Is this a first focal plane or second? Also are the clicks in MOA or MILs?
1560794
It's 2nd focal plane. You're not going to touch a quality 1st FFP scope for less than $1K. This is a great scope. It's adjustments are 1/10 mil per click.
1560795
I don't know about Focal Plane, but the scope is available in both MOA and MIL variants. See www.leupold.com
1560796
It's 2nd focal plane. You're not going to touch a qulaity 1st FFP scope for less than $1K. This is a great scope.
39796
Daniel, The major thing between these two is the reticle one has a first focal plane reticle (bushnell) which magnifies with your magnification setting. The MTAC has a 2nd focal plane reticle which will not adjust with your magnification. Some reviews I read about the MTAC says its way to small (i suspect not for the style of scopes we are talking about) The glass would be the next thing, personally I have not had tons of time behind a Burris scope but I typically suspect it to be clearer and better eye relief. Pros of the Bushnell 1/10 moa adjustments, BDC reticle sighted at 100 yards good out to 500 yards, Illumination is good for medium light, the quick adjust bar for magnification great for changing magnifications on the fly. Bushnell Cons High profile turrets, Illumination not good in bright lights (even though you wont need it). Mtac Pros Turret has covers and are low profile, Crisp clear glass, on off position for every brightness level of illumnation Mtac Cons Turret adjustment 1/2 MOA, Illumination not suitable for bright light (sunshine, over exposed lighting). Price of the scope I think it comes down to two things price and type of reticle. I believe the AR Optics holds over the Burris Mtac because of price, the glass is clear and I have no problems with fisheye problems. The adjustments of the AR optics allow for better sighting in. The reticle different off First focal plane (bushnell) and 2nd focal plane (Burris) is preference. I like the ar optics because I enjoy it at 1x as a small ghost ring for quick transitions, where the Burris will stay the same size through all magnifications. That is good if you intend no magnification out 100+ yards which may be your preference. Its really a hard decision because the two will get the job done, but I feel as I try to do pros and cons between them I feel they both have applications and can be very comparable. I do believe overall the bushnell is the way to go for price point and surely get the job done.
439999
They actually make both and they look the same so I can't tell from the picture. The one I purchased is 1st focal plane.
1816630
This isn't a full-frame camera. It's aps-h, 1.3x crop. And if you're shooting astro photography you should be looking into a Nikon d800 or a 5dmkii. This is a camera with 11-year old sensor technology. I bought one to shoot surfers with here in Hawaii broad daylight and I get noise (by modern standards) past about ISO400-500. This camera is great if you're looking for a cheaper 7d and you don't want video capabilities or a screen you can actually see. Don't get me wrong, it's a great camera, but its age definitely shows. I bought one in perfect shape with 42k actuations for $430 and not 3 months later I bought a 7d for $530. The extra money spent on a more modern camera is well-worth it. This isn't a full-frame camera. It's aps-h, 1.3x crop. And if you're shooting astro photography you should be looking into a Nikon d800 or a 5dmkii. This is a camera with 11-year old sensor technology. I bought one to shoot surfers with here in Hawaii broad daylight and I get noise (by modern standards) past about ISO400-500. This camera is great if you're looking for a cheaper 7d and you don't want video capabilities or a screen you can actually see. Don't get me wrong, it's a great camera, but its age definitely shows. I bought one in perfect shape with 42k actuations for $430 and not 3... » Read More This isn't a full-frame camera. It's aps-h, 1.3x crop. And if you're shooting astro photography you should be looking into a Nikon d800 or a 5dmkii. This is a camera with 11-year old sensor technology. I bought one to shoot surfers with here in Hawaii broad daylight and I get noise (by modern standards) past about ISO400-500. This camera is great if you're looking for a cheaper 7d and you don't want video capabilities or a screen you can actually see. Don't get me wrong, it's a great camera, but its age definitely shows. I bought one in perfect shape with 42k actuations for $430 and not 3 months later I bought a 7d for $530. The extra money spent on a more modern camera is well-worth it. « Show Less
740233
The light is spread onto 4x the surface. That is why autofocus is difficult. Sharpness and contrast suffer with a T/C. I have a Sigma 170/500. Results are ok if not to picky.
442183
I have one of each. The first focal plane is $950.00 and the second is $750.00
505751
I agree with you and the Sigma should be excellent for your subject. I have read several reviews that indicate the focus of the Olympus is flat field, but not a statement in any review of a flat field element.
1055663
I would thank that you would. Have to read all of the spectra for each model # and compare closely, could be an extra coating on the linse, could be minimem focal distence just compare very closely
1614989
It may be due to the two-mirror design that lets light hit both the imaging sensor for live view and the AF array simultaneously. Probably the image displayed in the live view is at a slightly different angle than the one being recorded by the imaging sensor and the view finder (which is the one going to the final picture)
604837
Hi Jack - to be honest I've not had hands on with this lens. It was bought for my Son for his birthday. And from what I do know about it it is smaller and with the Macro capability - a more useful lens, also the 18-200 has less focal range then the newer Macro Lens. Seems to have pretty good reviews and as my son uses it for digital video - he's pretty happy thus far. Sorry I can't be of more help.Chuck
1505532
This superb lens is slow to focus on most four thirds cameras.On the E-M5 focus is accurate, but slow.On the E-M1 it focusses much faster and accuracy is high.My new EM1 is superb, by the way.
656206
The prior two answers are correct. As to the first focal plane versus second, this is a personal preference. FFP is useful in tactical situations where the shooter may need to range targets on unknown range courses, but is not an absolute requirement.
1658822
Yes. if you ordered the PST-416F1-M it's the first focal plane (416F1-FFP). If you ordered PST-416S1-M it is the second focal plane (416S1). The S/F in the model number designates the focal plane.
1098481
It all depends on what you are wanting to do with te scope. On first focal plane the reticle size changes with the magnification. This allows for the Mil Dot or other hold off/ranging functions to stay consistent through the full range of magnification. 1 Mil or MOA at 4x is the same at 16x. A second focal plane scope the reticle is the same size no matter what the magnification is. 1 Mil or MOA is only that at a set magnification, usually the highest on the scope.
2273417
The Swi-View has a relatively large loupe. It replaced a cheaper hood/loupe combo, which had a 3X loupe, but it was smaller. I have no trouble seeing the entire 3" screen on my Canon 60Da with the Swi-View. I also like the way it attaches (actually "slides onto") the screen. I use it almost 100% of the time for astroimaging, particularly for focusing the optic, using the 5x or 10x mag feature of the 60Da's screen.
611243
No. This is a second plane reticle, with 12x being the magnification for range-finding. While I have not tried it, I have heard that the "BSA Tactical Mil-Mil Rifle Scope 30mm Tube 4-14x 44mm Side Focus 1/10 Mil Adjustments First Focal MRAD Reticle Matte" is a good choice with a first plane reticle, though twice the price. It still seems to be affordable.
475379
It is a dual aperture system. Not sure as to actual size but works well for both close and long range. It is very similar to the military aperture.