Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Or perhaps to put it another way they prefer to use ED glass objectives with a higher f/number (helps keep the CA down). I'd suspect that was the case given the length of the "Chinese EDs".
-
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.
Zen Ray ZRS HD (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Steve C
- Start date
Or perhaps to put it another way they prefer to use ED glass objectives with a higher f/number (helps keep the CA down). I'd suspect that was the case given the length of the "Chinese EDs".
Steve C
Well-known member
Kevin,
I think CA control is the reason for the extra lengths in the Chinese ED's. I also think it would not take very much more length in the ZRS to use ED. It wouldn't surprise me if the ZRS with ED would show up sometime. But Zen Ray was shooting right at the point they hit with the ZRS. I'm pretty sure they just didn't want to take any more time getting another modification in the binocular.
I think CA control is the reason for the extra lengths in the Chinese ED's. I also think it would not take very much more length in the ZRS to use ED. It wouldn't surprise me if the ZRS with ED would show up sometime. But Zen Ray was shooting right at the point they hit with the ZRS. I'm pretty sure they just didn't want to take any more time getting another modification in the binocular.
Steve C
Well-known member
Kevin,
Looking at your review a bit closer, I'd venture th opinion you must have a pretty cherry Legend. Almost all of the several pairs I've looked at have struck me as the same binocular as the Monarch, with a couple of armor tweaks and different eyecups. I did see one in a Bi Mart store one time, though that did strike me as much brighter than the usual run of the Legend mill. This one was a 10x, and I almost bought it as a complement to the 8x Monarch. Being a value for the price sort, it looks to me like that Legend of yours might be a keeper.
Looking at your review a bit closer, I'd venture th opinion you must have a pretty cherry Legend. Almost all of the several pairs I've looked at have struck me as the same binocular as the Monarch, with a couple of armor tweaks and different eyecups. I did see one in a Bi Mart store one time, though that did strike me as much brighter than the usual run of the Legend mill. This one was a 10x, and I almost bought it as a complement to the 8x Monarch. Being a value for the price sort, it looks to me like that Legend of yours might be a keeper.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
I rather doubt this is a "cherry" unit though I only have a sample of one which makes it difficult to tell.
For example things like stray light resistance (mentioned on another thread) has more to do with design (perhaps the narrow FOV and perhaps coatings) than random variation. The same with brightness that's all to do with AR coatings and prism coatings (AR, PC and mirror coatings on the prism).
The sharpness test puts the bins in a very small range (it's not like one is sharp and the other is blury ... these are subtle differences) though I think you can easily tell the difference between the top and the bottom of the range. For me they should be the same (as say the Chinese EDs like the ZR ED, Promaser, Hawke and the Zeiss FL) i.e. my eye should be limiting acuity. I did find this with result with similar sorts of eyeball tests.
One question I have is what I'm actually measuring with my "white light sharpness" test. Is it actual resolution? Is it CA? Is it small aberrations? Other small variations?
This particular Legend is a recent one. It was drop shipped to me from Bushnell in December so I suspect it is current production. It also has a "starburst" on the retail box advertising 15% lighter and new improved eyecups). It's always difficult to tell when a company "slipstreams" a new product (with same name and spec though perhaps slightly better made or with small improvements) into the "retail channel". OK, enough buzzwords.
I think this perhaps is a difference between bins looked over time and bins checked out in a store. I don't think I rely to heavily on the latter. So I prefer to stack up a group of bins and test them back and forth (and in some cases leave them and come back to them to try the same thing again ... are my tests actually reproducible?).
There is also the possibility of personal bias which I'm conscious of and really try to avoid (either positively or negatively) by deciding on some test then ranking the bins on that test.
How valid the test is of course may be another question.
Backyard Birder
First Time Birder For The 2nd Time
USPS delivered the ZRS and I have had a couple of minutes to compare them to the Diamondbacks. Initial impression is that the ZRS is noticeably brighter, by what % I can't exactly say. The focus is smooth and about the same as the Diamondback. I don't feel like it is a negative. I can refocus from 25 feet to 150 feet with 1/4 turn or so. The two seem to be about the same size.
I took a couple of pictures comparing the two which I'll post later when I have the time. So far so good!
I took a couple of pictures comparing the two which I'll post later when I have the time. So far so good!
Last edited:
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
I took the ZRS out birding this morning to the local park. Bright day in Seattle: some blue sky, the sun is in and out of the clouds and it ssnowed last night so there is still snow on the ground (it's bright out!).
The ergonomics are the ZRS are good.
The armor is attractive and has an interesting resiliency: the bars on the tops of the barrels have a nice "give" to them. It has the same bump pattern as the EDs (brand consistency!) though I'm more a fan of flat surfaces I find this better than the "sharp" diamond patterns some provide. The bin is compact for a full-size bin especially after handling the rather longer ZR ED (and other Chinese EDs) recently. The armor covers the strap lugs with a pair of largish bumps that work well to keep the hands in the right place for a "Leica grip" with the thumbs in the indents and the fingers folded across the bridge. The thumb indents are not as pronounced as the ZR ED. With my (largish) hands in the "right places" they fit just right along the length of the bin.
The focus knob has an attractive badge (rather simpler and nicer than on the ZR ED) and the tripod adaptor has a simple matte white ZR (not glossy and silvery like the ZR ED).
The focus knob itself has an easy action rather lighter force required to move it than pretty much all the other bins I have (perhaps the same as the Zeiss). It takes about 0.8 turn to focus from 10feet/3m to infinity: a bit quicker than the ZR ED. The combination of the two give a nice rapid (but not too fast) focus action. Nice for birding. I'd like that in the ZR ED!
The rainguard is similar to the ZD ER rainguard. A little lighter in construction than a lot of similar rainguards. It fits securely in place when covering the oculars (it won't fall off) but isn't difficult to remove when you need to get it off quickly.
The objective covers remind me of Pentax SP bins. Push on covers that are securely tethered to the bins tripod adaptor. The seem to stay on the objectives too and dangle out of the way on longer tethers than the SP.
The locking diopter setting is on the right barrel with pull-up to unlock. The action is just stiff enough to make setting precise but not so much as to be difficult. The diopter doesn't slip when locked in place (even if I put force on the ring). The setting is close to zero for my corrected vision so there is no offset.
The eyecups are quite flat. I'm an eyeglass wearer so I can't say much more but the four steps each lock quite firmly in position.
Out birding with these (nothing to exotic but the usual test subjects crows, mallards, bushtits and kinglets) I find them bright enough and sharp enough for birding. The color bias I think shows up in the greens of vegetation (that seems to pop quite well) and the view is pleasant (rather warmer than say the Diamondbacks rather colder bluer view). Just picking on trees show the image to be plenty sharp enough.
Stray color or CA is well controlled for an non-ED bin. Just hints of "something" around the edge of a crow against the snow or on a close up crow against a blue sky. No strong fringing and no strong sense of CA for "flickering" targets like flying crow against the sky. This is very good for a bin in this price class (and a few years ago better than models in a rather higher price class e.g. Vortex Stokes DLS). Transverse CA seems very well controlled. I think all of this is down to using LaK (lanthanum crown) glass in the EP design to minimize CA added there. So I think the (hints of) CA that does pop up is from the objectives. You can see strong transverse CA in the EP only if you "force it" by moving the quite far off axis to view the opposite side of the FOV. Not something you do in real life. Compared to some other similar priced bins (e.g. Bushnell Excursion 8x36 has significant CA for me in "normal" use) this is significantly better. I'd need to AB it with some other bins to see how different it is from the Diamondback or the Legend.
I asked Charles at Zen Ray about the measured or speced resolution of the ZRS HD. He said the measured resolution is 3.7 arcsec. The measurement was done by using luminated reticle in the lab in both white and monochromatic light. So that puts the resolution at my eye at (3.8 * 8 =) 29.6 arc seconds which should be better than my eyesight by perhaps 2 to 4 times. I shouldn't be able to see a difference.
For sharpness I still feel it lacks that same crispness of focus that the EDs do. There is that feel that at best focus that one can rock the focus back and forth an expect to get just that little bit better. And I do get that with the ZR ED. And I can get that with the Zeiss Victory 8x40 too so its not just the ED glass. But they are both more expensive bins. So I think there is another component here: perhaps CA just mudding things up a bit? or brightness making it easier to see? or some other aberration in the bin or just the way the image changes around the focus?
That said I think this initial look shows it's a decent bin. For the price I think it's a good bin. I think I'll have to bird with it a bit more to get a feel for it (my other problem is I've been using the ED bins exclusively for most of this year so I'm trying to remove that bias).
I think my next steps are to AB the ZRS with a couple of other bins I have: the Diamondback is the obvious choice. And I think the Pentax SP and the Bushnell Legend are two others. Weather in Seattle won't be so good over the next couple of days so this may take some time!
The ergonomics are the ZRS are good.
The armor is attractive and has an interesting resiliency: the bars on the tops of the barrels have a nice "give" to them. It has the same bump pattern as the EDs (brand consistency!) though I'm more a fan of flat surfaces I find this better than the "sharp" diamond patterns some provide. The bin is compact for a full-size bin especially after handling the rather longer ZR ED (and other Chinese EDs) recently. The armor covers the strap lugs with a pair of largish bumps that work well to keep the hands in the right place for a "Leica grip" with the thumbs in the indents and the fingers folded across the bridge. The thumb indents are not as pronounced as the ZR ED. With my (largish) hands in the "right places" they fit just right along the length of the bin.
The focus knob has an attractive badge (rather simpler and nicer than on the ZR ED) and the tripod adaptor has a simple matte white ZR (not glossy and silvery like the ZR ED).
The focus knob itself has an easy action rather lighter force required to move it than pretty much all the other bins I have (perhaps the same as the Zeiss). It takes about 0.8 turn to focus from 10feet/3m to infinity: a bit quicker than the ZR ED. The combination of the two give a nice rapid (but not too fast) focus action. Nice for birding. I'd like that in the ZR ED!
The rainguard is similar to the ZD ER rainguard. A little lighter in construction than a lot of similar rainguards. It fits securely in place when covering the oculars (it won't fall off) but isn't difficult to remove when you need to get it off quickly.
The objective covers remind me of Pentax SP bins. Push on covers that are securely tethered to the bins tripod adaptor. The seem to stay on the objectives too and dangle out of the way on longer tethers than the SP.
The locking diopter setting is on the right barrel with pull-up to unlock. The action is just stiff enough to make setting precise but not so much as to be difficult. The diopter doesn't slip when locked in place (even if I put force on the ring). The setting is close to zero for my corrected vision so there is no offset.
The eyecups are quite flat. I'm an eyeglass wearer so I can't say much more but the four steps each lock quite firmly in position.
Out birding with these (nothing to exotic but the usual test subjects crows, mallards, bushtits and kinglets) I find them bright enough and sharp enough for birding. The color bias I think shows up in the greens of vegetation (that seems to pop quite well) and the view is pleasant (rather warmer than say the Diamondbacks rather colder bluer view). Just picking on trees show the image to be plenty sharp enough.
Stray color or CA is well controlled for an non-ED bin. Just hints of "something" around the edge of a crow against the snow or on a close up crow against a blue sky. No strong fringing and no strong sense of CA for "flickering" targets like flying crow against the sky. This is very good for a bin in this price class (and a few years ago better than models in a rather higher price class e.g. Vortex Stokes DLS). Transverse CA seems very well controlled. I think all of this is down to using LaK (lanthanum crown) glass in the EP design to minimize CA added there. So I think the (hints of) CA that does pop up is from the objectives. You can see strong transverse CA in the EP only if you "force it" by moving the quite far off axis to view the opposite side of the FOV. Not something you do in real life. Compared to some other similar priced bins (e.g. Bushnell Excursion 8x36 has significant CA for me in "normal" use) this is significantly better. I'd need to AB it with some other bins to see how different it is from the Diamondback or the Legend.
I asked Charles at Zen Ray about the measured or speced resolution of the ZRS HD. He said the measured resolution is 3.7 arcsec. The measurement was done by using luminated reticle in the lab in both white and monochromatic light. So that puts the resolution at my eye at (3.8 * 8 =) 29.6 arc seconds which should be better than my eyesight by perhaps 2 to 4 times. I shouldn't be able to see a difference.
For sharpness I still feel it lacks that same crispness of focus that the EDs do. There is that feel that at best focus that one can rock the focus back and forth an expect to get just that little bit better. And I do get that with the ZR ED. And I can get that with the Zeiss Victory 8x40 too so its not just the ED glass. But they are both more expensive bins. So I think there is another component here: perhaps CA just mudding things up a bit? or brightness making it easier to see? or some other aberration in the bin or just the way the image changes around the focus?
That said I think this initial look shows it's a decent bin. For the price I think it's a good bin. I think I'll have to bird with it a bit more to get a feel for it (my other problem is I've been using the ED bins exclusively for most of this year so I'm trying to remove that bias).
I think my next steps are to AB the ZRS with a couple of other bins I have: the Diamondback is the obvious choice. And I think the Pentax SP and the Bushnell Legend are two others. Weather in Seattle won't be so good over the next couple of days so this may take some time!
Last edited:
Backyard Birder
First Time Birder For The 2nd Time
I'll be interested to see what you think about the ZRS compared to the Diamondback. My, very brief, initial impression is favorable but that was just looking at the backyard feeders and neighbors yard from inside the house. The real test will be to see what my wife thinks. If she likes them better than the Diamondbacks you can probably guess who won't be using the ZRS.|=)|
Steve C
Well-known member
I just saw this. I don't wear glasses, but when I do wear my reading glasses and try using binoculars with the ZEN (ZRS too for that matter), I find I can see all the fov with the 8x and maybe 95% or so of it with the 10x. That is pretty much the deal with most binoculars for me. So if I was an eyeglass wearer, I'd be a strict 8x user. Actually that's pretty much the case now.
FrankD
Well-known member
I received my ZRS unit today as well. I had very little time to do any real tinkering with them at this point. My initial experiences tend to mirror everone else's at this point
Optically....
- Huge sweet spot
- Flat image
- Slight reddish color bias
Physically....
- Lighweight for a full sized glass
- Decent ergonomics (would like to move the strap lug slightly upwards towards the eyepiece)
- Excellent fit and finish
- Solid accessories
....more to follow as I compare with the Legend roofs as well as the Cascade porros...probably the two most comparable bins I have in my selection at the moment.
Optically....
- Huge sweet spot
- Flat image
- Slight reddish color bias
Physically....
- Lighweight for a full sized glass
- Decent ergonomics (would like to move the strap lug slightly upwards towards the eyepiece)
- Excellent fit and finish
- Solid accessories
....more to follow as I compare with the Legend roofs as well as the Cascade porros...probably the two most comparable bins I have in my selection at the moment.
Steve C
Well-known member
The Sedona is an adequate sort of scope. It's OK, but doesn't grab your immediate attention like the ZEN ED does. A new scope is on the Zen Ray priority list. It might be awhile.
There are some digiscoped photos shot through the Sedona at the Zen Ray site. Zen Ray also has a couple of pretty well thought out digiscoping adapters that are worth a look.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
A quick ABC between the ZRS 8x42, Bushnell Legend 8x42 and Vortex Diamondback 8x42 late this afternnon as the cold winds were blowing, some clouds were building and the sun is starting to set.
I see the ZRS has a noticeable color bias, especially when switching between bins, and seems not quite as bright as the other two. The Legend is clearly the brightest (and whitest) of the three to me. The Diamondback appears slightly brighter than the ZRS with a little bluish cast (which is a little different from my previous test).
Looking at perched American Robin's red breast I don't find they stand out in the ZRS despite the warm bias and they became more difficult to see as the light dimmed as compared to the other bins (though eventually all got to a similar point).
On the Zen ED thread FrankD said:
This morning as the snow hasn't quite arrived I did a similar ABCD test in a different location using the ZRS 8x42, Bushnell Legend 8x42 and Vortex Diamondback 8x42 again and adding the Leupold Cascades 8x40 porro. It's another similarly priced bin. The sky is overcast but the sun is just visible through it. It's bright for a cloudy day.
I looked at a three story red brick building 200m (660 feet) away with Rock Doves, Glaucous-winged x Western hybrid Gull and Starlings sitting at the top. Of these the gull was the best for detail and coloration: gray mantle, yellow bill with red mark, dark eye and flesh colored legs. He sat around for some time. The building also provided some nice sharp horizontal and vertical edges with bright sky behind them for CA testing.
So the results seem similar to before.
The brick building and the light grey sky behind it I see the color biases clearly. The Legend and the Cascades have similar brightness and essentially no color bias (neutral). The Diamondback is very slightly bluish and a little less bright. And the ZRS is warm making the red brick look more orange and not as bright as the others.
I perceive the sharpness, when focused correctly and diopter set, that all the bins seem to be about equally sharp when looking at features on the gull. I presume I'm limited by my own acuity which is good.
Using the bright sky behind the edges of the bin I find it easy to see some chromatic aberration/stray color in these bins at varying levels. I see all the bins seems to have similar CA when the eye's are centered correctly. Perhaps the ZRS is a just a little better (more a hint of something rather than seeing fringes) with the Diamondback next then the Legend and the Cascades which show hints of fringing in the best case.
When I move my eye off axis the Legend and the Cascades make more (transverse) CA more quickly. The Diamondback appears to generate rather less TCA with this test and the ZRS perhaps least of all (but there is some off axis).
I speculate the previous "lack of sharpness" might be attributable to the lower transmission compared to the other bins and perhaps the color cast of the bins too compared to my eyes.
I see the ZRS has a noticeable color bias, especially when switching between bins, and seems not quite as bright as the other two. The Legend is clearly the brightest (and whitest) of the three to me. The Diamondback appears slightly brighter than the ZRS with a little bluish cast (which is a little different from my previous test).
Looking at perched American Robin's red breast I don't find they stand out in the ZRS despite the warm bias and they became more difficult to see as the light dimmed as compared to the other bins (though eventually all got to a similar point).
On the Zen ED thread FrankD said:
This morning as the snow hasn't quite arrived I did a similar ABCD test in a different location using the ZRS 8x42, Bushnell Legend 8x42 and Vortex Diamondback 8x42 again and adding the Leupold Cascades 8x40 porro. It's another similarly priced bin. The sky is overcast but the sun is just visible through it. It's bright for a cloudy day.
I looked at a three story red brick building 200m (660 feet) away with Rock Doves, Glaucous-winged x Western hybrid Gull and Starlings sitting at the top. Of these the gull was the best for detail and coloration: gray mantle, yellow bill with red mark, dark eye and flesh colored legs. He sat around for some time. The building also provided some nice sharp horizontal and vertical edges with bright sky behind them for CA testing.
So the results seem similar to before.
The brick building and the light grey sky behind it I see the color biases clearly. The Legend and the Cascades have similar brightness and essentially no color bias (neutral). The Diamondback is very slightly bluish and a little less bright. And the ZRS is warm making the red brick look more orange and not as bright as the others.
I perceive the sharpness, when focused correctly and diopter set, that all the bins seem to be about equally sharp when looking at features on the gull. I presume I'm limited by my own acuity which is good.
Using the bright sky behind the edges of the bin I find it easy to see some chromatic aberration/stray color in these bins at varying levels. I see all the bins seems to have similar CA when the eye's are centered correctly. Perhaps the ZRS is a just a little better (more a hint of something rather than seeing fringes) with the Diamondback next then the Legend and the Cascades which show hints of fringing in the best case.
When I move my eye off axis the Legend and the Cascades make more (transverse) CA more quickly. The Diamondback appears to generate rather less TCA with this test and the ZRS perhaps least of all (but there is some off axis).
I speculate the previous "lack of sharpness" might be attributable to the lower transmission compared to the other bins and perhaps the color cast of the bins too compared to my eyes.
Last edited:
falcondude
Well-known member
Is the CA controlled related to its eyepiece? Based on the previous discussion, this one does not have ED. Am I right? Maybe I am lost again. To me, the field flatness and depth of field are probably the next important things after FOV. ZEN ED has done some incredible job on those two. How would ZRS compare to ZEN on those two categories?
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
I suspect the EP design does help CA a bit. It doesn't eliminate it (there is still CA from the objective). If you want very low CA (i.e. I can't really see it CA) the ZR ED is the way to go.
By field flatness you mean "edge to edge" sharpness? You can have a flat field that isn't sharp to the edge (i.e. field curvature isn't the problem defocusing the edge but coma or some other aberration is).
One issue about field curvature is how much accommodation you have to deal with it. For a 47 year old like me with about 2D of accommodation (I've measured it) I will deal with (and probably see more field curvature) than a much younger person (say a 20 year with perhaps 10D accommodation). So this can be a minefield.
On my 8x ZRS I can focus a target at 10m or so then move it to the edge where it is less sharp then refocus a little to sharpen it up i.e. there is some field curvature. This doesn't seem to be the case on the ZR ED.
These 8x ZRS have a decent sweet spot (perhaps 70% by eyeball, I hate estimating this stuff ... how sharp is the sweet spot edge ... everyone has a different idea) but it's not "edge to edge" sharp.
When I compare the ZRS to my 8x ZR ED then the ZRS is sharper right at the edge of the FOV than the ED. But they have different sized FOVs (7 versus 8 degree). If I sort of compensate for that they are perhaps about the same with the ED having less field curvature.
This sort of estimate is all very approximate. I don't have the kit (or the time) to do this "properly". So take these comments with the appropriate amount of salt. But for me, someone who doesn't worry about this sort of thing (I put the birds I'm interested in in the center of the field) they're sharp enough in a large enough portion of the center to work well.
I'd like FrankD to comment on this as he as a Meopta that is supposed to be edge to edge sharp (and has a yellow bias!).
One other comment is Steve and I are exchanging emails to see why we differ in our views. One point may be I have only the 8x and Steve (I think) likes the 10x. Again more on this as we figure it out.
Last edited:
FrankD
Well-known member
My view on the ZRS are somewhere between Kevin's and Steve's as I have different impressions in different areas. Kevin and I, and I think Steve, agree on the color bias but I think that is the only area that all three of us share the same viewpoint.
The size of the sweet spot in my unit is very generous but not at the level that Steve is reporting. I would rate it slightly better than the 70% that Kevin mentioned but, strangely, my Zen ED actually has about the same level. The Meopta is just a bit better than the Zen ED though the two are really close overall. Guessing at percentages is never accurate but as a frame of reference I would put the sweet spot of the Zen ED at about 75-80% and the Meopta at between 85-90%. Both bins have a very gradual transition from the sweet spot to the outer edge of the image out of focus.
I am having a bit of trouble with perceived sharpness. The ZRS look reasonably sharp but I think the red-orange color bias takes away some of the perceived sharpness for me. If I stare at the image long enough then I can see some of the same details that I can in the Legend or the Cascade porro but the details are much easier for me to see from a more relaxed state in either of the latter two bins.
Speaking of which, Kevin, your comments on CA surprised me a bit. I haven't really gone looking for it in the ZRS yet but I do pick up on it relatively easily in bins that display noticeable amounts of it. Out of the three I am comparing the Legend is easily the worst (though not "bad" in the grand scheme of things). The Cascade porro displays some but it is much better controlled especially in the center of the field of view. I will give the ZRS a go in that regard tomorrow.
The size of the sweet spot in my unit is very generous but not at the level that Steve is reporting. I would rate it slightly better than the 70% that Kevin mentioned but, strangely, my Zen ED actually has about the same level. The Meopta is just a bit better than the Zen ED though the two are really close overall. Guessing at percentages is never accurate but as a frame of reference I would put the sweet spot of the Zen ED at about 75-80% and the Meopta at between 85-90%. Both bins have a very gradual transition from the sweet spot to the outer edge of the image out of focus.
