Once again Frank, thanks so much.
That Celestron 10x50 does not seem to be available any longer.
Even with my limited knowledge and experience with binoculars, what you said about expecting 10x to have a minimum of 300 feet FOV regardless of distortion, or lack thereof, makes perfect sense.
Therefore, it looks like I am going to have to eat my words about the Nikon Action ATB 10x50. Based on what I have read and been told, I have more confidence in the handling and optical performance ability of the Nikon (despite its having about 60-70 percent sharp FOV and not being FMC) than I have for two other 340 or so FOV 10x50's, the Orion UltraView and the Bushnell Legend.
Until the Zen ED 8x43 arrives, my only binoculars are Nikon Action 7x35. They have definitely served me fairly well but I am not totally convinced the the AE's are that much more optically supererior, discounting the increase in magnification and increase in objective lense size. In other words, no matter how hard I try to convince myself, I can't get excited about them.
On the other hand, I could get excited about the Sky King 10x42 or the ZRS 10x42 as they seem to be breakthrough bins based on performance well-beyond their price range.
With one caveat that is. Are the Atlas and Zen (with listed FOV's marginally higher than 300 feet) optically superior, despite whatever "flaws" that both may have, to all of the $200 or less 10x42 or 10x50 Porros?