• 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.

The 10X42 HT compared to the SF and SV (1 Viewer)

The HT is very good on CA control in almost every tough situation I've put it in, I only found one instance that tripped it up a bit. My neighbor up the road 250 yrds was putting up fence in brilliant midday sunny conditions wearing a white t-shirt, and if I didn't work at keeping him in the dead center, the edges of his shirt produced fairly noticeable CA. Particularly if I moved the binocular up slightly I could see a noticeable purple flare in the neck area of the t-shirt. On everything else the HT was easily better in CA control than my Minox 10X Porro, on that one thing they were nearly equal. I'm certain any other binocular known, other than maybe, or maybe not the FL, would react the same to that extreme CA producing scenario. I will say though, the brilliance of the white t-shirt was incredible. Overall I would say the HT has a very (crystalline), (sparkly) view.:-O
 
Last edited:
That's the problem with being here [on this forum] for too long - it's the clutter of information about things we already know enough about.

It doesn't matter the model or issue - well after consensus is reached we get individual reports of CA, poor sharpness, poor focus, poor build etc. and then [thereafter] all of these problems reported individually take on a life of their own, even though they may diverge wildly from the consensus.

Something like the 8x32 SV was a good example - generally loved by most that used it but [over time] a few reports of glare, CA, poor focus, poor sharpness - these could all be from one report - and the whole model becomes tainted. Dennis is notorious for taking a single comment, maybe staining of the SF armour, and just repeating it in enough threads that most everyone starts to believe it's a real problem.

I try to read the 1st few months worth of reports and go from those - anything coming later tends to be just noise to confuse the issue.
 
Last edited:
James, post 42,

Also agree! Worst situation is when someone speak about binoculars actually not seen. Or generalize having been in contact with only a sample of them. Or got into a discussion about what one ARE actually seeing...

PHA
 
Last edited:
Not sure where the last three posts came from, I thought we had a very positive thread about the HT going on.
 
Last edited:
SuperDuty said:
The HT is very good on CA control in almost every tough situation I've put it in, I only found one instance that tripped it up a bit. My neighbor up the road 250 yrds was putting up fence in brilliant midday sunny conditions wearing a white t-shirt, and if I didn't work at keeping him in the dead center, the edges of his shirt produced fairly noticeable CA. Particularly if I moved the binocular up slightly I could see a noticeable purple flare in the neck area of the t-shirt. On everything else the HT was easily better in CA control than my Minox 10X Porro, on that one thing they were nearly equal. I'm certain any other binocular known, other than maybe, or maybe not the FL, would react the same to that extreme CA producing scenario. I will say though, the brilliance of the white t-shirt was incredible. Overall I would say the HT has a very (crystalline), (sparkly) view.:-O
Click to expand...
Compare for CA control by looking at a BLACK object(Like a house smoke stack or a crow) against a white sky for example. The binocular that has the thinnest and least purple fringe around the object has the best CA control. All binoculars will have some at the edge and less at the center. It is easy to see the FL is better than the HT and it doesn't take hours of observations under different conditions or you don't need to take the binocular apart and take pictures of the inside of it either. You can take ten binoculars and rank them in a matter of minutes. Easy peasy! Don't make it harder than it is. If you don't like CA the FL is your binocular. I do the CA test on almost every binocular I buy and when I tested the FL I went WOW that baby is really good for CA.;)
 
Last edited:
james holdsworth said:
That's the problem with being here [on this forum] for too long - it's the clutter of information about things we already know enough about.

It doesn't matter the model or issue - well after consensus is reached we get individual reports of CA, poor sharpness, poor focus, poor build etc. and then [thereafter] all of these problems reported individually take on a life of their own, even though they may diverge wildly from the consensus.

Something like the 8x32 SV was a good example - generally loved by most that used it but [over time] a few reports of glare, CA, poor focus, poor sharpness - these could all be from one report - and the whole model becomes tainted. Dennis is notorious for taking a single comment, maybe staining of the SF armour, and just repeating it in enough threads that most everyone starts to believe it's a real problem.

I try to read the 1st few months worth of reports and go from those - anything coming later tends to be just noise to confuse the issue.
Click to expand...



Isn't that the truth! You have it nailed!:t:

We get one review titled "The phenomenal but dark Nikon 8x42 EDG II" in Nov. 2015,

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3317561&postcount=1

and a question comes up today in another thread; which is about 9 months after the review of that "phenomenal but dark" EDG noted above asking "how 'dark' is the EDG during the day compared to the others?"

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3427119&postcount=30

As Charley Brown says: Good Grief!;)

Bob

PS: If anybody else is asking; the EDG II is not dark in the daylight! I own one, a 10x32, and it is plenty bright in the daylight and in the twilight!:t:
 
Last edited:
Buzzwords in individual reviews seem to cause quite a stir. In a community such as this that focuses on nitpicking the little details of a binocular, that makes sense; however, because different eyes see things so differently, an issue seen by one person may be seen by less than 1% of the userbase. In my opinion it is best to read a wealth of reviews and try before your buy or from a vendor with a good return policy.
 
[email protected] said:
Compare for CA control by looking at a BLACK object(Like a house smoke stack or a crow) against a white sky for example. The binocular that has the thinnest and least purple fringe around the object has the best CA control. All binoculars will have some at the edge and less at the center. It is easy to see the FL is better than the HT and it doesn't take hours of observations under different conditions or you don't need to take the binocular apart and take pictures of the inside of it either. You can take ten binoculars and rank them in a matter of minutes. Easy peasy! Don't make it harder than it is. If you don't like CA the FL is your binocular. I do the CA test on almost every binocular I buy and when I tested the FL I went WOW that baby is really good for CA.;)
Click to expand...

Totally agree that FL is fantastic for CA control.
My HT performs the same.
Been outside looking at perched Ravens against white clouds. Can't find CA in the centre field of HT at all. Tried it with a tellywag pole (= pole carrying telephone cables) and its the same story.
Its just one sample of HT of course.

Lee
 
Troubador said:
Totally agree that FL is fantastic for CA control.
My HT performs the same.
Been outside looking at perched Ravens against white clouds. Can't find CA in the centre field of HT at all. Tried it with a tellywag pole (= pole carrying telephone cables) and its the same story.
Its just one sample of HT of course.

Lee
Click to expand...
Most good HD glass binoculars have very little CA in the centre field. They all have varying amounts on the edge. The HT has a little more on the edge than the FL. Not much. The HT and the SV are pretty close in off-axis CA. They are both quite good and not at all bothersome but the FL is a slight bit better.
 
Last edited:
ceasar said:
Isn't that the truth! You have it nailed!:t:

We get one review titled "The phenomenal but dark Nikon 8x42 EDG II" in Nov. 2015,

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3317561&postcount=1

and a question comes up today in another thread; which is about 9 months after the review of that "phenomenal but dark" EDG noted above asking "how 'dark' is the EDG during the day compared to the others?"

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3427119&postcount=30

As Charley Brown says: Good Grief!;)

Bob

PS: If anybody else is asking; the EDG II is not dark in the daylight! I own one, a 10x32, and it is plenty bright in the daylight and in the twilight!:t:
Click to expand...
The Nikon EDG is not dark. It is just more subdued than the other alphas like the SV,HT, or Ultravid HD. It is not as brilliant.:eek!:
 
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
Most good HD glass binoculars have very little CA in the centre field. They all have varying amounts on the edge. The HT has a little more on the edge than the FL. Not much. The HT and the SV are pretty close in off-axis CA. They are both quite good and not at all bothersome but the FL is a slight bit better.
Click to expand...

So, you don't test for CA above and below the centre-field? In the work I do, this is just as important as CA either side of centre.

This is where these go - Dennis, with gosh knows how little experience with the HT, declares the HT not as good as the FL - wash, rinse, repeat and - voila - it becomes part of the HT lore.

Noise is all it as.
 
james holdsworth said:
So, you don't test for CA above and below the centre-field? In the work I do, this is just as important as CA either side of centre.

This is where these go - Dennis, with gosh knows how little experience with the HT, declares the HT not as good as the FL - wash, rinse, repeat and - voila - it becomes part of the HT lore.

Noise is all it as.
Click to expand...
No. I test for CA on-axis also. Most good binoculars with HD glass are largely corrected on-axis it is the edges where I notice CA the most by far. It doesn't take a lot of experience with either the HT or the FL to compare the CA. Just a quick test. My test is comparable to Allbino's and I get similar results. If you don't agree with it that is fine.
 
[email protected] said:
The Nikon EDG is not dark. It is just more subdued than the other alphas like the SV,HT, or Ultravid HD. It is not as brilliant.:eek!:
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that, Dennis.

The light let in through the EDG to ones eyes is not "subdued." If this were the case it would be "subdued" under all lighting conditions from bright to dark. If this "subdued" effect was limited only to bright conditions as is argued, it could only come from coatings which had a photochromic effect in bright light only which would be highly unlikely.
 
ceasar said:
I don't agree with that, Dennis.

