What you really want CJ, is a modular CFRP binocular so you can swap between different magnifications and different objective sizes, but then you would need different bodies too with different sized prisms and lord knows how you would deal with the focusing mechanism. But hey we're just dreaming here so we can express our wildest wish :smoke: :smoke:
Lee
Jerry,
I too am wondering how Zeiss has managed to keep the weight low while offering such a wide Fov, complex eyepiece, and reasonable ER. Both the Swarovski SV and the Nikon EDGII are finely engineered mechanical instruments, with many intricately designed weight saving features (such as prism waisting and sophisticated and complex magnesium body). Usually, the prisms /oculars are skimped on to keep the weight down - resulting in narrowed Fov and/or truncated exit pupils thus reducing viewed brightness. :cat:
I only hope that the claimed figures for Fov, ER, and weight stand true with actual measurement ..... which may be something of a first! |8.|
Also, the claim of "greatly reduced globe effect" while offering a view that consists of "a sharp image all the way to the edges" is an interesting /bold one which will need further scrutiny / verification. Holger's calculated k value of ~0.7 points toward an EDGII type view, yet one that is not so far removed from the SV, so it may not still suit all those whose eye distortions leave them prone to the effect. I think Brock for at least one, is still gunna struggle..... :-C
The final proof will be in the pudding :eat:
Chosun :gh:
Now that Zeiss has apparently taken my suggestion of a k=0.7 value serious, I would guess that the globe effect remains absent to at least 90% of all observers. The SF thus has a little higher amount of distortion than the average Swaro SV, yet small enough to offer only gently curved lines toward the edges of field.
What we don't know yet is how the distortion varies radially from the center toward the edge. If there exist any anomalies, such as in some of the SV ("mustache distortion") , then the globe effect might reemerge into the scene from the "back door".
Cheers,
Holger
Anyway a double bridge is nothing really new, Zeiss made some already a century ago...
Lee, no need for any of that fanciful stuff.... careful not to come off as a Zeiss apologist, fanboi, or shareholder even! :eek!: :-O
Chosun :gh:
But at $2,700 in the states and over $3,000 abroad, it's hard to imagine that the SF will be a "high demand global product"
Brock
Brock
Of course this remains to be seen but Mike said it will sell in the States for just $100 more than Swaro's EL SV and one see's plenty of those suckers around, so I don't think the SF is aimed at a micro-niche market.
Lee
Looks to be a good bino but comes at a steep increase in cost....2435 Euros or $3300. It sure seems that optics (lens, bino's and scopes) are getting very pricey. You pay for what you get but wow, just think if you opted for the newest out there in terms of scopes and bino's what your wallet would look like.
Can one afford both the scope and the bino's now? Is that the message now hitting us?
Someone above suggested the lawsuit threat was about the focuser not the open bridge design, but that wasn't the case, as someone showed when he posted the patent document, which showed that the open bridge design itself was patented.
1.Field of the Invention
This invention relates to binoculars having a focusing mechanism mounted on the outside of a rearmost bridge connecting the body tubes and particularly to a focusing mechanism including a gear extending to each tube through the bridge and inwhich focusing is not affected by adjustments made to the distance between the tubes.
Glad to see that at least one other person on the forum also has "sticker shock." With people accepting the price of the SF so easily, you'd think that money grew on trees.
Well, I think it has been pointed out many times that the patent was about the focusser not the bridge design, you just managed to ignore that all along. There was even a thread dedicated to this issue.
If you read the patent text properly (a bit difficult to read, but you don't need to be a patent lawyer to get the obvious) you will find it mentionned clearly that the patented invention refers to the focusser.
Quote from the patent :
The oben bridge design is merely mentioned when describing different types of binoculars in which the focus mechanism can be used.
Zeiss is probably very accurate when talking about the "traditional double bridge", a traditional design that has been around since a long time, just as the single bridge, never patented by anyone.
Like blunt force trauma to the head.
Glad to see that at least one other person on the forum also has "sticker shock." With people accepting the price of the SF so easily, you'd think that money grew on trees.
Brock
Those "suckers" (the SV ELs) didn't cost $2,600 when they were first released. They eventually settled in at $2,400, but the introductory price was less when people were jumping on the bandwagon, and some also traded in their old ELs for $800 at Eagle Optics, which is now selling the 8.5x model for $2,529.
Swaro increased the price ~$200 over the past two years. Expect another $100 increase this year or next to keep competitive with Zeiss.
Maybe EO will give you $800 as a trade-in on your old HTs.
Brock
People seem to have no problem accepting Swarovski prices. If the SF really turns out to be clearly better than the Swarovision, why should Zeiss sell it for less than Swarovski?
OK fellow Zeiss-obsessives.
The press release has some enigmatic things to say about the SF's carrying case:
The binoculars include a newly developed protective case for transport. The multifunctional case makes it possible to use the binoculars while zipped shut, without the neck strap. The additional magnetic closure also keeps the binoculars at ready, making them easy to use at out at a moment’s notice. The elegantly streamlined, yet highly functional design of the case allows for comfortable wearing in the field with shoulder straps or belt loops.
Go to http://www.foto-wannack.de/fernglaser/zeiss-victory-sf-10x42-und.html
And you will see that the new case is a staggering departure from Zeiss recent perfectly adequate but rather sober efforts:t:
This explains the price, Brock
Lee
Oh man, they even took Swaro's case design. Now that was a mistake!!!
The "lawsuit" was never more than apocryphal. Repeated endlessly it seems to have taken on a credence it does not deserve.
Mark