Theron Zen Ray and Kowa Spotters (1 Viewer)

Kristoffer,

I suppose I sort of took the cowards way out. So let's put it this way. No special introductory offers. I think I'd go with the ZEN ED 2. For strictly personal preferences that are mine and not anybody else's. I like the focus on the ZEN better than the Theron. I like the fov's on the ZEN better than those of the Theron and I personally don't see much real need to get above 60x in a spotter. The 30x WA would handle 90% of most needs anyway. Zen Ray will have a 30x WA pretty soon too. Give the Theron a wider angle 20-60 zoom and then only the focus issue remains.

There are no other essential differences I can see from the observation I did. Not an easy call.

Now as to knockoffs.

I'd like to see it if somebody can really document that one. I think there are bound to be certain similarities inherent in any 80mm+ porro prism scope that chooses to use the helical focus collar design. I think there are also certain physical similarities that will be inherent in the dual focus porro style 80mm+ spotter too. Look at the pictures of all of the 80mm+ porro spotters from the price of the ZEN ED 2 and up to Kowa and Zeiss, and please tell me from that cursory view just who knocked off who and who was knocked off first, based on what can be seen from the outside?

Now, I have no idea. All I know is what I have been told by both Charles at Zen Ray and Pat at Theron that they are taking considerable pains to avoid any sort of patent infringement fight. Yes, I am aware that certain Chinese manufacturers of various sorts of goods have that reputation.

with the knock-offs... come on now, be serious.

just LOOK at the pictures of the Theron vs. the Fieldscope... the way the body bulges out behind the helical collar and the way the eyepiece sits. The idea that it's something inherent to helical focusers is silly. Why doesn't the Swaro ATS/ATM scope look like the Fieldscope? You are really telling me you believe that to be a coincidence??

not implying any literal patent infringement, but the design inspiration is OBVIOUS. I mean LOOK AT THE EYEPIECE!!

Theron WA eyepiece: http://www.theronoptics.com/images/albums/NewAlbum_4dfa8/tn_480_30x.gif.jpg
Nikon WA eyepiece: http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/images/nikon-20x-wide-mc-eyepiece-lrg.jpg

I think there are also certain physical similarities that will be inherent in the dual focus porro style 80mm+ spotter too. Look at the pictures of all of the 80mm+ porro spotters from the price of the ZEN ED 2 and up to Kowa and Zeiss, and please tell me from that cursory view just who knocked off who and who was knocked off first, based on what can be seen from the outside?

Click to expand...

I don't agree with this. The Zeiss Diascope, Leica Televid and Kowa Prominar all have quite distinct designs (for example the placement of the dual focus knobs). Whereas the ZR and Vortez Razor are strikingly similar to the Kowa, from the green color to the red ring on the barrel behind the sunshade to the placement of the dual focus knobs jutting forward from the body.

You can equivocate and give the benefit of the doubt but to me it's patently obvious just by looking at them that the Theron is a Fieldscope knock-off and the Zen-Ray/Vortex scopes are at least "inspired" by the Kowa Prominar. Seriously, no pejorative intended, but it's flat-out obvious. We're all adults here. That's the way things go with lower-priced Chinese manufactured products. It's easier to imitate a proven design than to invest the R&D into something brand-new.

Again, let me emphasize that I am NOT stating this as a negative. I have been longing to upgrade from my Pentax PF-65 for a long time and, frankly, I am THRILLED that once I save up the funds I can get a ZR or Vortex HD for less than 1/2 the price of the alphas. Some people will always pay the premium for the "alpha" but 95% of the quality for less than 50% of the price is my type of deal

eitanaltman,

I wouldn't be surprised if the Theron scope is a knock-off. I haven't seen it, but the prism offset and shape suggest the same oversized Schmidt prism used only in the Nikon Fieldscopes and the eyepiece apparently even uses the Nikon thread. A comparison of the reflection patterns in the two scopes would settle it.

The Zen-Ray's optical design, however, is quite different from the Kowa 883 in spite of the cosmetic similarity. They use different objective designs (Zen - 4 fixed elements in three groups, Kowa - 3 fixed elements in two groups and a moving focusing doublet for a total of 5 elements) and different prism types (Zen - Porro followed by semi-pentaprism, Kowa - Schmidt roof prism).

Steve C said:

Certainly there is a lot of gray area in between that can be settled by a tear down or torture test. I tend to be somewhat hard on stuff as I buy any gear to use it. I don't abuse it either. So I guess my durability comments can be taken in the context, of they are solid looking and feeling enough that I would personally be satisfied with any of the three scopes. In my life on the farm, I've seen more than my share of stuff go to pot, so I have a pretty good feel for durability I think.

Click to expand...

Point taken but just looking at the exterior doesn't tell you much about a 1.5m drop AKA a typical "tripod tumble". How well secured are the prisms? How brittle is the case? How well secured is the EP mount?

The other view is a single scope is going to be shipped around a range of people. The USPS are going to give it a shake in the process.

