michaelboustead
Well-known member
Somebody should tell Zeiss to read this thread.
-
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.
When a new Zeiss binocular? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter AlbertoJ
- Start date
Omid
Well-known member
I do like a wider field of view and I prefer if we could have a 60 to 70 degree field of view with enough sharpness at the center. It is OK if the peripheral vision area is not as sharp. This is natural for human vision system.
However, what I mentioned in my previous post is different than having a large "field of view". What I meant was a binocular with "wide viewing angle", that is a large area behind the eyepiece where you can comfortably place your eye. One way to achieve this is by having a large exit pupil. In traditional optics, the exit pupil is controlled by magnification and front lens diameter (Exit Pupil Diameter = Front Lens Diameter / Power). I have found a way to break this fundamental law and produce telescopes that have very large exit pupils. That’s what I meant. The field of view is determined as usual by the field stop of the optical instrument. But the exit pupil (which is now only vaguely defined) is not connected to front lens diameter or magnification.
See the attached picture for a proof of concept demonstration. This is a 10X40 riflescope constructed according to my design. The picture is taken from about two meters behind the eyepiece. It should have an exit pupil 4mm wide. But if you look at the pictures, you see a radically different view!! Wouldn’t you guys love to have binoculars like this??
Attachments
Last edited:
mooreorless
Well-known member
...that is because you are too busy looking at all of those Amish folks ridin' in their wagons past your house.
Seriously, rolling ball doesn't always affect everyone the same way. I seem to be relatively immune to the issue. I have seen it and know what to look for but unless it is really pronounced then I am not bothered by it. I bird the same type of areas that you do and typically don't find edge performance that much of an issue in many cases.
I know what mean about the Amish.
Attachments
FrankD
Well-known member
Ditto. After using my first ultrawide angle 7x binocular I must say that it makes everything else seem...porthole-ish.
A 10-11 degree Zeiss FL with a large sweet spot would be one Alpha design that I would pay $2500 for.
...but that would be pretty much the only design that I would pay that much for.
Omid
Well-known member
Thanks! I have been thinking/working on this design for a long time. The idea is to make it comfortable to look through binoculars by eliminating the exact eye placement normally required in the traditional design. In the new design, you can have your eyes 30 or more degrees off axis and you still see the image (no black out). You can also move your eye freely back and force. In a tradional binocular, if you look at the eyepice from 2m behind, you see a small bright circle whose diameter represents the exit pupil. In the above example this should be 4mm. The images clearly show that the new design has an exit pupil far larger than 4mm!
James Bean
Well-known member
Ron, Your sentiments in #27 reflect my thoughts on the Conquest. Optically pretty good, although the fov is limited, the body is 'sticky/rubbery/plasticky' and the focus is nowhere near as smooth as a Nikon HG/LX. I've held a Zeiss Victory FL only once, and had hoped a Conquest would be much the same but, as you say, it lacked the exemplary smooth feel. And though I tend to frown upon 'political correctness', isn't it time Zeiss stopped using names like Conquest and Victory? For the record, I've been a Zeiss fan for many years and still believe they are by far the most famous name in high quality optics.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
brocknroller
porromaniac
How about ''Subjugator'' or '' the Surrender FL?''
In keeping with the military theme, "Zeiss Triumph" is my guess for the new "class" of Zeiss bins, which might be intended to compete at the CL's price point and quality range, given the clues ("lighter, more compact"). Lighter and more compact than the FL series, but "classier" than the Conquest.
It's either push the price barrier at top or get in on the growing second tier where sales are likely to grow as some buyers drop out of the "$2,500 and up" top tier market (unless Zeiss makes a 10-11* FL for Frank
.A "middle class" series would make Zeiss a three-tier player: Victories on the top shelf, Triumph on the second tier, and Conquest at the entry level. Something for everybody.
Now if I had taken Mike Jensen's job as VP Of Sales and Marketing (a position he only held six months before being promoted to president of Carl Zeiss Sports Optics North America), and he asked me what the next move for Zeiss should be, I'd say let's capitalize on the Baby Boomer's nostalgia and bring back the ClassiC line of optics with updated technology (coatings and internal focus) and sell them at a price point in between the Victories and Conquests.
Brock
lilcrazy2
Well-known member
And he probably would have fired you right on the spot since all marketing introductions are the result of many, many market surveys and intense focus groups. Swaro probaly decided at least 12 to 18 months in advance of the CL rollout what their target was before the first design, tooling or mold was made. Even Zen Ray has been talking about the Prime HD for almost a year with nothing on the shelves, and all they have to do is pay someone for the design and manufacturing, with no where near the type of investment required by the "Alphas".
As others have said 8* is fine with me, as I wouldn't want to imagine how much an 11* bino with a flat field and great edges would cost, let alone how much they would weigh.
Tom
henry link
Well-known member
I notice that it's possible to extract a little more information from the mysterious web page.
http://www.zeiss.com/zeissexperience
Bring up the 01/12 circle. Notice the two tiny circles at the center. Click on the right one and a new bit opens which says: "HD - New lens system for neutral colour rendering."
So, presumably the Conquest replacements will have ED glass.
http://www.zeiss.com/zeissexperience
Bring up the 01/12 circle. Notice the two tiny circles at the center. Click on the right one and a new bit opens which says: "HD - New lens system for neutral colour rendering."
So, presumably the Conquest replacements will have ED glass.
