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.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lilcrazy2" data-source="post: 1984075" data-attributes="member: 86894">Below is a little blurb I posted in another forum in response to a question on FOV. It amazes me how absolutely ridiculous some of these discussions on wide FOV become. Gimme a break if you think you are going to see all these extra birds at 200 yards or less. While I will agree that the added depth of field has some real benefits in lesser magnifications, all these gyrations about extra wide FOV are suspect at best."I have always felt that too much emphasis is placed on having the widest FOV, and that any bino having a reasonably wide FOV is more than sufficient. As an example take the class leading 6.5x32 Fury which has a 445 ft FOV against a bino that only has a 400 ft FOV. That translates to a difference of 45 feet @1000 yds, or 4.5 ft @ 100 yds, and only 2.2 ft @ 50 yds. Divide these differences by 2 and that is the difference you will see on each side of the FOV thru your bino. So if you are looking at a bird 50 yards away, you will be able to see an additional 14 inches on each side looking thru the ultra wide 6.5x32 Fury's with the 445 FOV versus a bino with a 400 ft FOV.When you break the FOV figures down into reasonable viewing distances, you can see how absurd the widest FOV argument can become."</blockquote>