-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Binocular IF – a no-no for birding? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Ted Y.
- Start date
Ted,
Yes a Fuji 10x50 but only on the beach mostly from a chair for viewing from @ 25M to infinity.
If there's a way to "tame" an IF to make it more practical for all around birding , I would love to know.
Mike
yarrellii
Well-known member
I think it all depends on what type of birding. If, like Mike says, you're going to observe very distant birds that don't have any plans to come any closer (or you don't plan to encounter anything close that might require a sudden refocus), then you might find it useful, the same way astronomers focus once and forget about it for the night. However, if your question is if an IF pair of binoculars could be a good "all-round birding binocular", say one day you're watching waders 200 m away, but the next day you chase warblers moving fast among branches of bushes, then jumping to nearby trees, and then you spot an eagle soaring and want to check on that, but want to come back quickly to see what your warblers were doing... then personally I think they're easily beaten by any central focus device, which makes it not only faster but way more comfortable. I've tried birding with IF (like in "all-round birding") and learned why birders usually prefer central focus binoculars: it was just a pain.
But then, if you have several binoculars for several purposes (a close range, wide angle, low magnification for warblers, forest, etc.; then a long range IF for distant waders could be a possibility, but personally I would always prefer the same format with a central focus wheel, simply because it would make the device much more versatile).
Said that, for "all-round birding binonculars", I do find it's a no-no.
But then, if you have several binoculars for several purposes (a close range, wide angle, low magnification for warblers, forest, etc.; then a long range IF for distant waders could be a possibility, but personally I would always prefer the same format with a central focus wheel, simply because it would make the device much more versatile).
Said that, for "all-round birding binonculars", I do find it's a no-no.
Chose birds which are not very active and at less close distances.
Watching a heron looking for a fish for lunch is a different thing from trying to follow a twitchy warbler through the pucker brush.
There are no absolute “no-no’s” just uses of a particular instrument which really don’t make sense.
Watching a heron looking for a fish for lunch is a different thing from trying to follow a twitchy warbler through the pucker brush.
There are no absolute “no-no’s” just uses of a particular instrument which really don’t make sense.
Mike Crawley
Emeritus President at Burnage Rugby Club
Buy an eyepatch from your local pharmacy - put it on - use I.F. binoculars like real binoculars
You can use a Fujinon FMT-SX 7x50 because it has a good DOF as said above for longer distance birding like shore birds, but they are obviously not ideal for fast moving warblers in dense underbrush. What is helpful is to have three different settings on the IF focuser for say the garden, the meadow and infinity and remember what they are. They are still not as versatile as a center focus for birding, but of course they are fine for astronomy and for use on boats at greater distances.
I recall someone mentioning the use of a thick/wide rubber band to wrap tightly enough around both focus rings to make them turn together. Maybe you can try it and see how that goes?
Buy an eyepatch from your local pharmacy - put it on - use I.F. binoculars like real binoculars
The binocular has excellent tethered lens covers.
It will be no place for may nose.
Binocollector
Well-known member
I got a 7x30 with IF incoming. I'll report back how it works out for birding. IMO a small magnification might be best for IF as the focus depth is better (of course depending on your eyes' ability to adjust).
yarrellii
Well-known member
@Binocollector Are those Steiner? One of the IF models I've had and tried with great expectations (given how scarce quality 7x30/32 are) was the Steiner 7x30 Navigator, and they were a great disappointment. I remember having the 8x56 Nighthunter and the optics were ace, and so was the ergonomics and the sense of quality, but the small 7x30 Navigator, nice as they were to hold, were plagued by inner reflections of all sorts. Not sure wether it was a lemon or that model is always like that. I'm curious about higher range 7x30 models, but the IF is really stopping me. Three years ago I found the Wildlife Pro 8x30 (which have a mixed focus; both IF and central), but I found the field of view a little narrow and the overall experience not fully satisfactory. So, on paper IF + CF sounds great, but it wasn't so (for me, at least, YMMV). Let us know how you like them.
Binocollector
Well-known member
No, Komz 7x30. I got 2 Steiners and they are both bad. And the worst thing isn't even the "auto focus" but the optical quality - horrible stray light control on my Safari Ultrasharp and my 8x30 Military has a "sweet spot" that doesn't deserve the name as maybe about half of the FoV is blurry.
yarrellii
Well-known member
@Binocollector It seems we have had similar experiences with low-mid range Steiners. The Navigator 7x30 were a bit of a shock, to the point where I seriously doubt if that par was a lemon or not. Anyway, if it passed the quality control of Steiner, that speaks poorly about their optics. Now the Komz is really intriguing, I've read many times about it, but the IF kept me away from it. Do share your impressions about it, please.
