-
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.
Here are the new Victorys: Victory HT (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter frank.e.oy
- Start date
True...we all have our fav's.... But when a person spends a few thousand, I am not always a leaner to my favorite and just because I love the Swaro Scope ( mainly for the digiscoping accessories and 'looks' ---since the quality is great in all Alphas), I am not married to Swaro.
I am a huge fan of looking at what works best in the 'field'.... and from what I see, the Zeiss has it up on the Swaro in terms of focusing adjustment, quickness of etc. As I said before, the Zeiss's focus is lightening fast, almost AF! Also, I think the Zeiss is better looking
I went out in the field today and worked on the Zeiss.... It does have improved focus when I played with the IPD....but it is still not as sharp.But realistically a crow at 30-35 yards was superb, so was a plover at 20 yards.... so that alone speaks that there is clarity.
At 80+ yards ....both the Zeiss and Swaro are equal.
It is that in-between range that I worry about. I wonder if this is inherent since the Swaro has a longer 'turn' to get from close focus to infinity than the Zeiss. Does that extra bit needed in the focus adjustment have an impact on the clarity? Perhaps there is more of a focus range and because of that , certain distances come in clearer in the Swaro due to that. Does that make sense? Thoughts?
I have had the pleasure of having both of these binoculars on hand for comparison for this entire week...I probably have birded a solid 5-6 hours a day for 5 days this week. The comparison has shown me where each lacks or shines.
For instance, I noticed at Dusk,...the Zeiss is better. The Swaro has a richer color, more vibrant...but the Zeiss provides more light, thus, not as much color. That is a personal preference I feel.
My Field Comparisons also addressed 'ease of use'...IE..going from distance birds to close-ups etc...and wanting to establish quick focus. The Zeiss wins. The Swaro is fine, but I have to tell you, birding all day with a stiff focus wheel gets to ones index fingers since the index is the only finger on the knob with a Swaro. With a Zeiss, you automatically have placement with your index and middle finger with the latter being your longest finger so you have more ease of turning when focusing.
I have another Zeiss being delivered this Monday and I want to see how the two Zeiss compare. That will be one last item to really check on.
So...just an update...as of now, I have no idea which one I will get....
RJM
Don't Worry, Be Happy!
You really ought to test these against an Edmunds Optics test chart if you want real answers. Tape it to a wall 5-10m away and illuminate it with 6500k light, set both binos up on a tripod or other support and check each barrel individually.
Last edited:
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Imans,
The HT should be crystal clear from CF to infinity. Anything less, there is a problem with the bino.
The HT is the sharpest bin I have, and I have some pretty stout specimens.
The HT should be crystal clear from CF to infinity. Anything less, there is a problem with the bino.
The HT is the sharpest bin I have, and I have some pretty stout specimens.
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
James, thanks for your review (which I've selectively quoted above).
I meant to question you further at the time, as I thought some of the things you said would unleash a tsunami of HT ownership (perhaps now somewhat tempered by Joe and Jim's reports ....) - particularly your comments on the edge resolution.
Just to make sure my wires aren't crossed, are those amazing resolution claims 'within' the 90% sweet spot? (ie. up to that 90% of the field point), or, actually 'at' that 90% of the field point, or, 'in' that last 10% of the field (where most folk see fuzziness and astigmatism with the FL, and I would expect similar with the HT too, since that part of the optical formula presumably didn't change).
I know that everybody's eyes are different, and so anything outside of a brightness induced 'stopped-down' central image is going to be subject to vast variation - but your comments intrigued me .......
Chosun :gh:
Lyrebird79
Well-known member
The Swaro is much sharper than the Zeiss HT at any distance. I used my Swaro today at the top of the Q1 building on the Gold Coast.
Torview
Well-known member
Statements like this seem plain ridiculous to me........
A little perspective please.
Last edited:
No the HT has a moderately slower focus than FL and its just about perfect for me. I found FL OK for most subjects but when searching among vegetation (trees and bushes for birds or lower plants for butterflies and dragonflies) it was too easy to miss the subject due to 'over focusing'. HT is just fine for this and for me is a good overall compromise. Some may find HT a mite too slow to grab a quick flying bird but no focusing system is going to be perfect for all situations.
Lee
not even close to being true....from my observations there is little to zero difference of sharpness in birds near and extremely far. At low light such as dusk, the Zeiss has it.
On top of that, from my field tests, the focusing element/wheel is vastly superb in the Zeiss as one just 'walks the woods' focusing between far and near. It is this 'intangible' element that doesn't show up on specifications etc. but has such a huge impact.
The Swaro though is an extremely good bino though.
mooreorless
Well-known member
I am sort of confused by this part of the thread, Imans says he thinks this Zeiss HD is a lemon and now there is no difference between the Swaro and the Zeiss.??
"I went out again today....just down the road to the river. I really think the HT I have is a bit of a lemon."
"I went out again today....just down the road to the river. I really think the HT I have is a bit of a lemon."
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
These threads, in total, all seem to devolve in a series of contradictions - if left to run long enough.
Anyone that wants to know how the HT performs should take one out in the field and give it a test drive.
Anyone that wants to know how the HT performs should take one out in the field and give it a test drive.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Did you remove the lens caps from the HT?
Here is what Mike Penfold's 6 birder test found.......
''The resolution comparison suggested that the HT was a little sharper than the SLC and SV. The Zeiss HT was brighter. The SV and HT had higher contrast. The colour rendition of the SV was somewhat warmer and more vibrant; the HT slightly cooler; and the SLC neutral. In overall image quality, the SLC was excellent, but seemed flat in comparison; the SV and HT provided stunning, clean, three-dimensional views. Some birders preferred the additional magnification of the SV.''
I haven't used a sharper bino, ever, than the HT.
Last edited:
Lyrebird79
Well-known member
Maybe the Zeiss HT is a lemon as others have mentioned. As I said I used my Swarovision 10x42 EL's yesterday on the observation deck of the Q1 building. It's 77 stories high and provides 360 degree views of the Gold Coast. I could read the text of signs kilometres away. My other binoculars could hardly recognise that there was a sign.
Steve....if you read my postings you will find that the focus issue I am concerned about is only within a certain range, not in closeness...only in the extreme end of the limits of any 8 x 42 (depends on size of bird=distance). My issue is that I don't see that same issue in the Swaro 8 x 42 and am trying to figure out why.
Tonight, I went out at dusk to dark....the Zeiss shows more light..this is something that was not 'as apparent' in my earlier testings of these bino's. I will do the same thing tomorrow morning. How many times do I find myself birding at dusk and dawn, in jungles, canopies / shadows etc.... That is a plus for the Zeiss.
Now, seeing that information sheds a bit of light (pun intended) upon the lack of clarity in the extreme end compared to the Swaro. If the Swaro doesn't allow as much light, the clarity at the extreme end/range might be better than the Zeiss because the Zeiss has more light,. Perhaps more light equates to less clarity at the extreme end. Not sure, just a theory.
You have to remember, I have had these to compare now for over a week and have done just that for hours each day. So, I am getting very picky. A person who just picked up either of the pair I have will think wonderfully of both.
More tomorrow as I have a second Zeiss to try out...I can hardly wait!
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Jim, as the light levels drop, so does your visual acuity, which is best in bright daylight (where your pupil will be stopped down to ~2.5mm). So it's a double whammy - your eyes introduce more aberrations themselves, and your larger pupils are more likely to pick up some of the bins own increased aberrations that fell harmlessly outside your pupils in daylight.
I think both James (actual birding /observing in practice, in a variety of different natural conditions and light levels), and Rick (controlled resolution testing with a chart), offer good advice. Doing both is my preference for sorting out sharpness, and other qualities of the view. It can actually be of benefit to use 2 different bins and compare them in practice during the cruddiest of lighting conditions, just to see how they work with your eyes.
That said, when your eyes are working at their peak, the HT's should be razor sharp at all distances. Nothing less. It will be interesting to see what the 2nd pair says.
Chosun :gh:
Update on the Zeiss 8 x 42 HT vs Swaro SLC 8 x42’s…. The second copy of the Zeiss arrived and it just complicated things. Both the Swaro and Zeiss are crystal sharp. My advice at this moment is to never order in both of these and to test at the same time for you will never be able to make a decision. Just order in one from your gut feeling or preference and you shall not be disappointed.
Apart from the statistics which are easily gatherable such as weight, height etc…. one that I found interesting from a German reviewer was the ‘sweet spot’ %. (http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/testrapporten/Test_Zeiss_Victory_HT_8x42_d_d_april_2013.pdf). The sweet spot in the Swaro 8 x 42 is 88% while the Zeiss is 67%. Realistically not a lot of difference in the field as one usually focuses their eyes to the middle but, the effect of a larger sweep spot does leave an impression on your eyes especially when birding bushes/trees but not so much in open ground though.
Another interesting ‘in the field’ finding is viewing BIF. Due to the nature of the larger focal wheel with the Zeiss, I get the feeling that I can focus in a bit quicker on fast moving targets such as BIF or perhaps hyper birds in the bushes/trees. This is just an impression I get….Zeiss wins out here. ‘One handed’ viewing also comes under this category. Many times when birding I have something in one hand, a notebook, guide etc…and a bird pops up. This is where one handed viewing comes into play and the natural placement of the hand onto the Zeiss binocular as well as the two finger placement on the focal wheel (middle finger being the longest) allow one to ‘one hand it’…. You can still one hand the Swaro though, just a bit more cumbersome unless you think about it. I do not have bear claw hands so this effects me, not sure about you and your hands.
In regards to sharpness….. when birding in a normal environment (sitting, viewing, walking about, trails etc) where birds are within 30 yards, both bino’s are tack sharp. I find that I prefer the Zeiss when looking at birds in shadows, or dusk….while the Swaro appears more ‘finer’ in birds in direct sunlight. The Swaro does ‘lock on’ when you have focus, perhaps due to it has a larger depth of view. With the Zeiss, I had tendencies to play with the focal wheel more since depth of field is not as great.
Any 8 x 42 binocular has focal limitations (that is why they make 10x power) but when I do venture into shorebird country, I find the Swaro is a bit easier to initially focus to sharpness. I feel with the Zeiss, I hunt and peck more to find that sharp point. If you have a 10x for shore birding, this is something you don’t have to take into account, while if you only have the 8 x 42, you will need to think about this. When in shorebird country and are viewing long distances, such as Ibis’s in the distance, both bino’s are about the same.
Color rendition is better in the Swaro in direct light while the Zeiss has better color in shadows and dusk/dawn. This might be due to the 95% of light allowed with the Zeiss as opposed to the 89-90% of the Swaro (if I have my figures correct) . Perhaps over exposure if that is possible in a bino? This might also account for the better clarity in the sun with the Swaro. Initially I thought greens were more predominate in the Swaro and Red/Browns in the Zeiss but now I see they are so close, there is no difference unless where viewed (shadows, light etc)..
In this forum I am always speaking to the ‘intangible’ aspect of birding…what makes you feel good while birding….and yet this intangible aspect will never show up on any statistic or specification. There is a posting on this forum (probably Swaro section) that states that the Swaro feels like a ‘brick’ when holding up to your head. The Zeiss just feels right, it is very comfortable…. The focus wheel allows for two finger placement, the armor coating is finer, the way your hands grip the barrels, the eyecup rubber appears more pliable. All of these are intangibles and might vary with each of us, but for me…this stands out as a huge benefit that one experiences with the Zeiss. It is just a better experience wanting to hold the Zeiss.
Another intangible is what I call the ‘in your face’ or 3D effect and others might call as Depth Of Field. When viewing with the Swaro, I see more depth. IE: Last night I was looking at a squirrels tail and with the Zeiss, I clearly viewed the tail in detail but with the Swaro, my eyes saw depth within the tail, ….fluffiness, a 3D effect. This intangible adds to one’s viewing pleasure.
Little things….close up is about the same in both bino’s…perhaps the specifications underrate them both by just a bit. The Swaro comes with a camera adapter. This is not that big of a deal but if you have a bino-scoping set up and are walking around just to view but want a shot, you have the option with the Swaro. But that means you are carrying around a 3-4x point and shoot, so if you want, just carry about a 10x point and shoot and you have the same thing with the Zeiss. The binocular case with the Zeiss is just plain awful….terrible. The Swaro has a nice case, large enough to carry binos plus. Then again, if you like to have a case in the field, there are plenty of options. Both have identical bino straps in terms of comfort and many people will replace with their own. The eye and lens covers are just what they are for both; functional, nothing that stands out.
Bottom line…just pick one…you will be more than happy with either…. I haven’t yet decided…
Apart from the statistics which are easily gatherable such as weight, height etc…. one that I found interesting from a German reviewer was the ‘sweet spot’ %. (http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/testrapporten/Test_Zeiss_Victory_HT_8x42_d_d_april_2013.pdf). The sweet spot in the Swaro 8 x 42 is 88% while the Zeiss is 67%. Realistically not a lot of difference in the field as one usually focuses their eyes to the middle but, the effect of a larger sweep spot does leave an impression on your eyes especially when birding bushes/trees but not so much in open ground though.
Another interesting ‘in the field’ finding is viewing BIF. Due to the nature of the larger focal wheel with the Zeiss, I get the feeling that I can focus in a bit quicker on fast moving targets such as BIF or perhaps hyper birds in the bushes/trees. This is just an impression I get….Zeiss wins out here. ‘One handed’ viewing also comes under this category. Many times when birding I have something in one hand, a notebook, guide etc…and a bird pops up. This is where one handed viewing comes into play and the natural placement of the hand onto the Zeiss binocular as well as the two finger placement on the focal wheel (middle finger being the longest) allow one to ‘one hand it’…. You can still one hand the Swaro though, just a bit more cumbersome unless you think about it. I do not have bear claw hands so this effects me, not sure about you and your hands.
In regards to sharpness….. when birding in a normal environment (sitting, viewing, walking about, trails etc) where birds are within 30 yards, both bino’s are tack sharp. I find that I prefer the Zeiss when looking at birds in shadows, or dusk….while the Swaro appears more ‘finer’ in birds in direct sunlight. The Swaro does ‘lock on’ when you have focus, perhaps due to it has a larger depth of view. With the Zeiss, I had tendencies to play with the focal wheel more since depth of field is not as great.
Any 8 x 42 binocular has focal limitations (that is why they make 10x power) but when I do venture into shorebird country, I find the Swaro is a bit easier to initially focus to sharpness. I feel with the Zeiss, I hunt and peck more to find that sharp point. If you have a 10x for shore birding, this is something you don’t have to take into account, while if you only have the 8 x 42, you will need to think about this. When in shorebird country and are viewing long distances, such as Ibis’s in the distance, both bino’s are about the same.
Color rendition is better in the Swaro in direct light while the Zeiss has better color in shadows and dusk/dawn. This might be due to the 95% of light allowed with the Zeiss as opposed to the 89-90% of the Swaro (if I have my figures correct) . Perhaps over exposure if that is possible in a bino? This might also account for the better clarity in the sun with the Swaro. Initially I thought greens were more predominate in the Swaro and Red/Browns in the Zeiss but now I see they are so close, there is no difference unless where viewed (shadows, light etc)..
In this forum I am always speaking to the ‘intangible’ aspect of birding…what makes you feel good while birding….and yet this intangible aspect will never show up on any statistic or specification. There is a posting on this forum (probably Swaro section) that states that the Swaro feels like a ‘brick’ when holding up to your head. The Zeiss just feels right, it is very comfortable…. The focus wheel allows for two finger placement, the armor coating is finer, the way your hands grip the barrels, the eyecup rubber appears more pliable. All of these are intangibles and might vary with each of us, but for me…this stands out as a huge benefit that one experiences with the Zeiss. It is just a better experience wanting to hold the Zeiss.
Another intangible is what I call the ‘in your face’ or 3D effect and others might call as Depth Of Field. When viewing with the Swaro, I see more depth. IE: Last night I was looking at a squirrels tail and with the Zeiss, I clearly viewed the tail in detail but with the Swaro, my eyes saw depth within the tail, ….fluffiness, a 3D effect. This intangible adds to one’s viewing pleasure.
Little things….close up is about the same in both bino’s…perhaps the specifications underrate them both by just a bit. The Swaro comes with a camera adapter. This is not that big of a deal but if you have a bino-scoping set up and are walking around just to view but want a shot, you have the option with the Swaro. But that means you are carrying around a 3-4x point and shoot, so if you want, just carry about a 10x point and shoot and you have the same thing with the Zeiss. The binocular case with the Zeiss is just plain awful….terrible. The Swaro has a nice case, large enough to carry binos plus. Then again, if you like to have a case in the field, there are plenty of options. Both have identical bino straps in terms of comfort and many people will replace with their own. The eye and lens covers are just what they are for both; functional, nothing that stands out.
Bottom line…just pick one…you will be more than happy with either…. I haven’t yet decided…
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Nice report, and a happy predicament to have! Both are superb, with their own strengths / weaknesses and you will love either of them I'm sure.
I love the SLC-HD and might have opted for that model if I wasn't such a Zeiss fanboy!
