Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/01/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You wrote: > >I am aware of the fact that there will be a trade-off of some kind > >(smaller field of vision, I would presume), but does anybody have > >first hand experience he/she would be willing to communicate? I would > >appreciate any input. > > > Can you be specific in your queries? I have one of these (as well as a > couple of the earlier OSBLO's) and use it with some regularity. The field > is narrow, the optical quality is what is to be expected from Leica. What > more do you wish to know? > > Marc > Hi Marc, in particular I would like to know whether the field of view is narrow on absolute terms or in comparison to other "real" fieldscopes with a similar magnification (say 30x, as I am going to use it with a 400mm lens)? All scopes with such a magnification necessarily have narrower field of view than a 10x40 (is this what you mean?) and I don't expect Leica to make the TO-R a sort of wide angle eyepiece which would be the only way to widen it a bit. Have you done any comparisons? The brochure in front of me says that at 32x (in connection with a 400mm lens) it has a field of view of about 30m at 1000m distance. The Optolyth scope which I usually carry has some 37m at the same distance with a 30x mag. Does this seem reasonable to you? Does it make sense to use the TO-R in the field or is it only a weak substitute for a real spotting scope? Thank you Christoph Held held@biologie.uni-bielefeld.de