• 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.

New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (2 Viewers)

Colour cast SF 8x42 vs SF 10x42

I just had the chance to spend a day with a black SF 10x42, and I could clearly see that infamous yellow/green colour cast. The effect was quite prominent to my eyes, not subtle at all.

I was a bit surprised, because I had not detected such a tint in an (also black) SF 8x42 I had tested two weeks before. The view of that 8x42 appeared a tiny little bit warmer compared to the view through my SV 8x32 FP, which I had at hand, and also to what my naked eyes saw. But nothing severe, and the colour balance looked fine aesthetically.

There have been discussions about differences between the grey and black models. But apart from that, I would like to know whether there might be discrepancies (in colour reproduction) between both black formats 8x42 and 10x42 as well.

I have decided to buy a black SF 8x42 by next month. I like the ergonomics and I really like the immersive FOV. But I just would return it, if it had the yellow tint of that 10x42 mentioned above. Any advice for me?

Tom
 
Last edited:
As long as you can return it, I would just try it.

You won't know until you get another one in your hands. I am wondering if either the environment, or weather played any role in your differing perceptions, and whether you had another binocular at hand both times for a comparative look....

About 6 months ago I tried the SF 8x42 in a shop, comparing it directly to a Swarovski 8.5 x 42, I could see a difference in color. The Swaro was 'cooler' in comparison- whites seemed more neutral, blues, as in atmospheric colored shadows on distant hills were a bit more saturated. While the SF showed the green of the hills as being more vibrant, and the blues a bit less so. This was on a bright, sunny afternoon. Not a huge difference, but noticeable if one was looking for it, and has the other binocular right there to compare. I don't know if it would be more prominent under overcast skies.

I agree about the ergonomics and FOV, as well as the sharpness to the edge. I was also looking at a Vanguard Endeavor ED II 10 x 42 at the same time, and the difference in overall sharpness of the field was dramatic. Not so much with the Swaros.

it is on my list when either the fever strikes, or one becomes available at an irresistible price.

-Bill
 
I just had the chance to spend a day with a black SF 10x42, and I could clearly see that infamous yellow/green colour cast. The effect was quite prominent to my eyes, not subtle at all.

I was a bit surprised, because I had not detected such a tint in an (also black) SF 8x42 I had tested two weeks before. The view of that 8x42 appeared a tiny little bit warmer compared to the view through my SV 8x32 FP, which I had at hand, and also to what my naked eyes saw. But nothing severe, and the colour balance looked fine aesthetically.

There have been discussions about differences between the grey and black models. But apart from that, I would like to know whether there might be discrepancies (in colour reproduction) between both black formats 8x42 and 10x42 as well.

I have decided to buy a black SF 8x42 by next month. I like the ergonomics and I really like the immersive FOV. But I just would return it, if it had the yellow tint of that 10x42 mentioned above. Any advice for me?

Tom
Hey LB, I had originally thought that I would want the 10x42 hands down over the 8x42. However after viewing for several hours (mostly with the 8x, relatively lesser time spent with the 10x) I was not so sure. I should issue the caveat that I found the setup for my ER and viewing requirements to be quite finicky (I wear glasses to correct shortsightedness). Also, as I was mostly busy watching a Kestrel scoff down mice - I was somewhat more focused on the subject than usual.

I did have time and presence of mind though to put them through some fairly rigorous testing. I'm not sure if I could separate out their field characteristics from colour effects between the 8x and 10x, but my overall impression seemed similar to yours. That the 8x seemed just a bit "clearer" and the 10x a fraction "muddier" as far as colour cast goes. Strangely the 8x also seemed more immersive to me even though the 10x has a larger AFov.

I must come back though to the general disclaimer that setup was not easy for me, so I'm not sure I had the views entirely optimised - it's definitely not a 'slap them up to your eyes and away you go' bin for me (which I can usually do with most other alphas). Also, our individual colour perceptions among members here vary even more widely than the range of our acuity - so very much what you see is what you see, and other peoples experiences are pretty much irrelevant other than arriving at a general consensus.

I will definitely revisit both the 8x and 10x for some further grilling. Who knows by that time Zeiss might have upgraded the $30 eye cups, and even added some HT glass to balance the transmission curve and colours out, and justify the price tag! :cat:


Chosun :gh:
 
Difficult for me to try the SF model, but i am curious...Is the color rendition the same that the Conquest HD (on the yellow side ) ?
To my eyes (potentially dodgy as they may be :) , the colour cast of the SF is far more subtle. For me (stress that point) , the Conquest HD has like a dirty reddish brown wash to everything making everything look like you are on Mars! :eek!:


Chosun :gh:
 
For me (stress that point) , the Conquest HD has like a dirty reddish brown wash to everything making everything look like you are on Mars! :eek!:


Chosun :gh:

Mars, eh? Perhaps that's why I feel 'transported' when I look through my Conquests!

I have never noticed such an incredible color bias, but you've caveated your remarks well.

-Bill
 
For me (stress that point) , the Conquest HD has like a dirty reddish brown wash to everything making everything look like you are on Mars! :eek!:

Mars, eh? Perhaps that's why I feel 'transported' when I look through my Conquests!

I have never noticed such an incredible color bias, but you've caveated your remarks well.

-Bill

Perhaps my remarks are 'coloured' by my conditioning - viewing almost exclusively with a Zen-Ray 8x43 ED3 - a bin that has a transmission peak in the green/yellowish. Greens show up very strongly, reds quite well, with blues just a little weaker than the best of the best bins such as the Swarovski SV, and the Zeiss HT. Overall though the Zens are quite neutral. To my youngish eyes, I find the Conquest HD's to be stove hot warm in comparison.

If I 'recall' totally, they are indeed Mars like in their colour cast - I feel a nearly overwhelming urge to adopt a dodgy Austrian accent when viewing through them! :-O



Chosun :gh:
 
My HD's are very mildly cream, on a neutral snowy background - this compared to HT, FL, several Classics etc.

I'm very sensitive to poor white fidelity so I would suggest your sample was unrepresentative. Also can't recall a single user review that mentions such poor white fidelity.
 
I don't think we give enough consideration here to our current main binocular conditioning, psychological adaption, and physiological differences. Some of these may be age related - ie. The Monet shift as our eyes age. I would say there is more variation in our colour perceptions here than there is between our different visual acuities.

It may have been a sample variation but I don't think so - my experience with it certainly ties in to my reading of the transmission graph. Perhaps I am just hyper tuned in to white balance since, the execs would have the final say on the white balance of our products , so I am used to very subtle evaluations - and we were known for our life like, neutrally balanced rendition.

(To me) the impression of the HD's is definitely of a dirty reddish brown wash - (to me) it sticks out like a sore thumb. For comparison, something that appears (to me) mildly (or maybe slightly a little more so) cream is the Steiner Peregrine/Discovery XP. My Swift Audubon 820 ED's (to me again) were a slighly lesser though still very noticeable cream. The other thing I have mentioned before is that at certain times of late afternoon my individual eyes take on completely different colour casts - one blue/green, and the other one a golden colour! :eek!: Go figure !! Curiouser and curiouser :cat:

One thing is for sure though, the SF definitely needs HT glass too.



Chosun :gh:
 
The Monet shift as our eyes age. I would say there is more variation in our colour perceptions here than there is between our different visual acuities.Chosun :gh:

The "Monet shift" is undone (or caused) by having cataract surgery, as noted in his case.

I can personally attest to just how startling this effect is, and I am not an artist, nor do I have the sensitivity to color balance mentioned here.

The short end of the spectrum becomes almost fluorescent, and you can definitely see much farther into the extreme violet than before the surgery and implants. It's quite an experience, especially while you are waiting for the second eye to be done.

All and all, it is a delightful experience during the early days before you get used to it and it just becomes your normal vision.
 
One thing is for sure though, the SF definitely needs HT glass too.

Chosun :gh:

In theory yes, HT glass will give a 2-3% increase in the blue spectrum,
but it seems that many people can't see much difference between the new UV-plus and the old UV.
Maybe Zeiss thought it wouldn't be worth the extra cost or they saved HT glass for a future SF update.
Especially as both Leica NV and UV now has it and Swaro SV most likely have it also.
 
Last edited:
The "Monet shift" is undone (or caused) by having cataract surgery, as noted in his case.

I can personally attest to just how startling this effect is, and I am not an artist, nor do I have the sensitivity to color balance mentioned here.

The short end of the spectrum becomes almost fluorescent, and you can definitely see much farther into the extreme violet than before the surgery and implants. It's quite an experience, especially while you are waiting for the second eye to be done.

All and all, it is a delightful experience during the early days before you get used to it and it just becomes your normal vision.

That's very interesting first hand experience :t:



Chosun :gh:
 
In theory yes, HT glass will give a 2-3% increase in the blue spectrum,
but it seems that many people can't see much difference between the new UV-plus and the old UV.
Maybe Zeiss thought it wouldn't be worth the extra cost or they saved HT glass for a future SF update.
Especially as both Leica NV and UV now has it and Swaro SV most likely have it also.
The % amounts increase in the blue part of the visible light spectrum of HT glass might s-e-e-m small, but are vitally important. The Sharpe, Stockman, Jagla & Jägle 2005 data is ~5 to ~10% above the 1931 CIE Standard in this part of the spectrum. Furthermore it would allow reindexing of the rest of the spectrum transmission resulting in a brighter AND more neutrally colour balanced image.

I think one of your guesses about Zeiss's motivations is likely incorrect (not worth the extra cost), the other one possible (saving it for a SF 2.1 update), though there is a third option which I think is the most likely -- simple, stoopid, and bl**dy minded market segmentation. How they thought they could get away with hobbling the supposed flagship SF to protect the unique features of the HT (ie HT glass) is beyond me - it takes the consumer for mugs.

