• 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.

When a new Zeiss binocular? (1 Viewer)

Well I finally cracked and have just ordered a pair of FLs so no doubt a new model will be announced very soon! ;)
 
JabaliHunter said:
Nice! Which did you go for?
Click to expand...

The 8x32 (secondhand ones)... I'd been keeping my eye open for either those or the 7x42s. Hopefully I will get them sometime next week, it will be interesting to see how they compare to the 8.5x42 ELs that I am using.
 
Omid said:
Here are a few more experimental results using a different setup. We are looking towards a vase about 20m away. The pictures are taken from about 30 cm behind the eyepiece. The eyepiece lens is 36mm in diameter. As you can see the exit pupil is as large as the eyepiece lens.
Another major feature is that you can still see a full image (although different part of the field of view) when looking through the eyepiece from an off-axis angle. There will be aberrations in the off axis image but the image is still visible. In standard binoculars a) the exit pupil is much smaller b) the image is not visible when you look off-axis.
Click to expand...

Very interesting!
 
My apologies. I assumed yards and not meters. That extra 3 inches adds up. Yes, 416 feet is the correct number.

So, yes, that is an improvement.
 
Frank,

You were right about the FOV. It's 384 feet at 1000 yards. To convert from metric you just multiply by 3.

But, your projected US dollar price was wrong because it includes the 19% VAT. US price would be $876.

Henry
 
Henry,

39 inches in a meter x 128 meters = 4992 inches / 12 = 416 feet

Where did I screw up the second time?

...and, yikes, that is two slip ups. So $876? Hmm, now if it was that price with the 416 foot field of view then I believe Swaro would have some stiff competition for the SLC HD. If either figure is incorrect then.....

;)
 
It's simpler than it looks. The metric FOV spec uses the same measurement units (meters) for FOV width and distance. If we did things the same way our spec would be given in feet @ 1000 feet or yards @ 1000 yards, not feet @ 1000 yards. So, 128 m @ 1000 m is the same as 128 ft @ 1000 ft, or 128 yds @ 1000 yds, or 384 ft @ 1000 yds.
 
Last edited:
As predicted, they got rid of the ribs! The Conquest HDs look somewhat like Nikon Monarch 3s. Hopefully, they not only look good but feel good. I don't agree with Fernando. :)

I never fancied the Conquest's aesthetics, which reminded me of a double barrel Buck Roger's sonic ray gun.

http://www.neatstuff.net/guns/Buck-Rogers-sonic-ray-gun.jpg

At $876, they are priced at the second tier with the Swaro Companion CLs, also as predicted.

Interesting that they even used the word in the ad:

"As a robust, compact and lightweight companion, the Conquest 8x42 HD is indeed negligible, but even more so."

The wider FOV means a new EP design, so it will be interesting to see how they handled the level of distortion across the field and at the edges.

On paper, they sound good, but it remains to be seen if they can "conquer" the second tier market segment, which is sprouting some stiff competition.

Kreskin
 
Last edited:
henry link said:
It's simpler than it looks. The metric FOV spec uses the same measurement units (meters) for FOV width and distance. If we did things the same way our spec would be given in feet @ 1000 feet or yards @ 1000 yards, not feet @ 1000 yards. So, 128 m @ 1000 m is the same as 128 ft @ 1000 ft, or 128 yds @ 1000 yds, or 384 ft @ 1000 yds.
Click to expand...

Holy Smokes was I off on that.

Thanks henry, I got my math conversion training for the day!
 
I was hoping for something more exiting to be introduced by Zeiss than just an update of the current Conquest range. But then at a second glance, what is know so far sounds interesting.
Specs have caught up with the Victory: a little lighter with 750g and FOV almost as good for the 8x (with 128m) or even better for the 10x (115m). The orniwelt description also says "made in Germany" while I think the current Conquest are made in Hungary. On top of that the announced price is 100 € less than the going rate for the current Conquest. Does not sound too bad...
 
dalat said:
I was hoping for something more exiting to be introduced by Zeiss than just an update of the current Conquest range. But then at a second glance, what is know so far sounds interesting.
Specs have caught up with the Victory: a little lighter with 750g and FOV almost as good for the 8x (with 128m) or even better for the 10x (115m). The orniwelt description also says "made in Germany" while I think the current Conquest are made in Hungary. On top of that the announced price is 100 € less than the going rate for the current Conquest. Does not sound too bad...
Click to expand...

I certainly don't disagree with you especially if the price we posted above actually turns out to be the true price we see here in the states.

In addition, I like the fact that they are revamping and announcing the Conquests first. One must assume that the March debut is a revamp of the Victory line. Can't wait to see what they decided to do.
 
"The ones being announced in March are apparently going to offer ~95% light transmission..."

Time for me to show my limitations. Is "95% light transmission" significant improvement and is it even meaningful in daily use? The 7x42fl I use are pretty bright now, hard to believe a couple of percent would be observable. Maybe important in an 8x32?

I do use a pair of 8x32 especially on days the weather is nice which is most days I go out now. Just very comfortable to use.

It is interesting to see Zeiss advertisement-What they can market versus what birders want.
 
michaelboustead said:
"The ones being announced in March are apparently going to offer ~95% light transmission..."

Time for me to show my limitations. Is "95% light transmission" significant improvement and is it even meaningful in daily use? The 7x42fl I use are pretty bright now, hard to believe a couple of percent would be observable. Maybe important in an 8x32?
.
Click to expand...

As expected, my 10x32 FL is not suitable for astronomy but in every situation where there still is some daylight, the 3.2mm exit pupil is sufficient and it is brighter than my Zeiss Classic 10x40.

A 95% transmission would allow the use of smaller binoculars than before, but the easy eye placement of a bigger EP may still make a bigger bin more comfortable in real use.

Should a Zeiss rep by coincidence read this, please note that I badly want a 7x32 Victory with 160m/1000m FOV and 95% transmission. Or make that 170 m. :t:
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 12 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.

Similar threads

E
How Waterproof are Zeiss binoculars ?
Replies
4
Views
566
Maljunulo
M
A
Carl Zeiss Jena DF 7x50 Extremly early model?
Replies
9
Views
811
Ignatius
Ignatius
E
Age of Used Zeiss Victory SF 10 x 42
Replies
4
Views
649
z-ben
Z
C
Zeiss SFL 10 x 40 or Swarovski EL 10x42 WB ? ?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Scott98
S
G
Inherited Zeiss binoculars
Replies
4
Views
992
Geometer
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top