ZEISS SF and HT in latest Norwegian test10x (1 Viewer)

filipek · Sep 10, 2015

Hello,
I was totally surprised having read latest August 2015 10x binoculars test conducted by Norwegian KikkertSpesialisten.
Zeiss Victory SF and HT (both 10x42) were ranked respectively under 14 and 15 positions, well behind Swarovski SLC or Leica Trinovid.
I have found that test totally biased and unreliable (no Nikon EDG), but you may read it and rate it in your way:

http://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/p...0x50_10x56_binoculars_review_kikkert_test.pdf

Marcin Filipek

Rathaus · Sep 10, 2015

filipek said:
Hello,
I was totally surprised having read latest August 2015 10x binoculars test conducted by Norwegian KikkertSpesialisten.
Zeiss Victory SF and HT (both 10x42) were ranked respectively under 14 and 15 positions, well behind Swarovski SLC or Leica Trinovid.
I have found that test totally biased and unreliable (no Nikon EDG), but you may read it and rate it in your way:

http://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/p...0x50_10x56_binoculars_review_kikkert_test.pdf

Marcin Filipek

Was this test officially standardised and sanctioned by the Binocular Internationale Research and Development (BIRD) centre?

Pileatus · Sep 10, 2015

filipek said:
Hello,
I was totally surprised having read latest August 2015 10x binoculars test conducted by Norwegian KikkertSpesialisten.
Zeiss Victory SF and HT (both 10x42) were ranked respectively under 14 and 15 positions, well behind Swarovski SLC or Leica Trinovid.
I have found that test totally biased and unreliable (no Nikon EDG), but you may read it and rate it in your way:

http://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/p...0x50_10x56_binoculars_review_kikkert_test.pdf

Marcin Filipek

Ranking alpha binoculars is just plain silly.

henry link · Sep 10, 2015

Looks like more than one ox has been gored by the infamous Norwegians this time. Best to take these things as little tests of how much confidence you place in your own ability to independently evaluate optics.

Silly as these rankings are, the #1 binocular might be a lucky choice. I wouldn't be surprised if it really does have image quality superior to the others on the list.

jremmons · Sep 10, 2015

So, basically, a bigger objective lens is better? Very poor comparative review.

Justin

GLOBETROTTER · Sep 10, 2015

Resolution and contrast are the problem for Zeiss on this test.

They scored SF also with a lower 9 VS a 11 minus points for the HT for construction quality........Well maybe is the feeling of the binocular but they should go deeper to prove it.....

First units of SF has some issues like mine but apparently they fix all problems now.

Troubador · Sep 10, 2015

GLOBETROTTER said:
Resolution and contrast are the problem for Zeiss on this test.

High contrast sounds good: you get blacker blacks and whiter whites. This can be helpful in some situations but not always. For example it can give an impression of better sharpness when tested by reading road signs or posters but this can be misleading.

If too much contrast is present then dark blues, dark browns, dark greens etc can just look black. Similarly creams and pale yellows or pale anything can just look white.

This can make strikingly-marked bird plumage more easy to see (but it doesn't necessarily mean it is sharper) but then you may not be able to see subtle tones for example on female ducks because the dark tones are too dark and the pale tones too pale.

Lee

GLOBETROTTER · Sep 10, 2015

Troubador said:
High contrast sounds good: you get blacker blacks and whiter whites. This can be helpful in some situations but not always. For example it can give an impression of better sharpness when tested by reading road signs or posters but this can be misleading.

If too much contrast is present then dark blues, dark browns, dark greens etc can just look black. Similarly creams and pale yellows or pale anything can just look white.

This can make strikingly-marked bird plumage more easy to see (but it doesn't necessarily mean it is sharper) but then you may not be able to see subtle tones for example on female ducks because the dark tones are too dark and the pale tones too pale.

Lee

Yes is what binomania exactly says.. with SF is easier to recognize subtle tones.

A perfect binocular a 10x should be able to give the same view of naked eye 10 times closer.

Time ago i read on an optical forum about binoculars that Zeiss was the most accurate because their blacks was not completely black on some targets as in real life where nor completely blacks and other bins like leicas and swaros gives an unreal blacks view.......

Well maybe is true but also the Zeiss color is not the best out there, i am talking on previous FL etc

In fact i found the color on my SF the most accurate among Z,L,SV but.....their soft contrast....uff and less impression of sharpness is difficult to life with when you have an SV 10X42 and a Leica 10x50 hd plus side by side to compare.

Lets take a look to this old Mega review of top 8x42 binoculars made by Binomania, very interesting to check it.....again.

http://www.binomania.it/binocoli/megarecensione/mega_review.php

Pileatus · Sep 10, 2015

On second thought...
Number 1, the 10X56 SLC looks to be discontinued...
Number 2, the Geovid is not useful to me...
Number 3, the 10X50 SV is one I own...

So, I guess their ranking is accurate! :t:

Silly me.

Troubador · Sep 10, 2015

Pileatus said:
On second thought...
Number 1, the 10X56 SLC looks to be discontinued...
Number 2, the Geovid is not useful to me...
Number 3, the 10X50 SV is one I own...