But the tumble test is a valid one. It happens in real life. I wouldn't do it intentionally (without asking Charles) but I've had tripod tip over on me a couple of times (into the grass on both occasions) with no damage done.

One is reminded of the Kowa 821/822/823/824 scopes which used a composite (fiber reinforced plastic) for the tube material (like Zeiss do in their bins) to reduce weight. Unfortunately it was found, by end users, that a tripod tumble could end up with a broken tube (usually close to the prisms/EP).

Just something to keep in mind. Real scopes should be tested in realistic ways. And scopes always take a tumble. More so than bins. Perhaps they should come with neckstrap?

henry link said:

The Zen-Ray's optical design, however, is quite different from the Kowa 883 in spite of the cosmetic similarity. They use different objective designs (Z-N - 4 fixed elements in three groups, Kowa - 3 fixed elements in two groups and a moving focusing doublet for a total of 5 elements) and different prism types (Z-R - Porro followed by semi-pentaprism, Kowa - Schmidt roof prism).

Click to expand...

So the Zeiss, Leica, and Kowa spotters use a "regular sized" Schmidt roof prism (with phase coating).

Nikon 82 and the Theron use a oversized Schmidt roof prism (so they don't need phase correction -- the image isn't split in two and recombined) so that relaxes the geometry of the prism and the need for a phase coating.

The new Nikon EDG scopes are "regular sized" phase-corrected Schmidt roof prism erectors.

http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/scopes/edg85/index.htm

What about the Swaro?

Is this turing into another "old fashioned" but optically excellent porro (or oversized Schimidt) erector versus the "it takes more effort to get it just right" phase corrected roof prism erector battle?

In terms of reflections and glass transitions for an angled scope the roof prism scopes (including the oversized Schimidt) can omit the semi-pentaprism but porro designs have to add one in. So it's two AR coated transitions and a reflective layer difference between the two designs in the erector. With a dielectric coating that's probably under 1% in transmission difference: something you'll never see. Nor something that will change the color bias.

Plus there are often other differences further down the tube e.g. the Theron I presume has a focusing doublet that's moved by the helical focuser but the ZR has two porro prisms. It's all a wash.

Henry,

Thanks for that. It's nice to know. I know you go way beyond external appearance.

I'm not sure about the knock off thing either and really wouldn't be surprised. Just too easy to go there for some. No I do not believe in coincidences. I don't believe in jumping to conclusions either, but I suppose I have done so in the past. When I see something more concrete, I will tend to believe that. I suppose the Fieldscope has been around long enough by now that patents may have expired, but again I don't know. So I go no further down that road.

Kevin,

I can't disagree with that post either. Looking at the exterior really does not tell us much about what's inside

I wonder why there are no thoughts or reviews of the Theron 60mm 15x45 ED Saker? Send one to me and I will compare it to the 60mm Fieldscope I have.

henry link said:

eitanaltman,

I wouldn't be surprised if the Theron scope is a knock-off. I haven't seen it, but the prism offset and shape suggest the same oversized Schmidt prism used only in the Nikon Fieldscopes and the eyepiece apparently even uses the Nikon thread. A comparison of the reflection patterns in the two scopes would settle it.

The Zen-Ray's optical design, however, is quite different from the Kowa 883 in spite of the cosmetic similarity. They use different objective designs (Zen - 4 fixed elements in three groups, Kowa - 3 fixed elements in two groups and a moving focusing doublet for a total of 5 elements) and different prism types (Zen - Porro followed by semi-pentaprism, Kowa - Schmidt roof prism).

Click to expand...

Can you tell how many lenses are out there by peeking through the objective lens end? On a separate subject, does Nikon EDG spotter use same prism as the regular Nikon fieldscope? I am curious why EDG is much more expensive.

NWBirder said:

Can you tell how many lenses are out there by peeking through the objective lens end? On a separate subject, does Nikon EDG spotter use same prism as the regular Nikon fieldscope? I am curious why EDG is much more expensive.

Click to expand...

Usually you can tell if there are not too many lenses. I use a combination of reflections from light bulbs and a laser pointed through the objective end. For the Kowa, I just looked at a cutaway diagram.

Alas, the angled EDG scopes have abandoned the oversized prism, one of the best design features of the old angled Fieldscopes. The EDG use a smaller centered Schmidt roof prism, so the light cone is split by the roof edge. The straight versions replace a Porro with a Schmidt-Pechan roof prism.

The Theron scope (Bosma style not the SAKER mooreorless mentoned) threads are not the same as the nikon. I have heard reports from a couple guys who have tried it and while one EP may go in the threads will be sloppy and loose and may cause damage. and trying it reversed from the other scope to the other EP they will not even thread in. So, in short, there is no chance the the EP are interchangable without considerable modifications and machining skills.

You may be right schmalts, but you have to admit it appears to be a dead ringer for the Nikon 82ED. I'm guessing, and it's purely a guess, that mechanically, optically, etc it is practically the same thing.

