I dont know, if I could pick and choose, I would have something like a MSR 1.5 with most feautures from the MSR 2 but not all.I'm pissed they won't put the msr2 in the 318i but they are putting it in the 5-25 wtf
Also when comparing FoV with the ZCO, it looks like ZCO 527, has a 7m/100m FoV, and Kahles at 5x has 7.7m/100m. That's 10% more FoV.
|Magnification||ZCO (FoV)||Kahles (FoV)||% difference|
My understanding is that FoV is not exactly linear, but it comes close to scaling linearly near the top end (maybe @koshkin can jump in to clarify). Also, when comparing the FoV on the same magnification as a percentage, I think looking at the area might be a little better metric than at the relative linear measurements. We view the image 2-dimensionally not 1-dimensionally, and the area is a function of the squared linear measurement (pi times radius squared).
For me, I tend to just look at the difference in magnification to achieve the same/similar FoV as opposed to look at the difference in FoV as it provides a more practical approach (again, just for me). If one optic needs to be on 14.7x to achieve the same FOV as a second optic on 15.3x, I really won't notice the difference in application. However, if I look and see that optic B has 10% more linear FoV than optic A on a given magnification, I might put too much weight in choosing optic B when the difference won't matter in application.
On the low end, I believe the Original Kahles k525 will have the same FoV as the ZCO when the Kahles magnification is about 0.5x lower than the ZCO. In the mid-range, the Kahles needs to be about 1x lower than the ZCO, and on the high end the Kahles needs to be about 2x lower than the ZCO.
Similarly, the ZCO looks like it needs to be ~0.5x lower on low mag to have the same FoV as the new Kahles, the ZCO needs to be about 1x lower than the new Kahles in the mid-range magnification levels, and the ZCO needs to be about 2x lower than the new Kahles on the high end.
View attachment 7528693
That's an interesting development and a welcome one. I'll need to find a way to get my hands on one.
I wonder if there are any other changes with the optical system.
To answer an earlier question: Field of view in angular units changes linearly with magnification if eye relief is constant. It has nothing to do with the area of the circle. However, almost all magnification rings are engraved so that he marked magnification is not necessarily the magnification you are on. Low and high magnifications are usually pretty close.
I'm thinking of picking up a Kahles DLR and I was wondering with the parallax knob ring, is there any spacing concerns when running it with a Spuhr 4001?
Funny thing about the conversion: you do not need to know there are 1.094 yards per meter. X unit @ 100 unit is the same angular measure whether unit is yards or meters. "10m @ 100m" equals "10yds @ 100yds".I'd update the chart, for Kahles, the # is m at 100m, so if you're going to convert it to feet, you'll also need to scale the 100m to 100y.
|Kahles 5-25||Kahles 5-25 DLR||ZCO 5-27|
|reported FOV||21.3-4.5 ft @ 100 yds||23.10-4.8 ft @ 100 yds||21-4.5 ft @ 100 yds|
|FOV ratio||21.3/4.5 = 4.7333||23.1/4.8 = 4.8125||21/4.5 = 4.6667|
|Power ratio||25/5 = 5||25/5 = 5||27/5 = 5.4|
|Shouldn’t this equal 1?||4.7333/5 = 0.947||4.8125/5 = 0.963||4.6667/5.4 = 0.864|
Am I dumb for asking why the FOV ratio is less than the power ratio? What happened to "half the power, double the FOV"?
Kahles 5-25 Kahles 5-25 DLR ZCO 5-27 reported FOV 21.3-4.5 ft @ 100 yds 23.10-4.8 ft @ 100 yds 21-4.5 ft @ 100 yds FOV ratio 21.3/4.5 = 4.7333 23.1/4.8 = 4.8125 21/4.5 = 4.6667 Power ratio 25/5 = 5 25/5 = 5 27/5 = 5.4 Shouldn’t this equal 1? 4.7333/5 = 0.947 4.8125/5 = 0.963 4.6667/5.4 = 0.864