Thanks for the input, folks. There definitely was something special about these, although I´d like to see them in the field. But I think I´ll pass, because a) I´ve no excuse to buy new binoculars, and b) they look well-worn - a lot of paint worn off around the hinges/bridge, and the play in the focus-wheel was disconcerting. Lovely to hold, though. And although I treated myself to SV´s, in recent months I´ve had occasion to look through FL´s (which I´ve never owned) in 8x32, 8x42 and 10x56 formats, and I think they really are something special.
-
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 Dialyt 7x42 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sancho
- Start date
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Sancho,
Are you going through a cure for your binomania?
Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
Sancho,
If your SVs eventually end up being left unused and unloved, please consider me as a potential and experienced adoptive parent.
Best regards,
Ilkka & 8x30EII :t:
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
Probably a good analogy, though the gap between modern and Trinovids is much narrower than Zeiss classics and current.
There are abstract reasons why they aren't as worthy, but to some (many?) they just hit on all cylinders.
LOL! To be honest, looking through a friend´s Zeiss FL 8x42 recently, I thought, for all kinds of imprecise and unquantifiable reasons, "I like these as much as the SV´s".
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Mine focus down to about 10 feet, which plenty close for birding. I like the 7x42 Classic better overall than the 7x42 FL for its ergonomics and for its lower astigmatism.
--AP
Gianni
Filotecnico
Here my opinion.
Until 1980s each “alpha firm” continuously improved the quality of his products; after the “engineering policy” was replaced by a “business policy” (costs reduction, “non-perceivable quality” concept and so on), then the 1980s products are, IMHO, the top of the global quality (global = optical, mechanical, etc.).
I imagine that in 1980s only perfect lenses were installed in binoculars, today some “nearly perfect” lenses are considered as good, and so on.
Then I keep my 7x42 Classic, my Leica 8x20 Trinovid… and I wait for an engineering return.
I hope you understand my poor English.
Until 1980s each “alpha firm” continuously improved the quality of his products; after the “engineering policy” was replaced by a “business policy” (costs reduction, “non-perceivable quality” concept and so on), then the 1980s products are, IMHO, the top of the global quality (global = optical, mechanical, etc.).
I imagine that in 1980s only perfect lenses were installed in binoculars, today some “nearly perfect” lenses are considered as good, and so on.
Then I keep my 7x42 Classic, my Leica 8x20 Trinovid… and I wait for an engineering return.
I hope you understand my poor English.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Hi Gianni,
I wish my Italian were as good as your English. :t: Although I'm also keeping my 7x42 Classic, which is a beautiful instrument, I'd like to think that "engineering policy" hasn't really disappeared at the high end. Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski and Nikon, for example, still innovate with excellent engineering design and quality control, and to my mind their products are priced consistent with inflation. Unfortunately, not everyone can keep up with inflation.
Ed
Gianni
Filotecnico
Hi Ed,
If I plan a production of 1000 bins, I need 2000 front lenses.
1st option (1980s): I use only perfect lenses, then I have to produce 2100 front lenses because 100 lenses (5%) don't satisfy my quality (perfection) requirements.
2nd option (today): in the past years I performed a “quality study” and I established that only 30 lenses don't satisfy my requirements because 70 lenses have a non-perceivable defect, then I can reduce the costs by using 2070 lenses instead of 2000.
Other exemple:
1st option (1980s): each mechanical part is superlative...
2nd option (today): after the “quality study” I noted that the estimated duration of the mechanics was 100 years, but the average life of a binocular is 20 years, then... why produce an over quality? I can reduce the costs by using lower quality components.
About me, I love the extra (non-perceivable) quality, then I prefer to buy a 3000 EUR binocular each 20 years than a 1500 EUR one each 10 years.
IMHO the optical performance of a Zeiss Victory is slightly better than a Dialyt, but the mechanical feeling of a Dialyt...
I'm near my fifties, but I prefer to buy a binocular with an estimated duration of 100 years, even if i don't estimate to use it for 100 years
Finally, i think that the present policy of some alpha firms is based on the "wow effect" in the comparison between an "old" and a present product.
I agree!
I try to explain my assertion with some exemples.
If I plan a production of 1000 bins, I need 2000 front lenses.
1st option (1980s): I use only perfect lenses, then I have to produce 2100 front lenses because 100 lenses (5%) don't satisfy my quality (perfection) requirements.
2nd option (today): in the past years I performed a “quality study” and I established that only 30 lenses don't satisfy my requirements because 70 lenses have a non-perceivable defect, then I can reduce the costs by using 2070 lenses instead of 2000.
Other exemple:
1st option (1980s): each mechanical part is superlative...
2nd option (today): after the “quality study” I noted that the estimated duration of the mechanics was 100 years, but the average life of a binocular is 20 years, then... why produce an over quality? I can reduce the costs by using lower quality components.
About me, I love the extra (non-perceivable) quality, then I prefer to buy a 3000 EUR binocular each 20 years than a 1500 EUR one each 10 years.
IMHO the optical performance of a Zeiss Victory is slightly better than a Dialyt, but the mechanical feeling of a Dialyt...
I'm near my fifties, but I prefer to buy a binocular with an estimated duration of 100 years, even if i don't estimate to use it for 100 years
Finally, i think that the present policy of some alpha firms is based on the "wow effect" in the comparison between an "old" and a present product.
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Hi Ed,
I agree!
I try to explain my assertion with some exemples.
If I plan a production of 1000 bins, I need 2000 front lenses.
1st option (1980s): I use only perfect lenses, then I have to produce 2100 front lenses because 100 lenses (5%) don't satisfy my quality (perfection) requirements.
2nd option (today): in the past years I performed a “quality study” and I established that only 30 lenses don't satisfy my requirements because 70 lenses have a non-perceivable defect, then I can reduce the costs by using 2070 lenses instead of 2000.
Other exemple:
1st option (1980s): each mechanical part is superlative...
2nd option (today): after the “quality study” I noted that the estimated duration of the mechanics was 100 years, but the average life of a binocular is 20 years, then... why produce an over quality? I can reduce the costs by using lower quality components.
About me, I love the extra (non-perceivable) quality, then I prefer to buy a 3000 EUR binocular each 20 years than a 1500 EUR one each 10 years.
IMHO the optical performance of a Zeiss Victory is slightly better than a Dialyt, but the mechanical feeling of a Dialyt...
I'm near my fifties, but I prefer to buy a binocular with an estimated duration of 100 years, even if i don't estimate to use it for 100 years
Finally, i think that the present policy of some alpha firms is based on the "wow effect" in the comparison between an "old" and a present product.
Gianni,
Assuming that all the particulars of your argument are correct, there is an important issue that is left out: aging! Without exception, all the high end binoculars I own, whether purchased new or used, eventually had to be serviced. Because they were high-end the manufacturer covered the repair under a lifetime warranty (or for a moderate 'no-fault' charge).
In the case of my 7x42 BGAT*P, Zeiss replaced a plastic collar that had split open on the left eyepiece, as well as the rubber boots on the objectives. They had become brittle and cracked with age. Internally, the lenses had to be cleaned and the focus mechanism repacked with grease. There are similar stories for my early 1990 Swaro SLCs that relate to seals, grit in the mechanism, and internal cam replacement. The oddest one was the growth of crystal tendrils inside the air tight Swaro 8x30 SLC due to plastic-nitrogen interaction. My latest roof binoculars have a ways to go, but they too will no doubt age and need repair.
I've reached the point where very few optical innovations justify upgrading my older equipment, and in not a few cases I would even have to question whether the new designs are really "better" rather than just "different."
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
Ed
Dialyt
The Definitive Binocular
Close focus is about 5mtrs, unfortunately...
The pair I have sitting next to me has still wonderful smooth focus, 150 mtrs FOV and ergonomics which a lot of the modern boys and girls can take an example upon.
IF they had a good close focus, they would still be high on my list for sure ( I am baby-sitting this pair untill the owner gets back from a long vacation)
Close focus on Zeiss Dialyt 7x42 is 3.5m. There is a pair for sale in the classifieds on this forum!
