why do the 8x50 and 10x50 Ultravid have the same FOV? (1 Viewer)

[kimmik]

Bigger prism - less vignette for a given TFOV

Smaller prism - lighter, more compact

The 8x50 could hypothetically be given a larger FOV eyepiece, but the edges will be heavily vignetted.

It would also lose eye relief unless you want more weight.

The purpose of the 8x50 is ease of view so the above would be counterproductive.

 

[mwhogue]

Thanks all. Lots of interesting, understandable, helpful information and illustrations in this thread.

Not strictly a related concept of course but I've always liked the post and screen shot below by WJC/Bill demonstrating how in two bins of the same magnification a significantly wider FoV can create the impression of higher magnification. I do experience this effect when directly comparing lower power bins of the same X but with varying true fields of view

Perception is reality? The image on the left is from a binocular with a 7-degree field of view. The image on the right shows that object—at the same magnification—but with a 9-degree field. Quite often, the observer sees a larger field of view and equates it to more magnification. The difference, in better binoculars, lies in the unsung field stop.

Just a thought,

Bill

 

[tenex]

Not strictly a related concept of course but I've always liked the post and screen shot below by WJC/Bill demonstrating how in two bins of the same magnification a significantly wider FoV can create the impression of higher magnification.

Impressive DOF and edge sharpness in those binoculars! Bill must have snuck up on the heron with prototype 6x EL and NL.(*)

This reasoning really seems totally specious. I don't get such an impression from these images, or from bins with wider FOV. I could even argue the other way around, that the left image looks more magnified because the bird fills more of the view. I wonder whether most of the talk of "3D" is like this too, some sort of story people tell themselves rather than an actual perception.


(* - humor alert. Obviously these images are merely cut out from some photograph, not taken through bins)

 

[gwlee]

Am I glad Leica designed the 8x50 as they did. I first thought that with the relatively narrow FOV, the 8x50 could never be an attractive proposition. I couldn't have been more wrong....
This is of course a personal thing, but the 8x50 UV HD with its extremely "calm", color saturated image has given me the most relaxing viewing experience ever (and I have quite a few other binos to compare).
Based on what I read in an earlier thread (Leica 8x50 Ultravid HD Plus), I seem not to be the only person feeling that way.

Canip

I enjoy the 7x42 UVHD+ and have considered 8x50 UVHD for astronomy because, like the 7x42, it has enough eye relief to use with my eyeglasses, but it’s a bit short on TFOV for my needs.

 

[And.rea]

it seems that the 8x should have a larger FOV, why buy the 8 over the 10 if the FOV is the same?

Why not? Carl Zeiss Jena Dekarem (10x50) versus Binoctem (7x50): FoV for both = 128m/1000m.
Why different magnifications for the same lens diameter/weight/volume? In this sense, the question can be answered concretely. With corresponding interest ...

 

[Mike F]

FWIW I always get the impression of lower magnification with bins with a wider FOV, other things being equal.

 

[mwhogue]

FWIW I always get the impression of lower magnification with bins with a wider FOV, other things being equal.

Mike F,

Interesting that both you and tenex (post #23) get the opposite impression from my subjective experience. Initially I was confused when comparing various 6, 6.5 and 7x side by side with my Kowa "6.5"x32, because the Kowa magnification seemed to be clearly greater than 6.5 and closer to 7x. Then I saw that Gijs actually measured the real Kowa magnification as 6 rather than the listed 6.5 spec. Whiskey Tango Hotel, I like 'em all.

Mike

 

[hoolyp]

I'm not the OP in this thread, but asked some questions about the UV 10x50 in post 7, and got some really helpful answers. As I mentioned, I am no expert in binoculars but wanted to report back that I received an UV HD+ 10x50 a couple of weeks ago and I'm delighted with it.

The field of view is the same as the (fantastic) 10x32 but the ease of view and ability to roam around the image with my eyes makes for a very nice experience. I did not find the image to be significantly brighter except in very low light. I had prepared myself for a very heavy and bulky bino to the extent that I was pleasantly surprised by the weight. They take up a lot more space than my 8x42 but the weight difference is not so noticeable (I regularly carry a camera/lens weighing 2-3 kg, so this is maybe part of the reason, plus I am not really a birder and rarely use them for more than 5-10 minutes at a time).

For relatively 'local' walks and adventures when I only need to carry some extra layers and food I don't find these a burden to carry at all. They do seem to be a bit more steady than my 10x32 (the extra weight and room to grip the binos makes a difference to me). For trips further afield when I need other equipment/stuff they will surely stay at home.

As mentioned above i am still evaluating the merits of 8x versus 10x for my 'use cases' (which of course depends on what I am doing). By now I am convinced that if I could only have one binocular it would be 8x, but I am really enjoying the 10x. I live in a coastal part of Finland and am often scouring distant islands, boats and birds. On the other hand, in addition to scoping distant details I very much enjoy the way 8x puts things more in context and let's me soak up the different parts of the scene, the colours, tones and overall structure, and I am also often in the middle of an overgrown forest - camping or hiking.

Thanks again for your very helpful replies!

 

[Mike F]

I live in a coastal part of Finland and am often scouring distant islands, boats and birds.

So do I! I live in Larsmo (Luoto). Where are you? I love my 12x50 UVHD+ and use it in much the same way as you describe above. I also enjoy my 10x42 NV. I've often wondered how it would compare to the 10x50 UVHD+. I think both would have plus points.

 

[hoolyp]

Looks like a nice area - haven't been but I know Kokkola and Vaasa well, nice part of Finland! I live in Helsinki do a lot of cycling around Uusimaa. Yes it would be interesting to try 12x indeed!

 

[Albinoni]

Thanks for (reviving) this thread! 😄
Having rather happily lived with the Trinovid 8x50 BA since 1998 and eternally wondered about the beautiful image paired to the annoying tunnel-vision, I finally 'bit the bullet' and bought the 10x50 (BN) in 2013.. the binocs I should have bought in the first place!!

The presumed low-light benefit that I got the 8x's for never compensated for having to live with that 'far away' image... while the 10x offers the SAME beautiful image in your face. ... Like all the subsequent Ultravid reincarnations that were offered by Leica.

In the last couple of weeks I went through some weird binoc changes, which (long story short) ended YESTERDAY with trading in my beloved 8x50, getting back my even more beloved 10x50 that got lost in the mail, with new rubber and adjusted diopters (and now also having a brand new Zeiss 10x42 SF in the process..).