• 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 DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Are Zen Rays 8x43 ED's really that good? (1 Viewer)

The big question is how will they market these new binoculars and support them. Granted, they aren't in Nikon's position in this respect, but is their manufacturing output limited? They and others, like Hawke, seem to have popped up out of nowhere. Certainly they are being made by experienced firms but do these firms have other contractual obligations that slow down the production, marketing and ultimate maintenance of the Name and Reputation of these specific binoculars?

It's pretty tough to break into this field. Unlike the Camera Industry which has been revolutionized by the digital onslaught there has been no equivalent technological breakthrough in the optical industry to open new pathways. The binocular and telescope business is about as hands on and analog as you can find! And the same can be said about the markets it targets.
Bob
 
One correction: Hawke didn't pop up. We just noticed them. In the US. They have been "up" for quite some time in the UK. Selling bins, spotters and riflescopes (and the latter is what they are more well known for).

The bin market I think with improved Chinese quality is in a period of "creative disruption". Think silly little German and Japanese cars in the US in the 1970s. Actually, more like in the late-1970s and early 1980s right now: Datsun 280Z or ZX comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_280Z
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_280ZX

I don't think it's tough to break into the field. The barrier to entry are pretty low. It's tough to be recognized as one of the Top N (currently N==4?).

But we'll see what happens as time moves on. With the current economic conditions I doubt the Chinese optical factories are saturated with orders.
 
Kevin Purcell said:
Aside from the exit pupil issue (which we don't agree on but the physics is on my side ;) )
Click to expand...

I was going to let this go, but you simply don't have physics on your side. A 42mm objective has 70% more area than a 32mm objective, and that larger area gathers more light. Astronomers have a saying that "aperture wins" and it's as true for dual tubes as for a single tube. In bright daylight when your own apertures are stopped down, and when I grant you the vast majority of birding takes place, it doesn't matter. In dim conditions, where a lot of hunters use their bins in the witching hours of dawn and dusk, it matters a lot. If it didn't, no-one would make or buy 56mm binoculars, and you wouldn't see 70mm binoculars on the tripods of stargazers, and deep space telescopes would have 32mm objectives.
 
fireform said:
It's no fallacy that, other design parameters being more or less equal, a 40-44mm bin will be brighter than a 30-32 mm bin. Ever looked through a pair of Night Owls? Obviously, the difference is not very prominent in the middle of the day when there's plenty of light available to the eye, but in poor light conditions it's usually obvious.
Click to expand...

The first sentence has no qualifier.

It's actually a false statement during the day. You may have meant to add "in twilight and at night" but you didn't say that.

Those bigger aperture bins are not brighter during daytime. They do no deliver more light into the eye. The iris prevents this.

That was what I was responding to.

Fireform said:
In bright daylight when your own apertures are stopped down, and when I grant you the vast majority of birding takes place, it doesn't matter. In dim conditions, where a lot of hunters use their bins in the witching hours of dawn and dusk, it matters a lot.
Click to expand...

You make my point.

It doesn't matter most of the time because your entrance pupil is stopped down. That's the physics argument and what I said in the original post. And that's the important point for birders.

Until your eye's entrance pupil is bigger than the exit pupil of the bin it makes NO difference to the brightness what the size of the aperture is. The only thing that controls brightness in this case is the transmission of the bin.

The only time it does matter is more than 20-30 minutes after sunset and well into twilight and at night. When the majority of 8x bin using birders don't bird except for those looking for crepuscular species.

I've measured the effect for quite a few bins of different sizes. For me 4mm exit pupil bins are equivalent to larger bins until about 20 to 30 minutes after sunset (i.e. through Civil twilight). When I go owling or stargazing I take bigger exit pupil bins with me.

All that said I'd rather go owling with ZR 8x43 bins than the Nikon SE 8x32. ;)
 
Bob,

From my dealings with them it appears they are going to be more aggressive marketing them over the next year or so. I believe they are going to pursue both the hunting and birding arenas via established channels within each industry. I know their name is becoming more established as I have seen it pop up on a few hunting messageboards now that have nothing to do with optics directly.
 
Frank.
Sounds good! It looks like they have an excellent product. It is a smart move on their part, expanding their network.
Bob
 
I'm waiting for dielectric coatings and a 32mm format before I try another pair. I'm sure both are on the drawing board if not going into production. I was underwhelmed by the 32mm FLs I had and would take a look.
 
From now on, I'll be sure and specify "in low light conditions" whenever I say a particular binocular is bright. It appears we aren't going to understand that part otherwise.
 
Fireform said:
I'm waiting for dielectric coatings and a 32mm format before I try another pair. I'm sure both are on the drawing board if not going into production. I was underwhelmed by the 32mm FLs I had and would take a look.
Click to expand...

Not ragging on you but I'm curious why (or how) you were "underwhelmed" by the FL 8x32. I can't say I was "overwhelmed" by them either but I am plenty happy with them (just "whelmed" perhaps ;) )

What was missing for you (in what conditions, perhaps)?
 
Kevin Purcell said:
Not ragging on you but I'm curious why (or how) you were "underwhelmed" by the FL 8x32. I can't say I was "overwhelmed" by them either but I am plenty happy with them (just "whelmed" perhaps ;) )

What was missing for you (in what conditions, perhaps)?
Click to expand...

Maybe it was just that pair, but they didn't give me the fine resolution I was used to getting from the SEs. I had the 8x32FLs for about 7 months, travelled with them, birded with them, hunted a full season with them, and finally decided that they were really a very nicely made, waterproof backup for my SEs, and I can't afford to have more than $1K in my backup bins. I had trouble resolving tines on deer, telling black calf fur from hog hide at a distance, telling fine field marks on birds and such that I never had trouble with before. Although I liked their compactness very much, they were also less comfortable in my biggish hands than the SEs. So I sold them to a fisheries biologist who really needed the waterproofing and is probably thrilled with them. Maybe the 8x32 roof format, though it sounds so attractive in theory, just isn't for me.
 
Last edited:
Fireform said:
Maybe it was just that pair, but they didn't give me the fine resolution I was used to getting from the SEs. I had the 8x32FLs for about 7 months, travelled with them, birded with them, hunted a full season with them, and finally decided that they were really a very nicely made, waterproof backup for my SEs, and I can't afford to have more than $1K in my backup bins.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why I sold my brand new Leica 8x32 BNs after lusting after them for years. I love the package, and the optics are great, but not as great as my 8x32 SEs, and I had slight black-out problems with the BNs. If it wasn't for the black-out issues, it would still have been hard to justify such an expensive back up, wet weather bino.

Now a $400.00 8x32 Zen Ray ED I could justify as a back up to the wonderful SEs.
John
 
John M Robinson said:
That's exactly why I sold my brand new Leica 8x32 BNs after lusting after them for years. I love the package, and the optics are great, but not as great as my 8x32 SEs, and I had slight black-out problems with the BNs. If it wasn't for the black-out issues, it would still have been hard to justify such an expensive back up, wet weather bino.

Now a $400.00 8x32 Zen Ray ED I could justify as a back up to the wonderful
SEs.
John
Click to expand...


Isn't it funny how an old porro-prism still has a better view than a $2K roof prism! I feel the same way about my old 8x32 SE's. You guys should really try the Orion Ultraview 8x42. For $150.00 it wll beat most roof prisms except for slightly fuzzy edges that you don't notice that much anyway because the FOV is so huge. The Zen 8x43 ED's are the closest I have seen a roof prism come to my SE's though. Almost as damn sharp and waterproof to boot. At $370.00 shipped you can't go wrong. Good for hunting and birding!

Dennis
 
John M Robinson said:
That's exactly why I sold my brand new Leica 8x32 BNs after lusting after them for years. I love the package, and the optics are great, but not as great as my 8x32 SEs, and I had slight black-out problems with the BNs. If it wasn't for the black-out issues, it would still have been hard to justify such an expensive back up, wet weather bino.

Now a $400.00 8x32 Zen Ray ED I could justify as a back up to the wonderful SEs.
John
Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinkin'. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before the come out with an 8x32.
 
I was underwhelmed by the 32mm FLs I had and would take a look.
Click to expand...

I was surprised at that as well. I found the two 8x32 FLs I owned to be quite good optically especially in respect to apparent sharpness. Case in point I used the first one for some time as a hawkwatching bin. The wide field of view and excellent apparent sharpness made them excellent when other 32 mm models gave me headaches (not alignment but rather comfort related).

Dennis,

I do agree about the 8x42 Ultraview. I was just out with it again today and I must say that I continue to be impressed with it. The inexpensive, quality porro will never die.

;)
 
...and I do look forward to seeing a more compact version of the Zen ED at some point. It seems like a natural progression.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

J
Brief review of Shuntu Panorama ED 10x42
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
jackjack
J
D
Pentax AD 7x32 ED
Replies
15
Views
3K
chenesis
C
R
Analysing Binoculars
Replies
6
Views
670
beacon hill
beacon hill
T
Zeiss SF 8x30 vs SFL 8x40
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
tian1227
T
mgp13
Zeiss SFL 8x40 review from Australia
Replies
7
Views
3K
GrampaTom
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top