What chance SF 8X32 or 7x42 in time for Birdfair? (2 Viewers)

[Troubador]

How about a 7x36 DBA VHD with 150m fov and sub 600g weight...........and a clockwise focuser.

If anyone from Opticron is reading this, pretty please.

Hmmm. I would rather be a bit more ambitious. The FOV of 150m / 148m has been around since the Dialyt 7x42 and didn't get any bigger in the Night Owls or FL 7x42.

Lets go for 160m. Combined with a 7x depth of field that would be pretty impressive. And don't forget a close focus of 2m and a speed of focus similar to Conquest HD 8x32. Oh, and lets have eyecups that feel like those on an EL SV when you screw them up and down.

And how about a rubber armour that is green but so dark it is almost black?

OK that should be simple enough.......

Lee

 

[A2GG]

Lets go for 160m. Combined with a 7x depth of field that would be pretty impressive. And don't forget a close focus of 2m and a speed of focus similar to Conquest HD 8x32.


Lee

I don't think a fast focus is a good idea with 7x (at least for me anyway). With better DOF you don't need a fast focus IMO. There would be a lot of overshooting. I prefer slower focus in general and with 7x fast focus
seems like overkill and probably a bit frustrating.

 

[Troubador]

I don't think a fast focus is a good idea with 7x (at least for me anyway). With better DOF you don't need a fast focus IMO. There would be a lot of overshooting. I prefer slower focus in general and with 7x fast focus
seems like overkill and probably a bit frustrating.

You might be right GiGi, but what I am thinking about is what happens when I visit a marsh or lake with reedbeds etc and one second I am focusing on a fast flying and close dragonfly, then seconds later it is out to a distant Marsh Harrier or Kite and then in an instant back to a butterfly settled on a flower only 2 metres away. I find the Conquest's focus really excellent for this. And when I describe it as fast, I don't want to give the impression it is fast as a rocket, but neither do you have to pump the focus wheel like a mad thing to get from near to far and back again. And you are right to the extent I would expect to have less focusing to do over the middle range of distances which might well be covered by the depth of field plus a little help from my own accommodation.

As for the overshooting, well, many years ago one of my early pairs of binoculars came with instructions to always overshoot your target slightly and then just back-track gently with the focus wheel to achieve perfect focus. I have done this ever since and can do this easily with the Conquest HD and never find myself going backwards and forwards hunting for, but never achieving, a sharp image. Of course what works for me might not work for everyone.

Lee
Lee

 

[dwever]

I don't think a fast focus is a good idea with 7x (at least for me anyway). With better DOF you don't need a fast focus IMO. There would be a lot of overshooting. I prefer slower focus in general and with 7x fast focus
seems like overkill and probably a bit frustrating.

Yes! 7X is less demanding at the wheel as Gigi noted, but therefore also makes fast focus easier to use given the 7x's deeper margins.

 

[Troubador]

Yes! 7X is less demanding at the wheel as Gigi noted, but therefore also makes fast focus easier to use given the 7x's deeper margins.

Yes but of course the $65M question is how fast is too fast!
For me Conquest HD strikes the right balance for habitats where you are focusing from insect to bird and back to insect. For birds and mammals I'll take something a bit slower like SF or HT.

Lee

 

[james holdsworth]

Yes but of course the $65M question is how fast is too fast!
For me Conquest HD strikes the right balance for habitats where you are focusing from insect to bird and back to insect. For birds and mammals I'll take something a bit slower like SF or HT.

Lee

My thoughts exactly - the HD's have the best focus speed and precision of any binocular I own - just perfect for those of us that use our bins for bugs and birds.

The FL and HT have very smooth and very, very precise focusing but this precision gives up a bit to speed of focus. If I'm doing anything other than birds, it's Conquest HD every time.

 

[fazalmajid]

Mind you, Nikon might be up for it, since no price point niche seems to be beyond their willingness to stick a pair of bins in it.

Probably not what you had in mind, but Nikon do make a 7x15 Porro:
http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/binoculars/elegant/mikron_x15/index.htm
and a 7x15 roof monocular:
http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/binoculars/elegant/hg_x15/index.htm

I'd love to see modernized Zeiss 8x32.

