Is there an optimum FOV, or is bigger always better? (1 Viewer)

[dries1]

There seems to be a bit of fov obsession going around at the moment, its how the top marques are differentiating their top models from lesser ones - wide, flat, c.a free but not necessarily ultimately bright field of views.

I don't mind a wide field of view but all the glass involved contorting light this way and that as well as the inherent need for either a fair amount of pincushion distortion or Rolling ball is the price you pay along with the weight of the glass itself for these wide, flat fields.

I'm on the fence as to whether it's worth it or to be more specific how much compromise is worth is. There is something lost along the way that's hard to pin down but when I was comparing my habicht 7x42 with my SLC and even my e2 8x30 there is certainly something lost as well as gained.

I remember watching a grey heron flying off through my 7x42 habichts and it was so clear, so sharp, reality bright and just natural, but 7x closer. My other glass is great but not quite the same, slightly less natural, it can be harder to navigate a scene to a point of interest - the scene isn't as similar to the one you see with your eyes, there is more of it though which helps tip the balance back.

I don't have quite the same impression with more "advanced" binoculars packed full of glass, it's different, not necessarily better or worse. Objectively though they are surely better, empirically better too all of which must help sales but qualitatively, I'm not so sure.

I suppose what I'm saying is there is a degree of trade off, how much is too much? That's up to you.

Here's a small section of the world through my old habichts, narrow, blurry at the edges but nice!View attachment 1499202

Will

Now that is a view, who cares what you are looking through.

 

[William Lewis]

This is a general statement and observation, not directed at anyone.

It seems to me that many, if not most, of those who pose the question “Is this worth it?“ have already decided the answer is “no”.

Again, just an observation.

Quite correct, a curated selection of musings and ruminations. My answer to the question of the thread.

I use a bins of 8x magnification with 156m at 1000m and 133m at 1000m so I suppose that's where I stand, my answer must probably be yes, sometimes.

 

[GrampaTom]

Oooh Tom get well soon!
I hope everything grows well again?!

Andreas

Oh, thanks Andreas. In the past now. Missed 6 weeks of the migration, but was back at it as soon as out of the "boot," and able to drive.

 

[Trinovid]

It seems to me that many, if not most, of those who pose the question “Is this worth it?“ have already decided the answer is “no”.

I think that's spot on for a lot of shoppers, but then there's guys like me who are pretty new to all this and are looking for input from users like you who can actually help guide us through the wilderness so to speak. I've learned a lot here and have confidence in some areas, but feel totally clueless on some issues discussed here.

Then there's the guys looking for justifications to tell their wife about why they bought another binocular...

 

[Maljunulo]

Lee and a couple others here know I busted my ankle while birding several months ago.

That’s no reason to stop, as long as you still have another one.

 

[Brink]

There seems to be a bit of fov obsession going around at the moment, its how the top marques are differentiating their top models from lesser ones - wide, flat, c.a free but not necessarily ultimately bright field of views.

It isn’t the first time: This was certainly the case through the 60s and later when various companies were selling Japanese-made wide angle binoculars; the wider the better. There is a site (Christmas.musetechnical.com) that has all the old Sears catalogs. They are really cool to look at, and the wide angle obsession is pretty apparent in the binocular ads (standard angle<wide angle<extra wide<super wide)

I have a very good condition set of sears 7x35 extra wides and they are great. You’d be surprised how well they perform (as long as you don’t wear eyeglasses). I hope to someday stumble upon some super wides.

 

[Binocollector]

Holy moly, those edges are fuzzy! I can't believe I used to carry a Habicht! That would be 2x as big and sharp to the edge in an NL.

You do realize that not everything in that image has the same distance to the viewer, right?
It seems you see fuzzy edges everywhere, even when they are clearly not there.
And you also seem to think that every bird will just keep the same distance to you all the time. Otherwise a flat field would make not much sense.
It's useful for astronomy, not so much for birding, even though you have found your grail. Which is nice but that doesn't mean you constantly have to criticise other people's choices and think only the stuff that you like this month is the be all end all of binos.
Not everyone sees fuzzy edges -- especially not when stuff doesn't always keep the same distance. Which birds as well as scenery tends not to do. Nature doesn't "build in straight lines".
Might be nice for looking at architecture though to have no field curvature (as well as no pincushion distortion).

 

[Maljunulo]

I definitely enjoyed swiveling my eyeballs around to look a different part of the field in my EL SV 10X42.

That doesn’t work very well with the Zeiss 8X32 I have now, although it seems to work better after two years of use.

I have no idea why.

 

[John M Robinson]

I definitely enjoyed swiveling my eyeballs around to look a different part of the field in my EL SV 10X42.

That doesn’t work very well with the Zeiss 8X32 I have now, although it seems to work better after two years of use.

I have no idea why.

My 7x35 have a nice big, sharp to the edge view, and sometimes I have fun moving my eye around inside, trying to look edge to edge. That said, it’s really not a practical viewing technique for me, I find moving the binocular is much easier on my eye.

 

[Trinovid]

My 7x35 have a nice big, sharp to the edge view, and sometimes I have fun moving my eye around inside, trying to look edge to edge. That said, it’s really not a practical viewing technique for me, I find moving the binocular is much easier on my eye.

When I first became acquainted with the idea of moving my eyes around within the view of my binoculars I gave it a try. Well, that was a little bit interesting, but mostly annoying.
With my 14x Hastings triplet loupe being sharp all the way to the edges is fantastic, but even though they’re both optical aids, binoculars and loupes deserve to be treated differently. While I am spoiled by the crystal clear perfection of the image from my Bausch & Lomb loupe, it doesn’t even get noticed by me in my imperfect Leicas.
Loupes for me are about clinical observation, while binoculars are all about temporal enjoyment of the view. Hence, serious birders may likely prefer clinical perfection moreso than someone like myself who is more interested in a lovely view with great detail, saturation, and yes, deliberately short depth of view.
Dang, gotta hurry up and get that 12x50 Ultravid!

 

[Binocollector]

So back on topic (why do I so often click "show ignored content"? I should really stop doing that ).
I got out some of my wide angle porros and compared a few of them.
From 11°, 7x35, to 8x30, 10°, 7x35 with 10.5°, etc.
A factor that I think has not been mentioned is prism size -- but that is mostly irrelevant for modern roofs.
It is very obvious however for porros. The 11°, 7x35 is a real monster. It handles just fine for me but I have large hands.
I have a tiny Optolyth 8x30 with a smallish FoV which is very light-weight, so ideal for taking on hikes or strolls through the city. I think it has around 450gr.
The suprise was a humble old Tasco 7x35 with 10.5° according to specs.
It offered one of the most balanced views of the porro EWAs that I own. The field stop is still visible, eye-relief is good enough so my eyelashes don't touch the glass, field curvature as well as pincushion are kept at low levels that don't interfere with a balanced view. On some models the pincushion distortion is so high, when you constantly switch between things near you and farther out, the edges of the FoV bend up and down. Can be irritating for some people who might get seasick.
The obvious effect of the largest FoV models is the degradation of the edges to a point where even I think it might no longer be all that useful to increase it even further. I never looked through one of the old 12.5°, 7x35 models, for example sold under the "Sears" brand. Those were never sold in europe. The 7x35 EWAs are rare.
And even between 10.5 and 11° there is a noticable increase in size of the bino itself.
Another great model is my Kamakura-made 8x40 with quick focus and 157m/1,000m -- so around 9° FoV. It is also pretty well balanced when it comes to pincushion and field curvature. Also rather bright compared to some older models, even though it seems to have single coatings.
So long story short -- for the old porros, I think between 9° and 10.5° seems to be a sweetspot for me, considering the balance between curvature, pincushion, eye relief, as well as size of the bino itself.
Some pics of the porros I compared. You can easily see the size difference of the ones with the largest FoV to the models with a more moderate FoV.
The two with the largest FoV are on top. The "Olympia" on the left has 210m/1,000m but the edges do degrade rather severely.
It still is a nice view though.
As mentioned before, only the inner 2° of our personal FoV is actually sharp. Movement can be noticed just as well with "fuzzy edges" and the bino then recentered.
I still love my flat-field models that I bought for stargazing.
But these old porros just have a certain, je ne sais quoi. The sharpness in the center, the 3D-effect (do people still remember when Dennis was all about the 3D-view of his Nikons? Fuzzy edges be damned), the handling. I love all of them.
But do I miss the wider FoV when using my beloved Fuji HC 8x42 with a measly 8°? Not really.


11° "Adler" vs. 10.5° Tasco.

 

[quincy88]

I don't know that there is an optimum for me, but there is a point where additional field isn't the deciding factor. The modern very wide fields of the SFs and NLs are appreciated (I've owned the 10x42s of both), but I've traded both of them in for UVs which has ergonomics and a form factor that I much prefer. I like wide fields, but other considerations factor in heavily.
It would be the deciding factor going the other way though. The UVs field is 70% the area of the NLs in the 10x42 configuration. Another step down to 70% of the UVs field would make for an unacceptably narrow field binocular today, and I would not consider it regardless of other factors.

 

[John M Robinson]

I don't know that there is an optimum for me, but there is a point where additional field isn't the deciding factor. The modern very wide fields of the SFs and NLs are appreciated (I've owned the 10x42s of both), but I've traded both of them in for UVs which has ergonomics and a form factor that I much prefer. I like wide fields, but other considerations factor in heavily.
It would be the deciding factor going the other way though. The UVs field is 70% the area of the NLs in the 10x42 configuration. Another step down to 70% of the UVs field would make for an unacceptably narrow field binocular today, and I would not consider it regardless of other factors.

Very good points and well stated.

 

[Maljunulo]

…….. my answer must probably be yes, sometimes.

That sounds like the equivalent of a definite maybe.

 

[Trinovid]

That sounds like the equivalent of a definite maybe.

That's exactly what it means, probably...

 

[MarylandUSA]

I buy only reverse porros; their objectives are no larger than 30mm. In binoculars that small, a large apparent field of view comes with big tradeoffs.

