New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (3 Viewers)

[Steve C]

Well, I'm perfectly willing to accept the 444' as what it supposed to be. Just seems strange what with the contradictions.

Actually fov measurement is pretty easy. Get a measuring tape and set your binocular on a tripod. Set the objectives as close to either 10 yards or 10 meters from the wall (or someplace you can set the measuring tape) as you can get. Tape a measuring tape on the wall. See how many feet or meters there are visible across the field. That feet or meters at 10 of their respective units is easily computable to the 1,000 mark. Divide the feet @1,000 by 52.5 and you get the angular fov. Divide the meters at 1,000 by 17.5 and you have the angular fov. Takes maybe 5 minutes.

Wide fields and sharp edges can do strange things.

 

[Vespobuteo]

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:

did you get the FOV OCD here on the forum?
perhaps Brocks swaro focuser hang-up mutated in some poultry
and did a fly-by in your neighborhood?


I told you I compared the SF with my 7x42 FL:s @ 150m FOV/1000m,
and FOV it's practically the same to me in the SF,
but more usable,

And Troubs analogy "changing back to the HT:s felt like a porthole hitting you in the face"
says it all I think,
:-O

I don't know where this FOV suspicion comes from,
but Zeiss sure doesn't seem to have much credibility down under,
IMO they better talk to their marketing department ASAP and
send out a postal dingo right to your doorstep with some fresh SF:s for
you to try, must be frustrating not to be able to see the heavenly light
that Dr Dobler and Zeiss have brought to this world,
we have been living in caves for too long now,
so shed some new light (with a nice color bias),
over those poor porthole-birders,
3

but seriously,
I think it's all in the eye piece construction and in the prism placing,
(and also the objective lens construction, the moving focus lens)
that makes this wide FOV happen (with quality).
in the cut outs,
the internal f-stop is also much wider in the SF
than in competition,

 

[Chosun Juan]

did you get the FOV OCD here on the forum?
perhaps Brocks swaro focuser hang-up mutated in some poultry
and did a fly-by in your neighborhood?


I told you I compared the SF with my 7x42 FL:s @ 150m FOV/1000m,
and FOV it's practically the same to me in the SF,
but more usable,

And Troubs analogy "changing back to the HT:s felt like a porthole hitting you in the face"
says it all I think,
:-O

I don't know why this FOV suspicion comes from,
but Zeiss sure don't have much credibility down under,
IMO they better talk to their marketing department and
send out a postal dingo right to your doorstep with some fresh SF:s for
you to try, must be frustrating not to be able to see the heavenly light
that Dr Dobler and Zeiss have brought to this world,
we have been living in caves for too long now,
so shed some new light (with a nice color bias),
over those poor porthole-birders,
3

but seriously,
I think it's all in the eye piece construction and in the prism placing,
that makes this wide FOV happen (with quality).
in the cut outs,
the internal f-stop is also much wider in the SF
than in competition,

.
Hahahahaha ......... "I don't know why this FOV suspicion comes from" !!!! :eek!:

Actually it comes from YOU! Vespo! your fanciful 486ft and 394ft numbers for the 8x and 10x (of your original post#2981, as quoted in Steve's post#2982) are the stuff of the Big Blue's Marketing Department's salacious dreams!! |:$|

I see that you have since seen the error of your ways and edited your post, correctly bridging the Imperial /Metric divide --- good-o!

I also thought that among all the noise of estranged otters and diving ducks that an actual, easy, practical, simple, measurement of the Fov would be nice confirmation of the claims, and good service to fellow BFer's :t:

As to your suggestion that Zeiss, ".... send out a postal dingo right to your doorstep with some fresh SF:s for you to try .... " , What an excellent idea! o , just make sure it's a quick one so that it doesn't get polished off by the local Wedgies before making it to my door! :gn:


Chosun :gh:

 

[Troubador]

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:

Dead right VB

Lee

 

[Vespobuteo]

.
Hahahahaha ......... "I don't know why this FOV suspicion comes from" !!!! :eek!:

Actually it comes from YOU! Vespo! your fanciful 486ft and 394ft numbers for the 8x and 10x (of your original post#2981, as quoted in Steve's post#2982) are the stuff of the Big Blue's Marketing Department's salacious dreams!! |:$|

I see that you have since seen the error of your ways and edited your post, correctly bridging the Imperial /Metric divide --- good-o!

I also thought that among all the noise of estranged otters and diving ducks that an actual, easy, practical, simple, measurement of the Fov would be nice confirmation of the claims, and good service to fellow BFer's :t:

As to your suggestion that Zeiss, ".... send out a postal dingo right to your doorstep with some fresh SF:s for you to try .... " , What an excellent idea! o , just make sure it's a quick one so that it doesn't get polished off by the local Wedgies before making it to my door! :gn:


Chosun :gh:

me? moi? noooo...
actually it's not a division,
but mixing feets and yards sure does seem quirky to me also...
easy to stumble, either way,
if you put your feet in a nest of rattle snakes,


here's something for you Dobler-fans...
:t:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsVp96AjpvY

 

[Troubador]

Vespo

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

I.

486' is just a conversion of 148m into feet and considering that as CJ points out the imperial measurement of FOV is done at 1,000 yds and not 1,000m the 486 is just an error that VB soon noticed and corrected.

Lee

 

[Steve C]

486' is just a conversion of 148m into feet and considering that as CJ points out the imperial measurement of FOV is done at 1,000 yds and not 1,000m the 486 is just an error that VB soon noticed and corrected.

Lee

That is why I asked him if it was his measurement or not. I'm not sure why people fool with that when all that is needed is to divide the fov in feet by 52.5 or the fov in meters by 17.5 and we get the angular fov, which is what is needed for either traditional or ISO AFOV angles. If you need to convert meters to feet divide the meters by 17.5 for the angle of fov and multiply that angle by 52.5 for the fov in feet.

If one looks at the Zeiss site the HT has to be figured from the traditional method, where 62* is close to correct for the listed 404'. The SF has to be figured with the ISO method where the listed 60* is closer correct for 444'. Actually I make it 61.17*, but obviously a 404' fov is not wider than a 444' fov. A little consistency from an alpha supplier like Zeiss should not be too great an expectation.

My question was simply if anyone had measured the fov of their SF. Apparently the answer is no. Good enough. I did not want to send this off into yet another divergent flight path.

 

[kabsetz]

I have measured the field of view of an 8x42 SF, but since it was not mine, maybe this does not count?

Anyway, at 10m the field of view was 148cm which corresponds with published specs for meters/km.

I also measured booster fields of view through the 8x42 SF as well as a Swaro 8.5x42, and the results were a ratio of 8 to 8.53, which considering measuring tolerances is well in accordance with the nominal magnifications.

So after investigating it, I certainly believe that the SF is an 8x42 binocular with a 148m/km field of view.

Kimmo

 

[Vespobuteo]

I have measured the field of view of an 8x42 SF, but since it was not mine, maybe this does not count?

Anyway, at 10m the field of view was 148cm which corresponds with published specs for meters/km.

I also measured booster fields of view through the 8x42 SF as well as a Swaro 8.5x42, and the results were a ratio of 8 to 8.53, which considering measuring tolerances is well in accordance with the nominal magnifications.

So after investigating it, I certainly believe that the SF is an 8x42 binocular with a 148m/km field of view.

Kimmo

thanks Kimmo,

any thoughts on reviewing the 8x and 10x SF:s?

 

[Steve C]

I have measured the field of view of an 8x42 SF, but since it was not mine, maybe this does not count?

Anyway, at 10m the field of view was 148cm which corresponds with published specs for meters/km.

I also measured booster fields of view through the 8x42 SF as well as a Swaro 8.5x42, and the results were a ratio of 8 to 8.53, which considering measuring tolerances is well in accordance with the nominal magnifications.

So after investigating it, I certainly believe that the SF is an 8x42 binocular with a 148m/km field of view.

Kimmo

Thanks for this. Answered the question, yes it is indeed the 444' not something else, which is what I was after in the first place.

 

[Troubador]

A little consistency from an alpha supplier like Zeiss should not be too great an expectation.

Couldn't agree more Steve and consistency of data on websites has been the subject of correspondence from me to Zeiss several times in the recent past.

Lee

 

[Chosun Juan]

I have measured the field of view of an 8x42 SF, but since it was not mine, maybe this does not count?

Anyway, at 10m the field of view was 148cm which corresponds with published specs for meters/km.

I also measured booster fields of view through the 8x42 SF as well as a Swaro 8.5x42, and the results were a ratio of 8 to 8.53, which considering measuring tolerances is well in accordance with the nominal magnifications.

So after investigating it, I certainly believe that the SF is an 8x42 binocular with a 148m/km field of view.

Kimmo

Yes, I will 3rd that ..... Thanks Kimmo! :t:

I will also 2nd Vespo's thinking, any thoughts on a review Kimmo?

And Lee, I agree with you and Steve about the online data. Surely with such a huge marketing campaign, and all the spin and guff that was trotted out, Zeiss can get the information on their websites correct?! To me that's another Red Flag to add to the collection of Systemic ones revealed by the faults encountered so far ....... So many Red Flags in fact, that it might as well have been made in China!!

Now where is that Dingo? ....... :cat:


Chosun :gh:

 

[Troubador]

Zeiss can get the information on their websites correct?! To me that's another Red Flag to add to the collection of Systemic ones revealed by the faults encountered so far ....... So many Red Flags in fact, that it might as well have been made in China!!

Now where is that Dingo? ....... :cat:


Chosun :gh:

You would think so CJ and these data hiccups began way before SF.

Red Flags? This imagery is so 'last cold war'. :-O

Lee

 

[Chosun Juan]

Just to alert folks and keep them posted, as part of a comparison of 5 alpha Top dawg's (see this thread by Tobias Mennle here: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=311690 ) there is a comprehensive review of the 8x42 SF by Tobias here: http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/zeiss/zeissvictorysf8x42/zeissvictorysf8x42.html

While this particular unit was from a "demopool", it seems to indicate a few of the issues that have been noted here on this thread. I find it a bit concerning that issues like this are market escapees :-C ; and, while some fine qualities were noted, I don't think that is the sound of Dennis's wallet snapping back open anytime soon! ......:eek!:

This from the conclusion paragraph ..... "The*Zeiss SF*design has great potential, but just cannot match the HT´ s optical excellence neither dethrone the Swarovision yet."
A highlight (or not though, is ..... " - The SF has a superb flare resistance, beating the Swarovision, and maybe even surpassing the already spectacular HT. Well done!"


Chosun :gh:

 

[GLOBETROTTER]

AWESOME REVIEW !!!!!!!! on greatest binoculars web site

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/shootouts/shootoutpremier8x42s/8x42shootout.html

 

[NDhunter]

Just to alert folks and keep them posted, as part of a comparison of 5 alpha Top dawg's (see this thread by Tobias Mennle here: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=311690 ) there is a comprehensive review of the 8x42 SF by Tobias here: http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/zeiss/zeissvictorysf8x42/zeissvictorysf8x42.html

While this particular unit was from a "demopool", it seems to indicate a few of the issues that have been noted here on this thread. I find it a bit concerning that issues like this are market escapees :-C ; and, while some fine qualities were noted, I don't think that is the sound of Dennis's wallet snapping back open anytime soon! ......:eek!:

This from the conclusion paragraph ..... "The*Zeiss SF*design has great potential, but just cannot match the HT´ s optical excellence neither dethrone the Swarovision yet."
A highlight (or not though, is ..... " - The SF has a superb flare resistance, beating the Swarovision, and maybe even surpassing the already spectacular HT. Well done!"


Chosun :gh:

Chosun:

I find this a very good review. Which of these binoculars would be
your first choice ?

Jerry

 

[Chosun Juan]

Globetrotter - settle down a bit son, that 5-way alpha dawg shootout is the sole subject of the link to Tobias's thread that I posted directly before you! .... good to see that my powers of communication, persuasion, and influence are as well received as ever! |^| Seeing that Tobias authored the shootout, I think it's best we leave relevant comparison arguments largely to that thread ..... especially if they don't concern the SF :news:

What I did want to do was point out that each of those alpha dawgs has a fuller in depth review of their own ..... so I've linked the SF one.

Interesting in that the particular unit tested exhibits many, many of the faults /issues noted on this thread:- softness, blue peripheral rings, less than top $ feeling armour, woeful focuser with slop and Brock's favourite - uneven directional tension, just to name a few .....

And while this might just be a unit to unit variation, or an early iteration, I think it is inexcusable at this price point. :storm:

Also of great concern is the colour rendition ......
"Colour reproduction* to my eyes is problematic with a yellowgreen cast.*For me this is a serious fault in the SF´s design.*Check out a white wall on a cloudy day. Accordingly, greens sparkle very saturated, but purples and skin tones are a bit subdued."

Surely at this price point a neutral colour reproduction would be De riguer?! This was one of the key factors in the SF finishing behind both the HT and SV .......
One of the "tricks" manufacturers use to artificially boost transmission % is to optimise for the green-yellow spectrum ..... which is what Zeiss seems to have done here at the expense of 'pop' in the red and blue. Those "like never before" Martian-like red coatings and lack of HT glass have really hurt here. For this price point HT glass and re-optimised coatings would have provided greater transmission % AND a neutral colour cast.

The other interesting point is that Tobias found the user perceived Rolling Ball effect to be stronger in the SF than the SV --- despite the advertised spin!! We know that Holger's average distortion value charts predicted less RB than the SV, so I wonder what precise point curve details are going on here to cause this??! :cat:


Chosun :gh:

 

[NDhunter]

Globetrotter - settle down a bit son, that 5-way alpha dawg shootout is the sole subject of the link to Tobias's thread that I posted directly before you! .... good to see that my powers of communication, persuasion, and influence are as well received as ever! |^| Seeing that Tobias authored the shootout, I think it's best we leave relevant comparison arguments largely to that thread ..... especially if they don't concern the SF :news:

What I did want to do was point out that each of those alpha dawgs has a fuller in depth review of their own ..... so I've linked the SF one.

Interesting in that the particular unit tested exhibits many, many of the faults /issues noted on this thread:- softness, blue peripheral rings, less than top $ feeling armour, woeful focuser with slop and Brock's favourite - uneven directional tension, just to name a few .....

And while this might just be a unit to unit variation, or an early iteration, I think it is inexcusable at this price point. :storm:

Also of great concern is the colour rendition ......
"Colour reproduction* to my eyes is problematic with a yellowgreen cast.*For me this is a serious fault in the SF´s design.*Check out a white wall on a cloudy day. Accordingly, greens sparkle very saturated, but purples and skin tones are a bit subdued."

Surely at this price point a neutral colour reproduction would be De riguer?! This was one of the key factors in the SF finishing behind both the HT and SV .......
One of the "tricks" manufacturers use to artificially boost transmission % is to optimise for the green-yellow spectrum ..... which is what Zeiss seems to have done here at the expense of 'pop' in the red and blue. Those "like never before" Martian-like red coatings and lack of HT glass have really hurt here. For this price point HT glass and re-optimised coatings would have provided greater transmission % AND a neutral colour cast.

The other interesting point is that Tobias found the user perceived Rolling Ball effect to be stronger in the SF than the SV --- despite the advertised spin!! We know that Holger's average distortion value charts predicted less RB than the SV, so I wonder what precise point curve details are going on here to cause this??! :cat:


Chosun :gh:

Chosun:

This post is the reason why you and Brock would
make a good couple. o

Jerry

 

[Chosun Juan]

Chosun:

I find this a very good review. Which of these binoculars would be
your first choice ?

Jerry

Well Jerry,

My first choice (drawing a long bow would be the Swarovski 10x50 SV ..... which I would place a little ways ahead of the Zeiss 8x42 HT. (The x50 SV for its wonderful bright crystalline view, and the ease of the throw them to your face eye placement - I agree with Mark here - and, as Tobias said "how do they do that"? , and the HT for it's unique and irreplaceable A-K prism clarity.)
I think it's then a fair gap back to the Swaro 8.5x42, then the Nikon 8x42 EDGII (not in the shootout), and Leica 8x42 (eye relief issues for me with glasses on) , and Swaro 8x42 SLC (sorry Ed! it just didn't do a great deal for me! .....

I haven't yet seen the new Leica HD+, or the Zeiss SF

They all have their drawbacks (even the 10x50 SV - weight, and the 8x42 HT - ergos for me), so I guess like many here I'm still really waiting for that next great perfect bin to be designed and made ..... :cat:


Chosun :gh:

 

[Chosun Juan]

Chosun:

This post is the reason why you and Brock would
make a good couple. o

Jerry

Jerry! Noooooooooooooo! perish the thought! At least I know what I'm talking about when it comes to RB!! (still, Brock's amusing to have around sometimes when he stops short of donning the chain mail, and going on a crusade! :cat:


Chosun :gh: