Victory SF Focus wheel plate (1 Viewer)

J899 · Jul 28, 2015

Hi all,

I have a quick question about my Victory SF binoculars. I notice the plate on the focus wheel seems loose.

In the second post, there is a photo with a red arrow to the area I am referring to.

On this sample, the ring moves independently of the plastic disk. However, the plastic disk moves also, just to a different extent.

I'm trying to determine if this occurs in other samples, or if the rubber wheel and plastic disk are glued/adhered to each other?

J899 · Jul 28, 2015

Image Attached

note the white lines that are visible where the rubber focus ring meets the plastic disk. (red arrow)

james holdsworth · Jul 29, 2015

It's a dust guard - HT and FL have the same thing.

Don't worry so much and go out and bird with them!

HighNorth · Jul 29, 2015

Nothing loose here on my SF. :smoke:

I second James' opinion.

HN

Sanjay Naithani · Jul 29, 2015

From the picture the quality doesn't look so great. It looks quite dull. I am not sure how does it feel in hand. We expect much better and rich appearance of parts for such and expansive binocular.

Sanjay

Vespobuteo · Jul 29, 2015

Sanjay Naithani said:
From the picture the quality doesn't look so great. It looks quite dull. I am not sure how does it feel in hand. We expect much better and rich appearance of parts for such and expansive binocular.

Sanjay

please don't judge the SF by a bad cellphone photo…

,
The latest samples I saw (last week) looked very good to me,
(some early samples I saw did not have a perfect finish IMO…)

They feel light, don't know why people react to this,
also the color is not the usual for binoculars…psychology..

the only issue for me is the eye cups, they feel a bit plasticky when twisting them,
but they are comfortable and works fine, so I could live with that,
I wear glasses so they are not my highest priority,

A better photo:
http://www.naturaktiv.ch/media/cata...6e95/3/0/305-1-hand_an_victory_sf_kopie_1.jpg

brocknroller · Jul 29, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
please don't judge the SF by a bad cellphone photo…,
The latest samples I saw (last week) looked very good to me,
(some early samples I saw did not have a perfect finish IMO…)

They feel light, don't know why people react to this,
also the color is not the usual for binoculars…psychology..

the only issue for me is the eye cups, they feel a bit plasticky when twisting them,
but they are comfortable and works fine, so I could live with that,
I wear glasses so they are not my highest priority,

A better photo:
http://www.naturaktiv.ch/media/cata...6e95/3/0/305-1-hand_an_victory_sf_kopie_1.jpg

You would think at this price point, Zeiss would have a metal frame covered with a rubber eyecup the way the Nikon does for the Premier (HGL) and EDG rather than using a plastic eyecup like cheaper roofs. The metal frames catch the click stops better whereas the plastic grooves will wear down in time and eventually fail, and the eyecups will need to be replaced. Even the $300 Vixen Forestas have the rubber over metal frame design!

It's the lack of attention to detail like this on a $2600 bin which makes me wonder why the designers don't take the eyecups as seriously as they do the ergonomics. Except for those who wear glasses, the rest of us have to stick the eyecups in our eye orbits, so they should be made as comfortable as possible and conically shaped rather than flat so they can accommodate a range of users' facial features.

They obviously spent a lot of time on the ergonomics and from what I can tell did a superb job, but they apparently only took only 15 minutes on the EYEgonomics and just slapped on some plastic eyecups like they were Terra EDs. :-C

At least the SF's plastic eyecups aren't as deep as the Terra's, which I don't find very comfortable.

Vespobuteo · Jul 29, 2015

brocknroller said:
You would think at this price point, Zeiss would have a metal frame covered with a rubber eyecup the way the Nikon does for the Premier (HGL) and EDG rather than using a plastic eyecup like cheaper roofs. The metal frames catch the click stops better whereas the plastic grooves will wear down in time and eventually fail, and the eyecups will need to be replaced. Even the $300 Vixen Forestas have the rubber over metal frame design!

It's the lack of attention to detail like this on a $2600 bin which makes me wonder why the designers don't take the eyecups as seriously as they do the ergonomics. Except for those who wear glasses, the rest of us have to stick the eyecups in our eye orbits, so they should be made as comfortable as possible and conically shaped rather than flat so they can accommodate a range of users' facial features.

They obviously spent a lot of time on the ergonomics and from what I can tell did a superb job, but they apparently only took only 15 minutes on the EYEgonomics and just slapped on some plastic eyecups like they were Terra EDs. :-C

At least the SF's plastic eyecups aren't as deep as the Terra's, which I don't find very comfortable.

there's a lot of plastic in a Lexus to…because it saves weight,
that's probably the main reason, metal eye cups also might feel cold when the temperature drops,

most modern Zeiss models have had/has plastic eye cups, FL, HD, Conquest, Dialyt/Classic, not sure about the HT:s?

the SF eye cups have a soft rubber coating and are more rounded than some other makes, and they might actually be more ergonomic,

but eye sockets come in so many shapes and sizes so if it will fit you is impossible to say,

unless you have a twisted mind and find twisting eye cups all day amusing,
I doubt the eye cups will wear out before your fingers does,
And Zeiss will send you a new pair if they do, free of charge,

ceasar · Jul 29, 2015

brocknroller said:
You would think at this price point, Zeiss would have a metal frame covered with a rubber eyecup the way the Nikon does for the Premier (HGL) and EDG rather than using a plastic eyecup like cheaper roofs. The metal frames catch the click stops better whereas the plastic grooves will wear down in time and eventually fail, and the eyecups will need to be replaced. Even the $300 Vixen Forestas have the rubber over metal frame design!

It's the lack of attention to detail like this on a $2600 bin which makes me wonder why the designers don't take the eyecups as seriously as they do the ergonomics. Except for those who wear glasses, the rest of us have to stick the eyecups in our eye orbits, so they should be made as comfortable as possible and conically shaped rather than flat so they can accommodate a range of users' facial features.

They obviously spent a lot of time on the ergonomics and from what I can tell did a superb job, but they apparently only took only 15 minutes on the EYEgonomics and just slapped on some plastic eyecups like they were Terra EDs. :-C

At least the SF's plastic eyecups aren't as deep as the Terra's, which I don't find very comfortable.

Brock,

The Nikon HGL eye cup is bad example to use. It has a thin rubber eye cup covering the metal mechanism which can fall off and it often needs re gluing like mine does. The EDG eyecup, to Nikon's credit, is a vast improvement over it.

I can't speak for the ones on the Zeiss SF but the ones on my 7x42 FL Victory are more than adequate and very comfortable and they are not metal. Also they are much, very much better than the rubber ones on the Terra ED.

I will give Zeiss the benefit of the doubt here until I can see proof that the eye cups on their new SF are inadequate.

Bob

HighNorth · Jul 29, 2015

brocknroller said:
At least the SF's plastic eyecups aren't as deep as the Terra's, which I don't find very comfortable.

I find the eyecups on the SF to be totally adequate and quite comfortable. There could be more click stops, but it doesn't really bother me, as I always keep the eyecups turned all the way out. So what if they are made of plastic (and rubber?) Zeiss will give you new ones for free for as long as the warranty lasts, and it's easy to change them out yourself by simply screwing them out and screwing new ones inn.

On my Nikon M7, the right eyecup click stop mechanism broke down after just a few months of use, and it is not even covered under warranty. Nikon doesn't normally provide spare parts for the M7, and even if you manage to get hold of spare eyecups, changing them is a fairly complicated process (I found a video by some intrepid soul on the internet on how to do it though).

HN

BruceH · Jul 29, 2015

J899 ..... When I rotate the focus knob on my SF, the disk does not move. However, I was able to rotate the disk with my finger as a test. I suspect you have just a little bit tighter fit of the focus knob covering and so there is enough friction to also rotate the disk to some degree. I do not see it as being a problem.

Eyecups: The materials used in the eye cups do not appear to be a cheap plastic selected to save a buck. Actually, it looks like some kind of nylon or high tech material which I suspect was selected to save weight. After giving it some thought, it may have advantages to metal (which I assume is aluminum) in that it is less likely to dent or become deformed and there is no paint to scrape off. The middle notch locking position is very positive and is not a problem. It may not be metal, but that that does not mean it is cheap or a poor choice of materials.

Pileatus · Jul 29, 2015

brocknroller said:
You would think at this price point, Zeiss would have a metal frame covered with a rubber eyecup the way the Nikon does for the Premier (HGL) and EDG rather than using a plastic eyecup like cheaper roofs. The metal frames catch the click stops better whereas the plastic grooves will wear down in time and eventually fail, and the eyecups will need to be replaced. Even the $300 Vixen Forestas have the rubber over metal frame design!

It's the lack of attention to detail like this on a $2600 bin which makes me wonder why the designers don't take the eyecups as seriously as they do the ergonomics. Except for those who wear glasses, the rest of us have to stick the eyecups in our eye orbits, so they should be made as comfortable as possible and conically shaped rather than flat so they can accommodate a range of users' facial features.

They obviously spent a lot of time on the ergonomics and from what I can tell did a superb job, but they apparently only took only 15 minutes on the EYEgonomics and just slapped on some plastic eyecups like they were Terra EDs. :-C

At least the SF's plastic eyecups aren't as deep as the Terra's, which I don't find very comfortable.

Eyecups...now that should keep you busy for a few hundred posts and many more years of complaining about things you don't see or own.

PS
Ultravid eyecups were/are plastic...go get 'em tiger!|!|

Hermann · Jul 29, 2015

brocknroller said:
You would think at this price point, Zeiss would have a metal frame covered with a rubber eyecup the way the Nikon does for the Premier (HGL) and EDG rather than using a plastic eyecup like cheaper roofs. The metal frames catch the click stops better whereas the plastic grooves will wear down in time and eventually fail, and the eyecups will need to be replaced.

Plastic is lighter and plastic eyecups don't deform as easily as thin metal ones when you take them off for a quick cleaning job in the field. Plastic also doesn't get quite so cold in the winter. And modern types of plastic are more than tough enough for use in eyecups.

Hermann

denco@comcast.n · Aug 3, 2015

Hermann said:
Plastic is lighter and plastic eyecups don't deform as easily as thin metal ones when you take them off for a quick cleaning job in the field. Plastic also doesn't get quite so cold in the winter. And modern types of plastic are more than tough enough for use in eyecups.

Hermann

Say what you want about the advantages of plastic I will take metal any day over plastic especially in a moving part like an eyecup. Metal can be machined to tighter tolerances than plastic and when you want a part like an eyecup to rotate smoothly metal is by far a preferable choice. Plastic is the cheaper way out. I agree with Brock and even though he doesn't own a Zeiss SF his evaluation of the Zeiss SF eyecup is correct. Swarovski uses a precision machined aluminum eyecup covered with a thin very ergonomic rubber which cost way more to manufacture and will work more precise and be less trouble free over the long term. I don't think that dust guard should be moving either. That would definitely bother me on a $2500 binocular and I agree with Sanjay the quality does not look very impressive. I would suggest to the moderator since we seem to have a new problem with the Zeiss SF everyday that we start a new category. Zeiss SF Defects and Problems which could be a subcategory under Zeiss maybe?

simple · Aug 5, 2015

[email protected] said:
Say what you want about the advantages of plastic I will take metal any day over plastic especially in a moving part like an eyecup. Metal can be machined to tighter tolerances than plastic and when you want a part like an eyecup to rotate smoothly metal is by far a preferable choice. Plastic is the cheaper way out. I agree with Brock and even though he doesn't own a Zeiss SF his evaluation of the Zeiss SF eyecup is correct. Swarovski uses a precision machined aluminum eyecup covered with a thin very ergonomic rubber which cost way more to manufacture and will work more precise and be less trouble free over the long term. I don't think that dust guard should be moving either. That would definitely bother me on a $2500 binocular and I agree with Sanjay the quality does not look very impressive. I would suggest to the moderator since we seem to have a new problem with the Zeiss SF everyday that we start a new category. Zeiss SF Defects and Problems which could be a subcategory under Zeiss maybe?

Shall we do the same with Swaro ?

Nowt wrong with plastic / synthetic (and often expensive) eyecups they are less prone to lots of metallic issues.

Basically Denco you now have an inferior binocular so you best sell them and get an SF.

....or perhaps not :cat:

HighNorth · Aug 5, 2015

Actually, polymers can be both stronger and more resilient than metal, and are much cheaper. Especially compared to "light" metals like aluminium and magnesium.

HN

perterra · Aug 5, 2015

HighNorth said:
Actually, polymers can be both stronger and more resilient than metal, and are much cheaper. Especially compared to "light" metals like aluminium and magnesium.

HN

I never believed this until falling into the Glock camp for a few years. I wasnt that fond of Glock, but to give them their due, they are tough and durable.

HighNorth · Aug 5, 2015

perterra said:
I never believed this until falling into the Glock camp for a few years. I wasnt that fond of Glock, but to give them their due, they are tough and durable.

To be fair, the barrel is still metal though. Most polymers don't react very well to high temperatures.

perterra · Aug 5, 2015

HighNorth said:
To be fair, the barrel is still metal though. Most polymers don't react very well to high temperatures.

True, but utilized where it best works, it's great stuff.

Troubador · Aug 6, 2015

Plastic is the cheaper way out.

I would suggest to the moderator since we seem to have a new problem with the Zeiss SF everyday that we start a new category./QUOTE]

[email protected] said:
Plastic may be a cheaper raw material but it is not necessarily that much cheaper overall in production of products that require machining like the FL optical tubes that some folks didn't like because they were plastic. The machining process is not that easy when you require tight tolerances. My understanding it that it is significantly slower than machining metal so when you add up the costs its not as cheap as you might think.

Metal components do give a nice impression of solidity and its easy to see why some folks like this.

As for your suggestion that the moderator creates a new category I suggest that the moderator sends you off on a holiday for a few months so you can recover a sense of proportion and ponder on this post from Simple on the 'fogging' thread:

I've had more problems with Swaro than any other bin, using them professionally in a variety of challenging environments from one week to the next. The truth? I had to send my Swaro's back more times than I care to remember so much so that I decided to get the Zeiss victory FL, and you know the Austrians were missing something ! Now a happy owner of the SF doing an even better job.

It's no good coming on here with a clear agenda of the green machine, when in actual fact the guys in the field on a daily basis are finding the opposite to be true. Been using the SF with no problem, some strange niggles on here which drive me crazy i.e. stiff focusers, wtf! use it for a but and see what happens its not the scratchy nails down the blackboard that the swaro has even after constant use and wears in well. Fogging of the ocular? crikey I don't care to mention how many times my swaro fogged on one ocular, there are so many variables. Somebody dropped their SF's from a metre height and they broke?.....what a surprise!

I don't have any brand loyalty, I just pick the best tools for the job.

Lee

Victory SF Focus wheel plate (1 Viewer)

Member

Member

Attachments

Consulting Biologist

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Avatar: Harris Hawk

"Experientia Docet”

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread