jan van daalen
Well-known member
Brock,
You do a pretty good job on your own.
When you can't win it by facts, you start namecalling.
That's your style. OK, but don't turn things up side down, is all I say.
Jan the...
Last edited:
-
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.
A New Interview with Gerold Dobler, SF Design Team Leader (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Troubador
- Start date
Brock,
You do a pretty good job on your own.
When you can't win it by facts, you start namecalling.
That's your style. OK, but don't turn things up side down, is all I say.
Jan the...
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Torview,
No worries mate, I registered the same thing in my samples and got the same explanation from Zeiss.
To tilt or not to tilt, that is the question?:smoke:
Jan
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Lee, post 40,
Jan van Daalen explained in post 33 already how the court case leica-Swarovski ended.
Do you by any chance know whether Konrad Seill also had to go to court when he left Swarovski and went to Zeiss?
Gijs
Jan van Daalen explained in post 33 already how the court case leica-Swarovski ended.
Do you by any chance know whether Konrad Seill also had to go to court when he left Swarovski and went to Zeiss?
Gijs
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
No, you are not alone. I haven't tried the SF, so I can't comment on it, but I do hope its performance is not especially sensitive to eye placement, as I have found is the case for some bins (e.g. the Zeiss 8x32 FL). In my experience, the performance of some binoculars is more robust to variation in eye placement than others. Given that I like to dart my eyes around within a large FOV, and given that it can be done successfully in plenty of binoculars, and given that in real-world birding it is not always possible to keep one's eyes critically aligned (e.g. on a pitching boat while birding for pelagics), and given that even when it is technically possible to align one's eyes perfectly that in the real world it doesn't happen every time (e.g. when quickly switching back and forth between bins and eyes, as done in many types of birding), I prefer designs that have performance that is robust to variation in eye placement. Whether that robustness is an intentional outcome of design, or whether it exists by happenstance, I'm glad that it does in most bins. The comments of Dr. Dobler on this issue kind of remind me of the lame explanations Steve Ingraham gave for the performance of the FL when it garnered complaints for having a small sweet spot or fuzzy edges, or for having a blue bias or poor contrast.
I think maybe the designers sometimes forget that human users of binoculars are not capable of perfectly aligning bins with their eyes when they are observing nature, or sports, or just the view (whatever the last one means???).
--AP
Last edited:
Hermann
Well-known member
The reason Jan rightly criticizes Nikon is the often totally unacceptable level of service in the Netherlands. As you don't know anything about the quality of the Nikon service in the Netherlands (and, for that matter, much of Europe), you'd better keep your mouth shut on these matters.
Hermann
Gijs
Here is what I have been told and / or found on the internet.
Swaro won the case for compensation for Dobler leaving Swarovski but lost the case against Leica for breaching the riflescope patent. The European Court decided the Swaro patent only described the state of the art and not anything new.
The case against Dobler was for compensation for him leaving the company and nothing to do with protecting intellectual property.
Lee
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Hermann,
Thanks for this!
However it is very true that Nikon has never proven to have any level of service to my knowledge (which is limited, I know
), the reason I mentioned Nikon is this matter lies in Brocks number 2 post where he started namecalling to a woman for who I have only the greatest appreciation and secondly blamed her company unrightfully on a way only this Nikon fan(atic) can.Jan
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
lee: any thoughts on the SF eye cups from Dr Dobler?
And who was responsible for the design?
o
And who was responsible for the design?
o
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Lee, post 46,
Thank you for clarifying things. The court case than actually was kind of flattering for Gerold Dobler, since it showed the appreciation of Swarovski for his work and his craftmanship, allthough he might not have experienced it that way.
Gijs
Thank you for clarifying things. The court case than actually was kind of flattering for Gerold Dobler, since it showed the appreciation of Swarovski for his work and his craftmanship, allthough he might not have experienced it that way.
Gijs
lee: any thoughts on the SF eye cups from Dr Dobler?
And who was responsible for the design?
o
VB
Although the eyecups do not look the same on the outside, I have been told that inside the mechanism is actually basically the same as the FL eyecups.
Lee
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
The feel of the eye cups is a bit different I think, maybe a bit more like the Conquest HD:s?
The problem with the samples I saw was that the eye cups where uneven, left and right at different heights, and also extended to much when they were in their lowest position, they eat unnecessary eye relief so to speak. It seemed as they were not mounted properly.
Don't know if this is the case with later samples. I guess this must have been quite early production units. Some plastic feel I can live with, but not invalid function.
The focuser was also harder to turn at one place over the full range. But that you covered in your interview, which was very good to know about. So I guess it's not how it's supposed to function and feel.
I hope later units will perform a bit better when it comes to the eye cups and focuser and therefore I will wait with my upgrade.
The blue shadow on the edge I noticed also, when tilting the binos in an unnatural way, but it's not a problem in normal usage.
Last edited:
Hi Tim
Sorry, Dr Dobler can't discuss new products unfortunately. But since there has been no HT 32mm then I am sure that at some point there will be an SF 32.
Lee
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Lee .... Thanks for posting the interview and fielding the questions. Good job!
Do you have any info from Dr. Dobler or your other Zeiss contacts on what, if any, changes were made from the Zeiss pre-production models shown at Bird Fair and also the three units sent to the US compared to the final production version?
Thanks.
Do you have any info from Dr. Dobler or your other Zeiss contacts on what, if any, changes were made from the Zeiss pre-production models shown at Bird Fair and also the three units sent to the US compared to the final production version?
Thanks.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Perhaps they are not designed by humans:
I'm smart, I can make things
One reviewer of the original 820 Audubon called its oversized, flat, hard plastic eyecups "not designed for human faces."
My beef is how eyecups often don't fit my face, particularly Japanese-made optics such as the SE, EII, 820 Audubon, Celestron Novas, and Vixen 7x50 Foresta, and some Chinese-made bins such as the Nikon Aculon. I think they are designed by Asians for Asian faces. Renze has given me some good tips on how to modify the SE and EII eyecups.
OTOH, Swaro and Doctor binoculars (before that Jena) have eyecups that seem better suited for European faces, and hence, mine.
I agree with you about the annoyance of finicky eye placement. Although some members are "stationary birders" (particularly in single digit temp weather
), most of us bird "on the fly" and pan and move are eyes around the FOV. If I could find a bin that gave as sharp and contrasty image to the edges like the SE and didn't cost and arm and leg, I would sell the SE and buy it, but so far the only bins I've used that match the SE's image quality have been alphas. Brock
Last edited:
Hi Bruce
You are welcome.
I am sorry I haven't asked about changes made, if any, from pre-prods to full prods, although I am sure I recall that some of those who went on the launch trip in Europe mentioned that there would be a change to the eyecups on the production models. Sorry I can't throw any more light on this.
Lee
The SE is an alpha. Be happy.Perhaps they are not designed by humans:
I'm smart, I can make things
One reviewer of the original 820 Audubon called its oversized, flat, hard plastic eyecups "not designed for human faces."
My beef is how eyecups often don't fit my face, particularly Japanese-made optics such as the SE, EII, 820 Audubon, Celestron Novas, and Vixen 7x50 Foresta, and some Chinese-made bins such as the Nikon Aculon. I think they are designed by Asians for Asian faces. Renze has given me some good tips on how to modify the SE and EII eyecups.
OTOH, Swaro and Doctor binoculars (before that Jena) have eyecups that seem better suited for European faces, and hence, mine.
I agree with you about the annoyance of finicky eye placement. Although some members are "stationary birders" (particularly in single digit temp weather
Brock
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Thanks Lee. I have not seen a production model yet, but from what I can tell from various readings, little or no noticeable changes have been made from the pre production models I saw over the summer. Considering how much I liked the pre models, that is not a bad thing!
I was told during the summer show that there may eventually be some modification to the eye cup but it appears the current production eye cups are the same or similar to what I saw. My only comment on those cups was the notching could have been more distinct but what they had then was workable. It is a non issue for me because I view with the cups fully extended and there was no tendency for them to slide down.
Most all of the reviews from people using production models have been positive and quite consistent with the positive observations I had during the summer show when looking at the pre production models.
I was told during the summer show that there may eventually be some modification to the eye cup but it appears the current production eye cups are the same or similar to what I saw. My only comment on those cups was the notching could have been more distinct but what they had then was workable. It is a non issue for me because I view with the cups fully extended and there was no tendency for them to slide down.
Most all of the reviews from people using production models have been positive and quite consistent with the positive observations I had during the summer show when looking at the pre production models.
As Bruce comments above the notching in the eye cups could be more distinct. I'm on my second pair and I use them fully extended but when I push on the ocular rain covers on occasions that action does cause the eye cups to dislocate from their extended position and retract. I tend to use the rain covers whenever I walk around at this time of year, so every time I stop to use the binoculars and take them off I have to check that the eye cups are fully extended. Not a big issue, but I don't have to do this with our Swaro SVs and again relating to several recent comments on pricing and 'quality' I don't think this should occur with an alpha 'best in the world' product. I'm relatively new to buying binoculars of this value and looking on forums and it seems that alphas have been riddled with a range of defects and this almost seems to be accepted as given, judging by a range of comments. Again, perhaps due to my lack of knowledge and experience I find it tremendously hard to find this acceptable in relatively small instruments that are supposed to go through a range of quality measures. A car, for example, is constituted of hundreds of components (if not more) sourced from numerous unconnected suppliers and I guess there is then more chance of error occurring somewhere through faults in manufacturing.
