Pentax Papilo images don't merge. (1 Viewer)

[Binastro]

Alice in Wonderland or through the looking glass.

To get the field stops merged at closest distance 58mm IPD.
Rest images with the close focus position maintained 67mm IPD.

At perhaps 3.5 metres IPD rest image 63mm.

These are approximate measures with a ruler.

So the fact that the objectives move sideways by varying amounts means these are not normal binoculars when measuring IPD.

Stranger and stranger.

Regards,
B.

 

[davekelley]

The IPD range of this Pentax 6.5x21 Papilio II is about 54.5mm to 74mm.
The lighting isn't good here. I'll try it in better lighting, but it is fairly accurate.

However, with the close focus ability this IPD may not be entirely relevant.

Regards,
B.

thanks. i think the issue is that I need to turn adjust the eyepieces closer together to get a merge, closer together than my ipd. I wonder would a pair of the 8.5x have a larger exit pupil and maybe I could use those? I'm not an optics buff (as you can tell!). the other alternative is a pair of vortex razor 10x42's can focus down to 5ft, but they are 10x the price so........

 

[jring]

Hi,

just tried reading the text on here at minimum focus though my Papilio 6.5x21 - image nicely merged at my normal IPD of 63mm - very comfortable. Circles were indeed off a little bit then. I could set a lower IPD to get the circles to merge but my nose said no...

As for getting full size pair with a short close focus - that will probably not work well as then you really have to observe cross eyed... at least it's that way when I use my Pentax DCF 8x32 ED for close up work - it gets to focus just fine at 1m or so but I don't even try to use both eyes then - one closed and things are much more comfortable.

Joachim

 

[pat mitchel]

A monocular with a binoviewer (is there such a beast?) will give you what you want... Regards, Pat

 

[davekelley]

But it's not a pleasing image, two intersecting circles, two field stops......

 

[pat mitchel]

I don't know how you could completely merge the two circles in binoculars except at infinity.

Except perhaps with this https://offersgeeks.com/product/kal...ar-electric-zoom-w-case-lens-caps-japan-nice/

Which I'll wager is dim with the splitting of the image but interesting nonetheless. Regards, Pat

 

[WJC]

Hi Bill,

sorry, but I beg to disagree. Users should be able to use a pair of Pentax Papilio to observe an object at ranges down to 0.5m w/o a double image or going cross-eyed - if the pair of Papilio, the eyes of the user and the handling of the binoculars are ok.

Your argument is of course correct for normal binoculars (with the distance of the objectives being equal to the set IPD or larger) at very close ranges but the reverse porro configuration with very close distance between the objectives makes normal observation without going cross-eyed possible down to around 0.5m.

Joachim

Joachim,

There you go ... taking advantage ... onacounta you know I respect what YOU say. Thus, you never have to “beg” to disagree. Of course, your agreement with my comment, as it relates to binoculars in general, was appreciated. Kindly, though, I think you should have thought a little deeper concerning my comment with regard to the Papillio.

But then, a few posts later you said:

“Circles were indeed off a little bit then.”

But isn’t that what I said? The spectrum of comments should be taken into consideration. Some people use the Papillio at distances shorter than recommended. When that happens, what I said would happen ... happens. I have performed the tests—back when I sold that bino and I don’t often speak to hear my head rattle.

Although the echo does provide a rather mellifluous sound!

Have a great one!

Bill

 

[jring]

But then, a few posts later you said:

“Circles were indeed off a little bit then.”

Hi Bill,

you are correct, you spoke about fields not merging, and this is what I saw (albeit slightly) in my second test. I should have pointed that out and maybe done a test vs a screen (so the edges can be clearly seen) before instead of grabbing the pair and looking at some random stuff in my room (which happened to be some integrated circuit boards lying on a black surface - not good for seeing field edges).
So sorry for that!

But the question we really should ask the original poster - does he get a good and relaxed view despite the circles not quite merged or not?

If that is the case, then the pair is in order (and I misunderstood his posts the whole time).

Everybody stay healthy!

Joachim

 

[WJC]

Hi Bill,

you are correct, you spoke about fields not merging, and this is what I saw (albeit slightly) in my second test. I should have pointed that out and maybe done a test vs a screen (so the edges can be clearly seen) before instead of grabbing the pair and looking at some random stuff in my room (which happened to be some integrated circuit boards lying on a black surface - not good for seeing field edges).
So sorry for that!

But the question we really should ask the original poster - does he get a good and relaxed view despite the circles not quite merged or not?

If that is the case, then the pair is in order (and I misunderstood his posts the whole time).

Everybody stay healthy!

Joachim

View the object and not the edges of the field stop, like so many optical wannabes indicate you should.

Cheers

 

[davekelley]

Hi Bill,

you are correct, you spoke about fields not merging, and this is what I saw (albeit slightly) in my second test. I should have pointed that out and maybe done a test vs a screen (so the edges can be clearly seen) before instead of grabbing the pair and looking at some random stuff in my room (which happened to be some integrated circuit boards lying on a black surface - not good for seeing field edges).
So sorry for that!

But the question we really should ask the original poster - does he get a good and relaxed view despite the circles not quite merged or not?

If that is the case, then the pair is in order (and I misunderstood his posts the whole time).

Everybody stay healthy!

Joachim

I get a fairly unpleasant view, the circles are nowhere close to merged so there is a field stop intersecting the image badly. I think I'm going to return them, sadly there is no alternative to them so it pains me to do so. i think my ipd is too wide for these at the closest setting, and even up to a 2mtr range so.......

 

[pat mitchel]

davekelly; Could you elaborate on what you see and when you see it. What is your IPD? Do you see the hard field stop in the middle of every image when you are focused at infinity, then focused closer to you and still had the hard field stop interfering with the image? Are you looking specifically for the field stop by concentrating on the edges of the view (for the darkened area)? The only time the images get close to a true overlay ( that is the images are completely aligned including field stops ) is at infinity and even then, the perimeter area of the stop is not a true 100% overlay. I'd try another pair of conventional binoculars (where the objectives don't more in relation to focus) and see if you experience something similar

 

[jring]

Hi Dave,

when you use other binoculars and your IPD is correctly set, what do you measure (from left edge of the left eyecup to left edge of the right one)?

Joachim