New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (1 Viewer)

Troubador · Jun 10, 2014

winwinbino said:
Kimmo,

You are right. That was not an apple to apple comparsion (8.5 vs 8). Even that, with TFOV difference of 15/1000m(=1.5m/100m) , practically I won't miss anything while bins birding which usually within 100m.

The wider TFOV of SF shouldn't be the main selling point. To earn the hearts of current SW, HT or EDG users & die-hard Leica fanboys, the SF have to show something really extraordinary. Let's wait and see.

Andy

Hey Andy

You are right in one sense that comparing an 8x and an 8.5x isn't comparing like with like.

But if you are a prospective purchaser of a top end pair of bins and you narrow your search down to Swaro and Zeiss (yes there are other fine brands out there) then if FOV is important you have a choice of 8.5x / 133m or 8x / 148m. People will be making that comparison and that choice.

For me, any extra FOV is very welcome, especially in the following circumstances:

Watching birds like ducks, grebes and divers (loons) that disappear underwater and surface all over the place. Finding them again is so much easier with extra FOV. For the same reason I find extra FOV good for watching otters, seals and whales. Closer in distance, when watching dragonflies zooming about and doing seemingly impossible twists and turns, extra FOV is brilliant to help not lose sight of them. Sometimes too, extra FOV is good when scanning brush and scrub for sight of a warbler doing warning calls, the sort of call where you can't quite work out where it is coming from. I'll take any extra FOV of these applications.

Of course if these scenarios don't interest you then you won't get excited by SF's FOV.

Lee

Troubador · Jun 10, 2014

Chosun Juan said:
Lee,

The SF is in no way a SIGNIFICANT step forward. It is an incremental increase on an accepted benchmark .... much like starting a chin-up in the hanging position, going all the way to reach the bar - and then sneaking your chin over the top of it with a bit of extra effort.

Chosun :gh:

Well CJ I can't deny I am excited at the prospect of SF. And significance is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.

You can read in another post of mine close by why the extra FOV is exciting for me. And one of the big reveals of HT to me was its improvement in handling over FL, so the promise of another step forward in handling from HT to SF also sounds terrific to me. A field observer of great experience and my opinion, wisdom, has said to me that the balance of SF is such that the weight centres near the focus wheel and the bins just seem to float in front of your face.

Since I can spend an hour or more without moving, watching otters, this prospect is exciting for me, and even with your inimitable way if poking me in the ribs for my enthusiasm is not going to dampen my excitement.

Lee

ticl2184 · Jun 10, 2014

Do we know why the SF's are using Schmidt-Pecan prisms instead of the traditional Abbe-Koenig, for a 42mm model?

Is it to do with the flat field or huge fov.

Cheers Tim

kabsetz · Jun 10, 2014

Holger Merlitz said:
Hi Jerry,

I am not even sure if they (Allbinos) actually measure the magnification, or just use the measured exit pupil diameter to calculate m. The result could be incorrect, as soon as there is any aperture stop designed somewhat tight, so that it cuts off the edge of the exit pupil and mimics an increased magnification.

Cheers,
Holger

Holger,

The results of magnification measurements using aperture/exit pupil diameters are certainly not precise. As an example, on the thread linked below, are magnification measurements of Swarovski ATX scopes using this method and first-rate laboratory quality measuring devices, where nevertheless the magnifications calculated from the objective diameter/exit pupil ratio gave about 8% difference for the minimum/maximum magnifications of the zoom eyepiece. One and the same zoom/prism unit was used with the different tested objective units.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=242134

To eliminate the inaccuracies caused by possible undersized aperture stops, one can use the booster FOV method instead, which still has its own error sources and reading accuracy issues, but which is in my experience more certain and precise.

Kimmo

Chosun Juan · Jun 10, 2014

Troubador said:
Well CJ I can't deny I am excited at the prospect of SF. And significance is somewhat in the eye of the beholder......

Since I can spend an hour or more without moving, watching otters, this prospect is exciting for me, and even with your inimitable way if poking me in the ribs for my enthusiasm is not going to dampen my excitement.

Lee

Lee,

Agreed. Lots of little incremental improvements in lots of areas important to the purchaser, may hold more significance to one individual moreso than another.

Optics are only part of the story, and well balanced, lighter weight bins that are a pleasure to use in actual practice are always welcome.

