• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (1 Viewer)

Take an exclusive product and then exclude a whole wedge of potential customers from buying it. Brilliant!!!

I'm sure Zeiss and Zeiss distributors are happy to sell you a HT, even if you are a birder. So far I was never asked to show my birders (or hunters) license before being allowed to spend my money on a binocular.
 
I always appreciate other people's impressions of a binocular. Wow, those SF's are expensive down under! Just goes to show you not even the alpha binoculars are perfect and work well for everybody. Nice mini-review. Curious if you have ever tried the Vortex Viper HD or the Vanguard Endeavor HD? They scored a little higher than your Zen ED3'S in this review. I do like the Zen ED3'S 426 foot FOV better. Have you ever tried the Zen ED4'S?

https://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2011midpricebins/chart_2011.html
Dennis I think they're just expensive period. $2849-$2899 USD at the moment. At current exchange rates that's $3750-$3825 AUD !! I think those that picked them up on run-out or demo for ~$1600 USD or whatever it was were at about the right point. Where's Brock? Is that why he doesn't post any more? Sticker shock? $2K Alphas caused him to bend a valve - imagine what 3 would do?! :eek!: 3:)

My mail is that Zeiss is trying to tightly control MRSP a' la Swaro to keep prices high. I'm sure that this high pricing rules some buyers out - maybe if the price was less Zeiss could sell many many more units and wouldn't lose $15 Million?? :cat:

It was more of a couple of look sees than a more rigorous analysis - I only looked from the eyepiece end but could see that the distortion profile had a pretty aggressive inflection point, and a lot more CA off axis than I expected, though it was a particularly brutal day for CA - perhaps it was eye alignment issues contributing - I will have to revisit that one. :brains:

It just didn't fall readily to hand and feel that comfortable - maybe I could get used to it with a bit of training. I'd really like to see them swap the focuser bridges around so that the focusing wheel was positioned more rearwards - that way you would have the middle finger resting on a wide contoured bridge the way it is on the Zen ED3's. This would be preferable to me since even that really skinny bridge at the front of the SF's focuser made the separation of my fore and middle fingers greater than what I'm used to. I know this was meant to be one of the big selling points, but it is not as good as my Zen's which also don't leave your elbows dangling in thin air with all your arm weight carried by your shoulders the way the SF's do.

My life is too precious to spend looking though the straw like Vortex Vipers, and I've viewed all the Vanguard Endeavours - I, II, III, and IV - the larger open frames of the earlier ones handle better for me - and they could all do with dielectric coatings and more brightness. Not bad for what they are, but I wouldn't swap the Zens for them. The 426ft of the Zen ED3 is nice - the 444ft of the 8x SF seems even nicer :t:

The ED4 should have been the bin that made Zen-Ray and put them in the big leagues if it would have been as much as a step up from the 3, as the 3 was from the 2. From what I can gather that opportunity has been missed. :-C



Chosun :gh:
 
Last edited:
Well, I had the opportunity to try the new upgrade model (black armour) SF's (8x42, and 10x42) at a retailers over the weekend.

Hi Chosun: I must be frank here and confess that from reading your various Birdforum posts I'd formed the impression you were very much what the Yanks would call a "kook". I read your impressions of the SF with great interest, however, as they echoed with many of mine this September when I was able to spend a fair bit of time looking through both 8x42 and 10x42 SFs at the UK's Birdfair. (The HTs were there too - in the UK I think they are targeted at birders who observe in low light.) There were a lot of things I really liked about both SF models, especially optically - very wide field of view combined with generous eye relief, the field flattener works well over such a wide field (less flat to the very edge than the Swarovski ELs, but the actual field of view is also wider), and brightness to my perception anyway was very similar to that of the ELs, as were sharpness (very sharp) and colour rendition. The ergonomics do work for me - they seemed very light for their size, handled extremely well in terms of pointability, and although a small point, I did like the way my finger fell very naturally on the focuser (although I have little trouble adapting to most of the binoculars I've tried and don't really consider focus placement to be a huge issue).

So far, so impressive.... but they are light to the point of almost seeming too light - to the point I had to wonder how they would stand up to birders who punish their gear more than I do (my binos do have a pretty easy life). Mechanically they are at best adequate for a binocular in their price class, the Swarovski ELs definitely giving the impression of being better built, of general solidity - a little heavier, but reassuringly so. The ELs seem made to last, full stop, whereas (I realize this may be controversial) the SF made to last for the duration of its product cycle, ie. until the next top alpha emerges from Wetzlar (or from recent reports, Oberkochen). I very much agree with your comments regarding the eyecups Chosun - they did their job, but no more than that - and the resemblance with the Opticron BGA VHD aka Tract Toric was very marked.

I have to note these are all just impressions - I can't back any of them up from actual use in the field, nor am I the kind of birder who would give the build quality of this binocular a realistic test. On the drive back my brother and myself, as one might imagine, extensively discussed the various binoculars we had looked through and my opinion was that for searching the sky the way we do, I liked the SF best. The HT is a tiny bit brighter (or at least I did perceive it as such - I know the subject of whether humans can perceive such small differences has been extensively discussed and would be willing to concede that the apparent brightness I perceive might be the result of some sleight of hand in terms of colour saturation, etc.) but I would rather have the SF field of view for what I do. Optically, to me, it is a worthy heir to the Zeiss name - mechanically, in my opinion, it isn't and I feel the workmanship of great binoculars of the past, like the 10x50 Oberkochen, defines Zeiss nearly as much as the optics. But maybe I am just showing my age here. At any rate thanks for your thoughts and I wish you the same success your namesake is currently having in Manchester!

NB. if Zenray could be convinced to make replacement lenses and prisms for old Dialyts I would be very very very interested...
 
Last edited:
Hi Chosun: I must be frank here and confess that from reading your various Birdforum posts I'd formed the impression you were very much what the Yanks would call a "kook" ......
Me? A kook ?! ...... never! ;)

Someone told me I was delusional once ..... I was so shocked I nearly fell off my unicorn ! :-O 3:)




Chosun :gh:
 
This hot a paias cleared up what was bothering me about the SF's. My sister got a pair three months ago and I had all afternoon to play with them at Duke Gardens In Durham NC. Now granted I've been using Kowa Genesis 8.5X44 for years and they are as well made as any bin I've ever picked up But after reading Chosens comments They don't feel well made and the eyecups are be very flimsy feeling to me . The HT's which I have used at various times feel much better and the eyecups much more solid. By hey what do I know I'm carrying 33.5 oz bins that I could use to drive nails in a pinch.
Steve
 
..... So far, so impressive.... but they are light to the point of almost seeming too light - to the point I had to wonder how they would stand up to birders who punish their gear more than I do (my binos do have a pretty easy life). Mechanically they are at best adequate for a binocular in their price class, the Swarovski ELs definitely giving the impression of being better built, of general solidity - a little heavier, but reassuringly so. The ELs seem made to last, full stop .....

......I very much agree with your comments regarding the eyecups Chosun - they did their job, but no more than that .....
Lightness is good, as long as it is the result of sophisticated engineering - of which the SF has some, but it also has some parts, notably the eye cups that feel quite pedestrian - I would like to say they are perfunctory, but even that might be too much of a stretch for them ..... the tolerances and feel are way too loose and not befitting what is supposed to be a premium flagship instrument. It seems that quite a few others feel the same way. The squishy (or soft) feeling armour is also at odds. I can see what they were trying to do (at least they listened to me on that) - but the execution was poor.



Chosun :gh:
 
Sadly, everything Chosun says in the post above applies to their newest model the Victory FL Pocket 25, at least my specimen. And it is not only the hinge plates in it that are asymmetrical! It is a bit shocking to encounter this kind of finish in the production of a Zeiss, a contrast with their models of old.

Adding in edit: On reading up in this and other websites I now find that the Victory pocket models have given this impression since they were introduced 10-15 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Granted the SF isn't built like an FL....BUT...before you pass judgement, take it out and use it for a while. A short time at a retailer doesn't do IT or ANY binocular justice IMO. The "handling" marketing is a little overboard too IMO. But, BUT....take it out and use it. Go BIRDING with it. The view is almost indistinguishable from an SV....and it is impossible to overlook that Zeiss gives us the same flat field AND the widest FOV around for a 8X42. Flat FOV AND widest FOV. Think about it. Does that sound like an ideal for a birder?

I had an instance where I started off birding with an SV 8.5X42. I'd all ready been warned how close the birds were. I was having a little trouble getting on the birds... Swapped to the SF 8X42...it was just a better instrument for the job.

I'd still pick the SV 8.5X42 as the best all arounder. I wouldn't blame anyone for picking the SF either.
 
Granted the SF isn't built like an FL....BUT...before you pass judgement, take it out and use it for a while. A short time at a retailer doesn't do IT or ANY binocular justice IMO. The "handling" marketing is a little overboard too IMO. But, BUT....take it out and use it. Go BIRDING with it. The view is almost indistinguishable from an SV....and it is impossible to overlook that Zeiss gives us the same flat field AND the widest FOV around for a 8X42. Flat FOV AND widest FOV. Think about it. Does that sound like an ideal for a birder?

I had an instance where I started off birding with an SV 8.5X42. I'd all ready been warned how close the birds were. I was having a little trouble getting on the birds... Swapped to the SF 8X42...it was just a better instrument for the job.

I'd still pick the SV 8.5X42 as the best all arounder. I wouldn't blame anyone for picking the SF either.
Chuck,

It was more than just a look out of a city store, trying to find a tree up the road, at parks, searching for birds, looking at people up the street, and reading distant license plates. I spent considerable time with them over the weekend at our BirdFair - comparing to multiple bins, looking at various directional aspects relative to the sun (or where it was hidden behind the clouds! :) at both real and 'imaginary' birds! :) :-O

As I said, it was a fairly brutal day for CA - overcast, yet at times diffuse bright light. There was a white flagpole ~100m away, lots of markers and reference points for comparing Fov, and as it was a wetland parkland/conservation area, a plethora of black and white birds perched and flying around - Australian White Ibis, Little Pied Cormorant, Seagulls, Pelicans, Australian Magpie Lark, Willie Wagtail, Fairy Martins, White-breasted Woodswallows, and the Catholic -- Pacific Black Ducks flying purposefully by, Noisy Miners, and Rainbow Lorikeets, as well as a very cooperative Nankeen Kestrel scoffing down a mouse which I watched in amazement through the 8x SF's. Add to that the green lawns and shrubbery (Bottlebrushes with their myriad showy bright red nectar laden flowers), various shades of green trees and differently textured barks, as well as brightly coloured signs, buildings, etc and there was a very good spectrum for both testing and BIRDING. Failing all of that, there were both flocks, and hidden individuals, of black and white metal silhouette birds conveniently placed around the joint. 3:)

The only thing really lacking in terms of environmental conditions was bright low sunlight, contrasting fluffy white clouds and deep blue skies, or any sort of colouration in the sky toward sunset. As such I couldn't really scrutinize glare performance, but conditions and subjects were excellent for a CA grilling.

The main thing with the SF's was the first impression of a difficult fit with me in terms of ergonomics and eye positioning, and of the lack of quality compared to the ask. Optically there is much to like (given the negatives of transmission I detailed earlier), but would take a lot of fiddly setting up for me.

I pretty much knew how the ergo's would play out just from an engineering analysis of dimensions, construction, and cutaway drawings and photos, and the OTT marketing hype. To be fair, I did do an ad hoc analysis of weight distribution by balancing the bins on my fingers as a pivot see-saw style. This gives a very good idea of where the Centre of Mass is, and with a gentle (and careful! :) rocking you can feel the concentrated mass of the high element count oculars and reversed S-P prisms kicking in. Largely though it is the smoke and mirrors placement of the hands so far forward which magnifies this reward weight balance in the hand - it in no way makes up for having your elbows swinging in the breeze and the weight of your arms leveraged off your shoulders.

So this was like BIRDING + :cat:

I agree, both the Zeiss 8x42 SF and the Swarovski 8.5x42 SV make good all-round binoculars - though neither is perfect. The SF just doesn't feel the ask (those that picked them up for ~ $1600 did reasonably well), and the focus on the SV is not exactly luxurious although I understand the logic of the design for Northern Hemisphere winters.

The SF desperately needs HT glass, retuned coatings, and further refined armour (I'd also like a larger knurled metal focusing wheel and different positioning - but that could be personal preference). Both the SF and the SV could do with faster focusers for my preferences too.


Chosun :gh:
 
Chosun,

"My life is too precious to spend looking though the straw like Vortex Vipers, and I've viewed all the Vanguard Endeavours - I, II, III, and IV"

I found the Endeavor IIIs lacking, not to say absent! What did you find missing?
 
Chosun,

"My life is too precious to spend looking though the straw like Vortex Vipers, and I've viewed all the Vanguard Endeavours - I, II, III, and IV"

I found the Endeavor IIIs lacking, not to say absent! What did you find missing?

Hahaha Lol ! :t: . Yeah, I was waiting for that one, but you've beaten Dennis to it 3:)

Good to see at least some are paying attention :) :hippy:

The Vanguard Endeavor III'S only ever existed in prototype form, I don't know why Vanguard haven't discovered the joys of dielectric coatings yet, even with the IV ...... but they were scared off using the III nomenclature because of the Zen-Ray ED3, so yeah, they were lacking in soooooo many ways !!! :-O



Chosun :gh:
 
CJ,

I don't understand physics like you do, but would longer arms offset the discomfort you described holding the SF ? I wonder if arm length could be a factor here for some who feel focus is positioned too forward to be comfortable.

If your arms are a swingin' in the breeze I wonder if you are rather petite and have shorter arms than me (?)
I'm almost 5'9" and have longish arms. I found SF to be comfortable holding up and not an issue.
But, I did not spend much time with SF the couple of times I tried it.

The Ultravid focus is positioned down a little lower (pushed forward) compared to Swaro EL and many other bins.
This is one reason why UVid is so nice ergonomically IMO ; your hand is positioned such that your fingers rest naturally right across the focus. SF focus is pushed even further forward, but the difference is perhaps another inch or more which, for me, doesn't seem less comfortable. Still I would need to try SF for a weekend to be sure if it feels right. Initial impressions of SF are nice for me in terms of handling comfort / ergonomics.
The weight and good balance help.

I wonder if you would find UVid focus position in just the right spot or if it would still be pushed just a bit too forward for you.

p.s. I'm not suggesting the handling discomfort you experience with SF is all you and not the binocular design. I'm just taking a guess about arm length possibly being one factor in the mix.
 
Last edited:
Just as a formula1 car is so hypersensitive and precision balanced it would magnify our deficiencies, delayed reactions, and general judgement, were we to drive one, so I think, the top tier of binoculars are so good now, they show up our limitations. Unfortunately whereas each F1 cockpit is ergonomically designed for the guy who is going to drive it, with binoculars, one size fits all. In that sense, I think Chuck's hands just so happen to wrap very nicely round the SF, and Gilmore Girl's round the Ultravids. It's eye differences rather than hand differences of course where things get really complicated, not just with basics like depth of sockets and width of ID, but how much the eye-brain can tolerate stuff like CA and blurred circumferences.
Birdforum is both helpful and interesting here because it not only highlights, if nothing else, the 'try before you buy' mantra, but it's people's honest opinions put to paper after they've actually used the optics.
Where it becomes REALLY helpful, is when there is a general sense of opinion rather than 'IMHO'. For example, when the day comes for me to be able to afford a top tier binocular, thanks to Birdforum I would be nervy about purchasing a Swarvoski EL, because there seems to be a murmuring of dissatisfaction concerning focus wheels. Likewise with Leica -fantastic binoculars, shame about the after sales.
Were I going to buy today (subject to 'try before I buy' + Birdforum feedback)? Victory SF I'm afraid. That combination of resolution / flat field / massive fov is hard to resist (just hope my fingers splay wide enough!).
 
CJ,

I don't understand physics like you do, but would longer arms offset the discomfort you described holding the SF ? I wonder if arm length could be a factor here for some who feel focus is positioned too forward to be comfortable.

If your arms are a swingin' in the breeze I wonder if you are rather petite and have shorter arms than me (?)
I'm almost 5'9" and have longish arms. I found SF to be comfortable holding up and not an issue.
But, I did not spend much time with SF the couple of times I tried it.

