I was surprised with the depth of field of the 12 x 42 NL, but IMO is in no way as good as that with the 8x42nl.
With bright sunlight, the differences are still there, but less.
Last edited:
-
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.
Focuser smoothness on NL Pure? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter moshc
- Start date
With bright sunlight, the differences are still there, but less.
Okay, I follow you, but I'll have to think about whether I agree with your conclusion that one appreciates a wider field the farther one is from the object being viewed.
dries1
Member
"Don't forget that the 12x42 will have far less DOF than the 10x42. That's the reason why I would never use a 12x42 as my main binocular.
If you want to see a lot more details, get a scope".
Hermann
I am in agreement with the statement from Hermann.
jcnguyen09
Well-known member
Thanks for the interesting debate! I just revised the original text "excellent depth of field for an 12x format..." that way other members who later read the message don't confuse and feel that this guy probably doesn't know what he is talking about like Dries1 has thought!
Baby Doc and Maljunulo, this may help your above conversation re FOV, angles and triangles... This a spread sheet, from this spring, where I was thinking about modern choices and wanting a more realistic take of FOV. Col G-J was for giggles, as I hadn't played with trig in awhile and wanted to demonstrate that simple percent works just fine, (col C&K).
As well, I rambled on in a not to coherent way here couple days ago,
As well, I rambled on in a not to coherent way here couple days ago,
Swarovski Swarovision EL 10x42 vs Zeiss Victory SF 10x42
see #13
Last edited:
Or Option C... Maven 18x56 on a tripod or window pan head... razor thin DOF, but not too thin for birding and hunting.
Very cool! Thank you for sharing!
There is no place for this kind of rude and aggressive posting on Birdforum.Baby:
I have experience with several 12x binoculars. Your claim of special things going on with the Swaovski NL 12x42 are largely
BS, in other words nonsense. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it......
Jerry
Lee
MODERATOR
Sorry Grampa, if you consider that a "simplification" you and I do not use the same words to mean or describe the same things.
It is an angle, pure and simple. If one insists on terms like "3D field of view" (which I have seen) it is a cone, the apex angle of which is quoted as FoV, with all the properties of every other cone. Obviously the farther from the apex you transect any cone, the larger the resultant circle will be. I think that is what you are getting at, but I can't be sure.
Last edited:
Maljunulo,
Wasn't aware I'd used the word simplification, either above or in the linked thread. Checked, dont see it. I think the answer to your question is in the chart which calculated linear FOV at 50 yards (2 ways*) and square area at the same distance combined with the small crude chart i typed into the EL vs SF thread #13, quoted, above, that used 100 yards.
Excerpted from the latter at 100 yards, heres FOV and square area.
--------------FOV---------Sq Area---% bigger than EL
EL 1042------33.6'--------887sf------- -
SF 1042----- 36'----------1018sf-------15%
Nl 1042------39.9'--------1250sf-------41%
From the attached chart in #127 above, here's the data for 50 yards, without the SF 1042 as that seems not so relevant to your question, wasn't part of the thinking for that chart, and I'm feeling lazy.
--------------FOV---------Sq Area
EL 1042------16.8'--------221.7sf
Nl 1042------19.95'-------312.6sf
As to terms that others like to use like "3D Field of View," I get and share your confusion. Nor do I see how that relates to this bit of math. You can see you are correct as you go from 50 to 100 both the linear FOV and Square Area do get bigger. A diagram of this attempting to depict the idea, would reveal a cone. But we dont see a cone looking through a bino, right? We see a circle. Im less excited about the apparent slam dunk of square area over the common, industry used, FOV. I get the numbers are sure impressive, but as I tried to write in that ramble, the whole idea of square area as a 100% of the time used thing is less clear. This latter doesnt impact your question in 131, though.
*to the chart. Column E is 50 yard square area, the thing you were asking about. Columns C and K are the linear FOV adjusted to 50 and 100 yards, from Col B/1000 yards). Columns G-J as I wrote, were done for the fun of it, as I hadn't played with trigonometry in a while, and wanted to show that trig and simple percentage were essentially the same. See Col C and Col J. The difference here is from rounding off.
You wrote, the apex angle of which is quoted as FoV. That's correct it is the "apex" angle, (aka eyeball). But as we have FOV commonly used - the linear thing. This would then be angular FOV. (see col G).
Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss more.
Wasn't aware I'd used the word simplification, either above or in the linked thread. Checked, dont see it. I think the answer to your question is in the chart which calculated linear FOV at 50 yards (2 ways*) and square area at the same distance combined with the small crude chart i typed into the EL vs SF thread #13, quoted, above, that used 100 yards.
Excerpted from the latter at 100 yards, heres FOV and square area.
--------------FOV---------Sq Area---% bigger than EL
EL 1042------33.6'--------887sf------- -
SF 1042----- 36'----------1018sf-------15%
Nl 1042------39.9'--------1250sf-------41%
From the attached chart in #127 above, here's the data for 50 yards, without the SF 1042 as that seems not so relevant to your question, wasn't part of the thinking for that chart, and I'm feeling lazy.
--------------FOV---------Sq Area
EL 1042------16.8'--------221.7sf
Nl 1042------19.95'-------312.6sf
As to terms that others like to use like "3D Field of View," I get and share your confusion. Nor do I see how that relates to this bit of math. You can see you are correct as you go from 50 to 100 both the linear FOV and Square Area do get bigger. A diagram of this attempting to depict the idea, would reveal a cone. But we dont see a cone looking through a bino, right? We see a circle. Im less excited about the apparent slam dunk of square area over the common, industry used, FOV. I get the numbers are sure impressive, but as I tried to write in that ramble, the whole idea of square area as a 100% of the time used thing is less clear. This latter doesnt impact your question in 131, though.
*to the chart. Column E is 50 yard square area, the thing you were asking about. Columns C and K are the linear FOV adjusted to 50 and 100 yards, from Col B/1000 yards). Columns G-J as I wrote, were done for the fun of it, as I hadn't played with trigonometry in a while, and wanted to show that trig and simple percentage were essentially the same. See Col C and Col J. The difference here is from rounding off.
You wrote, the apex angle of which is quoted as FoV. That's correct it is the "apex" angle, (aka eyeball). But as we have FOV commonly used - the linear thing. This would then be angular FOV. (see col G).
Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss more.
Last edited:
Loud Green Man
Well-known member
Whether he has or not allow me to confirm, with 100% certainty, that the viewing experience will be enhanced by a similar degree if one deploys a single eye-level length stick to support said bins.
Even 15-power may be ‘controlled’ by this simple method of stabilisation and at zero cost if you live near woodland.
K
Could you post a photo showing how this is done? Does the stick rest on your shoulder while the binoculars loosely rest on the stick?
Do you imagine your stick will work better at stabilization than the optional head rest? Thanks.
BabyDoc, I believe Loud Green Man is suggesting an experiment to sample the benefit of a monopod, via an appropriate sized stick found on the ground. Something that would be from the ground to your eye level. Not only will this entail finding said stick but also some way to actually hold the binos at the top in a stable way, which may take some futzing. FYI, check out B&H for monopods. They are potentially a more handy alternative to a tripod and do take the same bino holders we've talked about...
Loud Green Man
Well-known member
Hi
I will happily put up a picture to demonstrate the ‘hold’ I adopt. The only downside is that after many years of deploying the bins in this fashion you might notice light marking on the side of objective armouring that is in light contact with the stick. This of course might be mitigated by slipping a length of cycle intertube of stitched leather over the stick in question.
I do not rest the bins in a V shaped cradle at the top of the stick.
I’m convinced this will deliver significant improvement over use of the NL’s headrest and suggest physics supports (no pun intended) my view.
LGM
Troubadoris and I use walking poles to keep us steady when exploring the coasts of Scotland and I have many times used my pole to steady my binos or my DSLR simply by letting my left hand grip both the pole (somewhere down its length, as appropriate) and instrument. It is not as steady as a tripod of course but it can be of great help, for example when sitting down and observing bird or otter behaviour for an extended period, I can reduce shoulder and arm fatigue by telescoping the walking pole to a shorter length and using it to steady my binos and also to support my arms. Using the walking pole for this just means I don't have to carry an additional item such as a genuine photographic monopod, so it is an effective solution. The pole isn't long enough for me to stand upright with it but sitting on a rock or wall or on the ground is usually possible.
Lee
