Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Monday 27th March 2017, 09:26   #26
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by adhoc View Post
Steve, thanks for another very informative review.


Alexis, are we not a bit spoilt these days!? Please see this thread on "Chandler S. Robbins amazing bins" (recently re-active on his death). Its FOV is also 7.2 degrees. He found birds! And that binocular (in that state) is the very picture of superior utility!

That said, very few 8x42s todays have such a narrow (relatively, I remind!) FOV. Of well known makes I can find only the Leica Trinovid, Leupold Pro-Guide and Zeiss Terra with FOV of 7.0, 7.1 and 7.2 deg. respectively.

There is too little written in the Binoculars sub-forum of BirdForum on actual bird observation. It will be most useful (and interesting) to know how much 7.2 deg. hampers those used to 8.0 deg. in actually finding birds in the field, in different settings, woodland, open wetlands, etc.

The 125m FOV is restricted by comparison with some others thats for sure but as well as the models you mention, around its price level with similar FOV there is Conquest HD 128m, Kite Ibis and Minox HG at 126m, Kowa Genesis hampered by 0.5 extra mag at 122m, Vortex's Viper HD at 116m etc. I am a self-confessed FOV junkie citing the 148m as one of the main reasons I like Zeiss SF but there are plenty of reasons to like the GPO even if class-shattering FOV isn't one of them.

As for your comments about too little being written on BF about birding with bins, you can probably guess I am in broad agreement with that.

Lee

Last edited by Troubador : Monday 27th March 2017 at 15:57.
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 27th March 2017, 13:52   #27
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 3,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by adhoc View Post
Steve, thanks for another very informative review.


Alexis, are we not a bit spoilt these days!? Please see this thread on "Chandler S. Robbins amazing bins" (recently re-active on his death). Its FOV is also 7.2 degrees. He found birds! And that binocular (in that state) is the very picture of superior utility!

That said, very few 8x42s todays have such a narrow (relatively, I remind!) FOV. Of well known makes I can find only the Leica Trinovid, Leupold Pro-Guide and Zeiss Terra with FOV of 7.0, 7.1 and 7.2 deg. respectively.

There is too little written in the Binoculars sub-forum of BirdForum on actual bird observation. It will be most useful (and interesting) to know how much 7.2 deg. hampers those used to 8.0 deg. in actually finding birds in the field, in different settings, woodland, open wetlands, etc.
Don't forget that Chandler Robbins' bins were 10x50s. They were actually wide-angle binoculars once the 10x magnification is taken into account.

Like Alex, I wonder about Steve's report of a field that looks wider than it is. Such a thing is possible if there is a very large amount of pincushion distortion to artificially stretch objects toward the edge of the field. However, Steve reports "no pincushion distortion" in the 8x42 GPO. That would artificially compress objects toward the edge of the field and restrict the "real" apparent field of the 8x42 GPO to no more than about 54º. How could the brain be fooled into thinking that light from the binocular is covering a wider area of the retina than it is?.

Henry

Last edited by henry link : Monday 27th March 2017 at 14:18.
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 27th March 2017, 14:39   #28
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,938
Trump would call it ''The Art of the Deal.''
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 27th March 2017, 15:01   #29
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 227
Henry, I did note the 10x50 configuration, and that the apparent FOV is wider. But what Alexis stressed is the real FOV. I re-copy his sentence with the middle part now included: "FOV is about finding birds, and being _actually_ wider is what makes for superior utility."

I did wonder about how the field could look wider, and am waiting for someone to explain! If a model even just feels like that to most viewers that is a good thing as they will not be constantly bothered by a feeling of the view being confined.
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 27th March 2017, 15:05   #30
jgraider
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Texas
Posts: 1,052
It is easy to trick your brain into seeing and thinking things are better/worse than they actually are. It's called preconceived notions, and it is an inarguable fact that relates to many, many products and markets.
jgraider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 27th March 2017, 16:03   #31
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 3,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by adhoc View Post
Henry, I did note the 10x50 configuration, and that the apparent FOV is wider. But what Alexis stressed is the real FOV. I re-copy his sentence with the middle part now included: "FOV is about finding birds, and being _actually_ wider is what makes for superior utility."

