PAW
sage
Reged: 10/12/06
Posts: 250
|
|
About 2 weeks ago I bought these binoculars for the wide field of view (@ 8.2 degrees).
However, the edge to edge sharpness is awful. Stars almost look like nebulas for the last approx. 20% of the FOV.
Is this just something I have to live with? Is this normal on binoculars with a wide FOV?
|
charen
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/28/05
Posts: 1077
Loc: New Zealand
|
|
Yes edge deterioration as you have seen is very normal in wide FOV binos. As a generalization the better the optics and build qualities the less edge deterioration there will be. The Nikon 'Action' is also the entry Nikon porro version so it will be more noticable. The higher quality Nikon AE version displays less edge deterioration.
For many observers they prefer the wide panoramic view and live with the peripheral edge distortions as the central image is sharp.
Chris
--------------------
35 binos.
80mm Cat.
WO66ED
SV NH 80mm / EQ3
Meade 8in.LX90
Skywatcher Equinox ED120 / Goto HEQ5.
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14611
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Very few binoculars with 64° Afov eyepieces have a sharp outer fov. See how your binocular compares with a dozen others
http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1761
Unfortunately the Nikon Action is one of the worst in this respect. the Nikon Action Extrreme is no better than the Action. But, compare both of those to a Pentax. Even with a much narrower field of view, it shows a wider shaper Tfov.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Luigi
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 4887
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
With handheld bins, the expectation is that you move them around and point them at the objects you wish to view rather than hold them steady and look at the extreme edges. Your eyes are much worse than any bins having only ~2 degrees of high accuity FOV. Prove it to yourself by staring at a word in this post and seeing if you can read adjacent words. Your eyes need to dart around to take in detail over a broader FOV. Bins need to have enough sharp FOV to accomodate this short term darting, for larger angles, move the bins. Mounted bins and scopes are a somewhat different story.
--------------------
Discovery 17.5" f/5. IM 7" f/15 MCT. Eon-120ED
Lunt 60mm Ha on Nexstar mount.
CG5ASGT, Orion Skyview AZ
9 Nag. 35&19,Pans. 24.5 4kSWA. 14&4.7 5kUWA Meades
6, 9, 12.5 UO-AO. 3mm Edge-on. 7mm BO-TMB
Zeiss, Leupold, Bushnell spotters
Zeiss, Leica, Fujinon, Nikon, Pentax, Bushnell binos
One each generic rescue Greyhound
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1936
Loc: Vallée des nuages
|
|
Quote:
About 2 weeks ago I bought these binoculars for the wide field of view (@ 8.2 degrees).
However, the edge to edge sharpness is awful. Stars almost look like nebulas for the last approx. 20% of the FOV.
Is this just something I have to live with? Is this normal on binoculars with a wide FOV?
The Nikon 8x30 EII has the best edge performance I've seen in a truly WF 8x bin (8.8*). Plus, the fall off at the edges is gradual so for daytime use, you won't even notice it unless you direct your eyes to the very edge.
The EII sold for about $300(now discontinued but they occasionally appear on Amart and eBay).
If you are willing to compromise a bit on FOV (though less so than the Pentax) and are willing to pay about $400-$450, you could pick up a used Nikon 8x32 SE (7.5*). They sell new for $499.
It has the best edge performance of any center focusing 8x bin I've tried. I use it for birding and stargazing. See Edz's report for details.
Qapla' (Good Luck!)
--------------------
B'rock, son of Grilka
Member of the House of Kozak
Klingon Poet-Warrior
----------------------------------------------
"The character of a Klingon poet-warrior is measured not only by the metal of his blade--but also by the mettle of his words."
|
PAW
sage
Reged: 10/12/06
Posts: 250
|
|
Thanks everyone, I should have read EdZ report before I bought - and I usually do.
They are fine for daytime use, but I just can't use them at night - the fuzziness bothers me to much.
Part of the reason I did not read the report until now is because I have been so impressed with my Nikon Action 10x50's.
|
ErnieM
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/13/04
Posts: 1251
Loc: Phoenix,AZ
|
|
I was thinking about buying a pair of the extremes but after reading this thread I guess I will turn to the Celestron 10X42 Outland LX.I am not sure if they replaced the Regal series,but I better read Ed's report also.
--------------------
Ernie
DSH8/ Crayford focuser
ST80 with 2" focuser on Astroview mount and iOptron cube
7XL,10LX,13t6,17LX,22LVW,27 Pan,TV 32,SWA 26 & 38mm,TMBs,UOs,Sratus,and Viven 8x24 Zoom.
Sears 7x35,Upclose 20x50, Meade 9x63 and Celestron Skymaster 8x56 binos
|
PAW
sage
Reged: 10/12/06
Posts: 250
|
|
BTW: The 8x40's I am referring to are the Nikon Action Ultra Wide View.
Apparently a new version is available with a 6 deg FOV.
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1267
|
|
People who own premium binoculars are usually the ones who say they aren't concerned with edge sharpness. At this level, people even complain that one or the other alpha binocular has a relatively bad field correction! But it's easy to forget how spoiled one has become. I've been guilty of this myself sometimes.
But, a really badly corrected edge is very distracting. I occasionally look through my old Bushnell Insta-Focus 7x35 or Nikon Travelite 8x25 to recalibrate myself. If the edge looks not only blurred, but there are also excessive 2-d distortion or 3-d bowl-shaped effects present in the field, it can be intolerable, even if the central field is okay.
Skywatching is the acid test, since a burred star looks not like a star at all, while a blurred stump can still appear quite stumplike.
It is hopeless to try to convince someone to like a view that they do not like. There is a range of personal tolerance, but if it looks ugly to you, that's the bottom line, and cheap wide fields are not going to be your thing.
Ron
|
PAW
sage
Reged: 10/12/06
Posts: 250
|
|
I would put these 8x40 Ultra Wide View's in the category of unusable for night viewing. The stars distort to the point that they look like big blobs.
As mentioned, I have a pair of 10x50 Actions (6.5 degrees) and they are fine.
I'm now looking at:
Nikon 7x35 Action Extreme ATB Binoculars (9.3 degress)
or
Pentax 8x40 PCF WP II Binoculars
|
PAW
sage
Reged: 10/12/06
Posts: 250
|
|
As I have spent more time with these binoculars (8x40 Action 8.2 Degrees), I am convinced my pair has a manufacturing defect. I noticed that the two barrels never really merge into a single circle when viewing through the binos.
Also, the very outer edge (say 10-15%) seems to have an artifact and that I believe is why stars look so blurry on the outside edge.
Or is this just a symptom of cheap binoculars?
The 'artifact' looks like (2) concentric rings with the outer ring being the edge of the field and then inner ring about 10% in from the outer ring. They appear translucent.
Edited by PAW (07/02/09 02:15 AM)
|
Onslowe
member
Reged: 01/28/07
Posts: 26
Loc: North East England
|
|
I have the Opticron 8 x 42 (8.2 degree) and they have bad distortion (seagull shaped stars) for the last 20 % of the field but the remainder of the image is good. For £40 I paid they are more than adequate. I got them as I had to return a pair of 12 x 50 Pentax PCF WP II's which had large spikes showing on the brightest stars and were unusable for astro work (they did however maintain sharpness out to the edge of field). Obviously these faults are impossible to check in daylight so if you can purchase at a local store it makes an exchange much easier. Good luck.
Martin
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 