James Bean
Well-known member
Bob: Now that's more like it, for a nation not known for winning wars for over 100 years!
Notwithstanding, and seriously folks, Germany is now the most powerful nation in Europe and makes some jolly fine binoculars, as well as owning famous names like Rolls-Royce and Bugatti. I reckon "Neu ClassiC" has a certain cachet, although "Uber ClassiC" has a more modern ring to it. Whenever I look through my Zeiss 10x40BGAT* (mid-1980s) I have to admit it's really as good as I'll ever need, despite being a quarter of a century old...
Notwithstanding, and seriously folks, Germany is now the most powerful nation in Europe and makes some jolly fine binoculars, as well as owning famous names like Rolls-Royce and Bugatti. I reckon "Neu ClassiC" has a certain cachet, although "Uber ClassiC" has a more modern ring to it. Whenever I look through my Zeiss 10x40BGAT* (mid-1980s) I have to admit it's really as good as I'll ever need, despite being a quarter of a century old...
brocknroller
porromaniac
They really want us to work hard to find the clues, don't they?
Good catch!So they are going to one up the CL with ED glass. I wish they had a third circle that when clicked said "wider FOV than the CLs". And a fourth circle that said "competitively priced with the CLs".
Do the Conquests have the same level of astigmatism as the FLs? That is, does it start 15-20% off axis and culminate in a ring of fuzziness at the edges?
Brock
brocknroller
porromaniac
Mmm... what was that snide remark about me being fired for suggesting an updated ClassiC line, Tom?
You're not alone, James. I'm sure there are plenty others who like their old ClassiCs and many who would like to see an updated ClassiC line.
It would be economical to make since they already have the design, they just need to update the coatings. Swaro did this with their "traditional" Habicht porros, though Zeiss would need to change the prism coatings too with the roofs.
But it looks like we're getting an Zeiss HD CL/Conquest.
Brock
Nixterdemus
Well-known member
Sounds great and exciting, but at what cost? I bought the 8x30 demo for 4 bills and the 10x40 for 7 1/4. So, this new and improved line short of the home run Victory, yet promises third base in the balcony is going to cost 1500 clams?
I'm all for improvement, but I'm already shopping the bargain bin of the better line(s) snagging discontinued models being wholesaled to make room for the new and improved.replacements.
The new Vortex HD Viper 8x42 6.6* $590/10x42 6.1* $600 should present a fair amount of competition from a well recognized name that offers more than a lot of value though somewhat FOV challenged.
Now, if only Italy would bring in a line, Il Duce we'd have the battle of the Axis
I'm all for improvement, but I'm already shopping the bargain bin of the better line(s) snagging discontinued models being wholesaled to make room for the new and improved.replacements.
The new Vortex HD Viper 8x42 6.6* $590/10x42 6.1* $600 should present a fair amount of competition from a well recognized name that offers more than a lot of value though somewhat FOV challenged.
Now, if only Italy would bring in a line, Il Duce we'd have the battle of the Axis
Last edited:
Omid
Well-known member
Well very few people paid any attention to the pictures I posted in my previous post in this topic (# 42) so I gather that "bending" one of the fundamental laws of telescope optics was not as exciting as I'd first thought. Fair enough. Let's get back to our pettite concerns. How about Zoom ? Do you guys not like to have zoom in your fancy next gen Zeiss binoculars?
brocknroller
porromaniac
Well very few people paid any attention to the pictures I posted in my previous post in this topic (# 42) so I gather that "bending" one of the fundamental laws of telescope optics was not as exciting as I'd first thought. Fair enough. Let's get back to our pettite concerns. How about Zoom ? Do you guys not like to have zoom in your fancy next gen Zeiss binoculars?
Omid,
No, it's very exciting, even revolutionary. That was a huge exit pupil for a rifle scope.
However, your comments got buried in the thread. Why not start a new thread about this innovation so people can ask questions and understand it better? I'm particularly interested to hear what Henry has to say about it.
If this innovation could be applied to binoculars, just think of the possibilities. Imagine a compact bin whose image doesn't black out with just a slight movement of the head?
Brock
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Well very few people paid any attention to the pictures I posted in my previous post in this topic (# 42) so I gather that "bending" one of the fundamental laws of telescope optics was not as exciting as I'd first thought. Fair enough. Let's get back to our pettite concerns. How about Zoom ? Do you guys not like to have zoom in your fancy next gen Zeiss binoculars?
Omid,
No zoom for me. A binocular is a very compromised optical instrument already so I don't don't like extra complexities - i.e. distortion - get in the way. Same with scopes, where I'd rather choose a 30x eyepiece over a 20-60x zoom.
Renze
Omid
Well-known member
Thanks Brock. I might start a new tread and post a few more pictures of this phenomenon but I prefere not to get into technical details much at this time. Yes, if my idea works then it can make instruments with small exit pupil such sa pocket binoculars much more comfortable to use. It can also make high-powered binoculars and spotting scopes more easy to use. I still have to work out some design comprromises to make sure that it is really usable.
You see, from a user point of view, zoom will be very useful in a binoculars but from a technical point of view it is very difficult to make. Zoom is a rather distacting feature in a riflescope. From a technical point of view, it is very easy to make though. That's why we have all kinds of zoom riflescopes but not zoom binoculars. If binoculars were using len-based errecting systems - like riflescopes do- we would have had all kinds of zoom binoculars and everybody would compete to provide more zoom.
Last edited:
