• 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.

Review (1 Viewer)

wdc

Well-known member
So I assume you didn’t read the preceding posts where it was explicitly discussed what was meant by this line of discussion?

I've read it several times myself, to try and 'see' what you're describing, and I've been unable to translate your perceptions into something that correlates to my own when I look through the binoculars I have at hand, so am myself in the dark on 'flatness' of certain views, as it does not seem to pertain to the amount of the image in focus, nor depth of field, but instead a linear distortion. and if the image is static, how does one 'know' what its true depth character is? (unless utterly familiar)

It makes me wonder, if this distortion creates a 3d effect, even in one eye (as in looking through a camera lens), does the world when viewed with one's own eyes, sans any optical aid, look correspondingly flatter in comparison?

Edit: A greater apparent field of view is something that is readily perceivable. No argument there as far as providing a more 'immersive' view. I agree with that. And if one distortion profile creates a wider AFOV then another, I can see why some might prefer that. I think the description and perception of "compression" of depth is the part that I do not get. Magnified, narrow fields of view generally compress depth naturally, as regular image scale often appears distorted relative to a wide field view at low or zero magnification.

-Bill
 
Last edited:

dries1

Member
Eitan

If your wife does not like the EDG, she will hate the ELSV based on her perception of the EDG.

Andy W.
 

eitanaltman

Well-known member
Eitan

If your wife does not like the EDG, she will hate the ELSV based on her perception of the EDG.

Andy W.

I have no doubt, the ELSV is even "flatter" than the EDG. I greatly prefer the EDG formula which retains a bit of pincushion and field curvature so the AMD / rolling ball isn't as obvious.
 

eitanaltman

Well-known member
I've read it several times myself, to try and 'see' what you're describing, and I've been unable to translate your perceptions into something that correlates to my own when I look through the binoculars I have at hand, so am myself in the dark on 'flatness' of certain views... I think the description and perception of "compression" of depth is the part that I do not get. Magnified, narrow fields of view generally compress depth naturally, as regular image scale often appears distorted relative to a wide field view at low or zero magnification.

-Bill

I guess like many things with optics a lot depends on your individual sensitivity to a particular phenomenon.

I don't think it has anything to do with the true "stereo 3D" effect of using two eyes, it's a phenomenon of the distortion pattern which makes it appear that space is curving away from you vs. bulging towards you, I believe.

But the way I perceive it is as thought 3D objects (like a tree) feel "flatter", as though they are compressed / squished in depth; so for example when scanning across the tops of trees, they appear more to be "layers" of flattish shapes (like a diorama) vs perceiving the full depth of the scene.

Tobias has some discussion of it here (complete with his typical somewhat hyperbolic language) and some links to examples, although they can be subtle: http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/articles/3Dhighfidelity/3Dhighfidelity.html
 

mwhogue

Registered User
Supporter
OK, I'm not sure what you're unclear about since the discussion was pretty explicitly about how rectilinear distortion and/or field curvature impact the impression of "apparent" field width and depth.

The comparison of 7x42 EDG vs UV was precisely *because* they are identical on paper on terms of magnification and field of view, yet their differing distortion profiles purportedly gives the Leica a greater sense of both "width" (i.e. greater apparent FOV) and "depth" (i.e. space doesn't feel as compressed towards you).

Tobias referenced this in his 7x42 comparison article (as discussed above) which is where the idea popped into my head first, and then I've observed the phenomenon myself (as discussed above) with my "flatter field" binoculars, so asked Tom if he noticed this since he owned both binoculars in question. It was so obvious to my wife (as discussed above) that she found the EDG view uncomfortable because it gave her the sensation of an image being shoved in front of her face vs feeling like natural space. Others commented on this phenomenon as well and even noted how this is something that's observed with camera lenses, where some lenses give a greater perception of depth whereas others appear to "compress" more distant objects so they appear flatter and closer to the viewer (i.e. what I described above as a "diorama effect").

Thanks this is helpful, particularly the highlighted part of your explanation confirming how perception of "depth" (as well as "width" of AFoV)may be effected by rectilinear distortion. To expand, while not disagreeing with anyone, I personally don't see that difference in "depth" when comparing the 7x42 UVHD+ and the EDG 7x42. However, when adding a Swaro SV 8x32 and 8.5x42 to the comparison, even factoring out the increased DoF of 7x vs. 8x, I definitely get the impression with the Swaros that others have described elsewhere as the "poster effect" and your wife describes as like "looking at a microscope slide" as opposed to a more natural view. In other words, I do get a greater sense of "depth" with both the UVHD+ and the EDG than with either SW.

To veer slightly off topic for the sake of comparing apples to apples and to eliminate particularly differences in DoF inherent in my comparison above: I get the same effect when comparing the 10x32 SV FP with UVHD+, EDG and Zeiss FL 10x32's. The SV image again appears to have less "depth" as you are describing than the other three.

P.S. I typed this up before reading posts 22 through 24 above about the EL SV.

Mike
 
Last edited:

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
........ Bringing it back to the original thread topic... I've got a bubbling curiosity about the EDG 8x42 now. I am in total agreement with Tobias that the EDG feels like a "Japanese Ultravid", going back and forth between the Leicas and the EDG 10x32 they all have an *extremely* similar "character" to the view, with absolutely top notch contrast and saturation and a touch of warmth (not "yellowing", but real warmth from deep, extended reds) that gives the view a rich, lustrous feel.

Leaving aside physical/ergonomic properties, the only meaningful difference in the views between the EDG and the UVHD to me is the distortion profile. I could nitpick some stuff, but the general gestalt of the views (aside from distortion) is 95%+ the same to me. But I think I've grown to like the more balanced distortion profile of the EDG... BUT also I really love the wide field, incredibly "relaxed" view, and big exit pupil of the 7x42 UVHD. And I think I prefer the more open bridge ergonomics of the EDG / MHG vs the chunky full bridge feel of the Leica.

Paragraph (1) above: This is exactly how I see the warmth of the Leica UVHD Plus and the Nikon EDG (both 7x42 in my case): i.e. deep reds for that lustrous feel. Over the last few days I made the decision not to challenge my eyes by swapping between different glass in the same viewing session but to get to know each comfortably on separate, consecutive days at the same time of day and in more or less the same weather conditions. As a result, observation felt far, far clearer and I really got the very best out of each instrument. Hard to make comparisons when working this way with nearly 24 hours between two different bins, but it meant that each observation spell was the best it could be. Doing it this way I came away with the (for the purposes of this discussion, unhelpful..) realization that both EDG and UVHD Plus were - in subdued, rainy, glarefree lighting - an unalloyed pleasure to use and the technical aspects just fell away from consideration as I adjusted focus by minute amounts to concentrate on and enjoy different details in the plants and scenery, into which birds helpfully hopped into view along a narrow fence. I did later give my Swarovski SLC 8x42 another go to confirm my summer-time thought that the warmth in that bin is more on the yellow side compared with the Leica red bias and the EL slightly cooler, slightly bluer bias. No trouble looking at the edges, with a bit of refocusing in the case of the Leica.

Paragraph (2) above: I also agree with the points about the Gestalt of the views. As far as handling goes I am entirely happy with both Leica and Nikon; the one area where the Nikon has the edge in that respect is in the focuser, but the Leica's is just fine in any case. The Nikon feels a tiny bit harder to hold still but it has a very good shape indeed for a comfortable grip. Despite the similarities or maybe because of them I would find it very hard to keep just one; they both just hit the spot so well in overall performance.

As an aside about any poster or 2D effect, I found by chance that the EDG gives me a lasting favourable impression when used to examine a stretch of old stone wall ith various weeds and flowers growing close to the surface, mostly in the cracks where the cement has given way. The colour bias to my eyes flatters the stone while the in focus effect from edge to edge means the entire section of wall being viewed is given balanced prominence. And fine tuning with that excellent focuser for tiny variations in lens to wall or plant distance is easy... but this is a distraction from the points under discussion.

Tom
 

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
The impression of extra depth or space (over and above the extra depth of focus) of a 7x came home to me like a hammer blow when I took a 7x (a MeoStar recently discontinued) to Uist in the Western Isles, a place I know well. When scanning with the binos around a bay familiar from many other visits, I was surprised and delighted to notice that spurs of land jutting out into the sea, one behind the other, now appeared to have perceptible space between them. Through my usual 8x and occasional 10x binos, these spurs appeared so close that the impression was I couldn't put my fingers between them. But I didn't notice this at the time, it was only when, through the 7x binos it appeared as though you could sail a boat into the gap between the spurs that I realised what was happening.

As an amateur photographer I am familiar with the fact that higher-magnification lenses compress the scene in the sense of reducing the perceived distance between objects that are one behind the other while lower-magnification lenses do not do this.

Seems to me that the effect of more apparent space between objects nearer the 7x binos and objects further away is simply a reduction in the compression caused by higher magnifications.

This was a discovery I was not at all prepared for or expecting and to those 7x enthusiasts who have been saying for years how this magnification gives a special quality to the view, you are absolutely right.

Lee
 
Last edited:

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
The impression of extra depth or space (over and above the extra depth of focus) of a 7x came home to me like a hammer blow when I took a 7x (a MeoStar recently discontinued) to Uist in the Western Isles, a place I know well. When scanning with the binos around a bay familiar from many other visits, I was surprised and delighted to notice that spurs of land jutting out into the sea, one behind the other, now appeared to have perceptible space between them. Through my usual 8x and occasional 10x binos, these spurs appeared so close that the impression was I couldn't put my fingers between them. But I didn't notice this at the time, it was only when, through the 7x binos it appeared as though you could sail a boat into the gap between the spurs that I realised what was happening.

As an amateur photographer I am familiar with the fact that higher-magnification lenses compress the scene in the sense of reducing the perceived distance between objects that are one behind the other while lower-magnification lenses do not do this.

Seems to me that the effect of more apparent space between objects nearer the 7x binos and objects further away is simply a reduction in the compression caused by higher magnifications.

This was a discovery I was not at all prepared for or expecting and to those 7x enthusiasts who have been saying for years how this magnification gives a special quality to the view, you are absolutely right.

Lee

Liking this! :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top