New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (1 Viewer)

[Vespobuteo]

Just for grins, has anybody actually measured the fov of the SF? Is it really 444' or something else? I notice the Zeiss website lists the HT with a 404' fov and a 62* viewing angle. The Sf says 444' (both for 8x) and lists a viewing angle of 60*. Something does not compute. Sadly websites these days are rife with errors.

Unless the SF measures more than 444', the SF is not the fov market champion. Kruger modestly and incorrectly lists their Caldera 8x as 438'. I've had two, still have one, and they both clocked at 464', or 8.8*.

Just an example of website errors and I'm just curious what the SF actually measures.

SF 8x42 - 444' (@1000 yards) - 148 meters (@1000m) - 8.6° - (64° AFOV)
SF 10x42 - 366' (@1000 yards) - 120 meters (@1000m) - 6.9° - (65° AFOV)

The formula AFOV = FOV x Magnification
I suspect is an approximation that works
best for narrow field telescopes. Probably why
it differs with the real values stated by Zeiss.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Steve C]

SF 8x42 - 486' (feet) - 148 meters - 8.6° - (64° AFOV)
SF 10x42 - 394' (feet) - 120 meters - 6.9° - (65° AFOV)

The formula AFOV = FOV x Magnification
I suspect is an approximation that works
best for narrow field telescopes. Probably why
it differs with the real values stated by Zeiss.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Depends on if they used arc tangents on one and not the other or just made a mistake. If the fov is 486 and they listed 444, there's a mistake someplace.

If it's 486, the the fov is 9.25* for the 8x. This makes more sense to me when comparing the wide fov comments, as 486 will seem wide. At any rate thanks for the field measurements, which differ from the site.

 

[henry link]

Zeiss-US has never corrected its website's error of listing the "Subjective Viewing Angle" (more commonly called Apparent Field of View in English) as 8º for the 8x42 and 6.5º for the 10x42. Those numbers don't make sense as real field in degrees unless they were naively arrived at by dividing the AFOV spec by the magnification.

The Zeiss-International English website appears to be accurate as far it goes, but it doesn't list the true fields in degrees. If it did (based on the m/1000m and feet/1000yards specs) they would be 8.46º for the 8x42 and 6.86º for the 10x42. The Apparent Field of View specs at that website appear to be actual measurements rather than calculations. Measurements naturally include the effects of the distortion profile. As a result AFOV specs from real measurements fall somewhere between the ISO and the magnification X real field in degrees calculations. Less pincushion will make the measurement closer to the ISO standard and more pincushion pushes it closer to the simple magnification X real field calculation.

Henry

 

[Chosun Juan]

Vespo, Steve,

I think Steve raises an excellent point - just what exactly do the fields of the 8x and 10x really measure on the ground (in m) at 1000m ??

It is important when looking at specs to remember that whilst the AFov's remain the same, the Metric measurement, and the Imperial one are two different animals ............ ie. specs are often quoted as:

___m @ 1000m ........... or ___ft @ 1000yd

Even though 1m = 3.28ft, and 1yd = 0.914m, the simple multiple for converting between the two is: ft@1000yd = 3x m@1000M
ie you can't multiply the given m figure by 3.28 and then claim that is the field in ft, since even though it is, the conventional reference for the ft real field figure is at 1000yd (=914m) which is 0.914 of that 1000m m figure, or rather simpler, a straight multiple of the quoted m figure at 1000m by 3

Please lets make sure we are comparing apples :-@ and apples :-@ here! o

Now apart from website errors, and Quite apart from all of that, there are the small angle approximations used, and Henry mentioned something about the actual distortion characteristics too ---- I think we'd all greatly appreciate it if Henry would be so kind as to comprehensively please explain all that again (even though you just did! :t:

Here's the info from the Oz Zeiss website: http://www.zeiss.com/sports-optics/...-binoculars/victory-sf-binoculars.html#models

The 148m @1000m quoted for the 8x does not match the 64 degree AFov quoted.
The 120m @1000m quoted for the 10x does not match the 64 degree AFov quoted.


So is it a case of website error?, Metric to Imperial mixups?, small angle approximations?, distortion characteristics?, or something else?

Let the real measurements begin!


Chosun :gh:

 

[Vespobuteo]

I don't doubt the FOV figures,
the 8x seems as wide as my 7x42 FL that is 150m@1000m,
and it's easier to see the whole field in the SF, due to the larger EP
and a bit more ER,

as far as the AFOV, it's probably as Henry says,
it will be a bit less due to the field characteristics (flatter field),
(if I get it correct..)

compare the formulas for AFOV here
(none will give the result that Zeiss states...):

http://astronomy.tools/calculators/binoculars

 

[Troubador]

On the second time I ever tried out SF 8x I had my HT 8x with me and I can tell you that going back to the HT was like looking through a ship's porthole by comparison. You could say it was like tunnel vision, the difference was so marked. Believe me, its not something you have to 'search for and carefully compare', when swapping back to HT (it would be the same going back to an FL 8x42) it hits you in the face.

Of course I soon re-adapted to my HT but the contrast from one to the other makes me absolutley confident in the FOV claimed for SF.

Lee

 

[Vespobuteo]

On the second time I ever tried out SF 8x I had my HT 8x with me and I can tell you that going back to the HT was like looking through a ship's porthole by comparison. You could say it was like tunnel vision, the difference was so marked. Believe me, its not something you have to 'search for and carefully compare', when swapping back to HT (it would be the same going back to an FL 8x42) it hits you in the face.

Of course I soon re-adapted to my HT but the contrast from one to the other makes me absolutley confident in the FOV claimed for SF.

Lee

sounds like binocular poetry, to me,
"porthole-binoculars hitting you in the face",
who would like to have one of those?
I would use that in marketing if I was Zeiss,
:-O

 

[Steve C]

Vespo

Is the 486' your measurement? Is it on the Swedish site for Zeiss?

I don't doubt for a moment the SF seems wide. However, the fov is only one element of the overall presentation, or presence, of a binoculars image. Since my 10x50 SV is on the way out due to ever developing partial rolling ball issues, I'm sort of interested in trying the SF. However Zeiss has made the step into both very wide fields and even sharper than SV edges. That may be biting off more than they can chew (or maybe more than I can view), I don't know. The Caldera at 460', which may or may not be wider than the SF, has a tendency to do some weird things at the edges. Personally I'm great with an actual 8* fov at 8x. I have binoculars that have afov's of 77-84* so I know how a wide field looks.

It takes maybe five minutes with a measuring tape and a tripod to determine the fov.

Lee has some Zeiss contacts. Would you ask them to double check the website and maybe take the proper data and wake up the webmaster?

I will try to call Zeiss myself. This is not a big deal, and I don't intend to start off a whole raft of new posts here about how great and wide the view from the SF is. I accept at face value that it is great and wide. I'd just like to know what the real field of the SF is. That correct information does not seem to be on the Zeiss site.

 

[Vespobuteo]

Vespo

Is the 486' your measurement? Is it on the Swedish site for Zeiss?

I don't doubt for a moment the SF seems wide. However, the fov is only one element of the overall presentation, or presence, of a binoculars image. Since my 10x50 SV is on the way out due to ever developing partial rolling ball issues, I'm sort of interested in trying the SF. However Zeiss has made the step into both very wide fields and even sharper than SV edges. That may be biting off more than they can chew (or maybe more than I can view), I don't know. The Caldera at 460', which may or may not be wider than the SF, has a tendency to do some weird things at the edges. Personally I'm great with an actual 8* fov at 8x. I have binoculars that have afov's of 77-84* so I know how a wide field looks.

It takes maybe five minutes with a measuring tape and a tripod to determine the fov.

Lee has some Zeiss contacts. Would you ask them to double check the website and maybe take the proper data and wake up the webmaster?

I will try to call Zeiss myself. This is not a big deal, and I don't intend to start off a whole raft of new posts here about how great and wide the view from the SF is. I accept at face value that it is great and wide. I'd just like to know what the real field of the SF is. That correct information does not seem to be on the Zeiss site.

I don't do feet or yards....they are just confusing to me...:eek!:

check out the zeiss brochure on the link below,
the correct values are in there:

the 8x42 SF is 444 ft at 1000 yards,

http://applications.zeiss.com/C1257996004D33D2/0/C166E72281CE200CC12579A6004C9281/$FILE/ZEISS-nature-catalog-main-2015_EN.pdf

 

[Steve C]

I don't do feet or yards....they are just confusing to me...:eek!:

check out the zeiss brochure on the link below,
the correct values are in there:

the 8x42 SF is 444 ft at 1000 yards,

http://applications.zeiss.com/C1257996004D33D2/0/C166E72281CE200CC12579A6004C9281/$FILE/ZEISS-nature-catalog-main-2015_EN.pdf

The 444' is part of the problem. If that is correct, the angles are not correct, assuming by subjective viewing angle they mean afov, as per Henry Link's post above. If that angle is correct, then the fov is not 444'. Unless they use the arc tangent method. However, they use the old fashioned magnification x angular fov on the HT. So do they use one method on the HT and another method on the SF. You are right, it is sort of confusing. If I could lay hands to a Zeiss SF for 5 minutes I could answer the question.

I have been on that page you linked several times.

Has anybody actually measured the fov on their SF? B

 

[Maljunulo]

I dunno, Lee. For me when a Loon dives I just drop the binos. You won't see it when it comes up, no matter how big the FOV. Those puppies can swim. And if you can still see it when it comes up it's clearly time for a scope cuz it's just too far away. :t:

I do pretty much the same with Common Mergansers. You never know where they will pop up, but it usually isn't near where they dove.

Hooded Mergansers seem to be a bit easier.

(No scope ........ I'm using my FMT-SX 16X70 these days)

Richard

 

[Vespobuteo]

The 444' is part of the problem. If that is correct, the angles are not correct, assuming by subjective viewing angle they mean afov, as per Henry Link's post above. If that angle is correct, then the fov is not 444'. Unless they use the arc tangent method. However, they use the old fashioned magnification x angular fov on the HT. So do they use one method on the HT and another method on the SF. You are right, it is sort of confusing. If I could lay hands to a Zeiss SF for 5 minutes I could answer the question.

I have been on that page you linked several times.

Has anybody actually measured the fov on their SF? B

we don't know the actual magnification either, it could be 7.7x or 8.3x,
I guess a bit lower mag is more likely,
so the formulas might be a bit off for that reason,

I hope you get to try the SF:s,
very nice bins, but the Swaro SV:s are too,

I haven't made my actual choice yet,
still pondering between the 8x and 10x SF
and the new 8.5x SV (haven't tried that one yet),
but it is said to have a faster & smoother focuser and lighter weight
(things that annoyed me the most in the old model)
and big FOV is not everything in bins,

 

[Steve C]

we don't know the actual magnification either, it could be 7.7x or 8.3x,
I guess a bit lower mag is more likely,
so the formulas might be a bit off for that reason,

I hope you get to try the SF:s,
very nice bins, but the Swaro SV:s are too,

I haven't made my actual choice yet,
still pondering between the 8x and 10x SF
and the new 8.5x SV (haven't tried that one yet),
but it is said to have a faster & smoother focuser and lighter weight
(things that annoyed me the most in the old model)
and big FOV is not everything in bins,

Yeah, there are certainly different variables. A quick fov check with the measuring tape might say 436 or 448'. Or if the listed fov is not correct, then the tape might say 478 or 486', or some different number. If is is close to 444' then 444' it is.

I'd actually personally be happier if the 8x SF was listed as 420', and if it was not supposed to be sharper at the edge than the SV.

If your eyes get along with the SV edge it is a great glass.

 

[Vespobuteo]

Yeah, there are certainly different variables. A quick fov check with the measuring tape might say 436 or 448'. Or if the listed fov is not correct, then the tape might say 478 or 486', or some different number. If is is close to 444' then 444' it is.

I'd actually personally be happier if the 8x SF was listed as 420', and if it was not supposed to be sharper at the edge than the SV.

If your eyes get along with the SV edge it is a great glass.

sorry to hear about your rolling ball problem,
the edges of the SF is not SV-sharp,
But if they are RB-free, I don't really know,
I'm not a "panner", I'm more of a gazer..
so I'm not that sensitive to RB, I think,

anyway, a bit sharper edges than my 7x42 FL would be nice to have,
it's a bit like looking through a vaseline soft lens...
but the center is hilariously tack sharp, thank G, or Z rather, for that,

o

 

[Steve C]

sorry to hear about your rolling ball problem,
the edges of the SF is not SV-sharp,
But if they are RB-free, I don't really know,
I'm not a "panner", I'm more of a gazer..
so I'm not that sensitive to RB, I think,

anyway, a bit sharper edges than my 7x42 FL would be nice to have,
it's a bit like looking through a vaseline soft lens...
but the center is hilariously tack sharp, thank G, or Z rather, for that,

o

Well not quite SV sharp is nice to hear. I have no wish to get upwards of $2,500 US tied up in a binocular that does not suit me every time I pick it up. I figured that was the SV 10x50 for a while, but no. I am aiming toward a lifetime purchase here, so it needs to tick all the bells and whistles or down the road it goes.

 

[Vespobuteo]

Well not quite SV sharp is nice to hear. I have no wish to get upwards of $2,500 US tied up in a binocular that does not suit me every time I pick it up. I figured that was the SV 10x50 for a while, but no. I am aiming toward a lifetime purchase here, so it needs to tick all the bells and whistles or down the road it goes.

the SF:s are definitely candidates,
for a lifetime binocular,
the ergonomics are very clever,
feels very natural to hold and operate the focuser,
it's a VERY strong point in my book,

But I think it's also a gut feeling in buying binos,
they must feel right, and it's not always possible
to explain why in words, or quantify it in numbers.
It's a quality aspect above common knowledge.
:smoke:

 

[Torview]

Steve, I`v had an SF alongside my EII and the SF is definitely not as wide so the 444ft could be spot on.

 

[Vespobuteo]

Steve, I`v had an SF alongside my EII and the SF is definitely not as wide so the 444ft could be spot on.

do you use glasses?
"effective" FOV also is an interesting parameter,
I can't see the whole FOV in a bin like the EII,
with my glasses on..same with my 7x42 FL:s,
lack of ER I guess, but also the size of the EP
is a part of it,
big AFOV tend to need big diameter ocular lenses, to be usable,
or what is your experience?

 

[Torview]

No, I don`t wear glasses, I find the EII very comfortable and find moving my eyes around the fov very easy with no black outs.

The SF is very comfortable in use as well.

 

[Chosun Juan]

Has anybody actually measured the fov on their SF? B

Good question Steve! :t:
Well folks? Any takers on this? It seems there are a few floating about now, either as keepers, or evaluation trialers ...... soooooo ......

For those in the Ye Olde world:-
Measure the field at 1000yd (where it should make 444ft), or if your backyard is not quite that big!, measure the field at 100yd ..... check out a local football field or park and double check all the distances with a handyman's tape or better .... (where it should make 44ft 5inches) - you could set up some flags or markers quite easily.

For those of the Modern Era, 20th Century and beyond
Measure at 1000m (where the real field distance should be 148m), or
Measure at 100m (where the real field distance should be 14.8m)

A simple measurement like this takes all the distortion characteristics, and magnification vagaries out of it (though you could also measure the Exit Pupil and objective diameters to get this too --- that will let you calculate AFov for your particular unit

Let the reporting of measured facts begin! :cat:


Chosun :gh: