2019 - New models EL (1 Viewer)

pbjosh · Feb 25, 2019

dries1 said:
It is nice to sit here as bino fans and dream of new binoculars, however Swarovski is running a business of what sells, do you think they don't know what sells?
Cameras and lens manufacture is different from the binocular industry, it represents a much greater division in both Canon and Nikon, the Manufacture of Binoculars to both of those companies is peanuts compared to that division.
The only glass that is coming out now in droves are the low/mid range with every brand trying to get into the disposable binocular marketplace, and in a couple of years others will join Zen Ray,... Alpen was the last. Nikon appears to rule this section of market. Disposable products.

Swarovski sells high end products, I think they know a think or two about selling binoculars among other things.

The auto industry is a whole other animal all together. Most people need or have a car, owners of binoculars are few compared to that.

Andy W.

Andy - Swaro clearly does fine business relative to the other Alphas, but the fact that DSLR, automobile, and other markets are larger or different doesn't have anything to do with the fact that complacency is not good business sense. Of course the cost vs return on investment in new products has to be evaluated, new product launches are not free.

Personally I don't think that Swaro is about to fold because of the SF. But if they leave the EL as is for another 5-10 years while other bins continue to improve, I would be surprised if they didn't lose market share.

dries1 · Feb 25, 2019

I do not think the SF is light years ahead of the other premium glass, and based on the numbers out there, the EL is still ahead in sales. So if Swarovski is working on a new model/configuration for the future, they are working on their time table, not ours. We all need to relax, I still enjoy glass that is over 25 years old - when they were built to last. Most of the stuff coming out now have good optics, unfortunately many are built cheap and will be in a landfill in 5-10 years.

Andy W.

Tringa45 · Feb 25, 2019

Troubador said:
Zeiss 7x42 had the same eyepiece as the 8x and achieved the 7x and much wider fov with a shorter objective added on, but of course this was not user-changeable.

Lee,

That 150 m Fov @ 1000 m of the 7x42 FL is above average for a 7x bin but calculated according to ISO is a very modest 55.4° Afov.

John

litebeam · Feb 26, 2019

dries1 said:
... Most of the stuff coming out now have good optics, unfortunately many are built cheap and will be in a landfill in 5-10 years.

Andy W.

Could indeed be the case with Vortex or Zen ray, etc; but with today's modern glass coatings and excellent warranties, the current alpha optics should be around for a long, long time.

Heck, Zeiss's dated Victory FLs still pack a potent punch. Yes, many ten, fifteen, twenty year old optics view wonderfully.

Troubador · Feb 26, 2019

Tringa45 said:
Lee,

That 150 m Fov @ 1000 m of the 7x42 FL is above average for a 7x bin but calculated according to ISO is a very modest 55.4° Afov.

John

Which only shows how AFOV is less than half the full story, as not only does it not indicate the size of the bino's real-life grasp on the habitat you are in, when it comes to 7x it doesn't take into account the bigger depth of field or the reduction of 'magnification-compression' of the view.

150m is not only good for a 7x it is excellent for any modern roof bino and with an area of view at 1,000m of 17,670 m sq beats SF which has 'only' 17,210 m sq.

But my post was really only concerned with the subject of substituting objectives.

Lee

Chosun Juan · Feb 26, 2019

Troubador said:
Which only shows how AFOV is less than half the full story, as not only does it not indicate the size of the bino's real-life grasp on the habitat you are in, when it comes to 7x it doesn't take into account the bigger depth of field or the reduction of 'magnification-compression' of the view.

150m is not only good for a 7x it is excellent for any modern roof bino and with an area of view at 1,000m of 17.67k m sq beats SF which has 'only' 17.21k m sq.

But my post was really only concerned with the subject of substituting objectives.

Lee

17.67 km sq :eek!::eek!: ...... sign me up ! :-O

Chosun :gh:

Troubador · Feb 26, 2019

Chosun Juan said:
17.67 km sq :eek!::eek!: ...... sign me up ! :-O

Chosun :gh:

LOL. it does read like that so I had better change it.... o

Lee

Chosun Juan · Feb 26, 2019

Troubador said:
LOL. it does read like that so I had better change it.... o

Lee

Try 0.0176714587 km2
it sounds sooooooo much more impressive ! :-O

Chosun :gh:

Troubador · Feb 26, 2019

Chosun Juan said:
Try 0.0176714587 km2
it sounds sooooooo much more impressive ! :-O

Chosun :gh:

Yeah, providing you can stay awake long enough to read it all..... :-O

Lee

isv · Feb 26, 2019

Tringa45 said:
Lee,

That 150 m Fov @ 1000 m of the 7x42 FL is above average for a 7x bin but calculated according to ISO is a very modest 55.4° Afov.

John

but ISO always tends to underestimate afov if I'm not wrong? the 8x42 FL is going to be very similar to the 7x42 in afov I believe and no one tends to say the 8x on the FL or HT has a very modest afov?

Tringa45 · Feb 26, 2019

Troubador said:
Which only shows how AFOV is less than half the full story, as not only does it not indicate the size of the bino's real-life grasp on the habitat you are in, when it comes to 7x it doesn't take into account the bigger depth of field or the reduction of 'magnification-compression' of the view.

150m is not only good for a 7x it is excellent for any modern roof bino and with an area of view at 1,000m of 17,670 m sq beats SF which has 'only' 17,210 m sq.

But my post was really only concerned with the subject of substituting objectives.

Lee

Lee,

On the contrary, for a given magnification I think Afov is a very important factor, assuming adequate eye relief and edge sharpness. For astronomical eyepieces its importance is only secondary to the focal length.

With 7x, 8x or 10x binoculars most of us can relate to a specified Fov @ 1000 m, which is unambiguous, but I don't think squaring this figure gets us anywhere. As far as the depth of field allows, we are viewing in three dimensions and not looking at a 150 m high wall 1000 m away

.

Magnification is merely the quotient of objective and eyepece focal lengths and it was Zeiss' design decision on the 42 mm FLs to use the same objectives for the 8x and 10x, and the same eyepieces for the 7x and 8x.

John

Tringa45 · Feb 26, 2019

isv said:
but ISO always tends to underestimate afov if I'm not wrong? the 8x42 FL is going to be very similar to the 7x42 in afov I believe and no one tends to say the 8x on the FL or HT has a very modest afov?

Maybe, but simply multiplying the true Fov by the magnification exaggerates the Afov, particularly at the lower magnifications. I suspect Zeiss have bent the truth a little in their specifications for the 8x42 HT, where they quote an Afov of 62°. 136 m @1000 m translates to a true Fov of 7.78°. Multiplied by 8 that indeed gives 62°, but calculated according to ISO it is only 57°.

Afov can be measured quite simply. See https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=359127&highlight=AFOV+measurement. Swarovski's specifications appear to conform with reality. Nikon conservatively quotes ISO figures.

John

Patudo · Feb 27, 2019

ticl2184 said:
No Bullshit ...I don't post rumours.
That's what I heard from a good source.

Cheers Tim

o

from August 2015:

ticl2184 said:
I spoke to the guys at Zeiss at last year's Birdfair.

They confirmed there would be a 8x32 SF version.

Cheers Tim

from October 2014:

ticl2184 said:
Yes, In my conversation, I asked if there would be a 32mm SF version with a greater fov than 150m plus for the 8x and 130m for the 10x. He confirmed this....

There was no time frame attached to these models release though sadly. But I think it would be a fair guess thats its goin be 2016 or
sooner.

Cheers Tim

from November 2013:

ticl2184 said:
Sadly I don't think were going to be seeing a 32mm version of the HT's any time soon. 2015 probably.

Tim

ticl2184 said:
Not speculation Hermann.
I hear it's about 2 years off.

Tim

from June 2013:

ticl2184 said:
A little bird has told me Zeiss has stopped production of the 8x32 FL. So perhaps a 8x32 HT is not to far off. Can anyone else confirm this ?

Cheers Tim

james holdsworth · Feb 27, 2019

Nice work Patudo!

Ontario · Feb 27, 2019

Where's Denco?

dries1 · Feb 27, 2019

Patudo,

Very interesting and enlightening work. Sort of proves don't believe a ?% of what you hear and ?% of what you see. Partial quote from a popular author on this site.

Andy W.

Chosun Juan · Feb 27, 2019

Patudo said:
o

from August 2015:

from October 2014:

from November 2013:

from June 2013:

Ouch ! :-O Well done :t:

Chosun Juan · Feb 27, 2019

Tringa45 said:
Lee,

On the contrary, for a given magnification I think Afov is a very important factor, assuming adequate eye relief and edge sharpness. For astronomical eyepieces its importance is only secondary to the focal length.

With 7x, 8x or 10x binoculars most of us can relate to a specified Fov @ 1000 m, which is unambiguous, but I don't think squaring this figure gets us anywhere. As far as the depth of field allows, we are viewing in three dimensions and not looking at a 150 m high wall 1000 m away .

Magnification is merely the quotient of objective and eyepece focal lengths and it was Zeiss' design decision on the 42 mm FLs to use the same objectives for the 8x and 10x, and the same eyepieces for the 7x and 8x.

John

YE GODS !! :eek!:

Don't get Lee started on focal volumes ! He'll be quoting even less relatable kilometers cubed FoV (field of volume !

) :-O

I agree - let's just stick to the linear width for discussion purposes - at least people have some feel for that - whether their brain thinks in metres or feet. :t:

Hectares of sky or whatever is a nonsense ..... :storm:

Volumes would be even more out there! (see what I did

lol

and would be clearly discriminatory to those operating in the 4th dimension or higher ! 8-P

Chosun :gh:

Troubador · Feb 27, 2019

Tringa45 said:
Lee,

On the contrary, for a given magnification I think Afov is a very important factor, assuming adequate eye relief and edge sharpness. For astronomical eyepieces its importance is only secondary to the focal length.

With 7x, 8x or 10x binoculars most of us can relate to a specified Fov @ 1000 m, which is unambiguous, but I don't think squaring this figure gets us anywhere. As far as the depth of field allows, we are viewing in three dimensions and not looking at a 150 m high wall 1000 m away .

Magnification is merely the quotient of objective and eyepece focal lengths and it was Zeiss' design decision on the 42 mm FLs to use the same objectives for the 8x and 10x, and the same eyepieces for the 7x and 8x.

John

I absolutely agree that for some people AFOV is very important and of course you are perfectly correct that we aren't looking at a 150m high wall but neither are we viewing through a narrow slit 150m wide.

When panning across skies or landscapes or seascapes or lakes or moors or heaths we are searching using a circular view of the world and for sure the diameter of this circle at 1,000 metres is one way to represent it but for me personally I find the area of this circular field of view more representative of the job it does of bringing an area of the world to my eyes.

I mostly think about binos in terms of what I use binos for such as observing birds, otters, seals and cetaceans in their natural world environment and I happen to think the area of the fov is more useful when considering this.

Lee

Troubador · Feb 27, 2019

Patudo said:
o

from August 2015:
from October 2014:
from November 2013:
from June 2013:

Pat

Unfortunately all this does is prove that even employees of the brands and brand dealers themselves get things wrong and misunderstand the status of some projects, that some projects don't proceed as quickly as forecast or get so far but don't proceed any further.

No less a person than Stephen Ingraham, a Zeiss employee at the time, who is very highly respected on this forum, was quoted on Birdforum several years ago as mentioning at a US optics/birding event the forthcoming SF32 and here we are years later and it ain't come forth yet.

Passing on news from sources like this isn't the same as just spreading rumours.

Lee

2019 - New models EL (1 Viewer)

missing the neotropics

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Given to Fly

Moderator

Given to Fly

Moderator

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

sub-200 birding aspirant

Consulting Biologist

Well-known member

Member

Given to Fly

Given to Fly

Moderator

Moderator

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread