the HT's (1 Viewer)

Not me Eddy.

Troubador said:

Hi Eddie

Glad you are enjoying your HTs. I haven't had a chance to go birding yet so have been confined to the view from our house, and this I summed up in post No 10 in this thread. I can't add to that at this point, aside from repeating that when I A and B the HT and FL one after the other the difference is significant.

The HT is definitely not just an FL in a new party frock.

Lee

Click to expand...

Now that one Zeiss could use in an ad! Better copyright it and then peddle it to them.

<B>

brocknroller said:

Thank you, now I won't have to translate into Greek; "READ MY POST AGAIN".

<B>

Click to expand...

I think you missed the real irony.

Mark, to quote Brock in a post yesterday/today (I lose track in the global span of Bf.) in another thread: those were not "fightin' words"! Actually I meant each and all of the posts, peacefully to keep the thread on track. BTW, in a similarly recent post (afraid tried but cannot find it now) the proud and reticent brocknroller categorically states at last that he has not looked through the Swaro Sv. 8.5x or 8x32. Brock, sorry if you stated that earlier but if so I, too, missed it. (Now, that too is off topic but should settle a matter which puzzled many and contributed to the above posts. Brock, talking of irony - just kiddin' here!)

pompadour said:

Mark, to quote Brock in a post yesterday/today (I lose track in the global span of Bf.) in another thread: those were not "fightin' words"! Actually I meant each and all of the posts, peacefully to keep the thread on track. BTW, in a similarly recent post (afraid tried but cannot find it now) the proud and reticent brocknroller categorically states at last that he has not looked through the Swaro Sv. 8.5x or 8x32. Brock, sorry if you stated that earlier but if so I, too, missed it. (Now, that too is off topic but should settle a matter which puzzled many and contributed to the above posts. Brock, talking of irony - just kiddin' here!)

Click to expand...

Pomp,

Not sure what Mark wrote since he's now a permanent member of my Ignore List, but as usual, I post and his post follows mine, so it's not hard to guess, he's pretty much a one trick pony.

In this thread, the OP asked for reviews from people who have used the HT, because the few reviews that were finally posted on the initial discussion thread became buried and he had a hard time digging them out.

I originally posted in support of George's request for a separate thread for HT reviews and suggested that those who already made reviews on the initial thread post links here. George replied by giving me static about my contributions to the HT open discussion thread, which then gave Stephen B. and Mark enticement to jump on the bandwagon, and ironically, stray further off topic.

Having given it further consideration, I think there's a better way to proceed than what the OP requested. There is a section of BF dedicated to equipment reviews (see link below), including binoculars, and that would be a better place for reviews of the HT, because: (1) forums are for open discussions, not specialized purposes except the "sticky" threads; (2) titled "the HTs," who the heck is going to know that this thread contains "just HT reviews" when using a search engine?, and (3) the review section is easier to search by "description" and "keywords" and will have a much longer "shelf life" than this thread.

I would encourage HT reviewers (including those who already posted comments) to use the equipment review section to post a review, and then post a link to it on this thread if you wish, so that members will have a chance to follow up with questions or make comments, which is not something we get to do with allbinos, binomania (except on their forums if you speak Italian), BVD, binocularseview.com, etc. and, is after all, the purpose of Birdforum.

http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/

<B>

brocknroller said:

Pomp,
In this thread, the OP asked for reviews from people who have used the HT, because the few reviews that were finally posted on the initial discussion thread became buried and he had a hard time digging them out.

I originally posted in support of George's request for a separate thread for HT reviews and suggested that those who already made reviews on the initial thread post links here. George replied by giving me static about my contributions to the HT open discussion thread, which then gave Stephen B. and Mark enticement to jump on the bandwagon, and ironically, stray further off topic.

Having given it further consideration, I think there's a better way to proceed than what the OP requested. There is a section of BF dedicated to equipment reviews (see link below), including binoculars, and that would be a better place for reviews of the HT, because: (1) forums are for open discussions, not specialized purposes except the "sticky" threads; (2) titled "the HTs," who the heck is going to know that this thread contains "just HT reviews" when using a search engine?, and (3) the review section is easier to search by "description" and "keywords" and will have a much longer "shelf life" than this thread.

