How Important is FOV? (1 Viewer)

[Dennis Mau]

When you choose a pair of binoculars, how important is FOV? FOV is probably the most important specification I look at when choosing binoculars because it makes it easier to find and follow birds, you don't have to move your binoculars around as much and I can scan much larger areas quicker with a bigger FOV. But many birders say FOV is not that important, and they would rather have more saturated colors or more resolution, etc. How important is FOV to you and if it is not important why not? What other characteristics of a binocular are more important?

 

[A2GG]

It's important but I personally don't need a super wide FOV. My Trinovid HD 8x32 has a 372ft FOV which these days is considered relatively 'narrow'. But it's still decent and sufficient for me. In the past I've had a couple binos with around 330-340ft FOV and those were a bit too narrow for me. I've also had some binos with 420+ FOV and those were nice.
If the Trinovid HD was made to have a 420ft FOV I wouldn't complain. that would be nice. But it has a smaller FOV which I'm able to use without any real issue. I wouldn't "rubbish it" (as the Brits say) just because the FOV is not super wide. There are other features I really like about the Trinovid. I don't think too much anymore about other models and if they may offer something 'more'. I've settled down a bit these days and just enjoy what I have and that goes for other things too (besides binoculars).

 

[Dennis Mau]

It's important but I personally don't need a super wide FOV. My Trinovid HD 8x32 has a 372ft FOV which these days is considered relatively 'narrow'. But it's still decent and sufficient for me. In the past I've had a couple binos with around 330-340ft FOV and those were a bit too narrow for me. I've also had some binos with 420+ FOV and those were nice.
If the Trinovid HD was made to have a 420ft FOV I wouldn't complain. that would be nice. But it has a smaller FOV which I'm able to use without any real issue. I wouldn't "rubbish it" (as the Brits say) just because the FOV is not super wide. There are other features I really like about the Trinovid. I don't think too much anymore about other models and if they may offer something 'more'. I've settled down a bit these days and just enjoy what I have and that goes for other things too (besides binoculars).

What are the other features you like about the Leica Trinovid 8x32 that you consider more important than FOV? Don't you feel a bigger FOV helps you find and follow birds? I have had binoculars with narrower FOV's and I always felt I was somewhat handicapped because it was more difficult to find and follow quick moving birds, especially in close cover under thickly wooded trees.

 

[A2GG]

A wide true FOV does help to follow fast moving birds. I've had binoculars with wider FOV which made it a little easier. I don't find the FOV in the Trinovid HD to be too narrow though. I'm able to follow birds well enough. I don't seem to lose many. But, yes a super wide FOV can make it easier.

I really enjoy the Leica's distinct image with its excellent color balance. I like the designs of Leica binoculars. The Trinovid has an excellent smooth focuser and it works well in cold weather too. My old Ultravid HD Plus 7x42 which I used exclusively for about 4 years was a great binocular. I also had the short lived 2011(?) version Trinovid in 8x42 which was very nice as well. Leica binos seem reliable to me and they have an exquisite design and build quality.

 

[Dennis Mau]

A wide true FOV does help to follow fast moving birds. I've had binoculars with wider FOV which made it a little easier. I don't find the FOV in the Trinovid HD to be too narrow though. I'm able to follow birds well enough. I don't seem to lose many. But, yes a super wide FOV can make it easier.

I really enjoy the Leica's distinct image with its excellent color balance. I like the designs of Leica binoculars. The Trinovid has an excellent smooth focuser and it works well in cold weather too. My old Ultravid HD Plus 7x42 which I used exclusively for about 4 years was a great binocular. I also had the short lived 2011(?) version Trinovid in 8x42 which was very nice as well. Leica binos seem reliable to me and they have an exquisite design and build quality.

I agree that Leica's have excellent color balance, and they do have exquisite design and build quality, and I think that is why birders tolerate their smaller FOV. I mean, the Leica Trinovid 8x32's 7.2 degree FOV compared to the Nikon MHG 8x42 8.3 degree FOV and the NL 8x42 9.1 degree FOV is quite narrow. It is weird that Leica would not at least increase the FOV in the Trinovid to 8.0 degrees to be more competitive with Nikon, Swarovski and Zeiss. The Leica UVHD+ 8x32 and Leica Noctivid 8x42 both have a 7.7 degree FOV, which is better, but it is still not equal to the competition.

Leica beats to a different drummer. I think part of it is Leica's, Swarovski's and Zeiss are more popular in Europe, and Nikon doesn't really have a big presence in Europe like they do in the USA. When I mention the Nikon MHG 8x42 on Bird Forum there is not much interest, but if you mention Leica, Swarovski or Zeiss you get almost everybody's attention. It is probably because the European brands have more panache. Just like automobiles, binocular buyers are influenced by the status or recognition of owning a brand that is well known. If it is a Zeiss or Swarovski, it must be good and because Nikon makes some cheaper models of binoculars there is not as much status in even owning their best model.

 

[CharleyBird]

When you choose a pair of binoculars, how important is FOV? FOV is probably the most important specification I look at when choosing binoculars ....
What other characteristics of a binocular are more important?

Briefly:

1. Size, weight, haptics, build quality.
i.e. can I hold, use & carry it comfortably? Face & fingers.

2. Magnification.
i.e. is it suitable for the projected use (woods/ mountains/ dusk?) and can I hold it without shake?

3. Optical qualities.
i.e.
a) brightness, clarity & microcontrast
b) colour fidelity & CA fringing
c) then field of view & edge quality
d) close focus and a glare check.

FOV is part of the whole package, wider is nice to have, but not "the most important specification" for me.


Yes I go birding with NL 12x42 or FL 7x42
But I carry my diminutive Leica UV 10x32 far more, only has 118m FOV.
After 15 years of ownership still love using my 110m FOV Steiner 10x44 Discovery/XP because the haptics are near perfect for me.

 

[A2GG]

It is weird that Leica would not at least increase the FOV in the Trinovid to 8.0 degrees to be more competitive with Nikon, Swarovski and Zeiss. The Leica UVHD+ 8x32 and Leica Noctivid 8x42 both have a 7.7 degree FOV, which is better, but it is still not equal to the competition.

It is weird. I remember being disappointed reading the specs when the Trinovid HD was first announced - relatively narrow FOV, heavy weight and IPD range not too good. I avoided trying the 8x32 for years. I was especially concerned about the IPD range because my IPD is 59mm. It actually works fine and I don’t need to have the bino closed down to the stop. In practice the FOV is fine, IPD and weight are OK.
If these 3 things were improved I’d be even happier. I think Leica didn’t want Tvid to compete with Uvid and that’s why the ‘meager’ specs in comparison. Zeiss Conquest has wider FOV and better IPD range but weight is about the same. I still prefer the Tvid hd for its special qualities I mentioned in my previous post. Yes, it could be improved but then it would be an Ultravid. Despite the Tvid’s shortcomings I enjoy it very much and it gets the job done for bird ID as well.

 

[Binocollector]

Despite my love for old Japanese wide angle porros, one of my favourite models is the Canon 8x32WP with a measly 7.5°. I also like my DDoptics 8x25 with even less -- 6.5°. But I will have a look at that new Vixen 8x25 reverse porro with 9.4°!
And I do love my Japanese 8x30 binos with supposedly 10°. They might not quite reach that but they feel like "standing in the scenery" and the edges of the FoV disappearing. They do have extreme amounts of pincushion distortion at the edge however. While models like the Komz 6x24 super wide model have barrel distortion similar to the Kowa BDII 6.5x32. A nice balance so far is the Meopta Meopro Air 8x42 with around 8 point something degress, I think. Might be something of a sweetspot for me.

 

[Dennis Mau]

It is weird. I remember being disappointed reading the specs when the Trinovid HD was first announced - relatively narrow FOV, heavy weight and IPD range not too good. I avoided trying the 8x32 for years. I was especially concerned about the IPD range because my IPD is 59mm. It actually works fine and I don’t need to have the bino closed down to the stop. In practice the FOV is fine, IPD and weight are OK.
If these 3 things were improved I’d be even happier. I think Leica didn’t want Tvid to compete with Uvid and that’s why the ‘meager’ specs in comparison. Zeiss Conquest has wider FOV and better IPD range but weight is about the same. I still prefer the Tvid hd for its special qualities I mentioned in my previous post. Yes, it could be improved but then it would be an Ultravid. Despite the Tvid’s shortcomings I enjoy it very much and it gets the job done for bird ID as well.

I think you are correct. Leica didn't want to cannibalize sales of the Uvid and that is why they kept the specs of the Tvid below the Uvid. So it is the color balance and build quality of the Tvid that makes you prefer it over the Conquest and HG? I like the build quality of Leicas also. They are beautifully made compact binoculars and if they would just increase their FOV a little bit I would own one. I believe Leica caps their FOV at 7.7 degrees because they feel if they increased it they would get more glare and aberrations that many of the SWA binoculars have and lose the qualities that make a Leica a Leica.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Briefly:

1. Size, weight, haptics, build quality.
i.e. can I hold, use & carry it comfortably? Face & fingers.

2. Magnification.
i.e. is it suitable for the projected use (woods/ mountains/ dusk?) and can I hold it without shake?

3. Optical qualities.
i.e.
a) brightness, clarity & microcontrast
b) colour fidelity & CA fringing
c) then field of view & edge quality
d) close focus and a glare check.

FOV is part of the whole package, wider is nice to have, but not "the most important specification" for me.


Yes I go birding with NL 12x42 or FL 7x42
But I carry my diminutive Leica UV 10x32 far more, only has 118m FOV.
After 15 years of ownership still love using my 110m FOV Steiner 10x44 Discovery/XP because the haptics are near perfect for me.

So haptics and build quality are your two priorities. Leica is tops in those two areas. I understand. All the Leica's are beautiful binoculars, and the UV 8x32 is so compact and beautifully designed. The UV 8x32 didn't work for me because the eye cups were too short for the ER, creating black-outs. I was immediately taken aback by the beautiful saturated colors and pop though. Do you get any black-outs or do you have to float them in front of your eyes with your UV 10x32's? I wouldn't mind trying a pair of those. The UV 10x32 have a 6.7 degree FOV which is pretty wide for a 10x.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Despite my love for old Japanese wide angle porros, one of my favourite models is the Canon 8x32WP with a measly 7.5°. I also like my DDoptics 8x25 with even less -- 6.5°. But I will have a look at that new Vixen 8x25 reverse porro with 9.4°!
And I do love my Japanese 8x30 binos with supposedly 10°. They might not quite reach that but they feel like "standing in the scenery" and the edges of the FoV disappearing. They do have extreme amounts of pincushion distortion at the edge however. While models like the Komz 6x24 super wide model have barrel distortion similar to the Kowa BDII 6.5x32. A nice balance so far is the Meopta Meopro Air 8x42 with around 8 point something degress, I think. Might be something of a sweetspot for me.

I have tried the Japanese 8x30 WA porro's, and they are like looking through a big window instead of a binocular. The distortion was a little much for me, though. I think an 8 degree FOV is a sweet spot. Above that and you start getting more glare and sometimes other aberrations. I tried the Vixen 8x25 reverse porro and for some reason I didn't care for it. It seemed to be finicky for eye placement with the 3mm EP, and there was something weird about the optics. It is hard to describe. I think the best small porro for less than $500 is the Kowa YF II 6x30. It is an amazing little porro for the money.

 

[CharleyBird]

So haptics and build quality are your two priorities. Leica is tops in those two areas. I understand. All the Leica's are beautiful binoculars, and the UV 8x32 is so compact and beautifully designed. The UV 8x32 didn't work for me because the eye cups were too short for the ER, creating black-outs. I was immediately taken aback by the beautiful saturated colors and pop though. Do you get any black-outs or do you have to float them in front of your eyes with your UV 10x32's? I wouldn't mind trying a pair of those. The UV 10x32 have a 6.7 degree FOV which is pretty wide for a 10x.

I hope my list seems a pretty logical method for checking whether a binocular is suitable.

Point is that haptics and build quality have first to work.
If the bin is too big & heavy for your hands, if your fingers can't comfortably find the focus wheel or if they can but the mechanism is loose or gritty, why bother continuing to check out the optics.

Equally, if you've got to the stage of examining optics, and then find the central viewing area is poor, why bother continuing to check edges?


As for the 10x32UV, the haptics work for me, they fit in the pocket any jacket, and the optics are good enough for general use (though prone to glare in low sunlight)

If you didn't get on with the 8x32UV then I doubt the 10's will work for you.
The small exit pupil takes time to become familiar, as does learning to raise them to find a bird immediately within the smallish FOV.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I hope my list seems a pretty logical method for checking whether a binocular is suitable.

Point is that haptics and build quality have first to work.
If the bin is too big & heavy for your hands, if your fingers can't comfortably find the focus wheel or if they can but the mechanism is loose or gritty, why bother continuing to check out the optics.

Equally, if you've got to the stage of examining optics, and then find the central viewing area is poor, why bother continuing to check edges?


As for the 10x32UV, the haptics work for me, they fit in the pocket any jacket, and the optics are good enough for general use (though prone to glare in low sunlight)

If you didn't get on with the 8x32UV then I doubt the 10's will work for you.
The small exit pupil takes time to become familiar, as does learning to raise them to find a bird immediately within the smallish FOV.

Yes, that is why I am usually better off with 8x. Good points on the optics. The on-axis resolution is more important than the edges. I don't think the 10x32 UV would work for me because the ER is the same as the 8x32 UV and the eye cup length is probably the same. Often times the smaller EP binoculars like the 10x32 can be more prone to glare, although Leicas are usually excellent for glare because of good baffling. I think Leica keeps the FOV down below 8.0 degrees to better control glare and other aberrations. Maybe in a way they are right. Quality over quantity.