I don't see that the 3D effect fades with distance on my Habicht's 8x30 W. That is one of the things I like about them. Swarovision's are notoriously flat field so it is a nice change. Zeiss especially the HT have more 3D than the Swarovision but not as much as a good porro.
-
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.
Why would you buy a Zeiss HT over an SF? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
I am surprised by this Den, I would have thought that at medium to far distances the 3D would disappear. At close distances the separation of the objectives lenses which is bigger than that of your eyes, allows you to see further around the sides of objects to a certain extent which gives an impression of depth or to put it another way: 3D. But as the distance to the object being viewed increases I would have thought the separation between the objectives gives a progressively less 3 D view until it disappears at some distance.
Are you sure this doesn't happen?
Lee
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
I heard they are going to legalize pot all over maybe even in Canada so pretty soon everybody will be seeing in 3D.:eek!: I asked Elkcub about distance on the 3D effect and he said "Just talking about stereopsis, which is where I think you're coming from, as working distance increases, its value/utility decreases. At optical infinity, e.g., stargazing, it provides no benefit at all. For birdwatching ≤ 200' it can be highly beneficial for localizing and making size/distance estimations". So he agrees with you TroubadorIt's a Colorado thing - you know, legalized pot and all that.3
but them I asked him this and haven't gotten an answer yet. Ok, just talking about stereopsis say we have a Habicht Porro(Good 3D) and a Swarovision SV(Poor 3D) and we are looking at a mountain valley with a river in the front of it at a distance of about 1 mile away. There are some objects that are closer in the bottom of your FOV. Are you saying that the view through the Habicht will be just as flat as the Swarovision and have a complete lack of stereopsis. I have a hard time believing that in a view like that you wouldn't still notice some 3D in the Habicht. I just think in distant terrestrial viewing you are going to see some 3D effects even at quite a distance. But I am going to have to test it. The jury is out on it for now. For now I agree with you. Also, Troubador thanks for watching over my thread why I have been busy. :t:
Last edited:
I heard they are going to legalize pot all over maybe even in Canada so pretty soon everybody will be seeing in 3D.:eek!: I asked Elkcub about distance on the 3D effect and he said "Just talking about stereopsis, which is where I think you're coming from, as working distance increases, its value/utility decreases. At optical infinity, e.g., stargazing, it provides no benefit at all. For birdwatching ≤ 200' it can be highly beneficial for localizing and making size/distance estimations". So he agrees with you Troubador
This getting beyond my pay grade Den, but I think what you are talking about is depth perception due to depth of field effects within the field of view and I think this is different from the apparent 3-dimensional appearance of solidity and shape of an object within the view, that I understand porro 3D to be about.
I could be way off with that and would welcome correction from more knowledgable members.
Lee
That sounds good to me. There is something there that is different in a binocular that renders good 3D versus one that doesn't. Even at a pretty good distance.
Dennis
I am here to do an interview with you right now!
So are you ready?
Do you plan to buy an SF and if so when?
Cheers Lee :king:
When you give me the money$$$. To be honest I hate to pay retail. I usually wait till a binocular has been around awhile until some show up on the used market at a considerable discount. You pay retail and then if you don't like them and want to sell them down the road you really take a beating. I only paid $1500 for my Swarovski SV 8x32's and $1900 for my Swarovski SV 10x50's and I just picked a new pair of Swarovski Habicht's 8x30 W off of Ebay for $625 and they are all like new. I also have to convince myself and my wife:gh: who is harder to convince I need another alpha roof.
To be honest I hate to pay retail. I usually wait till a binocular has been around awhile until some show up on the used market at a considerable discount. You pay retail and then if you don't like them and want to sell them down the road you really take a beating. I only paid $1500 for my Swarovski SV 8x32's and $1900 for my Swarovski SV 10x50's and I just picked a new pair of Swarovski Habicht's 8x30 W off of Ebay for $625 and they are all like new. I also have to convince myself and my wife:gh: who is harder to convince I need another alpha roof.
Last edited:
When you give the money$$$.
Sounds like a plan Dennis.
Lee
When you give me the money$$$.
How does the Zeiss HT compared to the Swars 8x30W? Which has sharper and better views?
dwever
Well-known member
I personally like the Habicht 8x30 W which I have but I have tried the Zeiss 10x42 HT. They are both high transmission binoculars >95% so they both give you that wonderful sparkle in the view. The Habicht has better 3D than the Zeiss HT and to me better contrast and if you want a smaller, lighter more compact binocular the Habicht is the way to go. The Habicht 8x30 W to me is the best porro I have ever tried and used and will give most alpha roofs a run for their money. The Zeiss HT on the other hand is a superb roof prism with it's AK prisms and I would definitely try it and compare it to the Habicht yourself.
Having spent a few months the agonising over my 'bins for the rest of my life' choice, 8x42 with minimal shake and comfortable feel were crucial factors for me. I checked UV+, SV 8.5, SV 8x32 and both SFs. Optically they were all superb as I knew they would be. Two things made me go for the SF 8x. FOV was so impressive and was factor,but it was as much the smooth 'buttery' (as some describe it) focus I addition to the really comfortable handling that persuaded me. I initially thought the size would turn me off, but the way the barrels fall back into your eyes with the back-weighting made them so easy to hold. I need that ease as I'm not getting any younger. It's been the posts on this forum that have given me a sense of what's out there; having had a pair of Trinovids for the last ten years I was really out of date. I needed to hold all of them myself to properly compare. Even then, the adrenaline rush of the 'kid in the candystore' situation does weird things to your perceptions so I really couldn't tell much in the way of different colourations, 3D-ness etc between them all. I did go through three different u it's of zf before I choose the one I liked and that was down to smoothness of focus. I loved them in the shop but they're even better when the pressure's off. I have held and looked through HT s on a very cold day out on the moors in a gale. Optically superb but handling just not in the same league - they did look great though.
So, this is the experience of someone who just wanted a great pair of bins but didn't know much about the technicalities. Whatever the arguments in favour of this or that binocular, the feel has got to be right for the individual. Is there actually such a thing as a best binocular at this high level.
I don' t know. But I do know that I've got some fine optics and that I'm a very happy birder right now!
I agree about those SF strong points. Big FOV, smooth focus, rearward weight balance and great ergonomics. They really feel light for a 42mm binocular. I preferred the SF ergonomics over the HT also. Their really isn't a "best" alpha binocular. It all comes down to personal taste because they are all superb.
