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 7th August 2017, 22:46   #26
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 3,996
A wider than specified real field could be caused by a lower than specified magnification. The only way to eliminate that possibility is to measure the magnification. The AFOV can also be directly measured.
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 7th August 2017, 23:09   #27
jgraider
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Texas
Posts: 1,054
Magnification appears to be the same as in my 8x30 SLCwb, so that's good enough for me.
jgraider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 8th August 2017, 00:49   #28
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 637
This piques me interest. How does one go about measuring the magnification?
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom
Nixterdemus is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 8th August 2017, 05:24   #29
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
Trying it several times, I could read right at 48", but not more than that. Looks like that would put mine at 400'@1000 yds.

That is close enough to what I got. That is only 8' difference and that is likely within normal variation.

I was just happy to see yours wasn't really 377'.
__________________
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 8th August 2017, 05:26   #30
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
A wider than specified real field could be caused by a lower than specified magnification. The only way to eliminate that possibility is to measure the magnification. The AFOV can also be directly measured.
As near as I can measure the actual aperture and the size of the EP, this one is too close to right on 8x to matter.
__________________
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 8th August 2017, 14:25   #31
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 3,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
As near as I can measure the actual aperture and the size of the EP, this one is too close to right on 8x to matter.
Steve,

Measuring the EP from the back and the objective lens from the front won't help because the actual clear aperture may be smaller than the diameter of the objective lens. If there is a combination of lower magnification and internally vignetted aperture the EP may look fine.

Nix,

The true magnification (at 30') can be measured with a camera using the same measuring tape that was used to measure the FOV. Photograph the tape with the camera mounted on a tripod so that the lens is 30' from the tape. Now place the binocular on the tripod with its objective lens 30' from the tape. Now photograph the tape through the binocular eyepiece. Download the photos and compare the width difference between the marks on the tape with and without the binocular in front of the camera.

One thing to keep in mind is that both the camera and the binocular will have distortions that cause the magnification to change over the FOV, so use only a small relatively undistorted crop from the center for comparison.

Essentially the same thing can be done visually with a small low magnification telescope (I use a 5x25 finder scope). First measure how much of the tape extends across the field of the scope at 30', then align the scope behind the eyepiece of the binocular placed at 30' and measure how much of the tape now extends across the FOV of the scope.

Henry
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 8th August 2017, 16:07   #32
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 637
Henry,
Thank you so much for a simple explanation/example that even I can understand. I suppose if the EP was uniformly vignetted, say in an oval, w/long and short measurements averaged then one could figure close to power.

Even w/perfectly round ep, on 8x40, if they were 0.5mm too large the 8x would become 7.27X. Would appear not a lot of room for error twixt 0.5X-0.75X in a 8x40. Or 8x42/5.25 EP being being 0.35 larger becoming 7.5X42. Besides being perfectly lined up I'd require a loupe and calipers to measure somewhat accurately.

"white cloth measuring tape"

Steve-O,
How many feet back can you read/distinguish the 1/16" marks w/o bins?
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom
Nixterdemus is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 8th August 2017, 16:54   #33
zzzzzz
Registered User
 
zzzzzz's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Aurora
Posts: 175
Tract Toric review

http://www.bestbinocularsreviews.com...Review-181.htm
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot_20170808-120432.jpg
Views:	67
Size:	47.0 KB
ID:	635595  

Last edited by zzzzzz : Tuesday 8th August 2017 at 17:06.
zzzzzz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 14th August 2017, 21:04   #34
Tract_Optics
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 48
Steve,

Thank you for your time in performing and writing this review. If any member has any specific questions, always feel free to shoot me a PM or post it on the boards.

Thanks again

Trevor
TRACT Optics
Tract_Optics is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 14th August 2017, 23:32   #35
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tract_Optics View Post
Steve,

Thank you for your time in performing and writing this review. If any member has any specific questions, always feel free to shoot me a PM or post it on the boards.

Thanks again

Trevor
TRACT Optics
What's the actual FOV? [and / or mag.?]
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 15th August 2017, 13:12   #36
Coin Hound
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Creston
Posts: 70
"The Tract Teoka needs to be evaluated here too."

I bought the Tekoa a few weeks ago and really really really like it. I would like to know apart from FOV and construction material what the image difference is between the Tekoa and the Toric.
Coin Hound is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 15th August 2017, 13:35   #37
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 637
About 200 simoleons ...
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom
Nixterdemus is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 15th August 2017, 18:27   #38
zzzzzz
Registered User
 
zzzzzz's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Aurora
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coin Hound View Post
"The Tract Teoka needs to be evaluated here too."

I bought the Tekoa a few weeks ago and really really really like it. I would like to know apart from FOV and construction material what the image difference is between the Tekoa and the Toric.
Checkout the OutdoorLife Best Binoculars of 2017 review.

"The handsome granite-gray bino finished near the top of this year’s value standings, our benchmark for Great Buy award recognition."

Score: 76.2

http://www.outdoorlife.com/best-binoculars-2017
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot_20170815-132334.jpg
Views:	49
Size:	63.7 KB
ID:	636343  Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot_20170815-133136.jpg
Views:	47
Size:	58.1 KB
ID:	636344  

Last edited by zzzzzz : Tuesday 15th August 2017 at 18:35.
zzzzzz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 15th August 2017, 20:00   #39
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixterdemus View Post

About 200 simoleons ...
But a Simoleon is a medieval wind instrument consisting of 4 pairs of pipes (so 8 pipes in total). You blow down one of a pair and a sympathetic tone half an octave deeper is created in the other pipe. Finger holes on the blown pipe allow an octave and a half to be covered. The 4 blown pipes are set a tone and a half apart allowing you to select a suitable pipe to accompany a vocalist to at what is for them a comfortable pitch.

But what has this got to do with optics apart from the hot air we all blow on Bird Forum from time to time?

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 16th August 2017, 20:22   #40
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 637
The difference in the Tekoa to me is being roughly 2/3 the price of the Tract. Certainly there are other differences though w/o SXS viewing comparison those may prove subtle and hard to appreciate.

The Tract is a steamy tart filled w/creme cheese and fruit du jour.

The Tekoa is a day old doughnut.


Both filling and tasty though the tart is about 200 simoleons more.
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom
Nixterdemus is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 18th August 2017, 18:02   #41
Tract_Optics
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
What's the actual FOV? [and / or mag.?]
Hi James,

While we tend to want to agree with the factory and their "fail safe" testing. We have begun to get independent testing done to verify the FOV and make sure everyone knows what the true measurements are expected to be. I'll update as soon as Ive given the confirmation.

Trevor
TRACT Optics
Tract_Optics is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 18th August 2017, 19:05   #42
The-Wanderer
Registered User
 
The-Wanderer's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 571
Trevor,

I am always interested, as a wearer of spectacles, on the eye relief measurement according to ISO theoretical and as measured, and from the eye cups in their fully down position, axial lay to the the eye; also the diameter of the eye cup.

These data will assist most potential users to assess the likelihood of a binocular suiting their needs with regard to eye relief etc.

Oops..further measurement would be useful, the depth of the eye cup from the rim to the ocular glass.

Last edited by The-Wanderer : Saturday 19th August 2017 at 10:59. Reason: Oops etc. added
The-Wanderer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th September 2017, 19:49   #43
Tract_Optics
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by The-Wanderer View Post
Trevor,

I am always interested, as a wearer of spectacles, on the eye relief measurement according to ISO theoretical and as measured, and from the eye cups in their fully down position, axial lay to the the eye; also the diameter of the eye cup.

These data will assist most potential users to assess the likelihood of a binocular suiting their needs with regard to eye relief etc.

Oops..further measurement would be useful, the depth of the eye cup from the rim to the ocular glass.

My apologies on the delay of the reply. Truly a thank you for the feedback as we look to communities like this to better assist any user of optics. Its all too often that specifications that should be included fall behind. I'll make sure this gets passed along accordingly.

Thanks again!

Trevor
TRACT Optics
Tract_Optics is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th October 2017, 19:23   #44
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
Pretty simple actually. I place a white cloth measuring tape across a wall. I then measure off 30 feet from that wall. Place the center of a tripod at the 30' mark. Mount the binocular to the tripod. Focus on the tape and adjust until the tape is centered in the horizontal center of the field. Place the edge of the tape just at the edge of the left side of the view. Read how many inches are visible on the right side. With my Toric I can read 48 and a half inches. Convert that to feet, in this case 4.04' which is at 10 yards. Move the decimal left two places and you have 404' at 1,000 yards.

Don't try to read too much tape. With most binoculars the fov measured like this is within a couple of feet of the specification.
As I understand using an 8X bin at 30' would be equivalent to the naked eye/corrective lens at 3.75'/3' 9". It would seem to me for accuracy sake that the reviewer would determine the furthest away that they could distinguish the marks on the tape then multiply that by the power of bin.

I looked at an old yellow Stanley 25' tape, tinted w/rust, determining that my maximum distinction in reading the 1/16" markers was around 7'.[6.5' easy 7 is a strain] Evah so roughly w/8x bin I would need to be close to 60' to duplicate my maximum recognition length.

What I wonder is how much fov would be effected from Dublin. It would seem that your useable fov would increase if you were twice as close as needed to read the tape.

Is it possible that could account for some of your wider fov readings? If any difference, should you double the length, wouldn't the fov be narrower?

Whaddya think?

ETA: I can appreciate the convenience of 30'/3000'/1000yds moving the decimal one spot left. Doubling the length to 60' would also be easy enough to convert though w/perhaps improved accuracy.

You are using an 8x at 30' that in essence is 16X/double the power/half the distance thus allowing for extra magnification und better fov readings it would seem. I cannot say by how much, but surely measurable, eh?

ETA II: If we use 20/20 as a standard then moving up to 10' reading the bottom line on the Snellen chart does not make us 20/10 though we see what we couldn't at 20'. I'm not saying the fov changes from 30' to 60' at 8X. It just strikes me that you are reading the tape measure w/8X glass at 30' instead of 60'. I'm curious if you read that tape w/8X bin at 60' the same as you do at 30'.

I do not know how many feet w/8X would be the equivalent of reading the Snellen chart at 20' w/20/20 vision in relation to your tape measure. I have an IOL in me right eye w/mild cataract in the left, so I guesstamate the 60' based on my tape measure. Off the cuff I would think that somewhat in the ballpark.
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom

Last edited by Nixterdemus : Saturday 21st October 2017 at 11:22.
Nixterdemus is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st October 2017, 16:19   #45
wdc
Registered User
 
wdc's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Moraga, California
Posts: 158
Nixterdemus, Is the basis of your argument that it is more accurate to measure 3000' with a 60' ruler than a 30' one? Or that a calculated fov error induced by magnification above or below 8x could be reduced by measuring 'less'? Or maybe both. I had trouble following your reasoning, but that's what I get out of your comments.
Obviously Steve is assuming that the magnification is as stated when measuring the FOV.

Bill
wdc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st October 2017, 17:13   #46
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,371
Yes I am assuming the magnification is as stated. I also assume there is some sort of give and take in the stated fov specs. I do not assume that a binocular listed as an 8.2* fov will show every single specimen as smack on 8.2*. I measure the distance to the center of the tripod as I have found that small measuring differences have no significant effect on the observed measurement. I further assume a couple of tenths difference in magnification will not be a big deal either. I do not even try to pick nits here. If a binocular is stated with a 420' fov and I get say 415-425', then my stance is that the glass is at its specified fov spec. This may not be purely correct in technical parlance, but the average user will not be able to see that in use. However when the stated spec is 377' and the measured fov is 420, I check the distance to be sure I didn't mess up. Seems to me that is enough to be considered off the mark and noticeable in use. There is a particular floor tile that measures exactly 30' from the wall with the tape. So I check to be sure I'm in the correct spot. I also double check the measurement. I always do it several times anyway.

I do not take into account the curvature of the earth, the changing day lengths, distance from the equator, season of the year, make of the tape, the color of the tape, or meteorological changes involved in the coming storm system, Just the distance from the tape to the center of the tripod and how many inches or centimetres can be read from one side to the other.

What I do find odd is that in a conversation with a company rep of one of the understated fov binoculars in this review was that the engineers told him that the only way to measure the fov was at 1,000 yards or meters. At this point I do not buy that. I can check at 1,000 laser measured yards or out to a surveyed mile if needed. The fov measurements are just made more difficult and they don't change a blasted thing. Seems to me that an engineer ought to know if his designed fov is 8.2 degrees or whether it is something different. I always figured fov was a design based parameter.

The explanation I get that at least makes some sense (although I don't agree here either) is that the consumer won't complain if there is more fov than stated. My disagreement stems from the fact that if the OEM wants to use a company to sell stuff, or a company wants to use an OEM for the same thing, a properly stated fov spec, particularly when wider than it is, is a selling point.
__________________
Steve

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

Last edited by Steve C : Saturday 21st October 2017 at 17:23.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 21st October 2017, 19:57   #47
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 637
I wonder how much, when reading a tape, the fov might change if the person looking through the bins is giving himself a 2X advantage compared to 20/20 vision w/Snellen chart at 20.

The gist is Steve determines the fov at 30' from the tape using an 8X bin. His conclusion is formed after determining the two points where he can no longer read the tape on each side. My point is instead of being twice as close to the tape as needed to read that perhaps if he calculated his maximum distance to read unassisted and then converted that distance to correspond to the 8X the fov might not be as wide.

Sort of the same as using a magnifying glass vs unassisted. Perhaps the perception would change. You are still looking through 8X you just haven't scooted up half the distance to the goal. Just a thought.
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom

Last edited by Nixterdemus : Saturday 21st October 2017 at 19:59.
Nixterdemus is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st October 2017, 20:46   #48
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

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

One last time. I measure all fov sizes of all magnifications at 30 feet. I do this because it is 10 yards and a very simple matter to convert the inches of tape viewable to feet, then move the decimal place. The fov measures like this does not change when double checked at a laser ranged 1,000 yards. Since that is the case, I'll stick to 30'.

If you get half as close to the tape, you get half of the numbers visible. If you get twice as far away, you get twice the numbers visible. If you look at the tape through a 10x glass the numbers look bigger. If you use 6x, the numbers look smaller. The fov and magnification are constants for a given binocular. An 8* field is an 8* field at any distance or magnification.
__________________
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 24th October 2017, 14:49   #49
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 637
Fascinating Steve, allow me a few more indulgences.

"This one focuses to 7 feet as compared to the listed close focus distance of 8 feet."

On paper that's -12.5%. As magnification decreases minimum close focus decreases. Likewise a lower magnification would increase fov. What's the odds, eh?

"Viewing the tape there is obvious distortion around the outer inch. The black numbers on the white tape are clearly visible, but the 1/16" fractional markings are not separable."

So, combining both edges there's around 2" of the tape that you cannot distinguish the 1/16" marks. Are those two inches included in fov? If you adjusted the 30' distance to the tape to the distance you can read the tape unassisted X Magnification of bin used would you still see obvious distortion at only around an inch on the edges?

" However when the stated spec is 377' and the measured fov is 420 ..."

But the bin reviewed fov you determined to be 404'. Twenty-seven feet is quite a bit, +7.16%, though not nearly forty-three. Granted you merely offer an example, but you used the stated fov of 377' for the bin reviewed for half of the equation.

"The fov measures like this does not change when double checked at a laser ranged 1,000 yards."

Might that be you laser ranging 1,000yds against your measurement at 30'?

"If you get half as close to the tape, you get half of the numbers visible. If you get twice as far away, you get twice the numbers visible. If you look at the tape through a 10x glass the numbers look bigger. If you use 6x, the numbers look smaller. The fov and magnification are constants for a given binocular. An 8* field is an 8* field at any distance or magnification."

Yes, half as close makes for much easier reading of the tape than twice as far away. As I understand your fov method rests on reading the tape. The degrees/angle are constant though perception of useable fov can fluctuate amongst individuals. Perhaps Tract listed 377' fov as what they considered useable fov. If you subtract the 2" it's 46.5'/387.5.

How far from that tape can you distinguish the 1/16" marks w/o magnification? W/corrective lens should you require.

After determining fov do you ever double the fov of one barrel for comparison?

Would one barrel fov doubled equal both barrels combined fov?

When checking fov do you ever view w/right eye diagonally horizontally across the field stop of the left barrel or vice versa left eye/rght barrel? Do you see the same fov edge as when normally mounted for fov?

Bear w/me. I've previously stated that I can read 1/16" on a Stanley, 25' I think, tape at 7'. Therefore w/10X bin I should be able to read roughly the same at 70'. If I could only read at 64.75' that might be an indicator that the bin was closer to 9.25X/-.75X. Especially if combined w/shorter minimum focus & wider fov than stated.

Just a thought.
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom

Last edited by Nixterdemus : Tuesday 24th October 2017 at 14:54.
Nixterdemus is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 24th October 2017, 15:36   #50
wdc
Registered User
 
wdc's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Moraga, California
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixterdemus View Post
Fascinating Steve, allow me a few more indulgences.
<snip>
Just a thought.
I think the underlying point that measuring magnification might be a useful
way of 'affirming' actual field of view at the stated power is reasonable, since Steve is comparing his own test results with manufacturer's specs, but it is also asking him to do more work, for which he is rewarded ever so handsomely on this forum ;-)

I just wanted to say thanks again to Steve for taking the time to do these tests and reviews. If you want to include a test for magnification, I won't complain, nor will I if you don't!

Bill
wdc is offline  
Reply With Quote
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 Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Has Anyone Used the Tract Toric 10X42? BruceH Binoculars 43 Wednesday 2nd August 2017 21:54
Tract Toric 8x42 Experience jgraider Binoculars 275 Wednesday 19th April 2017 16:07
Swarovski EL 8.5x42 review, and updated SLC 8x42 W B review Tobias Mennle Swarovski 35 Wednesday 18th March 2015 16:14

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.26339507 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:16.