[lilcrazy2]

If you want some good pics of the Zeiss 8x60's take a look at this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...252FSAi1A%253D

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by lilcrazy2

If you want some good pics of the Zeiss 8x60's take a look at this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...252FSAi1A%253D

Those are awesome aren't they. 5.5#. They were probably mounted someway don't you imagine. That would be a lot of weight to hold. $6100.00 was a pretty good price. I wish I would come across a a pair of those at the Goodwill store sometime. With their awesome light gathering power they could probably make out the outline of destroyers at night. Submerge and then torpedo them.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by John S.

Well...all I can say is enjoy those big heavy binoculars. You are going to keep them - right? I'm going to guess that they won't see much field time in spite of all the theoretical benefits.

I was out by Platteville Colorado today cruising around looking for Birds of Prey and I spotted some Bald eagles. Sometimes they prey on Starlings out there. The big Zeiss were awesome on these Birds of Prey. I can hold them steadier than the 8x32 Zeiss FL's because of their weight and one big advantage with the big 56 mm aperture is you can look right towards the sun at sundown and you don't get ANY glare because of the big 7mm exit pupil the glare misses your eye. You have to be careful because you don't even know the sun is there until you are on it. Big advantage when observing towards sundown or sunup.These would be great for observing waterfowl at these times also and of course for hunting. The weight of course doesn't bother you when you are using them as a car binocular. You can get a mount to mount them in your car window. Might be nice for cruising the country roads. Here is a link to a nice video on the new Swarovision 10x50's on a Birding Tour. They say the 10x and 12x 50mm Swarovision's are of course even a tad better than the 8.5 x42 Swarovision especially for open habitat and Birds of Prey. According to Swarovski the Swarovision 10x50 and 12x50's are the birding binoculars of the future and they say they work good even for close quarters and not just open country. They are remarkably light for a 50mm at only 35oz. That is only 6oz. heavier than the 42mm. Even more expensive yet than the 42mm!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc9M_...layer_embedded

[ceasar]

Nice advertisement for Swarovski! And not even on their forum.

Bob

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by ceasar

Nice advertisement for Swarovski! And not even on their forum.

Bob

I am not brand loyal. I do prefer the ergonomics of Zeiss because they seem to fit me better but the new Swarovisions have awesome optics I must admit and I haven't looked through their new 10x50 or 12x50 Swarovisions but I imagine they are great. I am impressed that they are only 35 oz with a 50mm aperture and not too big in size either. It is interesting that they are saying the 12x is stabile because of balance. They would be excellent on birds of prey or owls and it sounds like Swarovski is trying to push them as an all around binocular. $2600.00 though. Ugh!

[josika]

I would think tensing up would hurt. You are always told to relax your arms. It is interesting that if you tense up you reduce your heartbeats. That is going against what you would assume.
_______________

__

Tensing up can increase intra thorasic pressure which reduces blood flow to yhe heart, thereby reducing pulse rate. If you check your pulse while breathing deeply, your pulse will be more rapid during inhalation and slower during exhalation. Your pulse will also drop while holding your breath.
Ben.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by josika

__

Tensing up can increase intra thorasic pressure which reduces blood flow to yhe heart, thereby reducing pulse rate. If you check your pulse while breathing deeply, your pulse will be more rapid during inhalation and slower during exhalation. Your pulse will also drop while holding your breath.
Ben.

Interesting. I never notice that before but it is true if you try it.

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by josika

__

Tensing up can increase intra thorasic pressure which reduces blood flow to yhe heart, thereby reducing pulse rate. If you check your pulse while breathing deeply, your pulse will be more rapid during inhalation and slower during exhalation. Your pulse will also drop while holding your breath.
Ben.

Ben,

I've noticed this same phenomenon. Breath control is something that I pay particular attention to while holding 10x and 12x bins. I make my critical observations while breathing out. If I do it while breathing in, my heart beat will cause micro-vibrations, which are particularly noticeable while stargazing.

