Me and my big mouth. Well, the Bavarian region has plenty of my money now, so maybe I'll try a Chinese bin next and see what all the fuss is about! NOT like the Chinese don't have plenty of my money too, from most everything else in the house! Just a couple of notes on my ongoing acquaintance with the new FL. I've said too much already, and promise that this one more lengthy post is "it"!
Yesterday, I did a centerfield resolution test comparing it to my Trinovid BA, booted to 64x. Weather limited my setup space, so the period of my finest target was a rather fat 3.4 arcsec. The target was alternating black and white stripes, running in four directions. Both barrels of both binoculars could discern which way all the lines ran, but there were differences in the quality of the view. The left barrel was better in both binoculars, and handled the target easily, but the Leica was a tad better. The right barrel of the Zeiss was a little bit worse on three directions, but still handled those three directions easily, but the fourth direction was worse, and I could tell which way the lines ran, but barely, so, some astigmatism there. The right barrel of the Leica was also worse than the left, but not much, and without astigmatism. Overall, the Leica was the close winner. By only barely getting the worst direction in the right barrel, I believe that barrel of the Zeiss could be said to be "resolve" 3.4 arcsec, and all the other barrels were better. Although not well quantified, I believe this is about medium resolution quality for an alpha binocular, the Leica a bit better than average, comments please optics buffs.
Today I took both out on a hillside and and compared views in all kinds of realistic lighting situations, looking at distant pine needles, roots in dark holes under trees, perched vultures against brilliant white clouds, and some things that I frankly never could make out what the heck they were. I sat, with elbows braced on knees, and paid attention to field correction, depth of field, focusing action, and visible detail midfield.
I see what many users mean now about the FL having a small truly sharp field. Just perceptible falloff begins very close to the center, perhaps only a tenth of the way from center to edge. The Leica is about twice as good, in this regard, and even then gets worse more slowly than the Zeiss. Even at the edge, however, the FL is far from terrible, plenty good to locate motion with the periferal vision. But curbing one's tendency to gaze around the field is key to feeling comfortable with it.
There was no difference between the two in DOF, but in a way it seems shallow in the Zeiss because the focus is incredibly fast. The most used range of 30 ft to infinity was covered by the Zeiss in less than 90 deg of rotation, compared to the about 160 deg of the Leica. It works in the FL, though, because the focus knob is perfectly smooth and without any backlash. But still, that will take some getting used to, I am still overdoing it and having to come back. I suppose that is the penalty for the close focus capability.
Under almost every lighting circumstance, and on almost every target, the Zeiss most definitely showed more detail than the Leica. This was surprising. I was actually considering sending it back and staying true to the Leica, with its comfy wide field and forgiving, if unsmooth, focus. I expected the FL to make things "easier" to see, or to have a sharper "look", and that's true, but its optical superiority is in fact practically realized. I verifed this time and time again, back and forth, and it was impressive. From the above tests, this is not due to better "resolution", so must be due to the brighter, cleaner, color-free image.
I have also been out looking for birds a bunch, and oh man does it nail them.
In summary of my first few days of considerable use, the 8x42 Fl takes some getting used to, field and focus wise. With its narrow sweet spot, it would not be a good choice for occasions where you want to just kick back and enjoy the view of a landscape, without trying to eek out every last bit of detail. But it a wicked birding tool. The fast focus, once mastered, should enable one to deal with the worst surprises, no extra crank while the bird disappears. And the optical power is like a laser beam. I am willing to put up with some difficulty for that. I have one more day of the trial period, and I'm thinking I'll keep it. And, I'll shut up!
Ron
Yesterday, I did a centerfield resolution test comparing it to my Trinovid BA, booted to 64x. Weather limited my setup space, so the period of my finest target was a rather fat 3.4 arcsec. The target was alternating black and white stripes, running in four directions. Both barrels of both binoculars could discern which way all the lines ran, but there were differences in the quality of the view. The left barrel was better in both binoculars, and handled the target easily, but the Leica was a tad better. The right barrel of the Zeiss was a little bit worse on three directions, but still handled those three directions easily, but the fourth direction was worse, and I could tell which way the lines ran, but barely, so, some astigmatism there. The right barrel of the Leica was also worse than the left, but not much, and without astigmatism. Overall, the Leica was the close winner. By only barely getting the worst direction in the right barrel, I believe that barrel of the Zeiss could be said to be "resolve" 3.4 arcsec, and all the other barrels were better. Although not well quantified, I believe this is about medium resolution quality for an alpha binocular, the Leica a bit better than average, comments please optics buffs.
Today I took both out on a hillside and and compared views in all kinds of realistic lighting situations, looking at distant pine needles, roots in dark holes under trees, perched vultures against brilliant white clouds, and some things that I frankly never could make out what the heck they were. I sat, with elbows braced on knees, and paid attention to field correction, depth of field, focusing action, and visible detail midfield.
I see what many users mean now about the FL having a small truly sharp field. Just perceptible falloff begins very close to the center, perhaps only a tenth of the way from center to edge. The Leica is about twice as good, in this regard, and even then gets worse more slowly than the Zeiss. Even at the edge, however, the FL is far from terrible, plenty good to locate motion with the periferal vision. But curbing one's tendency to gaze around the field is key to feeling comfortable with it.
There was no difference between the two in DOF, but in a way it seems shallow in the Zeiss because the focus is incredibly fast. The most used range of 30 ft to infinity was covered by the Zeiss in less than 90 deg of rotation, compared to the about 160 deg of the Leica. It works in the FL, though, because the focus knob is perfectly smooth and without any backlash. But still, that will take some getting used to, I am still overdoing it and having to come back. I suppose that is the penalty for the close focus capability.
Under almost every lighting circumstance, and on almost every target, the Zeiss most definitely showed more detail than the Leica. This was surprising. I was actually considering sending it back and staying true to the Leica, with its comfy wide field and forgiving, if unsmooth, focus. I expected the FL to make things "easier" to see, or to have a sharper "look", and that's true, but its optical superiority is in fact practically realized. I verifed this time and time again, back and forth, and it was impressive. From the above tests, this is not due to better "resolution", so must be due to the brighter, cleaner, color-free image.
I have also been out looking for birds a bunch, and oh man does it nail them.
In summary of my first few days of considerable use, the 8x42 Fl takes some getting used to, field and focus wise. With its narrow sweet spot, it would not be a good choice for occasions where you want to just kick back and enjoy the view of a landscape, without trying to eek out every last bit of detail. But it a wicked birding tool. The fast focus, once mastered, should enable one to deal with the worst surprises, no extra crank while the bird disappears. And the optical power is like a laser beam. I am willing to put up with some difficulty for that. I have one more day of the trial period, and I'm thinking I'll keep it. And, I'll shut up!
Ron
