-
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
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
I really think I need to call time on this place, it's gone beyond juvenile. Really, BS on my opinion? Next time, Bryce, I will consult with you before coming to one.....even if you have little time with the 8.5's - LOL.
It seems that Swarovski's are unassailable, so there is no point in talking anymore. Cheers.
Last edited:
Unnecessarily bad-tempered Bryce. Its the season of goodwill to all men just now you know.
Lee
If the edges are not as sharp on the SF as the SV I am keeping my SV. 20 feet of FOV ain't squat. The SV is smaller, lighter and more compact. I had an EII with a huge FOV and blurry edges and I got rid of it. I don't really care for a FOV much above 420 feet if it ain't sharp to the edge.
perterra
Well-known member
I think your post is pretty much BS. It seems dissenting opinions are not allowed.
You getting ready to pump and dump or something.
Last edited:
bh46118
Well-known member
Sounds to me like he wants to keep them because he compared them to four different HT's. At least that's what I thought I read.
Actually there is 45 feet difference in the FOVs @1000 yards which comes to 4.5' @ 100 yards and 18 inches @ 100 feet. But since most people will be centering the binocular on the object it won't make much difference except the binocular with the smaller field will be flatter at the edge by a few inches, more or less. That will make some people feel much better about owning it!3
Bob
Exactly and the SV has a big apparent FOV. I would have to compare the two side by side to see. Zeiss never did make a binocular that was sharp to the edge. They are good on-axis but full flat field technology has never been their forte. I figured the SF would not have the sharp edges like the SV. The FOV of the SV is 423 feet and the SF is 446 feet. That's only 23 feet. That ain't squat if the SF doesn't have sharp edges. In fact the real FOV on the SV might be bigger.
Last edited:
Dennis,
According to the Swarovski website the FOV of the 8.5x42 EL Swarovision is 399'@1000 yards not 423 feet.
http://www.swarovskioptik.com/nature/el-42-c21010101/el-8p5x42-t5006134
Be sure to contact Swarovski and advise them that yours is 423'@1000 yards. With an error this bad I'm sure they will replace your binocular with one that has the correct FOV. It must have come about from poor quality control on their part. Don'tcha think?
Check it over closely--other things may be wrong with it.:-O:-O:-O
One more question: If 23' "ain't squat" is 47' "squat," sharp edges or not?
Last edited:
8x60deckmount
Well-known member
Btw - the zeiss 8x60 H do have a fieldlens and a apparant fov 70,6 degree and FOV 154m /1000m and the first one was made in 1935 :king:
Actually there is 45 feet difference in the FOVs @1000 yards which comes to 4.5' @ 100 yards and 18 inches @ 100 feet. But since most people will be centering the binocular on the object it won't make much difference except the binocular with the smaller field will be flatter at the edge by a few inches, more or less. That will make some people feel much better about owning it!3
Bob
Bob
Stop it, you're killing me, I can't stop laughing... :-O :-O :-O
Lee
Hi Dennis
This thing about sharp edges is a bit weird to me. I can understand astronomers wanting to get every last iota of view from their bins that they have carefully lined up on a tripod and don't want to have to realign until really forced to. But I can't get my head around the need for tack sharp images at the field edge for hand-held nature observation.
Both Swaro and Zeiss make claims about 'sharp to the edge' regarding SV and SF. Take the SV where Swaro say 'razor sharp to the periphery'. This seeks to give the impression that the sharpness is the same from the centre all the way to edge and it isn't. It isn't in the SF either. But both bins have views that are more than useful right out to where my eyes stop working.
My use for the extra wide field of the SF would be to be aware of stuff in my peripheral vision (your use might be different of course) for example when scanning large areas of water searching for surfacing birds or whales or otters, or trying to get a view of a fast-flying dragonfly that is in danger of being lost to view, or scanning big skies for circling hawks.
It wouldn't occur to me to start looking for fine detail of anything in the last 10% of the outer FOV but other folks might have different ideas.
It seems to me that what we have with SV and SF (and I am not the first to say this) is a perfectly valid choice for folks who put different values on different aspects of the view. SV has an extra 0.5 of magnification and SF has an extra 15 metres of FOV at 1,000 m. Add HT's twilight performance and transparancy of view and Ultravids rich colours and compact size and you have a great choice for anyone considering buying alpha bins now.
Lee
Bob,
Dennis is comparing the FOV of the binoculars that he owns (the sv 8x32) with the FOV of the binoculars that he may or may not wish to replace them with - the SF 8x42. The FOV of the swaros is indeed 423 feet at 1000 yards.
So give the guy a break and read the thread before jumping in.
Dennis is comparing the FOV of the binoculars that he owns (the sv 8x32) with the FOV of the binoculars that he may or may not wish to replace them with - the SF 8x42. The FOV of the swaros is indeed 423 feet at 1000 yards.
So give the guy a break and read the thread before jumping in.
Last edited:
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Lee,
Whatever floats your boat.
I found the wide field of the Nikon EII "immersive," even if the edges were rather soft. The edges of the Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2 were annoyingly fuzzy.
Of course, there is falloff of resolution at the edge, compared to the center of the field, its an optical fact of life. There is a four way tug, at least, in the design of a binocular: cost, FOV, edge sharpness and eye relief. A lot of bird watchers balance the cost of correction, and field of view with the benefits of field flattening and decide which binocular to chose. At some point, it is like faith, and becomes unarguable.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:
Then Dennis should say what binocular he is comparing the SF with. This is a thread about the SF, an 8x42 binocular. Everybody knows that 8x32s generally (or often) have wider FOVs than 8x42s.
Bob
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
I agree that AFOV is a better than TFOV as a predictor for how wide and immersive a binocular field appears to be. Zeiss and Swarovski seem to have done us the favor of actually measuring the apparent fields for their specs rather than providing the usual mathematical approximations. The AFOV of the Zeiss 8x42 SF is 64º, the 10x42 is 65º.
The Swarovski SV models are: 8x32 - 61º, 10x32 - 64º, 8.5x42 - 60º, 10x42 - 60º, 10x50 - 61º, 12x50 - 63º
Those are the numbers. Apply the comparative adjectives, adverbs and modifiers of your choice.
I noticed that the US Zeiss website has still not corrected the erroneous "Subjective Field" numbers in the technical data for the SF models.
Last edited:
Dennis
It maybe that Zeiss has some learning to do as SF is their first field-flattened bin.
But on the otherhand, isn't the EL SV Swaro's first field flattened bin too? Don't mind being corrected on this if I am mistaken, but if I am correct then Swaro doesn't have a long history of this technology either.
Lee
Henry,
The Subjective Viewing Angle (SVA) of 8 degrees appears to be derived by dividing the new AFOV of 64 by the 8X magnification. Perhaps SVA is replacing AFOV in an attempt to clarify the matter once and for all. I just don't see their angle for doing so. Maybe someday I will.B
"According to the Swarovski website the FOV of the 8.5x42 EL Swarovision is 399'@1000 yards not 423 feet. "
I am talking the 8x32 Swarovision. The 42mm is too big for me.