The Ultravid focus is positioned down a little lower (pushed forward) compared to Swaro EL and many other bins.
This is one reason why UVid is so nice ergonomically IMO ; your hand is positioned such that your fingers rest naturally right across the focus. SF focus is pushed even further forward, but the difference is perhaps another inch or more which, for me, doesn't seem less comfortable. Still I would need to try SF for a weekend to be sure if it feels right. Initial impressions of SF are nice for me in terms of handling comfort / ergonomics.
The weight and good balance help.

I wonder if you would find UVid focus position in just the right spot or if it would still be pushed just a bit too forward for you.

p.s. I'm not suggesting the handling discomfort you experience with SF is all you and not the binocular design. I'm just taking a guess about arm length possibly being one factor in the mix.
GiGi,

Thanks for your interesting question and thoughts :cat: - I will do my best to try and help as I understand it. I think anyone who has ever been on a see-saw as a kid can get a handle - there's only two factors involved - how heavy something is, and how far away from the pivot point it is.

It's not really arm length that is a factor, since our arms fold up (~ in half) at the elbow so that our hands are roughly shoulder level - unless someone has disproportionately longer forearms compared to biceps etc - that might help since they would be able to reach further forward while still importantly keeping the elbows snug into the body.

I'm quite a bit taller, though my arms are just in proportion to that (I used to play beach volleyball :). What matters for the amount of force experienced by the body (as a reactive force to balance the moment of force applied by a given weight at some distance away from the body) is the amount of distance away from the body (the length of the 'lever'). This is why when we go to pick up a box (carton) we hold it as close to the body as possible - if we held it at arms length there would be an enormous load on our spine/core.

It can be demonstrated by an exaggerated experiment (as long as someone doesn't have too many neck/back/shoulder injuries etc in which case don't try it).
1. Put your hands up pretending to grip some binoculars - much like kids do when playing - close to your face so that your circled forefingers/thumbs rest on your eyebrows/cheeks. You elbows will be tucked right in to your body, and it should be quite easy to hold these imaginary tubes in this position for any length of time desired.
2. Contrast this to the same pretend hand grip, but this time move your hands about as far as they will go from your face (~ about 2 feet) with your elbows still bent but now well away from your body. Hold your hands out like this at eye level, and see how long it takes before your neck/back/shoulders feel uncomfortable - it will be well under a minute ......

This is a super exaggerated form of what is happening with the SF's with their focus wheel positioned so far forward - forcing your hands even further forward. Hope that helps.

Compared to my Zen's (which sound identical in focus wheel position to your UltraVids) the SF wheel is about a full inch further forward. It doesn't seem like much, but has a huge effect on me and my shoulders (especially after gravity and I had a disagreement a few years ago ! :eek!: :)

I was very pleasantly surprised to find that the Nikon MHG had pretty much similar ergonomics to my Zen's - the focus wheel is in about the same position and falls naturally to hand too.

If you like the ergonomics of the SF, then that's really great! :king: they're reasonably light, very well balanced, and really not all that big - if the view/eyecup position/fit/steadiness works for you then I'd say you've found yourself a really good bin. :t:



Chosun :gh:
 
GiGi,


It's not really arm length that is a factor, since our arms fold up (~ in half) at the elbow so that our hands are roughly shoulder level - unless someone has disproportionately longer forearms compared to biceps etc - that might help since they would be able to reach further forward while still importantly keeping the elbows snug into the body.

I'm quite a bit taller, though my arms are just in proportion to that (I used to play beach volleyball :). What matters for the amount of force experienced by the body (as a reactive force to balance the moment of force applied by a given weight at some distance away from the body) is the amount of distance away from the body (the length of the 'lever'). This is why when we go to pick up a box (carton) we hold it as close to the body as possible - if we held it at arms length there would be an enormous load on our spine/core.

It can be demonstrated by an exaggerated experiment (as long as someone doesn't have too many neck/back/shoulder injuries etc in which case don't try it).
1. Put your hands up pretending to grip some binoculars - much like kids do when playing - close to your face so that your circled forefingers/thumbs rest on your eyebrows/cheeks. You elbows will be tucked right in to your body, and it should be quite easy to hold these imaginary tubes in this position for any length of time desired.
2. Contrast this to the same pretend hand grip, but this time move your hands about as far as they will go from your face (~ about 2 feet) with your elbows still bent but now well away from your body. Hold your hands out like this at eye level, and see how long it takes before your neck/back/shoulders feel uncomfortable - it will be well under a minute ......

This is a super exaggerated form of what is happening with the SF's with their focus wheel positioned so far forward - forcing your hands even further forward. Hope that helps.

Compared to my Zen's (which sound identical in focus wheel position to your UltraVids) the SF wheel is about a full inch further forward. It doesn't seem like much, but has a huge effect on me and my shoulders (especially after gravity and I had a disagreement a few years ago ! :eek!: :)

I was very pleasantly surprised to find that the Nikon MHG had pretty much similar ergonomics to my Zen's - the focus wheel is in about the same position and falls naturally to hand too.

If you like the ergonomics of the SF, then that's really great! :king: they're reasonably light, very well balanced, and really not all that big - if the view/eyecup position/fit/steadiness works for you then I'd say you've found yourself a really good bin. :t:



Chosun :gh:

Ok, makes sense now ... thanks. This is why I could never be an engineer ;)
This stuff just doesn't come to me naturally.

Totally get it now that you need to have the least amount of stress on your shoulders and back esp with shoulder issues you mentioned here.

My shoulders burn if I hold my binocular up for long. I've had shoulder issues for years now and last year my L shoulder was frozen (had physical therapy).

Not sure how I would do with the SF over of hours usage. Even when I hold a hair dryer up for too long or change shower curtain, etc my shoulders begin to burn real bad.

Someday down the road I'll most likely need to use a lighter binocular as my primary and use the heavier 7x42 as backup. Right now I'm doing ok with it, but I do have soreness
after a few hours+ in the field.
 
Ok, makes sense now ... thanks. This is why I could never be an engineer ;)
This stuff just doesn't come to me naturally.

Totally get it now that you need to have the least amount of stress on your shoulders and back esp with shoulder issues you mentioned here.

My shoulders burn if I hold my binocular up for long. I've had shoulder issues for years now and last year my L shoulder was frozen (had physical therapy).

Not sure how I would do with the SF over of hours usage. Even when I hold a hair dryer up for too long or change shower curtain, etc my shoulders begin to burn real bad.

Someday down the road I'll most likely need to use a lighter binocular as my primary and use the heavier 7x42 as backup. Right now I'm doing ok with it, but I do have soreness
after a few hours+ in the field.

Gigi have you seen the BinoPOD

A modular binocular harness and pack system that integrates the WORLD's FIRST hands-free glassing system!

Glass for hours without fatigue.

Holds image steady, eliminates effects of shaky hands.

Extreme Comfort fully adjustable 4-point harness won't stretch or slip.

http://www.fieldopticsresearch.com/shop/BinoPOD/p/BinoPOD-Harness-Pack-System-Black-sku-H002.htm
 

Attachments

  • binopod_black.jpg
    binopod_black.jpg
    84.3 KB · Views: 186
Last edited:
Ok, makes sense now ... thanks. This is why I could never be an engineer ;)
This stuff just doesn't come to me naturally.

Totally get it now that you need to have the least amount of stress on your shoulders and back esp with shoulder issues you mentioned here.

My shoulders burn if I hold my binocular up for long. I've had shoulder issues for years now and last year my L shoulder was frozen (had physical therapy).

Not sure how I would do with the SF over of hours usage. Even when I hold a hair dryer up for too long or change shower curtain, etc my shoulders begin to burn real bad.

Someday down the road I'll most likely need to use a lighter binocular as my primary and use the heavier 7x42 as backup. Right now I'm doing ok with it, but I do have soreness
after a few hours+ in the field.
GiGi, the SF does have a slight rearward weight bias, so especially if the eye cups rest firmishly against the eye sockets/brow it can take some load off the shoulders. The shoulders are relatively small muscles, and this helps share the load with larger muscles like the chest. I don't like too firm a pressure since I don't like to risk bending my glasses frames, or scuffing the lenses. It sounds like you really like the SF's - it's good when a bin just feels natural in the hand. That wide field is pretty nice :t:

I think in terms of weight the SF is very similar to your 7x42 UVid, perhaps a sling type arrangement for carrying is an option? Sometimes a change is as good as a holiday! o:)

I Hope things improve for you functionality wise. The Nikon MHG is about 100grams (4Oz) lighter than the SF, but I think the SF would be a smidge ahead optically provided it fits, positions, and lines up ok for you. :t:

I'm going to revisit both of them for some more grilling. :cat:



Chosun :gh:
 
Gigi have you seen the BinoPOD

A modular binocular harness and pack system that integrates the WORLD's FIRST hands-free glassing system!

Glass for hours without fatigue.

Holds image steady, eliminates effects of shaky hands.

Extreme Comfort fully adjustable 4-point harness won't stretch or slip.

http://www.fieldopticsresearch.com/shop/BinoPOD/p/BinoPOD-Harness-Pack-System-Black-sku-H002.htm

Thanks for the suggestion, but I just can't see myself using that getup. Looks like you couldn't get the bino up to your eyes fast when needed (which is very often). Also, that's just a bit too much for me I think. I have a simple harness that's pretty good.
 
Last edited:
GiGi, the SF does have a slight rearward weight bias, so especially if the eye cups rest firmishly against the eye sockets/brow it can take some load off the shoulders. The shoulders are relatively small muscles, and this helps share the load with larger muscles like the chest. I don't like too firm a pressure since I don't like to risk bending my glasses frames, or scuffing the lenses. It sounds like you really like the SF's - it's good when a bin just feels natural in the hand. That wide field is pretty nice :t:

I think in terms of weight the SF is very similar to your 7x42 UVid, perhaps a sling type arrangement for carrying is an option? Sometimes a change is as good as a holiday! o:)

I Hope things improve for you functionality wise. The Nikon MHG is about 100grams (4Oz) lighter than the SF, but I think the SF would be a smidge ahead optically provided it fits, positions, and lines up ok for you. :t:

I'm going to revisit both of them for some more grilling. :cat:



Chosun :gh:

Well my initial impressions of the SF were very good, but I've come to the conclusion I need to try any bino for a good weekend to see if it works for me or not. Of course certain negatives like short ER can give you the answer right away.

Chuck weighed the Uvid 7x42 naked and says it's 26.4 ounces. I thought it was 27.2 ounces as advertised, but this must be with rain guard and objective caps on. It's really not too heavy, but after about 4 hours or so I feel a little sore when I go home. I don't have too many issues when using it out. It's only when I have to hold the bin up for extended time to try and ID something distant. I make sure now to not hold for too long when my shoulders begin to burn.

Jan. will be 2 years with this bino and I may write something up about my impressions and feelings about it. Still at this point I can't find anything wrong with it to speak of (exceptional all around) except I wouldn't mind it being 3-4 ounces ligher :)
 
Well my initial impressions of the SF were very good, but I've come to the conclusion I need to try any bino for a good weekend to see if it works for me or not. Of course certain negatives like short ER can give you the answer right away.

Chuck weighed the Uvid 7x42 naked and says it's 26.4 ounces. I thought it was 27.2 ounces as advertised, but this must be with rain guard and objective caps on. It's really not too heavy, but after about 4 hours or so I feel a little sore when I go home. I don't have too many issues when using it out. It's only when I have to hold the bin up for extended time to try and ID something distant. I make sure now to not hold for too long when my shoulders begin to burn.

Jan. will be 2 years with this bino and I may write something up about my impressions and feelings about it. Still at this point I can't find anything wrong with it to speak of (exceptional all around) except I wouldn't mind it being 3-4 ounces ligher :)
I have the 7X42 UV (2004) and it's about as good as you can get for weight control in a 27 ounce bin. The UV is short and easy to manage. My guess, based on your posts, is that you would tire as quickly or even more easily with the SF or SV 42mm bins.

If you want an immediate and obvious ergonomic boost you'll need a 32mm like the 8X32 SV (21 ounces), a binocular that's every bit as good as the well-loved 42mm's. One trick you can try to develop is to hold your bin in the traditional manner with one hand while a few fingers on your opposite hand support it from underneath. The arm not holding the bin directly can be folded in against your chest reducing muscle strain to an absolute minimum. Switch arms and you've got a relatively pain free method for extended viewing.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top