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="Chosun Juan" data-source="post: 3369912" data-attributes="member: 92780">WTF!!   (Why The Fish! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> ....People, .....This thread is a disgraceful performance by the 'optics community' (and I use the term advisedly) here on BF in response to a new chum's innocent and simple question. We can do much better than this.He has received:-  :storm:~14 relevant binocular related replies (about half of those tenuously so)~50 unrelated general banter, snarkism, knicker knottin', and Internet etiquette replies~30 self indulgent fish yakkin' repliesand 1 amusing anecdote about bottom of the pool stargazing!  (Thanks BinAstro!)  :t:Surely there's some people here that would want to have a good look at themselves (they certainly wouldn't want to give up their day jobs to be comedians!  <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />  :cat:  If the rest of the forum descended into such droll babble it would be a very poor day indeed.....The OP has said he is under 60, unfettered by the need for eyeglasses, of sufficient means, and doesn't seem overly obsessively gram (weight) conscious. The world is his oyster (please excuse any marine links conjured by the vernacular) and all you plonkers can come up with is a mere dozen or so relevant posts between you (only about 1/6th of the oxygen wasted here so far).Carp can travel quite a ways underwater, and I've run out of FOV even with my 140m (420ft) 8x43's.   I would recommend 140m as somewhat of a minimum FOV.  Being under 60 he will be able to fully utilise a 5mm + exit pupil, and so for the negligible in practice extra weight I would strongly recommend x42's over the x32's.Hence back to my original recommendation of either the 7x42 Leica UVHD+  or the Zeiss 8x42 SF.  Surely we should be recommending the best quality view possible. I don't think the 6.5x32 class offers any extra FOV and loses all that extra magnification (and quality).  I don't like the 8x32 Conquest and can't imagine choosing it over the gem-like Swarovski 8x32 SV (140m FOV) under no budget constraints if weight and size were the overriding factors.  I'm surprised Lee missed another chance to plug the embryonic Zeiss 8x42 SF.  I hope this relevance helps answer the OP's question. Peeps ...... If you want to continue on in the 'vain' that you have so far, may I suggest starting your own threads in "Ruffled Feathers" titled "Unbridled Carp (Cr*p) and Other Parts of Your Precious Life Time That You'll Never Get Back"  :storm:I feel a walkabout coming on ....... :flyaway:Chosun   :gh:</blockquote>

Verification