New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (1 Viewer)

cycleguy · Jun 5, 2014

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post

Still don't think Brock's gunna like it ...

What's all that about Brock, the real question is: will Dennis like it? Will we have a new best birding binocular in the world?
__________________
Florian

I think Brock should be the token lab rat for rb testing... with all binoculars universally measured per the Brock Test.

If the SF proves to be a Swarovision Facsimile... maybe Dennis will be unable to decide "the best birding binocular in the world" ... how nice would that be??? :smoke:

On the other hand, can't wait to hear user reports...

CG

Sagittarius · Jun 5, 2014

Zeiss and Swarovski probably have an agreement worked out on the Swarovision similar SF body style.

Chosun Juan · Jun 5, 2014

henry link said:
Do you mean the AFOV specs look too low for the naive (magnification X real field) method and too high for the ISO method?

Yes Henry, that's exactly what I was referring to. None of the calcs marry up either way.

henry link said:
Could be they are actual measurements of the true angle subtended by the apparent field, which would include the effects of distortion. Swarovski AFOV specs appear to be done that way now. It's a good idea, but obviously AFOV specs done that way can only be compared to others done the same way....

If that's the case, where does that leave us? Do we need distortion values (k) and complex calcs to compare apples to apples? Reading the marketing guff, there's enough playing fast and loose already without makers having further leeway!

Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan · Jun 5, 2014

dwever said:
My gosh Zeiss even blows what binocular they're talking about at the end of their SF 42 press release they say immediately following the SF42 technical data, "Every pair of ZEISS VICTORY HT binoculars . . ."

Yeah, I saw that one too! :t:

Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan · Jun 5, 2014

Alexis Powell said:
Hmm...that's the first time I've seen the 1.8 turns info. That does sound slow, if accurate. I can only hope it describes the total travel available, and that 0.8 turn is actually for focus beyond infinity. The reference to 2.5 turns in conventional bins is marketing BS. The 8x32 FL is exactly one turn from 5 ft to infinity. Doesn't look likely that my hope for a variable ratio mechanism will be fulfilled.

--AP

Alexis, I'm certain it's just bog stock linear, despite all the "dynamic" references. .... we went through the same speculative machinations when the recent SLC came out. RonE explained it best if you care to dig that up, and agreed -- it doesn't sound lightning quick either.... prolly quite deliberate.... baby steps for former Swaro owners!

Chosun :gh:

brocknroller · Jun 5, 2014

Okay, this makes no sense to me. Zeiss now has the dubious honor of being the first to break the $3,000 price barrier in a full sized alpha, which several alpha owners said they would not pay a couple years back on my Sport Optics Consumer Index poll thread.

Why did they do this? Are they afraid the HT wasn't as good as the SV EL? Sure seems like it.

I don't recall anyone saying, yeah, the HT is nice, but it's no SV EL. Have HT sales been that poor?

If Swaro doesn't threaten Zeiss with litigation, then Nikon should sue Swaro for not suing Zeiss and yet threatening to sue them for the same design, which ironically in Nikon's case preceded the release of the SV EL!

First Zeiss does something sensible in making the Terra ED for the everyman (except the too fast focuser, which is not sensible for every man), and now they rocket beyond the Zeissosphere with the $3K+ SF, which only those with Super Finances could afford.

How much better could those R&D dollars been spent in giving the common folks an extended line of Terra ED bins, they way Zeiss did with the HTs and Conquest HDs?

Now Leica won't be able to sell a new $3K+ roof unless they also make an SV EL clone, which they couldn't afford to do w/out manufacturing them outside of Western Europe.

I hope Mike explains the thinking behind the SF, because I sure can't fathom it.

Brock

mjensen6577 · Jun 5, 2014

brocknroller said:
Okay, this makes no sense to me. Zeiss now has the dubious honor of being the first to break the $3,000 price barrier in a full sized alpha, which several alpha owners said they would not pay a couple years back on my Sport Optics Consumer Index poll thread.

Why did they do this? Are they afraid the HT wasn't as good as the SV EL? Sure seems like it.

I don't recall anyone saying, yeah, the HT is nice, but it's no SV EL. Have HT sales been that poor?

If Swaro doesn't threaten Zeiss with litigation, then Nikon should sue Swaro for not suing Zeiss and yet threatening to sue them for the same design, which ironically in Nikon's case preceded the release of the SV EL!

First Zeiss does something sensible in making the Terra ED for the everyman (except the too fast focuser, which is not sensible for every man), and now they rocket beyond the Zeissosphere with the $3K+ SF, which only those with Super Finances could afford.

How much better could those R&D dollars been spent in giving the common folks an extended line of Terra ED bins, they way Zeiss did with the HTs and Conquest HDs?

Now Leica won't be able to sell a new $3K+ roof unless they also make an SV EL clone, which they couldn't afford to do w/out manufacturing them outside of Western Europe.

I hope Mike explains the thinking behind the SF, because I sure can't fathom it.

Brock

Answering a few questions that have come up.

1. Yes, I have handled them, have a pair in my hand at this moment in Austria birding near the Hungarian border. Without a lot of details, this product "IS" as significant as we claim it is. It's quite amazing.

Regarding HT and SF, HT is here to stay. It is successful and gaining speed. So, the question remains "Why do we bring another premium binocular?"

First, this will sell in the USA for appx $2700, so we didn't push it over $3000. It's $100 over the SV, and for good reason. Second, The HT is a great bino, but it has USP's (unique selling propositions/features) that some like, others don't. The SF was built to include "different" USP's, of which will ultimately be interesting to buyers that are looking for a feature that the HT does not have. Oddly enough, these SF's cater a high ratio of USP's that Birders are asking for, so we launch it explaining that it is a "Birding and Nature Observation" binocular. We know it will be successful in all markets though.

Ultimately, when a consumer is buying a premium binocular, we would like that person choosing between a Zeiss and a Zeiss, not choosing between Zeiss and something else.

Mathematically, when we add another choice (albeit a really good choice) to the premium offerings, we add saturation to the market, gaining market share.

dalat · Jun 5, 2014

Thanks again for posting here, always interesting to hear your perspective!

mjensen6577 said:
Ultimately, when a consumer is buying a premium binocular, we would like that person choosing between a Zeiss and a Zeiss, not choosing between Zeiss and something else.

I think that makes a lot of sense. Specs of the SF are basically better in all regards than the Swarovision, so if the SF turns out to be good in reality (including good stray light control and ease of view), then the choice will be indeed be between SF and HT for many.

@Brock, why so sceptic? After all the moaning about Swaro's achilles' heel, I'd thought that you should like the idea to build a binocular around a perfect focusser and even name the bin after this

temmie · Jun 5, 2014

brocknroller said:
Okay, this makes no sense to me. Zeiss now has the dubious honor of being the first to break the $3,000 price barrier in a full sized alpha, which several alpha owners said they would not pay a couple years back on my Sport Optics Consumer Index poll thread.

Why did they do this? Are they afraid the HT wasn't as good as the SV EL? Sure seems like it.

I don't recall anyone saying, yeah, the HT is nice, but it's no SV EL. Have HT sales been that poor?

If Swaro doesn't threaten Zeiss with litigation, then Nikon should sue Swaro for not suing Zeiss and yet threatening to sue them for the same design, which ironically in Nikon's case preceded the release of the SV EL!

First Zeiss does something sensible in making the Terra ED for the everyman (except the too fast focuser, which is not sensible for every man), and now they rocket beyond the Zeissosphere with the $3K+ SF, which only those with Super Finances could afford.

How much better could those R&D dollars been spent in giving the common folks an extended line of Terra ED bins, they way Zeiss did with the HTs and Conquest HDs?

Now Leica won't be able to sell a new $3K+ roof unless they also make an SV EL clone, which they couldn't afford to do w/out manufacturing them outside of Western Europe.

I hope Mike explains the thinking behind the SF, because I sure can't fathom it.

Brock

From your post, you clearly cannot fathom it and I fear you are one of the few or just one of the stubborn. A lot of assumptions that don't make sense at all...
It won't be much more expensive than the Swarovision, and it will be a bit better in every aspect. What else to expect? You can't make the Swarovision MUCH better, so I think, if claims can hold up, Zeiss made a pretty good binocular with flat, very wide field, good weight, fast focuser that goes to 1.5m (hence the 1.8 turns), with good ergonomics and very good transmission.

The HT is designed for centre sharpness and low-light (hence the 95%). A flat-field bin with Schmidt-Pechan cannot reach this, but the SF is a very good compromise between field, focus, transmission. The HT is less of a compromise for transmission, but it has a more limited field of view.

So 2 perfectly reasonable alpha binoculars, and even I would have difficulty (if I WOULD be in the market for a new bin, but I'm not!) to choose between those.

Troubador · Jun 5, 2014

Sagittarius said:
Zeiss and Swarovski probably have an agreement worked out on the Swarovision similar SF body style.

Hi Sagi

I'm no lawyer but as I understand it the Swaro patent covered the focus mechanism not the body style.

SF's body might look similar to EL with a bridge next to the objectives but look higher up and there are bridges each side of the focus wheel, not just on one side like EL: its a triple bridge, not a dual.

Lee

dalat · Jun 5, 2014

Anyway a double bridge is nothing really new, Zeiss made some already a century ago...

Uhu74 · Jun 5, 2014

Nice bin, does this one have the "Wetzlar ring"?

Just kidding. I'm eager to test one!
It looks very promising.

Troubador · Jun 5, 2014

dalat said:
Anyway a double bridge is nothing really new, Zeiss made some already a century ago...

Dalat, dear friend, SF has three bridges not two........o

Lee

dalat · Jun 5, 2014

Troubador said:
Dalat, dear friend, SF has three bridges not two........o

Yes, the progress of 100 years of innovation!

Troubador · Jun 5, 2014

dalat said:
Yes, the progress of 100 years of innovation!

That's inflation for you..

Lee :smoke:

Waxwingz · Jun 5, 2014

BruceH said:
Mike .... Thanks for the follow-up.

I noticed Zeiss is signed up to attend the Tucson, AZ Bird & Wildlife Nature Expo in August. Should I make it down there, I assume there will be some Victory SF models available for viewing along with some of the other new Zeiss products!

Hello Bruce, I will be there representing ZEISS and we should have several to show. Kind Regards, Rich.

henry link · Jun 5, 2014

Chosun Juan said:
If that's the case, where does that leave us? Do we need distortion values (k) and complex calcs to compare apples to apples? Reading the marketing guff, there's enough playing fast and loose already without makers having further leeway!

Chosun :gh:

Chosun,

What we need is an apparent field spec based on a real measurement rather than a mathematically calculated approximation. It's an improvement to see two companies finally doing that. Maybe others will follow. In the meantime I would just continue to compare binocular specs by using the old simple method of multiplying the real field in degrees by the magnification. The resulting AFOV figures will all be inflated by perhaps 4-8% depending on the amount of distortion and the field width, but the pecking order will probably be reasonably accurate.

Henry

Vespobuteo · Jun 5, 2014

mjensen6577 said:
Answering a few questions that have come up.

1. Yes, I have handled them, have a pair in my hand at this moment in Austria birding near the Hungarian border. Without a lot of details, this product "IS" as significant as we claim it is. It's quite amazing.

congratulations to the new Zeiss SF,
i'm glad you realized that birders and hunters are quite different users,
I'm sure they will be a classic among birders! (and some hunters to..)
:t:

The SF:s look far better than I ever could imagine,
the HT:s never appealed to me 100%, mostly because of the not perfect
comfort with eye glasses.

will there be a SF 8x32 model?
(To compete with the Swarovski 8x32 SV)

Kammerdiner · Jun 5, 2014

Vespobuteo said:
congratulations to the new Zeiss SF,
i'm glad you realized that birders and hunters are quite different users,
I'm sure they will be a classic among birders! (and some hunters to..)
:t:

The SF:s look far better than I ever could imagine,
the HT:s never appealed to me 100%, mostly because of the not perfect
comfort with eye glasses.

will there be a SF 8x32 model?
(To compete with the Swarovski 8x32 SV)

The HT's didn't really grab me, I think because I'm hooked on flat fields. The SF's, however...I'm looking forward to seeing those! :t:

Mark

Chosun Juan · Jun 5, 2014

henry link said:
Chosun,

What we need is an apparent field spec based on a real measurement rather than a mathematically calculated approximation. It's an improvement to see two companies finally doing that. Maybe others will follow. In the meantime I would just continue to compare binocular specs by using the old simple method of multiplying the real field in degrees by the magnification. The resulting AFOV figures will all be inflated by perhaps 4-8% depending on the amount of distortion and the field width, but the pecking order will probably be reasonably accurate.

Henry

Thanks Henry :t:

Chosun :gh:

New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Given to Fly

Given to Fly

porromaniac

Well-known member

...

Well-known member

Moderator

...

Attachments

Well-known member

Moderator

...

Moderator

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread