Another good Victory SF hands on review with pre-order instructions (1 Viewer)

[Troubador]

Lee:

I had asked for a comment on another thread about the Victory HT, about how you use which finger when focusing ?

I found the focuser lower than other binoculars and I was using my middle finger, rather than my index finger when I tried the HT recently.

How do you focus your HT, with what finger, and how does the new SF focuser compare in this regard to the HT ?

Jerry

Yo Jerry

This is a good question. For years, for no good reason that I can think of, I focused my Dialyt 10x40 and FL 8x42 using a combination of first and second finger. My hand must have been quite contorted to achieve this but we drift into bad habits like this don't we? Like sitting or standing with poor posture.

When I got my HT the feel and handling was so different I decided to let the bins decide what was best. Now, I understand some folks will say it is for manufacturers to make products that are comfortable to hold by all folks and not for folks to have to modify how they grip the products. But you know that kind of assumes you are holding and gripping stuff in an efficient and healthy way, and i don't think that I was in the past.

OK, cut to the chase. Whenever I pickup my HT my second, third and pinky fingers wrap around the barrel and my first finger lands straight on the focus wheel. It works every time whether I grab my bins urgently or pick them up thoughtfully. So although it felt different at first, I began focusing with my first finger and inside a couple of days it felt so natural that I forgot about it.

It is possible to do other things with the focus for example to shift your hand and then use first and second fingers alternately so you 'walk' the focus to where you need it and you can shift focus quite rapidly doing this, but 95% of the time I just use my first finger.

SF feels the same to me although I haven't yet had one in my hands long enough to really come to grips (sorry, theres a faint joke in there somewhere) with them, but I really think that the HT-grip works with them just fine.

Now, since the weight of SF feels more 'inside your hand' and with less of it suspended way down there at the objectives end, I can actually focus SF while holding them with one hand. I am not sure why you would want to do that in most circumstances (on horseback holding the reins with one hand?) but its do-able.

The grip is comfortable as there is quite a bit of room down there between bridges 2 and 3 to get your fingers in and grasp the SFs.

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

Lee

 

[Kammerdiner]

The FOV of the Zeiss 8x42 SF approaches the FOV of the old Zeiss Victory 7x42 FL which admittedly did not have a flat field. But in practical applications, except for the increase in magnification with its loss of close up DOF; does this flat field make much difference?

While using binoculars when one sees a bird at the edge of the view one's instinct is to center it in the view to identify it. This involves moving the binocular a fraction of an inch in most cases and following the bird if necessary; especially in hawk watching.

If you read Jerry Liguori's "HAWKS At A Distance" you will find out he used a Zeiss 7x45 Night Owl and later a Zeiss Victory 7x42 FL binocular when watching hawks because these binoculars had very wide FOVs. Perhaps he will decide to switch to the new 8x42 SF because of its increased magnification in that wide FOV but I wonder how much difference getting a flat field with it will help in identifying raptors?

Bob

For following single hawks against a background of sky, there wouldn't be any advantage to a flat field. For admiring a kettle of 'em, I d say yes, definitely!

I should mention that my earlier example of a Prairie Falcon was far, far below me and coursing through a canyon. It was on the ragged edge of ID'ing because I kept losing it against the rock, but the flat field (Prime in this case) allowed me to look around the view trying to find it again. When I did I was able to confirm it as Prairie and not Peregrine.

I should also mention the purely aesthetic dimension. The flat field view of the 8x32 SV is simply a lot more pleasing to me than the non-flat field 8x32 FL. Granted, these days there are many non-flat field binoculars with better edges than the FL, so many of those would be nice, too.

Mark

 

[Alexis Powell]

...If you read Jerry Liguori's "HAWKS At A Distance" you will find out he used a Zeiss 7x45 Night Owl and later a Zeiss Victory 7x42 FL binocular when watching hawks because these binoculars had very wide FOVs. Perhaps he will decide to switch to the new 8x42 SF because of its increased magnification in that wide FOV but I wonder how much difference getting a flat field with it will help in identifying raptors?...