 

[breydon]

That is an arguable point of view and the EL SV is a fine instrument. If the emphasis shifts to field of view and handling then, considering how closely EL and SF compete on the other aspects, the SF is arguably king of the heap.

But more realistically EL and SF offer two different flavours and who can say one flavour is actually better than another. Of course individually we can have preferences as to flavour........

And don't lets forget Leica who offer their own flavour that many folks really enjoy too. One of these days Leica might surprise us all as I am sure they would like to win back some of the limelight from Zeiss and Swaro.

Lee

From what I have seen when the new to birding punter asked the advisor what is the best bin to buy for birding out come the Swaro's Els

 

[Vespobuteo]

The SF marketed ergo and balance would not be an obvious USP for a 32 mm bin.
32 mm bins are also a smaller market segment for birding.
Just wonder if Zeiss will go there with the SF.
Still the 8x32 FL needs to be replace, someday...?

A 7x42 SF I don't think is very likely. A 7x42 HT would have been more logical but still there is no such model.

Perhaps zeiss will create a "new" segment for a smaller SF. A 36-38mm or such.

 

[alan kennedy]

The SF marketed ergo and balance would not be an obvious USP for a 32 mm bin.
32 mm bins are also a smaller market segment for birding.
Just wonder if Zeiss will go there with the SF.
Still the 8x32 FL needs to be replace, someday...?

A 7x42 SF I don't think is very likely. A 7x42 HT would have been more logical but still there is no such model.

Perhaps zeiss will create a "new" segment for a smaller SF. A 36-38mm or such.

I fear this may all prove to be rather academic. With the £ in free fall I doubt I'd be able to afford the brochure let alone the instrument come August!!

 

[jan van daalen]

I fear this may all prove to be rather academic. With the £ in free fall I doubt I'd be able to afford the brochure let alone the instrument come August!!

This is strange. While reading this I see the News and hear Boris Johnson stating quote: ".....the Market and the Banks are stable".

Who to believe:smoke:

Jan

 

[mfunnell]

I can understand why people might be looking forward to 32mm format SF models: flat-field eyepieces, open bridge design, perhaps a wider field of view, all in package more compact than the 42mm SFs. While I don't personally care for field flatteners and am not fussed about open bridge designs I can understand those who do like such things wanting bins with those characteristics. But I'm not so sure about sentiments like:

Surely they need to offer a newer 32mm, I accept the FL still has its fans, and that its a fine optic, but I can`t remember the last time I saw one in a dealers.

Still the 8x32 FL needs to be replace, someday...?.

I guess improvements are always welcome, but I do wonder why the 32mm FLs would need replacing in the more traditional design segment. What's wrong with them that needs replacing? Despite their age, the existing 32mm FLs hold up pretty well when compared to the competition both in specs and in the view they present, despite the design having been set a good many years ago.

Is it that the design is considered "old" and needs to be replaced simply to give the impression of "newness"? Is their "look" (mostly to do with the ribbed armour, but I guess the overall shape as well) considered too "old fashioned" compared to more recent designs? That is, is it a matter of fashion rather performance? (Of course, fashion may be important to those in the business of selling binoculars.)

Without indulging CJ's carbon-fibre, HT+++ with 5 bullets, force-field prism optical fantasies (at least not too far), are there developments that would provide a practical, observable, non-marginal difference to a newer but still traditional-view 32mm-ish design, that Zeiss should be pursuing?

I will note that one of the thoughts that had me buy my 8x32 FLs recently (perhaps before I'd quite got over their price) was the fear that they might be replaced by an 8x32 SF model that wouldn't suit me nearly so well as the FLs. (The comparison I made while deciding was with the Leica 8x32 UV HD+, because neither the SV nor the EDG equivalents appeal to me, for much the same reasons that the predicted 32mm SF doesn't appeal to me.)

...Mike

 

[Troubador]

I guess improvements are always welcome, but I do wonder why the 32mm FLs would need replacing in the more traditional design segment. What's wrong with them that needs replacing?

...Mike

Its a good question Mike and I suspect that the answer is based in commercial considerations rather than those technical aspects that you discuss.

Is the FL 32mm series selling enough units, is the question that Zeiss must be considering. If it is selling steadily then they may decide to give priority to other product developments. And since FL is still there after so many years maybe this is exactly what is happening and your answer could be that indeed nothing much needs to be changed, at the moment.

I have been using my FL 32 quite a lot recently and it is a class instrument but you could say the same about many a model that has been replaced and probably the reason is that despite their solid performance, other newer models from other brands were taking sales, so the solid performer needed updating in some way.

I would look forward to an SF 32 on the assumption that it would have the handling and FOV advantages of the 42, but not because I feel FL 32s are inadequate, far from it. But Swaros EL SV 32 is the class leader and no doubt Zeiss will feel compelled to replace FL at some point to compete. Meanwhile Leica continues to do what Leica does.......

Lee

 

[Holger Merlitz]

I have heard people requesting a somewhat improved edge sharpness with a potential successor of the 8x32 FL. I personally think that such a modification would not significantly increase the overall usability of the FL, apart from astronomical applications, which are better done with larger instruments anyway. But we have to note that a high degree of edge sharpness has gradually turned into a new standard, and manufacturers are virtually forced to follow up. Apart from that, I guess there is not much left for improvements of the FL.

Cheers,
Holger

 

[paddy7]

I think 'edge-to-edge sharpness' has more relevance as a marketing strap-line than a vital ingredient in the field; i've never felt the FL32's edges have distracted me in the past.
As far as FoV is concerned, the FL seems to have as much as i need. I've used the SF 10x42 briefly, and found something strangely unnatural about it, without quite being able to pinpoint what it was - perhaps a combination of distortions used to create such a wide field? I'm not sure that would pull me to what would inevitably be a more expensive, modern model.
It would be interesting to know how many FL32 users would feel the need to upgrade, or if Zeiss would be better served appealing to a new 32mm market (or those that always feel compelled to have what they perceive as 'the best'....surely there aren't many of them, are there? )

 

[jan van daalen]

I have heard people requesting a somewhat improved edge sharpness with a potential successor of the 8x32 FL. I personally think that such a modification would not significantly increase the overall usability of the FL, apart from astronomical applications, which are better done with larger instruments anyway. But we have to note that a high degree of edge sharpness has gradually turned into a new standard, and manufacturers are virtually forced to follow up. Apart from that, I guess there is not much left for improvements of the FL.

Cheers,
Holger

In the perception of most buyers an reinforced glasfibre body (FL) is inferior compared to a magnesium/alloy housing (SF). That would be a good reason to "upgrade" the FL.
At the end of the line; the market rules.

 

[ceasar]

Most people would not know or be able to determine that the FLs have glass fibre body housings instead of a magnesium alloy housing without being told that fact.

Bob

 

[NDhunter]

Most people would not know or be able to determine that the FLs have glass fibre body housings instead of a magnesium alloy housing without being told that fact.

Bob

Bob:

I think Jan is correct, he has recently been selling the Zeiss models, and the new models do have the mg. construction of the rest of the higher end binoculars. I am not sure if he is having success with selling Zeiss or not,
I suppose he may chime in. It is often the sales people push whatever
line they prefer or get the best commission from.

You are also right, most optics buyers do not know or care about the
construction. They care about the optics and the value.

Jerry

 

[jan van daalen]

Bob:

I think Jan is correct, he has recently been selling the Zeiss models, and the new models do have the mg. construction of the rest of the higher end binoculars. I am not sure if he is having success with selling Zeiss or not,
I suppose he may chime in. It is often the sales people push whatever
line they prefer or get the best commission from.

You are also right, most optics buyers do not know or care about the
construction. They care about the optics and the value.

Jerry

With an interruption of 3 years, we sell Zeiss for 20 years now:eek!::eek!:
At every salesmeeting the Zeiss reps kept repeating that one of the Key elements for sale was that the FL housing was superior to the others, regardless the feedback from us (dealers) that most customers prefer alloy housings.
The market rules. At the end it became alloy.
As there is no difference (down here) in commission between the three A's your bird won't fly. Pushing for commission is short term policy BTW.

Jan

 

[Vespobuteo]

Seems that Zeiss have tuned down the talk about body material in the FL:s,
it's only mentioned briefly in the Q&A section.

http://www.zeiss.se/sports-optics/e...ictory-fl-binoculars.html#questions---answers

One advantage with the FL:s polycarb body is that they don't feel as cold as mag-bins in the winter.