What chance SF 8X32 or 7x42 in time for Birdfair? (1 Viewer)

Troubador · Jul 9, 2016

NDhunter said:
Bob:

You are also right, most optics buyers do not know or care about the
construction. They care about the optics and the value.

Jerry

ceasar said:
Most people would not know or be able to determine that the FLs have glass fibre body housings instead of a magnesium alloy housing without being told that fact.

Bob

Gents

Trouble is folks who buy alphas aren't 'most buyers' and they, of all optics buyers, probably seek out details like this and the signs are that they didn't like the plastic. For myself, I thought GRP sounded like an engineered solution and liked the idea of it having some impact absorption rather than it transmitting impacts that overcome the armour all the way into the optics.
Seems the market didn't agree. Magnesium sounds better than plastic and one step more exotic than aluminium. Plastic sounds 'cheap' to some folks but I have read that obtaining machined fixings to the accuracy required for optical components is not a cheap task.

Lee

ceasar · Jul 10, 2016

Troubador said:
Gents

Trouble is folks who buy alphas aren't 'most buyers' and they, of all optics buyers, probably seek out details like this and the signs are that they didn't like the plastic. For myself, I thought GRP sounded like an engineered solution and liked the idea of it having some impact absorption rather than it transmitting impacts that overcome the armour all the way into the optics.
Seems the market didn't agree. Magnesium sounds better than plastic and one step more exotic than aluminium. Plastic sounds 'cheap' to some folks but I have read that obtaining machined fixings to the accuracy required for optical components is not a cheap task.

Lee

Lee,

It never occurred to me to look into the construction of my Victory 7x42 FL when I decided to buy it. I figured that if it was good enough for Jerry Liquori to use for his Hawk Watching it was good enough for me. He wrote about using it in his "HAWKS At A Distance" which was published in 2011. The FL replaced his 7x45 Night Owl which "had an unmatched field of view" which he had used from 1994 till 2008. He stated that he believed the new FL offered the finest image available.

Earlier today I was sitting on my deck using it and my Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN and frankly I do not think that anyone can use them and determine that the FL has no metal in its construction.

I can only conclude that "the market" is an idiot!:-O

Bob

Troubador · Jul 10, 2016

ceasar said:
Lee,

It never occurred to me to look into the construction of my Victory 7x42 FL when I decided to buy it. I figured that if it was good enough for Jerry Liquori to use for his Hawk Watching it was good enough for me. He wrote about using it in his "HAWKS At A Distance" which was published in 2011. The FL replaced his 7x45 Night Owl which "had an unmatched field of view" which he had used from 1994 till 2008. He stated that he believed the new FL offered the finest image available.

Earlier today I was sitting on my deck using it and my Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN and frankly I do not think that anyone can use them and determine that the FL has no metal in its construction.

I can only conclude that "the market" is an idiot!:-O

Bob

Bob
I think you are probably right. I never pick up my FL 8x32 and think 'Oh yes, of course, this is the plastic one'. And I always think of something you posted a few years back (at least I think it was you): when something new comes out does your favourite pair of bins suddenly start performing like a POS? Forgive me if, ahem, I have modified your wording. FLs are just as good as ever but commercially there is the need to get new models out there.

Lee

ceasar · Jul 10, 2016

Troubador said:
Bob
I think you are probably right. I never pick up my FL 8x32 and think 'Oh yes, of course, this is the plastic one'. And I always think of something you posted a few years back (at least I think it was you): when something new comes out does your favourite pair of bins suddenly start performing like a POS? Forgive me if, ahem, I have modified your wording. FLs are just as good as ever but commercially there is the need to get new models out there.

Lee

Lee,

I don't think I said that--at least not in that way--but I agree with it.:t:

Bob

paddy7 · Jul 11, 2016

I seem to remember that the FLs came out top of the pile in the Allbinos endurance tests - so much for 'plastic' being inferior!

jan van daalen · Jul 11, 2016

ceasar said:
Most people would not know or be able to determine that the FLs have glass fibre body housings instead of a magnesium alloy housing without being told that fact.

Bob

At every sales meeting the rep's points out the extra value point of his brand. At Zeiss is was the superior housing of the FL compared to the EL/Ultravid. Explaining the customer the differences between the brands, this "extra value point" turned out to be a downer instead of an upper in the perspective of the customer.
At the introduction of the HT the question came up why Zeiss moved from plastic to alloy.
Their response was that the market showed that the customers didn't want plastic.
It's not a matter of inferior/superior. Ofcourse it's not inferior, but the market rules.
For the dealer who sells all three A's it doesn't matter. The margin is the same and he sells anyhow. For the brand in particular it makes a hell of a difference.

Jan

NDhunter · Jul 11, 2016

jan van daalen said:
With an interruption of 3 years, we sell Zeiss for 20 years now:eek!::eek!:
At every salesmeeting the Zeiss reps kept repeating that one of the Key elements for sale was that the FL housing was superior to the others, regardless the feedback from us (dealers) that most customers prefer alloy housings.
The market rules. At the end it became alloy.
As there is no difference (down here) in commission between the three A's your bird won't fly. Pushing for commission is short term policy BTW.

Jan

Jan:

I have an observation from some of the sporting goods stores that I frequent.

I see that companies compete for shelf and cabinet position, to better show
their optics to the customer.

The alphas often have their prominent position, depending on brand, and
then the others jockey. The large volume sellers like Nikon and Bushnell
have a wide variety and often are in the budget range where many buyers
are, so they get lots of room for display.

I have noticed Vortex must push hard for placement, and I suspect a
bonus may be paid to the person at the sales counter.

In grocery stores, companies pay the stores for product placement, what
shelves, eye level, etc. So this could be similar in a sporting goods store.

Jerry

jan van daalen · Jul 11, 2016

NDhunter said:
Jan:

I have an observation from some of the sporting goods stores that I frequent.

I see that companies compete for shelf and cabinet position, to better show
their optics to the customer.

The alphas often have their prominent position, depending on brand, and
then the others jockey. The large volume sellers like Nikon and Bushnell
have a wide variety and often are in the budget range where many buyers
are, so they get lots of room for display.

I have noticed Vortex must push hard for placement, and I suspect a
bonus may be paid to the person at the sales counter.

In grocery stores, companies pay the stores for product placement, what
shelves, eye level, etc. So this could be similar in a sporting goods store.

Jerry

Jerry,

The big guns (box movers that sell camera's, HiFi, TV's, washingmachines, freezers, vacuumcleaners, kitchen stuff etc. etc. don't sell binoculars down here. In these shops it is the rule, that the brand hires square meters space, the brand fills the shelfs and get paid when it is sold. This system is called shop in shop.

Several big photo shops sell the camera bodies with negative profit, just to get the customer in and earn money on lenses and goodies. Several went bankrupt because of this method and for the big fishes it is/was a matter of the longest breath. In a few years time we went in Holland from 5000 to 1250 photoshops and 5 big fishes do 80% of the market. Brands like Nikon and Canon give staff a bonus when their product is sold. This is certainly not the case with Swaro/Leica/Zeiss and they do 85% of the market.

AFAIK there is no bino brand that stock shops unpaid and/or pay for display space. They do offer brandcabinets and other POS material for free.

Jan

C James · Jul 15, 2016

paddy7 said:
I think 'edge-to-edge sharpness' has more relevance as a marketing strap-line than a vital ingredient in the field; i've never felt the FL32's edges have distracted me in the past.
As far as FoV is concerned, the FL seems to have as much as i need. I've used the SF 10x42 briefly, and found something strangely unnatural about it, without quite being able to pinpoint what it was - perhaps a combination of distortions used to create such a wide field? I'm not sure that would pull me to what would inevitably be a more expensive, modern model.
It would be interesting to know how many FL32 users would feel the need to upgrade, or if Zeiss would be better served appealing to a new 32mm market (or those that always feel compelled to have what they perceive as 'the best'....surely there aren't many of them, are there? )

Hi paddy7

The Victory FL are certainly a popular binocular, but as many have said in the thread, a pair of binoculars are only good for each individual depending on your requirements for them.

You mention you have tried to Victory SF 10x42 but found something unnatural about them. Will you be coming to Birdfair this year at Rutland? If so, stop by our stand and we would certainly be interested in hearing your thoughts.

C James
www.zeiss.co.uk/birdfair

fazalmajid · Jul 18, 2016

jan van daalen said:
AFAIK there is no bino brand that stock shops unpaid and/or pay for display space. They do offer brandcabinets and other POS material for free.

Perhaps not directly, but Leica's shops-inside-a-shop include binoculars as well as cameras.

jan van daalen · Jul 18, 2016

fazalmajid said:
Perhaps not directly, but Leica's shops-inside-a-shop include binoculars as well as cameras.

Correct, down here also but that's only at specialized photo shops who carry a Leica store inside. Leica is the only brand that has (exclusive) Leica stores. We have one in Holland.
I haven't seen any exclusive Swarovski or Zeiss optical shop anywhere. Several Swarovski Crystal shops though who also carry Swarovski optics, but these are owned by Swarovski with Swarovski staff.
Pilot stores have different business models than shop in shop stores.

Jan

paddy7 · Jul 18, 2016

C James said:
Hi paddy7

The Victory FL are certainly a popular binocular, but as many have said in the thread, a pair of binoculars are only good for each individual depending on your requirements for them.

You mention you have tried to Victory SF 10x42 but found something unnatural about them. Will you be coming to Birdfair this year at Rutland? If so, stop by our stand and we would certainly be interested in hearing your thoughts.

C James
www.zeiss.co.uk/birdfair

Hi
Thanks for the offer. I'm planning to be there on the Friday, and will certainly look by. Are you going to be there on that day? With any SF 8x32s?

paddy7 · Jul 18, 2016

I've done some further mulling on this thread - i hope it remains pertinent to the OP.
Firstly, i remain perfectly delighted with the FL 8 x32, which i got at a reasonable price on Ebay, second hand (but in perfect nick). I remember the Allbinos review calling it a 'virtually flawless' binocular.
Following various discussions with Typo and others, i also found out that at my age, (provided i had no problem with the eye positioning, which i don't), the exit pupil of 4mm was about as much as i could use.
The problem (not just for Zeiss, but for all other top-line manufacturers) would be how to lure those that are hugely attached to their bins to upgrade?
So, to the possibilities of the market:
There is an enormous number of over-50s birders who would benefit from the light weight of 8x32s, perhaps not knowing that lugging enormo-bins around wasn't giving them much in the way of 'more light'.
I realise that concentrating on the physical limitations of age may not be much in the way of positive marketing, but i never see much emphasis on the exit pupil issue in publicity material.
The notion of the 'upgrade' has to overcome the law of diminishing returns, or the fixing of a long-standing issue with a particular model. At the top end of optics, how much room for noticeable, compelling and irresistible improvement is there? They're all so damned good anyway......

alan kennedy · Jul 18, 2016

paddy7 said:
I've done some further mulling on this thread - i hope it remains pertinent to the OP.
Firstly, i remain perfectly delighted with the FL 8 x32, which i got at a reasonable price on Ebay, second hand (but in perfect nick). I remember the Allbinos review calling it a 'virtually flawless' binocular.
Following various discussions with Typo and others, i also found out that at my age, (provided i had no problem with the eye positioning, which i don't), the exit pupil of 4mm was about as much as i could use.
The problem (not just for Zeiss, but for all other top-line manufacturers) would be how to lure those that are hugely attached to their bins to upgrade?
So, to the possibilities of the market:
There is an enormous number of over-50s birders who would benefit from the light weight of 8x32s, perhaps not knowing that lugging enormo-bins around wasn't giving them much in the way of 'more light'.
I realise that concentrating on the physical limitations of age may not be much in the way of positive marketing, but i never see much emphasis on the exit pupil issue in publicity material.
The notion of the 'upgrade' has to overcome the law of diminishing returns, or the fixing of a long-standing issue with a particular model. At the top end of optics, how much room for noticeable, compelling and irresistible improvement is there? They're all so damned good anyway......

Gòod evening Paddy. Nice post, right on cue. Couldn't agree more with your take on the FL. I've had mine since 2007 (incidentally, bought at BF for a very keen price) and haven't even considered straying, until now. The prospect of an SF replacement has got me thinking. Judging by current configurations it's not likely to be smaller but will it be lighter, and it'll surely have a wider FOV?

No offence, but I find all that exit pupil stuff rather bewildering and difficult to get my head round, most likely because I'm too idle to read in to it. I find the best way is to look through the thing and compare it to what I've got. That's what I'll be doing next month if Zeiss come up with the goods. Fingers crossed. Come on Mr James, give us a clue!

Alan

P.S. Judging by current second hand values it's likely to be around a grand to change so it had better be good.

paddy7 · Jul 19, 2016

Hi Alan -thanks for the kind words!
As i understand it, at 50yrs plus, it's difficult for your pupil to dilate more than about 4mm in low light, whereas you might have managed 6mm in your early 20s. This is purely a feature of age. Therefore, 4mm of exit pupil (32mm divided by magnification of 8 = 4mm) is as much as you can use. Provided the optical system is bright enough in the first place, that is.
10x50mm bins gives you an EP of 5mm (the little point of light you can see when you look through the eyepiece from a distance), but an old fart like me can't use it.:t:
Agree with your point too: haven't been tempted by anything for quite a while, but there is a bit of a frisson about an 8x32SF - if it turns out to be equally robust as the FL!

typo · Jul 19, 2016

Alan, Paddy hasn't got it quite right.

Last autum Paddy and his palls were kind enough to invite me over to join them for some birding. When he and Steve decided it was time to go inside and get a beer their pupils were about 4mm. We did a quick 8x432 vs. 8x42 comparison and decided there was no brightness difference at that light level. So two far more capable birders than I decided a 4mm EP was all they needed. I watched a barn owl hunting for another 15 minutes or so with an 8x42 before the low light finally stopped me.

For them, the time beyond a 4mm EP wasn't particularly useful. There wasn't enough light to ID the little brown jobs at a decent range and they've probably seen enough barn owls for several lifetimes. I'm sure their pupils could have dilated further, just 4mm was enough for their needs.

There is a lot of individual variation but a 5mm max would be about typical for a 60 year old. Some older members of the forum say they do better than that.

David

paddy7 · Jul 19, 2016

typo said:
Alan, Paddy hasn't got it quite right.

Last autum Paddy and his palls were kind enough to invite me over to join them for some birding. When he and Steve decided it was time to go inside and get a beer their pupils were about 4mm. We did a quick 8x432 vs. 8x42 comparison and decided there was no brightness difference at that light level. So two far more capable birders than I decided a 4mm EP was all they needed. I watched a barn owl hunting for another 15 minutes or so with an 8x42 before the low light finally stopped me.

For them, the time beyond a 4mm EP wasn't particularly useful. There wasn't enough light to ID the little brown jobs at a decent range and they've probably seen enough barn owls for several lifetimes. I'm sure their pupils could have dilated further, just 4mm was enough for their needs.

There is a lot of individual variation but a 5mm max would be about typical for a 60 year old. Some older members of the forum say they do better than that.

David

Well, i have got piggy eyes - and it was time for a beer! One point here is the reference to the 'brightness' of the optical system overall. A friend who specialises in gulls swapped to the HT two years ago, which gives him that vital extra 20mins at the end when the big chaps are coming in to roost.
Other bins of the same dimensions often drop away before John has finished.
Whether this is because of the number of elements in the system or the quality of glass, research and build i don't know.....
My point of departure is not when i stop 'seeing,' but when i stop 'resolving', which seems to announce itself but constant fiddling with the focus.
Now, whether any proposed 8x32SF can give me another 20 mins or so, or whether i'm prepared to pay probably a minimum of £800 more than i paid for the FLs is another matter! I couldn't get rid of them anyway - we've been too far together.

typo · Jul 19, 2016

Paddy,

That comment was Steve not me. Sure he's your buddy?:-O

Over in the exit pupil and brightness thread it's been pointed out that the well known twilight factor calculation strictly only applies to darker conditions than we would normally encounter when birding. However, from my testing, my 10x56 would have served me better for watching that barn owl than the 8x42 had I had with me. Not sure John would have done a swap though.

David

alan kennedy · Jul 20, 2016

typo said:
Alan, Paddy hasn't got it quite right.

Last autum Paddy and his palls were kind enough to invite me over to join them for some birding. When he and Steve decided it was time to go inside and get a beer their pupils were about 4mm. We did a quick 8x432 vs. 8x42 comparison and decided there was no brightness difference at that light level. So two far more capable birders than I decided a 4mm EP was all they needed. I watched a barn owl hunting for another 15 minutes or so with an 8x42 before the low light finally stopped me.

For them, the time beyond a 4mm EP wasn't particularly useful. There wasn't enough light to ID the little brown jobs at a decent range and they've probably seen enough barn owls for several lifetimes. I'm sure their pupils could have dilated further, just 4mm was enough for their needs.

There is a lot of individual variation but a 5mm max would be about typical for a 60 year old. Some older members of the forum say they do better than that.

David

Thanks David, I'll take your word for it!

Alan

alan kennedy · Jul 20, 2016

paddy7 said:
Well, i have got piggy eyes - and it was time for a beer! One point here is the reference to the 'brightness' of the optical system overall. A friend who specialises in gulls swapped to the HT two years ago, which gives him that vital extra 20mins at the end when the big chaps are coming in to roost.
Other bins of the same dimensions often drop away before John has finished.
Whether this is because of the number of elements in the system or the quality of glass, research and build i don't know.....
My point of departure is not when i stop 'seeing,' but when i stop 'resolving', which seems to announce itself but constant fiddling with the focus.
Now, whether any proposed 8x32SF can give me another 20 mins or so, or whether i'm prepared to pay probably a minimum of £800 more than i paid for the FLs is another matter! I couldn't get rid of them anyway - we've been too far together.

Interesting thoughts. I too swapped 8x42 FL for HT principally for looks and a marginal improvement in performance and, to be honest, the cost to trade wasn't worth it. But hey, that's what we do from time to time, don't we?

Alan

What chance SF 8X32 or 7x42 in time for Birdfair? (1 Viewer)

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread