Binoculars for butterflies (and other bugs)

[Charles Krebs]

I wish Nikon still made these:
Nikon Lens Scope Converter
http://shashinki.com/review/nikon/lens_scope/index.htm

[Cyclops]

It is just unfortunate that this accessory was discontinued well before Leica ceased production of the Leica R system.

What? Leica stopped making their R range of SLRs? No R10 or R9D? So even if I won the lottery I couldnt have a Leica DSLR?

[naturephoto1]

I wish Nikon still made these:
Nikon Lens Scope Converter
http://shashinki.com/review/nikon/lens_scope/index.htm

Hi Charlie,

It is unfortunate that the camera makers drop these products that are/can be so useful. I guess there wasn't enough of a market for them.

It is just unfortunate that this accessory was discontinued well before Leica ceased production of the Leica R system.

What? Leica stopped making their R range of SLRs? No R10 or R9D? So even if I won the lottery I couldnt have a Leica DSLR?

Leica stopped the production of the Leica R system several years ago and sold everything off unfortunately. The R9 was the last of the R series cameras and Leica has said that there will be no R10; it would just be too costly

Those of us heavily invested in the system have now been waiting for some time to have a digital Leica camera body to use our arsenals of Leica R lenses and equipment. This is partly why many of us have been using our Leica R lenses on other camera systems including the Panasonic Lumix system where Leica is in a cooperative arrangement.

Rumor has it that something may be coming in 2012 that would be mirrorless. The speculation that some of us have is that the camera will have some sort of Live View something like the G Series Lumix cameras. The expectation is that the camera will have a new arsenal of autofocus lenses but will be able to accept almost all Leica R lenses (I am sure the 21mm f3.4 Super Angulon is highly unlikely to work) with or without adapters. The big questions are what format will the camera be; that is will it be a micro 4/3 camera or some kind of hybrid with a 35mm format whether FF or some sort of crop.

So, whatever this new camera is, it will fall somewhere between the Leica S2 system and the Leica M9 system in some way and probably cost. Of course, cost of all of this is going to be an issue.

Rich

[dunksargent]

Cyclops,

Here is a gadget that you might be interested in that is out of production, a Leica Telescope Ocular Leica to R (R-Series Lens to Telescope):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3 ... ca_to.html

This is a great gadget to work with all Leica R lenses. To figure out the magnification for a lens, divide the focal length by 12.5mm. For instance, a 90mm lens makes a 7.2X telescope and a 180mm lens makes a 14.4X telescope. It focuses as close as the lens itself, is quite bright and works really well. I have one and have had it for years.

In 1998, Leica Camera USA loaned me the big Leica Apo Telyt Modular system for a month with the 800mm f5.6 Apo Telyt Modular lens and the 400mm Apo Telyt f2.8 Modular lens. I traveled down to Ding Darling National Refuge, Sanibel Island in Florida, USA. While I was there I ran into the Stokes the authors of the Stokes Guides particularly for birds and we set up and watched birds with the ocular on the lens. They could not believe the performance. They had never seen a spotting scope produce anything like this. As I mentioned to them at the time, the 800mm Apo Telyt Modular lens (in 1998 sold for $15,500 my price directly from Leica being on their Professional List) that this was an over $15,500 spotting scope.

It should work with a diopter like a Nikon 5T on the front of a shorter telephoto Leica lens for even closer focusing.

One of the Oculars is available on ebay right now as part of an entire kit; you could sell the remaining parts and keep the ocular, but you would need at least 1 Leica telephoto lens:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/LEICA-14277-Rem ... 1c22250fd1

Rich

After reading this thread recently I came across the KENKO Lens2Scope adaptor which is available in Canon, Nikon and Sony Alpha mounts.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News ... ?News=1626

The BirdForum has mixed opinions ...

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=227469

... but it seems to be OK if used with care.

dunk

[enricosavazzi]

I decided to add to this old thread instead of creating a new one. I bought the Pentax Papilio 6.5x 21 while kitting up for field work in preparation for retiring and moving to an excellent location for field work in a few months' time.

I initially discounted these binoculars when looking for a head-mounted magnifier for field use, since the minimum distance of 50 cm is too much for hand-held subjects (http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... sc&start=0). However, in previous field work near the waterline, I often have had the problem of being unable to approach potentially interesting small things without getting wet, or did not bother because of other obstacles, and these binoculars seemed to provide a way to inspect them from a distance before taking risks.