The light let in through the EDG to ones eyes is not "subdued." If this were the case it would be "subdued" under all lighting conditions from bright to dark. If this "subdued" effect was limited only to bright conditions as is argued, it could only come from coatings which had a photochromic effect in bright light only which would be highly unlikely.
Click to expand...
That's alright if you don't agree. That was my subjective opinion of the EDG II's and why I sold them. I understand you defending your binoculars. When I compared several alpha's deciding which one I wanted to keep that was my observation. The EDG II's to me just didn't have the brilliance of the other alpha's. I don't know if it is due to their slightly lower transmission or older coatings. Then when I read Tobias's review and he agreed I knew why I didn't like them as much. But alpha binoculars are a personal thing and for you they may be perfect. For me it is a major downfall of the EDG II's and I wouldn't buy a pair again until they either upgrade the coatings or upgrade the glass. That is just my personal opinion and others including yours may differ. Our eyes are all a little different. The other alpha's binoculars almost popped when you looked through them like you threw a switch and turned on the light. I personally didn't get that with the EDG II's.

From the Greatest Binocular Review.
"I find one major fault though - the view is visibly darker then in the Leica Ultravid 8x42, the Zeiss HT and even the Zeiss SF. No matter how sharp the EDG is, it looks a bit subdued where the Leica Ultravid sparkles vividly. Nikon really needs to boost transmission in the EDG, no matter how, by coatings and or better glass. "
 
Last edited:
The HT is much better at controlling CA than than any of the 10X SVs, and also to a slightly lesser degree the 8.5X SV, but still much better. I also find it considerably better than the 10X42 SF in that regard, I am VERY CA sensitive, so many others won't see it that way. The ZenRay ED 2 and Kowa Genesis were similarly excellent with CA, but that's where the similarities end. I guess my only nit to pick in the10X42 HT is the amount of pincushion distortion, coming from the SV series, and not being at all bothered by globe effect, I could live with a lot less. The SF, with the transmission and CA control of HT, would be a true leap toward perfection that doesn't exist at the present time IMO. So far I haven't seen an FL of any configuration.


james holdsworth said:
So, you don't test for CA above and below the centre-field? In the work I do, this is just as important as CA either side of centre.

This is where these go - Dennis, with gosh knows how little experience with the HT, declares the HT not as good as the FL - wash, rinse, repeat and - voila - it becomes part of the HT lore.

Noise is all it as.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
FL series is very good but there were some very slight color inaccuracies; I thought it tended to be a bit warm in the view, resulting in slightly (and I do repeat, SLIGHTLY) more 'yellow' images. Aside from that I couldn't really see much difference in the HT and FL, aside from handling.

I'm surprised you think the only similarities between the Genesis and HT were CA control. It has a similarly high transmission and very good microcontrast, on par with the best I've seen. When comparing it with the FL I had a very difficult time deciding which I liked better, but of course the FL was much lighter which was an important consideration.
 
SuperDuty said:
The HT is much better at controlling CA than than any of the 10X SVs, and also to a slightly lesser degree the 8.5X SV, but still much better. I also find it considerably better than the 10X42 SF in that regard, I am VERY CA sensitive, so many others won't see it that way. The ZenRay ED 2 and Kowa Genesis were similarly excellent with CA, but that's where the similarities end. I guess my only nit to pick in the10X42 HT is the amount of pincushion distortion, coming from the SV series, and not being at all bothered by globe effect, I could live with a lot less. The SF, with the transmission and CA control of HT, would be a true leap toward perfection that doesn't exist at the present time IMO. So far I haven't seen an FL of any configuration.
Click to expand...
I will agree with you there. The HT when I compared them with the SV was a little better at controlling CA but the SV is actually pretty good. The Kowa and the Zen Ray ED 2 are very good with CA also. All the alpha's are pretty good with CA and it is not that noticeable. The Fl is a tad better. Not a big deal.
 
The difference in CA control between the HT and SV is substantial to me, but I'm more CA prone than most apparently. I had all but given up the idea of a true Alpha view with ultra low CA, the HT has shown me different.

[email protected] said:
I will agree with you there. The HT when I compared them with the SV was a little better at controlling CA but the SV is actually pretty good. The Kowa and the Zen Ray ED 2 are very good with CA also. All the alpha's are pretty good with CA and it is not that noticeable. The Fl is a tad better. Not a big deal.
Click to expand...
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 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.

Similar threads

N
SF 42 & 32 Brief Comparisons
Replies
8
Views
2K
Scott98
S
O
Zeiss Victory HT 8x42 vs. Victory SF 8x42
Replies
4
Views
587
Scott98
S
J
Brief reviews about Zeiss victory SFL 8/10 x40
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
Declan Joseph Deasy
D
T
Zeiss SF 8x30 vs SFL 8x40
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
tian1227
T
D
A Zeiss Conquest HD on steroids.
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
ArchStanton
A

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top