• 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.

When a new Zeiss binocular? (1 Viewer)

AlbertoJ

Well-known member
I think Zeiss should make soon a new binocular to compete with the last Swarovski (Swarovision).
His Zeiss FL is from 2004.
 
It appears to me that this webpage is just a newsletter registering location. It does have a vague promise for the future in the graphics.

...couple of things for 2012....

Rob.
 
In my recent poll on alpha prices (see "Optics Consumer Price Index Poll"), most participants including alpha owners were reluctant to pay more than $1,500 (US buyers) or $2,350 (Euro buyers) for their next bin.

Out of the few participants who were willing to pay $2,500 or more for their next bin, most wanted to see a new, innovative design rather than incremental changes to what they already had.

I'll ask the same question I did on Alberto's Leica thread....

What do you think Zeiss needs to do with the FL II and Conquest II (or whatever they might call them) to retain customers and win over new converts?

Brock
 
Either image stabilization or image capture, ideally both.
I think raw optical performance is well past the point of diminishing returns.
As that technology has diffused globally as well, the Alphas are getting squeezed by excellent quality at bargain rates from the Bosma's of this world.
Zeiss does not depend on binoculars to pay the bills, so they could keep the line alive as a corporate flagship. However, to lead I think they might expand on their excellent imaging spotter initiative.
The only question is whether this is feasible in a binocular size package without breaking the $5000 barrier. The new Sony E-glass is perhaps a straw in the wind, although that design does not sport especially impressive optics and yields a very unimpressive HD TV image.
 
Out of the few participants who were willing to pay $2,500 or more for their next bin, most wanted to see a new, innovative design rather than incremental changes to what they already had.

Include me in this category as well. I would like to see a new and radical improvement rather than another 1% increase in light transmission or 2% reduction in chromatic aberration. I want to see some major leap like the Dyson vacuum cleaner or the compound-bow. I don't want to see electronic gismos clattering the binoculars view so no blinking lights, no range finders, no video cameras, no mp3 players, no iphone interfaces... The improvement should be in the optical design and usability.
 
Last edited:
If restricted to solely optical design and utility, one goal might be to recreate the ease of viewing offered by the big 8x60 WW2 Zeiss porros in a smaller and more handy package.
With modern glass and coatings, maybe it is possible, although perhaps there are a few laws of physics that will need circumvention.
There have been other discussions on using built in filters to optimize the viewing under different lighting conditions (see: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=214807 ) and it would be nice to get a really wide angle glass with good eye relief. The latter is another candidate for bending physical laws.
None of these concepts will be easily doable, so a multi million dollar engineering effort is a prerequisite. Given the small numbers of high end binoculars that are sold annually, prospects for actually implementing any such designs appear remote.
 
They updated the Diascope recently, so that says to me that an update for the Victory FLs are probably on the way.

I've got a set of Victory FLs and there is definitely nothing wrong with them! Amazing binoculars!

I'd like to see a Divari series of their Binoculars
 
From reading comments on the FL, it appears that at least some birders would like to see Zeiss reduce the astigmatism at the edges. But that could be done w/out resorting to an EP design with "compound distortion" that would produce "rolling ball" or some other unpleasant effect that would reduce the "ease of view".

From the teaser on the Zeiss Website, it seems that ergonomics and weight are the key issues they are looking at in "A new class - lighter and more compact". Sounds like an ad for the Swaro CL.

How are we to interpret "a new class". A lighter FL? Or an entire new design?

The FLs do look bulkier than their more svelte counterparts - Ultravids and ELs - which both went on a SlimFast diet compared to the previous models. Trinnies were "bricks" and the EL was quite a handful and so were the SLCs before the "neu" edition. The slimming down of birding binoculars seems to be a trend they are trying to cash in on. In some reviews I've read on the FLs where users are asked to list pros and cons, a recurring "con" is "bulky".

It seems the "bulk" is inherent in the long A/K prisms. Could Zeiss be abandoning the prism design they are famous for? They did so to trim down the 32 FLs.

With advances in prism coatings producing higher transmission, perhaps the A/K prisms are no longer needed and limit the design possibilities.

Or maybe they are going to finally get rid of the ribs or both! What would a rib-free Zeiss bin with SP prisms look like?

Or by "class" are they referring to another line of bins altogether? After all, as TV said above, there's nothing wrong with the FLs.

Swaro has three "classes" of bins now: EL, SLC-HD, and CL. Since Zeiss already has the Conquests, a CL-like entry level class seems unlikely. The new Zeiss will probably be high end, since they can always "trickle down" that technology, but a new design that deviates from the past. No ribs? SP prisms? Open bridge design?

Lots of possibilities once you start with a clean slate.

Brock
 
Lighter than the already suspiciously lightweight polycarbonate FL? More compact? What could they do but abandon the legendary AK prism for a me-too SP. Less outfield astigmatism might be nice, but perfection is not important--we don't need another SV.

Not long ago, Zeiss did a marketing survey, asking, for example, if you'd like an open hinge design. Sheesh. Barf, in fact. I hope binoculars retain some character, and not morph towards marshmallow-shaped look alikes, as cars have.

Zeiss must demonstrate visionary powers as it did with the FL, even if flawed, or I will be disappointed. That will take guts in today's marketplace and today's economy.
Ron
 
@ Brocknroller: since when has Swarovski produced a lighter binocular in the same class than Zeiss? To state that Swaro went on a slimfast diet suggest significant weight loss compared to previous models, but I know and you know they are still heavier than anything Zeiss has produced since 7 years ago when they came up with the FL line. Even the 8x30 conquest, around on the market since years, is lighter than the new 2011 Swaro CL.
The thing is, people don't necessarily buy the lightest binocular, otherwise Swaro would not sell anything, especially not the EL. It's the ergonomics, the looks and the warranty that were the main selling points.
 
Interesting, I did not know this Zeiss-page yet. It seems they will announce something in January?

"A new class - lighter and more compact".

That new class will probably something between the compacts and the 32 class. 8x25 is my guess.
 
Zeiss doesn´t need have a perfect edge to compite with Swarovision, because it could make a binocular with no perfect edge but with a view free of rolling ball effect.
But in any case Zeiss must reduce the astigmatism at the edges, at least increase its sweet spot.

I compared Swarovision 8.5x42 and my Zeiss FL 7x42 and I´m very surprised Swarovision has better contrast on center of field and even a few better CA.
Zeiss should get at least the same contrast on center of field.
 
Last edited:
I have done a lot of birding over the years with the Zeiss 7x42FL. I find it a very successful design, at least for me and have always returned to them. I have tried lighter 8x32 designs to relieve strain on my neck. I find all of them a little hard to use and they have ended up on EBay or Birders Exchange. I am not real careful about centering the bins on my eyes or focusing accurately-maybe its a warbler thing.

Ergonomic changes I would consider, not sure that a lot of the optical improvements are meaningful even if they are measurable.

Mike
 
I think the key question here is what, exactly, would be improved upon. Sure, Zeiss could follow Swarovski and "clean up" the edge performance a bit with the FL. In my mind that would give them a bit of the proverbial lead in the optical category since the FL does use Abbe-Koenig prisms.

Is that enough though?

As Mike mentioned they could also address the ergonomics of the FL line. I never found them objectionable but they could make them more ergonomic. Both Swaro and Nikon have created products that allow the user to wrap more of their hands around the barrel of the binocular. This gives one a more secure and steady hold on the bins. It also gives the impression of lighter overall weight.

Returning to the optical upgrade, I think the question should be what other optical area could Zeiss improve upon. Are there other optical aberrations that aren't being corrected for in any of the other binocular designs? I am sure there are. The question then becomes which one should they address and how much of an observable improvement would it make to the final product.
 
I would happy enough to see several incremental improvements in the optics.

First, a different design choice in the off-axis characteristics of the eyepieces. I wouldn't object to SV like performance, but as others have said perfectly sharp edges are not really necessary. The weakest thing about the current FL's is astigmatism beginning at 12-15 degrees off-axis.

Second, better control of lateral color.

Third, an increase in the bandwidth of the T* coatings, which have good peak transmission at green/yellow wavelengths, but roll off too quickly in both the red and the blue.
 
Ergonomics for me is weight. Don't know if changes to prisms would save weight because not sure of the difference.

Bigger sweet spot would help I suppose but not if sacrifice field of view. The field of view in the 7x42 is not sharp to edge but it is usable to see movement and the center appears sharp to me.

Another question "rolling ball" effect. I pan a lot with a scope but hardly at all with bins. Maybe I don't do it right but I look for bird with eyes then move bins. I do live in NE US so most birding in forest edges and maybe that makes a difference.

Mike
 
Ergonomics for me is weight. Don't know if changes to prisms would save weight because not sure of the difference.

Bigger sweet spot would help I suppose but not if sacrifice field of view. The field of view in the 7x42 is not sharp to edge but it is usable to see movement and the center appears sharp to me.

Another question "rolling ball" effect. I pan a lot with a scope but hardly at all with bins. Maybe I don't do it right but I look for bird with eyes then move bins. I do live in NE US so most birding in forest edges and maybe that makes a difference.

Mike

...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 would happy enough to see several incremental improvements in the optics.

First, a different design choice in the off-axis characteristics of the eyepieces. I wouldn't object to SV like performance, but as others have said perfectly sharp edges are not really necessary. The weakest thing about the current FL's is astigmatism beginning at 12-15 degrees off-axis.

Second, better control of lateral color.

Third, an increase in the bandwidth of the T* coatings, which have good peak transmission at green/yellow wavelengths, but roll off too quickly in both the red and the blue.

Henry,

The fall-off of the red and blue wavelengths, how will that show in the field?

I ask as I have found the FL to be bright, but not really that outstanding at dusk, compared to other similar bins. What is consistantly better in the FL's, though, is that white's seem whiter....almost boosted or luminous.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top