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="Renze de Vries" data-source="post: 2317132" data-attributes="member: 10024">Hello Frank,Very welcome thread Frank. Thanks.Let me make some comments:I wonder if I need your concept of 'overall field performance'. It seems to me that 'overall' is just 'object performance' plus 'field performance'. Your examples proof the point (why mention apparent or real FoV under 'overall performance' as it can be categorized under 'field performance' with no problem at all?).The nice thing about your contribution is that it deals with subjective evaluation and the concepts used in this. However, I think it's important to keep aiming for objectivity to the best of our ability. For instance, we definitely need to specify our reference(s) when evaluating optics. It's completely without meaning to say for instance that FoV is disappointing if we don't mention against what we're comparing. That is, we will get lost in subjectivity.Having said this, have a look at the quote please. You mention FoV here, which as you've said in your original post is an aspect of field performance, so I'll rephrase it somewhat and we get this: 'On the other hand there are many binoculars that provide a wonderful object performance and good overall performance but lack in field performance'. Now does this still make sense? No to me it does.More later I guess.Renze</blockquote>