• 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 DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Cornell Lab Review - Zeiss Did Very Well Here (1 Viewer)

Says the man who "worked HARD" for the money that bought the binoculars. Bravo!!! I know the covers on most are a pain. The covers on the Nikon SE's are snug and stay in place. on every other binocular I have they about fall right off. Lots a use??? Anyways. I usually store them with the covers. In the field the covers stay off. Too much trouble fiddling when birds are at hand. As you know they so often disappear in a blink.

I'm also one to set the focus ahead of time based on the cover that I am in. Saves a millisecond usually when the bird shows up right where you expected it would but your optics were focused in the wrong place causing you to miss the glimpse.


Hey Curve, just saw your location. Did you get the Elegant Tern and Brown Booby? The Niagara was a mega-vagrant magnet this fall.
 
As both a bird watcher and binocular watcher at the same time, it is my observation that 90% + of all birders never use the objective covers.

I never have, nor any of my friends but, I suppose, if you want some the tethered end cap is the best solution.

Hya James

I never use them either but there are two or three places on North Uist where I would use them if they were more convenient to employ.

At these sites the machair habitat grades into sand dunes and on breezy days you can hear the sand, which is actually made up of tiny fragments of sea-creatures' shells, shushing as is it blows along down by your feet. Trouble is, it doesn't stay down there and when you descend or ascend a sand dune its often in your face and in your bins.

Much work with a soft brush is required afterwards.

I can imagine there are huge areas in the States and indeed all over the world where this or similar is a constant problem and that folks there look upon objective covers as indispensible bits of kit in the same way that I look on my rain-guards.

Lee
 
Holger,

Those are ugly as sin, even the black ones, but they may be very good in practice. Not only do they serve as sun shades, but also as umbrellas for the objectives if it rains. Where do you get them, or are they only available bundled with those beautiful premium binoculars in the pictures?

Kimmo
 
Zeiss: what happens when the tiger awakes

OK its a fanciful title that some will smile at :)

On this thread a few people have referred to Zeiss having been asleep for a while and these include myself (a Zeiss Fanboy) and Mike Jensen, Pres of Zeiss USA (obviously not in order of eminence!).

Has Zeiss every done anything similar to this sleep and then wake act?

They sure have. It wasn't until 2000 that Zeiss fielded an 8x40 in the shape of the Victory (MK I) talk about being late to the party! But what happened next?
In 2004 came the Victory FL certainly one of the most significant bins of recent times (and that is not meant to detract from the achievements of other manufacturers).

So in terms of a modern 8x42 it was from zero to the FL in 4 years.

I see no reason why Zeiss cannot do this again and indeed with HT and Conquest HD they are off to a flying start and although there is much still to do I wouldn't bet against them.

Lee
 
I just had this review delivered to my inbox, from Cornell. Seems a lot more people are going to be fed this ''disinformation.'';)

What planet are you from james? ...

The Cornell report was done by average folks 'field testing' these bino's of all ranges and price ranges. The Alphas all came out as being so close that they didn't even select one over the other. I tend to agree since I field tested the Swaro's vs the HT's and agree...too close to call and all down to ergonomics and feel (which Zeiss wins hands down in my testing but others select Swaro or Leica ).

The other categories are spread out among many makers of fine binos depending on price point.... Zeiss, Leica, Vortex (alphas and Midrange), Nikon, Opticron, Eagle Optics ($400-700 and $200-400) and even in the real budget categories of Celestron and Atlas and Opticron.

For me, this is the type of review I want to see....field tested by birders. I am tired of seeing just stats regardless of manufacturer for stats only go so far. Field testing is what makes the Cornell review valuable.
 
Holger,

Those are ugly as sin, even the black ones, but they may be very good in practice. Not only do they serve as sun shades, but also as umbrellas for the objectives if it rains. Where do you get them, or are they only available bundled with those beautiful premium binoculars in the pictures?

Kimmo

Hi Kimmo,

I am aware that Butler Creek is selling such kind of covers:

http://www.butler-creek.com/

These things do not look sexy, but for those who actually need lens covers, they may be close to the ideal solution. Nowadays, high end binoculars are not just regarded optical instruments, but to some extent also as fashion items and status symbols - they have to look elegant and expensive when dangling around the neck, so the designer has to think carefully about how to balance functionality and elegance.

Cheers,
Holger
 
Hi Kimmo,

I am aware that Butler Creek is selling such kind of covers:

http://www.butler-creek.com/

These things do not look sexy, but for those who actually need lens covers, they may be close to the ideal solution. Nowadays, high end binoculars are not just regarded optical instruments, but to some extent also as fashion items and status symbols - they have to look elegant and expensive when dangling around the neck, so the designer has to think carefully about how to balance functionality and elegance.

Cheers,
Holger

Holger:

The hinge type may work for some, but are not the answer.
The original Nikon EDG I, had the hinge style objective covers, but
it seems no matter how you place them, whether placed
to flip up or down they are a bother.

Nikon redesigned the new EDG II objective covers, with a secure
tether, that will not pull off. An improved redesign, in my mind.
And they are the most secure of any I have found.

Objective covers, often left off by many users are a hard thing
for many mfrs. to design it seems.
A recent example is Zeiss with the new Conquest and the Terra,
have attempted, but have a poor design, and they do not
stay on at all in my experience.

Jerry
 
Imans66, I do appreciate the Cornell test, but it does have flaws - though not all that others have alleged above - and am not too sure about all that "field testing". Reading their "Methodology" it seems to me Eyeglass Friendliness might have been decided by a lot of people who don't wear eyeglasses! (Hope I'm wrong.) It mentions just testing for eye reilef and eyecup use. I find the most useful the Clarity/ Crispness scores, and in fact have listed the highest in a post above. Even this is subjective, the overall impression of clarity across the field of view, where I use the word clarity to mean conveying of detail overall, due to resolution, contrast, brightness, CA suppression, etc. (That word above is in quote marks because it seems to me here, like in 95+% of instances, it just means *Methods* used!) PS in edit Sorry, twice the word "above" refers to the other long thread on the Cornell review - forgot there were two such and confused them.
 
Last edited:
Hi Kimmo,

I am aware that Butler Creek is selling such kind of covers:

http://www.butler-creek.com/

These things do not look sexy, but for those who actually need lens covers, they may be close to the ideal solution. Nowadays, high end binoculars are not just regarded optical instruments, but to some extent also as fashion items and status symbols - they have to look elegant and expensive when dangling around the neck, so the designer has to think carefully about how to balance functionality and elegance.

Cheers,
Holger


These look the part but any riflescope user will tell you the hinges on the latest 'manufactured down to a price' versions are liable to snap like dry vermicelli, IMO best avoided.
 
CS

The problem with HT is that the outer surface of the barrels is uneven as there is rubber armour in parts but none in others. To get a sand or dust proof barrier it needs to be moulded to fit the contours of the barrels and then it ends up being fixed in one position which won't suit everyone, or the cover moves around during use of the bins and leaves gaps where sand can get in.

Lee


Lee's explanation above is right on the money!
I'm not crazy about the objective cover for my HT but, since only the inside of the barrel is circular, they had to go with an inside attachment to keep dust out.
The main problem is, since they're a friction fit design with not much contact area, they will need to be replaced every few years as they wear.
 
Imans66, I do appreciate the Cornell test, but it does have flaws - though not all that others have alleged above - and am not too sure about all that "field testing". Reading their "Methodology" it seems to me Eyeglass Friendliness might have been decided by a lot of people who don't wear eyeglasses! (Hope I'm wrong.) It mentions just testing for eye reilef and eyecup use. I find the most useful the Clarity/ Crispness scores, and in fact have listed the highest in a post above. Even this is subjective, the overall impression of clarity across the field of view, where I use the word clarity to mean conveying of detail overall, due to resolution, contrast, brightness, CA suppression, etc. (That word above is in quote marks because it seems to me here, like in 95+% of instances, it just means *Methods* used!) PS in edit Sorry, twice the word "above" refers to the other long thread on the Cornell review - forgot there were two such and confused them.

I am not going to argue with you and since I don't wear glasses, I cannot attest to any of the tests....Also, yes....as you state "I find the most useful the Clarity/ Crispness scores, and in fact have listed the highest in a post above. Even this is subjective,"....no so much on crispness but subjectivity.

All of our eyes are different and even they differ depending on time of day/ light, tiredness, age of eyes in question etc.... So subjectivity is abundant.

But my thinking is that this lab field test goes beyond just the numbers and stats that many strive upon, users and makers of. I want to know given a whole lot of people, who thought what? That gives me a starting point and I can see that while field testing a few myself, I can relate to as I get the same results or have the same questions.

I do find it helpful though to just have a rough idea initially. I don't want to come into any field test with preconceived ideas of what I should be looking for. For in the back of my mind I know I will find those 'goods or bads' concerning a bino.

I like field testing and then finding a review such as this that supports my thoughts in regards to my own field test for the review then lends credence to my test.
 
I am not going to argue with you and since I don't wear glasses, I cannot attest to any of the tests....Also, yes....as you state "I find the most useful the Clarity/ Crispness scores, and in fact have listed the highest in a post above. Even this is subjective,"....no so much on crispness but subjectivity.

All of our eyes are different and even they differ depending on time of day/ light, tiredness, age of eyes in question etc.... So subjectivity is abundant.

But my thinking is that this lab field test goes beyond just the numbers and stats that many strive upon, users and makers of. I want to know given a whole lot of people, who thought what? That gives me a starting point and I can see that while field testing a few myself, I can relate to as I get the same results or have the same questions.

I do find it helpful though to just have a rough idea initially. I don't want to come into any field test with preconceived ideas of what I should be looking for. For in the back of my mind I know I will find those 'goods or bads' concerning a bino.

I like field testing and then finding a review such as this that supports my thoughts in regards to my own field test for the review then lends credence to my test.

I agree with this, if 50 normal everyday type folk try something and record what they like and dont like, then chances are I will look at their dislikes when I try it out.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top