I mentioned this on Cloudy Nights and was met with disbelief that one's heartbeat could contribute to "the shakes".

Regular aerobic exercise will also get your heart so conditioned that it will beat slower, which will make using higher power bins easier unless you also have "essential tremor," which is an inherited family trait in my case. My grandfather shook so badly that by the time he was 80, he couldn't sign his name or write. My mom's shakes also got worse as she got older, and I'm starting to notice it too.

I see a full sized 10x or 12x IS bin in my future, but not until they have learned how to make them with larger exit pupils, lighter weight, and better ergonomics than the "box camera" 10x42 IS L.

Thanks for pointing out that connection.

Brock

[David Swain]

The technique is central to the sport of biathlon, where racers must somehow reduce their heart rates enough to squeeze off some steady shots.

http://www.wabiathlon.org/misc/Domey/fund-1.pdf (top paragraphs) It's noted, though, that holding your breath longer than 3-4 seconds actually causes the rate to increase.

David

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

I am not brand loyal. I do prefer the ergonomics of Zeiss because they seem to fit me better but the new Swarovisions have awesome optics I must admit and I haven't looked through their new 10x50 or 12x50 Swarovisions but I imagine they are great. I am impressed that they are only 35 oz with a 50mm aperture and not too big in size either. It is interesting that they are saying the 12x is stabile because of balance. They would be excellent on birds of prey or owls and it sounds like Swarovski is trying to push them as an all around binocular. $2600.00 though. Ugh!

Uh, Oh, I think we might be looking at your next "latest and greatest" bin! :-) No, a 12x50 would be too specialized, not an "all arounder".

It is intriguing, though, that more than one Extremadura visitor mentioned this (I wonder how much they paid them to say that? Just kidding, Dale!).

I would expect that kind of remark about a 10x42 with very good balance and ergonomics, but a 12x is usually beyond the ability of most birders to hold steady except yogis who can slow their heart rate down to 20 bpm. Of course, then they can't move, so that won't do birders much good.

I imagine that dealers will see a lot of returns of this bin from disappointed buyers who expect to "image stabilize" the 12x50 SV EL with their hands.

OTOH, the Nikon 8-16x40 XL (wish it were 50mm), which had top rate optics and a larger than average FOV for a zoom bin, was so well balanced in my hands that I could hold 15x much steadier than I would have expected. Got my best view of a RTH with that bin @ 15x until just a couple days ago when I managed to get within 25 ft of a big RTH in the woods across the street and could see amazing detail with low power.

Its beak was a pale blue color. The sharp hook at the end looked like it could open a can.

He had no fear of humans. Still, if I got any closer, I was worried I might end up on the next episode of "When Birds Go Wild". :-)

Brock

[Chosun Juan]

That biathalon stuff is interesting.........hmmm

Back in the day when I was roaming the badlands south of the border, and involved with aaaaarr......'problem solving' we were taught by a veteran 'slinger (I 'spose longevity somehow equates with gold medals in a different arena! ) that the steadiest way to.......ahem, 'proceed' was to pause upon exhalation at the end of the breathing cycle.........'course this only gives you a handful of seconds before you have to start the whole cycle again, but seems to work well.

As far as bino's go, I think a close encounter with a peregrine, or as Brock discovered, a big RTH, can tend to throw such practised and mastered techniques right out the window!

Also while extra mass, well balanced about the centroid can help inertially damp vibrations, in the end you can't out fox ol' F=ma (gravity seriously sucks....as a recent involuntary 10ft excursion under its influence rather painfully demonstrated to me).........ya cannae change the laws of physics captain.....2:23
This no doubt contributes to the spate of divorcings of 10-12x wives, after the day to day grind dulls the lure of the intially intoxicatingly lustful 10-12x mistress....

Gotta say, I love all this OB stuff - LMAO....

Better be careful not to let the 8x56 missus catch you perving on some hot little 10x50 Austrian number!!

Chosun

[josika]

If you wish to lower your heart rate you can also stick your head under water as this will elicit the diving response. Diving animals slow their pulse to increase dive time. We are the only apes who have a diving response.
You can use your waterproof binos to view diving birds so long as you do not dive below 5m or 4m if you have Swarovski's.
Happy viewing Ben.

[hinnark]

Originally Posted by josika

We are the only apes who have a diving response.

Now, this is new to me. Very interesting! Do you have a reference?

BTW some of the Steiner marine bins are waterproof up to 10m. I've read in some instruction manuals of different manufactorers though that the device is waterproof but not suitable for under water use, IMSMR. Haven't tried it by myself so far.

Steve

[josika]

Humans are definitely the only great ape which shows a diving response, and if I remember my old zoology lectures correctly we are the only primate.
The diving response and our nakedness were used to support the aquatic origin hypothesis for human evolution.
I do not have a reference but you should be able to find out about the diving response in any good comparative vertebrate physiology textbook.
Ben.

[mooreorless]

Originally Posted by josika

Humans are definitely the only great ape which shows a diving response, and if I remember my old zoology lectures correctly we are the only primate.
The diving response and our nakedness were used to support the aquatic origin hypothesis for human evolution.
I do not have a reference but you should be able to find out about the diving response in any good comparative vertebrate physiology textbook.
Ben.

http://starklab.slu.edu/PhysioLab/Diving.htm
One of many from Google. I never heard of this.

[Sancho]

Originally Posted by josika

The diving response and our nakedness were used to support the aquatic origin hypothesis for human evolution.
Ben.

That reminds me of a book "The Scars of Evolution", by Elaine Morgan, that I read about twenty years ago. It was extremely convincing on the aquatic ape theory, and explained a lot of the oddities of humans that aren´t shared by other primates (upright gait, bald bodies, joint problems, over-active sebaceous glands, breath control, and a curious propensity to spend large amounts of money on summer vacations by the seaside, spent lolling around in the shallows for no particular reason). I wonder what happened to the theory, and if it was well-received? It made a lot more sense than the "strolling out onto the savannah" theories, given that we´d have been predator-bait with a half-upright posture.
Sorry to wander off-topic. I´d love to see the Zeiss 8x56, but I´m rapidly losing the will to test new optics.

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by Sancho

That reminds me of a book "The Scars of Evolution", by Elaine Morgan, that I read about twenty years ago. It was extremely convincing on the aquatic ape theory, and explained a lot of the oddities of humans that aren´t shared by other primates (upright gait, bald bodies, joint problems, over-active sebaceous glands, breath control, and a curious propensity to spend large amounts of money on summer vacations by the seaside, spent lolling around in the shallows for no particular reason). I wonder what happened to the theory, and if it was well-received? It made a lot more sense than the "strolling out onto the savannah" theories, given that we´d have been predator-bait with a half-upright posture.
Sorry to wander off-topic. I´d love to see the Zeiss 8x56, but I´m rapidly losing the will to test new optics.

I hear you on losing the will to test new optics. Over the past couple years, the only new optics I've tested have been the 10x42 EDG's, and except for less 3-effect, the views looked very similar to what a 10x42 SE with a slightly wider FOV and ED glass would look like. All others have been upgraded versions of bins I already tried or owned. If there's anything out there that's better, it's beyond my pay grade.

Elaine Morgan's theories are outdated. Today, it's a "known fact" that humans are closer anatomically to pigs than apes. Actor Jeff Daniels is a glaring example:

http://www.ultrafeel.tv/wp-content/u...als/pigman.jpg

[birdazzLED]

...Huh? Oh, not considering DNA, the operative word being anatomically...

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by birdazzLED

...Huh? Oh, not considering DNA, the operative word being anatomically...

Well, there are some throwbacks to our common ape ancestry, actress Kim Hunter being one of them (RIP):

http://l.yimg.com/eb/ymv/us/img/hv/p...nter/apes1.jpg

[Robert Wallace]

Originally Posted by mooreorless

Dang Dennis you actually had me looking at Zeiss 8x56 FL binoculars online today. I am one that would want the ultimate refrigerator/vehicle binocular for looking in my field and anywhere I wouldn't have to carry it far. 43oz. This is all Henry's fault.

Me too Mooreorless! I thought life was simple my pupil entrance is just less than 4mm so my choice of birding binoculars was either 8x32(30) or 10x 40(42). Not so from the very technical advice offered. I have resurrected my Zeiss 7x42s and will use them in favour of my Nikon HG 8x32. I was thinking of some new 10x42 bins but now 10x50 or even 10x56!

I started birding in my late 20's and could easily manage CZJ 10x50s (1Kg+)but now 35 years or more later?

I guess binoculars are both "tools of the trade" and/or "objects of desire" I would love to devise a psychometric test which places people on a spectrum between the two parametres. Lots of birders pretend to regard their binoculars just as tools of their trade but for many they are "objects of derire"
Where am I? I think towards objects of desire, 3 years ago I bought off Ebay some Zeiss West 8x30B porro binoculars which are exquisite, compact and light.

So sorry Dennis huge 8x56s will not be on my shopping list. Nor will 10x42s if my wife has anything to do with it. Whats wrong with my Zeiss 10x40BGT's anway - apart from no phase correction coating.

[birdazzLED]

@BnR -

Originally Posted by Sancho

That reminds me of a book "The Scars of Evolution", by Elaine Morgan, that I read about twenty years ago.

http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morg...atic_apes.html

[James Bean]

Robert: I shouldn't worry your Zeiss 10x40 BGAT doesn't have phase coating. My 10x25 Victory has dielectric and phase coatings; it's very sharp and clear, but I still prefer my old 10x40 BGAT for its nice big easy view. I have had many 'great' binoculars in my time, with my current favourite being a Nikon 10x42SE, yet if I was forced to have only that old Zeiss 10x40 BGAT and nothing else, I'd rest reasonably contented. Yes, I'd miss all the others (mostly Zeiss and Nikon) but there is something special about that 'ClassiC'...

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by Robert Wallace

Me too Mooreorless! I thought life was simple my pupil entrance is just less than 4mm so my choice of birding binoculars was either 8x32(30) or 10x 40(42). Not so from the very technical advice offered. I have resurrected my Zeiss 7x42s and will use them in favour of my Nikon HG 8x32. I was thinking of some new 10x42 bins but now 10x50 or even 10x56!

I started birding in my late 20's and could easily manage CZJ 10x50s (1Kg+)but now 35 years or more later?

I guess binoculars are both "tools of the trade" and/or "objects of desire" I would love to devise a psychometric test which places people on a spectrum between the two parametres. Lots of birders pretend to regard their binoculars just as tools of their trade but for many they are "objects of derire"
Where am I? I think towards objects of desire, 3 years ago I bought off Ebay some Zeiss West 8x30B porro binoculars which are exquisite, compact and light.

So sorry Dennis huge 8x56s will not be on my shopping list. Nor will 10x42s if my wife has anything to do with it. Whats wrong with my Zeiss 10x40BGT's anway - apart from no phase correction coating.

You should really check out the Swarovision 10x50's. Only 5oz. heavier than the 8.5x42's. Raptor and Waterfowl Nirvana! $2600.00 sdsxnnjnxx dollars!

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by birdazzLED

@BnR -



http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morg...atic_apes.html

Interesting theory and alot of validity to it. Michael Phelps is living proof we evolved from aquatic apes. Big feet and big hands.

[ceasar]

I've got big feet and big hands too but some people think I evolved from neanderthals! (They invented beer you know! It originated in the Neander Valley.)
Bob