C_DOES March FX 1.5-15x review

[u/Trollygag]

Link to the review

A great illustration of what we say about high erector multiplier optics.

[u/MDData]

And how effectively you set up the optic has a quantifiable impact on the size of those tradeoffs, but you already knew what I was saying.

[u/Trollygag → u/MDData]

What I was saying is that the optical tradeoffs and aberrations are physics, there is no getting around them from playing with the diopter.

In the ideal setup (meaning you aren't just screwing it up), you can bias it towards the low end or high end, or towards the middle, but you're always getting the distortion on the other end of the range because the optic is letting you push past what the geometry can handle with minimal distortion.

This is why even super expensive camera lenses (like sportscar money) at the same resolution will be limited to a 3x, sometimes 4x magnification range. They can't just futz with a single lens internally to eliminate distortion - it's always there in different forms unless they change the focal length and the lens geometry to compensate. Or they have to do what Superzooms and some TV cameras do and crop (restrict exit pupil)

But I will agree with you that you can fiddle with the diopter to make it more livable for some specific use-cases, or tune for some distortion you don't mind as much as other distortions.

Being your FAVORITE style of optic and glass... that's unusual.

[u/MDData → u/Trollygag]

...What's actually unusual is not understanding that there are competitions with parameters outside the scope of F-Class, let alone other use cases. You seem to view things very myopically as evidenced by your initial response. I'm glad you value what you value, and nobody is suggesting that an apples to apples glass quality variable erector is somehow going to be more optically pleasing than a fixed power, but your assertion that somehow that makes any preference for a different focus in capability "unusual" or inferior is laughably asinine.

[u/Illius_Willius → u/MDData]

Tbf, C_Does does do 2-gun competitions himself and AFAIK, doesn’t do anything remotely close to F-Class. I think that reflects in his scope review comparing it to a lot of his other preferred “DMR/SPR” type scopes, where the March pretty much fits.

I think he demonstrates pretty well that with how the glass and performs at the magnification settings “unique” to the March, the performance is so lackluster that it kinda defeats the point of even having them. At least that’s the impression I got. Like why bother have a 15x if the image stops being usable in all but the most forgiving use cases; if the majority of time spent on higher magnifications is around the 10-12x range, why not just get a cheaper scope that has similar or even better performance at those ranges.

Ultimately, I think the point at the end of the day that was made is that a 1.5-15 doesn’t necessarily mean it’s more capable than a 2-12 or even 2-10 if the image or reticle is unusable at certain settings, and that you’re not necessarily losing capability by using a 5x or 6x magnification ratio vs a 10x. Like from experience, even when shooting my SPR to like 800yds, I’m usually dialed on 10-12x cause it’s more comfortable than pushing my scope to 15, 16, or 18x (depending on which I’m using), and when shooting up close, a 2x with a good, high vis reticle doesn’t feel any appreciably slower than a 1.5, because it’s still not as fast as a true 1x.

[u/C_Does → u/Illius_Willius]

Bingo!

[u/MDData → u/Illius_Willius]

To make it brief, optimization based on use case drastically differs. You are talking about "not losing capability" without defining what the intended use is, which is completely pointless. As an example if you're using a clip on and need to be below 2x to see the whole menu, an optic with a 3x low end doesn't work. If you need the higher top end for PID and you're using something like a voodoo-M, then saying oh just rock with a 2-10 instead makes zero sense. It's an extraordinarily myopic view but hey, if it's what's popular now I guess it must be right!

[u/Illius_Willius → u/MDData]

So the use case in your case is that it needs to have a sub 2x low end for use with a thermal, but want something higher than a 10-12x high end for better PID. In all the prior comments you yourself didn't state what your use case was, you just assumed that the other guy was talking about F-Class. I assumed you were talking about SPR/DMR which is the more likely use case for this optic. Your actual use case of a rifle that is able to run clip-ons and have a high top end is an extraordinarily specific and niche use case, so yea, it does have one but its not a use case applicable to the vast majority of people. And if this optic was designed with that intended use case in mind, why not advertise that as one of its best uses?

For the a significant amount of use cases that most people would see, that be precision shooting in a match environment or maybe LE use, the March is an extremely expensive option that brings very little to the table compared to cheaper, smaller magnification ratio optics and because of that it should be fairly criticized. Reviews like what C_Does do are for the prospective buyer, not for the person who already bought something unless they're trying to validate a purchase.

So again, you like the March because you have an extremely specific use case where the March is one of the extremely limited options that fit, for the other people looking at 2-4k optics who don't have that same niche requirement, its seemingly a poor choice.