-
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.
Field of View (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter drukja
- Start date
John Russell
Well-known member
I think it is shameful that the ISO set standards for thousands of processes and consumer products but if we want to access these standards we have to pay 50 Swiss francs each for the privilege of seeing every single one.
John
John
falcondude
Well-known member
Surveyor
The more I understand, the more I understand why I
Hi drukja,
If you are asking about specifics on how the manufacturer determines the FOV, I do not know. I am not sure anyone on this forum will be able to answer. The binocular companies will not disclose specification-determining data to the general public. I have contacted the big 3 +1 requesting information. The standard answer is that data is privileged or not available. The only exception so far has been a request for transmission data from Leica. They told me that the process and equipment was propriety but cost 80,000 euros, but they did send a typical plot for the BN and Ultravid. The others just stated the view was the only thing that mattered.
I can tell you to save your money. ISO 14490-1 contains no information about “Field of View” and ISO 14133-1 only lists the tolerance, 5% of nominal and required labeling, Table 3. The comments above are appropriate for ISO, even if you buy one you think covers what you want, it almost always refers to other sections. The tolerance is in one section, the procedure in another then the equipment somewhere else.
If you are actually interested in measuring FOV yourself, there have been several discussions about measuring FOV and AFOV on BF before.
Best
Ron
An educated guess here. I assume the ISO standards use a form of collimator since all the sections I have seen (resolution, collimation, etc.) so far use that basic arrangement and the ISO prefers controlled environmental and lighting conditions plus rigid mounting. I think the manufacturers are free to use any “equivalent results” method.
Attachments
Last edited:
