Right, I still don't really have the time, but here we go - some thoughts on the Zeiss 20x60S. I've used the 20x60S quite a bit in the field, and I own a Zeiss 20x60S Mono which is - despite some differences in the stabilizer - very similar to the 20x60S.
I'll use John's excellent post as a starting point:
The cardanic suspension system depends upon mechanical relationships which are extraordinarily complex. When I had the 20x60 S models, the guarantee was only for 5 years, which suggests they wouldn't/won't take much rough handling.
The 20x60S is definitely not as tough as the non-stabilized Zeiss models. However, a friend of mine has had a 20x60S for well over 10 years and had no problem with it at all, despite some heavy use. He had to send it to Zeiss once because the rubber amour started peeling off, but that was it. You'd better not drop it, however, or bang it hard against something. I did that once to my 20x60S Mono. The repair bill was over $ 1000 for a new stabilizer.
I felt the stabilized models had one special quality. When (1) mounted on a tripod and (2) with the stabilizing mechanism pressed and held, the resulting image is unlike any of have seen through a spotting scope, i.e., everything is sharply defined like it is cut from crystals.
Evidently, the tripod helps dampens shakes we aren't even conscious about, and the stabilizing system picks those up for those which translates into even better resolution.
That's a perfect description. If I use my 20x60S Mono on a tripod, even on a reasonably heavy tripod, the stabilizer still makes a *considerable* difference. The view is nice without the stabilizer, but with the stabilizer engaged it's magic because the stabilizer seems to cut out all those tiny vibrations and/or movements. It's quite incredible and has to be experienced to be believed.
Compared to a modern scope the optics of the 20x60S and the 20x60S Mono are good but not exceptional. I did a few comparisons to my Nikon EDIIIA with a 20x eyepiece, and the Nikon seems slightly brighter and has slightly better contrast. There's some CA, but it's unobtrusive, especially in the image center. But then my Nikon is a cherry (it's the best of three we have in the family), and the difference, while quite obvious in a direct comparison, isn't a showstopper.
Compared to the Zeiss 15x60BGAT (the latest model) the 15x60 is a bit better, with slightly higher contrast and better transmission. However, the 20x60S is a lot more versatile in the field because of the stabilizer. I've still got pretty steady hands, but I can't really use the 15x60S for more than a couple of minutes at a time because 15x is a bit much handheld. No problems with the 20x60S, just push the button and enjoy the image ...
The one problem I have with the 20x60S is that to me it's neither fish nor flesh. The magnification isn't enough to replace a scope in the field, and it's too high for watching passerines. What I'd really like to see is a 10x or 12x Zeiss with a stabilizer, not heavier than, say, 1000gr. That would kill *every* other 10x binocular in the field.
One last thought: Having used the Zeiss with its mechanical stabilizer quite a bit, I find it almost impossible to use one of the stabilized Canons anymore. The Zeiss has such a nice, "quiet" and steady image, that I find the quirks introduced by the electronic stabilizer of the Canons highly distracting. So, if someone's thinking about getting a Canon, don't try out the Zeiss ...
Hermann