dickiebird
Member
Check out the new review of the Zeiss 8x42 T*FL binoculars on the website Better View Desired.......
Dickiebird
Dickiebird
-
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 review of Zeiss 8x42 T*FL on Better View Desired website (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter dickiebird
- Start date
Thankfully, they haven't completely lost their minds over at Betterviewdesired! The Nikon SE 8X32 is still the site's overall best birding binocular.dickiebird said:
http://betterviewdesired.com/RefSet.html
Smart man, that Stephen Ingraham!!
John Traynor said:
I'm afraid your enthusiasm is not really justified here. Much of the BVD site has not been updated for MANY years, and the part you are referring to belongs into that category. In addition, the new review has not been written by Stephen Ingraham. Since he was actually involved in the development of the FLs that would have been out of place anyway, but he has apparently cut his connection with today's BVD because BVD's impartiality was at stake.
Otto McDiesel
Well-known member
FrankD said:
My comments:
Costing $600 and offering an excellent build and the best 8x image ever, the SE cannot be beat, but the 8x42 FL is close. Image alone does not make a binocular, though, and the 8x42 probably is the best 8x today, because of handling and all that. If i could have it my way, i would put 8x32 SE optics in a Swaro EL, better yet, i would put 9x35 SE optics in a Swaro EL.
The 8x42 FL did seem to offer nicer/better/brighter/cleaner view and better handling than the 8x42 LX when i compared them side by side.
If i were to get a 8x, the FL would be on the list.
henry link
Well-known member
Whether you agree or disagree with the general conclusions this is a puff piece if there ever was one, and irritatingly full of little bits of misinformation.
Last edited:
Otto McDiesel
Well-known member
henry link said:
Yeah, that review was full of it.
henry link
Well-known member
Tom,
If I had known that "dickiebird" was the author of the BVD review I would have been more courteous (or at least more careful ;-)) in my response. I'm afraid inviting a crew of optogeeks to read your review is asking for trouble. I apologize for being dismissive. I think I owe you the "courtesy" of making my objections in enough detail to allow you an opportunity to rebut them, so I'll be back with that later.
Henry
If I had known that "dickiebird" was the author of the BVD review I would have been more courteous (or at least more careful ;-)) in my response. I'm afraid inviting a crew of optogeeks to read your review is asking for trouble. I apologize for being dismissive. I think I owe you the "courtesy" of making my objections in enough detail to allow you an opportunity to rebut them, so I'll be back with that later.
Henry
FrankD said:
It is true that all other things being equal, then AK prisms offer increased light transmission compared to SP ones. He probably gets the 5% figure by comparison with a silver coated SP prism. The figure is probably smaller for Leica and Swarovski SP prisms but that's a guess.
In practice IMO all this techno-geekery is all very well, but there are so many additional complicating factors here that the only way to really know what is going on is to ignore the accronyms, and use the things.
Leif
Otto McDiesel
Well-known member
Leif said:
'dickiebird' = schmuckvogel.
I ment to say exactly that...I've seen e-bay listings that provided more info than that review.
henry link said:
If I understand this comment correctly, then I conclude that the starter of this thread, "dickiebird" is the person who also wrote the review on BVD. Personally, I don't think that is a fine way to make it public. I would then have appreciated something along the lines of
"Hi everybody I have posted a new review blabla bla on BVD, Tom"
I think it's fine to spread info about someone's activity if it might otherwise be missed. But it is not "proper" to give this info as if one were someone else. Why not stand behind of one's own doings?!
Whether it is a "puff piece" or not is not the issue here; the issue is honesty.
FrankD
Well-known member
Leif,
The reason why I asked if it was accurate was not because of the increased light transmission. I understand that point. The clarification I was looking for was where that increased light transmission was coming from. In the original quote it was specified that it came from a difference in coatings. My assumption was that it came from a decreased number of surfaces that the light path was reflected off of as in the Zeiss diagram below.
Is it a combination of both or is one or the other the more accurate statement?
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
I'll take a shot at answering this, Frank. Of the prism types in the illusration only Schmidt-Pechan requires that one surface be given a mirror coating. In the illlustration it's the prism face on the far right at which the angle of reflection is well below 90 degrees. The roof face on the left side appears to be less than 90 degrees but that is because the 2D illustration does not show the 90 degree reflections between the two halves of the roof. The light loss from mirror coating will vary from less than 1% for dielectric coating to perhaps 4-5% for silver to as much as 14 or 15% for aluminum. You are right that SP also has more reflections than porro or AK, 6 vs. 4. Even though there is supposed to be total internal reflection when the reflection angles are 90 degrees or more, the glass surfaces of the prism faces are not perfect so there must be a little scatter within the prism at each reflection. That probably results in a little loss of contrast and light transmission from the extra two reflections. Most of the time it's hard to know how much advantage comes from the AK prisms alone since there are so many other differences in coatings, glass, number of surfaces, etc., but in the case of the Zeiss FL's we actually have Zeiss own liight transmission measurements for the 42mm models with AK prisms vs. the 32mm models with SP prisms and dielectric mirror coating. Both have the same anti-reflection coating and the same number of glass to air surfaces. According to Zeiss figures there is about 2% difference in the light transmission. Perhaps 0.5%-1% of that would come from the mirror coating and maybe 1-1.5% comes from the extra reflections. Such a small difference should be invisible and really falls within the range of sample variation. My own experience comparing one specimen of the 8x42 to one specimen of the 8x32 was that the 8x42 was very slightly brighter in sunlight (where exit pupil would not be a factor) but that could have been a case of sample variation.
Last edited:
justin2992
Well-known member
Otto McDiesel said:
Here ya go Otto: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7568638501
Tom,
When does the 8x32 review come out?
FrankD said:Leif,
The reason why I asked if it was accurate was not because of the increased light transmission. I understand that point. The clarification I was looking for was where that increased light transmission was coming from. In the original quote it was specified that it came from a difference in coatings. My assumption was that it came from a decreased number of surfaces that the light path was reflected off of as in the Zeiss diagram below.
Is it a combination of both or is one or the other the more accurate statement?
Yes, I forgot to mention the key point about TIR. But I see what Henry has now provided a first rate explanation. And no need to fasten your safety belt either! Leif
