CJ,
Hmm...took me awhile to remember this thread and the fact I'd posted here on it :eek!:
I agree that in a certain sense that the two pronged approach makes some sense. Particularly when one looks at Swarovski with the SV and SLC or Leica with the Ultravid, Noctovid, and Trinovid. However the SLC and the Trinovid are attempts to get the company name out there to more people for less money with an excellent binocular. I was thinking more along the lines of two very high end, expensive binoculars. I wonder if the Noctovid has reduced Ultravid sales volume?
It makes less sense to me (and may well make more sense to others) to abandon the traditional Zeiss A-K prism design in favor of the SP prism SF. I've yet to see either one. About the only way I will be able to do that is to buy one sight unseen, and for that kind of money...no way.
As to marketing fluff, that is a manipulation of human psychology, I see nothing strange in a company buying into their own hype. I do see some strangeness in the Zeiss record of product introduction with the HT and the SF. I initially thought the SF might be a way to cover for the HT introduction mess. They simply followed one mess with another one.
I agree the body material of the FL was a good one. However I think there is an ingrained prejudice against anything other than magnesium alloy chassis in binoculars, particularly expensive ones. I would not at all mind seeing a HT with that body type.
As to including Schott HT glass in the SF. It would be a good bit of marketing fluff, and it is kind of hard to understand why they didn't use it from the sales standpoint. As to the noticeable improvement in the SF with HT glass, I am not so sure. Zeiss states 95% overall transmission fot the HT and 93% for the SF. We are told human eyes need about twice that difference for it to be noticeable. I tend to think that some people think that Schott must have a secret hidden valley high with a strain of Tinkerbelle Pixies. Schott technicians tend to the Pixies and the Pixie dust is infused into the glass for a magical product. I say this to illustrate marketing fluff, not to knock Schott, they earned their reputation. It does not seem to me to be enough difference to matter in the HT vs the SF discussion, except as marketing fluff. There does seem to be a lot of discord with SF users over color tint. Having no experience with either I can't comment other than to say it seems there is a coating issue involved and that the SF transmission levels are as high as the eye can use, if not higher. It might well be a shame to see the design go away. However keeping in mind that the SP prism system was invented in 1899 and the AK in 1905, maybe it is time for some innovation in prism technology.