temmie
Well-known member
You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?
Only did that once with a Leica Trinovid 10x42 BN and not a scratch on the body armor! (not sure if the bins touched concrete with the lenses, though) :t:
-
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.
Zeiss Victory SF 8x42: First Impressions (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter HighNorth
- Start date
Only did that once with a Leica Trinovid 10x42 BN and not a scratch on the body armor! (not sure if the bins touched concrete with the lenses, though) :t:
HighNorth
Well-known member
brocknroller
porromaniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by temmie View Post
Only did that once with a Leica Trinovid 10x42 BN and not a scratch on the body armor! (not sure if the bins touched concrete with the lenses, though)
Well, he dropped a "brick," after all, not an open bridge binocular with a thin third bridge between the objective housings. The original Trinnies are the ultimate in closed bridge roofs since they are practically all bridge, with a tiny bit of space between the objective housings and the eyecups, otherwise, it's one chuck o' metal with thick ribbed rubber armor.
I don't have Jerry's engineering background, but I would think that all other things equal, certain physical designs lend themselves to more punishment than others. Take the Conquest HD, for example. It's a typical "H" style closed bridge roof, so there's equal support on top and bottom. I suspect Pete Dunne got lucky with the EDG in terms of how it landed in his javelin tosses. Had it fallen straight down on the objectives, it might have suffered the same fate as High North's SF. When it comes to robustness, you can't beat the brick. If the open bridge design was more structurally sound than the brick, they'd be making buildings out open bridges rather than bricks.
What's better ergonomically isn't necessarily better structurally in terms of ruggedness. Like any design, there are compromises made to achieve certain characteristics.
For example, a suspension bridge has the advantages of needing less material than a solid bridge, it can be built higher than a solid bridge to allow tall ships to pass underneath, and since temporary central supports don't need to be built during construciton, and access to the construction isn't required from beneath, roadways and waterways don't need to be closed during construction.
OTOH, instability in extremely turbulent conditions could require the bridge to be closed temporarily. In 1940, high winds caused the Tacoma Narrows bridge near Seattle to collapse. And if you've driven over a suspension bridge in high winds, you know how much fun it is to drive while the road is swinging side to side. Weeeeeeeee....
If a suspension bridge is built on soft ground, it requires an extensive, costly foundation to counteract the effects of the heavy load on the foundation towers.
The bridges' flexibility is also a disadvantage when heavy, concentrated loads travel over the bridge, which is why suspension bridges are usually not used for railroads that carry heavy freight.
So like open bridge, all bridge and "H" bridge binocular designs, the suspension bridge has its "ups and downs."
Originally Posted by temmie View Post
Only did that once with a Leica Trinovid 10x42 BN and not a scratch on the body armor! (not sure if the bins touched concrete with the lenses, though)
Lucky you!
Well, he dropped a "brick," after all, not an open bridge binocular with a thin third bridge between the objective housings. The original Trinnies are the ultimate in closed bridge roofs since they are practically all bridge, with a tiny bit of space between the objective housings and the eyecups, otherwise, it's one chuck o' metal with thick ribbed rubber armor.
I don't have Jerry's engineering background
, but I would think that all other things equal, certain physical designs lend themselves to more punishment than others. Take the Conquest HD, for example. It's a typical "H" style closed bridge roof, so there's equal support on top and bottom. I suspect Pete Dunne got lucky with the EDG in terms of how it landed in his javelin tosses. Had it fallen straight down on the objectives, it might have suffered the same fate as High North's SF. When it comes to robustness, you can't beat the brick. If the open bridge design was more structurally sound than the brick, they'd be making buildings out open bridges rather than bricks. What's better ergonomically isn't necessarily better structurally in terms of ruggedness. Like any design, there are compromises made to achieve certain characteristics.
For example, a suspension bridge has the advantages of needing less material than a solid bridge, it can be built higher than a solid bridge to allow tall ships to pass underneath, and since temporary central supports don't need to be built during construciton, and access to the construction isn't required from beneath, roadways and waterways don't need to be closed during construction.
OTOH, instability in extremely turbulent conditions could require the bridge to be closed temporarily. In 1940, high winds caused the Tacoma Narrows bridge near Seattle to collapse. And if you've driven over a suspension bridge in high winds, you know how much fun it is to drive while the road is swinging side to side. Weeeeeeeee....
If a suspension bridge is built on soft ground, it requires an extensive, costly foundation to counteract the effects of the heavy load on the foundation towers.
The bridges' flexibility is also a disadvantage when heavy, concentrated loads travel over the bridge, which is why suspension bridges are usually not used for railroads that carry heavy freight.
So like open bridge, all bridge and "H" bridge binocular designs, the suspension bridge has its "ups and downs."
In a rather soft review of the Weaver Super Slam ED 8.5x45, published in American Hunter (http://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2013/12/23/review-weaver-super-slam/), Jeff Johnston "dropped it on grass 10 times from 4 feet; then froze it. It did not break, leak or exhibit internal fogging."
The only issue I have had with mine is that one of the over barrel objective covers slipped and was lost. It does offer a very pleasing view with highly user friendly ergonomics. Weaver's forward placement of the focuser has reappeared in the SF, after six years. I'll have to look out the Weaver bino harness for this one and compare it to the new Zerra 32mm.
Does anyone own a Weaver Super Slam ED 8.5x45 with a serial number over 200 ?
The only issue I have had with mine is that one of the over barrel objective covers slipped and was lost. It does offer a very pleasing view with highly user friendly ergonomics. Weaver's forward placement of the focuser has reappeared in the SF, after six years. I'll have to look out the Weaver bino harness for this one and compare it to the new Zerra 32mm.
Does anyone own a Weaver Super Slam ED 8.5x45 with a serial number over 200 ?
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Brock, have you ever examined the chassis of the Trinovid BA/BN (or Ultravid, which is almost the same)? Most of what you are calling a bridge is actually focus knob. The bridge connecting the barrels is quite short.
Hmm...I thought most modern building, be they out of steel girders, wood frame, or concrete blocks (which are mostly hollow), _were_ built more like bridges than solid bricks.
--AP
etc
Well-known member
That is my impression as well. I upgraded from a 2008 era Swaro EL to the first generation SF. I can't tell any difference view-wise. SF does seem absurdly light, like it's made out of paper.
Swaro EL does show a bit more detail solely due to the higher 8.5x vs 8x and not a noticeable amount of reduced FOV or more shake. IMO, if you are going to have just one alpha bin, the most optimal choice is Swaro EL in the 8.5x. Since I wanted to expand into the 10x, it seemed logical to have a lower power like 8x42. Owning both 8.5x and 10x didn't make as much sense, hence the trade, but SF is not an improvement upon EL, I think. I like eycup design a bit better, I think and the open bridge design is nice and has been improved upon it seems.
