-
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.
FOV - beyond what value is too much? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Ted Y.
- Start date
In my opinion, after having all the NL's and SF's with their huge FOV's I think the sweet spot is about a 65 degree AFOV or about 8 degrees in an 8x or 6.5 degrees in a 10x. I firmly believe the wider FOV roof prism binoculars with their wide angle eyepieces are more prone to glare problems, like I had with the NL 8x42. I think this is the big reason Swarovski reduced the FOV on their NL 8x32 because they knew they had glare problems with the NL 8x42. Usually an 8x32 binocular in the same model line will have a bigger FOV not smaller. It seems like this problem is unique to roof prism binoculars because 9 degree porro prism binoculars like Nikon E2 8x30 are quite good at handling glare. You reach a point in FOV where you can't take the whole FOV in at once anyway. Yes, maybe you can catch a bird at the edge of the FOV, but is that really that useful when the important thing is the quality of the on-axis view once the bird is centered. I would rather have a quality 8 degree FOV than a 9 degree FOV with glare. I will take quality over quantity any day of the week. This could be part of the reason Zeiss went back to an 8 degree FOV on their new SFL, along with the fact that it probably has simpler and lighter eyepieces, and I am glad they did. I think it will be a relatively glare free, as well as lighter binocular because of it.
TedY,
I agree with a lot of what Dennis says. To answer your question, no you don't alway have to choose between any two bins based on wider FOV alone. But IMO it seems what people are expressing is a preference for either widest FOV or image quality and/or some other characteristics. I like both for different uses and the different viewing experience. A wider FOV enables me to better spot and track birds and provides more context and depth to the image especially with 6/7x formats. On the other hand a 10x with a smaller FOV but top image quality to the edge allows a very enjoyable focus on the bird in isolation.
Mike
Thotmosis
Well-known member
I agree with Mike. It depends of the object of observation. I use my old Swift Audubon 8.5x44 model 804 with it's huge 144 m at 1000 m for different objects (flocks of birds) then let's say my Leica UV 10x25 (searching for paths when hiking). In general: i can concentrate better with binoculars with a smaller FOV, too much information can distract sometimes and the Swift with 144 m at 1000 m makes me dizzy sometimes because of it's extremely wide FOV. Just my opinion of course.
My experience of the usefulness of large fov is biased due to the fact that most of our nature observing is within sight of the ocean in the west of Scotland. In this habitat wide fields of view are so useful in searching the surface of the sea for otters, seals, re-surfacing diving birds, and cetaceans. This same wide fov is also great for rapidly scanning the tangles of off-shore rocks and islets for otters and seals. In the skies above we are lucky to have both Golden Eagles and Sea Eagles and again, a wide fov speeds up the scanning of the sky, cliffs and crags for these birds.
So for me having a wide fov is nothing at all to do with some sort of 'wow' factor, it is a case of having a fov that is a real practical benefit in that kind of habitat.
I should also mention that when in habitats with butterflies and dragonflies which can appear rapidly in flight at relatively close distances, a wide field of view is a big help in capturing a view of them through the binos in flight. Their flight is often punctuated by rapid changes of direction and speed so with binos that have a narrow fov the chances of getting a view of them in flight is much lower and of course the same applies when in habitats with small birds zooming between bushes and reedbeds.
Lee
So for me having a wide fov is nothing at all to do with some sort of 'wow' factor, it is a case of having a fov that is a real practical benefit in that kind of habitat.
I should also mention that when in habitats with butterflies and dragonflies which can appear rapidly in flight at relatively close distances, a wide field of view is a big help in capturing a view of them through the binos in flight. Their flight is often punctuated by rapid changes of direction and speed so with binos that have a narrow fov the chances of getting a view of them in flight is much lower and of course the same applies when in habitats with small birds zooming between bushes and reedbeds.
Lee
mid 70degrees seems about the limit to easily actually use the whole field, beyond that you might think you can see the whole field, but sometimes things hide “round the corners” where you can’t see them. I used to use naglers in my 70mm APM, but “downgraded” to some Morpheus and don’t miss the extra few degrees of field, still a huge immersive field that you fall into. For daytime use a little degradation towards the edges is less noticable, but still noticeable if compared to a flatter field model.