I am having a bit of trouble with perceived sharpness. The ZRS look reasonably sharp but I think the red-orange color bias takes away some of the perceived sharpness for me. If I stare at the image long enough then I can see some of the same details that I can in the Legend or the Cascade porro but the details are much easier for me to see from a more relaxed state in either of the latter two bins.
Speaking of which, Kevin, your comments on CA surprised me a bit. I haven't really gone looking for it in the ZRS yet but I do pick up on it relatively easily in bins that display noticeable amounts of it. Out of the three I am comparing the Legend is easily the worst (though not "bad" in the grand scheme of things). The Cascade porro displays some but it is much better controlled especially in the center of the field of view. I will give the ZRS a go in that regard tomorrow.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
I find with both the Legend and the Cascades eye position on the EP axis makes a big difference. Both can give a lot of CA off-axis. But for me they're close enough when on axis but both show more CA. But I think you are more impressed with the Cascades than I am
I think we get the overall ordering close enough though.
Same with the off-axis image quality.
I posted a paper from the UA optomech collection about specifying optics and this has a interesting section on this. Worth reading if you review bins. This is easily the most difficult area to characterize or specify of any optical system as it ends up with so many personal preferences.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=133880
For me off-axis image quality has never been a huge issue so long as it's not terrible and the ZRS (and ED) are certainly far from that. But for others it's a big issue and calling it "edge to edge sharp" seem to be setting some people up for a fall.
I think this sort of parameter ends up as being "try it and see". It may be close enough to edge to edge for some people and "just a decent sized sweet spot" to others.
Personally I think it's fine and without checking to closely it looks the same across the field. I didn't notice the field curvature until I went hunting for it. So we may be obsessing a bit too much.
Steve C
Well-known member
Well it almost seems Kevin, Frank and I have different binoculars. I really do not quite know what to make of it. I think that some certainly is a difference in the three of us. For one thing, I readily admit I am not as sensitive to some flaws, whatever they may be, as some people are.
There is a possibility of some sample variation as well I suppose. Just to be sure, my Viper is going for a ride on the little brown truck back to Vortex. I don’t think there is anything wrong with it, but I think I need to find out.
When I started this, I was looking for the “truth in advertising” of Zen Ray’s claim of having a $200 binocular that competes with the $500-700 class in the same manner their ZEN ED compares to much more expensive binoculars. After looking through them for a couple of days, it appeared that the claim was pretty much on the mark.
So, I was a bit surprised when Kevin’s comments on his ZRS sounded like he was describing my Nikon Monarch, which was clearly inferior to the 8x ZRS I have. I have every reason to believe he saw what he saw. I saw what I saw.
The things about the ZRS that grabbed my attention were the depth of field and the the aparent flatness of the field. Since I don’t normally pay much attention to this unless the edge is really soft and the sweet spot really small, I used a tripod and a resolution chart. Mounted on the tripod, I focused on a specific spot in the chart in the center of the field. I then moved the focus from center to the edge of the field. When focused in the center, and moved to the edge, usually it will be out of focus. Then, reverse procedure, whereby the edge of the image is focused and then that focus point moved to the center, and then you can get an idea of edge sharpness.
The 10x42 ZRS is the flattest field binocular I’ve ever done this with. Focus on the edge and it is focused in the center, focus in the center and it is focused on the edge. The 8x42 ZRS is not quite that good. Next is the ZEN ED 10x43, followed by the ZEN ED 8x43, followed by the Promaster ELX ED 8x42, followed by the Viper 10x42, followed by the Swift Eaglet 7x36. The Monarch will not focus completely on an object in the edge of the field. Neither will the 8x Yosemite. So that’s how I got to the flat field comparison. It really is a “so what” sort of item to me. Everything above the Nikon is not going to give me an issue anyway. One can make too much of things. It simply seems to me that the Zen Ray claim of edge sharpness is valid (based on my specimens).
The ZRS should not appear as bright as the ZEN because there are two more glass elements in the ZRS. The HD LaK glass will also impart a warm bias.
I think the 8x42 ZRS is superior to the Monarch. That’s in about any category you can name. I gave and still give the 10x42 edge to the ZRS over the Viper. That is the appearance of a flatter field and it seems to have a bit sharper, but not necessarily brighter image. The ZRS will separate the last level of the resolution chart somewhat better than the Viper. The ZRS also appears sharper at distance than the Viper. So, I'll hold that final judgement until the Viper gets back from Vortex.
Anyway these are really more than decent at $200. Probably all the binocular many people need.
There is a possibility of some sample variation as well I suppose. Just to be sure, my Viper is going for a ride on the little brown truck back to Vortex. I don’t think there is anything wrong with it, but I think I need to find out.
When I started this, I was looking for the “truth in advertising” of Zen Ray’s claim of having a $200 binocular that competes with the $500-700 class in the same manner their ZEN ED compares to much more expensive binoculars. After looking through them for a couple of days, it appeared that the claim was pretty much on the mark.
So, I was a bit surprised when Kevin’s comments on his ZRS sounded like he was describing my Nikon Monarch, which was clearly inferior to the 8x ZRS I have. I have every reason to believe he saw what he saw. I saw what I saw.
The things about the ZRS that grabbed my attention were the depth of field and the the aparent flatness of the field. Since I don’t normally pay much attention to this unless the edge is really soft and the sweet spot really small, I used a tripod and a resolution chart. Mounted on the tripod, I focused on a specific spot in the chart in the center of the field. I then moved the focus from center to the edge of the field. When focused in the center, and moved to the edge, usually it will be out of focus. Then, reverse procedure, whereby the edge of the image is focused and then that focus point moved to the center, and then you can get an idea of edge sharpness.
The 10x42 ZRS is the flattest field binocular I’ve ever done this with. Focus on the edge and it is focused in the center, focus in the center and it is focused on the edge. The 8x42 ZRS is not quite that good. Next is the ZEN ED 10x43, followed by the ZEN ED 8x43, followed by the Promaster ELX ED 8x42, followed by the Viper 10x42, followed by the Swift Eaglet 7x36. The Monarch will not focus completely on an object in the edge of the field. Neither will the 8x Yosemite. So that’s how I got to the flat field comparison. It really is a “so what” sort of item to me. Everything above the Nikon is not going to give me an issue anyway. One can make too much of things. It simply seems to me that the Zen Ray claim of edge sharpness is valid (based on my specimens).
The ZRS should not appear as bright as the ZEN because there are two more glass elements in the ZRS. The HD LaK glass will also impart a warm bias.
I think the 8x42 ZRS is superior to the Monarch. That’s in about any category you can name. I gave and still give the 10x42 edge to the ZRS over the Viper. That is the appearance of a flatter field and it seems to have a bit sharper, but not necessarily brighter image. The ZRS will separate the last level of the resolution chart somewhat better than the Viper. The ZRS also appears sharper at distance than the Viper. So, I'll hold that final judgement until the Viper gets back from Vortex.
Anyway these are really more than decent at $200. Probably all the binocular many people need.
Last edited:
Backyard Birder
First Time Birder For The 2nd Time
After reading all of your impressions of the ZRS I am not surprised. Everybody sees things a little differently and no matter how we try to do an objective review it's almost impossible given the differences. One thing I am seeing in all of the reviews so far is that the ZRS seem to be a pretty good binocular, especially given the price.
I've yet to do any extended viewing through my pair but what I've seen so far seems to indicate that they are better than the Diamondbacks, at least to my eyes. I should get some extended use over the coming weekend and will post my thoughts after that.
I've yet to do any extended viewing through my pair but what I've seen so far seems to indicate that they are better than the Diamondbacks, at least to my eyes. I should get some extended use over the coming weekend and will post my thoughts after that.
Tero
Retired
It is some feature of binoculars that grabs each user, even in a store. "I want these" you go home, and in about 3 months you find that they are just binoculars, in the sense that "all women are the same" or from Venus or from Mars, or men, depending on which species you are yourself.
Last edited:
