Higher power aficianados like the "big bird" and decry 7x and to a lesser extent 8x because the birds are too small. However, I have found that the brain's perception of the image is more important the the eyes reception of the image.
I had the hypothesis that the bird was only perceived as smaller because it only accounts for a smallee portion of the view due to the wider field of lower powers. When the bird fills the image the brain focuses more on it. Here is how I played around with this one. I took a 7x binocular (Custom 7x26) and a 10x (E2 10x35). These binocular have very similar actual filds of view. Compared with eyecups down (I wear glasses) so each gave all it's field, the 10x seemed to show more in direct comparison, or at least I perceived I saw more of the target (A birdfeeder with sparrows feeding hung about 100' away). Next I spead a tape measure vertically up a (vertical orientation eliminates the variable of acceptable difference in lateral overlap) and flipped the 7x eyecups out and added about 1mm more distance via cardboard tubing. I stood at a distance that allowed me to see 5' (60") with the 10x and verified that I could now only see 42" (70% of the 60") with the modified Custom 7x. Now any object viewed filled the same percentage of the field through either binocular (a bird was 10x bigger in a 100% field and 7x bigger in a 7% field. Looking through each at various targets my brain perceived the birds equally enlarged. Aside from apparent field the images were perceived by my brain as identical. Overlapping by holding each to one eye proved they were on different scales, but one at a time my brain did not show a difference in the information it gleaned from either view.
In the course of the next week I allowed coworkers, friends, and relatives to look through each in their experimental configuration, totallong 9 sets of eye-brain systems. Most reported that each was perceived to be the same scale. One could tell a difference in the apparent field, two more felt the 10x showed a slightly larger bird, although the difference was not meaningful.
THis is by no means a total scientific experiment, just a thought experiement brought to life. What is does tell me is that "small birds" in low power binoculars is not exclusively due to the magnification, the field of view and the amount of visual area take up by the object of interest versus background have as much or more impact on perception.
Additionally, and in defence of those who like 10x, since this is a situation including individual perception, each eye-brain system is going to prefer a different balance. I do not doubt there are those who see more with 10x, but please understand that just as much can be perceived with lower powers, ans though details can be small, they are not microscopic.
Given a situation where a bird fills the same percentage of a field the brain's perception show little difference in the magnification.
I love low power and I'm proud of it.
(cue the sound of floodgates opening)
[QUOTE=Robert Ellis]Higher power aficianados like the "big bird" and decry 7x and to a lesser extent 8x because the birds are too small. However, I have found that the brain's perception of the image is more important the the eyes reception of the image.
I had the hypothesis that the bird was only perceived as smaller because it only accounts for a smallee portion of the view due to the wider field of lower powers. When the bird fills the image the brain focuses more on it. Here is how I played around with this one. I took a 7x binocular (Custom 7x26) and a 10x (E2 10x35). These binocular have very similar actual filds of view. Compared with eyecups down (I wear glasses) so each gave all it's field, the 10x seemed to show more in direct comparison, or at least I perceived I saw more of the target (A birdfeeder with sparrows feeding hung about 100' away). Next I spead a tape measure vertically up a (vertical orientation eliminates the variable of acceptable difference in lateral overlap) and flipped the 7x eyecups out and added about 1mm more distance via cardboard tubing. I stood at a distance that allowed me to see 5' (60") with the 10x and verified that I could now only see 42" (70% of the 60") with the modified Custom 7x. Now any object viewed filled the same percentage of the field through either binocular (a bird was 10x bigger in a 100% field and 7x bigger in a 7% field. Looking through each at various targets my brain perceived the birds equally enlarged. Aside from apparent field the images were perceived by my brain as identical. Overlapping by holding each to one eye proved they were on different scales, but one at a time my brain did not show a difference in the information it gleaned from either view.
In the course of the next week I allowed coworkers, friends, and relatives to look through each in their experimental configuration, totallong 9 sets of eye-brain systems. Most reported that each was perceived to be the same scale. One could tell a difference in the apparent field, two more felt the 10x showed a slightly larger bird, although the difference was not meaningful.
THis is by no means a total scientific experiment, just a thought experiement brought to life. What is does tell me is that "small birds" in low power binoculars is not exclusively due to the magnification, the field of view and the amount of visual area take up by the object of interest versus background have as much or more impact on perception.
Additionally, and in defence of those who like 10x, since this is a situation including individual perception, each eye-brain system is going to prefer a different balance. I do not doubt there are those who see more with 10x, but please understand that just as much can be perceived with lower powers, ans though details can be small, they are not microscopic.
Given a situation where a bird fills the same percentage of a field the brain's perception show little difference in the magnification.
I love low power and I'm proud of it.
(cue the sound of floodgates opening)[/QUOTE]
Yep, i can see this turning into one of those endless technical threads.
I like 10x and have been using 10x for the last 15 years. For some reason (i can't explain), i feel that a jump on the 8x30/8x32 bandwagon is around the corner for me, especially since most of my birding now is in dense brush and forest.
I look forward to debate on this, but in reality I felt the need to make a stand for low power birders who are told they aren't seeing enough with their wimpy binoculars.
Whatever you do Otto, don't sell your 9.5 ED (but if you do call me first!).
The most variable aspect of how a binocular performs is the brain. Perception is highly variable, so my response to any and all retorts is "Perception is the most important factor above all else and is variable from individual to individual".