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

Chosun Juan said:

The performance from Zeiss is sloppy and just not good enough. (I would politely ask Lee to refrain from weighing in with all the marketing fluff, quoted advertorial hyperbole, and usual one-eyed bunkum .... it does your rep no good at all - no matter what sort of cutesy humour, and quasi-balanced multi-brand history it is wrapped up in .... not having a go at you Lee - just firing a good natured pre-emptive shot across your bowsplace!!!!!!!

Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

Hi Chosun

As one purveyor of 'cutesy humour' to another purveyor of the same, allow me a couple of comments.

I have repeatedly said I haven't tried any production SFs yet and that still remains the case, so I have no relevant experience to bring to the table, and even if I had tried a unit or two, that wouldn't entitle me to extrapolate that to every SF that has entered the market.

Certainly, I weigh-in when I see hysteria and false logic being used.

But when Dennis calmed down and posted that he was simply advocating caution in the face of conflicting reports, I also posted that I agreed with this.

Some reports are glowing and some aren't. Some reports are definitely of concern and others definitely aren't.

As for the delays in the SF coming to market: what a screw-up! In seven months since the SF was launched the earth has travelled around 340 million miles, the earth’s population has grown by about 36 million, several models of mobile phone have become obsolete and Leica has introduced a new binocular that was freely available in the shops straight away. And SF is hardly flooding onto the market yet. I am afraid its the HT story all over again, and whether it is for different reasons or not, to the market the result is the same.


Lee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_design

Optical manufactures are able today to build an artificial optical system without cut any glass,everything is stored in a huge computer database, type of glass, lens ratios, etc and is possible check virtually the optical properties of an optical system before produce it.

Car engines, aircraft wings and bodies etc etc,......all hi tech are design like this. the functionality of many product are assured before the products are created.

Troubador said:

I haven't tried any production SFs yet ........................., and even if I had tried a unit or two, that wouldn't entitle me to extrapolate that to every SF that has entered the market.


Lee

Click to expand...

Lee, not looking to put the cat among the pigeons, but, given the level Zeiss is competing at with the SF, and given the QC we all expect when we spend £2k on a binocular, when we find high performance we naturally expect that performance to be universal across the range, so when we find poor or disappointing performance, if the QC is working maybe we can extrapolate that to be equally universal, ie it`s a trait of that optic.

Just a thought.

John.

Right, that finally does it. What have we got here?

A new poster who "sees" things nobody else has seen before when using the SF, in this case astigmatism in the image centre, casually mentioning his (somehow less than perfec) SF was the best of 5 (!) he tried? Come on! Anyone here remember the old saying "On the internet nobody knows you're a dog"? Obviously not.

Several old posters who - although they've never seen nor indeed handled an SF - start spreading all sorts of "news" about all the bad things they've heard or read (or that they *think* they've heard or read) about the SF. If that wasn't bad enough (no, I'm not saying what I *really* think about this kind of post), they also start drawing plenty of conclusions from their own writings about the state of Zeiss as a company, world peace and the likelihood of Martians invading earth.

"Death by internet", that's what James called it. I call it rumour-mongering and plain hysteria.

I'm out of this thread.

Hermann

Hermann said:

Right, that finally does it. What have we got here?

A new poster who "sees" things nobody else has seen before when using the SF, in this case astigmatism in the image centre, casually mentioning his (somehow less than perfec) SF was the best of 5 (!) he tried? Come on! Anyone here remember the old saying "On the internet nobody knows you're a dog"? Obviously not.

Several old posters who - although they've never seen nor indeed handled an SF - start spreading all sorts of "news" about all the bad things they've heard or read (or that they *think* they've heard or read) about the SF. If that wasn't bad enough (no, I'm not saying what I *really* think about this kind of post), they also start drawing plenty of conclusions from their own writings about the state of Zeiss as a company, world peace and the likelihood of Martians invading earth.

"Death by internet", that's what James called it. I call it rumour-mongering and plain hysteria.

I'm out of this thread.

Hermann

Click to expand...

Hermann,

So many people so many opinions and everyone is entitled to one (some two).

For more than a decade you're here.

Come on. The voice of reason is in the middle!

Jan

jan van daalen said:

Hermann,

So many people so many opinions and everyone is entitled to one (some two).

For more than a decade you're here.

Come on. The voice of reason is in the middle!

Jan

Click to expand...

Often, the voice of reason is nowhere near the middle or even in the room.

Torview said:

Lee, not looking to put the cat among the pigeons, but, given the level Zeiss is competing at with the SF, and given the QC we all expect when we spend £2k on a binocular, when we find high performance we naturally expect that performance to be universal across the range, so when we find poor or disappointing performance, if the QC is working maybe we can extrapolate that to be equally universal, ie it`s a trait of that optic.

Just a thought.

John.

Click to expand...

John

Thats not an unreasonable assumption. But surely it also applies to the positive points that other folks have attributed to SF too doesn't it? Are you are really saying that only negative reports can be extrapolated as being representative across the range?

But its not as simple as that, and it never is. I believe that manufacturers of bins strive to keep all manner of distortions and 'unsharpness factors' within the limits that the average person either doesn't notice them or doesn't object to them. But what about the non-average person that comes along, and picks up a pair of bins and hates it because of stuff an average person doesn't see? And what about the sensitivity that some people have to unsharp edges or rolling ball or anything else you care to mention? Everyone is entitled to their view of what is unacceptable but it doesn't mean that everyone will come to the same conclusions.

For example some folks have posted on here that Zeiss's FL is a disaster with its unacceptably fuzzy edges, astigmatism, rendering of straight lines as curved etc while other folks revere the FL for its qualities. Look how many people have commented on how some Swaro focusers are harder to turn in one direction than another, while other folks don't even notice it. I don't have any problem with these personal preferences. The question is, at what point do these 'characteristics' become unacceptable to the average person, and therefore condemn a model to the rubbish bin.

So when it comes to SF we have a bunch of terrifically positive comments and a bunch of negative observations and at this stage it is unclear what proportion of these latter are due to uneven quality control at Zeiss or personal preferences and/or inappropriate assessment methods.

The rejection by a UK dealer of 6 units for faulty focusers is concerning. The 'rattling' caused by shaking SFs doesn't concern me. Other negative reports fall in between.

Lee

ceasar said:

And so, Globetrotter appeared here in Bird Forum on Jan. 13th, reporting from Madrid; and in 15 short posts he destroyed the reputation of Zeiss's flagship binocular; the 8x42SF!

Click to expand...

If he didn't exist, BF could have invented him!

[email protected] said:

Nobody who works for Swarovski would live in a hot climate like Spain.

Click to expand...

This is interesting in so many ways.

Troubador said:

...So when it comes to SF we have a bunch of terrifically positive comments and a bunch of negative observations and at this stage it is unclear what proportion of these latter are due to uneven quality control at Zeiss or personal preferences and/or inappropriate assessment methods.

Click to expand...

Lee,

This is exactly why I prefer information about optical characteristics to come from tests and observations conducted under controlled conditions using standard and repeatable methods. Resolution measurements, photos of aberrations, distortion and color bias and the appearance of high magnification star-tests can't be fudged to match personal expectations, preferences or hopes.

I can't speak for Kimmo, but I'm happy to say I don't currently have access to an SF and I'm not in a hurry to see one. If I have a chance to test an SF in the future I'm hoping some of the more excitable folks on this thread will, by then, have moved on to something else.

Henry

henry link said:

Lee,

This is exactly why I prefer information about optical characteristics to come from tests and observations conducted under controlled conditions using standard and repeatable methods. Resolution measurements, photos of aberrations, distortion and color bias and the appearance of high magnification star-tests can't be fudged to match personal expectations, preferences or hopes.

I can't speak for Kimmo, but I'm happy to say I don't currently have access to an SF and I'm not in a hurry to see one. If I have a chance to test an SF in the future I'm hoping some of the more excitable folks on this thread will, by then, have moved on to something else.

Henry

Click to expand...

Henry:

That is good common sense thinking, and just what many here should
want to hear.

There are lots of contrary posts lately about the new SF, so that makes me just want to ignore the white noise.
I too am looking for some observations just like you mentioned. I do hope QC is not an issue.

I suppose the expectations have been placed too high.

Well over 2,300 posts. Wow.

Jerry

ronh said:

Globetrotters post #2301 (!) strikes me as frank, and aware of the subjectivity of his eyes-only method. He is keen himself for a Henry or Kimmo to weigh in (and so am I). What more could you ask? Many of the things he has said ring a bell with my own experience. I have read reports outside this forum that found Zeiss to have central astigmatism. In my (limited compared to some here) experience and reading, Zeiss is the leader in high technology but S and L may do better at the annoying craft of adjusting optics.

I've been pretty lucky with two FL's myself. My 8x42, in a boosted test against an 8x42 Leica Trinovid BA, only revealed astigmatism in one barrel and that one still resolved 3.2 arcsec, if fuzzily, no slouch, still no double star monster. The Leica revealed none. That is the only boosted test I have ever done.

But my 10x56 FL produces wonderfully tight star images, as have EL and SV Swaro 8.5x42s. I've got a 10x50 Leica BR that isn't that hot, and had a couple of Trinovid BA/BN 12X50s that were satisfying, but despite their magnification, the 10x56 equals in splitting.

FWIW, 2 Puppis is a bitch for 10x. (Figure of speech, female binophiles!). Maybe too far south for some of you, but not Chosun!

Ron

Click to expand...

The Leica had NO astigmatism?

ceasar said:

So Dennis! You are the modern day Isaac Newton of Optics!333

May I call you "Ike!"33

Well, tell us Ike, if you please, how is your new Newtonian binocular working out?

Get back to us on this soon but please give us time to stop laughing first! 33

Bob

Click to expand...

I still use my old Newtonian Telescope.

Torview said:

I don`t currently own any Alpha roof, I genuinely have no preferred brand, I was very excited about the arrival of the SF into the fray.

I`v only tried two examples, there is no question that the central resolution is stellar, the balance in the hand is ahead of the pack, it`s a new direction.

My main concern is with the periphery of the view, the 10 had a distinct blue circle at the very edge, more on the left, it would`nt go away.

The 8 was soft at the far right edge, less so at the left edge, no blue fringe.

Two examples, one persons opinion not out to trash the SF, just given to further the discussion about an exciting new optic.

Click to expand...

That is interesting about the edges having differing levels of sharpness. I have never observed that before on any binocular. Could it be a form of astigmatism?

Sagittarius said:

I don't believe or take any stock in anything Globetrotter says about Zeiss! |>|
How can Swarovski or Leica be better than Zeiss ?
Zeiss and Schott are a part of the same entity.
No way in hell the Schott glass in a Swarovski or Leica is better than the latest and greatest Schott glass found in the Zeiss HT and SF.
Not a chance!

I was a Swarovski fanboy for 25 years before buying my Zeiss HT.
If I thought Swarovski was better at the time I purchased my HTs, I would now own an SL!
It would not have mattered to me if Swarovski has cost a thousand bucks extra either; I would still own Swarovski!
Heck, actually, I would be quite happy if I had bought an SL anyway.

I believe, most fanboys brains are clouded.
They actually believe the image through their brand of choice is superior because their brain tells them it can't be anything but!
It can't be that much difference when it comes down to Schott vs Schott vs Schott.

Click to expand...

What about coatings and construction though? Globetrotter's SF's may possibly have something wrong with them. It is a new model. That doesn't mean every sample is bad. He could have gotten a bad one.

Troubador said:

Hi Chosun

As one purveyor of 'cutesy humour' to another purveyor of the same, allow me a couple of comments.

I have repeatedly said I haven't tried any production SFs yet and that still remains the case, so I have no relevant experience to bring to the table, and even if I had tried a unit or two, that wouldn't entitle me to extrapolate that to every SF that has entered the market.

Certainly, I weigh-in when I see hysteria and false logic being used.

But when Dennis calmed down and posted that he was simply advocating caution in the face of conflicting reports, I also posted that I agreed with this.

Some reports are glowing and some aren't. Some reports are definitely of concern and others definitely aren't.

As for the delays in the SF coming to market: what a screw-up! In seven months since the SF was launched the earth has travelled around 340 million miles, the earth’s population has grown by about 36 million, several models of mobile phone have become obsolete and Leica has introduced a new binocular that was freely available in the shops straight away. And SF is hardly flooding onto the market yet. I am afraid its the HT story all over again, and whether it is for different reasons or not, to the market the result is the same.


Lee

Click to expand...

What model has Leica introduced?

My SF is back to the store.

A new SF should arrive in 2 days from official importer here in Spain.

Lets see what they bring..........

[email protected];3159408]What about coatings and construction though? Globetrotter's SF's may possibly have something wrong with them. It is a new model. That doesn't mean every sample is bad. He could have gotten a bad one.[/QUOTE]

[email protected] said:

What model has Leica introduced?

Click to expand...

Dennis it's the Ultravid HD Plus which adds Schott HT glass to the Ultravid HD.

Lee

[email protected] said:

What model has Leica introduced?

Click to expand...

Leica has introduced two new models which will be available after the IWA in March.
First the Ultravid 50+ serie and second a new Perger Geovid next to the excisting model. The new one will cost 300,00 euro less and will not have the possibillity of the microchip. It will still measure elevation, temp and altitude.

Jan

So quickly we forget. As far as I can tell, for the most part reception of the SF has been similar to that of every ostensible top-end bin since I joined Birdforum. Over the last decade, speculative posting has increased, but I lay the blame for that squarely on the shoulders of the optics manufacturers/brands. They are the ones who have decided to change their marketing strategy to one of announcing products before they even have pre-production samples. Negative assessments early on might also be more common, but that is probably due to increased sophistication of reviewers and the fact that current products show such marginal improvements over the older ones to which they are compared (and that would be very costly, these days, to replace). Frankly, I'm glad we get negative comments from the get-go. Pre-internet, all we got was marketing propaganda from the manufacturers, or from supposedly independent reviewers who nevertheless had some allegiances to the manufacturers or their personal contacts at the companies, or who at least didn't have enough gumption to dare say anything too damning in print. I make my own purchasing decisions and my own judgments, so I find it helpful to have a list of possible flaws in optics, ergonomics etc to check for when I get my hands on a sample. It usually doesn't take long to look through the whole list (the more the merrier) that I compile from the observations of others; then, I make my decision.

As for slow release, possible quality control, and related issues with the SF, again, this doesn't seem unusual in today's marketing/distribution environment. Have we already forgotten the bizarrely halted then delayed roll-out of the Swarovski 8.5x42 and 10x42 SV? All the eye-cup switching in the Zeiss FL and Conquest lines? The semi-release of the Nikon EDG in the USA, followed eventually by worldwide release of the EDG II, bins? Or of the aborted Nikon Monarch Fieldscopes. Likewise, problems with new top-end dSLRs and other complicated photography equipment, or with their batteries etc, followed by recalls is very common nowadays.

My purchasing strategy is to not get excited about buying a new product until it has been on the market for at least 6 months, then wait at least until or after one "winter holiday" buying season (a very relevant pricing factor at least in the USA) before having a look at it myself and considering the purchase. In the meantime, keep the impressions and reviews coming! If it's fair for the manufacturers to tell us about products they don't yet have ready to sell, it's fair for us to ask for products or improvements that haven't even been announced yet. Where's that second generation Swarovski 8.5x42 SV with more pincushion and with variable-ratio focus?

--AP