I chose the 6.5x model instead of the 8.5x because these models have no IS, and the higher the magnification, the bigger the problem hand-holding them steady, especially since they are small and relatively lightweight.

The field of view is sufficiently - but not excessively - wide for me. Focus is very easy to operate. The focus knob needs to be turned a lot for close focus, which is unavoidable with a minimum focus distance of 50 cm. The high focus throw allows a high precision even when focusing with just one fingertip.

The eye guards extend in two steps by "unscrewing" them and click in place, so they cannot be simply pushed in by pressing the binoculars against my eyeglasses or mounting the eyepiece covers on the binoculars. With eye guards retracted, stray light easily causes reflections on the eyepiece lenses.

My eyes are quite close together, but the interpupillary distance is sufficiently adjustable to fit my vision and I have no problem achieving immediately a binocular vision. I still have a feeling that something is
very slightly "off" with interpupillary adjustment or left/right eye image fusion when using these binoculars, but I cannot point out precisely why, and it is not a serious problem since I do not plan to use them for an extended length of time.

The tripod mount is a nice touch, but these binoculars may need an "extension" (typically an aluminum knob with a tripod socket at the bottom and tripod stud at the top) to mount on typical camera tripods and heads.

Because of the 21 mm objectives, these are not low-light binoculars. Anything dimmer than a normally illuminated room strains my vision with these binoculars.

The objectives are covered by a single flat glass plate, which avoids crud from fouling the focus mechanism. No cover is provided to protect this glass plate when the binoculars are stored in a case or bag. The glass plate is slightly recessed, which may be enough to protect it from direct contact with the wall of a hard case, but not if put in a soft case or jammed into a bag together with other objects.

[viktor j nilsson]

I love my pair of Papilio 6.5x21. I'm glad you got them, I always feel they are incredibly underrated and unique.

However, you are not alone feeling that something is just a little bit off regarding the left/right collimation. I had the same experience when I first unpacked mine. However, I do think that it is a consequence of the optical design, where the objective lenses slide along converging paths, so that the optical paths become cross-eyes as you focus closer. A necessity to achieve such close focus, for sure, but a little challenging to eyes that are used to normal, fixed objectives. I've gotten quite used to it, but still, it's never as comfortable as my other pairs of bins.

It's been discussed on birdforum, although I'm not sure if it was ever fully understood. For example here:
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=296953

Edit, I just realized that this has also been discussed previously in this very thread.

[Photomicro]

My eyes are quite close together, but the interpupillary distance is sufficiently adjustable to fit my vision and I have no problem achieving immediately a binocular vision.

Because of the 21 mm objectives, these are not low-light binoculars. Anything dimmer than a normally illuminated room strains my vision with these binoculars.

The objectives are covered by a single flat glass plate, which avoids crud from fouling the focus mechanism. No cover is provided to protect this glass plate when the binoculars are stored in a case or bag. The glass plate is slightly recessed, which may be enough to protect it from direct contact with the wall of a hard case, but not if put in a soft case or jammed into a bag together with other objects.

I just had to add my two-penneth on this, having also owned the 6.5x model for several years.

Firstly, I too have a small interpupillary distance (a sign of being shifty my Mother said) and I have come across binoculars that didn't 'close' enough for me to get a comfortable. This wasn't the case with the Pentax.

I loved them for observing insects in the undergrowth. It encouraged me to get down to their level, and see so much more whilst down there. The glass plate is a good idea, unfortunately, one day, I went from observing two mating damselflies to photographing them, and in my excitement at getting the shots, quite forgot they were round my neck getting submerged for about ten minutes.

Taking them apart, I discovered how teeny the prisms were, and how the water had made the black paint/cement run all over the prism faces.

Low light...I probably agree, they are not, but 21/6.5 gives an exit pupil of 3.2mm, and as we get older, the ability of our iris to reveal a large pupil decreases, and for those of 50+ I suspect it isn't much more than 4mm. Certainly a pair of 7 x50, at one time the go-to size for low light would be overkill at over 7mm. This fits in quite nicely with the fact that as we get older we also want more compact, lighter models!

I still miss my Papilios, and often wonder about getting another pair.

[ray_parkhurst]

I bought a pair of 8.5x as well. They are fantastic! I can sit at my desk and zoom-in to coins and things right in front of me! very nice for pre-screening macro shots, or just plain enjoying looking at small things in stereo.

[enricosavazzi]

I think today it came to me in which way images seen through the Pentax Papilio II 6.5x 21 look slightly odd. Since I have no other binoculars to compare it with, I don't know whether this is a common optical behavior of binoculars, or (more likely) of the reversed Porro prism design (see below).

I was looking with the binoculars at my dog laying in its bed at a distance of about 3 m and looking back at me. The objects located at significantly different distances from the binoculars (front of the bed, dog face, rear of the bed, curtain out of focus in the background) look convincingly separated in 3D from each others. However, each of these objects looks flat like a cardboard cutout, i.e., their smaller 3D depth is not perceived at all.

The odd total impression was of looking at a childrens' fold-up book where cutouts spring up from the pages when you open the book. The cutouts are located at different depths, but each individual cutout is of course flat.

As I mentioned above, my first guess would be that this peculiar perception is caused by the reversed Porro prism design, and specifically by the reduced interpupillary distance of the objectives with respect to the user's interpupillary distance, combined with image magnification. The relatively high DOF of these binoculars may enhance this perception.

I have occasionally used typical Porro prism binoculars and did not notice this, perhaps because the typical Porro design has objectives at an increased interpupillary distance with respect to the user's. This may compensate for the magnification of the subject and restore an approximately correct depth perception.

[enricosavazzi]

[...]The glass plate is a good idea, unfortunately, one day, I went from observing two mating damselflies to photographing them, and in my excitement at getting the shots, quite forgot they were round my neck getting submerged for about ten minutes.[...]

If it is any consolation, almost 20 years ago I was doing field work on a beach in Yokohama carrying my very first digital camera (Nikon Coolpix 990) in a small padded pouch hanging around my neck.

At some point, while looking down I saw that the pouch was halfway immersed in sea water, and must have been for quite some time.

In my case, nothing was lost because the pouch turned out to be (accidentally) waterproof. Although the pouch opening at the top was obviously not waterproof, this part of the pouch never got underwater. I went on to use that camera for several years afterwards, and it survived undamaged a few other scares connected with water. Remembering that, I now use an Olympus Tough TG-4 for water-related occasions when I don't want to risk a "real" camera or don't bother carrying its weight.

[Troels]

2 months ago I got my pair of Pentax Papilio 6.5x inspired by this thread and some British birding fora and I am enthusiastic about them. Many years ago I was able to focus at things only 15-20 cm away. Now I am extremely farsighted. It is so great fun to be able again to look at small animals and plants, and now even at a distance.

I am glad I chose the low magnification. I have a monocular close-up 9x30. It gives nice pictures, but in practice it is really difficult to cfatch ast moving insect like butterflies or wasps. It is difficult to focus (by turning the tubeus). And the picture often gets too shaky. I ended up using it very rarely. The pentax goes into my bag or coat pocket most of the times I take a trip. And it can do the job if an interesting bird or mammal passes by. The jump from 1x to 6.5x is so much greater and important than the last step from 6.5x to 8x.

Enrico wrote

As I mentioned above, my first guess would be that this peculiar perception is caused by the reversed Porro prism design, and specifically by the reduced interpupillary distance of the objectives with respect to the user's interpupillary distance, combined with image magnification. The relatively high DOF of these binoculars may enhance this perception.

I have occasionally used typical Porro prism binoculars and did not notice this, perhaps because the typical Porro design has objectives at an increased interpupillary distance with respect to the user's. This may compensate for the magnification of the subject and restore an approximately correct depth perception.

I think you have a point here. Many years ago I bought a pair of prime porro prism 7x50 binocular for astronomical observations. One of the most surprising and striking features was the very nice and clear 3D rendering. This 3D-effect made it almost fun to look at everything: Landscapes, mountains, waves, buildings etc. Things looking flat to the eyes because of the distance suddenly got this realistic dimension of depth.

I am sure you are right about this being a result of the greater objective distance. Logically the opposite must be true with the inverse design.