...The flat field view of the 8x32 SV is simply a lot more pleasing to me than the non-flat field 8x32 FL...

Actually, the field of the FL is quite flat, but it is astigmatic. I know the term field flattener is not used consistently, but I'd still like to distinguish in our discussions between bins that are flat field, low astigmatism, or (ideally) both.

--AP

 

[elkcub]

Actually, the field of the FL is quite flat, but it is astigmatic. I know the term field flattener is not used consistently, but I'd still like to distinguish in our discussions between bins that are flat field, low astigmatism, or (ideally) both.

--AP

Very good point, AP, although I'm not sure if it's possible to have a truly flat field unless the tangential and sagittal surfaces coincide with the Petzval. Now if they were all made to coincide, thereby eliminating astigmatism, I'm also not clear about why eliminating all field curvature is necessarily the best thing to do since the projection surface is a curved retina. The eye copes with the same thing and has no difficulty discerning flat surfaces. All this leads me to speculate that not all flat-field binoculars are equal because engineers may have used very different optimizing functions.

For my money I agree with Holger and others in preferring modest field curvature, with minimum astigmatism, perhaps for different reasons. Somehow I have no problem moving my eyes around the field afforded by my 8x42 SLC-HD, which seems well corrected for astigmatism. Indeed, the whole field appears sufficiently in focus so that only my nose and blackouts limit the range of useful eye movement. Moreover, I'm of the belief that any small, distant target needing identification must be moved to the fovea anyway because of the severe decline in off-axis acuity. As for visual searching, I didn't get the impression that the 10x42 SV was any better than the SLC, allowing for FOV differences. It was pretty darn good in both cases.

One consistent annoyance I've had with the flat-field binoculars (Nikon LxL and SE) is a tendency to make objects appear like they are painted on cardboard. This is the same sort of perception I experience with 3-D picture card pairs viewed though a stereoscope. Because of this I don't feel so much like I'm "in the scene," as looking "at the scene."

So, anyway ... maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I prefer the former.

Ed

 

[elkcub]

Lee, Binastro, lmans

I really doubt anyone will actually notice a difference between the SF and the 42 mm HT in how many minutes into the twilight one can see with either. 2-3% difference in theoretical transmission is going to be that small.

As to the other aspects of the SF (which I haven't seen or handled yet), I think it is a step in the right direction. If I thought otherwise, I would be inconsistent with my past preferences. I long have been waiting for the first premium binocular to arrive that would combine a 70+ degree of subjective field (mag x true field formula) and excellent edge to edge sharpness with top-of-the-line brightness, contrast, color rendition and stray light control. Wide FoV has been the ingredient that has been conspicuously absent from the best attempts thus far.

So, if the overall image quality turns out to deliver, the SF could well be a winner.

However, I will almost certainly not get one for myself, since it lacks IS, the one feature I no longer wish to be without.

Kimmo

Hi Kimmo,

We had a discussion about Wide Field of View a few years ago that's still applicable. In my opinion, a 70˚ apparent field fits quite nicely within known human engineering guidelines but may also represent the upper limit for utility. It should be possible to have excellent overall image quality as well — but at what price? After studying a few Porros that have much larger fields, frankly I came away more dizzy than delighted.

Ed

 

[kabsetz]

Ed

You might well be right about 70 degree apparent field being enough. My best experiences in impressive views have been with scopes that have about 72 degree apparent field, nearly sharp to the edge. No binocular has yet been able to match that, and I agree that benefits from an even wider field are not a given.

The Canon I use has about 65 degree subjective field, very good edges, is easy to view with, but could definitely have a wider field still.

The Porros I have seen with very wide fields have all had really poor edge correction, so I'm not surprised you did not like their views.

Kimmo

 

[Binastro]

It mentions that 75% of U.S. population use glasses or contact lenses.
What % use them when viewing with binoculars?

Personally, for astronomy, I like Naglers with 82 or 84 degrees, but I feel very uncomfortable with 100 degree Ethos.
Another 100* eyepiece, which is actualy 95* is better.
I cancelled pre order of 110 * Ethos because of this. 120*eyepiece is not for me I think.

I don't like the Nikon SE, mainly because the fine performance comes with the cost of, for me, inadequate field of view.
Cutting the HD Conquest field to the SE field gives just as good images, with the extra most useful field at reduced image quality.

These are my personal preferences.

 

[lmans66]

Even used, I think the SF is going to be well out of my range until about 2025 by which time all bins will be digital and birders will be selling their "old technology" mechanical binoculars to buy the latest digital model.

Brock

Ah...have to laugh!!!... I have a feeling that digital bino's will take off just like digital cameras have surpassed film but wait, don't sell your old bino equipment just yet.

Have you noticed that there has been a slow return to 'film camera's by many? Perhaps not in birding but surely in candid or even portrait where Black and white rules. Now with bino's......not sure if the image will be one that is any less or more quality on either the future digital bino's compared to the manual focus ones we have now, but I bet there will be a backlash of sorts from those true birders who want to bird without digital binos.

They will want to focus manually, be more in touch with their hands and fingers and brains as each is required to bird,...to return to 'humanity' etc etc... I also have that feeling within me that I will be one of those 'odd lots' down the road... "Give me my old Zeiss manuals please!!!! .jim

 

[brocknroller]

Ed,

There must have been a glitch at the hatchery and conditioning center in the Brave New World where I was engineered because I find it less fatiguing to move my eyes around the FOV than I do to move to my head to find nearby birds (my eye muscles work better than the discs in my neck).

In any case, unless I'm a novelty engineered to keep the Brave New World from decay for lack of innovation, birders move their eyes when they move their heads and pan with binoculars. Try it and you'll see that your eyes tend to dart ahead in the direction you're panning. This is why I eschew binoculars with gobs of field curvature at the edges or worse, gobs of astigmatism, because my eyes dart ahead into the fuzzy edges as I pan and I can't see what I'm looking at. So even if you are a "head mover," you move your eye muscles, anyway.

The only exception are "static birders" who somehow manage to find birds w/out panning. For me to do this, I'd have to be birding at a fairly close distance in open country with just a few bushes or trees, and I would need 20/15 vision so I could spot the birds and then lift my binoculars and see them in more detail magnified.

Henry's off-axis astigmatism might come into play while moving your eyes beyond the 30% central vision, but I can still ID birds at the edges, particularly with the SE because of its field flatteners.

I'm not arguing with the validity of the study you quoted, but pointing out that outside of the lab and in the real world, birders tend to chase birds, which seem to be always on the move, and they make due to what acuity they can get rather than move their heads and try the center the birds as they're flying or hopping from branch to branch or on hopping around on the ground. Once a bird has settled down, then they can center it in the FOV. But not for long, before it's off again!

About the only situation where I have time to center a bird in the FOV is when birds are at my feeders, then they are in one place for awhile.

Brock

 

[Tobias Mennle]

What's interesting to me about the SF is that even with the focuser INSIDE the open space, there still seems to be enough room to get three fingers from each hand in there. If I'm not mistaken, there is another company that has a similar design with the focuser on the inside of the space rather than in the usual EP position. So it maybe "smart," but it's not unique.

Also, look at how BIG the bins look in Diane's hands. They are light, but they are not compact. They'd probably work fine for my large hands, but maybe not for the dainty-handed. Hopefully, Zeiss will follow with a 8x32 SF since they can't make an 8x32 HT, or at least that's what one expert said because only the prisms can be made of HT glass, nicht wahr?

I also like the WFs in the 8x and 10x models. I agree with Diane when she wrote: "I personally feel that a wide field of view is one of the most important components of a good binocular experience. With a wide field of view, all I see is the scene, and I feel immersed in it. With a binocular that has a narrow field of view, I would be conscious of the dark edge of the scene, as if I were looking through a tube."

Too bad Zeiss couldn't bring the SF in for $1,200 or under. Probably could if they made them in China. I think $1,200 is already a lot of money to pay for a pair of binoculars, but pushing the $3K barrier (which is what European birders will pay with taxes) is beyond the pale (particularly in Ireland).

I have to agree with Tim said -- The price of Alphas has gone mental.

I bet a ChinBin company can come up with something almost as good for less than half the price. The gauntlet has been thrown down, who will pick it up?

Brock

It´s called inflation here in Germany… price of a cup of coffee has gone mental, too. Street price difference of 8x42 SF to Swarovision is about 200USD at the moment here and this will soon melt away. Every little repair of my car costs me 1000 USD easily, so even a wife will see that binoculars are a comparatively cheap hobby :t:

 

[Sancho]

....pushing the $3K barrier (which is what European birders will pay with taxes) is beyond the pale (particularly in Ireland).

Brock

:-O Nice one, Brock (although I bet few got the joke). Speaking from just beyond the remains of the original "Pale", I have to agree, at prices like this, I'm out of the game.

 

[elkcub]

Ed,

There must have been a glitch at the hatchery and conditioning center in the Brave New World where I was engineered because I find it less fatiguing to move my eyes around the FOV than I do to move to my head to find nearby birds (my eye muscles work better than the discs in my neck).

In any case, unless I'm a novelty engineered to keep the Brave New World from decay for lack of innovation, birders move their eyes when they move their heads and pan with binoculars. Try it and you'll see that your eyes tend to dart ahead in the direction you're panning. This is why I eschew binoculars with gobs of field curvature at the edges or worse, gobs of astigmatism, because my eyes dart ahead into the fuzzy edges as I pan and I can't see what I'm looking at. So even if you are a "head mover," you move your eye muscles, anyway.

The only exception are "static birders" who somehow manage to find birds w/out panning. For me to do this, I'd have to be birding at a fairly close distance in open country with just a few bushes or trees, and I would need 20/15 vision so I could spot the birds and then lift my binoculars and see them in more detail magnified.

Henry's off-axis astigmatism might come into play while moving your eyes beyond the 30% central vision, but I can still ID birds at the edges, particularly with the SE because of its field flatteners.

I'm not arguing with the validity of the study you quoted, but pointing out that outside of the lab and in the real world, birders tend to chase birds, which seem to be always on the move, and they make due to what acuity they can get rather than move their heads and try the center the birds as they're flying or hopping from branch to branch or on hopping around on the ground. Once a bird has settled down, then they can center it in the FOV. But not for long, before it's off again!

About the only situation where I have time to center a bird in the FOV is when birds are at my feeders, then they are in one place for awhile.

Brock

Brock,

Not everything has to be an argument. I'm simply pointing out that binoculars change the relationship between head and eye movements in a systematic way, and that this requires adaptation. Since the two are coupled by the Vestibulo-Ocular Reflex, it seems reasonable to me to simply allow normal eye movements to trigger centering head movements. Contrary to anecdotal statements, as yet I see no performance advantage in using exaggerated eye movements that would tend to fatigue the eyes.

From a behavioral science perspective, the ability to track moving birds would fall in the domain of Pursuit Tracking. Although I'm not familiar with general observation studies with binoculars or telescopes, the military has done quite a bit.

Ed

 

[elkcub]

Ed

You might well be right about 70 degree apparent field being enough. My best experiences in impressive views have been with scopes that have about 72 degree apparent field, nearly sharp to the edge. No binocular has yet been able to match that, and I agree that benefits from an even wider field are not a given.

The Canon I use has about 65 degree subjective field, very good edges, is easy to view with, but could definitely have a wider field still.

