-
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.
New FL replacement coming soon? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter spiralcoil
- Start date
Town is deemed safe now, and we were allowed back in last Sunday. The fire roars on, mainly well to the northeast now. Just about all the woods between town and the fire have been burned, either by the fire or by the firefighters, so there's no fuel path for it to come into town, even if the wind changed for the worst. The swaths of forest near town that were burned out in the 2000 fire helped discourage it this time along with some luck with the wind, lots of lessons learned in 2000, long term fire mitigation efforts, and about 2000 firefighters.
The smoke is awful, depending on the wind, and almost every outdoor place that's fun to go is either toasted, or closed. At night, flames are still visible. Rains are forecast next week. And floods, yeah! Seems like no place is safe this year.
Ron
The smoke is awful, depending on the wind, and almost every outdoor place that's fun to go is either toasted, or closed. At night, flames are still visible. Rains are forecast next week. And floods, yeah! Seems like no place is safe this year.
Ron
James Bean
Well-known member
John (Russell) #13: I knew the FL focus is 'clockwise to infinity' (the one true way) and my comment was meant as a reminder to Zeiss to continue on the path of righteousness because there have been odd (very odd) occasions in the past when they've "gone and done a wobbler" by inexplicably changing direction without so much as a 'by your leave', as in some Monarchs and Design Selection models. This waywardness is not apparent to those who have only one binocular (I'm assured such people really do exist, strange as it may seem) since they just adapt and then don't give it another thought, while we who are blessed with 'greater vision' (lots of binoculars) simply can't be going back and forth (or every which way, as Americans say) because there is no industry standardisation (or should that be no sense of direction?) in matters of focus...
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Henry:
I was wondering about the binocular design when using the Abbe Konig prisms,
vs. the Schmidt. Does the Abbe need more room and so makes the barrells
wider than the design of the Schmidt? The Schmidt design would then be better
to design the open frame types, using slender barrells, vs. the closed option.
Jerry
henry link
Well-known member
AK prisms are longer than SP, so they mainly need extra length in the barrel rather than width. There is a little off-set in AK that typically is oriented to place the objectives outboard of the eyepieces. I don't know for sure, but I imagine the focusing shafts of an open frame design could be worked in above or below the narrow roof prism that faces inward.
James Bean
Well-known member
A welcome change in a new Zeiss model might be less belligerent nomenclature, avoiding names like 'Conquest' and 'Victory'. Safer to stick to inoffensive letters such as 'XFL'..
KorHaan
Well-known member
Well, the nomenclature is a great source for parody:
http://ronaldsinoo.web-ruimte.nl/KorHaan54.htm
I received some muttering comments from the elderly readers of the magazine my comic is published in; still, I can't resist such opportunities...8-P
Best regards,
Ronald
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Ronald:
Good of you to post your cartoon. It seems the user was disappointed with his
little 8x20, when looking through the bigger one, especially "tripod" mounted.
It is a common response, dissapointment:-C. 8x20 does not quite match it, no matter the make.
Jerry
KorHaan
Well-known member
Hi Jerry,
Actually, it's the same bin all along, only the user in the first pics is a leprechaun.
The leprechauns stole the little 8x20's from Kor Haan's rucksack. He's getting them back in the last two pics, and he's angry! Sorry, I should have translated some of my comics in English by now, but I never seem to get around to it.
BTW, I "stole" the idea for the comic from Sancho, from a post on a thread some time ago ( don't know exactly where ), in which someone posted a photograph of a person looking through some tripod-mounted big binoculars.
Sancho in his post said : "Hey, that's the leprechaun that stole my compacts!"
Sancho, if you're reading this :thanks man, I nearly choked in my coffee from laughing! :t:
Best regards,
Ronald
James Bean
Well-known member
ronh: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. How about an 'anschluss merger' with Swarovski ? That would give Dennis something to talk about!
Dale Forbes
Swarovski Optik, Austria
How about a Leivski FL T* just for sheer fun?
Hey, you're welcome Ronald! I'm glad somebody understood my joke, my wife never seems to find me funny at all....
Hi Henry,
AK prisms with its 3 (4 when consider the reflection into the roof as a double one) reflections also don't wind the light beam as much as the SP with its 5 (6). So I would assume, if two binoculars do have the same aperture and length, one with AK and the other with SP prisms, the AK-bin would have the shorter focal length and therfore a faster aperture ratio. That would mean that the production of the AK is more challenging compared with the other construction.
Steve
henry link
Well-known member
Hi Steve,
Yes, I'm sure Zeiss felt pressured by consumer preferences to make the FL's with AK prisms physically shorter than the old Dialyts in order to compete with alphas using SP prisms, probably driving the focal ratios well below f/3.5. I think that's mostly unfortunate, with only one silver lining. The smaller image at the objective focal plane does allow for wider fields from the same size eyepiece fieldstop, which shows up particularly in the 7x42 and 8x56 compared to the longer focal length SP competition.
Henry
Yes, I'm sure Zeiss felt pressured by consumer preferences to make the FL's with AK prisms physically shorter than the old Dialyts in order to compete with alphas using SP prisms, probably driving the focal ratios well below f/3.5. I think that's mostly unfortunate, with only one silver lining. The smaller image at the objective focal plane does allow for wider fields from the same size eyepiece fieldstop, which shows up particularly in the 7x42 and 8x56 compared to the longer focal length SP competition.
Henry
I read "somewhere on the web but it seemed pretty authoritative, could not find it now", that, compared to their external lengths, the AK's inside path is a factor of 1.5 times larger, and the SP's is 2.5 times. To play fast and loose for sure, but hey, let's say the length of a prism is about the size of the objective diameter. Given the refractive index of glass at about 1.5, that would mean for the same exterior dimension, the SP binocular would have an advantage of about a 0.6 greater focal ratio. That may not seem like much, but all binoculars are so bloody fast (about f/3.5) that I expect it would make a considerable difference, not only in the control of aberrations arising in the objective lens, but also in making an eyepiece that gives a well focused edge of view.
Will Zeiss abandon the namesake of it's greatest guiding lights, for the sake of obvious practicality?
Their market survey should ask not only "wouldn't a Swaro lookalike be great?", but also "do you have any idea who the hell Abbe was?" and for extra points, "do you know where to get a good Konig eyepiece anymore?".
Ron
Will Zeiss abandon the namesake of it's greatest guiding lights, for the sake of obvious practicality?
Their market survey should ask not only "wouldn't a Swaro lookalike be great?", but also "do you have any idea who the hell Abbe was?" and for extra points, "do you know where to get a good Konig eyepiece anymore?".
Ron
Yes, this makes sense to me.
I think there's a reason for them to continue the "AK-way". They are (almost) the only ones who use these prisms and so have a unique selling proposition. In optics, nowadays, this is not so easy to get.
Ron,
what the hell are Konig eyepieces? : )
BTW I don't think that the open bridge design is the last answer in binoculars ergonomics. A thought: as like there is an arch of foot there is also an arch of hand. Why only thinking of fingers and thumbs? There are many examples of grips in technics (e.g. gearshift lever, grips for motorbikes) and even old tools that use the arch of hand (hope the expression is correct). If you look at it there seems not much about it. But I can say that something fits my hands perfectly only if it fits into the arches of hand.
Steve
Henry,
Good point, yeah, that's how the Zeiss large exit pupil models give wide fields!
Steve,
It's an old timey eyepiece that works well (at least at the center of the field) in fast Newtonians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyepiece#K.C3.B6nig
Ron
Good point, yeah, that's how the Zeiss large exit pupil models give wide fields!
Steve,
It's an old timey eyepiece that works well (at least at the center of the field) in fast Newtonians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyepiece#K.C3.B6nig
Ron
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Try a porro for that palm grip! The SE is perfect in that regard. They melt in your hands.
I don't have much preference one way or the other, though. The SV's are great, the little 32mm FL is nice. I'm flexible and so are my hands.
Mark
Yes, you are right. In fact I prefer porros because of the palm grip. Very good in that respect for me are also the Leupold Cascade porros - for me the best grip. Their armouring is even of better quality than that of the Nikon SE. Docter 10x50 and even Canon 15x50 or 18x50 are in that respect very good too. Only with one hand the open bridge design is superior. But I think it's possible to build a roof that gives a good palm grip.
For me that grip is so important that I chose the scope by the way its focususser wheel does feel in my palm. I prefer a convex grip.
Steve
