I suspect the real reason is that when the bins inevitably leak (some brands quicker than others! that customers would be able to tell by their increasingly squeaky voices !! :-O
Chosun :gh:
:-O:-O
Lee
I suspect the real reason is that when the bins inevitably leak (some brands quicker than others! that customers would be able to tell by their increasingly squeaky voices !! :-O
Chosun :gh:
Hey LB, I had originally thought that I would want the 10x42 hands down over the 8x42. However after viewing for several hours (mostly with the 8x, relatively lesser time spent with the 10x) I was not so sure. I should issue the caveat that I found the setup for my ER and viewing requirements to be quite finicky (I wear glasses to correct shortsightedness). Also, as I was mostly busy watching a Kestrel scoff down mice - I was somewhat more focused on the subject than usual.I just had the chance to spend a day with a black SF 10x42, and I could clearly see that infamous yellow/green colour cast. The effect was quite prominent to my eyes, not subtle at all.
I was a bit surprised, because I had not detected such a tint in an (also black) SF 8x42 I had tested two weeks before. The view of that 8x42 appeared a tiny little bit warmer compared to the view through my SV 8x32 FP, which I had at hand, and also to what my naked eyes saw. But nothing severe, and the colour balance looked fine aesthetically.
There have been discussions about differences between the grey and black models. But apart from that, I would like to know whether there might be discrepancies (in colour reproduction) between both black formats 8x42 and 10x42 as well.
I have decided to buy a black SF 8x42 by next month. I like the ergonomics and I really like the immersive FOV. But I just would return it, if it had the yellow tint of that 10x42 mentioned above. Any advice for me?
Tom
To my eyes (potentially dodgy as they may be , the colour cast of the SF is far more subtle. For me (stress that point) , the Conquest HD has like a dirty reddish brown wash to everything making everything look like you are on Mars! :eek!:Difficult for me to try the SF model, but i am curious...Is the color rendition the same that the Conquest HD (on the yellow side ) ?
For me (stress that point) , the Conquest HD has like a dirty reddish brown wash to everything making everything look like you are on Mars! :eek!:
Chosun :gh:
For me (stress that point) , the Conquest HD has like a dirty reddish brown wash to everything making everything look like you are on Mars! :eek!:
Mars, eh? Perhaps that's why I feel 'transported' when I look through my Conquests!
I have never noticed such an incredible color bias, but you've caveated your remarks well.
-Bill
The Monet shift as our eyes age. I would say there is more variation in our colour perceptions here than there is between our different visual acuities.Chosun :gh:
One thing is for sure though, the SF definitely needs HT glass too.
Chosun :gh:
The "Monet shift" is undone (or caused) by having cataract surgery, as noted in his case.
I can personally attest to just how startling this effect is, and I am not an artist, nor do I have the sensitivity to color balance mentioned here.
The short end of the spectrum becomes almost fluorescent, and you can definitely see much farther into the extreme violet than before the surgery and implants. It's quite an experience, especially while you are waiting for the second eye to be done.
All and all, it is a delightful experience during the early days before you get used to it and it just becomes your normal vision.
The % amounts increase in the blue part of the visible light spectrum of HT glass might s-e-e-m small, but are vitally important. The Sharpe, Stockman, Jagla & Jägle 2005 data is ~5 to ~10% above the 1931 CIE Standard in this part of the spectrum. Furthermore it would allow reindexing of the rest of the spectrum transmission resulting in a brighter AND more neutrally colour balanced image.In theory yes, HT glass will give a 2-3% increase in the blue spectrum,
but it seems that many people can't see much difference between the new UV-plus and the old UV.
Maybe Zeiss thought it wouldn't be worth the extra cost or they saved HT glass for a future SF update.
Especially as both Leica NV and UV now has it and Swaro SV most likely have it also.
The % amounts increase in the blue part of the visible light spectrum of HT glass might s-e-e-m small, but are vitally important. The Sharpe, Stockman, Jagla & Jägle 2005 data is ~5 to ~10% above the 1931 CIE Standard in this part of the spectrum. Furthermore it would allow reindexing of the rest of the spectrum transmission resulting in a brighter AND more neutrally colour balanced image.
I think one of your guesses about Zeiss's motivations is likely incorrect (not worth the extra cost), the other one possible (saving it for a SF 2.1 update), though there is a third option which I think is the most likely -- simple, stoopid, and bl**dy minded market segmentation. How they thought they could get away with hobbling the supposed flagship SF to protect the unique features of the HT (ie HT glass) is beyond me - it takes the consumer for mugs.
Leica, with its widely acclaimed colour balance improvements (and brightness, whether some people can see it or not - most acknowledge that there is something there) in going from UVHD to UVHD+, and then the NV also, have proven Zeiss to be cynical and curmudgeonly scrooges. I agree that Swarovski most likely has some HT glass in the SV which delivers that wonderful crystalline view that Zeiss just don't have. It is most evident on the 10x42 SV transmission graph as tested by Allbinos.
Is there anyone who can specify the per unit manufacturing cost increase of using HT glass (prisms and other relevant lenses) ? I can't imagine it is too much, or anywhere near an even remotely significant portion of the SF's exorbitant cost .....
Chosun :gh:
SF is clearly a specialized birdie bin so perhaps Zeiss didn't think that HT glass was needed.
But I'm also a bit annoyed that they didn't put all bells and whistles in the top of the line model. If Zeiss add HT-glass in SF MK III I guess we will understand how things work...
Perhaps you could call it segmentation but most hunters will probably buy HT anyway (even the 54mm) because they are more solid. And the HT is actually 20-25% cheaper today.
Maybe Zeiss got it wrong and should have put HT glass in SF, or then again, maybe it would have been better to have given HT the same field of view as SF, or perhaps SF should have Abbe-Koenig prisms, or could HT have been better with an open bridge design? All could be argued for.
Lee