This phenomenon came up during discussions on another thread several months ago, so I wonder if somebody technically qualified can explain this purely subjective observation?
The question concerns my perception of the apparent size of objects seen through different sizes and models of binoculars.
If I look at, for example, a distant brick through my different pairs of binos, it appears larger/smaller depending on which pair I use.
No surprise there, of course.
With my Ultravid 10x42 the brick appears the size of a small shoe box. In the Ultravid 10x50 however, it looks like a large shoe box.
In my various 8x40 and 8x42 models from several makers, the brick looks approximately the right size, ie. brick size.
But in the Zeiss Conquest 8x30 the brick appears to be tiny, only the size of a cigarette packet. How come? I would have expected the image to be the same perceived size as the other 8x binoculars. (and for that matter I expected the two 10x Ultravids to offer the same sized image as each other too).
But the Zeiss 8x30 image looks tiny, like one might expect from a 6x binocular.
What is happening here? Why does the size of the object lens seem to affect the user’s perception of the amount of magnification? (ie. the image seems to get smaller with the size of the object lens, even though the quoted magnification/power of the glasses remains the same).
….or are Zeiss pulling a fast one, and these really are lower magnification than it says on the box? That scenario seems unlikely, but I’m open to suggestions.
Thanks in advance for your input.
All the best Paul
Binoculars are not 8x or 10x exactly. One may be 7.9x, one 8.1x.
Have you tried relating it to the field of view? If the field of view is small, then brick appears relatively large.
Pete