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="PeterPS" data-source="post: 3136507" data-attributes="member: 124043">Hello Samandag:Thanks for taking the time to post. By diopter cover you mean the rubber eyecup? Anyway, I agree that glare can be partly eliminated by eye placement within the available ER.The Kenko DH MS 8x32 looks like a good glass, its body reminds me of the Nikon HG 8x32. However with its 560g it would not qualify as a pocket set. My intention with the monocular is to slide it in a pocket and have it ready just in case, when I am in the nature for other reasons than birdwatching (some might wonder if there can be any other reasons....). Regarding my previous post on the FoV, I am wondering if there is a clear industry standard for measuring the FoV of a monocular, or binoculars for that matter. It seems that even in the case of the FoV, which appears to be one of the most straightforward specs of a set, there is ambiguity in the way different manufacturers measure it. In the specific case of the Specwell 7x25 monocular the FoV is claimed to be 10*, but it seems to be visibly less when you use the monocular with unfolded eyecups; when you fold them down you see more of the field stop but blackouts start to appear due to ER problems. To give the manufacturer the benefit of a doubt, possibly the FoV is 10* but how did they measure it? It is amazing how many specs are wrong (see: <a href="http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=295651" target="_blank">http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=295651</a>) or ambiguous in an industry that's supposed to be very precise! Peter.</blockquote>

Verification