By Zeiss going 8x, the consumer now has a choice .... pity for Zeiss that one of those is with another company! but hey! whadda I know? Can't see any real use for an 8x32 HT as I outlined *snigger* :smoke: Likewise, Prolly no use for 500ft, fast focusing, we'll balanced, lightweight, 7x42 warbler chaser par excellance anyway ...... Not! *smack head roll eyes smilie* |^|

Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan · Jun 10, 2014

ticl2184 said:
Do we know why the SF's are using Schmidt-Pecan prisms instead of the traditional Abbe-Koenig, for a 42mm model?

Is it to do with the flat field or huge fov.

Cheers Tim

Tim, probably both. The complex eyepiece has 7 elements, so SP prisms help keep the length down and so the weight. Similarly, it's probably easier to get the huge Fov with the SP prisms for a given weight and size too.

It also helps to differentiate with the HT's, what with them being optimized for element minimization, transmission maximization and centre field view.

Chosun :gh:

Troubador · Jun 10, 2014

Fine Wines

Chosun Juan said:
Lee,
Agreed. Lots of little incremental improvements in lots of areas important to the purchaser, may hold more significance to one individual moreso than another.

Optics are only part of the story, and well balanced, lighter weight bins that are a pleasure to use in actual practice are always welcome.

Chosun :gh:

Just in case your failing memory is as poor as it seems to be

-O) I will repeat something I have said countless times before:

At the level of Ultravids/HTs/EL SVs/SFs and EDGs bins are like fine wines and nobody can say anyone's taste in fine wines is better or worse than their own, because it is so personal.

Continuing with this analogy, because, CJ, I know how much you love them

the new SF sounds like a wonderful new varietal that may suit my tastebuds nicely. But it might not suit you.

Yours winefully B

, Troubador

Troubador · Jun 10, 2014

ibramr said:
Lee,

Good question. I also use several other binoculars from the Trinovid and Ultravid Leica series. Their diopter setting is "dead" accurate as both are separate (with the exception of the UV 8x20).

With the Zeiss, I am not capable to achieve this "dead accuracy" as the delinking process to change the diopter settings changes the focus by a very small tad. Further, because of the ability of using the Zeiss with and without my prescription glasses, I need to repeat this process several times in the same hike. The HT offers this functionality, however, it is not available in 7x42 or 8x32.

Ibramr

Thanks for your description of the problem. But unless I am misunderstanding something it sounds like you are saying you don't like the FL dioptre adjuster because when you use it you move the focusing wheel a bit.

Have I got that right?

If so, I have to ask, don't you move the focuser at all during use, to be able to see sharply different objects of interest at different distances? This is what the focusing wheel is there to do.

Please forgive me if I have misunderstood something.

Lee

Troubador · Jun 10, 2014

ceasar said:
Lee,

In response to your post here (#217) and the one above it (#216) I'm afraid that I have to argue that these issues you point out are only important to people we, unfortunately, identify in general as "techie obsessives."

Bob

Bob

You asked the question "In what way is the SF "a significant step forward" except for Zeiss?"

I answered this in post 216 with extracts from the SF specifications which demonstrate this adequately to me.

In your reply, above, you comment that these specs are really only important to "techie obsessives." And thats OK.

But what sort of answer to your question were you looking for? I would be interested to know because I thought about this a lot before doing my 15x56 review.

Here is another sort of answer for you, based on my field experience and what I expect to gain from that 'techie' increase in field of view.

For me, any extra FOV is very welcome, especially in the following circumstances: Watching birds like ducks, grebes and divers (loons) that disappear underwater and surface all over the place. Finding them again is so much easier with extra FOV. For the same reason I find extra FOV good for watching otters, seals and whales. Closer in distance, when watching dragonflies zooming about and doing seemingly impossible twists and turns, extra FOV is brilliant to help not lose sight of them. Sometimes too, extra FOV is good when scanning brush and scrub for sight of a warbler doing warning calls, the sort of call where you can't quite work out where it is coming from. I'll take any extra FOV of these applications.

Of course if these scenarios don't interest you then you won't get excited by SF's FOV.

Lee

ceasar · Jun 10, 2014

Troubador said:
Bob

You asked the question "In what way is the SF "a significant step forward" except for Zeiss?"

I answered this in post 216 with extracts from the SF specifications which demonstrate this adequately to me.

In your reply, above, you comment that these specs are really only important to "techie obsessives." And thats OK.

But what sort of answer to your question were you looking for? I would be interested to know because I thought about this a lot before doing my 15x56 review.

Here is another sort of answer for you, based on my field experience and what I expect to gain from that 'techie' increase in field of view.

