• 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 !!!!!! (2 Viewers)

Leif said:
... In order to fully characterise the performance you have to test with a range of target distances... ...You test with nearby targets, and planar targets, ignoring out of focus CA. You also test with high contrast targets, and ignore performance on low contrast targets which can be critical with binoculars... ...I see this confusing of tests with reality in photographic forums too...
Click to expand...

Isn't out-of-focus CA proportional to in-focus CA, so isn't measuring "in-focus" CA just the simplest way to measure CA of any sort? Isn't CA a fixed property of the way a given optic at a given setting refracts light, so isn't it there to the same extent in both high and low contrast targets (but differently perceptible by the brain and its efforts to 'photoshop' CA out of perceptual awareness), thus making the use of high contrast targets simply the most efficient to use for its detection and quantification?

I don't disagree that a full description requires testing at a range of subject distances. That is certainly the case with camera lenses, many of which move multiple elements during zoom and focus over their often huge ranges of focal lengths and near to far focus. But for bins, unlike camera lenses, I must say that I've never noticed a big change in optical characteristics (e.g. relative sharpness of edge versus center) over their focus range (and as a butterfly+bird watcher, I frequently use bins at their close and far limits). I'm sure it is there, but it is _much_ more subtle than with camera lenses, to the extent that I cannot think of a single objective test shared on Birdforum by Henry Link or anyone else that was invalid for describing the performance of a bin at a distance different than that used for testing. If you can cite one, I'd be appreciative for the help in refining my understanding. For that matter, I can't recall an objective test by Henry that didn't match my own objective and subjective experiences with the binocular in question. Sure, I have my own idiosyncratic tastes, and some things matter to me a lot and other things little in comparison to other binocular users, but for the most part the quantitative and maligned "astronomical type" tests seem valid descriptions to me of the optical personalities of different binoculars during birding, and for those interested, provide some insight into the technical reasons for those differences in performance.

--AP
 
Last edited:
james holdsworth said:
...
Some of our best testers, though, seem to rely too heavily on astro. type testing which doesn't seem to translate well to birding / nature obs. The best tester, for me, is someone that will use the bin for the same uses as I will.
Click to expand...

I agree. So far I haven't seen any astro testing that has strong implications for terrestrial viewing during daylight hours. More often than not, it confuses matters. The reason isn't so much the functioning of the binoculars, as the fact that the observer's visual system and manner of observing are entirely transformed with dark adaptation. Now for those interested in dual applications, it's a different matter; but the criteria are still different.

Just my opinion, of course.

Ed
 
Leif said:
Not so long ago Henry was very rude to me. Hence I was not inclined to phrase my post more delicately.
Click to expand...

Expressing the same behavior that you would not desire to experience yourself, is something that Kant would not agree with, and with that, most of humanity. So never ever let the tone of someone else's message make you deliberately change your tone. Adapting to perceived bad behavior, by behaving bad yourself, is not what you should go for in life.

(disclaimer: I did not see anything rude in your previous posts!)
 
Last edited:
I will say in Henry's defense that: (a) no single experiment ever tells the whole story about anything, (b) he has already stated that his conclusions are tentative and could be refuted with a single binocular showing different results, and (c) other reviewers like Kimmo and Gijs seem to be in general agreement for whatever reasons.

Leif, I'll grant you that the CA profile might change with working distance, so that would make a dandy follow-on experiment. We should encourage Henry to do it if he can figure a way. I'd sure be interested in the sensitivity of his method and the validity of your skepticism.

One of the things that's always been missing, as someone aptly pointed out, is the unknown relationship between bench-test results and field observations. This has been one of my own hangups from the start, and possibly the reason I don't spend much time bench testing. It may very well be that what Henry found is undetectable in the field; however, not being able to detect something is also problematic, — particularly with CA. One of the reasons is that the eye itself is loaded with CA, and nature has evolved various ways to both control it and put it to good use. So, it's not too surprising for there to be pre-existing mechanisms that suppress it from consciousness. But that does not mean it's not there and possibly degrading the image.

My suggestion is that Henry's evidence would best be used to look for subtle image effects. If not interested, forget about it and enjoy your equipment.

Ed
 
elkcub said:
..................

My suggestion is that Henry's evidence would best be used to look for subtle image effects. If not interested, forget about it and enjoy your equipment.

Ed
Click to expand...


Absolutely, there is much to learn from these experiments, and how they translate into real life perception. In fact, nobody knows the answers to many of these questions, certainly not the manufacturers and their optical designers. In this sense, such a discussion board offers a great opportunity to match the results of idealized optical tests with the experiences of dozens of observers in the field.

A recent experience made it obvious to me the how deep the lack of understanding about the interplay between optical instrument and human vision is reaching:

When I wrote my book about binoculars, I came across an interesting scientific publication of the late 1940s, by Max Berek of Ernst Leitz. He sketched a mathematical model which allowed to map the optical performance of a binocular into a gain in target detection, combining optical parameters with empirical results about human vision. Meanwhile, I was able to transform his model into a rather versatile formalism, after fitting his tables into closed mathematical functions, and combining them with a modern universal formula for eye pupil sizes under various conditions. The result is a fairly simple and convenient set of equations that allow the prediction of binocular performance (regarding target detection) under practically any light condition.

I have sent a manuscript to the Journal of the Optical Society of America for publication. There, it got stuck in the peer review process, because the editors are having difficulties in finding suitable reviewers. They approached 7 individuals and so far they received just a single response. The editor now wrote back to me in desparation and asked me whether I could suggest additional peers who could add their inputs. I guess the problem lies exactly in the interdisciplinary character of the topic: There are some who know about binoculars, others know about human perception, but hardly anybody knows both of them.

Hence, if somebody among you happens to feel competent, or knows somebody else who would be able and willing to do the job, please feel free to send me a PM including your name, affiliation (or occupation) and email address, so that I could get you in contact with the editorial board of JOSA.

Cheers,
Holger
 
Not sure if it has already been linked somewhere in the previous 1000 posts, but there is a nice pre-review now on binomania: http://www.binomania.it/?p=7006

Basically confirming all the the touted features and also commenting on CA compared to the SV: they found more CA in the SF than in the SV on the edge, but a little less than in the SV on axis. They also found that the SF controls straylight better.

Nice pic showing the ergonomics but also the impressive size of the SF: http://www.binomania.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Zeiss_SF_3.jpg

And they will write a full review later...
 
You may note this is a new registration. Until now I have been a passive but avid reader of the forum. My reason for not registering before is that I am a mere bird watcher with no particular expertise as regards binoculars. The way the thread is going has prompted me make an observation and to ask a question. It also cross references with the current thread on reviews. My apologies for a somewhat long first contribution.
Some relevant background. I am in my early seventies (but very active) and wear variofocals all the time for age related distance correction and mild astigmatism. My bird watching is either coastal (mainly winter) or moorland (mostly summer). About a year ago I finally moved on from my Swift Newport 10x50 and after testing most of the main sub-alphas (including the Conquest – which I did not like) I settled on an Opticron DBA Oasis MG 8x42, as the only ones that produced a real wow factor. At that time the leap from the Swift to a full Alpha seemed unnecessary and a step too far. However after reading continuing glowing reviews of the Victory HT’s tested them at a retailers (with an expansive countryside view) against my DBAs’. I thought the view with the HTs perhaps slightly better but it was marginal and in terms of ergonomics the DBA’s were the equal at least for me. On that basis there seemed no point in changing. I have been extremely pleased with the Opticrons and until the even more persuasive hints about the SFs’ had put consideration of a change on hold. My observation is how us ‘ordinary folk’ can field test over time to assess whether there is a real advantage – without wishing to take the risk of a significant outlay only to find it wasted. So the experience of forum members is really useful. My question, is it possible that my eyesight at my age is now the limiting factor, in other words the higher resolution etc of an alpha simply produces more ‘information’ than my eyes can handle. This might explain the very slight, if any difference between the HT and DBA. The DBAs may simply be the best match. There is the other factor in that of course my brain may create an illusion (a result of expectation) to support my subliminal thoughts about owning a rather enticing alpha.
You will note no mention of other Alphas, I did not like the feel of friends Leicas’, have never really identified with Nikon and as for Swarovski there is a story. I had occasion to visit Innsbruck recently and visited their flagship showroom (it is only a few miles from their main factory – where I presume they produce the binoculars). I tried the EL but experienced rolling ball – no good for sea watching. However to my astonishment all the SLCs’ I tried had focus problems of the type frequently discussed in this forum. Furthermore I also tried them again at a main distributor elsewhere in the town, same result. So for me either they have a systemic manufacturing or quality assurance problem or are completely disdainful of customer feedback and rely on the name for sales, why else would they let such manifestly poor stock on to their flagship store shelves, so they are well out of the frame. I would appreciate views, both from the field and the more scientific related community. By the way I have no wish to be persuaded from the 8x42 format – it works well for me in my local environment.
Barrie
 
tynedale said:
You may note this is a new registration. Until now I have been a passive but avid reader of the forum. My reason for not registering before is that I am a mere bird watcher with no particular expertise as regards binoculars. The way the thread is going has prompted me make an observation and to ask a question. It also cross references with the current thread on reviews. My apologies for a somewhat long first contribution.
Some relevant background. I am in my early seventies (but very active) and wear variofocals all the time for age related distance correction and mild astigmatism. My bird watching is either coastal (mainly winter) or moorland (mostly summer). About a year ago I finally moved on from my Swift Newport 10x50 and after testing most of the main sub-alphas (including the Conquest – which I did not like) I settled on an Opticron DBA Oasis MG 8x42, as the only ones that produced a real wow factor. At that time the leap from the Swift to a full Alpha seemed unnecessary and a step too far. However after reading continuing glowing reviews of the Victory HT’s tested them at a retailers (with an expansive countryside view) against my DBAs’. I thought the view with the HTs perhaps slightly better but it was marginal and in terms of ergonomics the DBA’s were the equal at least for me. On that basis there seemed no point in changing. I have been extremely pleased with the Opticrons and until the even more persuasive hints about the SFs’ had put consideration of a change on hold. My observation is how us ‘ordinary folk’ can field test over time to assess whether there is a real advantage – without wishing to take the risk of a significant outlay only to find it wasted. So the experience of forum members is really useful. My question, is it possible that my eyesight at my age is now the limiting factor, in other words the higher resolution etc of an alpha simply produces more ‘information’ than my eyes can handle. This might explain the very slight, if any difference between the HT and DBA. The DBAs may simply be the best match. There is the other factor in that of course my brain may create an illusion (a result of expectation) to support my subliminal thoughts about owning a rather enticing alpha.
You will note no mention of other Alphas, I did not like the feel of friends Leicas’, have never really identified with Nikon and as for Swarovski there is a story. I had occasion to visit Innsbruck recently and visited their flagship showroom (it is only a few miles from their main factory – where I presume they produce the binoculars). I tried the EL but experienced rolling ball – no good for sea watching. However to my astonishment all the SLCs’ I tried had focus problems of the type frequently discussed in this forum. Furthermore I also tried them again at a main distributor elsewhere in the town, same result. So for me either they have a systemic manufacturing or quality assurance problem or are completely disdainful of customer feedback and rely on the name for sales, why else would they let such manifestly poor stock on to their flagship store shelves, so they are well out of the frame. I would appreciate views, both from the field and the more scientific related community. By the way I have no wish to be persuaded from the 8x42 format – it works well for me in my local environment.
Barrie
Click to expand...

Hello Barrie

You live in a champion part of the world pal and have asked a great question.

The only test that really matters is what you see through your own eyes. And if you have found a wonderful partner with your Opticron then good for you.

The quality of the view through bins of course depends on your eyes and the available light on the day as much as the bins themselves and only you can decide what works for you. You can make this decision a bit easier if you select well-lit subjects to view that have plenty of fine detail and you really need to compare bins side-by-side so you have the same lighting and don't rely on memory. I also wear vari-focals and always take care I am looking through the part that is for distance viewing.

However there are a couple of things that you might think about when considering the SF. The field of view is spectacular and for the 8x42 is 148 metres wide at 1,000 metres distance. That is 26 metres wider. This would make it much easier to relocate birds, seals and whales that dive and then surface again. Scanning the skies for raptors would be easier too and if you like to look at butterflies and dragonflies this would also help enormously.

Speaking of butterflies and dragonflies the SFs focus down to 1.5 metres compared with your Opticron's 2.2.

SF should start arriving in the shops during October / November.

Good luck, Lee
 
Holger Merlitz said:
Absolutely, there is much to learn from these experiments, and how they translate into real life perception. In fact, nobody knows the answers to many of these questions, certainly not the manufacturers and their optical designers. In this sense, such a discussion board offers a great opportunity to match the results of idealized optical tests with the experiences of dozens of observers in the field.

A recent experience made it obvious to me the how deep the lack of understanding about the interplay between optical instrument and human vision is reaching:

When I wrote my book about binoculars, I came across an interesting scientific publication of the late 1940s, by Max Berek of Ernst Leitz. He sketched a mathematical model which allowed to map the optical performance of a binocular into a gain in target detection, combining optical parameters with empirical results about human vision. Meanwhile, I was able to transform his model into a rather versatile formalism, after fitting his tables into closed mathematical functions, and combining them with a modern universal formula for eye pupil sizes under various conditions. The result is a fairly simple and convenient set of equations that allow the prediction of binocular performance (regarding target detection) under practically any light condition.

I have sent a manuscript to the Journal of the Optical Society of America for publication. There, it got stuck in the peer review process, because the editors are having difficulties in finding suitable reviewers. They approached 7 individuals and so far they received just a single response. The editor now wrote back to me in desparation and asked me whether I could suggest additional peers who could add their inputs. I guess the problem lies exactly in the interdisciplinary character of the topic: There are some who know about binoculars, others know about human perception, but hardly anybody knows both of them.

Hence, if somebody among you happens to feel competent, or knows somebody else who would be able and willing to do the job, please feel free to send me a PM including your name, affiliation (or occupation) and email address, so that I could get you in contact with the editorial board of JOSA.

Cheers,
Holger
Click to expand...

Holger,

Ed's comment earlier about someone questioning the correlation of bench tests to field observations, that would be me, about a hundred times on these forums. No disrespect meant to Henry, and I have always said that bench tests have an important role to play, but also that they don't always match my field experience or tell me all that I need to know in making a purchase decision unless there is something glaringly wrong with the binoculars, and then it might be due to sample variation.

Testing one sample is hard to make generalizations about all samples. Henry knows this and has, for example, pointed out the differences in resolution between the two sides of his 8x56 FL, and also that some imperfections seen "under the microscope" don't affect performance in the field. But exactly where to draw the line between bench testing and field testing, and how much overlaps and how much doesn't, is something I've often wondered about. Your model that attempts to bridge that gap by including the user in the equation sounds promising and could finally settle the debate. Or at least shed some light on it.

There is one more variable that needs to be factored in, and that might require yet another expert, a neuroscientist, because that factor is the brain. When one adjusts to various distortions, for example, such as "rolling ball" caused by AMD, it's not just the eyes' distortion level that's involved, but that matters as you've pointed out in your reports, but also the user's brain. Something happens in people's brains that allows them to make adjustments to accommodate out of the ordinary experiences.

I always mention the old chicken experiment where chickens were fitted with prisms whereby they saw the world upside down and eventually they adjusted to an upside down world. We are like those chickens when we are able to accommodate AMD, excessive pincushion, CA, etc. in binoculars and use them as if they were "picture perfect." Of course, not everybody can accommodate to those distortions/aberrations, for those people, the world still looks "upside down" through the binoculars.

The question is how do you incorporate a user's ability or lack of ability to accommodate these various optical distortions and aberrations into your model?

Some of this falls under the purview of the visual scientist, and I would suggest Ed as a peer reviewer. He modestly downplays his knowledge of binoculars, but he's well versed in optics and he's a visual expert. Sounds like he might be the right person for the job of reviewer.

Brock
 
Another Welcome to the Forum.

tynedale said:
........ My question, is it possible that my eyesight at my age is now the limiting factor, in other words the higher resolution etc of an alpha simply produces more ‘information’ than my eyes can handle. ....... Barrie
Click to expand...

Your primary comment is a good one. If your overall eye heath is good and your vision is correctable in the 20/20 range, then you should be able to get good value out of a quality binocular as would someone with younger eyes.

The most common issue with age that comes to mind is cataracts. The good news is cataract surgery is considered a successful fix. I know several people who have gone through the procedure and enjoy great vision with quality binoculars.

Another age related issue is pupils do not dilate as much as one gets older. If you where considering an expensive 7X50 for better light gathering, then that would probably not be of much benefit. However that is not what you are planning and so an 8X42 should be a good choice with easy eye placement.

tynedale said:
........ This might explain the very slight, if any difference between the HT and DBA. Barrie
Click to expand...

The law of diminishing returns apply to binoculars as you move up the price chain. There is a big difference in the view when going from a $100 binocular to a $500 binocular. The difference is less going from $500 to $1000 and a lot less when going from $1000 to $2000.

The fact that you do not see a big difference between your Opticron and the more expensive models is normal. It is not because you have older eyes, it is because the differences are not that great. It becomes an individual decision if the small improvements in the view justify a much larger difference in price.

I think there is a learning curve that goes with evaluating binoculars as one goes up the price chain. Now that you have spent time with a higher end Opticron, I suspect that if you use your previous binocular you will notice short comings that you were not aware of before getting the Opticron. I find that the differences between a more expensive binocular and less expensive binocular become more noticeable to me when going back to the lesser model after spending some time with the more expensive model.

Also keep in mind that there is a lot more to consider than just sharpness when comparing binoculars. After a certain price point, the resolution of most binoculars will appear the same in normal handheld use. Some of the things you may find in the more expensive models are better build quality, larger FOV, larger center view, better edges, better light transmission, better contrast, more natural colors, better handling, etc. The differences may be slight as you go up in price, but they make a difference when considering the whole package and viewing over several hours.

For people who just consider a binocular a tool to get an ID, then they may not get value out of spending the extra money. However if you can see the differences, appreciate the differences, enjoy optics, get good utilization, and can afford the extra expenditure, then the value may be there for you.
 
Lee

Thanks for the welcome and for the positive comments about even further "up north," as you infer a great place for birds and nature in general. Your observations are just what is needed, you are right about FOV, often in sea watching up here when the sky and sea can be uniformly grey often it is just a glimpse of movement out at the edge of vision that is important. Had perhaps not extrapolated this into my thinking. Guess a trip to the Zeiss outlet is called in a few weeks time
Barrie
 
brocknroller said:
...

Some of this falls under the purview of the visual scientist, and I would suggest Ed as a peer reviewer. He modestly downplays his knowledge of binoculars, but he's well versed in optics and he's a visual expert. Sounds like he might be the right person for the job of reviewer.

Brock
Click to expand...

Thanks for the compliment, Brock, but I don't think I'm quite the right person. However, I do have someone in mind who is more than qualified and might be willing. He's very interdisciplinary.

Holger, if you PM me the editorial board contact I'd be happy to check into it for you.

Ed
 
Last edited:
Vespobuteo said:
the SF:s look huge on the photo…

but according to specs,
the SF:s are only 13 mm longer and 3 mm wider, than the Svarowski SV,

is the photo distorted or what?

:smoke:

what is the diameter of the eye piece lenses?
looks enormous...

http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Sp...integrated/products/vicSF/Small/vicSF0029.jpg
Click to expand...

Holy Mackerel, Sapphire, those be some big bins, for sure. Good size for my hands. Also, it's obvious from the photo what Zeiss means by the SF having a "Smart Focus." The focuser falls right where it needs to be so you don't have to stretch up to focus like you do on the SV EL. But that's true of the HTs, too, isn't it? Seems like they're marketing something as new that isn't really new. What's new for Zeiss is the open bridge design, and I'm still wondering why Swaro's attorneys have not sent a "cease and desist" order to Zeiss like they did Nikon for making the EDG???

The longer length also gives you more room for your fingers. In the photo, his fingers look tight in the open space of the SV EL while there's room to spare with the SF for a birder with six fingers on each hand!

So if you are a Polydactyly and were thinking about getting those vestigial digits removed, use the money you would have spent on plastic surgery to buy a Zeiss SF instead. Your hands will thank you. :smoke:

Brock
 
"I'm still wondering why Swaro's attorneys have not sent a "cease and desist" order to Zeiss like they did Nikon for making the EDG???"


Possibly because Zeiss might cease to sell them Schott glass if they did.
I still have a feeling that Zeiss and Swarovski have an agreement on the SF design.
Doubtful Swarovski will ever complain about the SF !
I don't expect it.
 
If Swarovski has a valid patent they can agree to any licensing arrangement they wish with Zeiss, and visa-versa.

Ed
 
Or maybe simply Swaro hasn't a patent on double bridge bins? Oh, wait a minute, didn't we discuss that already some time ago? ;)

the SF:s look huge on the photo…

but according to specs,
the SF:s are only 13 mm longer and 3 mm wider, than the Svarowski SV
Click to expand...

Probably the photo is a little misleading, because the bins arn't hold on the same level at the eyepiece, resulting in a bigger gap at the objetive end. Still, the SF are very big, just imagine them being hold against a Leica Ultravid.

Agree that ergonomics look very similar than the HT. The main difference is the very slim middle bridge, which basically eliminates the need for spacing of the fingers...
 
Dear all,
The 8x42 SF I got in my hands at the Dutch Birdfair, was only about 1,5 cm longer than the 8,5x42, the focuswheel of both binoculars had exactly the same dimensions, the only difference is that the focuswheel of the SF is a little higher on the binocular body. As far as reachability is concerned or ease of use I found hardly any difference, while, as I have written, the open bridge of the SF has a little more space than the that of the SV. Whether that is important for the user is fully dependent on the size and the shape of the hands.
The open bridge itself is difficult to patent, since those who are familiar with binocular history know that open bridges have been made quite a few times since 1890.
Gijs
 
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.

Similar threads

Pauhana
Zeiss storefront says Victory SF 8x42 discontinued?????
Replies
4
Views
1K
Conndomat
Conndomat
mgp13
Zeiss Victory SF - damaged or is this normal?
Replies
4
Views
1K
Troubador
Troubador
C
Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 ages?
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
mgp13
mgp13
J
Focus Problem: Zeiss Victory SF 10x42
Replies
6
Views
2K
John-W
J
S
Swarovski EL vs Zeiss Victory SF
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
norway
norway

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top