Alpha IS? (1 Viewer)

[Ted Y.]

Sig Sauer is 1099$, not 700$.

SIG SAUER ZULU6 HDX OIS 16x42mm Schmidt-Pechan Prism Binocular SOZ6WP16, Color: FDE, Prism System: Schmidt-Pechan, Includes Blazin' Deal w/ Free Shipping

Shop SIG SAUER ZULU6 HDX OIS 16x42mm Schmidt-Pechan Prism Binocular | 4.6 Star Rating on 13 Reviews for SIG SAUER ZULU6 HDX OIS 16x42mm Schmidt-Pechan Prism Binocular Blazin' Deal + Free Shipping...

www.opticsplanet.com

 

[[email protected]]

Sig Sauer is 1099$, not 700$.

SIG SAUER ZULU6 HDX OIS 16x42mm Schmidt-Pechan Prism Binocular SOZ6WP16, Color: FDE, Prism System: Schmidt-Pechan, Includes Blazin' Deal w/ Free Shipping

Shop SIG SAUER ZULU6 HDX OIS 16x42mm Schmidt-Pechan Prism Binocular | 4.6 Star Rating on 13 Reviews for SIG SAUER ZULU6 HDX OIS 16x42mm Schmidt-Pechan Prism Binocular Blazin' Deal + Free Shipping...

www.opticsplanet.com

Contact the owner of this website. He was going to do the SIG Sauer Zulu 6 HDX 10x30 for $800 for me, but I bought the older Zulu 6 10x30 at another website for $600. He had the HDX in stock, and he should do $800 for you.

https://heartoftexasarmory.com/sig-sauer-electro-optics-soz6wp10-zulu6-hdx-flat-dark-earth-10x30mm-roof-prism-magnesium-features-optical-image-stabilization/

 

[Binastro]

There are stabilizing mounts for movie cameras since the 1970s.

China had giro mounts about 2,000 years ago.

Regards,
B.

 

[fazalmajid]

The Sig Sauer Zulu 6 16x42 has ED glass and has practically no CA. It is very close to alpha IMO and only weighs 20 oz. The newer Sig Sauer Zulu 6 HDX is even supposed to have better glass.

Yes, I saw the thread and your posts, but the brand seems to have poor or no distribution in the UK. Perhaps stringent gun control means no market for their main line of business. I wish Opticron or Kite would OEM whatever improved model Kamakura made.

 

[Binocollector]

Yes, I saw the thread and your posts, but the brand seems to have poor or no distribution in the UK.

Sig Sauer in Germany went bankrupt and was closed down at the end of 2020. I think that might be the reason they are hard to get in Europe (even though I think only Firearms were produced in Germany, the binos are outsourced anyway but I guess a lot of shops simply don't carry the brand anymore at all). Sig Sauer US still exists.

 

[exup]

Yes, I saw the thread and your posts, but the brand seems to have poor or no distribution in the UK. Perhaps stringent gun control means no market for their main line of business. I wish Opticron or Kite would OEM whatever improved model Kamakura made.

Uttings carry Sig Saurer in the UK....and a good supplier

 

[Hermann]

I wish Opticron or Kite would OEM whatever improved model Kamakura made.

I think the Kamakuras are still a work in progress. There have apparently been quite a few improvements since they first came onto the market. It will also take some more time until it becomes clear how reliable they are in the long run.

I also think Opticron, Kite and maybe some others will carry the latest iteration of the Kamakuras at some stage.

Hermann

 

[Stanbo]

Uttings carry Sig Saurer in the UK....and a good supplier

I have used Uttings, although not for binoculars and they seem to be a good retailer. However, I suggest you be careful with the Sig 16x42 IS advert. First of all, it is for pre-order and the Sig number is SOZ61601 which is the model shown on the Sig site as being discontinued. The Sig 16x42 IS HDX currently shown on the Sig site is the SOZ6WP16 where, incidentally, it is also described as a roof binocular - interesting!