I would encourage HT reviewers (including those who already posted comments) to use the equipment review section to post a review, and then post a link to it on this thread if you wish, so that members will have a chance to follow up with questions or make comments, which is not something we get to do with allbinos, binomania (except on their forums if you speak Italian), BVD, binocularseview.com, etc. and, is after all, the purpose of Birdforum.

http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/

<B>

Click to expand...

I don't like it that i keep the conversation out of topic, but i want to clear my position.
Brock, as i said, i didn't want to offend you. I also don't like to apologize and try to protect my self (my egoism).
You have a point of course that it might be better to post in the review section, but even here, which is also appropriate, it's better to stay on one topic as possible. My title wasn't the 'best' of course, but i am not a writer and besides that someone must read the OP (original poster? is that the meaning?) first post, which describes the topic.
Yes, it's a discussion forum, but it's very annoying for general talking and comments and mainly because of it's writing character. When you have a (talking) conversation it's much easier to keep on topic or come on topic again, than when writing, that's why i prefer to keep on topic in this forum.
I can write more and more but really i don't like the 'arguements' here, in a forum that needs writing.
I didn't reply in some posts followed mine reffering on you because i didn't want to keep out of topic and because my purpose was not to offend anyone.
For now on, i will not reply in posts of this style.


To try keep on topic, i will keep reading the posts on HT's and i will wait for a more summurized review from Lee and other people.

Sorry for my long, out of topic part of this post to everybody,
George

Brock, I agree with you generally, but in this partcular thread the original poster requested the input be in a certain format, and that could perhaps be tried!

You have been in Bf. much longer than I and would know better what works, but personally I was looking fwd to see what George wishes. It is a forum, but threads may be of varying formats, determined by trial and error I'd think.

Also, of course, there are reviews and reviews. The authors of some wouldn't like them too formal and prefer to be more casual or interactive (staying with the subject, though!) They'd not be that happy to post in the Equipmt. Reviews section.

The OP wishes to have this thread confined to reviews - of both of those kinds - and I think it's a good idea to try that, with any number of other threads, present and possible, available to us for free discussion!

Hi Brock

There is undoubted logic in your suggestion and yet, and yet.....

Reviews (or shall we call them personal assertions) generate much chat about side-issues, paths of discussion that were unforeseen, and sometimes argument . This can lead to heightened temperatures now and again but more often to education, new lines of thinking and certainly entertainment. Its like sitting round a table having a chat and not quite knowing where the conversation is going to lead.

Isolating the reviews on a different 'table' would make them easier to find for George and people like him (a not unreasonable request) but disconnecting the reviews from more open and free-wheeling discussion would IMHO not enhance enjoyment of this site. More likely the same sort of discussion would develop on the reviews site and once more the thread of thorougly enjoyable discussion would again swamp the whereabouts of the review.

Possibly....................

Now, where are those HTs...............................................................

Lee

Troubador said:

Hi Brock

There is undoubted logic in your suggestion and yet, and yet.....

Reviews (or shall we call them personal assertions) generate much chat about side-issues, paths of discussion that were unforeseen, and sometimes argument . This can lead to heightened temperatures now and again but more often to education, new lines of thinking and certainly entertainment. Its like sitting round a table having a chat and not quite knowing where the conversation is going to lead.

Isolating the reviews on a different 'table' would make them easier to find for George and people like him (a not unreasonable request) but disconnecting the reviews from more open and free-wheeling discussion would IMHO not enhance enjoyment of this site. More likely the same sort of discussion would develop on the reviews site and once more the thread of thorougly enjoyable discussion would again swamp the whereabouts of the review.

Possibly....................

Now, where are those HTs...............................................................

Lee

Click to expand...

where are those HTs ?

aren't they hiding out in your house

hahahaha

More HT 8x42 details

The eyecups are basically plastic mouldings but the surface that touches your face or your glasses is rubber. It feels agreeable on your skin and does not feel skiddy on your glasses.

The carrying case is of a finer grade of Cordura than the FLs with a leather-look flap. Thankfully it same design flap as the FL case with side-extensions that stop rain getting down the bits where the flap folds forward. This is a well thought-out case and as much as I respect Leica bins it makes the cases that Leicas supply look like cheap-skate bags.

Compared with FL the objective lenses are much more recessed. The HTs are about 167mm long (not 160mm as claimed by Zeiss) and this extra length has gone into shrouding the objectives with the result that you can look closer towards the sun before you get flare.

The position of the focus wheel leads your hand close to the centre of gravity of the instrument resulting in good balance. The design also gives you plenty of barrel to grip if this is what you like. The armouring has areas with different surface textures and has two thicknessess. It feels svelte in the hand lacking the rubber bars that the FL has and which were design references back to the old Dialyt GA models.

We have typical autumn / early winter weather in the UK with periods of heavy grey skies during which the increase in light transmission compared with the FL is noticeable.

I agree with Eddie our resident Eagle that the sharp sweet spot extends past 80% and probably reaches 85% or perhaps a bit more.

In any event with more light reaching the eye the perception is certainly of more detail being discernable.

Is HT worth more than an FL? It performs and handles to a higher level so objectively the answer has to be yes. Whether the sticker price is worth it to any individual is a personal decision. There must be many happy Opticron users who laugh at the prices of alphas, but I am a died in the wool (what a strange phrase) FL-believer and I have been converted.

George: I hope these thoughts fill-in a few gaps for you.

Lee

Hi Lee

Thanks for the extra details about the HT's. I can't wait to get my hands on my pair of 8x42's. Doesn't look like my supplier will get any until early December though. Any chance of a few pic's to further wet my appetite ?

Apparently the Uk only got an initial delivery of 11 units, so you are one of only a handful of people who have a pair. Lucky xxxxxxx.

Tim

Troubador said:

Hi Brock

There is undoubted logic in your suggestion and yet, and yet.....

Reviews (or shall we call them personal assertions) generate much chat about side-issues, paths of discussion that were unforeseen, and sometimes argument . This can lead to heightened temperatures now and again but more often to education, new lines of thinking and certainly entertainment. Its like sitting round a table having a chat and not quite knowing where the conversation is going to lead.

Isolating the reviews on a different 'table' would make them easier to find for George and people like him (a not unreasonable request) but disconnecting the reviews from more open and free-wheeling discussion would IMHO not enhance enjoyment of this site. More likely the same sort of discussion would develop on the reviews site and once more the thread of thorougly enjoyable discussion would again swamp the whereabouts of the review.

Possibly....................

Now, where are those HTs...............................................................

Lee

Click to expand...

Lee,

I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of "free wheelin' bob dylan discussions" :hippy: where we all are free to comment or query, even the plurality of us who haven't tried the bins. That was my reasoning in deciding that a thread with "just reviews" would not be conducive to that purpose.

However, I also agreed with OP's point, that the HT reviews got buried in the deluge of posts in the other thread, and in all likelihood, that would also happen on this thread.

FTR, I went back to the "Here Are the Vctorys" thread" to see how exaggerated George's assertion was that I wrote 1/5 of the posts (20%). I was active in that discussion, but my posts comprised only 6.6% of the total posts. George should write campaign ads.

Having reviews imbedded is fine for those of us keeping up with the thread on a daily basis, but not for those who might tune in later who have to wade through pages and pages of discussion to find the few reviews in between or for those who might months or years from now be looking for reviews of the HT on the 'net or on BF. They will be clueless looking for just reviews in a thread titled "the HTs".

So as a happy compromise (or as that word is known in Washington: @#&$*^@!, I thought we could have the best of both worlds by posting complete reviews to the review section, linking them here, and then discussing the reviews on this thread and others to follow.

The other benefit this has is that when you actually sit down to write a review, and you know that review isn't going to be buried in a thread that will soon be forgotten, you will take time to parse your random thoughts into a coherent whole.

Your comments are a good example of what I mean. When you went from the FL looking "dull and lifeless" in comparison to the HT to "The HT is definitely not just an FL in a new party frock" (that one's being considered for an Uncle Tonoose No-Prize, btw) and then the HT's being "tuned up" to this number, and then later another number. Your thoughts came out in fits and starts, bits and pieces. To figure out what you thought of the HTs, the reader would have to string together all your comments on the HTs from other thread and this one to draw a conclusion rather than having that be the responsibility of the reviewer.

While it's interesting to me, personally, to see your thoughts evolve on these bins, because I'm a process-oriented person, it seems that others would prefer to have their "meal" served "fully cooked" in a coherent review.

IMO, the review section is greatly underutilized and could be a valuable "tool" for birders looking for user reviews of a particular bin, rather than relying on the handful of professional reviews available out there. The more "eyes" on the bins, the more diversity of opinions you will get. Plus, being on BF, it allows questions and discussions to follow the reviews.

Anyway, that's my suggestion -- post comments and initial impressions here, post complete reviews in the review section for posterity, link them here, and then open up the discussion to all. You, of course, are free to follow the beat of your own drum. (I was going to put the jazz band smilie here, but it seems to have disappeared!).

<B>

Hi Brock

I think you did post something like 6 or 7 % of the posts but probably more like 20% if you count the words LOL.

No thread is complete without your input Brock so keep those thoughts and comments coming.

As to me going to the beat of my own drum, if you don't mind I would prefer the twang of my own Telecaster!

Lee

Troubador said:

.....In any event with more light reaching the eye the perception is certainly of more detail being discernable.

.............Lee

Click to expand...

Lee, I'm kind of an old fellow, with being over 70. And my eyes now take longer to adjust to different levels of light. So even with my 8x42 FL, I sometimes feel there is TOO MUCH light reaching the eye. Of course, there are times (and the majority is like that) when I'm just happy with the light that goes through. So my question, do you get blinding effects (like a bird in front of a bright overcast sky) much more often with the HT vs the FL? (Excluding looking at the sun, of course.)

Swissboy said:

Lee, I'm kind of an old fellow, with being over 70. And my eyes now take longer to adjust to different levels of light. So even with my 8x42 FL, I sometimes feel there is TOO MUCH light reaching the eye. Of course, there are times (and the majority is like that) when I'm just happy with the light that goes through. So my question, do you get blinding effects (like a bird in front of a bright overcast sky) much more often with the HT vs the FL? (Excluding looking at the sun, of course.)

Click to expand...

Yodell Swissboy

I wondered about this myself, before I even got the HTs, this being provoked by guys wondering if we would all have to wear sunglasses to look through them.

I consoled myself by reasoning that however high the light transmission is through the HTs it is less than 100% so they are less bright than looking at the sky with the naked eye.

Fortunately we live on a hill with a big view of the sky and regular passage of different birds flying by and I can say that I haven't encountered any 'blind-outs' due to too much light when looking at birds against bright but overcast skies. Sensitivity to this is likely to be a personal thing though so you would need to check this out for yourself.

Lee

zeiss HT review

Went this weekend into an optics shop which distributes all alpha brands, with the idea to buy an all round bin. The new Zeiss 10X 42 had just arrived as well.
After many comparaisons , Leica , Kite , Swarovski, in the end I compared just
2 bins : Zeiss Ht and the smaller 10X32 SV.

General impression by cloudy/ sunny weather :

Zeiss : heavy ; focus wheel is very smooth , but too far positioned towards the eye.Optics is sharp and could not see any differnce with an old Victory, which I had in the shop as well.No CA observed against flying jackdaws in blue sky.
Contrast is superb.could not see any added value of higher light transmission of the HT , not even in a dark room.


SV : much better handling .
Focusdrive very smooth and a lot better than the first swarovisions a few years ago.
Contrast perception is much better and not so dull colours as with zeiss HT.
I could say that the colour saturation o is better with the SV.
Tactile feeling of the rubber : HT : quite some sticky feeling with sweaty hands.
SV much better feeling.
In the end I went out with a SV 10X32.

Hi arran,

When I compared, a month ago, a Zeiss HT vs. S. Swarovision, both 10x42, I also saw better colour saturation and contrast in the SSw. With no differences in resolution. And a much better (I have said this many times here....) flare control of lights coming from the front in the SSw.

PHA

Swissboy said:

Lee, I'm kind of an old fellow, with being over 70. And my eyes now take longer to adjust to different levels of light. So even with my 8x42 FL, I sometimes feel there is TOO MUCH light reaching the eye. Of course, there are times (and the majority is like that) when I'm just happy with the light that goes through. So my question, do you get blinding effects (like a bird in front of a bright overcast sky) much more often with the HT vs the FL? (Excluding looking at the sun, of course.)

Click to expand...

Don't you think it might be time to change your username?

I shouldn't joke, I got a call yesterday from AARP asking me to complete a phone survey on social security and Medicare. For them, "seniors" start at 55.

As you get older, your pupils don't dilate as wide as they did when you were younger. So your dark adapted eye pupil size becomes closer to your daylight contracted pupil size - 3.5mm to 2.5mm.

During the day your pupils contract to keep too much light from coming in. Sunglasses reduce that light but that in turn causes your pupils to open more. So unless they are really dark tinted, the main use of sunglasses is to cut down on glare and keep out the UV rays that cause cataracts. However, since the HTs have good ER, you could use sunglasses with them if glare is a problem.

According to Zeiss, they don't have a light transmission graph for the HT, but allbinos did one for the FL, and the highest range of the spectrum emphasized is in the green and yellow, which the eye is already sensitive. Some FL users have reported "wash out" in situations where there is a lot of back light, that is, they are looking at the bird against a bright sky, and the details of the bird get washed out from the eye being overwhelmed with light. This occurs in every bin to some extent, though Leica seems to do the best in backlit situations.

Given the limiting size of entrance pupils for someone over 70, there's more concern about your pupils not opening wide enough to take advantage of the full aperture of the bin rather than receiving too much light. Since it's likely that the 5mm exit pupils will be wasted since your pupils probably won't open that wide (though there are exceptions at every age and pupil size can oscillate from minute to minute once you're past 25), perhaps you should consider waiting until the 8x32 HT is out. Lighter on the neck and you won't be wasting as much aperture.

I hope Ed chimes in, he's the expert on this stuff.

<B>

PHA said:

When I compared, a month ago, a Zeiss HT vs. S. Swarovision, both 10x42, I also saw better colour saturation and contrast in the SSw. With no differences in resolution. And a much better (I have said this many times here....) flare control of lights coming from the front in the SSw.

Click to expand...

Interesting stuff, especially your observation about flare control. IF there's a real problem with flare control that may also account for the perceived weaker contrast of the HT.

Not really a nice situation, but then this may be fairly easy to correct. I think Zeiss did this sort of thing when the original Victory first arrived on the market more than 10 years ago. There was some rather vocal criticism of flares, and they rectified this rather quickly by adding additional baffles. The difference between the very first Victorys and the later version was quite obvious in the field.

Hermann

Hermann,

I did the observation two days in a row, morning and late evenings. At the door of the shop, with the owner himself. We spend 4 hours in total. Great guy!! Not too many peopple in the shop.
I have a Victory FL 10x42 as my main binocular (also a Swarovski Habicht, Porro, 10x40, the last version, and a Meopta Meostar 8x32, great little all around and travel binocular). My intention was to buy the HT because of the metal housing and the great (I agree on this after try it) external design. And the HT was (still is, I think) about €400 cheaper than the S Sw. But after that "test" totally un-scientific but very useful to me I concluded there were not enough changes in relation with my FL. But I left Barcelona and Oryx shop (I recomend that shop enfatically) with the surprise about the Swarovision. Great in everything and almost perfect. At least for my uses....

Regards

PHA