Background clutter/difficult background (1 Viewer)

[Patudo]

Hi all - I would be grateful for your thoughts on the best binoculars you have found for picking birds from against difficult backgrounds.

A couple of examples that have challenged me:

- Stooping peregrine crosses from blue sky to below the horizon (urban/suburban area). Immediately lost. Distance from me would have been maybe 500 metres.

- Recent sighting of a Barbary falcon in the Canary Islands. The bird was sighted above a ridge line and dropped below the skyline. I was able to follow it for a while as it crossed a built-up section of the ridge slope, but shortly after it crossed into the scrub/grass outside of town it simply disappeared from view. Distance from me at this point was probably in excess of 400 metres.

I'd also appreciate your thoughts on contributing factors that might improve the ability to follow birds across these types of backgrounds (brightness? contrast? objective diameter? ED glass?). I realize a lot of the issues likely lie with my own vision, that birds are often coloured precisely to provide camouflage both up close and at distance, and that following a small shape across an abrupt change in background from sky to ground would probably challenge a lot of observers - but would welcome any thoughts on how to contend with nature's tricks and my own shortcomings.

Cheers
Patudo

 

[james holdsworth]

Just from personal experience, I have found my HT to have far better contrast and 3D effect than any of my other roofs, which helps to ''pop'' the bird from the background. I do raptor surveys and the HT works better than [most] to allow me to pick distant birds up when they cross below the skyline.

I found my previous 10x42 FL was not great on shorebirds on a low-contrast background - the HT is far better. So, I would look for bright, high-contrast and with good 3D effect, as this seems to have a big impact on picking birds out from like-coloured backgrounds.

If the Noctivid is to be believed as advertised, this would be your 1st choice., IMO as it is reputed to have world-beating contrast and 3D.

 

[FrankD]

Patudo,

Price range?

 

[WJC]

Hello Patudo, and welcome to our little band of misfits:

The question you ask is one asked by many birders over as many years. Most of us wish it could be answered with a given brand or model. However, I’m afraid you're stuck with dealing with the realities we all struggle under, relating to aperture, resolution, and contrast. But then, if creature comforts must be figured in, weight and size may be required to temper things a bit.

I have a high quality 8x32 bino that will do me the rest of my life. If you scour this forum for opinions, you will probably find that the favorite size bino for birding is the 8x42. If you will go with that, you’re only other question will rest with how much quality you need or can afford. For example, some people swear by binos with ED glass. And, if certain steps and tests have been followed, the view will be slightly better than the same instrument with more conventional glass. But words don’t buy contrast or resolution and many times a bino from an long-established legend in optics will perform better than some Asian startup that advertises their bino uses ED glass. The optics world is full of trickery. And, with the many recommendations you might receive, I would suggest you go to the store, find a binocular YOU like, and remember some of the obstacles you want to overcome ... are NOT going to be overcome. As that greatest of all bird watchers—Aristotle—was prone to say: “Reality bites.”

Cheers and welcome.

Bill

 

[jring]

Hi,

at the long distances mentioned by th o.p. I agree that contrast and sometimes brightness will win. I think the 3d effect by stereopsis does only work at lower distances, there it sure helps. As does a wide true field to keep a fast moving bird in sight.

Joachim

 

[Pileatus]

Hi all - I would be grateful for your thoughts on the best binoculars you have found for picking birds from against difficult backgrounds.

A couple of examples that have challenged me:

- Stooping peregrine crosses from blue sky to below the horizon (urban/suburban area). Immediately lost. Distance from me would have been maybe 500 metres.

- Recent sighting of a Barbary falcon in the Canary Islands. The bird was sighted above a ridge line and dropped below the skyline. I was able to follow it for a while as it crossed a built-up section of the ridge slope, but shortly after it crossed into the scrub/grass outside of town it simply disappeared from view. Distance from me at this point was probably in excess of 400 metres.

I'd also appreciate your thoughts on contributing factors that might improve the ability to follow birds across these types of backgrounds (brightness? contrast? objective diameter? ED glass?). I realize a lot of the issues likely lie with my own vision, that birds are often coloured precisely to provide camouflage both up close and at distance, and that following a small shape across an abrupt change in background from sky to ground would probably challenge a lot of observers - but would welcome any thoughts on how to contend with nature's tricks and my own shortcomings.