Peter
Peter
Binocollector
Well-known member
I love my vintage 8x30 models with 10° or 7x35 with 11°. Even though they might not be quite as wide as stated but they are still wider than most binos offered today including the Kowa 6.5x32. So I'm firmly in the "the wider the better" camp.
I also never have issues with glare with those vintage porros.
I also never have issues with glare with those vintage porros.
360º ?
All jocularity aside, someone has actually made a 270º fisheye lens:
All jocularity aside, someone has actually made a 270º fisheye lens:
Assembling the C-4 Optics 4.9mm f3.5 Hyperfisheye Prototype
You guys have watched us gut a lot of lenses and cameras over the years. So I thought it would be fun for you to see us put one together from scratch. Compared to many of the lenses we've taken apart, this is all mechanical lens is rather simple: no focus motors, image stabilizers, etc. [...]
www.lensrentals.com
Last edited:
It just goes to show that super WA binoculars are personal preference because I have tried a lot of the vintage WA with 10 and 11 degree FOV's and I immediately didn't care for them. The FOV reminded me of an IMAX wide screen where every time you changed the position of the binoculars you have to move your eyes around to "take in" the full FOV, whereas, with an 8 degree binocular you can examine the FOV immediately and move on to the next FOV. I can see no advantage with them, especially since they seem to carry downsides that come with the huge FOV like soft edges, small sweet spots and a lot of field curvature that limit the usefulness of the super WA anyway, The older porro's that I have tried seemed to be lacking in contrast and brightness also compared to the newer binoculars because of the advances in coatings.
But Dennis, back in the day when Swarovski introduced the EL equipped with field flatteners you used to say how much you enjoyed letting your eyes roam from one edge of the field of view to the other edge because the sharp edges were so terrific. Have your eyes got tired since then?
Lee
A question we might ask ourselves, when looking at the specs of a binocular is, "WHO benefits?" I get this is controversial. but, think about it. When we buy something we assume the new and improved, this or that feature, has value, is gonna be important. Right? The little voice in your head goes off, I may not be able to take advantage now, know how to use that today, but I'll learn, then I'll know and I'll have the best. After all they (bino maker), wouldn't be doing this if folks weren't asking for it...
Maybe some were asking for it, but how many (buyers), truly benefit?
With wide FOV who benefits? You aint gonna like this. Its the bino company. We, here on Birdforum Bino subgroup (BFBSG), love to display all that we've learned about binos, like FOV. There's actual or linear, true angular, apparent, even that sparkling new concept - effective.. We throw the various numbers around to what end?
What if we cut through the smoke and mirrors? Divide the published linear FOV at 1000 whatevers by 10. After all with an 8X or 10X as a practical matter, 100 whatevers, (or less), is about where the birding information is actually useful. Then keep in mind you get half of that number on either side of the view. The differences, of the best new and improved aint huge. But the bino company convinces us this is a thing. Why? So they can sell more units.
With human eyeball viewing we have a wide field, but we dont/cant focus to the edge. It was that primitive hominid condition of needing to see the approaching saber tooth tiger sneaking out of the forest, so we could detect movement, turn our head, focus on the threat, and start to run, that gave us that. Thank Darwin, Gould...
If you stay with the bino you have, train with it, learn its quirks, notice movement at the edge of the view, move your head so the thing that attracted you is now near the center of the field that is in focus... isnt that what we do? Its not about the bino. Its about what the bino does and how we learn to take advantage.
Am I nuts? Did I just save you a couple thousand bucks?
Maybe some were asking for it, but how many (buyers), truly benefit?
With wide FOV who benefits? You aint gonna like this. Its the bino company. We, here on Birdforum Bino subgroup (BFBSG), love to display all that we've learned about binos, like FOV. There's actual or linear, true angular, apparent, even that sparkling new concept - effective.. We throw the various numbers around to what end?
What if we cut through the smoke and mirrors? Divide the published linear FOV at 1000 whatevers by 10. After all with an 8X or 10X as a practical matter, 100 whatevers, (or less), is about where the birding information is actually useful. Then keep in mind you get half of that number on either side of the view. The differences, of the best new and improved aint huge. But the bino company convinces us this is a thing. Why? So they can sell more units.
With human eyeball viewing we have a wide field, but we dont/cant focus to the edge. It was that primitive hominid condition of needing to see the approaching saber tooth tiger sneaking out of the forest, so we could detect movement, turn our head, focus on the threat, and start to run, that gave us that. Thank Darwin, Gould...
If you stay with the bino you have, train with it, learn its quirks, notice movement at the edge of the view, move your head so the thing that attracted you is now near the center of the field that is in focus... isnt that what we do? Its not about the bino. Its about what the bino does and how we learn to take advantage.
Am I nuts? Did I just save you a couple thousand bucks?
yarrellii
Well-known member
I was having a private conversation with a forum member about this topic today. After trying many bincoulars, I tend to give less importance to a super wide field of view. I'm usually happy around 60º, even 55º seems to do the trick for me.
I've been using a 8x20 Canon IS with a limited 6,6 º FOV (49,5 AFOV as per Canon specs) and that feels indeed a little on the narrow side, to be honest. Coming back to a 8º 8x32 after the little Canon is like opening the window. On the other hand, however, going from the 8º 8x32 to the 8'8º of the Nikon EII 8x30 doesn't feel like a lot. To begin with because in many wide field binoculars I simply can't seem to enjoy the full FOV, and I don't see the field stop clearly (I don't use glasses and have a pretty good vision, but it seems my facial features don't allow m to enjoy extra wide field binoculars). So I don't chase the FOV. I welcome it, but it has a limited importance in my overall preference for a certain device, together with other factors: ease of view and comfort are number one, low weight and compact size in everyday binoculars do also rate very high (probably higher than FOV). That's my personal point of view.
I've been using a 8x20 Canon IS with a limited 6,6 º FOV (49,5 AFOV as per Canon specs) and that feels indeed a little on the narrow side, to be honest. Coming back to a 8º 8x32 after the little Canon is like opening the window. On the other hand, however, going from the 8º 8x32 to the 8'8º of the Nikon EII 8x30 doesn't feel like a lot. To begin with because in many wide field binoculars I simply can't seem to enjoy the full FOV, and I don't see the field stop clearly (I don't use glasses and have a pretty good vision, but it seems my facial features don't allow m to enjoy extra wide field binoculars). So I don't chase the FOV. I welcome it, but it has a limited importance in my overall preference for a certain device, together with other factors: ease of view and comfort are number one, low weight and compact size in everyday binoculars do also rate very high (probably higher than FOV). That's my personal point of view.
The EL's didn't have the huge FOV's of the latest NL and SF's and were more manageable. The Swarovski EL SV 8x32 had an 8 degree FOV and I think that is the sweet spot for FOV. I don't mind sharp edges or a flat field on an 8 degree FOV, but I think the manufacturers have gone too far with the 9 degree NL and SF's and as a result glare problems are cropping up. The more complex WA eyepieces are also making the binoculars heavier.
Binocollector
Well-known member
The sweet spot grows with the FoV and my eyes are pretty good at adjusting. Also, the low magnification models like the 7x35s have such a good DoF that the usable sweet spot is still super large. The better vintage models are bright enough for my taste and often have better contrast precisely because they are not quite as bright while the view through some of the modern binos looks almost "washed out" because they are too bright on a sunny day. At least those are my impressions. Some people however say that increasing or decreasing brightness throughout the whole image will not change contrast at all.
I also don't quite understand how it can be distraction when the field is too large and not "being able to take it all in". I mean, isn't that just how our eyes work with no bino attached? A super huge FoV but in order to see something clearly it needs to be in the center. I like that effect of "being in the scenery" that I only get with wide angle binos.
Field curvature doesn't bother me. And the flat field binos I have are rather narrow -- all around 60-65 AFoV. In comparison I'd say the sweet spot is larger on a wide angle 10° 8x30 compared to a flat field 7.5° 8x32.
The only thing that can be slightly irritating is the extreme pincushion distortion of the vintage models which was just the "flavour of the day" but has nothing to do with field curvature.
I received a new wide angle vintage model today, the Tasco #116 and did a lot of comparing. My "Adler" wide angle 7x35 is slightly better in construction and brightness but the humble Tasco just works perfectly for me. No black-outs, no glare, sharp, reasonably bright. And it's not even among the best vintage 7x35 models. But I really like it so far.
I am certain that there'd be one among my collection that you'd also like. There are differences.
But another thing I noticed today -- my eyes are so vastly different in color perception between left and right -- it's almost as if looking through a bino with vintage coatings with my right eye and one with modern coatings with the left eye. That's how different my eyes are. I guess any "alpha" would be wasted on me. Here's a part of my vintage wide angle collection.
jafritten
Well-known member
Exactly the same with me. I do appreciate the E2's wide field of view when used for viewing landscapes on hikes or for scanning purposes as pointed out by Lee in post #5. But quite generally, I actually prefer smaller fields of view as long as they have a wide sweetspot. To me, a limited FOV is part of the charm of looking through a binocular. In terms of FOV, my current favourite is the Ultravid 8x32 at a modest 135/1000 (61.6° AFOV). It feels very natural and 'cosy' if a word like that is applicable. Very large (A)FOVs also make objects seem smaller. To my eyes, a bird seems larger viewed through the Ultravid 7x42 than through the 8x Nikon E2. If I used binoculars for astronomy or static observation, I might like a wider FOV, probably also with greater edge to edge sharpness. For my purposes I certainly do not need more than the E2's 70°. So, this is about where it ends for me.
jafritten
Well-known member
That's interesting. I noticed that. But I think that's due to the position of the sun. If the sun is on my right, the colour temperature is much colder in the right barrel and, thus, the colours appear much more blue. The left barrel then shows much richer reds.
I don't think it is the size of the FOV that makes objects smaller. A roof prism like your UVHD 7x42 will make objects seem larger than a porro prism like the E2. There is some technical reason for it if you search for it. There has been threads on the topic.
Binocollector
Well-known member
@jafritten
Indeed that probably amplifies the issue. I need to check this out again tomorrow.
Indeed that probably amplifies the issue. I need to check this out again tomorrow.
Nice collection! It is fun acquiring all those binoculars and trying them, isn't it? How is the Luna 8x30?The sweet spot grows with the FoV and my eyes are pretty good at adjusting. Also, the low magnification models like the 7x35s have such a good DoF that the usable sweet spot is still super large. The better vintage models are bright enough for my taste and often have better contrast precisely because they are not quite as bright while the view through some of the modern binos looks almost "washed out" because they are too bright on a sunny day. At least those are my impressions. Some people however say that increasing or decreasing brightness throughout the whole image will not change contrast at all.
I also don't quite understand how it can be distraction when the field is too large and not "being able to take it all in". I mean, isn't that just how our eyes work with no bino attached? A super huge FoV but in order to see something clearly it needs to be in the center. I like that effect of "being in the scenery" that I only get with wide angle binos.
Field curvature doesn't bother me. And the flat field binos I have are rather narrow -- all around 60-65 AFoV. In comparison I'd say the sweet spot is larger on a wide angle 10° 8x30 compared to a flat field 7.5° 8x32.
The only thing that can be slightly irritating is the extreme pincushion distortion of the vintage models which was just the "flavour of the day" but has nothing to do with field curvature.
I received a new wide angle vintage model today, the Tasco #116 and did a lot of comparing. My "Adler" wide angle 7x35 is slightly better in construction and brightness but the humble Tasco just works perfectly for me. No black-outs, no glare, sharp, reasonably bright. And it's not even among the best vintage 7x35 models. But I really like it so far.
I am certain that there'd be one among my collection that you'd also like. There are differences.
But another thing I noticed today -- my eyes are so vastly different in color perception between left and right -- it's almost as if looking through a bino with vintage coatings with my right eye and one with modern coatings with the left eye. That's how different my eyes are. I guess any "alpha" would be wasted on me. Here's a part of my vintage wide angle collection.
jafritten
Well-known member
It makes a substantial difference.
