ticl2184
Well-known member
Ok. I couldn't take it any more. I've waited 7 months for my HT's to arrive and still haven't received them.
I still haven't even seen, let alone had a look through a pair of HT's.
On Saturday I bit the bullet and took a bus, ferry and then drove 80 miles to a place near Bristol in the UK which had a pair of 8x and 10x HT's.
Phil and Mark at Lakeside Optics, (see image 1), were happy to let me loose with both pairs. I concentrated on the 10x pair which are the ones I want and compared every aspect of their optical and mechanical performance. This is the review:
The first impressions of the HT's when I saw them was wow ! They looked amazing. They actually looked like a pair of bino's that would be in a glass cabinet with a hefty price tag. (See image 2.)
On picking them up I was instantly impressed with the feel and handling. I quickly put them to my eyes and drank in the long awaited image.
First impressions were that these binoculars were bright, full stop.
Ok, to the review.
I'm not a advocate of numerical scoring, however because the binocular were so evenly matched I think it's best in this instance.*
BRIGHTNESS *Z-10 - S- 9. The Zeiss were bright but not overwhelmingly brighter than the Swarovski. However the more I used the Zeiss the increase in brightness over the Swarovski was more obvious. To my eyes I would say they were about 10% brighter. Managed to capture a image of the difference I think. Image 5 is the Zeiss Image, Image 6 iis the Swarovski. Images were taken parfocally using a Canon SX200is 12MP.
CA* Z-10-S-8.5 Chromatic aberration was very, very well controlled in the Zeiss, even better than the old FL's. In-fact I couldn't really find any at all. Zeiss has almost eliminated it.
Amazing.
INTERNAL REFECTION (from bright light source.) Z-10, S-9. No moon around so I used a cabinet light. The Zeiss had no internal reflection of light what so ever. The Zeiss was the clear winner.
SIDE LIGHT REFLECTION (Ie the Sun.) Couldn't even see the Sun on the day, so its unknown.
EDGE OF FIELD CLARITY Z-8.5-S-10. The Zeiss were surprisingly good, better than the FL's. In the horizontal plane the image resolution dropped off at 80% from the centre, however in the Vertical plane the image was sharp to the edge. The Swarovski however, was incredibly sharp across the entire field.
FIELD OF VIEW Z-9-S-10. The Swarovski won this. I looked at a line of fence posts in the distance and could clearly make out more at the edge of field in the SV's. I must mention that the Zeiss barrels when fully opened were at least a inch wider than the SV's. Not sure why, or if it would make any difference.
QUALITY OF FIELD Z-9 - S-10. The Swarovski won this. The whole field of view was visibly sharp and crisp with no deterioration or change in image.
DEPTH OF FIELD. Forgot to test. Sorry.
ROLLING GLOBE. This category is not applicable as I see it, because I have got used to the effect in the Swarovski now. Plus I did notice a lot of bending of
straight lines in the Zeiss where* the trees tops and*bottoms bowed out towards the edge of field significantly, but the centre remained straight. To me this effect would cancel out the rolling globe effect as is was equally annoying to my eyes.
COLOUR. Difficult to make my mind up on this one. The Zeiss image was a lot warmer than the FL image*but not as natural as the Swarovski. I think this was because the image in the Zeiss was so bright. Will have to test again when I get the chance.
CONTRAST. Again this is a difficult one to quantify. As contrast was pretty equal in each but in a different way.
EYE RELIEF. Z-8.5-S-10. Swarovski clear winner. Loads more eye relief.
BUILD QUALITY. Z-9.0-S-10. The build quality of the Zeiss was a 100% improvement over the old FL. There magnesium housing felt solid and very, very well built. However the eyecups of the Zeiss were just that bit too plasticy feeling for me compared to the SV's. The SV's just had that something extra, which won me over.
DESIGN. Z-9.5-S-10 The Zeiss
design was awesome. They looked and felt like a flagship model, However I preferred the open barrel design of the Swarovski, just a little bit more.
WEIGHT. Z-10-S-9.5. The Zeiss were noticeably lighter than the Swarovski. Perhaps the lightest 42mm bino's I've ever held.
FEEL IN HAND. Z-9.0-S-10. The Zeiss felt great to hold, the huge focus wheel was perfectly placed. The Swarovski however could be held in one hand more easily without the worry of dropping them.
COST. Z-10-S-9. The Zeiss are obviously cheaper. I.e. Swarovski RRP £1970. Zeiss RRP £1630.
FOCUS. Z-10-S-9. The Zeiss won this. The focus was as smooth as butter with no variation and just*one and three quarter turns from close to infinity focus. The enormous focus wheel was slightly less tricky to use.
BALANCE. Z-10-S-10. A draw. The balance of both binoculars were awesome. They were both as good as one another.
GENERAL AESTHETIC QULAITY. Z-10-S-9.5. To my eyes the black colouring of the Zeiss looked just slightly better than the green SV's. If the SV's were black they would have won.
Total. * * * * ** Zeiss =* 142.5 ***************** Swarovski =* 143.5
The result of my review in numerical terms is basically a draw.
Both these binoculars are at the very top end of the price range and come out almost equal in the review.
The impression I got was that these binoculars are made for two different markets. The Zeiss are obviously aimed at resolving images in poorly lit conditions and for ease of use in the field with a fast and handy focus wheel. The Swarovski concentrate on the image quality and comfort of use.
When it comes down to it, It really is down to personal preference.
These binoculars were very equally matched. However I didn't come to any conclusions over colour, contrast, depth of field and side lit internal reflection. When I eventually receive my own pair of HT's I'll be able to say more.
If I ever receive them ?
Thanks again to Phil and Mark at Lakeside optics.
Cheers Tim
I still haven't even seen, let alone had a look through a pair of HT's.
On Saturday I bit the bullet and took a bus, ferry and then drove 80 miles to a place near Bristol in the UK which had a pair of 8x and 10x HT's.
Phil and Mark at Lakeside Optics, (see image 1), were happy to let me loose with both pairs. I concentrated on the 10x pair which are the ones I want and compared every aspect of their optical and mechanical performance. This is the review:
The first impressions of the HT's when I saw them was wow ! They looked amazing. They actually looked like a pair of bino's that would be in a glass cabinet with a hefty price tag. (See image 2.)
On picking them up I was instantly impressed with the feel and handling. I quickly put them to my eyes and drank in the long awaited image.
First impressions were that these binoculars were bright, full stop.
Ok, to the review.
I'm not a advocate of numerical scoring, however because the binocular were so evenly matched I think it's best in this instance.*
BRIGHTNESS *Z-10 - S- 9. The Zeiss were bright but not overwhelmingly brighter than the Swarovski. However the more I used the Zeiss the increase in brightness over the Swarovski was more obvious. To my eyes I would say they were about 10% brighter. Managed to capture a image of the difference I think. Image 5 is the Zeiss Image, Image 6 iis the Swarovski. Images were taken parfocally using a Canon SX200is 12MP.
CA* Z-10-S-8.5 Chromatic aberration was very, very well controlled in the Zeiss, even better than the old FL's. In-fact I couldn't really find any at all. Zeiss has almost eliminated it.
Amazing.
INTERNAL REFECTION (from bright light source.) Z-10, S-9. No moon around so I used a cabinet light. The Zeiss had no internal reflection of light what so ever. The Zeiss was the clear winner.
SIDE LIGHT REFLECTION (Ie the Sun.) Couldn't even see the Sun on the day, so its unknown.
EDGE OF FIELD CLARITY Z-8.5-S-10. The Zeiss were surprisingly good, better than the FL's. In the horizontal plane the image resolution dropped off at 80% from the centre, however in the Vertical plane the image was sharp to the edge. The Swarovski however, was incredibly sharp across the entire field.
FIELD OF VIEW Z-9-S-10. The Swarovski won this. I looked at a line of fence posts in the distance and could clearly make out more at the edge of field in the SV's. I must mention that the Zeiss barrels when fully opened were at least a inch wider than the SV's. Not sure why, or if it would make any difference.
QUALITY OF FIELD Z-9 - S-10. The Swarovski won this. The whole field of view was visibly sharp and crisp with no deterioration or change in image.
DEPTH OF FIELD. Forgot to test. Sorry.
ROLLING GLOBE. This category is not applicable as I see it, because I have got used to the effect in the Swarovski now. Plus I did notice a lot of bending of
straight lines in the Zeiss where* the trees tops and*bottoms bowed out towards the edge of field significantly, but the centre remained straight. To me this effect would cancel out the rolling globe effect as is was equally annoying to my eyes.
COLOUR. Difficult to make my mind up on this one. The Zeiss image was a lot warmer than the FL image*but not as natural as the Swarovski. I think this was because the image in the Zeiss was so bright. Will have to test again when I get the chance.
CONTRAST. Again this is a difficult one to quantify. As contrast was pretty equal in each but in a different way.
EYE RELIEF. Z-8.5-S-10. Swarovski clear winner. Loads more eye relief.
BUILD QUALITY. Z-9.0-S-10. The build quality of the Zeiss was a 100% improvement over the old FL. There magnesium housing felt solid and very, very well built. However the eyecups of the Zeiss were just that bit too plasticy feeling for me compared to the SV's. The SV's just had that something extra, which won me over.
DESIGN. Z-9.5-S-10 The Zeiss
design was awesome. They looked and felt like a flagship model, However I preferred the open barrel design of the Swarovski, just a little bit more.
WEIGHT. Z-10-S-9.5. The Zeiss were noticeably lighter than the Swarovski. Perhaps the lightest 42mm bino's I've ever held.
FEEL IN HAND. Z-9.0-S-10. The Zeiss felt great to hold, the huge focus wheel was perfectly placed. The Swarovski however could be held in one hand more easily without the worry of dropping them.
COST. Z-10-S-9. The Zeiss are obviously cheaper. I.e. Swarovski RRP £1970. Zeiss RRP £1630.
FOCUS. Z-10-S-9. The Zeiss won this. The focus was as smooth as butter with no variation and just*one and three quarter turns from close to infinity focus. The enormous focus wheel was slightly less tricky to use.
BALANCE. Z-10-S-10. A draw. The balance of both binoculars were awesome. They were both as good as one another.
GENERAL AESTHETIC QULAITY. Z-10-S-9.5. To my eyes the black colouring of the Zeiss looked just slightly better than the green SV's. If the SV's were black they would have won.
Total. * * * * ** Zeiss =* 142.5 ***************** Swarovski =* 143.5
The result of my review in numerical terms is basically a draw.
Both these binoculars are at the very top end of the price range and come out almost equal in the review.
The impression I got was that these binoculars are made for two different markets. The Zeiss are obviously aimed at resolving images in poorly lit conditions and for ease of use in the field with a fast and handy focus wheel. The Swarovski concentrate on the image quality and comfort of use.
When it comes down to it, It really is down to personal preference.
These binoculars were very equally matched. However I didn't come to any conclusions over colour, contrast, depth of field and side lit internal reflection. When I eventually receive my own pair of HT's I'll be able to say more.
If I ever receive them ?
Thanks again to Phil and Mark at Lakeside optics.
Cheers Tim