-
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.
SF 8x32 v NL Pure 8x42 (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter starforgedape
- Start date
A2GG
Beth
wow :eek!:
Steve C
Well-known member
You are correct in that all eyes are different. However that can't be used as an alibi to substantiate fantastical claims. Sorry Dennis, but your eyes are not extra-scientific. They are subject to the same optical rules as everyone else. You simply illustrate the Mau Syndrome is a way to delude yourself. It indicates you often don't understand what you claim to see. That may well be true for a lot of what we all see.
So if you don't trust anybody else due to subjective analysis, that begs the question as to why we should trust your subjective analysis? Is it just because it is so because you say it is? After all you claim to see it, so should we all? We believe you, but nobody else? I don't want to sound severe, but your posting history clearly indicates that the Total Nonsense lies squarely in your court.
henry link
Well-known member
Hi Henry,
Distortion is an optical aberration, correct? Shouldn't it also be eliminated since it "...doesn't exist in the natural light that falls on the eye..."? But, as we know manufacturer's deliberately include it in their binocular designs. What's the difference?
The human eye uses field curvature to project visual images onto spherical focal planes. A binocular aided eye must do the same. Field curvature is useful and your eyes know all about it. Violating that natural arrangement has perceptual consequences, just like distortion.
I guess it's a matter of perspective.
Ed
Hi Ed,
Yes, distortion is an optical aberration, but unfortunately unlike the other Seidel aberrations it can't be fully corrected. Pincushion distortion and angular magnification distortion sit on opposite ends of a see-saw. Decreasing one increases the other, so it's not possible to correct both simultaneously. We're stuck with one or the other or some combination of both. On the other hand, off axis astigmatism and field curvature can both be corrected simultaneously without affecting anything else.
I would agree that it's desirable for the normal field curvature of the eye's lens to be maintained when the eye is binocular aided, so that the eye's lens continues to project the same curved focal plane onto the retina that it does when there is no binocular, but I think that can't happen when the binocular adds extra field curvature of its own. The combination of the two curves no longer follows the retina in the normal way.
Looks like this thread now mostly deals with Dennis' mental health, so maybe it's no longer the best place to try to discuss binocular aberrations.
Henry
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
Henry, Ed, and others - I really appreciate these discussions, thank you for your contributions. They arguably have more value than most of this thread
I have a question / part of this I do not understand, if you'll suffer through my lack of ability with the proper terminology.
When we look out of our eyes and see the whole view in front of us, we perceive depth and perceive a curved focal plane - this makes sense. But when we use a binocular, we're not really just moving everything closer, because our perspective isn't from a point 8 or 10 or however many times closer. The image is compressed (the term I know from photography), and due to depth of field (and I don't remember what the natural "F stop" of the eye is), a distant scene tends to all be in focus at once. If we were 8-10x closer, we might see that scene more curved, more 3D, and better perceive differences in distance/focus between the objects. But from the distance we are, a small 6-10 degree angular slice of our vision applied to a distant bit of our FOV is going to cut out a pretty flat scene that, it seems to me, the mind wants to perceive as flat and not curved. If the above poorly-worded logic holds any water, doesn't it make sense that the brain wants to see the enlarged scene through a binocular/telescope entirely in focus? At times, using bins with smallish sweet spots, I have the sensation that objects at the edge of the field of view "should be in focus, because they're at the same distance / part of the same distant object." When they're not in focus, it then seems unnatural. Of course pincushion, AMD, and many other artifacts of the view through a telescope or lens can seem unnatural as well, but I'm curious as to whether this idea that the mind naturally "wants" to see the entire distant scene in focus is correct.
tenex
reality-based
I do think that's true, although not actually related to the perspective-compression effect you refer to (which involves relative sizes of objects at substantially different distances), but simple perceptual intuition. With an "entire distant scene" there are only optical aberrations of the instrument to worry about, including loss of edge sharpness. At closer ranges there's the additional issue of depth of field, unnaturally exaggerated beyond the eye's ability to accommodate. Either way these effects seem unintuitive and unwelcome.
You might think again about the 10x42IS.
It is a superior instrument for birding, way ahead of the conventional gear, simply because your own tremors go away at the push of a button.
Suddenly you see the bird, without jitter, whether in the air, on the shore or among the leaves. IS makes the minor differences in FoV or transmission percentage or whatever simply irrelevant.
For satisfying birding, IS is the ticket imho. The top quality Canon 10x42 ISL bows to no one optically, decent FoV, good transmission, great color fidelity plus water and dust proof.
Admittedly, they are heavy and homely, but so is the C-130 Hercules, they get the job done.
starforgedape
Member
They’re great binoculars no doubt. I’ve had them for 4 years already. It’s my only binos as of the moment. But it is very cumbersome to trek with. And after trying my cousin’s EL 8x32, I realized not having IS when birding is fine. Unlike for astronomy use wherein when viewing stars at a magnification absolute steadiness is paramount.
Anyhow, I understand that the sentiment seems to be that you have to feel the instrument out etc. I only asked the question because at least in astronomy when it comes to glass you get what you pay for. Some people don’t have the time to read reviews and go all over Stuff. Some people are of a mind of just buying the latest offerings from what is regarded top tier manufacturers and be done with it. So it seems binoculars are more nuanced than telescopes it seems. This is noted.
Thanks for the feedback.
Anyhow, I understand that the sentiment seems to be that you have to feel the instrument out etc. I only asked the question because at least in astronomy when it comes to glass you get what you pay for. Some people don’t have the time to read reviews and go all over Stuff. Some people are of a mind of just buying the latest offerings from what is regarded top tier manufacturers and be done with it. So it seems binoculars are more nuanced than telescopes it seems. This is noted.
Thanks for the feedback.
Very helpful feedback. Thank you for the extra input.
IS was really a transformation in viewing for me and the weight/bulk of the 10x42ISL did not faze, as I was coming from a Docter 12x50BGA ( a spectacular glass incidentally ). That was back in 2007.
Now I'm less eager to schlep gear than I used to be and would love a more lightweight IS option to replace my 10x42 brick. But IS is still the key, just today, watching an early returning Yellow Warbler foraging in the shrubbery, IS made all the difference between clearly seeing the bird and not.
Imho, IS provides a major step up in binocular performance, sort of like the entry of jet engines into a world of propeller driven aircraft.
AlanFrench
Well-known member
For me, fit and feel are extremely important, and I've found some binoculars that seemed universally loved were simply not for me. While specifications (and advertising hype) may steer you in a particular direction, they will never tell you how they will be in your hands.
In many areas it's hard to see a variety in person, but, if you are fortunate and can, it's highly recommended. Otherwise make sure the seller has a generous return policy.
Clear skies, Alan
In many areas it's hard to see a variety in person, but, if you are fortunate and can, it's highly recommended. Otherwise make sure the seller has a generous return policy.
Clear skies, Alan
NDhunter
Experienced observer
The ignore feature is useful, and it works well when needed.
It is too bad someone comes on the site and wants to dominate.
Very bad. It sure does ruin the introduction of a new model.
Jerry
eitanaltman
Well-known member
A big distinction between an astronomical telescope and a birding binocular is that the latter is used actively in the field. Once the telescope is set up on the tripod, you aren't handling it, just looking through the eyepiece.
With a field instrument like a binocular, you are carrying them around, and constantly grabbing them, picking them up to your eyes, and focusing, many many times over. This means that weight, size, eye relief, and ergonomics are much more important, and also very personal. Over the course of time in the field, small ergonomic problems can become increasingly more annoying and ruin the pleasure of using the optic.
It's especially important to get a good match for the three points of "human-binocular interface", i.e. eyecups / eye relief, focus knob, and the grip in your hands. I (and many others on this forum) have sold binoculars that I found optically superb, but ergonomically problematic. It doesn't matter how good it looks if the eyecups are too big to fit your face so you can't view through them comfortably, or if you hate the focus knob feel so you're missing while birds fiddling with the focus.
Pinewood
New York correspondent
The ignore feature is useful, and it works well when needed.
It is too bad someone comes on the site and wants to dominate.
Very bad. It sure does ruin the introduction of a new model.
Jerry
Hello Jerry,
It certainly does work well unless the ignored poster is quoted by someone else. I have used it on one frequent poster for years, but some does get through in those quotes.
Stay safe,
Arthur
PYRTLE
Old Berkshire Boy
Along with finding a good match, also comes adaptation and familiarisation. We do this with every tool, instrument or procedure we happen to come across. To some it is second nature, whilst others struggle with this. Designers attempt to overcome most of these hence "new" styles and features. This is what we are seeing and hearing with the NL, along with the science.
Steve C
Well-known member
OK, after thinking about this for awhile it appears that I owe the forum in general an apology for this. It is an apology to the forum and anyone offended by it. I said what I meant, and I own the statement.
My Grandmother had a saying..."Sonny, don't let your mood affect your manners". My manners should have prevented me from posting that, despite the fact I was in a pretty foul mood for a few days. Some probably agree with it, others very likely do not. So I will make a concerted effort henceforth to keep my manners in check, and I apologize to those who rightly found that offensive.
eitanaltman
Well-known member
You owe no apologies, Steve. That was 100% truth.
