What are your priorities in binoculars? (1 Viewer)

[Dennis Mau]

Whales move pretty fast, just ask Lee! A lot of times you don't have time to recenter the binoculars know matter how fast you are. Sharp edges help greatly when trying to identify fast moving birds and animals that suddenly appear on the edge of your FOV. Hunter's also love them for that reason, and with a huge FOV they scan a mountainside for game much faster.

I use my binoculars in Yellowstone National Park in the huge open Lamar Valley and that big FOV and sharp edges of the NL is really beneficial. I tried a slug of vintage binoculars at one time because I was attracted to their huge FOV in some cases exceeding 10 degrees, but I was really disappointed by the very small sweet spot and lack of contrast many of them had due to older coatings and less flat field design. I can see the collector appeal, but as far as actually using them for birding, nah.

One time I tried the Kowa Genesis 8x32 next to my NL 8x32 because I was using the Kowa and I thought it was pretty good. An alpha binocular like the NL will really spoil you because when I compared them I couldn't believe the difference in the size of the FOV and the sharpness of the edges and the contrast. The NL just left the Kowa in the dust! I sold the Kowa's the next day! True story.

You just can't compare an $800 binocular to a $2400 binocular. When you really notice the difference in binoculars is not so much when you go from a binocular like the Kowa Genesis TO the NL, it is when you are USED to using the NL, and then you try the Kowa. You notice the difference immediately. It is like why is this FOV, so tunnel like now and what happened to those crisp edges. The view just seems dead in comparison. Once you try alpha, you can never go backa!

 

[Thotmosis]

Well, nothing beats an Olympus binocular

Olympus | Olympus Binoculars

Olympus | Olympus Binoculars, Annual ID: 09142A, Award: Merit Award, Category: Advertising - Consumer Magazine / Color: Full Page or Spread - Campaign

www.oneclub.org

 

[GrampaTom]

look through a straw and it is 100% transmission.

I'm not so sure... But please correct me. If Im looking through a straw directly at a light source, OK. But what happens when we turn from that? Don't the sides of the straws tube begin to block some of that light depending on the angle?

 

[GrampaTom]

Whales move pretty fast, just ask Lee! A lot of times you don't have time to recenter the binoculars know matter how fast you are. Sharp edges help greatly when trying to identify fast moving birds and animals that suddenly appear on the edge of your FOV. Hunter's also love them for that reason, and with a huge FOV they scan a mountainside for game much faster.

I use my binoculars in Yellowstone National Park in the huge open Lamar Valley and that big FOV and sharp edges of the NL is really beneficial. I tried a slug of vintage binoculars at one time because I was attracted to their huge FOV in some cases exceeding 10 degrees, but I was really disappointed by the very small sweet spot and lack of contrast many of them had due to older coatings and less flat field design. I can see the collector appeal, but as far as actually using them for birding, nah.
......

I wonder about this. Whats the benefit of a large FOV at long distances? I often see folks describing it this way, but confess I dont get it. When something is far out, the field is naturally wider whether real or AFOV, (God stop me from going there!). Right? I feel like its in close where I need the width allowed by bigger FOV. But at 100 yards or beyond there's already plenty of info to find a moving object. That whale is hard to track in close, but half a mile away? No issue. Unless of course your brain likes panoramic views. Thats a different thing.

 

[Maljunulo]

When something is far out, the field is naturally wider whether real or AFOV,

The Apparent Field of View does not change with distance.

It is I expressed as an angle and does not vary with distance.

The concept continues to elude you.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I wonder about this. Whats the benefit of a large FOV at long distances? I often see folks describing it this way, but confess I dont get it. When something is far out, the field is naturally wider whether real or AFOV, (God stop me from going there!). Right? I feel like its in close where I need the width allowed by bigger FOV. But at 100 yards or beyond there's already plenty of info to find a moving object. That whale is hard to track in close, but half a mile away? No issue. Unless of course your brain likes panoramic views. Thats a different thing.

A large FOV is still beneficial at long distances because as you scan you can see more in your binoculars at one time than a binocular with a smaller FOV. It makes scanning for birds, wildlife or game easier and faster. That is how I use my NL 8x42 in the Lamar Valley in Yellowstone. It is a very open valley that is miles across it. When I spot something interesting like a Bald Eagle nest say over a mile away I get out the spotting scope. If the whale was a half mile away it will still be easier to spot with a bigger FOV, but at 8 or 10x it would be difficult to see any detail. At that distance, you would probably need a spotting scope if the whale didn't submerge again right away!

 

[kimmik]

I'm not so sure... But please correct me. If Im looking through a straw directly at a light source, OK. But what happens when we turn from that? Don't the sides of the straws tube begin to block some of that light depending on the angle?

You have defined transmission differently to manufacturers.

You have described what I have loosely defined as light throughput

The transmission measurement is done like you do to window tint. It has nothing to do with how wide the view is. A 1mm square window has same transmission as 1meter square window. But light throughput not same!

 

[GrampaTom]

The Apparent Field of View does not change with distance.

It is I expressed as an angle and does not vary with distance.

The concept continues to elude you.

no, it eludes you. Linear real FOV does exactly what I described. Of course angular does not. We've had this conversation.

 

[GrampaTom]

You have defined transmission differently to manufacturers.

You have described what I have loosely defined as light throughput

The transmission measurement is done like you do to window tint. It has nothing to do with how wide the view is. A 1mm square window has same transmission as 1meter square window. But light throughput not same!

OK, relative to your earlier I see your point.

