[black crow]

They just showed up a short while ago. Unfortunately it was at dusk but I did have some time up on the upper deck with them. First impression is really good. I can only assume now that those Diamondback were faulty. The difference is overwhelming and confirms what many of you have been saying. Anyway I'll have tomorrow to put them through their paces and report back.

[NDhunter]

Crow:
I am thinking you are trying to set a posting record. Hard to read all you have to say,
which seems to be just a bunch of jabber.
Starting to ignore because of that. Post when you have something to say that may
be of interest. I for one, don't care what came in your mail today. I may be interested
in something about optics, so think about that.

Take a deep breath, and pace yourself. Some like you are on Twitter, so you can
tweet to your very best, and then we will not have to see it. Don't become a bore.

Jerry

[black crow]

No just enjoying myself and enthusiastic. Sorry it bothers you. I won't be offended if you put me on ignore. No hard feelings on my end.

I seem to have gotten the same reception when I waxed enthusiastic about setting up my first bird feeding station. I may not be a good fit for this group. It happens.

[bh46118]

I look forward to your review.

Bruce

[eitanaltman]

Originally Posted by NDhunter

Crow:
I am thinking you are trying to set a posting record. Hard to read all you have to say,
which seems to be just a bunch of jabber.
Starting to ignore because of that. Post when you have something to say that may
be of interest. I for one, don't care what came in your mail today. I may be interested
in something about optics, so think about that.

Take a deep breath, and pace yourself. Some like you are on Twitter, so you can
tweet to your very best, and then we will not have to see it. Don't become a bore.

Jerry

Sounds like someone should take their own advice -- which post is the useless one?

I'm sure black crow will cry himself to sleep if Jerry the Grouch decides that he will be ignoring his posts. Thanks for the sanctimony though, I'm sure it was appreciated

[eitanaltman]

I would like to propose we bring in all Fury 6.5x32 talk into this thread.... since we've been cluttering up other threads like the Sightron 8x32 which has now devolved into lilcrazy's full-on assault on Dennis

I am especially interested in your thoughts on Fury 6.5x32 vs. the Ranger 6x32. Having owned and loved the Ranger previously, I started many times at the Ranger 6x32 sale at Eagle Optics, but ended up with the Fury due to the $50 savings. The Fury have a wider FOV and slightly more mag but are also a bit bigger and heavier, whereas the Rangers are "true" compact bins. On the other hand, in my experience with the 6x32 Viper I almost thought they were too small, I like a slightly longer barrel for my fingers, and the Fury's are a bit better in this regard.

Did some time today with the Fury's and the new ZR Vistas. The Fury's are noticeable brighter and sharper, and of course that super wide sweet spot. They are still a bit warmer in color balance vs. the Vistas, which are quite neutral. Both are similar in their (mediocre) handling of lateral CA, not much in the middle but moderately bad once you get outside of the center 20% or so. And the Vista seemed downright bulky relatively, with a stiffer focus knob and less comfortable eyecups (although to be fair the Vista is excellent for a bin that is SUPPOSED to sell for the price that the Fury was being blown out for).

My only faults with the Fury are minor nitpicks:

- mediocre handling of lateral color fringing (CA)
- color balance is a bit too much to the yellowish / warm side of neutral
- practically useless rainguard, cheap stiff rubber and much too loose
- the stupid pointy projection of the rubber armor near the objective lenses (I'm about to slice it off with a razor blade, my pinky keeps landing on that floppy rubber point and it drives me a bit nuts)
- while the TFOV is pretty wide, it's not really that much of a wide field considering the low magnification, AFOV is notably less than other bins
- a decent amount of pincushion distortion

But considering that it is nearly the equal of my Zen ED3's in brightness, clarity, center field sharpness, and that lovely low magnification "ease of view", I am not complaining!

[bh46118]

eitanaltman

Do you use your binoculars with or without glasses ?

Thanks Bruce

[Stet]

I am really loving these Fury's. Although I admit I have not had a chance to really put them through their paces, I am finding right now I am liking them even better than my Sightrons. I think it may have alot to do with the magification. My intial impressions are that the Fury's are easier to snap into focus, more depth of field, and very slightly a little bit brighter than the Sightrons. The Sightrons are less bulky and lighter. The one thing I'm not really liking on the Fury's are that on the one's I got, the hinge is too loose for my taste and I find it easy to move the IPD just by handling them. I post more as I get time to do a more thorough comparison.

John

[FrankD]

John,

The loose central hinge is an easy fix. Unscrew the tripod socket cover on the front side of central hinge. You should see what looks like a flat metal "head" with a groove running through the center of it. Use an appropriate regular screwdriver to tighten.

Problem solved.

[Stet]

Originally Posted by FrankD

John,

The loose central hinge is an easy fix. Unscrew the tripod socket cover on the front side of central hinge. You should see what looks like a flat metal "head" with a groove running through the center of it. Use an appropriate regular screwdriver to tighten.

Problem solved.

Thanks Frank. I was thinking that from what you were showing me the other day and meant to ask.

John

[black crow]

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.

[eitanaltman]

Originally Posted by bh46118

eitanaltman

Do you use your binoculars with or without glasses ?

Thanks Bruce

I don't wear glasses. I was a bit worried because I have issues with bins that have extra-long eye relief, and I ended up returning the 6x32 Vipers (also a fantastic deal BTW at $275 from EO) because I got blackouts, even with the eyecups fully extended.

But with the Fury's, despite having longer spec'd eye relief than the Vipers, I don't have any issues at all. Like I mentioned elsewhere, these may be the most comfortable eyecups I've used. And obviously they are long enough, and extend out far enough, that despite the 21mm eye relief spec I don't have any issues. They are one of the "easiest" viewing bins I've used for sure.

[eitanaltman]

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.

[bh46118]

Thanks eitanaltman

With the eyecups down and my glasses on, I have a field of view that is considerably wider with the Fury than what I saw with the 8X42 Caldera. I was also looking through the Caldera with eyecups down, glasses on. The FOV on either was less expansive without glasses and the eyecups set out.

Bruce

[BrightIdea]

Originally Posted by black crow

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.

The Fury are long eye relief and I dont wear glasses, so i had a little issue with blackouts. They didnt snap to my face like some others. dad wears glasses so it was a perfect gift for him.

Originally Posted by black crow

As far as overall clarity of images and brightness I'm giving the edge to the Rangers. ...

wow!

Originally Posted by black crow

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.

Wow, that speaks well for the ranger.

Originally Posted by black crow

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. ....
....

Nice big view, for sure.

I found them to be physically large for what I would use them for, so actually I bet the ranger would have been more preferable for me. Huh. Makes me want to try the vipers even more!

nice write up. Thanks.

[lilcrazy2]

Everyone is a little different.

I have no trouble seeing the entire FOV with either the Fury or the Caldera with the eyecups down and wearing glasses. The Calderas are right at the limit, and depending on the thickness of glasses, I could see where some might have a slight problem. The Fury's definitely have a greater range of eye relief for eyeglass wearers, and allow a greater latitude.

On the other hand, when I do not wear glasses, I still have absolutely no problems seeing the entire FOV with the eyecups of the Fury full up and the Calderas half up, with no blackouts.

With some other binos, I have to have the eyecups full up to avoid blackouts, but cannot see the entire FOV. These are the ones that are returned or sold IMMEDIATELY!!Other binos require that I use something between the set clickstops of the bino, usually requiring Orings or another device to hold them in that position. Thats why it is so important that people try different binos and find the ones that suit their facial features and needs. One size does not fit all, and probably the most misstated and understood specification that manufacturers list is ER.

Tom

[eitanaltman]

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.

[black crow]

Mine came in focus a hair over 4 ft.

[looksharp65]

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

Originally Posted by bh46118

The FOV on either was less expansive without glasses and the eyecups set out.

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

[BrightIdea]

Originally Posted by lilcrazy2

Everyone is a little different.

I have no trouble seeing the entire FOV with either the Fury or the Caldera with the eyecups down and wearing glasses. The Calderas are right at the limit, and depending on the thickness of glasses, I could see where some might have a slight problem. The Fury's definitely have a greater range of eye relief for eyeglass wearers, and allow a greater latitude.

On the other hand, when I do not wear glasses, I still have absolutely no problems seeing the entire FOV with the eyecups of the Fury full up and the Calderas half up, with no blackouts.
..
Tom

Yep, this is an area that I consider one of those "ease of use factors", which in this case is a function of indivduals anatomy.
"Full out" on fury for me gave restricted FOV.


For the "calderas" (prooptics really)I can use them with the eyecups all the way down, and one click up is plenty. I tend to favor the lowest or near lowest occular setting on many of my binos, and when I have to extend them fully, I'll often consider them a poor fit (due to reduced fov).

Everyone is different for sure.

[BrightIdea]

Originally Posted by looksharp65

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.

[looksharp65]

Originally Posted by newBIRD2012

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.

[bh46118]

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

Originally Posted by looksharp65

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

[lilcrazy2]

Originally Posted by eitanaltman

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.

[lilcrazy2]

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.