New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (4 Viewers)

arran · Sep 2, 2015

Ik had the occasion to test the zeiss sf side to side with the swar SV
Besides all the things already mentioned like perfect balance , focusdrive issues ,... For me personnaly I find this bin just gorgeous
What surprised me also is the optical performance is just WOW feeling
I did 4 times a comparison with a reading cart at several distances and in all cases the zeiss gave me better resolution , and could better differentiate the lines
I think this will be my next birding bin

Troubador · Sep 2, 2015

Chosun Juan said:
Haha Lee!

It's the Afov that counts
Chosun :gh:

With respect CJ, no it isn't.
See Dalat's contribution.

Lee

Hermann · Sep 2, 2015

dalat said:
Of course it's the real FOV that counts. AFOV makes a difference to how it feels, but for all practical considerations (like seeing more birds in the periphery of the view, finding raptors in the sky, etc.), its the real field that counts.

That's absolutely true. The real field, and nothing else.

Hermann

Chosun Juan · Sep 3, 2015

With all due respect fellas .... y'all are pretty much puffin' muffins! :smoke:

Yes the real field has some bearing ...... but it's not an independent quantum. Due to the physical laws of optical design it is inherently linked to (and/or by) magnification, ER, field characteristics, optical train choice, specific element design, cost and weight etc in binoculars as we know them.

No -- AFov is where it's at. What you boys are talking about is a particular optical consumer decision ...... ie. whether you need a specific magnification, a specific real field, some combination of the two, as much of both as possible, etc, etc ...........

Otherwise we would extend your arguements to their illogical conclusion, and instead of discussing the SF (and whether they supposedly have an early, or even ongoing batch of allegedly faulty or subpar castings) we would be singing the praises of 900ft real fields of view! and the nearly 40 of them you could have for the price of an SF!! Lee that's a whopping 310% greater Fov area than your SF !!!!! :eek!:
http://www.adorama.com/BS130521.html

Bushnell Xtra-Wide 4x30 binoculars_bs130521.jpg

I welcome the approach to 70 degrees AFov and beyond with well controlled field characteristics, light weight, and decent eye relief, (but wish to add reducing costs) and the competitve impetus this provides to get there. What Magnification / Real Field / Depth of Field compromises you then choose is up to you ....... :cat:

Chosun :gh:

Vespobuteo · Sep 3, 2015

Chosun Juan said:
I welcome the approach to 70 degrees AFov and beyond with well controlled field characteristics, light weight, and decent eye relief, (but wish to add reducing costs) and the competitve impetus this provides to get there. What Magnification / Real Field / Depth of Field compromises you then choose is up to you .......

Chosun :gh:

Did you try the Zeiss SF yet, or are you just speculating your eyes out of their sockets trying to imagine how the unimaginable and clearly best birding binos in the world can be better than your old fabulous swifts?
o

Chosun Juan · Sep 3, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
...... trying to imagine how the unimaginable and clearly best birding binos in the world ..... o

.
Dennis!

...... have you moved to Sveeeden?! :eek!: :t: 3

Chosun :gh:

Kammerdiner · Sep 3, 2015

It could just be me and the way I use binoculars but field of view often doesn't "wow" me very much.

Going from the 8.5 SV at 399' to the 8x32 SV at 423' or the 8x42 Prime at 426' simply does not inspire me. It doesn't affect my birding at all, near as I can tell.

I'm not sure going from 8x SV at 423' to the 8x SF at 444' would wow me much either. Have to find out.

When I think about what my minimum preferred 8x FOV might be I come up with maybe 390'. It's icing on the cake after that. Of course some folks really like icing.

I do know that the 8x25 Pocket at 357' is LESS than ideal for me, but a compact with long eye relief is bound to be a compromise.

Vespo's comment that 10x SF feels like 8x-8.5x is definitely intriguing.

