New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (2 Viewers)

GLOBETROTTER said:

In 4 or 5 years Swarosvki answer to SF will be on market so then ULTRAVID and SF for sure will be on sale to get cash back for SV 3.

Click to expand...

GLOBETROTTER said:

if people is happy whith such kind of performance paying up to 2000 euros......what can i say.

Click to expand...

It all becomes clear now.

Lee

Troubador said:

It all becomes clear now.

Lee

Click to expand...

Crystal clear

Yeppers

Yeah !!!!! Another happy Customer with Zeiss.

if you guys copy and paste part of a Message and make an interpretation as you like.........is your problem.

Waiting for Kimmo report.

Congrats big Z

Why should we be happy with a $3000 binocular that [although it may appear sharp] shows signs of QA / design problems, as Kimmo reported?

Why should Zeiss build ''good enough.''

Why should Zeiss not get rapped for building many defective 54 mm HT's?

I don't care about Globetrotters [increasingly] suspicious motive [why on earth did you need to buy such an expensive binocular if you were not satisfied with it!?!] but I do care that Zeiss seems to consider quality of build and design secondary to pushing sales. I'm not giving Zeiss a pass on this as I think any Zeiss bin. should be as well designed and optically equal or better than any other binocular available. I would hope Zeiss feel the same way!

Zeiss needs to come clean on this - especially concerning the 54 mm HT's - recall the entire line and look to see and understand why they are unsharp.

Zeiss also needs to explain why a very expensive and low volume binocular [SF] has focus problems, eye cup problems, design problems. What is Zeiss doing to fix the situation? Do they care or do they figure no one will really notice or complain?

MAYBE IT'S BETTER NOT TO LOOK TOO CLOSE?

This is a birding site after all, not an astronomy site. Here are some comments from Tobias Mennle's website. He is a member of BF.

"A very similar thing might happen even with top class binoculars, as some recent quarrel about the 54mm Zeiss HTs suggests. Some demanding astronomers were putting samples of those binos on tripods and using 3x boosters to zoom into the images of their refined testcharts. They were not satisfied at all. Beyond sample variation and poor quality control it could simply be that Zeiss optimized these binos for their main customers - hunters and ornithologists who use the glasses 99% handheld and who need a high contrast at medium size objects, not at the size of pinpoint stars. Even if they should use tripods occasionally they surely would not zoom to 1/9th of the image circle and scrutinize it... Sometimes it´s better not to look too close, because the steep price point may fool us into believing we can expect a superb performance under any circumstances."

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/articles/mtf/mtfmysteries.html

Scroll down to the next to last paragraph. Look the site over. It's an interesting blog.

Bob

jan van daalen said:

Well, the EDG line is as good as it gets, but for the rest they're nothing more than Katsuma/Kamakura/Kenko clones, just like the rest.
What Nikon as a brand differs from the rest is their lack of aftersales in this part of the world and their bizar salesstructures.
But that is something you don't know Jack S.. about, do you Brock.

Keep yepping!

Jan

Click to expand...

It generally seems to me that aftersales service/warranty etc. is better on the other side of the Atlantic, at least that's my impression.

Vespobuteo said:

Results that can't be reproduced elsewhere by others,
have no significance in the scientific world.
No matter what the poster's name is or not.

Until some VALID proof is presented on any type of "unsharpness",
I would rest my case…

Click to expand...

Second that! :t:

james holdsworth said:

Why should we be happy with a $3000 binocular that [although it may appear sharp] shows signs of QA / design problems, as Kimmo reported?

Click to expand...

why don't you READ what Kimmo says:

"My very tentative opinion at present is that the SF optical design is very good and certainly capable of producing extremely sharp images, but I cannot say anything yet about wether the production tolerances are high enough to provide this level in a sizable percentage of the sold units."

So don't worry….yet….

that there is sample variation in optical equipment can't come as a surprise to anyone,
if it's significant to the average user is another question,

and let's focus on the SF and leave the HT 54 out from this discussion, it's another thread and history, and Zeiss have already responded to that.

The problems with the SF focuser was according to Dr Dobler, a batch of faulty mechanical components,
see Troubadours latest interview.

And let's hope that Zeiss will fix the flimsy eye cups as they did with the FL.

james holdsworth said:

Why should we be happy with a $3000 binocular that [although it may appear sharp] shows signs of QA / design problems, as Kimmo reported?