Cheers
Patudo

Seeing a bird against a blue sky is like noticing a dark speck of dust on a white sheet. Put the same bird below the horizon, against the background of a forest, and the bird can disappear in an instant due to clutter and confusion. The best one can hope for is to "follow" the moving bird and "stay on it" as long as possible. Given the situation you outlined I don't think the bin has much to do with the outcome. I know good birders using average bins that can follow birds in varied terrains as good as the best.

Caveat...blue skies absorb birds like sponges due to minimal contrast and the overwhelming nature of blue. Add a few white clouds and the situation dramatically changes allowing the tiniest of specks to be spotted. Any bird that drops below the horizon can be lost in a heartbeat. Distance only enhances the challenge but that's why we have bins to begin with!

 

[[email protected]]

I have found an Image Stabilized binocular to have an advantage over regular binoculars especially at the distances you are trying to observe at. A higher magnification like 10x with IS will help you see detail at 400m. I would try the Canon 10x42 IS-L. It will realistically give you 30 to 40% better resolution than a normal binocular. I know I personally find it helps to ID and follow fast moving birds of prey at those kind of distances. Because you are not moving you can pick out the movement of the bird easier against difficult backrounds.

 

[BruceH]

I have found an Image Stabilized binocular to have an advantage over regular binoculars especially at the distances you are trying to observe at. A higher magnification like 10x with IS will help you see detail at 400m. I would try the Canon 10x42 IS-L. It will realistically give you 30 to 40% better resolution than a normal binocular. I know I personally find it helps to ID and follow fast moving birds of prey at those kind of distances. Because you are not moving you can pick out the movement of the bird easier against difficult backrounds.

I am not sure about that. I can see where the image stabilization applies to a stationary subject but I am not sure if the argument holds when panning a binocular with the subject. My initial thought is the image would be the same with a conventional binocular when panning, all else being equal.

Any one else have thoughts on that?

As far as a conventional binocular goes, maybe one with a high light transmission may offer a little advantage. The higher the contrast, the better.

 

[paddy7]

It's an interesting one....I suppose, thinking about it logically, you're looking at an object of non-defined colour (range from tern/gull to dark raptor) moving against extremes of background (light to dark, dark to light, and everything in between) at either fast or slow speed (slow flap or peregrine bullet).
Without thinking of any brand in particular, you'd probably need good FoV to not lose it; high transmission to not suddenly be plunged into darkness; high contrast to pick out what variance there is between bird and background; relatively even colour-spectrum transmission (although blue can be a problem in heat haze); a large sweet-spot to not lose the object in edge distortions; comfortable ergonomics so panning is easy for you.
When you've found that particular set of optics, can you let me know?

 

[BruceH]

.......
Without thinking of any brand in particular, you'd probably need good FoV to not lose it; high transmission to not suddenly be plunged into darkness; high contrast to pick out what variance there is between bird and background; relatively even colour-spectrum transmission (although blue can be a problem in heat haze); a large sweet-spot to not lose the object in edge distortions; comfortable ergonomics so panning is easy for you.
When you've found that particular set of optics, can you let me know?

Paddy ...... It sounds like you just described the Zeiss SF 8X42. :t:

 

[[email protected]]

I am not sure about that. I can see where the image stabilization applies to a stationary subject but I am not sure if the argument holds when panning a binocular with the subject. My initial thought is the image would be the same with a conventional binocular when panning, all else being equal.

Any one else have thoughts on that?

As far as a conventional binocular goes, maybe one with a high light transmission may offer a little advantage. The higher the contrast, the better.

To me panning with an IS binocular is like panning with a camera on a tripod. You are going to get a smoother steadier image and be able to see more detail. Think Blair Witch Project if you want to know what a handheld camera pan looks like. I can follow a goose in flight or for that matter and airplane easier with an IS binocular than a regular binocular. It is easier to track a moving object because you don't have as many vertical oscillations which cause you to lose the object in your FOV.

 

[BruceH]

As I recall, the camera person in the Blair Witch movie was walking and running when using the camera so I don' t think that is the best analogy. I have never tried walking with the Canon 10X42 IS but I have used it viewing out of a moving car. All is fine until hitting bumps and it does not keep up. I can see where it may be beneficial panning an airplane but that would generally be at a slower rate than a flying bird so it would be easier for the IS to keep up. It is an interesting idea to experiment with.