And with apologies to all the metric system folks,
Mark

Chickadee Whisperer · Sep 3, 2015

I got the 10x42 SFs two weeks ago. They're at least as good as I remember from testing them in Europe. The nice thing now, though, is being able to use them in the conditions I'm used to in Duluth, MN. Today it's very foggy, and we're in the midst of a huge--almost unprecedented--songbird migration. My trees are dripping with warblers. I've never had binoculars so completely true to color--seeing just a patch of yellow and surmising, "That's a Wilson's Warbler!" or "That's a Nashville!" or "That's a Magnolia Warbler" and then tracking it to confirm has been wonderful to be able to do in the low light fog--those are pretty subtle color differences. The wide field of view has been especially valuable because first thing in the morning, the birds were extremely active. I'd pull them up on a bird but virtually always it had flitted a bit away from where I'd seen it--but the FOV was big enough that it was virtually always still in view.

Troubador · Sep 3, 2015

Chosun Juan said:
Yes the real field has some bearing

Chosun :gh:

It certainly does have a bearing when its the size of it that is being discussed.

But nobody said the size of FOV is the be-all and end-all of optical performance. Of course it isn't and neither is edge sharpness.

But a big real FOV is a tangible asset when it comes to scanning skies and seas and landscapes.

Lee

Troubador · Sep 3, 2015

Kammerdiner said:
It could just be me and the way I use binoculars but field of view often doesn't "wow" me very much.

Going from the 8.5 SV at 399' to the 8x32 SV at 423' or the 8x42 Prime at 426' simply does not inspire me. It doesn't affect my birding at all, near as I can tell.

Mark

I don't go wow at big FOV either Mark, although when I swapped back to bins with 135m at 1km from one with 148m, the downsizing was pretty gobsmacking for a few minutes.

Lots of birding situations won't be influenced one way or another by FOV but equally there are plenty that will. I am tempted to say that the extra FOV we are talking about is maybe like getting an extra $150 per month (choose your own figure here). I mean it probably wouldn't 'wow' you or change your life but then every couple of months or so maybe there would be a situation where that $150 made all the difference.

Today I was watching 4 Loons and trying to work out which ones they were. They can sure swim some distance under water and amongst skerries and islands you can lose them easily, but the SFs FOV meant when they surfaced they were still within the FOV. Tomorrow maybe they won't be.

Lee

Kammerdiner · Sep 3, 2015

Troubador said:
I don't go wow at big FOV either Mark, although when I swapped back to bins with 135m at 1km from one with 148m, the downsizing was pretty gobsmacking for a few minutes.

Lots of birding situations won't be influenced one way or another by FOV but equally there are plenty that will. I am tempted to say that the extra FOV we are talking about is maybe like getting an extra $150 per month (choose your own figure here). I mean it probably wouldn't 'wow' you or change your life but then every couple of months or so maybe there would be a situation where that $150 made all the difference.

Today I was watching 4 Loons and trying to work out which ones they were. They can sure swim some distance under water and amongst skerries and islands you can lose them easily, but the SFs FOV meant when they surfaced they were still within the FOV. Tomorrow maybe they won't be.

Lee

I dunno, Lee. For me when a Loon dives I just drop the binos. You won't see it when it comes up, no matter how big the FOV. Those puppies can swim. And if you can still see it when it comes up it's clearly time for a scope cuz it's just too far away. :t:

Chickadee, good for you! Half the time I don't bother ID'ing warblers this time of year. I'm a very lazy birder. :-O

Mark

etudiant · Sep 3, 2015

Thanks, Chosun, for pricking the bubble of hot air which seems inherent to these discussions!

FoV is nice to have, but in real life, the various designs give the difference between a fat straw and a regular straw, not much.
What we really want is a 0.5 power glass with a 120 degree field that switches instantly to an 8-10 power glass focused on where unusual motion is detected.
The Sony DEV 50 digital glasses come closest, but need another iteration or two before they are ready for prime time. Still, I'm confident that Sony will deliver, hopefully before 2020.

dalat · Sep 3, 2015

Bubble of hot air...? A large FOV is a pretty tangible benefit, compared to other things people here like to obsess about, like sharp edges or a few % transmission...

etudiant · Sep 3, 2015

dalat said:
Bubble of hot air...? A large FOV is a pretty tangible benefit, compared to other things people here like to obsess about, like sharp edges or a few % transmission...

