Simple question... (1 Viewer)

[[email protected]]

That was responded to in post number 99. It is just an ambiguous unsubstantiated opinion and is no more valid than my opinion that says just the opposite is the case.

However here is a review that just came out from two experienced reviewers comparing the SF and SV EL products and they concluded:

The Zeiss SF comes out clearly on top.

Bird Watchers Digest July/August 2015
Battle of the Titans.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=307138

In order to keep this thread somewhat on topic, I would suggest you post any discussion over on the other thread.

I do agree it would be great to compare before purchasing, but that is not always possible. Plan B is to buy from a vendor with a good return policy.

I am still at a loss as to why you find it necessary to post in multiple unrelated threads suggestions that the SV is superior to the SF, escpecially considering that you have never seen an SF. Maybe you feel you have to be recognized as having whatever you consider is "best". If that is the case, then the SV EL is a great binocular and appears to be the best for you. Is everything better now?

The only real thing the Zeiss SF beat the Swarovski on was FOV and we all know that. Handling and ergonomics are a personal thing. They didn't talk about build quality. They didn't even mention that the Swarovski has sharper edges. I wouldn't trust their review as much as Bird Forum members opinions. I would bet if Allbinos would test the SF the SV would still beat it. Did you hear the latest SF malady? Staining. That's right the armour stains every time you use them! Never had that problem with my Swarovski's. The thread link is at the bottom. Oh my god! Staining now! You have to wear gloves to use the SF! HaHa!

"The amount of 15,year old Leica trinovids I bought and sold over the years ,after a bit of work with the armorall they looked better than new. After the first hour with my new SFs looked like I had had them a couple of years. Still I have them back like new......well they are new!!! But, they will have to be babied to keep them looking that way"


The whole casing is poor to say the least as marks very easily. Had swarovskis before - build quality far superior!

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=306886

 

[perterra]

The only real thing the Zeiss SF beat the Swarovski on was FOV and we all know that. Handling and ergonomics are a personal thing. They didn't talk about build quality. They didn't even mention that the Swarovski has sharper edges. I wouldn't trust their review as much as Bird Forum members opinions. I would bet if Allbinos would test the SF the SV would still beat it. Did you hear the latest SF malady? Staining. That's right the armour stains every time you use them! Never had that problem with my Swarovski's. The thread link is at the bottom. Oh my god! Staining now! You have to wear gloves to use the SF! HaHa!

"The amount of 15,year old Leica trinovids I bought and sold over the years ,after a bit of work with the armorall they looked better than new. After the first hour with my new SFs looked like I had had them a couple of years. Still I have them back like new......well they are new!!! But, they will have to be babied to keep them looking that way"


The whole casing is poor to say the least as marks very easily. Had swarovskis before - build quality far superior!

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=306886

:-O Seriously dude, you are so full of shit it hurts. I dont think you can help yourself any longer. You take snippets and declare them fact, then bitch and whine about trying to give someone an honest opinion. It's like you have no control over what your fingers type out.

 

[[email protected]]

:-O Seriously dude, you are so full of shit it hurts. I dont think you can help yourself any longer. You take snippets and declare them fact, then bitch and whine about trying to give someone an honest opinion. It's like you have no control over what your fingers type out.

Read the complete thread. According to the thread starter the SF's have a serious problem with staining for him. I don't think he imagined it. Juliet Moore also agreed that the Zeiiss SF's armour stain easily in the same thread. Reading through other threads there have been remarks on the armour also. Three or four comments for me is enough for a red flag to go up.

"I really didn't like the grey armour which was a mix of textured and smooth, and which I think will mark easily and look less than pristine very quickly, a bit like the original Victory."

 

[perterra]

Read the complete thread. According to the thread starter the SF's have a serious problem with staining. I don't think he imagined it.

So no one else who owns them has had an issue, and that means they all do it. Seriously Dennis, your post are so far out there that they are laughable. Youre frikken nuts dude, you have some issues you need to work through.

 

[stephen b]

Wow!!! One fella can really dominate a thread. Was a simple thread with a simple? And then the drum beating starts.

I expect different opinions from different people for sure. But not a constant beating of that opinion. And then when someone posts their opinion as Hermann did above; even then, the fella has to jump in and say why he did not like that choice. That to me is really uncalled for and certainly unnecessary.

 

[[email protected]]

Here is a good review on the comparison between the SF and SV. The guy really goes into a lot of good detail and he seems to know what he is talking about.

http://newscentral.exsees.com/item/a21af7aae041bc5ff88a03e0803f6ef9-65ffae08bc54735aeaddc25cd2ab7a8a

 

[Common Raven]

"If you could have just ONE binocular with you to CARRY full-time throughout the day for the rest of your life... regardless of which activity you end up doing, which would it be?"

Leica UVHD+ 7x42 with a binocular harness.

 

[Sancho]

Sancho. I thought you were a Swaro Fan Girl? How could you?

Hiya Dennis. I know. I had a serious low-light glare/flare issue with my SV's one day, in peculiar autumn Atlantic light, and I never trusted them again. On the same day, in the same light, my Nikon SE's worked flawlessly. A bit unfair, I'll admit, but at the time I was bino-obsessive. I'm cured now.

 

[[email protected]]

Wow!!! One fella can really dominate a thread. Was a simple thread with a simple? And then the drum beating starts.

I expect different opinions from different people for sure. But not a constant beating of that opinion. And then when someone posts their opinion as Hermann did above; even then, the fella has to jump in and say why he did not like that choice. That to me is really uncalled for and certainly unnecessary.

If you don't like the thread just go to another thread. HaHa. It is a free world. You don't have to read this thread.

 

[perterra]

If you don't like the thread just go to another thread. HaHa. It is a free world. You don't have to read this thread.

I dont think you can help yourself,:eek!:

 

[[email protected]]

Hiya Dennis. I know. I had a serious low-light glare/flare issue with my SV's one day, in peculiar autumn Atlantic light, and I never trusted them again. On the same day, in the same light, my Nikon SE's worked flawlessly. A bit unfair, I'll admit, but at the time I was bino-obsessive. I'm cured now.

Have you found the Nikon 8x42 EDG to control glare better than the SV?

 

[ceasar]

If you don't like the thread just go to another thread. HaHa. It is a free world. You don't have to read this thread.

Dennis,

That would be reasonable advice if this was your thread but it is CNicks thread. You don't have the right to beat it to death with your opinion. He posed the "Simple question" and he should get answers to it. He doesn't need you to advise people they don't need to read it.

So you are now compounding your bad manners with insolence. Perhaps it is time that a moderator looked at this?

Bob

 

[John Dracon]

Hello Arthur - Just attempting to inject some levity into this quite bizarre thread.

Brock - you pose a chicken or an egg question: Twain or Disraeli as the source of the quote on types of lies or liars? Having had the benefit of looking it up just recently (10 minutes ago), I would say Disraeli said it first. Why? "Statistics" tell the story. He was born in 1804 and died in 1881. Twain? 1835-1910. Disraeli had already been prime minister by the time Twain was 33, and my bets would go with Disraeli.

Another bit of trivia was gleaned this evening. Polls as we know them today as "opinion polls" began in the mid eighteen hundreds. Where? In the United States according Wikimedia. They are today known as polls designed to influence public opinion around election times. However, with all the backslapping of pollsters convincing themselves of the infallibility of their polls (based on scientifically massaged statistics) the recent United Kingdom General Election saw David Cameron win with the polls saying he would lose. Nothing like the actual counting of votes, I guess to determine an election?

Speaking about infallibility, an election of a Pope not too many years ago struggled to get a majority of ballots cast for the winner. So after several failed attempts, the College of Cardinals decided to take a Pole.

John

 

[Sancho]

Have you found the Nikon 8x42 EDG to control glare better than the SV?

Yes. And for a while I had the EDG 7x42, which was even better. However, I suspect now that each bino may be susceptible to its own peculiar flare issues in specific lighting conditions. But it seems, all else being equal, that 42mm glass handles it better.

 

[OPTIC_NUT]

Dennis,

That would be reasonable advice if this was your thread but it is CNicks thread. You don't have the right to beat it to death with your opinion. He posed the "Simple question" and he should get answers to it. He doesn't need you to advise people they don't need to read it.

So you are now compounding your bad manners with insolence. Perhaps it is time that a moderator looked at this?

Bob

As I monitor the thread, I can see it's a squabble-with-the-troll-fest
a lot like kerfuffles at handyman or philosophy or gun or motorcycle
or stereo forums. The insolence just helps undermine opinion-as-if-science.
So much like the tiff-n-bull of guys arguing cars at a dorm in 1975.
It's just Anthropology.

Which is actually quite good, from the POV of, say, someone stumbling in
looking for sound advice. This will not be mistaken for sensible information.
This won't be confused with Consumer Reports or Cornell Panels.
If they don't know optics, they do know the playground dust-up.
Which is to say, the wild hyperbole and calling local opinion linear and
objective, and your (and other objections) belong together.

So the the pride parade keeps braggin' and the callers keep flaggin'.
And that's all right. As long as some at the town meeting keep it real.

It's sad the meaning has washed out, but the OP was about
personal preference, so .... bright clothes and loud horns were bound
to show up. ;-)

 

[[email protected]]

Yes. And for a while I had the EDG 7x42, which was even better. However, I suspect now that each bino may be susceptible to its own peculiar flare issues in specific lighting conditions. But it seems, all else being equal, that 42mm glass handles it better.

I have noticed the bigger the objective the less the flare in general. The smaller magnifications are also better. With the bigger exit pupils the flare is deflected beyond the cornea of your eye. I had an 8x56 Zeiss FL once and it really controlled glare well. I am not sure why the SE other than being a porro controls glare so well other than maybe good baffling. Most porro's I have had including the EII control glare quite well.

 

[ceasar]

As I monitor the thread, I can see it's a squabble-with-the-troll-fest
a lot like kerfuffles at handyman or philosophy or gun or motorcycle
or stereo forums. The insolence just helps undermine opinion-as-if-science.
So much like the tiff-n-bull of guys arguing cars at a dorm in 1975.
It's just Anthropology.

Which is actually quite good, from the POV of, say, someone stumbling in
looking for sound advice. This will not be mistaken for sensible information.
This won't be confused with Consumer Reports or Cornell Panels.
If they don't know optics, they do know the playground dust-up.
Which is to say, the wild hyperbole and calling local opinion linear and
objective, and your (and other objections) belong together.

So the the pride parade keeps braggin' and the callers keep flaggin'.
And that's all right. As long as some at the town meeting keep it real.

It's sad the meaning has washed out, but the OP was about
personal preference, so .... bright clothes and loud horns were bound
to show up. ;-)

You are right.

It is disappointing because, among the self promoting chaff, there has been some good off topic stuff written here which will be lost and forgotten because it is in a thread that has lost its purpose.

Bob

 

[OPTIC_NUT]

And that's not so good,for sure... :-(

 

[Robert Wallace]

Who said that? Twain or Disraeli?

Let me expand on it: There are four kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, statistics, and the "pump and dump." :smoke:

<B>

Brock, according to The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, D'israeli said it but it is attributed to Mark Twain in his Autobiography.

 

[brocknroller]

Hello Arthur - Just attempting to inject some levity into this quite bizarre thread.

Brock - you pose a chicken or an egg question: Twain or Disraeli as the source of the quote on types of lies or liars? Having had the benefit of looking it up just recently (10 minutes ago), I would say Disraeli said it first. Why? "Statistics" tell the story. He was born in 1804 and died in 1881. Twain? 1835-1910. Disraeli had already been prime minister by the time Twain was 33, and my bets would go with Disraeli.

Another bit of trivia was gleaned this evening. Polls as we know them today as "opinion polls" began in the mid eighteen hundreds. Where? In the United States according Wikimedia. They are today known as polls designed to influence public opinion around election times. However, with all the backslapping of pollsters convincing themselves of the infallibility of their polls (based on scientifically massaged statistics) the recent United Kingdom General Election saw David Cameron win with the polls saying he would lose. Nothing like the actual counting of votes, I guess to determine an election?

Speaking about infallibility, an election of a Pope not too many years ago struggled to get a majority of ballots cast for the winner. So after several failed attempts, the College of Cardinals decided to take a Pole.

John

But they couldn't reach him to tell him the Good News because he and his brother were trying to figure how to screw in a light bulb.

Ah, I miss ethnic humor, but it's no longer PC. Speaking of which... I hope you're correct about the inaccuracy of polls, because they have Trump running second among the 20 elephant candidates. The Donald told Fox News that he plans to issue an executive order that would legalize gambling in Washington D.C. and then add a casino in the Right Wing of the White House. He also plans to deport all Mexicans living in the U.S., which means that the population of Texas will be cut in half, and to make the "sweep over" the official hairstyle of America. :eek!:

If he gets elected I will be looking up my old draft dodger friend and joining him in Canada, because I have too much hair for a "sweep over." Hopefully, the people polled were jerking the pollsters' chain.

OTOH, if he were to advocate a policy of "an alpha roof in every house," I might consider voting for him. I'm too poor to stand on principles. :smoke:

<B>