I did wonder about how the field could look wider, and am waiting for someone to explain! If a model even just feels like that to most viewers that is a good thing as they will not be constantly bothered by a feeling of the view being confined.
I agree, Alexis and I are talking about different things. If ease in finding birds is the criterion then the real field is primarily what matters. Every 7.14º FOV will contain the same number of ducks in a row, whether they are larger, smaller, stretched or compressed.

Unless there is an illusion of more ducks lined up across the field than are actually there, an impression of a wider field could only mean an impression of a wider apparent field. Besides distortion, a couple of other apparent field enhancing mechanisms have been discussed here before.

One is the idea that a narrower area of black between the binocular field and the eye's peripheral vision creates an illusion of a larger apparent field. This might fit Steve's experience since he mentioned that the field seemed to expand with the eyecups down.

Another is the illusion of higher magnification and consequently a larger apparent field in binoculars with narrow objective spacing compared to wide objective spacing. This illusion is strongest at close distances and evaporates completely at very long distances. I don't think it's likely to be noticed unless an example of narrow spacing and wide spacing are directly compared.

That's all I've got. Maybe other people can think of some others.

Last edited by henry link : Monday 27th March 2017 at 16:35.
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 27th March 2017, 17:52   #32
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 227
Thanks, Henry. I have noted (since before) that you use 52.5 to divide the field in feet at 1000 yards to convert to degrees, but doesn't the small-angle approximation actually give us 52.4? (2.π.1000.3/360 = 52.359...) Hence my 7.2 deg. (rounded from 7.156...) and your 7.14! "Unless there is an illusion of more ducks lined up across the field than are actually there..." I hope this is humor, or patience with this intellectually challenged heckler. In my checkered optics history things have never got that bad! I too would not think that your second explanation is likely to apply, also because it seems that Steve mostly views more distant targets, on his farm and beyond.
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 27th March 2017, 19:46   #33
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lawrence, Kansas, USA
Posts: 2,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
I agree, Alexis and I are talking about different things...
The topics are related. Sure, since Chandler Robbins selected a 10x bin, he gave up some potential for an even wider FOV, but within that limitation imposed by choice of magnification, he picked a bin with a wide absolute field.

I'm not arguing that a bin with a 375 ft FOV is somehow unusable. I regularly bird with my Leica 8x20 Ultravids, which have a FOV of 330 ft. My first serious birding bins, which served me well for many years, have a 365 ft FOV. Still, other trade-offs aside, wider is better.

--AP
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th March 2017, 00:40   #34
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racuuna View Post
Thanks for a nice review. How does it compare against your maven b1? It would also be interesting IF you could digiscope a picture through the GPO and the promaster with the full image circle, so we could get a sense of the fov.
Thanks
With regard to the fov. Yes at first look the GPO looks wider than it measures. However, in spite of the first impression it seemed wider than the Promaster, that impression is observably false when I get the GPO and several other 8x42, all of which are wider than it is, actually doing comparisons. However when I put the GPO back to my eyes in field usage, the impression it is wider than it measures remains. In spite of all the angst that that can't be, in my personal observations, that is the way it seems. I do not get the feeling I need to drop the GPO and run to the far wider Kruger Caldera, for instance.

So all a series of digiscoped images would show is that the GPO has less fov. I have the idea it would be hard to replicate individual impressions through the art of my photography

My impression remains that if an observer has trouble finding birds with this, the problem is not with the binocular.

I get it completely that it is a simple fact most people will look at the spec sheet and take a pass. That is fine, but that does not change the impression. Nor does that transfer that impression of mine to others.

Please keep in mind I stated pretty clearly that if I had a preference it would be 420', Up to there, I'm not in need of any more. Below 375' I'd like more. The GPO put its image together in such a way that I'm fine with it, and so would a lot of people be fine too. While I'd take an 8* field over a 7* field if all others things are equal, the mere fact that it is 375' would not prevent me from choosing it over some others as well.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 28th March 2017, 00:51   #35
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
 
Theo98's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: SE La
Posts: 723
Thanks for clarifying, Steve. Would your "AFOV" perception be due to a very large in-focus sweet spot %? Without any real noticeable edge distortions, I'd also be very comfortable with the 375ft! No doubt, anything I'd miss wouldn't be the fault of this 8x42!

Ted
__________________
Seeing is Believing ...Believing without Seeing is...FAITH!
Theo98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th March 2017, 01:11   #36
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo98 View Post
Thanks for clarifying, Steve. Would your "AFOV" perception be due to a very large in-focus sweet spot %? Without any real noticeable edge distortions, I'd also be very comfortable with the 375ft! No doubt, anything I'd miss wouldn't be the fault of this 8x42!

Ted
The sweet spot is pretty wide. But as to perceived fov, I am not sure that since it lilely includes individual perceptual differences it could be defined. Seems like Looksharp posted some on this a while back.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 28th March 2017, 01:23   #37
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
 
Theo98's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: SE La
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
The sweet spot is pretty wide. But as to perceived fov, I am not sure that since it lilely includes individual perceptual differences it could be defined. Seems like Looksharp posted some on this a while back.
Thanks Steve!

Ted
__________________
Seeing is Believing ...Believing without Seeing is...FAITH!
Theo98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th March 2017, 01:28   #38
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexis Powell View Post
Sounds like it is going the wrong direction to win converts from Swarovski, Leica, Zeiss, and Nikon, or from anyone who focuses with their right hand and subscribes to the notion that final focus should be from near to far and that precision is more easily accomplished with a pulling motion than a pushing motion. Is there any effect of cold on focusing action?



Poppycock. FOV is about finding birds, and being _actually_ wider is what makes for superior utility. Appearing wider without actually being wider (???) is (would be?) nice psychologically, but it doesn't facilitate finding birds. These days, 375 feet is poor spec for an 8x full-sized bin.



Sure wish everyone would follow Zeiss and establish 54 mm as minimum (or do better than that) for full-sized bins.

--AP
I have zero empathy for your focus direction phobia. It seems to me I said that focus direction was a no win thing, you proved the point. I have binoculars that focus both directions. Either way seems natural enough. I really prefer a right finger pull to bring the object closer. I have no problems in getting the focus precision I need pushing to the left either. I guess I missed the part where your personal preferences have become the universal standard we all need to follow. I have no argument with your preference, just your seeming need to feel that it is best for everybody.

It seems to me that technique is a lot more important in finding birds than anything else. If you seem to feel the need for a wide fov, go for it. However the best technique is best developed with an fov that suits the user, that fov preference seems to have some variation. Seems like I said I'd prefer 420' myself. But I guess you missed that. If you have trouble with the GPO, the problem is not with the binocular. If you enjoy the wider fov, fine, me too. I'd not like to go less than this, but it is adequate.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 28th March 2017, 01:31   #39
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
The 125m FOV is restricted by comparison with some others thats for sure but as well as the models you mention, around its price level with similar FOV there is Conquest HD 128m, Kite Ibis and Minox HG at 126m, Kowa Genesis hampered by 0.5 extra mag at 122m, Vortex's Viper HD at 116m etc. I am a self-confessed FOV junkie citing the 148m as one of the main reasons I like Zeiss SF but there are plenty of reasons to like the GPO even if class-shattering FOV isn't one of them.

As for your comments about too little being written on BF about birding with bins, you can probably guess I am in broad agreement with that.

Lee
Lee,

We are in complete agreement here.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 28th March 2017, 01:44   #40
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,371
Henry,

To me the fov looks wider than it is when just looking through it. In side by side comparisons with wider fov,s it seems like what it is. I had no intention of stating a new optical concept. What that was is a description of my impression of the fov. That impression is just that it does not look restrictive.

I don't see much in the way of distortion. If pincushion is the only thing looked for, then there is a little there, but in my estimation it is not enough to bother anybody. There certainly is not enough there to appear to stretch the field. While there is some field curvature, it is not much and can be focused out, so that is not widening the field either. This is in my opinion a well done image, while narrower than most would like it to be, does not seem restrictive.

It seems I was in error with my tongue in cheek comment, even with the smiley, that I'd almost bet people would not think the field was as narrow as it is.

As far as your ducks in a row across the fov comment. I really do get that. However if you have 420 ducks across one fov, and 375 across the other, where do you have to put an individual duck to get the necessary information for the ID?. Seems like the answer with both fov scenarios, the answer is the duck has to go pretty much in the middle, as that where ir seems to me the human eye has to be to focus on a single object. Hard to tell a Northern Shoveller from a Mallard unless you center the bird.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 28th March 2017, 01:48   #41
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,371
OK, am I losing it or what? I would have sworn I saw a comment from Dennis about Tract. I went to respond to him and poof!

Tract, hopefully, should be in the mix. The contact I need to talk to won't be back for a week.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.

Last edited by Steve C : Tuesday 28th March 2017 at 01:52.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 28th March 2017, 01:50   #42
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgraider View Post
It is easy to trick your brain into seeing and thinking things are better/worse than they actually are. It's called preconceived notions, and it is an inarguable fact that relates to many, many products and markets.
Yes it is. We've all been there, done that.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 28th March 2017, 02:33   #43
jgraider
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Texas
Posts: 1,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
Yes it is. We've all been there, done that.
Steve, that was in no way meant as a derogatory statement against your perceived FOV example. Quite the opposite actually, as many here will have their minds made up before they ever tried one.

You said it best....when you get to this level of glass (including the Maven and Tract) the trouble with finding animals lies with the glasser, not the glass.
jgraider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th March 2017, 03:14   #44
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
 
Theo98's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: SE La
Posts: 723
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
OK, am I losing it or what? I would have sworn I saw a comment from Dennis about Tract. I went to respond to him and poof!
I saw it also...must be the "Carbonaro Effect"!

Ted
__________________
Seeing is Believing ...Believing without Seeing is...FAITH!
Theo98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th March 2017, 03:39   #45
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgraider View Post
Steve, that was in no way meant as a derogatory statement against your perceived FOV example. Quite the opposite actually, as many here will have their minds made up before they ever tried one.

You said it best....when you get to this level of glass (including the Maven and Tract) the trouble with finding animals lies with the glasser, not the glass.
Hey I know that . Mostly meant that I know I am also not immune to my own perceptions
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 28th March 2017, 04:12   #46
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 3,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
Henry,

To me the fov looks wider than it is when just looking through it. In side by side comparisons with wider fov,s it seems like what it is. I had no intention of stating a new optical concept. What that was is a description of my impression of the fov. That impression is just that it does not look restrictive.

I don't see much in the way of distortion. If pincushion is the only thing looked for, then there is a little there, but in my estimation it is not enough to bother anybody. There certainly is not enough there to appear to stretch the field. While there is some field curvature, it is not much and can be focused out, so that is not widening the field either. This is in my opinion a well done image, while narrower than most would like it to be, does not seem restrictive.

It seems I was in error with my tongue in cheek comment, even with the smiley, that I'd almost bet people would not think the field was as narrow as it is.

As far as your ducks in a row across the fov comment. I really do get that. However if you have 420 ducks across one fov, and 375 across the other, where do you have to put an individual duck to get the necessary information for the ID?. Seems like the answer with both fov scenarios, the answer is the duck has to go pretty much in the middle, as that where ir seems to me the human eye has to be to focus on a single object. Hard to tell a Northern Shoveller from a Mallard unless you center the bird.
Hi Steve,

I guess your positive reaction to the FOV of the GPO means that you've discovered that 54º is wide enough for you. I know from long experience that I need at least 58º "true" AFOV to be a happy guy and I prefer it a bit wider.

As for the optical term "distortion" I think it really only properly applies to three things: pincushion distortion, barrel distortion and angular magnification distortion. They affect the size, shape and position of objects across the field, but have no effect at all on sharpness. You can be certain that every binocular has some form of distortion. If the pincushion in the GPO is low, then it necessarily follows that the angular magnification distortion is high. Your corral rails only tell you about barrel and pincushion. Try moving a small circular object across the field. The shape should be a perfect circle at the field center, but what is it at the field edge?

Henry
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th March 2017, 19:51   #47
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lawrence, Kansas, USA
Posts: 2,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
...I guess I missed the part where your personal preferences have become the universal standard we all need to follow. I have no argument with your preference, just your seeming need to feel that it is best for everybody...
Hmm...I missed the part where I argued that my preference is best for everyone. Rather, I thought I described why and for whom clockwise to infinity is better. I have many bins that focus the other way, so I'm super familiar w/it and far from phobic. But I don't subscribe to the notion that focus direction of binoculars doesn't matter. In camera lenses, I'd accept that focus direction is of little or any functional significance, except to make it hard to switch between competing brands (e.g. it is probably not coincidental that Nikon and Canon focus in opposite directions). I doubt that concern motivates the choice in bino design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
...If you have trouble with the GPO, the problem is not with the binocular...
In a strict sense, I agree. The problem would be the match/fit of the binocular to the user's preferences. But most users would rather fit a bin to them, rather than vice-versa, especially when other products are a better match, so the bin takes the blame for being substandard (The alternative being that the user should change their standards). Sometimes it is a matter of different horses for different courses, since one bin can't do it all. But I don't see what settling for a 375 ft FOV in a full-sized 8x42 gets me these days, so I'm not sympathetic to the desire to make excuses for that inferior spec in this bin, especially given its price.

--AP
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th March 2017, 20:07   #48
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lawrence, Kansas, USA
Posts: 2,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
...Seems like the answer with both fov scenarios, the answer is the duck has to go pretty much in the middle, as that where ir seems to me the human eye has to be to focus on a single object. Hard to tell a Northern Shoveller from a Mallard unless you center the bird.
On the general point, me thinks you haven't had a look through a Swarovski EL SV, Zeiss SF, or similar. More specifically, I'd think even a very poor bin would reveal the completely different color patterns of males of those species, and distinguishing females by overall shape/posture or bill size shouldn't be too much a trick. In any case, you can't center the bird in the FOV if you haven't found it first, and greater FOV facilitates the finding.

--AP
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th March 2017, 20:23   #49
kabsetz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,409
Steve,

A very simple way of comparing the subjective FOV of two binoculars with different real fields and unknown distortion characteristics is to view sky through both binoculars at the same time, with one eye viewing through one binocular and the other eye through the other one. You don't need to align the images precisely to see which eye sees a larger circle and by roughly how much.

Kimmo
kabsetz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th March 2017, 22:26   #50
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexis Powell View Post
On the general point, me thinks you haven't had a look through a Swarovski EL SV, Zeiss SF, or similar. More specifically, I'd think even a very poor bin would reveal the completely different color patterns of males of those species, and distinguishing females by overall shape/posture or bill size shouldn't be too much a trick. In any case, you can't center the bird in the FOV if you haven't found it first, and greater FOV facilitates the finding.

--AP
You come across like you are handing down a regal proclamation engraved on a stone tablet with your focus direction rant. Not to be rude, but you seemed rude in the way you went after the point. To repeat, because you feel that is natural, there are other who don't. Pretty simple.

Me thinks you missed the point I made in the B2 thread. I have owned the Swarovski SV EL in 8.5x42, 10x42, and 10x50. I now own the B2, none of the Swaros. Rolling ball killed the deal. I have as yet not seen the Zeiss SF. I am aware there may be an alpha glass out there to make me fork over the $$. Maybe the SF is the one. Till I see it I have no idea. My ideal is not named Swarovski SV EL.

Good techniques facilitate finding. Too many people rely far too much on the binocular for that, and don't use their eyes nearly enough,and often don't use either very efficiently. I'm not saying wide fov is not needed, or somehow a bad thing. One of the things I like about the B2 is at 9x it has 404' fov, old fashioned afov nearly 70*. Proof enough I'm not anti wide fov. Just attempting to make the point that in my opinion the GPO will not hinder finding birds. If you can't find stuff with that, then the problem is not with the binocular. I'm fine with the notion more people will always go for the wider fov. Me too (usually) if all else is equal.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.

Last edited by Steve C : Tuesday 28th March 2017 at 22:36.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Troubador's Review of GPO Passion 8x42 HD Troubador GPO 29 Thursday 23rd March 2017 15:23
Opticron DBA VHD 8x42 Review FrankD Opticron 26 Saturday 19th March 2016 11:04
Swarovski EL 8.5x42 review, and updated SLC 8x42 W B review Tobias Mennle Swarovski 35 Wednesday 18th March 2015 16:14
Mega Review of the best 8x42... binomania Binoculars 135 Friday 8th July 2011 22:29
A comparative review between the Zen-Ray ZRS HD 8x42 and Nikon Monarch 8x42 Intjmastermind Binoculars 7 Monday 11th April 2011 17:51



Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.22639298 seconds with 34 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:56.