What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is
absolutely FREE
!
Register for an account
to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Forums
Photography, Digiscoping & Art
Cameras And Photography
Canon
300mm f2.8....A decent walkabout lens?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tdodd" data-source="post: 1534237" data-attributes="member: 55450"><p>My understanding of FOV comes from binocular optics, where you might see the FOV described as 345 feet at 1000 yards for an 8X pair of bins - examples here - <a href="http://www.sportoptics.com/Swarovski-Pocket-Binoculars.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.sportoptics.com/Swarovski-Pocket-Binoculars.aspx</a>.</p><p></p><p>AOV is pretty obviously an angular description. While the two are directly related, they are two very different ways of describing what is effectively the same thing. If I've remembered my trig right, from 30+ years ago,</p><p></p><p><strong>FOV = 2 x tan(AOV/2) x subject distance</strong></p><p></p><p>so it is possible to convert directly back and forth between the two methods of expressing the view, should you be so inclined.</p><p></p><p>To my mind, it is far easier to visualise FOV than AOV. e.g. if the FOV is 345' at 1000 yds then it will be 34.5' at 100 yds and 3.45' at 10yds. Bins of 10X mag have a FOV of 285' per 1000yds, which in very roughly rounded terms is close to 1yd of width for every 10yds of distance, or 1m of width for every 10m of distance. That information easily allows me to judge whether those optics will be suitable for viewing birds, or anything else, of any given size at any given distance. If, on the other hand, you told me my optics had an AOV of 1 degree, 2 degrees, and so on, then I'd have no clue how useful those optics would be to me in practice, without looking up FOV equivalency.</p><p></p><p>Of course, it follows that if you could memorise the FOV for a given focal length - say 100mm - when coupled to a specific size of sensor, then you could easily derive any other FOV for other focal lengths by simple multiplication/division. e.g. a 400mm lens would have an FOV 1/4 as wide, a 600mm lens would be 1/6th as wide, a 50mm lens would be 2X as wide etc..</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tdodd, post: 1534237, member: 55450"] My understanding of FOV comes from binocular optics, where you might see the FOV described as 345 feet at 1000 yards for an 8X pair of bins - examples here - [URL]http://www.sportoptics.com/Swarovski-Pocket-Binoculars.aspx[/URL]. AOV is pretty obviously an angular description. While the two are directly related, they are two very different ways of describing what is effectively the same thing. If I've remembered my trig right, from 30+ years ago, [B]FOV = 2 x tan(AOV/2) x subject distance[/B] so it is possible to convert directly back and forth between the two methods of expressing the view, should you be so inclined. To my mind, it is far easier to visualise FOV than AOV. e.g. if the FOV is 345' at 1000 yds then it will be 34.5' at 100 yds and 3.45' at 10yds. Bins of 10X mag have a FOV of 285' per 1000yds, which in very roughly rounded terms is close to 1yd of width for every 10yds of distance, or 1m of width for every 10m of distance. That information easily allows me to judge whether those optics will be suitable for viewing birds, or anything else, of any given size at any given distance. If, on the other hand, you told me my optics had an AOV of 1 degree, 2 degrees, and so on, then I'd have no clue how useful those optics would be to me in practice, without looking up FOV equivalency. Of course, it follows that if you could memorise the FOV for a given focal length - say 100mm - when coupled to a specific size of sensor, then you could easily derive any other FOV for other focal lengths by simple multiplication/division. e.g. a 400mm lens would have an FOV 1/4 as wide, a 600mm lens would be 1/6th as wide, a 50mm lens would be 2X as wide etc.. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Photography, Digiscoping & Art
Cameras And Photography
Canon
300mm f2.8....A decent walkabout lens?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top