Leica, with its widely acclaimed colour balance improvements (and brightness, whether some people can see it or not - most acknowledge that there is something there) in going from UVHD to UVHD+, and then the NV also, have proven Zeiss to be cynical and curmudgeonly scrooges. I agree that Swarovski most likely has some HT glass in the SV which delivers that wonderful crystalline view that Zeiss just don't have. It is most evident on the 10x42 SV transmission graph as tested by Allbinos.

Is there anyone who can specify the per unit manufacturing cost increase of using HT glass (prisms and other relevant lenses) ? I can't imagine it is too much, or anywhere near an even remotely significant portion of the SF's exorbitant cost .....


Chosun :gh:
 
Careful, Chosun. You're starting to sound a little bit like that quote you keep down at the bottom of your posts. ;)

I'm still curious about the fact that my left eye has a slight reddish bias and my right has a bluish--but it's all relative so who really knows?!? I wonder if a bias like this could have any evolutionary value, though I can't imagine what that would be, and I also wonder how prevalent it is in the general population. Others have mentioned it here on Birdforum so I'm not alone. Just a really curious thing.

Your description of the "dirty reddish brown wash" in the Conquest agrees with what I see, maybe to a lesser extent, in the FL. I once described it as "tobacco stained" and I didn't notice it until direct comparison with an SV. That said, my FL dates to about 2010, so coatings may well have changed since then.

Mark
 
The % amounts increase in the blue part of the visible light spectrum of HT glass might s-e-e-m small, but are vitally important. The Sharpe, Stockman, Jagla & Jägle 2005 data is ~5 to ~10% above the 1931 CIE Standard in this part of the spectrum. Furthermore it would allow reindexing of the rest of the spectrum transmission resulting in a brighter AND more neutrally colour balanced image.

I think one of your guesses about Zeiss's motivations is likely incorrect (not worth the extra cost), the other one possible (saving it for a SF 2.1 update), though there is a third option which I think is the most likely -- simple, stoopid, and bl**dy minded market segmentation. How they thought they could get away with hobbling the supposed flagship SF to protect the unique features of the HT (ie HT glass) is beyond me - it takes the consumer for mugs.

Leica, with its widely acclaimed colour balance improvements (and brightness, whether some people can see it or not - most acknowledge that there is something there) in going from UVHD to UVHD+, and then the NV also, have proven Zeiss to be cynical and curmudgeonly scrooges. I agree that Swarovski most likely has some HT glass in the SV which delivers that wonderful crystalline view that Zeiss just don't have. It is most evident on the 10x42 SV transmission graph as tested by Allbinos.

Is there anyone who can specify the per unit manufacturing cost increase of using HT glass (prisms and other relevant lenses) ? I can't imagine it is too much, or anywhere near an even remotely significant portion of the SF's exorbitant cost .....

Chosun :gh:

SF is clearly a specialized birdie bin so perhaps Zeiss didn't think that HT glass was needed.

But I'm also a bit annoyed that they didn't put all bells and whistles in the top of the line model. If Zeiss add HT-glass in SF MK III I guess we will understand how things work...

Perhaps you could call it segmentation but most hunters will probably buy HT anyway (even the 54mm) because they are more solid. And the HT is actually 20-25% cheaper today.
 
SF is clearly a specialized birdie bin so perhaps Zeiss didn't think that HT glass was needed.

But I'm also a bit annoyed that they didn't put all bells and whistles in the top of the line model. If Zeiss add HT-glass in SF MK III I guess we will understand how things work...

Perhaps you could call it segmentation but most hunters will probably buy HT anyway (even the 54mm) because they are more solid. And the HT is actually 20-25% cheaper today.

Maybe Zeiss got it wrong and should have put HT glass in SF, or then again, maybe it would have been better to have given HT the same field of view as SF, or perhaps SF should have Abbe-Koenig prisms, or could HT have been better with an open bridge design? All could be argued for.

Lee
 
Maybe the addition of HT glass in a SP prism design returns minimal / negligible improvements in light transmission... with the Leica Ultravid HD+ and Noctivid the difference is hardly enough to justify the change.
 
Maybe Zeiss got it wrong and should have put HT glass in SF, or then again, maybe it would have been better to have given HT the same field of view as SF, or perhaps SF should have Abbe-Koenig prisms, or could HT have been better with an open bridge design? All could be argued for.

Lee

Lee:

Zeiss knows a lot about optics. ;) , I think.

When they designed the Victory SF, they had their choice of any lens glass
type. Zeiss owns Schott, so a comment is not necessary.

For some uninformed or inexperienced types to comment on that subject seems wrong.

The Victory SF is king of the hill in binoculars at this time, and there is no reason for any changes that I can find.

Jerry
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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