The Porros I have seen with very wide fields have all had really poor edge correction, so I'm not surprised you did not like their views.

Kimmo

Kimmo,

In general you're right about the Porros having very poor edge correction, although my Linet Imperial 8x40 Fieldmaster, with a 12˚ real field, is an exception. Being made my Hiyoshi (for a different client), the binocular has the identical body and optical quality as a Swift Type-2 Audubon. Its 96˚ apparent field is so wide, however, that a new issue presents itself: the need to inhibit looking at the edges. Why? Looking at the edges involves a 48˚ side gaze, which: (a) presents my nose to the opposite eye, (b) introduces blinking, vignetting and blackouts, and (3) a less that useful monocular side view. Effective use, therefore, requires limiting eye movement to prevent these events, which is not as easy as it may sound. Counterintuitively, since the field stop is well defined looking straight forward, my tendency is to simply to move my eyes as little as possible and move my head. Very weird. One can definitely have too much of a good thing.

Ed

 

[Kammerdiner]

Brock,

Not everything has to be an argument. I'm simply pointing out that binoculars change the relationship between head and eye movements in a systematic way, and that this requires adaptation. Since the two are coupled by the Vestibulo-Ocular Reflex, it seems reasonable to me to simply allow normal eye movements to trigger centering head movements. Contrary to anecdotal statements, as yet I see no performance advantage in using exaggerated eye movements that would tend to fatigue the eyes.

From a behavioral science perspective, the ability to track moving birds would fall in the domain of Pursuit Tracking. Although I'm not familiar with general observation studies with binoculars or telescopes, the military has done quite a few.

Ed

Ed,

I hope I'm not implicated "in using exaggerated eye movements that would tend to fatigue the eyes," because that's not what I was referring to. Exaggerated eye movements with binoculars result in blackouts, pure and simple. As for fatigue, well I try to avoid that in all its guises if I can.

I'm talking about normal looking around stuff that doesn't entail head movements, the kind of stuff you just normally do without turning your head. If you can approximate that in an eyepiece and a flat field, well, you've got my vote. No binocular equals that natural experience, so I don't see that there's anything "exaggerated" about what I do.

My biggest gripe about progressive lenses, for instance, is that I can't use my eyes the way they were meant to be used. Same with small sweet spots, FL astigmatism, field curvature, funky "spherical aberration of the exit pupil" (SE), or whatever.

As for military targeting systems, these days don't they look at the eyes to see what to fire at, not the other way around?

Mark

 

[elkcub]

Sorry, Mark. My statement may have been a bit strong. I currently use an 8x42 SLC-HD, but I have made shoreline comparisons between the 10x42 SLC-HD and 10x42 SV. Although I agree with you that the SV (with its field flattener) allows exploring flocks, as you nicely described in post #10, I don't think it's necessarily because of the field flattener. The images provided by the SLC-HDs were quite comparable to it for " ...normal looking around stuff that doesn't entail head movements ..." Having said that, I did not investigate the utility of the outer field edges, and it may be that the SV had a slight advantage there. But for me that would have entailed exaggerated lateral eye movements (31-32˚).

Ed

 

[Kammerdiner]

Thanks, Ed. The SLC certainly has earned a following, in part because of it's big, sharp view. I never got the 10x SLC outside of a store but what I saw I liked.

After my last post my first thought was, well what is normal looking around in degrees? Is 31-32 degrees lateral exaggerated, or just the limit of normal looking around. It sounds about like the limit of normal to me, and I've never seen a binocular that allowed me to do that.

Mark

 

[elkcub]

Hi Mark,

You may not have read the link I provided in post #25, but human engineering guidelines generally suggest that ± 15˚ is what can be expected before the head naturally starts to follow the eyes. Persistent eye movements beyond that range of 30˚ can certainly be accomplished, but doing so would wear me out in a hurry. Besides, due to magnification small head movements become very efficient.

Ed