i'm probably going to regert this (sic), but i'm now going to start a "point & shoot" camera thread . . . .
If it's about the term "shoot" :
"The term "shot" is derived from the early days of film production when cameras were hand-cranked, and operated similarly to the hand-cranked machine guns of the time. That is, a cameraman would "shoot" film the way someone would "shoot" bullets from a machine gun" from Wiki
franco , your logic is impeccable, but I have never heard someone say “Hand me the binocular” or “I need a binocular to see that moose in your photos.” Always “I need a pair of binoculars.” So while you are certainly correct in one sense, in the US, at least, standard usage suggest the plural, just as with pants.
My aging copy of the OED bears you out, as does Merriam-Webster, but the Cambridge Dictionary and most usage web sites go with binoculars. My conclusion: use either one.
I like to get to the original meaning of words and given that a lot of English words do come from Latin or Greek, that is a bit easier for me than some*.
Here is the comment from the relevant dictionary : 1738, "involving both eyes," from Fr. binoculaire, from L. bini "two by two, twofold, two apiece" (especially of matching things) + ocularis "of the eye," from oculus "eye" . The double-tubed telescopic instrument (1871, short for binocular glass) earlier was called a binocle (1690s).
Depends on who you talk to, and your use. I find the field of view okay in my 8x20 compacts, but not ideal for birding. Here is a pretty good thread on BPL on the subject of compact binoculars: link. Some of the posters make a decent case for not using anything with an objective lens of less than 30 mm, but you pay a real penalty in weight and bulk. I am looking to upgrade my compact binoculars, and will likely be looking at 8x25s.
I have walked myself into my best thoughts, and I know of no thought so burdensome that one cannot walk away from it. -Soren Kierkegaard
Post by walkswithblackflies on Feb 24, 2021 8:53:42 GMT -8
The zero-gram option...
Hundreds of years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove... But the world may be different because I did something so bafflingly crazy that my ruins become a tourist attraction.
I have been quite satisfied with my Nikon Trailblazer 8x25 binocular. They weigh 9 oz on my scale including neck strap, they are waterproof and fairly rugged, the relative sizes etc gives a reasonable exit pupil, brightness, and FOV, and the overall quality is decent. I am elitist about my optics for telescopes, dedicated wildlife viewing, and so on, and this little pocket binocular fits the perfect niche for me, at acceptable performance and low price, and extremely portable. When kayaking or canoeing, they hang around my neck and tuck into the top of my pfd to be handy for spotting vacant campsites, portage landings, and whatever draws my attention. When backpacking, they are in a front pocket, with the neck strap carabinered to my pack strap.
If you can get the same general size and spec with premium glass and a premium brand, you’ll probably be satisfied!
That reminds me how we often do move the face a bit forward to look in the distance. I have noticed that some raptors do the same. They bend forward and extend their head towards the prey . Rather funny when they do that, given that they may be looking at a mouse 150 feet away.
I think 24 is the smallest I'd go for 8x. It's not just the field view, but also the light. What I actually carry when I'm seriously looking is 8x32, since I'm often looking into shaded areas.
The quality of the glass "can" trump objective size. My Leica 8x20 Ultravid's are a LOT brighter than most average 8x25's. Once again, good glass hurts it costs so much. For my regular binoculars I use an 8x32 Leica Ultravid, but in most light conditions it's impressive how well the 8x20's compared to the 8x32's.