I've bought three big-AFOV reverse porros: A 7x25 Bushnell Ensign with a 9.3-degree FOV; a 9x25 Bausch and Lomb Legacy with a 7.3-degree FOV; and an 8x30 Bushnell Off Trail with an 8-degree FOV. All three lack contrast. The Bushnel 8x30 and B&L9x25 are less resolving. And the Bushnell 7x25 and 9x25 can focus no closer than 23 feet (about 7 meters).

Since I'm a resolution addict, I don't plan to try any more reverse porros wider than 60 AFOV ... unless I can nab a Bushnell 5x25 Extra Wide.

 

[Patudo]

I have not yet looked through a binocular and thought it had too much FOV! But some with narrower FOVs I did find confining enough that I wouldn't wish to purchase them. In terms of actual field of view the narrowest I own is 96m/1000m (12x50B Nobilem). It feels fine when you look through it, but when scanning for things obviously you can scan the same area more quickly, or a larger area in the same time, with something like an 8x30 with 150m/1000m. But the 12x scans "deeper" and I use it when searching for targets that are further away. The choice between magnification and FOV really depends on your own requirements.

I own one of the same binoculars you do (10x42 SE). FOV is not too generous but adequate. The excellent edge sharpness provided by the field flatteners helps - it makes practically the entire field all sweet spot. (NB. I have to say I've found the often despised (on here anyway) field flatteners help me with eye placement/ease of view, and to a lesser extent, also with fatigue when observing over long distances for 3-4 hour stints.) The widest FOV binocular I own is a Swift 766 (7x35) with an 11 degree field of view (says 578ft/1000ft on the bino) which is great, but often I wish for more magnification.

My own experience is inevitably shaped by the binoculars I learned to bird with. I find 110m/1000m and 130m/1000m fine for a long eye relief (able to be used with glasses/spectacles) 10x and 8x respectively. More is great provided it doesn't shorten eye relief to the point I can't use it with glasses. For short eye relief binoculars the old standards are 150m/1000m for an 8x30 porro and 130m/1000m for a 10x50 porro. When going to these you sure do notice the improvement in FOV (plus I think the short eye relief results in a more immersive image) but having to remove your glasses to use them is a big sacrifice in the field, losing a lot of situational awareness and handicapping you in getting on fast-moving targets quickly. The fact that things like the NL have equalled or indeed slightly exceeded those old FOV standards while providing long eye relief and much better sharpness to the edge really impresses me (as does the price needed to reach that level of performance, of course).

There's an overlap between actual field of view, apparent field of view and the sense of "immersion", the exact relationship between which probably differs for each individual. For me the "immersive" view can be achieved almost regardless of the binocular I'm using if you can adjust eye distance so that the field stop is way out such that I can just see it. Then the "open window" effect is achieved. I find the "open window" easiest to achieve with old short eye relief binoculars (as noted above) but with careful adjustment and positioning I can get the field stop way out with most binoculars I've tried.

 

[Patudo]

From 11°, 7x35, to 8x30, 10°, 7x35 with 10.5°, etc.
A factor that I think has not been mentioned is prism size -- but that is mostly irrelevant for modern roofs.
It is very obvious however for porros. The 11°, 7x35 is a real monster. It handles just fine for me but I have large hands.

The suprise was a humble old Tasco 7x35 with 10.5° according to specs.
It offered one of the most balanced views of the porro EWAs that I own. The field stop is still visible, eye-relief is good enough so my eyelashes don't touch the glass, field curvature as well as pincushion are kept at low levels that don't interfere with a balanced view. On some models the pincushion distortion is so high, when you constantly switch between things near you and farther out, the edges of the FoV bend up and down. Can be irritating for some people who might get seasick.
The obvious effect of the largest FoV models is the degradation of the edges to a point where even I think it might no longer be all that useful to increase it even further. I never looked through one of the old 12.5°, 7x35 models, for example sold under the "Sears" brand. Those were never sold in europe. The 7x35 EWAs are rare.
And even between 10.5 and 11° there is a noticable increase in size of the bino itself.

Very relevant points BinoC. As I understand it a lot of the old 7x35 wide angles were also based around fairly basic eyepiece designs (Kellner? Erfle? I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will enlighten us) which were at their limits - in particular, very short eye relief and poor edge performance - when stretched to 11-12 degrees. As one of the forum's most distinctive voices is fond of reminding us, there are compromises in every optical design. It's not totally surprising that the narrower FOV types like your Tasco are often better optically. Nikon's take on the wide field 7x35 is supposed to have very good edge performance, although FOV is relatively modest at "only" 9.3 degrees.

I don't think 7x35 or even 7x magnification binoculars in general have ever been really popular in Europe and the UK outside of 7x50s for marine/boating use - I think because the binocular market here is driven mainly by birders, whereas the US being a bigger market likely has more general purpose users. I guess the 7x42 Dialyt is the exception, but even so the 10x40 and I think also the 8x30 were more widely sold. Swift's UK range at one point included at least one wide field 7x35 (the Panoramic) but I don't think it was ever popular. The 8.5x44 Audubon (early models of which themselves had a pretty wide field) must have been Swift's best seller in the UK.

 

[KevinL]

I don't know if there's a too wide. There's definitely a too narrow.