New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (2 Viewers)

[Graham Osborne]

Using terms that are not clearly defined, could be problematic,
I think CJ have to define the term better.

Transmission is apparently not the only thing in "transparency".

(And since mentioning the Steiner XP 8x44 in the same sentence as transparency I got very confused…the XP is not my favorite view...)

I read "transparency" as "presence" ???

Have I stumbled across an audiophile thread by mistake? |:S|

 

[[email protected]]

I have the SE (recent version) and the Habicht 7x42 (from 2012), and the Habicht is indeed "more transparent". In fact, the difference is to my eyes quite obvious. I think that's because of the better coatings of the Habicht with the resulting better transmission.

Hermann

You get exceptional transparency when you have updated coatings on a fine porro like the Habicht. The combination of Swaro coatings on a simple porro optical system like the Habicht is hard to beat.

 

[[email protected]]

To me, transparency is cleanness of the image. In the case of the HT it is partly down to high transmission [through a fairly simple optical system], whiter whites and a lack of ''dingyness'' [as Mark put it] as well as good control of CA.

Ron has also mentioned that better control of scatter / stray light also increased transmission and betters the view - for sure there is some of this as well - giving a deeper, more saturated image with no veiling glare.

It seems that more complex systems, esp. those with field flatteners, have more problems with glare and ghosting. That would be one of the reasons I might think the SF would fall a bit short of the HT. Gotta actually try one though.....

It is going to be like an SLC compared to an SV. Some might like the SF better and some might prefer the HT.

 

[Vespobuteo]

Have I stumbled across an audiophile thread by mistake? |:S|

just play along…
we are all crazy…

 

[james holdsworth]

It is going to be like an SLC compared to an SV. Some might like the SF better and some might prefer the HT.

I think so. I have found the SLC to have a more transparent view than the SV series, appearing to have better contrast and better 'pop' to the image. Most everyone else doesn't see this though, so could be just what appeals to me.

The SF does appear to have a big feature in it's favour [over the HT, SLC, SV], however, and that is the huge FOV.

 

[bh46118]

Are you an audiophile ? I used to have a Linn-Naim system. Oops, off topic again. :-O

Have I stumbled across an audiophile thread by mistake? |:S|

 

[bh46118]

I'm one of the rare few that didn't care much for the SE. A somewhat washed out, and not particularly sharp view to my eyes.

Yes, the SE is as transparent as the SV but I had the SE and the Habicht at the same time and the Habicht was more transparent than the SE.

 

[bh46118]

I wouldn't worry about that, just make some s##t up like everyone else. 3

Gotta actually try one though.....

 

[Chosun Juan]

Using terms that are not clearly defined, could be problematic,
I think CJ have to define the term better.

Transmission is apparently not the only thing in "transparency".

(And since mentioning the Steiner XP 8x44 in the same sentence as transparency I got very confused…the XP is not my favorite view...)

I read "transparency" as "presence" ???

Vespo, read my post#1355 where I went to great lengths to clearly specify 'clarity' /'transparency' ! :-O

A view can be clear (as in porro clear), but still lack that 'transparent' quality, due to things like non-neutral colour rendition (SE's warm tone is a case in point). Any hints of CA will also kybosh the quality, as will any obvious distortions, or lack of sharpness, or brightness. Glare will also kill off the quality (Swift Audubon is a case in point).

However, if you want a practical demonstration of 'transparency' get your hands on the latest Audubon's when it's bright enough to stop your pupil down, but in zero glare inducing conditions. Someone, somewhere, will do very nicely, and a great service to boot, by remodeling these on a custom basis as I outlined earlier ---- Bill ? You got your ears on little buddy - come back ?!

I mentioned the Steiner XP was surprisingly good for a roof, but lacked that 'transparent' quality due to lacking that last bit of brightness, and the warm tone which 'dirtied up' the view. I didn't spend too much time with them after that, but the sweet spot and distortions seemed ok at a quick glance. The heavy weight though made them non-starters .... I imagine that may come in handy for bashing overly curious lions - but not much else for me .....

(Incidently, what is it about the XP view that you don't particularly like?)

What was surprising to me was that I was not Wowed by the Swaro x56 mm A-K SLC's. The A-K prisms should have put them over the line in theory, but the improvement over the SV was marginal, and didn't quite hit that 'transparency' mark I felt. Strange :brains:
I think I will have to spend more time with them

People can poo-poo it, and say it's subjective, but we are all humans with a lot of common dna, and therefore it's pretty easy to establish roughly what it is, and what it isn't ..... :cat:


Chosun :gh:

 

[Chosun Juan]

Dennis

CJ will answer for herself but I think she is referring to the purity of the HT's light transmission which uses AK prisms and their total internal reflection, whereas the SF's SP prisms require a 70-layer dielectric reflective coating to help them bend the light. So the image you see through any SP-loaded bins may have a certain characteristic resulting from the reflective coating.

Lee

Lee -- Yes. :t:

Btw, I think if we go back through the records you said the SF prism's had 60 layer dielectric reflective coatings ?!! :scribe:

See ! |8.|
Massive improvements, and model evolution are taking place already !!!!! 3



Chosun :gh:

 

[Chosun Juan]

Chosun:

The transparency thing you are talking about is only a subjective thing,
and there is no standard.

I am not sure about your experience with the optics you are referring
to in your evaluations. Have you owned any of these, and for how long ?

Tell us which ones, I am calling you out on your experience.

Jerry

Jeez Jerry, this takes me waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back !

The last time anyone "called me out" was the School Principal back in Primary School. Ya see, the school bully, thought it would be a fantastic idea to pull my hair while we were lined up waiting to go into class -- so I turned around and kicked him right in the |8.||8.| .... Ouch !! :'D
The Principal called me into her office where I was expecting a whack with the unfriendly end of the feather duster -- but stuff me if she didn't offer me cookies and a glass of milk instead ! :eat: :t: o

Yes 'transparency' can be thought of as subjective, and the thresholds will certainly be the subject of discussion - but it is underpinned by some pretty comprehensive and non-negotiable optical design parameters. As I said to Vespo - I outlined these earlier, and I have never heard of them as disputed before .....
As I also said to Vespo, there are more commonalities within our dna than there are differences ---- so we're really not expecting a lot of stuff from left field here once all is said and done. Once all the parameters and relative performance is sifted through, there is going to be fairly broad based agreement on whether a bin is 'transparent' or not ........ :cat:

There are some fairly non-negotiable 'transparency' deal breakers ...... =>
** Lack of transmission, or brightness
** Lack of sharpness
** CA
** Non-neutral colour rendition
** Obvious distortions
** Glare
** etc, etc

I think it is almost impossible from what I have seen for an S-P roof prism bin to exhibit 'transparency' due to the losses in the dielectric reflective prism coatings (even though they are less than 1%). The Swaro 10x50 SV gets about as close to it, without actually making it to a 'transparent' view.

It would not surprise me at all if the SF view was Not 'transparent' either. The brightness (even at 92%) should fall short, and even 70 dielectric layers won't get it over the line. Though it should have other qualities, such as immersive, and hopefully 'ease of view', and handles glare and ghosting well ....... we shall have to see.

'Transparency' seems to be the premise of A-K designs, and Porro designs, if the other things I mentioned make the grade.

It seems folks don't go back and read earlier posts in a discussion (well dennis never - seems Howard is trying for an unwelcome return and happy to muddy the waters) - grrrrr

I have owned some 'transparent' bins (well the Swift Audubon was transparent a lot of the time - but not all ..... you can read all the comprehensive details that I posted to the relevant thread

Alphas? .... owned? .... none!
But by crikey, have I ever kicked some tyres !!! yes sireeee !!!!
And I'd wager that I've seen more 'individual' units than a lot here ...... :smoke:

And I'll bet I've been a lot more critical, and scrutinised the optics, back to front, upside down, and round and round, than quite a few here. No 'owners' complacency and sub-conscious adjustment to the view for this amigo !

How many here have scrutinised their bins distortion characteristics by looking through the objective end -- henry outlined a dandy little method for doing so which gives a very accurate interpretation .....

I'll grant that I probably only have 99% of the picture on where a bin ranks, as there are those extraordinarily rare times in the environment where only the bins you probably own and use all the time are likely to be with you -- such as the time I saw an actual 'red' rainbow, ..... or, a 'triple', ...... but by and large I've viewed all the bins I've seen in enough varying conditions and known what to look for, to get an accurate picture. I've spent from minutes, to hours, to days and weeks with all of them.

I've seen all current Swaro's dozens, and dozens, and dozens of individual times and units (except the x56mm A-K SLC's in 8x, and 10x which I only just recently got a look at for half a day) for periods ranging from a few minutes to a few days, some, notably 8.5x42, and 8X32 SV's for weeks .....
And yes, about half the focusers tried were 'rough' - apparently a design feature for those viewing in sub-zero temperatures when I'm sensibly tucked up inside next to a log fire with a nice cup of Earl Grey tea ! )

Nikons? Similarly Yep! I've seen a few -- EDGII (so luckily no diopter knobs bouncing off the bonce), SE's = yep! (though for the life of me don't ask me what year they were made, or where into Brock's xxx xxxx serial number and coatings scheme they fit -- all I know is that the view was warm, which is not to my liking

Leica's - yes - the Ultravid HD's and latest trinnies ....

The best of Steiner's ....

Zeiss FL's (all sizes) through to HT's (x42mm's only)

As well as a lot of 2nd tier and mid-range stuff, though nowhere near the bargain basement value-sniffing experience of a Frank D )

And a whole host of Alpha glass when I was a young whippersnapper, from my parents, and grandparents generations, when I neither knew, nor at the time particularly cared what was what.

I've also owned, or own, the current 'door knockers' in the form of Zen-Ray Prime HD's, and ED3's (the current king of ergo's), as well as a whole host of other good, and not so good badge engineered, or obscure brands ........

So all in all, certainly more than enough to comment, and not be talking through my hat !!

FWIW, I'd rate the x42mm HT's current king of the 'transparency' crop .....



Chosun :gh:

 

[Troubador]

Lee -- Yes. :t:

Btw, I think if we go back through the records you said the SF prism's had 60 layer dielectric reflective coatings ?!! :scribe:

See ! |8.|
Massive improvements, and model evolution are taking place already !!!!! 3

Chosun :gh:

LOL must have got some of that slippery Lotu-tec (where do they get these names from?) coating on the keyboard.

It is 70 layers, each one handcrafted by a Zeiss artisan who is probably one of only 2-3 people in the whole world capable of achieving the necessary precision :-O

Lee

 

[bh46118]

These are posts I made back in December of 2012, I have since decided the problem can be overcome by spending a couple of grand. :-O


"On the mid priced ED glass roofs, I have wondered if the ED glass, while greatly improving color fringing, actually harms overall light transmission. I haven't an actual basis for this theory other than what I see when looking through my ED2's and the Kruger Caldera. I haven't had the opportunity to look through the Swift Audubon ED. If I did, it might put that idea to rest."



"I absolutely love my 8X43 ED2 for their unbeatable combination of attributes for the money. My comments about light transmission are not a slight to ZEN-RAY, I just feel that a good Porro captures a very important element that a roof misses by design. That's the reason I started a thread a while back about a ZEN-RAY Porro, as I feel they could design and market a ground breaking new design if they started with a clean slate. I also understand the economics of such a venture."

Vespo, read my post#1355 where I went to great lengths to clearly specify 'clarity' /'transparency' ! :-O

A view can be clear (as in porro clear), but still lack that 'transparent' quality, due to things like non-neutral colour rendition (SE's warm tone is a case in point). Any hints of CA will also kybosh the quality, as will any obvious distortions, or lack of sharpness, or brightness. Glare will also kill off the quality (Swift Audubon is a case in point).

However, if you want a practical demonstration of 'transparency' get your hands on the latest Audubon's when it's bright enough to stop your pupil down, but in zero glare inducing conditions. Someone, somewhere, will do very nicely, and a great service to boot, by remodeling these on a custom basis as I outlined earlier ---- Bill ? You got your ears on little buddy - come back ?!

I mentioned the Steiner XP was surprisingly good for a roof, but lacked that 'transparent' quality due to lacking that last bit of brightness, and the warm tone which 'dirtied up' the view. I didn't spend too much time with them after that, but the sweet spot and distortions seemed ok at a quick glance. The heavy weight though made them non-starters .... I imagine that may come in handy for bashing overly curious lions - but not much else for me .....

(Incidently, what is it about the XP view that you don't particularly like?)

What was surprising to me was that I was not Wowed by the Swaro x56 mm A-K SLC's. The A-K prisms should have put them over the line in theory, but the improvement over the SV was marginal, and didn't quite hit that 'transparency' mark I felt. Strange :brains:
I think I will have to spend more time with them

People can poo-poo it, and say it's subjective, but we are all humans with a lot of common dna, and therefore it's pretty easy to establish roughly what it is, and what it isn't ..... :cat:


Chosun :gh:

 

[Vespobuteo]

People can poo-poo it, and say it's subjective, but we are all humans with a lot of common dna, and therefore it's pretty easy to establish roughly what it is, and what it isn't ..... :cat:


Chosun :gh:

yes, it's called Quality...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance

:smoke:

 

[Troubador]

Thanks Lee! A handy graphic.
It still doesn't compare that well with the SV ergo's though

Chosun :gh:

CJ

You mean you prefer the one on the left do you? :king:

Lee

 

[Chosun Juan]

LOL must have got some of that slippery Lotu-tec (where do they get these names from?) coating on the keyboard.

It is 70 layers, each one handcrafted by a Zeiss artisan who is probably one of only 2-3 people in the whole world capable of achieving the necessary precision :-O

Lee

Lee,

Yes - applying those 70 layers molecule by molecule with those tiny little eyedroppers, under candlelight, with that annoying grandfather clock constantly ticking away like a production metronome, must be quite painstaking ---- no wonder they only make 10 of these things a day !! 3 8-P



Chosun :gh:

 

[NDhunter]

Chosun:

You have been using the optical term of transparency, which is new, and very subjective.
Most here would not even think of using it, as there is not any definition.

You keep up your evaluation of the many binoculars, you have evaluated, in your cyber
experience.

Your post here is interesting. What is it all about ?

Jerry

 

[Chosun Juan]

CJ

You mean you prefer the one on the left do you? :king:

Lee

Lee,

That's a scurrilous graphic ! Drawn up by the twisted and tortured minds at Zeiss (not exactly at, ahem!, ... arms length either !

Now, if they were to draw up the real :king: of ergo's ---- the Zen-Ray ED3, then you'd see that both the forefingers fit on the long focus wheel back toward the eyepiece where it's meant to be, and the wide bridge allows the middle fingers to be accomodated, with ample room in the open bridge for the two remaining fingers on each hand, all with no forced spacing between the fingers. Perfect!
:cat:



Chosun :gh:

 

[Chosun Juan]

Chosun:

You have been using the optical term of transparency, which is new, and very subjective.
Most here would not even think of using it, as there is not any definition.

You keep up your evaluation of the many binoculars, you have evaluated, in your cyber
experience.

Your post here is interesting. What is it all about ?

Jerry

Jerry,

I don't think I can (or have the inclination to explain it any better than I did in the 3 posts relating to the subject. I even pointed you to a review of the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED if you cared enough to read of an extensive field evaluation - did you bother to look that one up ?

I've only been hanging on these forums for a few years, but I seriously doubt that 'transparency' is a new term, let alone one that I have introduced.

It is a descriptive term, but one that is backed by a combination of optical design parameters and performance, and therefore I would think much more identifiable than some of the other stuff trotted out around here like "Pop" ! and, "Wow" ! etc, etc

All of the bins I have mentioned were used under field, or field-like conditions -- no reading sales signs under artificial lights 50ft across a shop room, let alone evaluating DVD cases in the lounge room, nor some concocted cyber fantasy as you would like to seem to imply. What you do with that information is up to you -- you can take it on board, or stamp your feet and throw your weet-bix across the room, or put it in your pipe and :smoke: it, if that is your want. I will leave you to your cyber digestion -- I will make no further response to this unpalatable direction you seem to favour.

Enjoy whatever bins float your boat :t:



Chosun :gh:

 

[Troubador]

Lee,

Yes - applying those 70 layers molecule by molecule with those tiny little eyedroppers, under candlelight, with that annoying grandfather clock constantly ticking away like a production metronome, must be quite painstaking ---- no wonder they only make 10 of these things a day !! 3 8-P
Chosun :gh:

Indeed Chosun but just imagine how much worse it is in Absam where the clocks house annoyingly insistent cuckoos! :eek!:

Lee