 

[[email protected]]

I have used Uttings, although not for binoculars and they seem to be a good retailer. However, I suggest you be careful with the Sig 16x42 IS advert. First of all, it is for pre-order and the Sig number is SOZ61601 which is the model shown on the Sig site as being discontinued. The Sig 16x42 IS HDX currently shown on the Sig site is the SOZ6WP16 where, incidentally, it is also described as a roof binocular - interesting!

All the Sig Sauer IS binoculars are roof prisms, in contrast to the Canon IS binoculars which are porros.

 

[Stanbo]

All the Sig Sauer IS binoculars are roof prisms, in contrast to the Canon IS binoculars which are porros.

The Uttings site clearly states that they are poros. I thought all the Kamakura clones are poros, but l'm happy to be proven wrong.

 

[Binocollector]

Look like reverse porros to me. But the website does indeed state "roof".

ZULU6 HDX

Experience image stabilization in the ZULU6 HDX and change the way you hunt.

www.sigsauer.com

 

[henry link]

The Zulus use a combination of Schmidt-Pechan roof prisms followed by rhomboid prisms. The rhomboids are required to widen the distance between the eyepieces enough to fit within the range of human eye spacing. Adjustment of the IPD is then by rotation of the rhomboids.

The spacing of the objective lenses is fixed and very narrow, similar to a reversed Porro. That's why the 42mm objective lenses had to be sliced down on one side to fit. I don't have a pair to measure, but from looking at photos, the distance between the objective centers appears to be around 37-40mm. Maybe someone with a pair could measure it.

 

[Stanbo]

The Zulus use a combination of Schmidt-Pechan roof prisms followed by rhomboid prisms. The rhomboids are required to widen the distance between the eyepieces enough to fit within the range of human eye spacing. Adjustment of the IPD is then by rotation of the rhomboids.

The spacing of the objective lenses is fixed and very narrow, similar to a reversed Porro. That's why the 42mm objective lenses had to be sliced down on one side to fit. I don't have a pair to measure, but from looking at photos, the distance between the objective centers appears to be around 37-40mm. Maybe someone with a pair could measure it.

Henry,
Thanks for that very useful information. In order to consider the relative merits of the other Kamakura clones, is it likely that they will also use the Schmidt-Pechan prisms or are there other types of prism that would work. The simple question is, are they all roofs or just the the Zulus.
Stan

 

[[email protected]]

Henry,
Thanks for that very useful information. In order to consider the relative merits of the other Kamakura clones, is it likely that they will also use the Schmidt-Pechan prisms or are there other types of prism that would work. The simple question is, are they all roofs or just the the Zulus.
Stan

The Kite APC IS binoculars are roof prisms also. The Fujinon 16x28 TS are porro prisms. So the DNA of the Sig is closer to the Kite. I would imagine they use SP roof prisms because they are compact, and it allows them to maintain the compact size and light weight of the binocular.

 

[[email protected]]

The Zulus use a combination of Schmidt-Pechan roof prisms followed by rhomboid prisms. The rhomboids are required to widen the distance between the eyepieces enough to fit within the range of human eye spacing. Adjustment of the IPD is then by rotation of the rhomboids.

The spacing of the objective lenses is fixed and very narrow, similar to a reversed Porro. That's why the 42mm objective lenses had to be sliced down on one side to fit. I don't have a pair to measure, but from looking at photos, the distance between the objective centers appears to be around 37-40mm. Maybe someone with a pair could measure it.

The distance measured vertically across the objective is 42 mm, and the distance measured horizontally to the flat inside of the objective is 37 mm.

 

[henry link]

Henry,
Thanks for that very useful information. In order to consider the relative merits of the other Kamakura clones, is it likely that they will also use the Schmidt-Pechan prisms or are there other types of prism that would work. The simple question is, are they all roofs or just the the Zulus

All the current iterations of this Kamakura design I've seen look like they use the same S-P and rotatable rhomboid combination. In terms of light throughput that would be one of the least efficient binocular erecting systems. Other possibilities would be to use a Porro type 2 combined with a rotatable rhomboid (like the Zeiss 20x60) or simply to use a rotatable Porro Type 2 (like the Canons and some reverse Porros), which is one of the most efficient binocular erecting systems.

The distance measured vertically across the objective is 42 mm, and the distance measured horizontally to the flat inside of the objective is 37 mm.

Ok, add the width of the obstruction between the two lenses to 37mm and that would give the baseline for stereopsis, which looks like it's around 42mm. The 10x30 appears to be about 37mm including the separation between the lenses. The only reverse Porro I have around is an old Minolta 8x23 Weathermatic. It's objective baseline with the IPD set at 65mm is 43mm.

The sliced objective lens in the 42mm models has the disadvantage of introducing some coma because the optical center of the lens is horizontally misaligned by 5mm after the lens is cut. That wouldn't be good in a high magnification telescope, but as far as I can tell from masking off the edge of a few binocular objectives it's probably not noticeable at the low magnifications of these binoculars. Still, if I tested a pair that would be the first thing I would look at.

 

[[email protected]]

All the current iterations of this Kamakura design I've seen look like they use the same S-P and rotatable rhomboid combination. In terms of light throughput that would be one of the least efficient binocular erecting systems. Other possibilities would be to use a Porro type 2 combined with a rotatable rhomboid (like the Zeiss 20x60) or simply to use a rotatable Porro Type 2 (like the Canons and some reverse Porros), which is one of the most efficient binocular erecting systems.



Ok, add the width of the obstruction between the two lenses to 37mm and that would give the baseline for stereopsis, which looks like it's around 42mm. The 10x30 appears to be about 37mm including the separation between the lenses. The only reverse Porro I have around is an old Minolta 8x23 Weathermatic. It's objective baseline with the IPD set at 65mm is 43mm.

The sliced objective lens in the 42mm models has the disadvantage of introducing some coma because the optical center of the lens is horizontally misaligned by 5mm after the lens is cut. That wouldn't be good in a high magnification telescope, but as far as I can tell from masking off the edge of a few binocular objectives it's probably not noticeable at the low magnifications of these binoculars. Still, if I tested a pair that would be the first thing I would look at.

If that is the least efficient erecting system it is strange because they are considerably brighter than the comparable Canons like the 10x30 IS II and 12x36 IS III which I compared them directly too and everybody else says they are brighter also. Sig Sauer must use considerably better HD glass and have better coatings than Canons to make up for the difference in transmission.

Is it possible there are less air to glass surfaces in the Sig than the Canon or a less complex eyepiece, which would aid transmission? I doubt that the small section of sliced objective makes much difference at the low magnification these binoculars operate at because it is a very small % of the total aperture.

"Joe P.
6 months ago
Great glass and stabilization
Compared to a Canon 10x30 IS II pair, which I own, this SIG ZULU6 is superior. Pros compared to Canon:- lighter/smaller-brighter image in good light (have not tested low light)- better stabilization (not huge diff, but you can notice it, a little less waviness in the stabilized image, too)"

 

[Binastro]

I make the loss of area from the cut out on the 16x42 Sig Sauer as 1/23.

Please correct me if wrong.

I didn't use a calculator.

So equivalent to a 16x41.

Regards,
B.

 

[henry link]

Thanks, Binastro. So the loss of the cut-out is hardly significant at all.

According to Binastro's figures the light loss would be 4.72% from the cut-out alone, provided the unsliced part of the lens has a clear aperture that's really 42m. The true clear aperture is still unknown because that can't be determined by measuring the objective lens from the front.

 

[Binastro]

Henry is correct.

Firstly, I did the calculation on a post it note making approximations by hand.

I assumed the half angle to be 37 degrees, but looking at tan I see it is actually 40 degrees.

So the slice may be 1/20 the area.

This still gives 16x41.

I'll use another post it note, but it's late now.

The actual objective area is measured at the front, but modified by vignetting, so maybe the actual clear aperture is less than 41mm.

Additionally there is a minor modification in resolution, but I think too small to matter even at 50x.

Regards,
Partly asleep,
B.