Rifle Scopes Burris 5.5-30X56 XTR III Review

[supercorndogs]

If FOV wasn't Angular then FOV at 100y and 1000y would be the same expressed linearly.

Wouldn't the FOV expressed as an angular or linear measurement based on distance be 32% different too?

 

[beetroot]

Wouldn't the FOV expressed as an angular or linear measurement based on distance be 32% different too?

Yes they would be the same.

The poster above made comment about the area being 32% bigger, whilst true isn't really relevant in the normal FOV context.
But it does show just how much difference a seemingly small increase in FOV can actually make.

 

[supercorndogs]

I think looking at a bigger area is the main thing that is relevant when looking at FOV.

 

[beetroot]

I think looking at a bigger area is the main thing that is relevant when looking at FOV.

Yes, but in the specific context above it is incorrect to say the FOV was 32% bigger when actually referring to the area.

One doesn't need to mention the area of the image as it is implied this will increase/decease with the FOV.
I guess there could be merit in comparing the area you see but as its the angular specs that manufacturers give thats is what is easiest to compare.

 

[fdkay]

That obscene CA make me throw up a bit in my mouth.
I was willing to put up with it on the XTR II because of the price point, but not for what these are going for.

 

[supercorndogs]

If your XTRIII has obscene CA, I would guess you have a bad one.

 

[fdkay]

If your XTRIII has obscene CA, I would guess you have a bad one.

I'm referring the the pictures posted on page 1

 

[supercorndogs]

I am referring to the two that I own. They are not in the same price point as the XTRII for a reason.

 

[fdkay]

I am referring to the two that I own. They are not in the same price point as the XTRII for a reason.

Understood, but the representation in this thread (picture of the one way sign and the target) reveals an unacceptable level of CA for the price point.

 

[supercorndogs]

Yes, but in the specific context above it is incorrect to say the FOV was 32% bigger when actually referring to the area.

One doesn't need to mention the area of the image as it is implied this will increase/decease with the FOV.
I guess there could be merit in comparing the area you see but as its the angular specs that manufacturers give thats is what is easiest to compare.

The area you are looking at is the FOV. He was 100% correct. You are fishing for a reason for it to be wrong. Why I have no idea.

 

[supercorndogs]

Understood, but the representation in this thread (picture of the one way sign and the target) reveals an unacceptable level of CA for the price point.

And we always go to through the scope reticle pictures to judge image quality.....

 

[fdkay]

And we always go to through the scope reticle pictures to judge image quality.....

Well, since the photo's reveal a shit picture, yeah.

 

[srt-4_uk]

So how much CA is attributed to the scope vs the camera that took the picture? Or are we assuming it was all scope?

 

[beetroot]

The area you are looking at is the FOV. He was 100% correct. You are fishing for a reason for it to be wrong. Why I have no idea.

You are the one who is digging up a 12month old post.

If FOV was an area measurement the units would be given as feet/m squared.

 

[Trigger Monkey]

The CA is exaggerated in that photo and is noted as such. Through the scope pictures are tricky because they never accurately represent what it looks like looking through the scope. Lighting, camera lens quality, zoom setting, ocular alignment, and target distance an influence the quality of the picture and magnify optical anomalies.

In reality, the image looking through that XTRIII is much clearer and as I've noted in other threads, it's right on the heels of my ATACR 5-25 optically.