So, I guess their ranking is accurate! :t:

Silly me.

It's a requirement of joining Bird Forum that you must demostrate over time a degree of silliness that is generally incompatible with real life.

I am pleased to inform you that you qualify handsomely, and so, I hope, do I.

BTW you were right first time: ranking is silly.

Lee

Pileatus · Sep 10, 2015

Troubador said:
It's a requirement of joining Bird Forum that you must demostrate over time a degree of silliness that is generally incompatible with real life.

I am pleased to inform you that you qualify handsomely, and so, I hope, do I.

BTW you were right first time: ranking is silly.

Lee

You got it! If a review agrees with my opinion it's a superb review.

LanceSaintPaul · Sep 10, 2015

I'm half Norwegian but language is not hereditary...

I'd like to get the comments sections of the report translated into English. Anyone here? Suggestions?
Thanks!

Torview · Sep 10, 2015

I copy and paste into google translate.

The 10x50SV for example

Very good backlight (small blur). Very good contrast, which comes
to its right Dusk, inter alia, dis. Brilliant rand sharpness. relatively
light for its size, but still robust. body of
magnesium, a metal that is more robust than aluminum and has
lower specific gravity. The lens barrel and focus wheel is covered with
green rubber. Open bridge allows for fingers and a sure grip on
binoculars. Swaroclean coating on outer lens surfaces for easier cleaning.
Brilliant optics and robustness. Very large field of view
gives good overview of the terrain despite 10x magnification

jremmons · Sep 10, 2015

Pileatus said:
On second thought...
Number 1, the 10X56 SLC looks to be discontinued...
Number 2, the Geovid is not useful to me...
Number 3, the 10X50 SV is one I own...

So, I guess their ranking is accurate! :t:

Silly me.

The 10x50 is an amazing instrument, so at least they got something right...

Justin

LanceSaintPaul · Sep 10, 2015

Thanks Torview! Works fine.

kkokkolis · Sep 10, 2015

Binocular reviews are much more varied than other reviews I know, including telescopes and eyepieces.

The main problem is before you buy a binocular and when you can't buy many to test them yourself. Who to believe then? And what's that brand occult? Undestandable by regular users but how com Zeiss get first place in every category in the Cornell review and almost last place in this KikkertSpesialisten review? Which has every Swarovski in it with some Leicas for alibi? And Fujinons and Habichts are so low ranked in it.

Anyway, once you get one you like these reviews don't say much. If reviews are so subjective, one has to value his own subjectivity, why not?

PHA · Sep 10, 2015

Hello,

In this "rating" I can see ONE BIG not too accurate position on a Binocular I have and tested at nauseum: the Habicht 10x40 W GA. Being aware of the danger to be reppetitive, in MY sample, the contrast and, specially, BRIGHTNESS, this Habicht is on par, AT LEAST...with my HT. No doubt about this!!! This has been corroborated by MEASURED light transmition. I have not see ANY other pair of binoculars, of the same power and objective diameters, brighter than them...looking side by side at various light levels...
In brightness, contrast and resolution, the Habicht is over the the Meopta Meostar, by far!!!
This gross inaccuracy in a test is enough for me to take it with care...

Regards,

PHA

Theo98 · Sep 11, 2015

Pileatus said:
You got it! If a review agrees with my opinion it's a superb review.

Kind of agree with Pileatus...Superb Review...:eek!::smoke::-C|:S|

|=o|:gn:

Rathaus · Sep 11, 2015

henry link said:
Best to take these things as little tests of how much confidence you place in your own ability to independently evaluate optics.

One of the finest statements I've read on the binocular forum. It rings true for me anyway.

Regards,
Rathaus

Rathaus · Sep 11, 2015

Perfect scoring binoculars

i was just checking out these particular binoculars linked below...I suddenly realised that they would numerically out rank my best bins in these categories -

Highest light transmission
Lightest weight
Lowest CA
Lowest astigmatism
Best collimation
Lowest veiling glare
Lowest cost
Fully recyclable
Easiest to hold
Largest exit pupil
Most Rugged - can be dropped a hundred metres onto concrete
Brightest to the edge of fov
Sharpest at edge of fov
Sharpest on axis
Brightest on and off axis

The only negatives would be -

Lowest magnification
Non weatherproof
Small fov....though a one inch long pair would fix this issue.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YdWyxKYPH...s+for+DIY+Binoculars,+by+Make+Life+Lovely.jpg

Edit: then it occurred to me that most folk and their profiles on Linked-In read a bit like this Bino :-O

ZEISS SF and HT in latest Norwegian test10x (1 Viewer)

Marcin Filipek - POLAND

Well-known member

"Experientia Docet”

Well-known member

Wildlife Biologist

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

"Experientia Docet”

Moderator

"Experientia Docet”

Member

Well-known member

Wildlife Biologist

Member

&#928;&#949;&#961;&#943;&#949;&#961;&#947;&#959;&#

Well-known member

Eurasian Goldfinch

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Περίεργο&#