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.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tenex" data-source="post: 3661900" data-attributes="member: 135233">Thanks everyone for this thread.  The issue keeps coming up, and I'm sure every non-eyeglass wearer eventually wonders as I did whether it's just them.  Obviously it's a general and growing problem.  It varies even within a single brand: I found the ER-vs-eyecup problem ruled out all the 10x42 Ultravids for me, whereas I've happily used Leica 10x32s for years.  And the 2011-2015 Trinovid 10x42 somehow did work for me, which is why I finally gave that a try, although it ultimately didn't grab me (too little real need, limited FOV relative to the 32s).On a related note, the greater AFOV that comes with shorter FL and lower ER is a major reason (along with magnification itself) why I've always preferred 10x to 8x.  That's providing the "immersion" experience I want from binos.  And all this suffers when ER is increased to 17-20mm, even if the eyecups accommodate that properly, as they increasingly don't or can't.  (At least given all the other constraints of size etc)Ultimately I think what we need is a variety of designs to suit different users, glasses or not -- some degree of specialization by model or brand.  But what I see in the world today is ever less choice, as every manufacturer goes after exactly the same target market segment and ignores everyone else.  This must be what they teach in business school now.  It's too bad, I found consumer choice pleasant.</blockquote>

Verification