-
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 Zeiss binos 8x40 SFL and 10x40 SFL (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter batho66
- Start date
I would not be so harsh but I'm surprised that instead of asking me questions like "did you check this or that", people are telling me why what I'm doing is wrong without even knowing the details of what I did or what my experience in testing optics is (or screen calibration this case).
Because I checked everything many times, shot a lot of pictures in different circumstances, got the same results each time and this is not my first rodeo.
Well, this is the Internet.
Just for fun, another comparison: Leica M11 60 Mpix sensor, 90mm/2.8 APO Voigtlander Lens at 5.6 (meaning no CA there), perfect alignment...
Guess what: same results.
Attachments
It was a general observation, not only based on this thread, and not targeted at anyone in particular, or intended in ill-humor. Nor am I immune from such accusations myself.
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
Delicious lens/camera kit!
I for one believe you. The CA you have observed is disappointing. Makes me wonder what a conquest hd would look like in your digiscoped images. Also makes me think I need a pair of swaro NL…
What the pictures show is probably not what your eyes will see because we all see CA differently, but I do think they give a meaningful (if imperfect) impression of the relative CA performance of different binoculars.
However, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that the SFL would be behind the SF or NL, because it doesn’t contain Fl glass. I can’t judge from the pictures whether the level of CA in the SFL would be particularly noticeable, disappointing or unacceptable for me. I could get a sense of that if I saw comparisons against non-SF/NL binoculars with which I’m familiar.
However, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that the SFL would be behind the SF or NL, because it doesn’t contain Fl glass. I can’t judge from the pictures whether the level of CA in the SFL would be particularly noticeable, disappointing or unacceptable for me. I could get a sense of that if I saw comparisons against non-SF/NL binoculars with which I’m familiar.
Same here. The CA is clearly there in the right-hand picture, but it also is the picture that shows better detail.
I think that's just the position of the pigeon head - I'm not seeing any real difference in detail (which is impressive for the SFLs) where both parts are in focus.
henry link
Well-known member
This last set of photos gives us a very different view. The magnification factor has increased by about 11 times from using a 90mm lens instead of an approximately 8mm lens and also now we see the full aperture aberrations of each binocular since the 90mm lens set at f5.6 has an aperture of 16mm, large enough to accept the full exit pupils of the binoculars. The images show both binocular images much worse than they would appear visually at 8x, but the Zeiss is probably at a bigger real world disadvantage because its focal ratio at its full 42mm aperture is probably lower than the Swaro at 32mm and we assume that it doesn't use ED glass although that's not known for certain. Visually, under the daytime lighting conditions of the photos these things would probably equalize somewhat. The eye would stop down both binoculars to about 20mm possibly giving the focal ratio advantage to the longer focal length Zeiss and of course neither would look anything like this bad when the image scale is reduced to 8x from the simulated 80x or so in the photos.
Is this what they call mansplaining?
henry link
Well-known member
Sorry, I call it trying to explain to everyone at different knowledge levels some non-obvious effects that perhaps you should have explained when you posted a series of images with no consistent scale and no mention of how much of the binocular exit pupils your camera lenses were accepting.
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
I appreciate the effort, the pics, AND the mansplaining as I am neither in possession of SFLs to evaluate nor the knowledge to assess the value of pics taken through a bino and enlarged etc.
All that aside, my bigger interest is how this translates into real-world IQ. Is the CA disappointing?
Ironically, I would be one who would more often say I value data and not opinions. But just like pixel-peeping cameras can be a meaningless rabbit hole, I have no idea whether this CA is a buzz-killer for the SFLs?
All that aside, my bigger interest is how this translates into real-world IQ. Is the CA disappointing?
Ironically, I would be one who would more often say I value data and not opinions. But just like pixel-peeping cameras can be a meaningless rabbit hole, I have no idea whether this CA is a buzz-killer for the SFLs?
henry link
Well-known member
I plead guilty, if by pedantry you mean a predilection for being careful and thorough.
I think if you can be a little more careful with presenting your images threads like this one will be more useful to everyone and you'll have no problems with me.
I said it several times: the CA is there. I'm sensitive to it, enough to return the Ultravid 7x42 for instance but I'm perfectly ok with the SFL.
I use them more often than the NL Pure at the moment because unless I'm looking at something very small on a bright background, I do not see the CA.
But because your mileage may vary and because a picture is better than a thousand words, I posted images to try to show what I see.
I didn't know I needed pre-approval by the local experts and that each picture must come with a dissertation about binoculars testing theory
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
So they have less CA than UV7x42s?I said it several times: the CA is there. I'm sensitive to it, enough to return the Ultravid 7x42 for instance but I'm perfectly ok with the SFL.
I use them more often than the NL Pure at the moment because unless I'm looking at something very small on a bright background, I do not see the CA.
But because your mileage may vary and because a picture is better than a thousand words, I posted images to try to show what I see.
I didn't know I needed pre-approval by the local experts and that each picture must come with a dissertation about binoculars testing theory
Can you speak to comparison with NL's?
PS I'm certainly no expert, local or otherwise, but I am very curious as to where these fall in the spectrum of alpha or near alpha binos. The form factor looks killer.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
If the CA correction is better than 742UVHD+ , thats a good first step. I’m sensitive the CA myself, and have no problem putting up with the occasional small amount of CA under very difficult lighting conditions in the Ultravids.
Price wise these would need to be pull blown, 100% premium (new word for alpha) grade. In my opinion near premium is unacceptable at this price range. I think someone said they reduced the introduction price of $1799 already, but I haven’t really researched it yet.
Form factor does look great.
Price wise these would need to be pull blown, 100% premium (new word for alpha) grade. In my opinion near premium is unacceptable at this price range. I think someone said they reduced the introduction price of $1799 already, but I haven’t really researched it yet.
Form factor does look great.
ragin-cajun
Well-known member
this thread has derailed.....
Yes but I compare with what I remember of the UV 7x42.
NL have close to no CA (see pictures, I compared them).
I have no experience with near alphas but as stated before, the wide field and lack of CA of the NL Pure or Zeiss SF are impressive but for me, the SFL are still excellent and I use them without hesitations or wishing I had taken the NL Pure.
Others may have a different opinion.