Binocollector
Well-known member
@yarrellii
The Komz 7x30 arrived and I used it for quite some time, even at night for looking at the (almost full) moon. I also compared it to a few other low magnification binos I have (Nikon Action EX 7x35, Kowa BD II 6.5x32, Opticron Adventurer T WP 6.5x32, a vintage "Olympia" 7x50, my Canon 8x32WP). I have to say -- it is fantastic when it comes to sharpness and a distortion-free image. It is not 100% sharp to the edge but the view is very, very good (sure my DDoptics models with field flattener are slightly better but cost twice as much). The stereoscopic effect is also very strong. Yes, it has a greenish-yellow tint to the image. The IF is no problem for me. When I focus at something in about 200m distance, it is sharp from 5 meters out. Good enough for me. And since I am a collector, I also bought a used "Seconda"-version with internal focusing and twist-up eye-cups. That one will arrive tomorrow. The one I got first is the current civilian version with rubber fold-down eyecups and no internal focussing. The oculars move slightly up and down. But still very nice optically.
The dreaded "globe"-effect when panning is not visible for me. Maybe I am just not susceptible to the rolling-ball-effect at all? I see it with the Kowa 6.5 however. I think the mostly distortion-free image (with a very slight softening at the edges) is fantastic for panning the landscape. The biggest downside is the tint of the image. The Nikon Action EX 7x35 or the Opticron or Kowa are brighter and more color neutral but don't seem as razor sharp. And show more distortions, especially when panning, like "moustache" or "bathtub" distortion. The edges move up in the upper part of the image and down in the lower part due to pincushion distortion on the Opticron and Nikon. The Kowa seems to have more of a rolling ball effect than the Komz 7x30. The focus depth is also better on the Komz 7x30 than the Kowa 6.3x32. Not sure why, as it is said that focus depth only depends on magnification but I have my doubts about that. Especially considering how focus depth works in photography I think there might be other factors involved.
Since the eye-pieces of the Komz 7x30 are super large, the trick with the rubber band around the barrels to focus both at once might actually work while still having more than enough space for my nose. I might have to try that. But since focus depth is so great on it, I don't think I will need it.
An interesting glass in any case. For low magnifications I think individual focus works nicely when having the eyes for it. My eyes adjust quite well so it never feels straining to use it.
I will update the thread when I get the "Seconda"-version. I am very interested if there are optical differences. According to some sites, the eyepiece of the current Baigish 7x30 has 6 lenses and the Seconda 7. But others claim both have the same number of lenses.
The Komz 7x30 arrived and I used it for quite some time, even at night for looking at the (almost full) moon. I also compared it to a few other low magnification binos I have (Nikon Action EX 7x35, Kowa BD II 6.5x32, Opticron Adventurer T WP 6.5x32, a vintage "Olympia" 7x50, my Canon 8x32WP). I have to say -- it is fantastic when it comes to sharpness and a distortion-free image. It is not 100% sharp to the edge but the view is very, very good (sure my DDoptics models with field flattener are slightly better but cost twice as much). The stereoscopic effect is also very strong. Yes, it has a greenish-yellow tint to the image. The IF is no problem for me. When I focus at something in about 200m distance, it is sharp from 5 meters out. Good enough for me. And since I am a collector, I also bought a used "Seconda"-version with internal focusing and twist-up eye-cups. That one will arrive tomorrow. The one I got first is the current civilian version with rubber fold-down eyecups and no internal focussing. The oculars move slightly up and down. But still very nice optically.
The dreaded "globe"-effect when panning is not visible for me. Maybe I am just not susceptible to the rolling-ball-effect at all? I see it with the Kowa 6.5 however. I think the mostly distortion-free image (with a very slight softening at the edges) is fantastic for panning the landscape. The biggest downside is the tint of the image. The Nikon Action EX 7x35 or the Opticron or Kowa are brighter and more color neutral but don't seem as razor sharp. And show more distortions, especially when panning, like "moustache" or "bathtub" distortion. The edges move up in the upper part of the image and down in the lower part due to pincushion distortion on the Opticron and Nikon. The Kowa seems to have more of a rolling ball effect than the Komz 7x30. The focus depth is also better on the Komz 7x30 than the Kowa 6.3x32. Not sure why, as it is said that focus depth only depends on magnification but I have my doubts about that. Especially considering how focus depth works in photography I think there might be other factors involved.
Since the eye-pieces of the Komz 7x30 are super large, the trick with the rubber band around the barrels to focus both at once might actually work while still having more than enough space for my nose. I might have to try that. But since focus depth is so great on it, I don't think I will need it.
An interesting glass in any case. For low magnifications I think individual focus works nicely when having the eyes for it. My eyes adjust quite well so it never feels straining to use it.
I will update the thread when I get the "Seconda"-version. I am very interested if there are optical differences. According to some sites, the eyepiece of the current Baigish 7x30 has 6 lenses and the Seconda 7. But others claim both have the same number of lenses.
Binocollector
Well-known member
A few pics.
Similar threads