Why should Zeiss build ''good enough.''

Why should Zeiss not get rapped for building many defective 54 mm HT's?

I don't care about Globetrotters [increasingly] suspicious motive [why on earth did you need to buy such an expensive binocular if you were not satisfied with it!?!] but I do care that Zeiss seems to consider quality of build and design secondary to pushing sales. I'm not giving Zeiss a pass on this as I think any Zeiss bin. should be as well designed and optically equal or better than any other binocular available. I would hope Zeiss feel the same way!

Zeiss needs to come clean on this - especially concerning the 54 mm HT's - recall the entire line and look to see and understand why they are unsharp.

Zeiss also needs to explain why a very expensive and low volume binocular [SF] has focus problems, eye cup problems, design problems. What is Zeiss doing to fix the situation? Do they care or do they figure no one will really notice or complain?

Click to expand...

James,

I agree completely with you in this matter, but can't speak for Zeiss.
If you read Dr. Dobler's interview, you can read that (as an result of the "failures") there have been some staff "changes" and a reorganization.
That would speak for itself!!

I have examined the HT 54 and the SLC 56 this weekend and to be honest I can't call the HT not sharp and certainly not a product for a recall.
The reason we sell much more SLC's lies in the fact that Swaro dropped the price of this model which is now 300,00 euro cheaper.
Only weightwatchers buy the HT 54.

Jan

ceasar said:

MAYBE IT'S BETTER NOT TO LOOK TOO CLOSE?
Sometimes it´s better not to look too close, because the steep price point may fool us into believing we can expect a superb performance under any circumstances."

Click to expand...

...but of course, this calls into question if the steep price point is really justified. :smoke:

ceasar said:

MAYBE IT'S BETTER NOT TO LOOK TOO CLOSE?

This is a birding site after all, not an astronomy site. Here are some comments from Tobias Mennie's website. He is a member of BF.

"A very similar thing might happen even with top class binoculars, as some recent quarrel about the 54mm Zeiss HTs suggests. Some demanding astronomers were putting samples of those binos on tripods and using 3x boosters to zoom into the images of their refined testcharts. They were not satisfied at all. Beyond sample variation and poor quality control it could simply be that Zeiss optimized these binos for their main customers - hunters and ornithologists who use the glasses 99% handheld and who need a high contrast at medium size objects, not at the size of pinpoint stars. Even if they should use tripods occasionally they surely would not zoom to 1/9th of the image circle and scrutinize it... Sometimes it´s better not to look too close, because the steep price point may fool us into believing we can expect a superb performance under any circumstances."

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/articles/mtf/mtfmysteries.html


Scroll down to the next to last paragraph. Look the site over. It's an interesting blog.

Bob

Click to expand...

I imagine I must be one of the "demanding astronomers" referred to in that quote. Just to set the record straight my objections to the image quality of the 8x54 HT came from observations (hand held as well as tripod mounted) made in daylight at normal magnification. The high magnification star-testing was done to try to understand why the binocular was not performing well in normal daylight use.

Henry

ceasar said:

MAYBE IT'S BETTER NOT TO LOOK TOO CLOSE?

This is a birding site after all, not an astronomy site. Here are some comments from Tobias Mennie's website. He is a member of BF.

"A very similar thing might happen even with top class binoculars, as some recent quarrel about the 54mm Zeiss HTs suggests. Some demanding astronomers were putting samples of those binos on tripods and using 3x boosters to zoom into the images of their refined testcharts. They were not satisfied at all. Beyond sample variation and poor quality control it could simply be that Zeiss optimized these binos for their main customers - hunters and ornithologists who use the glasses 99% handheld and who need a high contrast at medium size objects, not at the size of pinpoint stars. Even if they should use tripods occasionally they surely would not zoom to 1/9th of the image circle and scrutinize it... Sometimes it´s better not to look too close, because the steep price point may fool us into believing we can expect a superb performance under any circumstances."

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/articles/mtf/mtfmysteries.html

Scroll down to the next to last paragraph. Look the site over. It's an interesting blog.

Bob

Click to expand...

I'm not an astronomer either and didn't use a tripod and I could tell the HT 8x54 view was softer than the HT and SF 8x54 in what I'd consider fairly poor light conditions. The Zeiss defence was that the model was intended for low light use where poor acuity would render it unimportant.

Why trivialise the issue?

David

typo said:

I'm not an astronomer either and didn't use a tripod and I could tell the HT 8x54 view was softer than the HT and SF 8x54 in what I'd consider fairly poor light conditions. The Zeiss defence was that the model was intended for low light use where poor acuity would render it unimportant.

Why trivialise the issue?

David

Click to expand...

That's my issue with Zeiss - they have trivialized the problems with the 54 mm HT [suggesting they don't care or assume we are stupid] - hopefully the same doesn't happen with the SF's.

Take a look at the QC issues on this $89,000 German-engineered Mercedes:

Nicht So Gut!

According to Consumer Reports, last year, Mercedes dropped to 17th among automakers in quality/reliability ranking! Now you would expect, being German made and costing two arms, a leg, a spleen and a pineal gland (the "seat of the soul"), Mercs would be faultless. Not.

BMW improved in initial quality/reliability ratings last year, largely due to its "All Around" SUV, but it's still nowhere near Honda or Toyota. The Japanese are good at QC, the Germans, not so much, at least not anymore. This dates back to 1960s when w.e. deming, an American, taught the Japanese quality control management, because U.S. manufacturers weren't interested in his ideas.

It is disappointing to see QC issues with bins at this price point, but QC issues with German-made products is not isolated to binoculars. However, this wasn't always the case with bins or cars. The issue might be, at least in part, attributable to the fact that "Made in Germany" is no longer truthful:

German Products May No Longer Be 'Made In Germany'

<B>

I'm not an astronomy buff either, but I find the critical reviews of bins by those who are, as well as or including boosted magnification tests by folks like Henry Link and Kimmo, concord with my impressions of binoculars in field use. They are very good predictors of what I will like or not like about a given bin. Moreover, I have found nothing suspicious or strange about GLOBETROTTER's posts, at least within the context of this forum. They seem very normal for someone who is an optics enthusiast and has/devotes enough disposable income to purchase several alphas (from different brands, since there is not point to brand loyalty when it comes to binoculars) and runs them through their paces in the quest for viewing bliss. I've done plenty of that in the past, and I see a lot of myself in his posts. It's unnerving to get a bin and find out that it has manufacturing flaws or design limitations that you wouldn't have expected, and it is especially unnerving when no one else is making the same observations (thank you Kimmo for beginning to do this). But just because no one else affirms those criticisms, it doesn't make the bin in your hand perform any better. To give just a few examples:

The first three units of the original Swarovski 8.5x42 EL that I tried (purchased new, mail order) had defective focusers (imperfect left-right side focus synchrony), and one had a flaw in the coloring of the rubber armor in one spot (a bluish-grey spot, as I recall), but I kept after them because there was a lot to like and I still believed I might find a unit without such flaws (which I did). I found the focus design of the original EL slow, and lots of folks didn't seem to appreciate that criticism and made excuses for it. But Swarovski acknowledged the problem by eventually changing the design to a faster ratio.

The first Swarovski 8x32 that I purchased (new, mail order) was out of alignment due to one of the oculars not being properly fixed in place. Swarovski fixed it, and it has functioned flawlessly since.

The first Leica 8x42 Ultravid that I purchased (new, mail order) had a very sticky focuser and a flaw in the lens coatings of one of the objectives (a palm-print patterned lack of the outermost coatings). Leica replaced the lens, smoothed the focus, and the unit is fine to this day. Do I find the amount of CA that this design it has off axis irritating? Yes. It doesn't keep me from using the bin, but just because I use it doesn't mean I can't complain.

I could relay many more such experiences, and I already have in past posts on Birdforum. These and other such experiences have lead me to conclude that a very high percentage of alpha bins have manufacturing defects (at least as judged by a very critical consumer), and that their designs are not up to the standards that optics enthusiasts imagine or know (based on experience with other models) is possible.

--AP

The question is, is this good enough, or do we deserve more, given the prices?

Bins are not cars, there are not thousands of moving parts nor are they pushed to extremes so the design process is simplified. Asking for a $3000 binocular to be sharp isn't asking too much is it? How hard is it for Z/S/L to have a ''hands-on'' QA process for each unit, given that the number produced is low?

jan van daalen said:

Crystal clear

Click to expand...

Is there another kind?

Pileatus said:

Is there another kind?

Click to expand...

Schott glass clear!

HighNorth said:

Schott glass clear!

Click to expand...

Sounds like something I should fill before and/or after reading BF posts!B