• 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.

Zen Ray ED2 7x36 evaluations and review (2 Viewers)

Holger Merlitz' graphic shows very well how this kind of internal reflection can be invisible in bright light, but obvious in dim light. Other variables in its visibility are caused by such things as the unavoidable constant pupil misalignment when hand holding which brings the reflection into view intermittently and by the preferred eyecup position of different users. If a user tends to rest the eyecups up on the brow the reflection will be more obvious than resting the eyecups down on the cheek.

As Holger suggests there is only one real cure for an internal reflection like this and that is to baffle it at the source. The eyepiece fieldstop does not make a good baffle for a reflection at the edge of the objective or the focusing lens because it's too far away from the source. The baffle needs to be just behind the reflection. Then the problem is solved for everyone under all conditions at virtually no cost.
 
The baffle needs to be just behind the reflection. Then the problem is solved for everyone under all conditions at virtually no cost.

Henry,

You know me well enough by now to know I am being genuine when I say.....If the solution was as simple as you suggest then don't you think they would have addressed the issue already? Their track record seems to suggest that they are receptive to consumer input.
 
Henry,

You know me well enough by now to know I am being genuine when I say.....If the solution was as simple as you suggest then don't you think they would have addressed the issue already? Their track record seems to suggest that they are receptive to consumer input.

How are you liking those replacement objective covers?

Sorry. I couldn't help myself.
 
How are you liking those replacement objective covers?

Sorry. I couldn't help myself.

We should have replacement eyecups in stock later next week and start sending them to our customers on file. I want to apologize for the delay. But we will deliver what has been commited to our customers. Thanks.
 
Henry,

You know me well enough by now to know I am being genuine when I say.....If the solution was as simple as you suggest then don't you think they would have addressed the issue already? Their track record seems to suggest that they are receptive to consumer input.

Frank,

I imagine this reflection will be baffled in future production. Why not? It's very cheap and simple to block reflections at the design and production stages. Fixing the problem in binoculars that have already been sold is more trouble and more expensive.

Henry
 
Last edited:
From Holger's explanation of the infamous gray crescents, it would appear the reason why some users see them and some don't, or some are bothered by them and some aren't, is that their differing entrance pupil size affects how severely this phenomenon is visible, because it occurs mostly at the edge of the exit pupil.

So for someone who is either older or for some other reason can't open his entrance pupil to 5mm, he wouldn't see the stray light, or at least not as distinctly, as those with larger entrance pupils.

I don't know the ages or entrance pupil sizes of all the ZR 7x36 ED2 owners who posted their comments, yea or nay, about this stray light problem.

However, my guess is that people's perception of the severity of this phenomenon is probably not as simple as the differences in their maximum entrance pupil size.

Perception is a tricky beast that is not easily "dissected under the microscope" as I learned from the fact that most people who own full sized Nikon LX/LX L bins apparently do not see their excessive "rolling ball," or see it but quickly adapt to it, while to me, it's as obvious as Michael Jordan standing in a group of pygmies and as persistent as gnats buzzing my face on a hot, humid day.

Yet, see it or not, as Henry objectively measured, the "rolling ball" in the LX/LX L is actually there, just as Holger's detailed drawing shows the "gray crescent" is really there.

I haven't tried a ZR 7x36 ED2, however, given my sensitivity to basically anything that detracts from an otherwise natural view, I would likely see the stray light and then not be able to ignore it.

Also, Holger's comment about the 7x36's pincushion "distortion is somewhat high" would probably also bother me (yes, as Steve says, I'm "picky" for a Klingon).

I even notice that "moderate amount" of pincushion in the 8x30 EII that Holger uses as his traveling bin, though it's tolerable, and no more noticeable than the moderate amount of "rolling ball" in the 8x32 LX (which, unlike its bigger brothers, does have pincushion).

But "moderate" is my limit, so if the ZR 7x36 has more pincushion visible while panning than the EII, it would be a deal killer.

In my experience, bins with a wide FOV (8*+) generally show more pincushion than bins with a smaller FOV, though this isn't always the case. For example, the 6.5* 8x44 Swift ED had more pincushion than my 8x30 EII.

One of the bad side effects of having owned excellent binoculars -----

8x/12xSE,
8x/10xEII,
8x32LX,
6x30 FujiFMT,
CZJ Octarem,
804 Audubons,
Celestron 9.5x44 & 10x50 EDs,
Nikon 8-16x40 XL Zoom,
Pentax 20x60 PCF V,
8x23 Venturer II
and the others I will remember 10 seconds after posting this message :)

and having the pleasure of trying my friends' excellent bins

10xSE,
8x/10x42LX,
7x30Swaro,
Fuji 7x50& 10x50 FMTs
8x42 Promaster ED
10x42 EDG

------- is that it spoils you rotten.

Except for the EDG, none of these bins carried an alpha bin price tag.

So it's possible to own and enjoy high quality optics without paying through the proboscis (hey, first time I ever spelled that word correctly without a spell check!).

Knowing this, I would have "high apple pie in the sky hopes" for a bin that is reportedly 90% as good as an alpha class bin despite it being only 25% the cost.

Even though none of the other bins I listed above cost over $1,000, all of them produce high quality images, with excellent contrast, sharpness, and color depth.

And even though most of those bins are gone, the persistence of memory remains like a Dali painting, and when I try a new bin, it is very difficult not to compare it to "all the bins I've loved before".

With experience comes wisdom, or so they say. But with it, also comes the loss of innocence.

While I still am in awe at the view of Saturn through a telescope when its rings are at an oblique angle, it's not the same "WOW!" as the first time I saw the planet through a telescope.

To get that same "WOW!," I would need a very large telescope pointed at something even more amazing (e.g., the half dollar coin sized view of M 13 through a 24" Starmaster).

Hence, the term "aperture fever".

With birding bins, it's not "size," but "quality" that provides the "WOW" effect.

I haven't tried a Zeiss FL, an Ultravid HD, or a Swaro EL, so perhaps there are still some thrills left for me, but I can't afford any of them, so the thrills will be short lived.

The pursuit of quality optics is a moving target, and folks, it's getting more and more expensive to keep up with the Joneses (even Kenny Jones since he bought his Zeiss Diascope 85 :)

So my über goal (and yes, I realize that I have wandered off off Broadway, that happens late at night/early in the morning) is to see the world through whatever bin happens to be in my hands at the time-- be it a classic porro or the latest and greatest roof -- with fresh eyes.
 
Last edited:
Arthur Pinewood was so kind that he shipped me a pair of Bushwackers, since I managed to drop the replacement covers for my ED2 too. And I must say that the Bushwackers work really well. They work as covers better then any of the covers I have tried before, and they help to shield the stray light, so that can help those with glare issues.

Now I noticed that ZR has adressed this issue so maybe with the mark 2 (3) version, so glare wont be a issue. But for the older ones it can be nice, and maybe almost all bins got glare issues, to different extents.
 
… And I must say that the Bushwackers work really well. They work as covers better then any of the covers I have tried before, and they help to shield the stray light, so that can help those with glare issues.

Now I noticed that ZR has adressed this issue so maybe with the mark 2 (3) version, so glare wont be a issue. But for the older ones it can be nice, and maybe almost all bins got glare issues, to different extents.

Hello Kristoffer,

I had a chance to view through the "improved" Zen 7x36, and the improvement in reducing glare was quite appreciable. I think that Leica binoculars may still do a better job of controlling glare even though I did use the Bushwackers, as well. The Zen was very good in controlling reflections from behind, when the sun was low, something that some high priced binoculars do not get right, especially for those who wear spectacles and who keep the cups down.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 14 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