Starting at post #30 of this thread Kimmo Absetz' gives his impressions of the Bosma scope compared to his Nikon 82ED and his experience with exchanging eyepieces between the two:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=159080&page=2

Another rebranded bosma scope available, by Omegon http://www.optics-pro.com/omegon-spotting-scope-ed-20-60x84mm-hd/p,18821#tab_bar_1_select

...this one claims 84 mm front lens diameter!!!

Rui_Caratão said:

Another rebranded bosma scope available, by Omegon http://www.optics-pro.com/omegon-spotting-scope-ed-20-60x84mm-hd/p,18821#tab_bar_1_select

...this one claims 84 mm front lens diameter!!!

Click to expand...

I think that you may be mistaken on this one. This is not the Bosma scope. It probably is a an 84MM objective and If anything, it looks like the Olivon EDO i believe it is called. Regardless I don't think it is the Bosma scope at all.

It sure DOES look that the Bosma,even if the front lens is 84mm,..maybe more than a version is available from the manufacturer...the scope tube probably uses a 88mm filter anyway,and lens size can vary...the olivon uses hig end glass, not regular ED but FPL53(stated by manufacturer)..maybe each type of glass is grounded in different size objectives,in the 80-84 mm range, different manufacturers can make the glass, and Bosma puts the scopes together to brand specifications and budget choice.

As I posted on the Vortex Viper scope thread there appear to be another Chinese ED scope in a different enclosure. There seem to be a few Chinese ED scopes starting to appear. And they probably don't all come from Bosma!

I agree,There are different models and makers,But the models mentioned here(Olivon,Theron, Omegon,Avian),with the focus ring and this particular configuration (YES,the Nikon copy!)...are VERY similar ,and it would not be strange that they all come from the same manufacturer.

The quality control on these scopes will need to be stepped up across the board before any broad acceptance will be achieved.
Its absence is visible in the little things, such as the obvious spelling flubs on the Theron sites, dual spelled duel in the US ad, eye relief given as 16.3-148mm in the UK version, but also in the relatively high percentage of defective/ poorly tuned products received by members of this forum.
The Zeiss history notes that Carl Zeiss used to roam the factory equipped with a ball peen hammer to exercise quality control, a process that doubtless also raised the worker's awareness of the issue. My guess is these two firms need to take a leaf out of that book.

etudiant said:

The quality control on these scopes will need to be stepped up across the board before any broad acceptance will be achieved.
Its absence is visible in the little things, such as the obvious spelling flubs on the Theron sites, dual spelled duel in the US ad, eye relief given as 16.3-148mm in the UK version, but also in the relatively high percentage of defective/ poorly tuned products received by members of this forum.

Click to expand...

I don't think you can blame "Chinese workers" for the spelling and typographic quality of Theron's web site. AFAIK that's done by an American.

But you point that it's one thing to take a chance (and a return) on a $200 binocular but it's another thing to take a chance on a (harder to make well) $1000 scope.

etudiant said:

The Zeiss history notes that Carl Zeiss used to roam the factory equipped with a ball peen hammer to exercise quality control, a process that doubtless also raised the worker's awareness of the issue. My guess is these two firms need to take a leaf out of that book.

Click to expand...

Was he hitting the defective hardware or the defective workers?

Given a chance, workers always want to produce something that they can be proud of.
Quality slips when incentives are badly designed, so QC is a management issue, first and foremost.
Imo, poor orthography is suggestive of weak QC.
As Kevin Purcell points out, it is tough to spend a thousand bucks in the hope of getting a good specimen.

Zeiss's hammer was demonstrating the corporate commitment to quality at the personal level.
People were shown that 'good enough' was not acceptable.
That message needs to be strengthened in the cases here for these products to achieve success in the market place.

I hope one of the big scope review sites picks up the ball on all these new mid-priced scope options coming to market. There is no shortage of reviews comparing the "alphas" but my big questions are:

1) How much better is the current "bang for the buck" king (Vortex Razor HD) than the slightly lower priced newcomers like the Zen-Ray ED2 and Theron, and now the new Vortex Viper HD.

2) How do they compare the older "can't afford the alphas" sub-$1500 options like Pentax PF-80ED and Nikon Fieldscope 82mm ED.?

3) How much better are they than the current "low budget" favorites like Pentax PF-65ED and Celestron Regal F-ED?

The Vortex Viper HD is really intriguing, especially the 65mm at $549 right now from EO. If it can provide a step forward in quality at that price point for the budget-minded 65mm class that would be huge... I would also like to know how the Viper Viper HD 80mm at $799 compares to the Zen-Ray ED2....

At least those of us who can't afford $3k-4k for an Alpha are getting some better options

But Steve C -- thanks again for doing these comparisons, it's a huge help to the consumer. I know you can't keep buying scopes and testing them for us .... so now I just hope one of the big birding sites picks up the ball and does a full-fledged "mid-priced scope shoot-out" comparing all these $800-1500 options vs. an Alpha or two....