 

[GrampaTom]

A large FOV is still beneficial at long distances because as you scan you can see more in your binoculars at one time than a binocular with a smaller FOV. It makes scanning for birds, wildlife or game easier and faster. That is how I use my NL 8x42 in the Lamar Valley in Yellowstone. It is a very open valley that is miles across it. When I spot something interesting like a Bald Eagle nest say over a mile away I get out the spotting scope. If the whale was a half mile away it will still be easier to spot with a bigger FOV, but at 8 or 10x it would be difficult to see any detail. At that distance, you would probably need a spotting scope if the whale didn't submerge again right away!

Disagree Dennis. Distance is the last place I need wide FOV. Things arent flitting in and out of view waay out there. Speed rarely useful cuz theres so much linear distance in view. To make this convo meaningful we need what are you looking for at exactly what distance.

Bald eagles at a mile with 8-10 binos? Maybe. Im skeptical. I get why when spotting with binos you grab the scope.

 

[Maljunulo]

When something is far out, the field is naturally wider whether real or AFOV,

Aren’t those your words?

 

[GrampaTom]

Aren’t those your words?

Yes of course. My error that perhaps confuses was including AFOV. The word real should have tipped you off going back to our earlier discussions, last year maybe? You of course understand the basic trig involving your favorite version of FOV, (angular), fixed for a given bino, and linear FOV (published by bino makers at 1000 whatevers), but can and does change depending on distance from the viewer... Right?

 

[Maljunulo]

The AFOV of my Zeiss SF 8X32 is 67°, the True FOV is 8.8°.

The linear FOV does, of course, depend on distance, which is why it has standardized on either feet at 1000 yards, or meters at 1000 meters. This standardization usually precludes any confusion.

 

[GrampaTom]

The linear FOV does, of course, depend on distance, which is why it has standardized on either feet at 1000 yards, or meters at 1000 meters. This standardization usually precludes any confusion.

I'd submit the fact that linear FOV varies with distance and is standardized on 1000 whatevers, has to do with several things and doesnt always work to preclude confusion, witness the dialogues here at BF. My own birding experience suggests birding at 1000 yards with a bino is not so much fun. Where's my scope? It's more like 100 more or less is where ids can be made, details enjoyed with 8 to 10X. Hunting, plane spotting, seeing buoys or iceburgs while at sea, war, surveying etc. are different and meant there was no convenient way for companies to post linear FOV to cover all those bases. Since its easy to convert results at 1000 yards to 100 or 50 or 2000, (because indeed that angle is a constant), that may arguably be seen as another argument for this "standardization." As well a bit more cynically, one could at least wonder if the bino companies like 1000 yards/meters as THAT distance seems to put a best foot forward on what might otherwise be seen as the modest gains in linear FOV when converted to the distances where most folks bird.

You may recall when we got into this last, Troubador, (who actually prefers square area FOV) and I were both jonesing for linear as being a thing more people most likely could relate to. We were not saying it was better, just more relatable. We agreed most folks could get that 8.5 degrees would provide a wider view than 8, but would at the same time struggle to relate that to the problem to hand.

 

[Maljunulo]

You are grossly overthinking a straightforward concept.

 

[GrampaTom]

You are grossly overthinking a straightforward concept.

I doubt it

 

[dorubird]

We cannot have everything perfect in one pair of binoculars. But everything depends on our ability to accommodate and accept the weaknesses of our instruments.
We live in a world where we are often dissatisfied. We are encouraged by marketing to be eternally dissatisfied (the perfect customer). Why should I add another dissatisfaction in my life? We must learn to appreciate our binocular qalities more, and knowing honestly its weaknesses. One thing is to know the weaknesses and another thing is to keep complaining about them!
We can be happy even with one pair of binoculars and so we will use them more often! We have to learn to be happy even without binoculars

 

[Thotmosis]

Due to the excessive use of mobile phone‘s and computer screens the eyes of most people deteriorate fast, the amount of people who have to wear glasses grow year by year. Maybe that’s one of the reasons that binocular producers emphasize / develop more products with wider FOV.

Me as a non glass wearer did an experiment just now: i looked through some of my binoculars with and without sunglasses and the difference is really shocking. I‘m very lucky that I don’t have to wear glasses (yet!) and therefore I don’t have the need to buy e.g. the too expensive (IMO) NL pure serie (yet!).

 

[Troubador]

Due to the excessive use of mobile phone‘s and computer screens the eyes of most people deteriorate fast, the amount of people who have to wear glasses grow year by year. Maybe that’s one of the reasons that binocular producers emphasize / develop more products with wider FOV.

Me as a non glass wearer did an experiment just now: i looked through some of my binoculars with and without sunglasses and the difference is really shocking. I‘m very lucky that I don’t have to wear glasses (yet!) and therefore I don’t have the need to buy e.g. the too expensive (IMO) NL pure serie (yet!).

I am having difficulty understanding why people wearing glasses demand a wider field of view (although wide fields of view are very nice), nor do I understand what was shocking about looking through binocuars while wearing sunglasses (apart from the horrible effects this has on the colours you see). I wear spectacles all the time and have reviewed over 30 models of binoculars and haven't found the spectacles a problem with any of them.

 

[Thotmosis]

I am having difficulty understanding why people wearing glasses demand a wider field of view (although wide fields of view are very nice), nor do I understand what was shocking about looking through binocuars while wearing sunglasses (apart from the horrible effects this has on the colours you see). I wear spectacles all the time and have reviewed over 30 models of binoculars and haven't found the spectacles a problem with any of them.

I did not express myself well im afraid. What I only meant to say is that the fov with glasses (I used sunglasses only for to see the difference with and without glasses as I don't wear glasses) is much smaller than without glasses. As a non glass wearer I was not aware of this. Nothing more, nothing less. Am I wrong about the perception that you see less wide view with glasses?