Kimmo,
You are right. That was not an apple to apple comparsion (8.5 vs 8). Even that, with TFOV difference of 15/1000m(=1.5m/100m) , practically I won't miss anything while bins birding which usually within 100m.
The wider TFOV of SF shouldn't be the main selling point. To earn the hearts of current SW, HT or EDG users & die-hard Leica fanboys, the SF have to show something really extraordinary. Let's wait and see.
Andy
Hey Andy
You are right in one sense that comparing an 8x and an 8.5x isn't comparing like with like.
But if you are a prospective purchaser of a top end pair of bins and you narrow your search down to Swaro and Zeiss (yes there are other fine brands out there) then if FOV is important you have a choice of 8.5x / 133m or 8x / 148m. People will be making that comparison and that choice.
For me, any extra FOV is very welcome, especially in the following circumstances:
Watching birds like ducks, grebes and divers (loons) that disappear underwater and surface all over the place. Finding them again is so much easier with extra FOV. For the same reason I find extra FOV good for watching otters, seals and whales. Closer in distance, when watching dragonflies zooming about and doing seemingly impossible twists and turns, extra FOV is brilliant to help not lose sight of them. Sometimes too, extra FOV is good when scanning brush and scrub for sight of a warbler doing warning calls, the sort of call where you can't quite work out where it is coming from. I'll take any extra FOV of these applications.
Of course if these scenarios don't interest you then you won't get excited by SF's FOV.
Lee