For me, any extra FOV is very welcome, especially in the following circumstances: Watching birds like ducks, grebes and divers (loons) that disappear underwater and surface all over the place. Finding them again is so much easier with extra FOV. For the same reason I find extra FOV good for watching otters, seals and whales. Closer in distance, when watching dragonflies zooming about and doing seemingly impossible twists and turns, extra FOV is brilliant to help not lose sight of them. Sometimes too, extra FOV is good when scanning brush and scrub for sight of a warbler doing warning calls, the sort of call where you can't quite work out where it is coming from. I'll take any extra FOV of these applications.

Of course if these scenarios don't interest you then you won't get excited by SF's FOV.

Lee

Lee,

Sounds like a 10x42 SF would be the binocular you would find most useful if you do that much sea bird watching. As for FOV, as a practical matter, there wouldn't be that much difference between it and the Nikon 10x42 EDG which also has a flat field.

As for close up scrub work I like a wide FOV as well as the next person but there is virtually no difference between the 150meters @ 1000 meters on my 7x42 FL and the 148meters @ 1000 meters on the new 8x42SF and at those distances I like 7x and it's not worth the money I would have to pay to replace my 7x42FL with a 8x42FL, even for a flat field which I like. (I'd have to give up DOF too.) I have a Nikon 10x42 EDG which has one.

If you want a new SF by all means get one and enjoy it! But you haven't convinced me that the SF has "cutting edge" technology beyond what Swarovski or Nikon already have.

Bob

Troubador · Jun 10, 2014

ceasar said:
Lee,

Sounds like a 10x42 SF would be the binocular you would find most useful if you do that much sea bird watching. As for FOV, as a practical matter, there wouldn't be that much difference between it and the Nikon 10x42 EDG which also has a flat field.

As for close up scrub work I like a wide FOV as well as the next person but there is virtually no difference between the 150meters @ 1000 meters on my 7x42 FL and the 148meters @ 1000 meters on the new 8x42SF and at those distances I like 7x and it's not worth the money I would have to pay to replace my 7x42FL with a 8x42FL, even for a flat field which I like. (I'd have to give up DOF too.) I have a Nikon 10x42 EDG which has one.

If you want a new SF by all means get one and enjoy it! But you haven't convinced me that the SF has "cutting edge" technology beyond what Swarovski or Nikon already have.

Bob

No, Bob I use an 8x for all sorts of reasons including dragonfly hunting, flower surveys and medium distance otter watching. For me SF 8x42, especially with its handling benefits, sounds great.

And for you, there is nothing like a 7x DoF. Enjoy in good health.

Lee

winwinbino · Jun 10, 2014

Troubador said:
Hey Andy

You are right in one sense that comparing an 8x and an 8.5x isn't comparing like with like.

But if you are a prospective purchaser of a top end pair of bins and you narrow your search down to Swaro and Zeiss (yes there are other fine brands out there) then if FOV is important you have a choice of 8.5x / 133m or 8x / 148m. People will be making that comparison and that choice.

For me, any extra FOV is very welcome, especially in the following circumstances:

Watching birds like ducks, grebes and divers (loons) that disappear underwater and surface all over the place. Finding them again is so much easier with extra FOV. For the same reason I find extra FOV good for watching otters, seals and whales. Closer in distance, when watching dragonflies zooming about and doing seemingly impossible twists and turns, extra FOV is brilliant to help not lose sight of them. Sometimes too, extra FOV is good when scanning brush and scrub for sight of a warbler doing warning calls, the sort of call where you can't quite work out where it is coming from. I'll take any extra FOV of these applications.

Of course if these scenarios don't interest you then you won't get excited by SF's FOV.

Lee

Lee,

Being a fan of Zeiss optics having FL & Conquest, I also own other Alphas like SW, EDG & Leica. For myself, they are all equal in a sense that each has their own strong point over others. I never regret bringing any of them out for briding.

SF surely have something exciting being a latest design from big 4 & I am looking forward to read the report when they officially come out.

Andy

Torview · Jun 10, 2014

Lee I concur with ibramr, every time I got perfect focus on my 8x32FL left eye the act of pulling out or pushing in the diopter adjustment would shift the focus just a tad, I could never set it spot on either.

John.

Troubador · Jun 10, 2014

Torview said:
Lee I concur with ibramr, every time I got perfect focus on my 8x32FL left eye the act of pulling out or pushing in the diopter adjustment would shift the focus just a tad, I could never set it spot on either.

John.

Sorry Ibramr and John. Some days I am slower than others

.

Personally I can't do the focus with left eye then dioptre with right eye. Must have tried it a hundred times and it never works for me. So having bought a new pair of bins then over the course of a day I simply move the dioptre a bit + and see how it works out, move it a bit - and see if that is getting better. Eventually I zero in on the setting that works for me and I remember the position of the dioptre.

