During many years I have tried a lot of binoculars. Then I have experienced that the stated ER is often to take with a pinch of salt. Not only that the useful ER can vary a lot depending on the eyepiece design. While it needs to be a margin in order to prevent eyeglass lens and eyepiece lens to touch each other, in many cases the eyepiece lens is deeply recessed so several mm of ER is unnecessary wasted.
If I got it right ER is a static value which is measurable. So when it sometimes is described like "eye relief is adjustable in three steps"(the eyecup) it is a wrong description.
We know there is a relation between AFOV and size of eye lens in order to provide a given ER.
The wider AFOV - the larger eye lens is required in order to maintain the ER.
But I have noticed that often a narrower AFOV does not require as much stated ER in order to provide a satisfactory view with eyeglasses.
It should not be so. The AFOV should be included in the equation when measuring ER.
It seems like the manufacturers measure the distance to provide a given AFOV as base for ER, regardless of the actual AFOV.
And in some cases manufacturers carelessly state the same ER for an entire series. For example Zeiss, stating the same 18mm ER for 8x32, 10x32, 7x42, 8x42 and 10x42. We know this is far from the reality. The 8x32 has smaller eye lens while bigger AFOV than 7x42. The same ER is here a total contradiction.
What is your thoughts in this topic? I find it unlikely that high grade optics manufacturers don't understand what ER is and how to measure it. Still they often get it wrong.
If I got it right ER is a static value which is measurable. So when it sometimes is described like "eye relief is adjustable in three steps"(the eyecup) it is a wrong description.
We know there is a relation between AFOV and size of eye lens in order to provide a given ER.
The wider AFOV - the larger eye lens is required in order to maintain the ER.
But I have noticed that often a narrower AFOV does not require as much stated ER in order to provide a satisfactory view with eyeglasses.
It should not be so. The AFOV should be included in the equation when measuring ER.
It seems like the manufacturers measure the distance to provide a given AFOV as base for ER, regardless of the actual AFOV.
And in some cases manufacturers carelessly state the same ER for an entire series. For example Zeiss, stating the same 18mm ER for 8x32, 10x32, 7x42, 8x42 and 10x42. We know this is far from the reality. The 8x32 has smaller eye lens while bigger AFOV than 7x42. The same ER is here a total contradiction.
What is your thoughts in this topic? I find it unlikely that high grade optics manufacturers don't understand what ER is and how to measure it. Still they often get it wrong.
Last edited: