I'm amazed at how far mods here let a new member's innocent question derail into an egoclash. The off topics here are often as much fun as the topic itself, but this has been far from funny for quite long now. What must such a new member think?!
 

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Gentlemen

Personal comments have no place on Birdforum. Kindly calm down and treat each other with respect.

Lee
Moderator
 

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Taken from Celestron Knowledge Base: https://www.celestron.com/blogs/knowledgebase/what-is-exit-pupil-and-eye-relief-for-sport-optics

"Exit pupil size is calculated by dividing the objective lens size by the magnification power. For example: You want to know the exit pupil of an 8x42 binocular. 42mm / 8 = 5.25mm".

Quotation from 'Optics for Hunting and Nature Observation', published by Zeiss, Wetzlar, 2011, Section 1.5 Field of View, Sub-section 'Specification of the field of view' Page 20: "The field of view cannot be calculated from the pure type designation (e.g. 10x42) but are specified by the optical design. The size of the prism and eyepiece in particular determine which angles can pass through the binoculars. The objective lens diameter does not affect this, it only influences the brightness".

Lee
Moderator
 
Last edited:

Kammerdiner

Well-known member
Good to know that FOV is now non-essential data. 8-P

I just remembered that my first good bino was a Pentax 8x42 DCF WP with a FOV of 330'. The new 8x42 NL comes in at 477'. It doesn't take a nitnoid to care about THAT difference! Yikes!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top