Florian, of course a wider FoV is a more useful feature than a sharper edge, at least imho. The only point is that these are all small differences.
One can do an effective hawk watch with 12x50s, despite the narrow FoV.

We need a radical change of technology to get dramatically better capabilities. With the existing optics, we are stuck. So I'm rooting for Sony, because Canon has clearly deemphasized their sport optics effort.

dalat · Sep 4, 2015

Ah ok, got it now...

What we really want is a 0.5 power glass with a 120 degree field that switches instantly to an 8-10 power glass focused on where unusual motion is detected.

I also think the next real leap will come from stabilised or digital bins with all the new possibilities this opens up, though I'm not so sure that 0.5-1x power and 120° field is what we want in such bins. The naked eye is pretty good at 1x, wide field and motion detection.

Troubador · Sep 4, 2015

Kammerdiner said:
I dunno, Lee. For me when a Loon dives I just drop the binos. You won't see it when it comes up, no matter how big the FOV. Those puppies can swim. And if you can still see it when it comes up it's clearly time for a scope cuz it's just too far away. :t:

Chickadee, good for you! Half the time I don't bother ID'ing warblers this time of year. I'm a very lazy birder. :-O

Mark

Maybe I got lucky but these were Red-throated Divers and they came up in the field of view.

Otters are another good example. They don't swim as far (unless you spooked them) but they can disappear amongst seaweed and rocks and choppy seawater, and you have no idea which direction they went in. A big FOV helps.

Like I said, lots of birding doesn't need big FOV but it really is nice to have when you do need it.

Lee

Kammerdiner · Sep 4, 2015

Troubador said:
Maybe I got lucky but these were Red-throated Divers and they came up in the field of view.

Otters are another good example. They don't swim as far (unless you spooked them) but they can disappear amongst seaweed and rocks and choppy seawater, and you have no idea which direction they went in. A big FOV helps.

Like I said, lots of birding doesn't need big FOV but it really is nice to have when you do need it.

Lee

Good deal, Lee. I think we agree on this, but I still think you need a scope while at the coast.

Troubador · Sep 4, 2015

Kammerdiner said:
Good deal, Lee. I think we agree on this, but I still think you need a scope while at the coast.

Well I can only accept the advice of an expert.
Zeiss's Diascope or Meopta S2? Hmmmm :smoke:

Trouble is we carry photo gear too and a scope plus tripod would be a kit too far. Maybe the Diascope 65 steadied on a photo monopod would work.... Hmmmm :smoke:

Ooops here comes Troubadoris: We got 2 more Otter sightings today: YAY!

Lee

jan van daalen · Sep 4, 2015

Troubador said:
Well I can only accept the advice of an expert.
Zeiss's Diascope or Meopta S2? Hmmmm :smoke:

Trouble is we carry photo gear too and a scope plus tripod would be a kit too far. Maybe the Diascope 65 steadied on a photo monopod would work.... Hmmmm :smoke:

Ooops here comes Troubadoris: We got 2 more Otter sightings today: YAY!

Lee

Ehh... the photoscope perhaps?

Steve C · Sep 4, 2015

Just for grins, has anybody actually measured the fov of the SF? Is it really 444' or something else? I notice the Zeiss website lists the HT with a 404' fov and a 62* viewing angle. The Sf says 444' (both for 8x) and lists a viewing angle of 60*. Something does not compute. Sadly websites these days are rife with errors.

Unless the SF measures more than 444', the SF is not the fov market champion. Kruger modestly and incorrectly lists their Caldera 8x as 438'. I've had two, still have one, and they both clocked at 464', or 8.8*.

Just an example of website errors and I'm just curious what the SF actually measures.

New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (4 Viewers)

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Active member

Moderator

Moderator

Well-known member

Registered User

...

Registered User

...

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread