Talk:Binoculars/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article on binoculars for consideration

These two articles might be useful to people looking to buy, or use their binoculars better.

Types of binoculars http://www.travelwild.com/blog/2009/types-of-binoculars/

Adjusting and using binoculars http://www.travelwild.com/blog/2009/adjusting-and-using-binoculars/ Spath333 (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

power

hi looking to find out how to pick the power 10x25 better then 7x25

     thank you john  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.156.240 (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC) 

Higher magnification!

--Alexrybak (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A little question

I have a 10x40 (1.5 inch) binocular.What is the magnitude of faintest object I can see(with my 10*40 (1.5 inch) binocular)?

--Alexrybak (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead or near-dead links

The domain www.zbirding.info is for sale and effectively destroyed. All statements relying on it (e.g. about the phase-shift issue for roof-prism binos) are therefore now without proper reference. Does anyone knows replacement links for this dead source?--SiriusB (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Google booking can usually root out references as to whether they are right, wrong, or unheard-of. Its just a little leg work from there. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Magnification

The sentence "A magnification of factor 7, for example, produces an image as if one were 7 times closer to the object" is confusing!

If I am one mile away, does the image look like I am 7 miles closer?? But I don't know what would be a correct replacement... "The image appears 7 times larger"??

JiminyX (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

folding Binoculars link

Folks, I do not know if this link is of any use for this page "Binoculars can be folded to fit Pocket or Purse" Popular Mechanics, May 1942. It is is considered of some use, please post it. If not ignore. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Carl Zeiss

The are a few references in this article to Carl Zeiss doing things after his death in 1888. So yeah, removing them: Porro-prism types - "...and later refined by makers like Carl Zeiss in the 1890s" (presumably intending to mean using his techniques or something, someone else can fix if they want.) roof-prism types - "...and patented by Carl Zeiss in 1905" anaphysik (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It means the company, not the man. Company was just called "Carl Zeiss" back then, and Wikipedia doesn't (or didn't[1]) have a good history on that. Fixed it a bit but needs more work. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining. Although the original linky should have pointed to Carl Zeiss AG instead of the man (which I see has been rectified). That would've removed ambiguity. anaphysik (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Depth of Field

People comparing different brands or models of binoculars often state a preference in terms of 'greater depth of field'. From my limited knowledge of optics, that cannot be an argument for choosing between binoculars with the same basic function. I mean you can't say Leica have more DOF than Zeiss, or Trinovids have more DOF than Ultravids. You can only say that 8x bins have more DOF than 10x bins. Arguably 8x42s have less DOF than 8x30s, but this may depend on the lighting levels. Lower sharpness at focus may be associated with more DOF.

What I really find despicable is the marketing of fixed-focus as focus-free or even autofocus, making a drawback seem to be an advantage !

Can anyone find definitive sources and add this ?

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, more curvature of field may be percieved as greater DOF ! Another kind of spin ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You may want to inline tag the parts that seem incorrect (see Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup for tags), or (if references seem to disagree) remove the sentences. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Found an example:

"the manufacturer claims that the improved models ... [have] a far better depth of field"

---19S.137.93.171 (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Found some more discussion of DoF vs Curvature

Although it's just a forum, the contributor is probably one of the 100 most knowledgeable guys in the field !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

"A magnification of factor 7, for example, produces an image as if one were 7 times closer to the object." This is not clear to me. Seven times what''? An example might help. If I am 100 feet away using a magnification factor of 7, the image will appear as if I were....feet away. 174.0.70.57 (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

binorev.com

Hi Guys, came across this site the other day was wandering if it was applicable to add to the main article page under external links? Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertigoflier (talk • contribs) 16:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems to fall short per WP:LINKSTOAVOID #5 "exist to sell products or services", #10 "discussion forums/groups", and #11 "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Astronomy section

I just read through the astronomy section and I think it needs some major revamping. For starters, two sentences are started with numbers (digits, that is), which I'm pretty sure is bad form if not outright incorrect. More generally, though, it reads like an enthusiast trying to convince someone new to astronomy to buy a pair of binoculars. I'm not disputing the information proper, just the delivery and tone of the paragraphs.Onzie9 (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Recording Binoculars

Hello all, I believe we should include a section about digital recording binoculars. What do you think? Thanks, Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Reasons for reflective coatings ?

The article has 2 photos of reflective coatings on objective lenses, but no explanation of why light would be deliberately lost.

Binoculars with red-colored multicoatings

Special reflective coatings on large naval binoculars

The 'red-reflecting' or 'ruby' coating is sometimes explained as 'for hunting - to increase contrast of red/brown animals on a green background' - although that seems questionable - maybe just a cosmetic trend or compensating for greenish glass ! It has more cynically been explained as a way of hiding chromatic aberration. It may correlate with protection of the eyes from solar Ultra-violet or Infra-red outside the visible spectrum. In military applications, it may even protect against laser radiation.

Citations, anyone ?

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup of recent edits

I have cleaned up the section "Optical designs" re:there is no common reference to a type being called "Aprismatic binoculars" or "Keplerian binoculars". Also the caption that states Dollond was selling an "aprismatic model" is eroneous, they only list Galilean models. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have found a reference (http://fp.optics.arizona.edu/antiques/History%20of%20Telescopes%20and%20Binoculars%20-%20SPIE.pdf) to aprismatic Keplerian binoculars. They were usually called "twin telescopes" at that time. This paper also shows that Dollond selled both Galilean and Keplerian terrestial telescopes. The Dollon's binoculars from "The golden book of India", which were depicted in Wikipedia, are very long, which suggests that they were Keplerian with erecting lenses. While I cannot prove that, they may return to our article without their type name.Ufim (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

rm Dolland, Still have a WP:IMAGE problem here, too many images per section causing text squeeze. Also we cannot imply something is a binocular with an image erector just because it looks that way. We also still have the problem that "Binoculars with Keplerian optics" is not a common description of this type[2][3][4] and does not check out against a tertiary source[5]. The main problem I see here (which has existed for a while) is some of this material belongs in a history section. Non-prismatic image erecting Keplerian binoculars do not exist in this modern age so would not be in a general description of binocular types. They did exist historically so they would belong in a History section. A next step for cleanup. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

How to Use

I guess Wikipedia is not a How-to guide, so I was going to link to WikiHow.
The comments in 'Further Reading' said you would delete my link so I put it here instead !
Everyone reads all the 'Talk' pages, don't they ?
http://www.wikihow.com/Calibrate-Binoculars
Please add this link ! Thanks ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverse Porro prism

A number of newer binoculars are using what they call reverse porro prisms, so that rather than having the objective lenses flare out relative to the oculars, they flare in. This makes for more compact binoculars, but there are probably tradeoffs. I have no idea what exactly they would be, so I hope someone with some optic chops can weigh in. Dawfedora (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Binoculars and stereoscopic vision

Or maybe that should have been binoculars and binocular vision...

So what is the effect of the various styles of binoculars (pirro prism, roof prism, reverse pirro prism) on the human visual system's stereoscopic depth perception? Are the differences too small to matter? Is there an optimal separation of objective lenses for a given magnification? Is the human visual system just way too cool and takes it all in stride? Does this all just vanish under the depth shortening effects of high magnification?

Enquiring minds want to know!

I only know enough to ask the questions. I'm hoping someone else will know whether they're irrelevant, they've been answered, or they need investigation.

Dawfedora (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Binoculars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080828033436/http://www.zbirding.info/zbirders/blogs/sing/archive/2006/08/09/189.aspx to http://www.zbirding.info/zbirders/blogs/sing/archive/2006/08/09/189.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Binoculars - Not sure why the revision.

Fountains, I'm not clear on the reason for the revision. I'm supposed to link to an article to post a manufacturer who's not on the list? Please enlighten me - I'd like to get it right. They're a legitimate manufacturer - I just don't understand the problem. Thanks, KenKenwg (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires an acceptable source for any material that is added (see WP:CITE and WP:RS). Items in this list should also have their own Wikipedia article (that proves they are notable). You may want to consider writing the article Kazansky Optiko Mekhanichesky Zavod first. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I can do that - except that Kazansky Optiko Mekhanichesky Zavod has nothing to do with my article. I assume you meant Kruger Optical...Kenwg (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

My bad, Kruger Optical. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Birdwatching

The birdwatching community is desperate to keep people interested in birds, both for general conservation awareness and because much of the community is "aging out" as younger people enjoy a plethora of ways to spend their spare time. I added a bit of information about binoculars, with references, that may not STRICTLY fit into what is largely a scholarly article, but I'm hoping the edits can remain for those readers who might be curious about binoculars' application to birdwatching. Thanks, everyone. --Jhoughton1 (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

History?

What is the history of this product? When and where and by whom, was it invented, patented, developed, marketed? Crawiki (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I reverted this because it was pretty much wrong. History is scattered throughout the article. We could have a history section but it would need better sourcing. The first binoculars were built by Hans Lipperhey, the first person associated with the telescope. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Binoculars prisms

The diagram of a Porro 1 type setup shows clearly how light travels through the setup, just like in the Schmidt Pechan and Abbe-Köning prism diagrams. How these prism setups fit and work in binoculars is already shown in their respective articles in more detail. The binoculars' article mentions the typical Z-shape and widening effect of common Porro type 1 setups, which is beneficial for depth sense. Small Porro binoculars, these are rare, can even have their objectives between the oculars for space-saving. I do not wish to participate in an edit war, so I added an image gallery to show the three most common prism setup solutions in binoculars diagrams and how that looks externally.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• This article is about binoculars, not prism types: readers should get an idea of how binoculars work without having to open other articles about obscure optical devices. That's why a schematic of a Porro binocular is to be preferred over a schematic of a Porro prism.
• This article has also got too many images crammed in it; priority should be given to images of binoculars, and if space permits, prism types could go in a gallery; the opposite to how it's now. The most logical thing would be to put a picture of a binoculars type next to where it is discussed, rather than a picture of the prism type that it employs.
• P.S. This is the place where to discuss the article, not my Talk page. You can always {{ping}} any editor you want to address.

--Deeday-UK (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The current version of the of the sections on Porro / Roof leave allot to be desired re: throwing the average reader a bone. There should be a photograph of what type of binocular you are talking about and a diagram (single) like 2020 Lornetka Baigish 8x30.jpg/Binocularp.svg and Vortex Diamonback roof prism binoculars.jpg / Abbe-König prism.svg. All other versions can be handled in text or at their respective articles i.e. delete all the other diagrams and gallery, not needed in this article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Nonspecific, potentially duplicate information

A lot of the topics covered here are not specific for binoculars, but rather for any hand-held refracting telescopes, or for optical imaging systems. Examples are all info about magnification/pupil, about keeping image upright, about optical coating etc. It could be merged with respective articles, and linked. Unfortunately this is a common trouble with many wikipedia articles. FDominec (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)