 

[typo]

Patudo,

It's an interesting question. Trying to do comparisons like that with even the handfull of binoculars I own, let alone the hundreds on the market is a pretty much impossible task. Never the less I have noticed differences in how easy it is to track birds as they fly acoss dense vegitation and the answer isn't always the same. Not easy to pin down the reason why but I think the angle intensity and colour balance of the light as the time might be one factor at least as switching between binoculars with different colour balances can help. Sometimes it can help to focally isolate a bird from it's background by using higher power, but the distance and the speed of those raptors, means that probably is not the best bet.

In theory at least we can track moving objects most accurately when the contrast is optimised at a 5 to 10 arcminute angle to the eye. The body of the Falcon at 500m would be about 1 arcminute so 5 to 10 fold magnification should work. As for the binocular with best optimised contrast in this range? That may well be the Leica Noctivid?

David

 

[paddy7]

Paddy ...... It sounds like you just described the Zeiss SF 8X42. :t:

I kinda had Zeiss in mind - but perhaps more the HT! the ergonomic aspect might be the SF though....

 

[FrankD]

Another thought....

I frequent the same hawk watch at Pileatus above. I can say that there have been times when a bird of prey dropped below the horizon and into what we call the "bowl'. Basically it is the forested-side of the mountain. Most folks lose the bird as it enters the bowl (with or without binoculars) simply because of the distance, the size of the bird at that distance and because the bird tends to blend in with the background. The only times that I follow the bird when everyone else can't is when I am using a small spotting scope. The increased magnification (around 20x in this case) coupled with the stable viewing platform of a tripod allows me to follow the bird fairly easily. Of course I also utilize wide-angle, fixed magnification eyepieces. The majority of zooms out there have too narrow of a field of view to be as effective for tracking a moving bird (in my opinion of course). A smooth fluid-style head on the tripod is also a bit of a must have in this type of situation.

Just something to think about...

 

[chill6x6]

What binoculars are you using now? Really need to know that before pointing you in another direction....

Without knowing that.....a high quality 8X32/7X42/8X42 with a larger than average FOV is the way I'd go. In fact that would be the way to go for most situations...

 

[normjackson]

Perhaps in years to come if there are any civilians left, they will have access to digital binoculars with sufficently powerfully processing to be able to "lock on" to moving objects.

Nikon do claim their VR system in camera lenses will aid the photographer when he is panning by offering image stabilisation in directions other than the one he is trying to pan in. I guess Dennis has found something similar operating with his Canon bins.

 

[Troubador]

It's an interesting one....I suppose, thinking about it logically, you're looking at an object of non-defined colour (range from tern/gull to dark raptor) moving against extremes of background (light to dark, dark to light, and everything in between) at either fast or slow speed (slow flap or peregrine bullet).
Without thinking of any brand in particular, you'd probably need good FoV to not lose it; high transmission to not suddenly be plunged into darkness; high contrast to pick out what variance there is between bird and background; relatively even colour-spectrum transmission (although blue can be a problem in heat haze); a large sweet-spot to not lose the object in edge distortions; comfortable ergonomics so panning is easy for you.
When you've found that particular set of optics, can you let me know?

Nicely summed up Paddy, keep on taking the Adnams.

Lee

 

[[email protected]]

When you are trying to see a bird or anything at 500 meters or more you need a steady view and higher magnification. Which means either 10x binoculars or above on a tripod or with IS or a small spotting scope like Frank mentioned with a wide FOV and a smaller magnification of 20x mounted on a nice smooth fluid head tripod.

 

[Pileatus]

When you are trying to see a bird or anything at 500 meters or more you need a steady view and higher magnification. Which means either 10x binoculars or above on a tripod or with IS or a small spotting scope like Frank mentioned with a wide FOV and a smaller magnification of 20x mounted on a nice smooth fluid head tripod.

An adult bald eagle with a seven foot wingspan and a white head/tail can be identified at far greater distances than 500 meters with an 8X binocular. It's quite amazing how many specks show up in your field of view after a few years of practice.