If the bins get used by someone else who resets the dioptre or if it gets moved for any other reason I just reset it to the position I know works using the markings provided on the binocular.

Couldn't this work for you guys? I mean surely you have arrived at a dioptre setting that works for you and you can make a note of the setting??

Lee

Torview · Jun 10, 2014

You`ld think so but in my case noting the setting did`nt help, cos as soon as I pushed the focus wheel back it shifted the "perfect" setting.

I really hate this over complicated diopter nonsense, what`s wrong with turning a separate dial for heavens sake ?

Chosun Juan · Jun 10, 2014

Troubador said:
....At the level of Ultravids/HTs/EL SVs/SFs and EDGs bins are like fine wines and nobody can say anyone's taste in fine wines is better or worse than their own, because it is so personal.

Continuing with this analogy, because, CJ, I know how much you love them the new SF sounds like a wonderful new varietal that may suit my tastebuds nicely. But it might not suit you.

Yours winefully B , Troubador

Lee, you've completely lost me ?!? :hippy: but, as HenryLink says: an internet rumour repeated frequently makes it no more valid or true.

I haven't touched wine since I was 15 and a terrible incident involving a 'Chateau Le SpaceBag' ............ YUK ! positively ghastly stuff !!

White seedless grapes on the other hand are to be judiciously consumed and applauded :clap:

And therein lies the true analogy ..... the raw product is palatable, while the fermented dross (OTT marketing hyperbole) served up, makes one want to v*mit and cry ..... :'D

Enough of this talk of whine ..... I'm sure peeps will happily gravitate towards their chosen cup of tea ...... provided of course, that someone has had the foresight to make it !

I'm not the only one here who thinks the Zeiss decision not to go 8.5x (and potentially add a 7x) SF was a boo-boo. You're not the only one on here who thinks a wide angle 8x is a great boon to their viewing. Vive la' differance. YMMV

Chosun :gh:

Troubador · Jun 10, 2014

Chosun Juan said:
Lee, you've completely lost me ?!? :

Chosun :gh:

I doubt it CJ, and if I have its only a modest revenge for all the times you have left the rest of us scratching our heads :smoke:

Lee

Chosun Juan · Jun 10, 2014

Troubador said:
I doubt it CJ, and if I have its only a modest revenge for all the times you have left the rest of us scratching our heads :smoke:

Lee

True! :-O I only said that for dramatic effect .... *teehee*

Chosun :gh:

Ps. Lee ..... have you too got your pre-order in, like Dennis ??

kabsetz · Jun 10, 2014

Torview said:
You`ld think so but in my case noting the setting did`nt help, cos as soon as I pushed the focus wheel back it shifted the "perfect" setting.

I really hate this over complicated diopter nonsense, what`s wrong with turning a separate dial for heavens sake ?

John,

I'm with you on the diopter mechanisms. Best systems are the simplest, with no click-stops to limit you to prescribed diopter differentials between the two eyes, and preferably a separate adjustment so that you can tweak the overall focus while adjusting the right eye diopter. If we just stick to Zeiss, I find the easiest to use the Conquest HD system, next the Victory HT (which would be just fine except that the adjustment ring is a bit hard to turn with the binocular in the viewing position) and the FL-type system being my least favorite.

But now to a constructive tip for setting the diopter with bins that have that unnecessarily complicated pull-out focus knob systems. Rather than trying to perfectly focus your left side first, make the setting by viewing something like a field, meadow or lake/sea, where you can look at a surface extending away from you. Set the focus roughly to your desired viewing distance, and then pull out the focus knob. Now just gently adjust the diopter while scanning the surface front to back, and aim for a setting where both eyes are relaxed viewing at the same distance. Then push the knob back carefully, and double check the result with another front-back scan. I find this method both quicker and more accurate than the traditional method of using a set target, first focusing the left eye to it and then adjusting the right eye diopter to match.

Kimmo

Troubador · Jun 10, 2014

Chosun Juan said:
True! :-O I only said that for dramatic effect .... *teehee*

Chosun :gh:

Ps. Lee ..... have you too got your pre-order in, like Dennis ??

Tee Hee indeed you little teaser :-O

No, I am not a serial returner of bins like wee Dennis. I prefer to get my hands on things first to find out if I like them

and I will be attending British Bird Fair where SF is making what I think will be its UK debut and look forward to trying it out then.

Lee

New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (1 Viewer)

Moderator

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Given to Fly

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Moderator

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Moderator

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread