JabaliHunter
Well-known member
Another beginner's question:
I often read comments regarding the narrow field of view of some binoculars, particularly as a criticism of for example 10x42 v 8/8.5x42.
Why is the difference so appreciable?
A popular 10x42 has the following specs:
FOV@1000m - 112m
FOV real - 6.4*
FOV apparent - 60*
A popular 8.5x42 has the following specs:
FOV@1000m - 133m
FOV real - 7.6*
FOV apparent - 60*
The difference in linear FOV is 21m. Given that a lot of emphasis is also placed on the close focus ability of binoculars, of you scale back the linear FOV to closer distances, the difference is just 2.1m at 100m, 1.05m at 50m, or 0.53m @ 25m.
On paper it would seem that the difference is insignificant (assuming the maths is correct ). Or, doesn't it work like that and is there another factor at play here?
I often read comments regarding the narrow field of view of some binoculars, particularly as a criticism of for example 10x42 v 8/8.5x42.
Why is the difference so appreciable?
A popular 10x42 has the following specs:
FOV@1000m - 112m
FOV real - 6.4*
FOV apparent - 60*
A popular 8.5x42 has the following specs:
FOV@1000m - 133m
FOV real - 7.6*
FOV apparent - 60*
The difference in linear FOV is 21m. Given that a lot of emphasis is also placed on the close focus ability of binoculars, of you scale back the linear FOV to closer distances, the difference is just 2.1m at 100m, 1.05m at 50m, or 0.53m @ 25m.
On paper it would seem that the difference is insignificant (assuming the maths is correct ). Or, doesn't it work like that and is there another factor at play here?