Which ones are your dream binoculars? (1 Viewer)

[MiddleRiver]

I understand that wide FOV is attractive. But I still wish the manufacturers would not sacrifice eye relief in order to compete with FOV.
The most 8x30/32 and 10x42 have too short ER for eyeglasses.
And I wonder why have almost all 8x32s wider FOV than 8x42s? And 10x42 wider than 10x50s? It does not need to be so.
Why is that a trend followed by almost all manufacturers? It's like there is a common agreement that: 8x32 and 10x42: not for eyeglasses. 8x42 and 10x50: for eyeglasses.

I agree - to an extent... That said, the 8x30SFL and 8x30MHG have more than adequate ER (at least for my choice of specs). I do like wide FOV and the 8x32SF's are tempting but the overall size is about similar to the 8x40SFL! And of course, my real desire is for Noctivid build and color in a more compact/light bin...

 

[Swedpat]

I agree - to an extent... That said, the 8x30SFL and 8x30MHG have more than adequate ER (at least for my choice of specs). I do like wide FOV and the 8x32SF's are tempting but the overall size is about similar to the 8x40SFL! And of course, my real desire is for Noctivid build and color in a more compact/light bin...

Yes, according to what I read Zeiss really has impressed with SFL in this respect. 8x30MHG(Nikon?) I don't know about.

 

[Binastro]

An 8x32 has eyepieces of shorter focal length than 8x42s, so the eyepieces are generally smaller.
This is because the objective focal lengths are smaller.

For the same size prisms, the 8x32 FOVs are larger.

B.

 

[Boogieshrew]

Nikon 8x30 EII with 18mm of ER , twist out eyecups and their best coatings/glass . We'll call it the Nikon 8x30 EIII .

The 7x35 EIII will suit me

 

[[email protected]]

10x56 Zeiss SF
10x56 Nikon EDG
10x56 Zeiss SFL

10x50's of any of these would be nice too...or 9x50 or 8x50

Ditto that except in 8x.

 

[Swedpat]

An 8x32 has eyepieces of shorter focal length than 8x42s, so the eyepieces are generally smaller.
This is because the objective focal lengths are smaller.

For the same size prisms, the 8x32 FOVs are larger.

B.

Yes. And the FOV is larger because of different design of oculars, in order to get larger FOV.
I wonder what the reason is to choose wide angle-shorter ER for 8x32s, while not for 8x42.

 

[Swampy Sam]

Swarovski 10-30x 56 slc zoom binos . With a 100 degree FOV and weight 3 oz... I can dream Big.

 

[hopster]

Swarovski 10-30x 56 slc zoom binos . With a 100 degree FOV and weight 3 oz... I can dream Big.

...and costing €100...

 

[Maljunulo]

Bugger the laws of physics, they’re only suggestions anyway, aren’t they?

 

[Binastro]

#66.

8x32 120mm fl objectives eyepieces 15mm fl.

8x42 160mm fl objectives eyepieces 20mm fl.

For same diameter field lens, the 15mm eyepiece has a wider field and shorter eye relief.

Simple.

Regards,
B.

 

[Swedpat]

#66.

8x32 120mm fl objectives eyepieces 15mm fl.

8x42 160mm fl objectives eyepieces 20mm fl.

For same diameter field lens, the 15mm eyepiece has a wider field and shorter eye relief.

Simple.

Regards,
B.

I know there is a direct relation between ocular focallength and eye relief. But a shorter focallength does not automatically increase AFOV.

 

[Binastro]

But the same prism size usually means the 8x32 has a larger AFOV than the 8x42.

B.

 

[Swedpat]

But the same prism size usually means the 8x32 has a larger AFOV than the 8x42.

B.

Ok, I understand. This means the most 8x32s could have longer ER with another ocular, but just because it's possible to make use of the full FOV with WA ocular, they choose to do so.
And the reason 8x42s mostoften have narrower FOV than 8x32s is that the prisms set the limit. And as a positive combined result by the longer focal length + non-WA ocular the ER is much longer.
This shows FOV is more a selling argument than ER.

 

[Binastro]

Also a really wide 20mm eyepiece is large, whereas a similar 15mm eyepiece is rather small.

A wide angle 25mm eyepiece is really large.

My 38mm 75 degree Kodak eyepiece needs a 3 inch eyepiece holder on my telescope.

With a 10x32 binocular, a 120mm fl objective needs a 12mm eyepiece, which could have a very wide field, but probably minimal eye relief.

Really large telescopes can have 5 inch eyepiece holders.

With binoculars, practical issues dictate the field, eye relief, size, weight etc.

Regards,
B.

 

[tenex]

With objectives we are dealing with angles of incidence around 4° and with eyepieces of up to 30°...

Thanks, that's what I was failing to visualize without a diagram. But where improvement can be made remains the practical question. Are differences in CA performance between various models mainly attributable to the objective or to eyepiece design?

 

[Maljunulo]

Longitudinal from the objectives and lateral from the eyepieces? (guessing)

 

[LaKu]

Oooooh, late to the party but stumbled upon this thread and started dreaming...
Here are my suggestions, as kind of a Swaro-guy, these are gonna be a bit Swaro-heavy, I hope you don't mind

Imagine a "supercharged" Swaro Habicht.
Porro, but internal, buttery smooth focusing. Latest and greatest baffles against any stray light, modern eyepieces and all the other goodies. Medium weight, Habicht-type rubber armour. This would be the "ADLER" (eagle):

8x or 10x50, FOV and AFOV somewhere in between an EL and an NL maybe, light field-flatteners applied.

The same concept, but smaller, the "MERLIN":

8x32, Habicht 8x30-magic but none of the downsides, no field-flatteners but better corrected.

Then a roof, possibly an AK for high transmission, as compact as possible for being AK's, maybe yet another strange ergo-masterpiece, a "supercharged" SLCxNL of sorts. The "SPERBER" (sparrow hawk):

A 7.5x40 or 42, the absolute woodland, close range birding tool. Huge FOV and big-ish AFOV, no or VERY light flatteners for fast, comfortable panning and a lightning-fast focusser.

 

[Binocollector]

An updated SARD 6x42 with center focus would be nice. Or a new super wide 7x35. Or an affordable modern day 7x50 with a 10° FoV as they used to make in the 70's. Nikon WX is a bit out of my price range.

 

[mwhogue]

A Genesis version of the Kowa 6.5x32. Same size, shape, weight, FOV and CF ( we Are "dreaming" here) but with Genesis quality and performance.

Mike

 

[tenex]

This thread makes me wonder what manufacturers' market research looks like. One obvious conclusion is that they have too specific an idea of a target market, and have forgotten general-purpose use and enjoyment, or assumed that such buyers can make do with anything. As a result, when did you last see bins on anyone who wasn't a birder or hunter?