• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Vortex Fury 6.5x32 (2 Viewers)

The FOV or the AFOV does NOT change when the eyecups are moved, but the PFOV (perceived field of view) changes dramatically with the Fury because of its very extensive eyecup adjustment possibilities.
When they're up all the way the modest AFOV of the Fury together with the almost complete occlusion of the external FOV make up for a tunnel-like view.
...
//L

This is what I should have known to say, but didnt. :t:
 
Is the 6.5x enough? I'm looking to buy a binocular in the near future. What should be the best all rounder binoculars and these seem like a good choice if they still have them.

I bought my first sample (now have two!) to complement my 8x33, but found I didn't need an 8x anymore. The Fury is faster, brighter, easier and do their job at normal birding distances.
Now I use 6.5x and 10x for coastal birding, but also have a decent 8x beater, the Bushnell Excursion 8x28.
 
BrightIdea

I think it seems more expansive and less tunnel-like as you say, with the eyecups in. Probably mostly the same FOV, but it still gives the preception of a far less closed in, constricted view . It seems more fatigue free and comfortable. That is pretty much with all binoculars for me, to a greater or lesser extent.

Bruce


Happy to finally see the Fury receive the praise it deserves. I have mentioned its great features in many post here on the BF.



The FOV or the AFOV does NOT change when the eyecups are moved, but the PFOV (perceived field of view) changes dramatically with the Fury because of its very extensive eyecup adjustment possibilities.
When they're up all the way the modest AFOV of the Fury together with the almost complete occlusion of the external FOV make up for a tunnel-like view.

On the other hand, when the eyecups are down and they are used with spectacles, the PFOV or transparency is overwhelming. Despite the 56 degree AFOV they feel very panoramic.

I love these bins but would not use them without spectacles.

Central sharpness - perfect
Sweet spot - reasonable, but nothing to write home about
Edge sharpness - not great, but sufficient for me. Not caused by curvature of field.
CA - none in the center, very slight towards the edges but negligible.
(I got rid of a Nikon Monarch X because of its very excessive CA that showed even at the center)
Color representation - near neutral though a slight hint of warmth.
However way more neutral than my Zeiss Classic. No apparent favoritism for certain colors.
Backlight handling - excellent, better than anything I've tried if that says anything.
Speed of use/ease of use - SUPERB! Just set them to sharpness at 3 meters distance and lift when a warbler shows up.
Mechanical quality - I think the eyecups could be sturdier. Focus knob is very easy to move and has little friction. Diopter works well but the protruding part of the diopter ring makes sure they are always out of setting when you pick them up from a bag.
Ergonomics - their size is perfect and they are like moulded for my hands. They don't really hang flat but don't annoy me either.
Accessories - the objective covers are decent, the rainguard is a little to loose. Case and strap nice, IMO.

//L
 
Last edited:
what are you guys finding as far as close focus on the Fury's?

the spec is 4.9ft but I find I can actually focus much closer than that, I think it's actually closer to the 3ft spec of the Ranger/Viper 6x32 models.

In the testing I did between the Fury & Meopro, both came in at 3 ft close focus despite the 4.6 ft advertised value of the Fury.
 
Binos only seem tunnel like when you cannot see the entire FOV or the Field stops at the edge of the bino due to the positioning of the eyecups and your eyes. If I can see the field stop edges with the eyecups full out on the Fury, then I am seeing the maximum FOV possible whether you want to term it apparent or perceived.
 
Binos only seem tunnel like when you cannot see the entire FOV or the Field stops at the edge of the bino due to the positioning of the eyecups and your eyes. If I can see the field stop edges with the eyecups full out on the Fury, then I am seeing the maximum FOV possible whether you want to term it apparent or perceived.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=1892964#post1892964

Please see post #5. Eyecups that are extended block the part of the human FOV that is outside the binocular's FOV and very much remind of being in a tunnel.

//L
 
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=1892964#post1892964

Please see post #5. Eyecups that are extended block the part of the human FOV that is outside the binocular's FOV and very much remind of being in a tunnel.

//L

And your point is? Eyecups that are extended that do not block the FOV and allow the viewer to see the entire FOV are tunnel like???

If I take my Fury's and put them on a tripod 10 ft away from a measuring tape and I can see exactly 17-1/2" with the eyecups down and my glasses on, or my glasses off and the eyecups up, am I seeing more or less of the FOV???
 
And your point is? Eyecups that are extended that do not block the FOV and allow the viewer to see the entire FOV are tunnel like???

If I take my Fury's and put them on a tripod 10 ft away from a measuring tape and I can see exactly 17-1/2" with the eyecups down and my glasses on, or my glasses off and the eyecups up, am I seeing more or less of the FOV???

You cannot have read my posts or seen the picture. Like I repeatedly have written, the AFOV or TFOV does not change from collapsing or extending the eyecups - as long as you see the field stop and no kidney beaning occurs.

However, when the bins are used in front of the eyes, there is more than the actual image in the bins. When the eyecups are extended, for example if that's how you prefer to use them, or because you need to keep sidelight away from the oculars or any other reason, they physically form a tunnel.

The inner edges of the eyecup, that of course form this tube or tunnel, obscure YOUR visual field, that exceeds 180 degrees if you're healthy.
First comes the image, then comes the rim around the oculars (which can be thinner or wider because of the construction, the ocular lens size and the setting of the eyecup), then comes your hands (roof prism) or the prism housings + your hands (porro).

You may know that I have the Fury 6.5x32 in my possession, and it gives an excessively different feeling when used with the eyecups extended compared to when they are down - much more different than other bins I have tried.
 
black crow -- if you have the inclination you may want to give the 6x32 Viper a try too as another stop in your journey, the sale price of $275 is a steal. The optical quality and build quality of the Vipers are a step up, near alpha really. In a way it's a "best of both worlds" in terms of your likes/dislikes of the Fury's and Rangers. All the compactness and lightness of the Ranger, with better eyecups and rubber armor and a really nice diopter mechanism, buttery smooth focus knob, should be brighter and sharper than both and do better with color fringing, plus a FOV that is in between the Ranger and Fury.

thanks I'll consider that.

I actually would like some 8x32 in either and might spring for the non sale price if I don't fall in love with the sightrons.
 
I just got back from using the Fury's for over two hours in the field. By the end of that time I have to admit I was thinking about the Rangers. For me, now, it's certain I prefer those optics and the feel of them in my hands. They just have more pop and a naturalness to the colors and light that make me feel like I don't have glass between me and what I'm looking at. Makes me really want to get a look thorough some of those Alphas to see if and how much better it can get. And I do not like how the Fury's hang on my chest. It's uncomfortable and the Rangers are not because they hang flat against my chest. I'll try them with the vortex harness I got and that should help. The Fury's are still keepers but as backup or loaner.

"Just when I think I'm out they suck me back in."
 
Last edited:
You cannot have read my posts or seen the picture. Like I repeatedly have written, the AFOV or TFOV does not change from collapsing or extending the eyecups - as long as you see the field stop and no kidney beaning occurs.

However, when the bins are used in front of the eyes, there is more than the actual image in the bins. When the eyecups are extended, for example if that's how you prefer to use them, or because you need to keep sidelight away from the oculars or any other reason, they physically form a tunnel.

The inner edges of the eyecup, that of course form this tube or tunnel, obscure YOUR visual field, that exceeds 180 degrees if you're healthy.
First comes the image, then comes the rim around the oculars (which can be thinner or wider because of the construction, the ocular lens size and the setting of the eyecup), then comes your hands (roof prism) or the prism housings + your hands (porro).

You may know that I have the Fury 6.5x32 in my possession, and it gives an excessively different feeling when used with the eyecups extended compared to when they are down - much more different than other bins I have tried.

I read your posts and looked at the pics when you first posted them, and again before I responded earlier. Way back when you first posted them I was intrigued by the optical illusion, however, I never see as much darkness at the edges as you have exagerrated in your photos.

And you may know that I also have the Fury's in my possesion and for over a week have been doing extensive testing and evaluations against the 6.5x32 Meopro. If you have the "illusion" of a greater FOV and less of a tunnel, that is all well and good for you, but I have no such "illusions". Just cold hard facts and measurements.

Like I said in the beginning - everyone doesn't see the same.

PS: By extrapolation, my measurement s of the Fury's FOV is slightly less than the manufacturers stated FOV. Does your testing and evaluations conclude the same?
 
Last edited:
I just got back from using the Fury's for over two hours in the field. By the end of that time I have to admit I was thinking about the Rangers. For me, now, it's certain I prefer those optics and the feel of them in my hands. They just have more pop and a naturalness to the colors and light that make me feel like I don't have glass between me and what I'm looking at. Makes me really want to get a look thorough some of those Alphas to see if and how much better it can get. And I do not like how the Fury's hang on my chest. It's uncomfortable and the Rangers are not because they hang flat against my chest. I'll try them with the vortex harness I got and that should help. The Fury's are still keepers but as backup or loaner.

"Just when I think I'm out they suck me back in."

I think it's great that you found a pair of bins that "fits" you so well. A lot of this buying-and-trying is because people are trying to find that pair that's "just right" for them, and we are some nit-picky folk ;)

My older Ranger SRT 8x42 served me very well for years till they got stolen with my car, very rugged and comfortable, went deep into the jungle on 5 continents :t: I did have to send them in one time for service because the focus knob got loose but otherwise they took a lot of pounding without a hiccup. And they are quite light and compact as you know.

At the time I bought them (5-6 years ago) they were really the cream of the crop at the $300 price point, and nowadays that's a much more crowded field with some awesome new options, but it's good to know they can still punch above their weight B :)

Can't wait to hear your thoughts on the Sightron vs. the Fury and Ranger....
 
I read your posts and looked at the pics when you first posted them, and again before I responded earlier.

And you may know that I also have the Fury's in my possesion and for over a week have been doing extensive testing and evaluations against the 6.5x32 Meopro. If you have the "illusion" of a greater FOV and less of a tunnel, that is all well and good for you, but I have no such "illusions". Just cold hard facts and measurements.

Like I said in the beginning - everyone doesn't see the same.

Tom,

I'm really looking forward to your comparison between the Fury and the Meopro :t:
There are things about binoculars that are more difficult to measure than others. Some are more susceptible to rolling ball or CA than others.
Ergonomics is another area where opinions differ, and as usual it's a good advise to try before buy.

But I feel confident that I'm about to track what makes certain binoculars more "walk-in" or panoramic than others, and it's not necessarily AFOV, judging from the Jekyll&Hyde personality of the Fury 6.5.

I'm fond of making simple photoshopped pictures or drawings, and the PFOV concept will really be challenging, though far from impossible.

Even though this property of binoculars can't be as easy to assess as their optical properties, and so far has not been included in binocular reviews, it's not mumbo-jumbo. Not more than other aspects of the physical design of binoculars, that come as standard in reviews.

Would you care to make an easy experiment? Mount the bins on a tripod and go outside where you have free space in all directions. Begin to look through the bins with the eyecups down. Be sure to keep your eyes at the same distance from the oculars. Extend the eyecups while looking through the bins and notice how your visual field (n.b., not the bin's FOV) gets obscured by the eyecups.

The image in the binoculars remains unchanged, but mostly everything outside that image disappears when the tube-shaped eyecups hide it. It becomes more apparent that the Fury has a modest AFOV when the black rim surrounding the round image widens and obscures your visual field.


//L
 
Like I said "illusions". And which one would look larger if I saw the view from the left pic with my glasses on and eyecups down, and the same thing with my glasses off and the eyecups up? I know what you are getting at, and I'd say the exagerrated view would apply to some of the many binos I have looked thru.

I'll give you a tantalizing preview of the Fury vs. Meopro. Optically, the Meopro is slightly better in most categories, and in particular glare control. But the ER on the Meopro may be problematic for some. With glasses on and cups down, I can see the whole FOV with NO wiggle room, as with the Furys. People with thick glasses might have a problem. With glasses off, I have to have the Fury eyecups up, and the Meopro half up to see the entire FOV. With the eyecups on the Meopro full up, I cannot see the entire FOV, and they are not as relaxed at half up as I would like. If the Meopro had identical ER and eyecup properties as the Fury, then it wouldn't be a contest to me - eyeglasses or not.

And it does focus clockwise!
 
Thanks!
Seems I can stick with the Furies, but the Meopro might be more useful than the Fury when I'm wearing contacts. My Zeiss 10x32 is very useable with and without spectacles, but I dislike (!) the Fury when I use contacts because I lose the feeling of transparency when the eyecups are up or half-way up.

I assume you can safely confirm they are not the same binoculars?

//L
 
They are not the same bino at all despite some outward similarities.

Interesting! I tried them both at a BirdFair back in the Summer. I preferred the Meopro but presumed it was just a coating difference at the time, but it wasn't possible to do a side by side test. They both worked fine for me with glasses.

David
 
I took some time to look over the other in depth reviews to see if there was anything I disagreed with and did not and also realized that all those reviews will be more in depth and more technical than what I'm up to so I'll give my general impressions only. I'm comparing them to my benchmark Ranger SRT 6x30.

First I want to say they are really great optics. Everything I was hoping for and more.

The Fury's are a nice looking, nice sized bin. Very nice to hold. Not too fat and not too skinny and not too long for my taste. They are not really compact like the Ranger but they are not too far off either. They are a couple ounces heavier than the Rangers and it's noticeable but not in a bad way. They feel solid without being bulky. Nice case and nice strap.

They win hands down over the ranger in the comfort of the eye cups. Nice job Vortex. Really comfortable. However as far as eye relief it was slightly easier to center my eyes in the Ranger and slightly less black out of which there was not much.

I didn't notice any blatant different in color fringing and both seemed excellent.

As far as overall clarity of images and brightness I'm giving the edge to the Rangers. It was especially noticeable when reading a book across a couple of rooms. At a slightly lesser power the Ranger was brighter and noticeably easier to read off the page.

In color accuracy I'm also giving the edge to the Ranger. A very neutral natural color that made things seem more real to me. But not by much. Both are excellent.

As to sweet spot size I give the edge to the Fury and also in "to the edge" sharpness. The Fury does a really excellent job here. The Ranger is close.

In FOV the Fury is noticeably better especially in panoramic views. It was noticeable and I was also able to notice that .5x power difference in certain viewing situations and appreciated that. I'm a fan of 7x and the Fury is closer.

So in conclusion I'd say the Fury is an outstanding binocular even at full price. I'm glad to own it and it's a real keeper. As to which one I'd keep if I could only have one it would be the Ranger but not by much. I think the natural color representation of the Ranger and it's slightly brighter images makes a real difference for me along with it's lighter weight and smaller size. It's very nice to hold.

Now I think I'll take the Fury's out again as it's a perfect Oregon day here and the birds are out in mass.


I took the Rangers out today and realized something. I came back to check on it and realized it was true or seemed true. The Rangers have a slight rolling ball effect when panning that the Fury's don't seem to have. Also I realize how superior the overall edge to edge sharpness is in the Fury, however much the Rangers seem to have the edge inside the sweet spot. Does this make sense??
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top