I was playing around with the conquest HD 8x42 and the Victory FL 8x42 yesterday. To my eyes there was nothing between them. Has anyone else found this? I asked a guy from Zeiss at the Scottish Bird Fair and he said that apart from the fluoride glass, they were identical and the FL glass only made a difference on a few select occasions. I also tried the Swarovision 8.5x42 and these were brighter and sharper.
-
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.
Zeiss Conquest HD and Victory FL (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Petrus82
- Start date
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Not quite.
The Victory FL's have ABK prisms, whilst the Conquest HD's have S-P prisms.
This gives < a couple of % transmission brightness to the FL's.
From memory, the Swaro SV's transmit at a level close to the Conquest HD's at the measured daytime (550nm) and night-time (500nm) frequencies, but offer greater peaks in the blue (<500nm) and red (>600nm), which altogether, give a very nice, neutral, life-like colour rendition. Search for Gijs Van Ginkel's posts on the Victory HT thread to dig up some measured data.
From the photographic evidence comparing the SV's to the HT's, my personal preference lobs on the side of the SV's for life like colours - the HT's seeming more "cartoonish". Of course I reserve the right to ammend, change, or completely recant this position when I finally get the two side by side, and under a variety of lighting, and environmental conditions! :cat:
Chosun :gh:
The Victory FL's have ABK prisms, whilst the Conquest HD's have S-P prisms.
This gives < a couple of % transmission brightness to the FL's.
From memory, the Swaro SV's transmit at a level close to the Conquest HD's at the measured daytime (550nm) and night-time (500nm) frequencies, but offer greater peaks in the blue (<500nm) and red (>600nm), which altogether, give a very nice, neutral, life-like colour rendition. Search for Gijs Van Ginkel's posts on the Victory HT thread to dig up some measured data.
From the photographic evidence comparing the SV's to the HT's, my personal preference lobs on the side of the SV's for life like colours - the HT's seeming more "cartoonish". Of course I reserve the right to ammend, change, or completely recant this position when I finally get the two side by side, and under a variety of lighting, and environmental conditions! :cat:
Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
So is S-P Schott. ABK is Abbé Konig???
Do the HDs come quite close to the FLs? I'm thinking of getting 10s. What are the HD 10x32 like?
Do the HDs come quite close to the FLs? I'm thinking of getting 10s. What are the HD 10x32 like?
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
S-P is Schmidt Pechan, which use a mirrored surface to reflect the light. In the best bins, like the Swaro SV, and SLC-HD, and the Zeiss Conquest HD, etc, they use dielectric coated mirrors to achieve ~ 99% reflectivity.
The ABK is Abbe-Konig (as used in the Zeiss Victory FL, and HT), which uses internal reflection to achieve ~100% reflectivity, and so is slightly brighter.
Both of these prism designs have additional minor losses through the glass, and at each glass /air interface, which are minimised by multicoated anti-reflection layers.
Try these links for all the transmission data of these bins:-
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2666186&postcount=1141
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2678184&postcount=1272
Chosun :gh:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
That's correct. Differences of less than 3% are reckoned to be undetectable in the field. You would have to go to something like the Zeiss Victory HT to detect brightness differences.
There's probably a whole host of other differences in the view which would be more relevant to you, than the small differences in these numbers.
Chosun :gh:
Like what? I suppose the main point is.....I have the 8x42 HD and I'm contemplating a 10x32 in either HD or FL. Would I notice £500 of a difference?
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Well, the best bet would be to try them side by side and see what YOUR eyes can see. At the end of the day, that's all that matters (also applies to the start of the day, and everything inbetween
)Speaking of which, you are contemplating going from a 5.25mm exit pupil, to a 3.2mm one. This will swamp any 1 or 2% of brightness differences.
Some other factors you may consider in the mix are CA, and Glare control, colour rendition, and sweet spot size /field distortion characteristics, etc. Of perhaps equal importance will be how the bins 'feel' to you - in hand (fit, balance, stability, etc), and eyecups to the face, etc.
Only you'll be able to decide which you prefer, and whether any small differences are worth £500 ......
Chosun :gh:
Torview
Well-known member
Petrus, the 32mm FL`s have SP prisms not AK.
One advantage the AK Fl`s have to me is a better 3d effect as the objectives are wider spaced than the eye pieces, its subtle but noticeable to me.
I found the Fl to control CA better than the HD, and I found blackouts a problem on the HD.
One advantage the AK Fl`s have to me is a better 3d effect as the objectives are wider spaced than the eye pieces, its subtle but noticeable to me.
I found the Fl to control CA better than the HD, and I found blackouts a problem on the HD.
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Yes, this is correct. What's more, the x32 Zeiss FL's are incredibly bright little suckers too. This level of brightness difference may well be detectable by your eyes. Zeiss claim 95% in their advertising, and tests by Allbino's seem to agree with this =94.6%. http://www.allbinos.com/191-binoculars_review-Carl_Zeiss_Victory_8x32_T*_FL.html
The question that sends Optics Mavens ducking for cover is why? and how?
AND, if this is the case, why on earth aren't other 'alpha' x32's able to achieve this level ???
Chosun :gh:
So if they have the same prisms will there be even less of a difference? I'm not sensitive to CA and haven't been bothered by it on my 8x42 HDs.
Torview
Well-known member
The only way to be sure is to get them together.
eitanaltman
Well-known member
One thing to consider also is what conditions you will use them. In daylight it's likely (as you found) that you won't really notice a difference in brightness, and if you aren't bothered by CA then that knocks out the other advantage of the FL.
But if you were using them in very low light conditions, the increased transmission of the FL may start to make a visible difference.
But if you were using them in very low light conditions, the increased transmission of the FL may start to make a visible difference.
Seems recently (from what I read in BF) at least two other makers have got there, Kowa and Swarovski, but in the first case the Genesis (with 33 mm obj.) enhancing sharpness, and in the second the SV flat field and contrast, deliberately at the expense of brightness. Yet the Zeiss Victory, wonderfuly, even now, is notably lighter and smaller. (CJ, I was taking time off from BF but you taunted me back in another current Zeiss thread.)
Last edited:
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Mentioning [and concluding] something that you haven't actually seen yet is never going to end well, it's a bit of an epidemic around here. And, anything you were able to ''deduce'' from the photo's would be wrong. I have compared the HT [side-by-side] to over 10 different bino.s and there is no boosting or augmenting of colours - just a image of what your eye sees, naturally. I think the SV still have the best colour representation out there, but think this is due to lower transmission = more intense colours a la Leica.
Last edited:
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
In all likelihood, James is correct. I trust his considerable experience. I have yet to see an HT so I refrain from comment.
CJ, take a step back and ask yourself if you aren't sort of compiling, regurgitating, embellishing, imagining, etc. As James says, that's an epidemic around here and does not end well. Have you seen an HT? An SV? Have you had them side-by-side?
I can say that in daylight the 8x32 SV is more vibrant and intense than the 8x32 FL. If that's due to less "brightness" well then give me less brightness. I like it. I can also say that at night the difference between them is, for my eyes anyway, negligible. Not worth talking about. But my eyes ain't quite what they used to be. And that's still not looking through an HT.
Mark
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Yes :t:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Jeez James, it's not like I spanked your kid or anything! |
|Despite the flags being flown on that side of the pond, I often wonder if english is a 2nd or 3rd language around here!! :egghead: "*im fulla go wok wok noggin*" ....... |:S|
Seriously - what part of .......
...... don't you understand, or requires translation ??! :brains:
The "From the photographic evidence comparing the SV's to the HT's ....." part?
The "my personal preference ....." part?
The "lobs on the side of the SV's for life like colours - the HT's seeming more 'cartoonish' ....." part?
Or the bl**dy "Of course I reserve the right to ammend, change, or completely recant this position when I finally get the two side by side, and under a variety of lighting, and environmental conditions! :cat: ..... " part?!!!
To kill Mark's bird with the same stone, let the record show that I have seen an SV many a time, but not yet an HT - let alone had the two side by side - hence my expenditure of breath in the post quoted above! Capiche? :smoke:
FWIW, the photo's (Tim's - see thread) of the SV's colour rendition were as I recall (disclaimer: given of course that Tim's photo was just a snapshot of all possible environmental lighting scenario's, as indeed were the times I've viewed them, as indeed are all the times you boys have seen them ..... ever viewed a Red Rainbow with one fr'instance?). Therefore the comparison is valid, given:-
(a) I clearly @#$%^&* stated that it was from the @#$%^&* PHOTO'S, and
(b) I included the disclaimer that this may change "when I finally get the two side by side, and under a variety of lighting, and environmental conditions!"
Aye carumba! comprende much amigos ??! :storm:
Also, short of some sort of amplified digital jiggerypoo "boosting or augmenting of colours" is an impossibility, as all transmission is <100% of available environmental light. They can be manipulated so that the original levels are skewiff relative to one another, but still less than 100% of environmental light. Such red-shift orange people shennanigans are not my cup of tea, yet should I ever join a Hare Krishna commune, or take a vacation to Mars - I again - reserve my right to change my flammin' opinion !! = D
Don't agree with the "but think this is due to lower transmission = more intense colours a la Leica" part either. That's an oft repeated fallacy - could almost pass for a Brockism ......
I think you boys need to chillax a little (step a-w-a-y from the kid sir!)
Chosun :gh:
