Binocular recommendations?

[scro]

Got it on the light and compact, but binoculars do not offer depth perception, they offer accuity improvement because both eyes are in use.

Depth perception is based on two things: convergence of two eyes with slightly different images due to the difference in angle to the subject, and what is essentially focus feedback, you can tell where you eye focusses. The difference in angle as a 3D component fades after 30-50', when the angle is too small and the left and right images are virtually the same. In binoculars, because the target is always farther than 50', the angle difference between eyes to the subject is mostly too small to provide much useful difference image, even though the actual lenses are spaced farther than human eyes. The focus distance feedback is bypassed by the focussing of the image in the optics. So mostly, the advantage to binoculars is the improvement in accuity by the use of both eyes. There are, for example, binocular eyepieces on monocular telescopes for the same reason, though the trade-off there (and the reason they aren't used much) is they split the light path reducing the total light delivered to each eye by less than half.

Binoculars do indeed offer me stereoscopic depth perception for a significant portion of their focal range. To say they don't is not correct. I understand well how stereoscopic vision and depth perception works, including all the other cues we use for depth perception. There are significantly more than the 2 you mention. I've experimented extensively with stereo photo pairs, and several other ways of simulating depth perception from flat surfaces. A stereo pair of images from a drone, with exaggerated spacing is quite spectacular to view.

 

[jphoto]

Binoculars do indeed offer me stereoscopic depth perception for a significant portion of their focal range. To say they don't is not correct. I understand well how stereoscopic vision and depth perception works, including all the other cues we use for depth perception. There are significantly more than the 2 you mention. I've experimented extensively with stereo photo pairs, and several other ways of simulating depth perception from flat surfaces. A stereo pair of images from a drone, with exaggerated spacing is quite spectacular to see.

How about if I said that binoculars offer reduced depth perception at typical distances? And that the depth cues are a bit scrambled?

Yes, there are quite a few physiological cues to depth perception, but fewer are at work when we use binoculars. For example, accommodation doesn't work right because the aerial image we see in binoculars isn't where it would be in the world. Convergence, we discussed, and while not disabled compeltely, it's way off from what shows us real 3D because the convergence angles are wrong for the distance to the aerial image we see. Same with paralax, it's there, but reduced a lot, and out of parity with where the image seems to be. And we don't really get to use movement paralax with binoculars. The others, no real need to detail, but they are there of course, minor contributors.

My entire point is, the true advantage in using both eyes is the improvement in accuity.

I have no doubt your exaggerated spacing 3D drone shots are spectacular! I would also guess that the technique makes large objects appear to be model-sized, but I haven't tried it.

 

[scro]

How about if I said that binoculars offer reduced depth perception at typical distances? And that the depth cues are a bit scrambled?

Yes, there are quite a few physiological cues to depth perception, but fewer are at work when we use binoculars. For example, accommodation doesn't work right because the aerial image we see in binoculars isn't where it would be in the world. Convergence, we discussed, and while not disabled compeltely, it's way off from what shows us real 3D because the convergence angles are wrong for the distance to the aerial image we see. Same with paralax, it's there, but reduced a lot, and out of parity with where the image seems to be. And we don't really get to use movement paralax with binoculars. The others, no real need to detail, but they are there of course, minor contributors.

My entire point is, the true advantage in using both eyes is the improvement in accuity.

I have no doubt your exaggerated spacing 3D drone shots are spectacular! I would also guess that the technique makes large objects appear to be model-sized, but I haven't tried it.

I think we're broadly in agreement regarding binoculars' capabilities and limitations on facilitating effective depth perception. However, I'd say they offer enhanced, rather than reduced, depth perception compared to using the naked eye(s). Most depth perception mechanisms still function well with binoculars, with stereoscopic perception in particular being notably enhanced. Accommodation, a relatively weak contributor for depth perception, is one of the few that is definitely affected.

So, for me, the advantages of binoculars over monoculars are both depth perception and increased acuity (provided the two sets of lenses are actually aligned)! Maybe for you the depth perception capability of binoculars isn't seen as such an advantage.

The aerial image stereo pairs do indeed have a miniature model-like quality to them. It's surprising what fine details in the image pair jump out with stereoscopic depth perception that would otherwise be "lost" in the image.

 

[jphoto]

Since you're a stereo image guy, what's the current favorite means of viewing/displaying digital stereo image pairs? I haven't followed this much since I shot my last roll of film I the Realist.

 

[cheddar-man]

Go down to a store and try some out! Mine are Nikon 10 X 25 5º. Perfect for bird watching, small, light and compact.

 

[scro]

Since you're a stereo image guy, what's the current favorite means of viewing/displaying digital stereo image pairs? I haven't followed this much since I shot my last roll of film I the Realist.

I really don't know what others use. I literally just use my eyes, either with the parallel or cross-eyed method, which essentially entail one eye looking at 1 photo, and the other looking at the corresponding 2nd photo. It takes some practice to master, but means you aren't restricted to media, format or specialist equipment.

We're heading a bit off topic from the OP's question, so I might start a new thread about stereo photography with drones...

 

[snowghost]

Go down to a store and try some out! Mine are Nikon 10 X 25 5º. Perfect for bird watching, small, light and compact.

My wife got me a Nikon 10 x 42° because of great reviews from bird watchers. She figured since I wanted something for plane spotting, it'd be sort of like bird watching.

 

[DesertWindAero]

I'm looking for recommendations of a fairly decent pair of binocs, probably 8x42, for viewing my mini.

DISCLAIMER: I will not be flying BVLOS, flying behind buildings and obstacles, or trying to set personal best altitude or distance records.

I would just like to admire my mini at a slight distance now and then, and not anywhere near the edge of the VLOS envelope. Even though the drone would be at a distance easily acquired by eyeball and readily visible without any aids or tech, I realize that using binocs even for a few seconds is an FAA violation. But it's one I'm considering. With any luck, I'd have a TRUSTed copilot, making the above moot.

A very quick look turned up a pair Celestron 8x42 Outland X Binoculars. Celestron once make some decent stuff but I don't know if that's still the case. I prefer a roof prism set instead of the traditional porro prism. So does anyone have a recommendation for some decent binocs?

If anyone has a link or two to a good review site, that would be appreciated also.

I got these 4 years ago and swear by them.

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004THDE/ref=ppx_od_dt_b_asin_title_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1