Sperwer2015
Member
hi guys, this day i also joined the forum :t:! Have you noticed more CA in the SF than in the SV?
-
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.
New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Chosun Juan
- Start date
hi guys, this day i also joined the forum :t:! Have you noticed more CA in the SF than in the SV?
HighNorth
Well-known member
hi guys, this day i also joined the forum :t:! Have you noticed more CA in the SF than in the SV?
Welcome to the forum Sperwer! :t:
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
hi guys, this day i also joined the forum :t:! Have you noticed more CA in the SF than in the SV?
I think the SF 8x42 manages CA pretty good to have that extreme FOV.
And it would not be an issue for me, even though I'm pretty sensitive to CA.
Mainly did CA-comparison with my 7x42 FL, which I know is very good in this aspect.
Last edited:
Graham Osborne
Well-known member
Whoa Dennis. There's a limit to the amount of honesty I can take. |=\|
Probably similar to the Nikon 8x30 EII. Except with sharper edges. A big FOV with 8x kind of sucks you INTO the binoculars like you are standing inside them. I think 9 degrees is about the sweet spot after that you start getting lost in the FOV. It is too big to take in all at once unless you have fish eyes.
Hi Denco,
Have you evaluated the Canon 10x42ISL in your comparisons?
It would be very interesting to get your perspective, because you've seen and used them all, pretty much, so your take would add value.
I ask because they were so much more useful for birding to me that I've given up on non stabilized glass, no matter how alpha, whereas you seem more objective optical performance oriented.
I have the Canon 10x30 IS and I like it because it is stabilized and you can see more DETAIL because the IS eliminates the shake. It is just like a binocular on a tripod. It has very good optics though not quite alpha level. I had the Canon 10x42 ISL and it has ALPHA level optics and it is stabilized and waterproof so you are going to see more DETAIL than any other 10x binocular around including the Zeiss SF. The only downside of it is it is a big sucker. Heavy and kind of unwieldy but if you use a binocular harness it can be tamed. If you need the stabilization and you can put up with the weight you will see more detail through it than any other 10x binocular. It really is a remarkable view. Sometimes you have to recenter your bird and push the stabilization on again but that is really not a problem. If you shake a lot and you don't want to carry a monopod they are pretty nice.
Last edited:
Thank you, denco, for your take on the IS impact.
I find it strange that this feature, which really steps up the optical benefit from binoculars for their users, has not been more widely adopted. If as denco notes, the Canon 10x30IS shows the user better detail than any of competitors, including the just introduced Zeiss SF line, at a fraction of the cost, why is IS not sweeping the market?
It would be useful to know, because this sector is going to evolve into the optical furniture and fashion industry unless someone can find a way to link binoculars to the spectacular gains in the photography optics market.
perterra
Well-known member
Maybe because people wear glasses and the eye relief is awful.
HighNorth
Well-known member
As explained in another thread: because of the crap warranty and the electronics, which can fail. IS bins are usually also big and heavy.
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Image stabilization technology should probably sweep the market, at least the mid-priced market. But speaking for myself, the reason I'm not more excited about it is that I don't perceive much need. The biggest gain seems to me for seawatching, gull watching, distant duck or raptor ID and the like, where a large percentage of IDs are made at the limits of visual acuity. In those situations, I much prefer the even greater magnification of a scope, so that's what I use. For me, a birding bin is more about delivering the highest quality view (best contrast, color) as fast as possible. When I'm sifting through sparrows or wood warblers in the brush or dense woods, getting on the bird fast enough is usually the limiting factor for ID, not seeing small details. So I favor 7 or 8x, with their wider FOV and greater DOF very strongly over 10x. If I did more birding where I find more use for 10x, I'd probably be inclined toward an IS bin to accompany my scope.
--AP
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
I would not mind stabilization, if the package size was like the SF,
but that's not physical possible,
birding is not about looking at resolutions charts,
finding the bird, getting it sharp, could be matter of milliseconds,
before the stabilization even have started to work,
and usually birders have a spotting scope for getting the smallest details,
a good binocular also should be a joy to use, the canon 10x30 IS might not be the most comfortable view that exists,
external stabilizers like a simple monopod (or variants of finn sticks) is much cheaper, and can be used with you favorite binos, and no batteries.
just my 50 cents..
:smoke:
HighNorth
Well-known member
The Canon 10x30 IS has 14mm of ER which is not bad. I don't mean to recommend an IS binocular for everybody but they do have their place for birders that don't want to carry a monopod and perhaps don't have a steady hand. In the non-birding world the Canon IS is very popular. The fact is if your binoculars are steady you can see more.
Yes, the warranty isn't that great and the electronics can go out although I have never had any trouble. The 10x30 IS is pretty compact but the 10x42 ISL is pretty big and heavy. I like them for their uniqueness. If you have to read numbers on something or see detail at distance they are hard to beat. The IS makes up for their not quite alpha optics. But their optics are very good and they have a double field flattener in them which makes for sharp edges.
perterra
Well-known member
They may be fine, but I usually start having problems at the 15 or 16mm mark depending on the design (and some 17's) so I just dont pay much attention to anything less than 16. If I am willing to work at it some of the short ER ones I have tried had a great view, but just werent comfortable to use.
Attoseconds!Nanoseconds! |
They work for me with no blackouts. The ER and eyecup length seem to be about right on the 10x30 IS.
Speed is not a problem with the Canons, except that their focus (10x42 IS L) is geared slower than in many other alphas. You find the bird and look at it, and it will be like with any other binocular until you press the stabilization button. There is nothing to slow you down. Then when you want to really see the bird, you press the button.
Monopods and finnsticks will not give you nearly the same benefit as the stabilizer does, and can be used with the 10x42 Canon just as well or better than with other binoculars. Better in the sense that no adapter is needed.
This fall I sold my old 10x42 IS L and bought a new one. The friend I sold it to does not view resolution charts but birds extensively. Last time I saw him in the field, he said that now for the first time he feels that he sees all the birds that are in the field of view, no matter how far or hidden they may be.
But this is a Zeiss SF thread, so perhaps we should get back to topic.
Kimmo
