-
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.
A thread to discuss Alphas where all opinions are considered equal. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Torview
- Start date
Loud Green Man
Well-known member
I note Tobias has steered us in the direction of fantasy with his "if only" list so here's my dream bino if Zeiss would build it:
Take the Zeiss Dialyt 8x30 B/GA T* design and materials but change to a 7X45 configuration with Schott HT glass throughout. Heaven in both eyes!
LGM
Take the Zeiss Dialyt 8x30 B/GA T* design and materials but change to a 7X45 configuration with Schott HT glass throughout. Heaven in both eyes!
LGM
Just a little compromise on specs and it is IF, but the old Zeiss Jena EDF comes pretty close to your dream.
Rathaus
Well-known member
I'm finding the Leica Noctivid 10x42 to be an outstanding binocular....an instrument which has seduced me with effortlessly stunning and naturally beautiful images. For my personal tastes, the Noctivid offers one of the finest and most desirable set of compromises I've yet seen in a roof prism binocular.
Thank the heavens for Leica who raised its finger at the 'cult of the ruthless field flatteners' and their fiendishly manipulated images.
Rathaus
Thank the heavens for Leica who raised its finger at the 'cult of the ruthless field flatteners' and their fiendishly manipulated images.
Rathaus
Last edited:
John Frink
Well-known member
I think Zeiss already did that, with the 7x45 T*P* Night Owl / Design Selection. It's a very fine bino - wide field, bright, sharp.
John
Loud Green Man
Well-known member
Not close. I very clearly referred to "design and materials" which in the case of bino mentioned means no central focusing assembly and nicely ribbed olive rubber armouring!
LGM
Obviously you haven't looked through a Zeiss SF yet
Just kidding Ratty. Glad you like it so much.
Lee
John Frink
Well-known member
Sorry, when you said "Zeiss Dialyt 8x30 B/GA T*" I thought you were referring to the CF Dialyt model (sometimes called "Classic"). My mistake.
Here is what the Zeiss Dialyt 8x30 B/GA T* ClassiC oliv looked like: Unlike the regular version it did not have a center focus.
http://www.allbinos.com/240-Carl_Ze...*_ClassiC_oliv-binoculars_specifications.html
Is that not a Safari model, the ruggedized 8x30 version that Zeiss offered in addition to the Dialyt?
Afaik, it was not phase coated, was IF and the eye cups were hard. User comfort was secondary to robustness.
Nikon produced a very similar glass, likewise IF. I do not know if that was phase coated or not.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
I can't answer that. I posted the link from Allbinos to show that they had identified it as a Zeiss Dialyt 8x30 B/GA T* ClassiC and there seemed to be some confusion about that in earlier posts. I reviewed the Allbinos Zeiss Binocular site again to see if there was a "Safari" listed and there is not.
This is not to say, by any means, that Allbinos has listed all of the Zeiss binoculars in the 72 they did list. There may also be a Safari.
Bob
Allbinos list 2 Dialyt 8x30 Classics, The 'Classic olive' and the 'ClassicC'.
The former is the one shown in your posting and is the Safari.
Elkcub has noted that contrary to my belief, even the 'Classic olive' version was phase coated in later versions.
The ClassicC was phase coated starting sometime in the late 1980s iirc. A very fine glass, am a happy user still.
henry link
Well-known member
The Zeiss 8x30 B/GA I.F./Olive Green (sometimes called Safari) might not have been phase corrected and almost certainly wasn't T* coated. Like etudiant, I seemed to remember seeing Zeiss material that indicated it wasn't phase corrected. A search through my old Zeiss catalogues and price lists turned up a 2002 official price list. At that time Zeiss still used the T* and P* suffixes as part of model designations. All of the binocular models on the price list have the T* designation except the Diaphuns (which have an MC, indicating non T* multicoating) and the Safari. Also, all have the P* designation except the Porro models, the Diaphuns and the Safari. I don't think these omissions are typos as they only apply to models that were definitely or possibly not T* or P* coated. All the Zeiss stuff I have dating back to the mid 1980s shows the T* suffix always used for all the Dialyt models, except the Safari where it was never used.
I suppose it's possible that the Safari got T* and P* coating after 2002, but I think Allbinos probably mistakenly assumed that the introduction dates of T* coating and phase correction for all the other Dialyts applied to the Safari as well.
I suppose it's possible that the Safari got T* and P* coating after 2002, but I think Allbinos probably mistakenly assumed that the introduction dates of T* coating and phase correction for all the other Dialyts applied to the Safari as well.
Last edited:
Loud Green Man
Well-known member
They are certainly not T* coated nor is there an upgrade available when replacing lens assemblies.
Hence wishing I could have a reconfigured pair and with Shott HD glass.
LGM
Hence wishing I could have a reconfigured pair and with Shott HD glass.
LGM
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Tobias,
I am unfamiliar with the Austrian glass but I thought that the late model E2 binoculars had fine transmission.
It is true that my Binuxit has many fine qualities as did my Nikon E2. The problem with asking for changes is that the designs are always compromises where everything, including price point, is rather locked together. Holger Merlitz thought that Binuxit with modern coatings, not a radical change, would be a fine mid range binocular. However, it might still require fiddling with other parameters to accommodate the changes in coating. Then one is still left with a binocular which is unfriendly to those who wear spectacles. In the old days, eyecups were often available just for eyeglass wearers, which were shorter than the standard ones, which did go some way to accommodate eyeglass wearers. Change the eye relief and you probably end up with a different optical package.
Are you referring to the 8x30 Zeiss Porro or the Dialyt Classic?
Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:
Robert Wallace
Well-known member
Not clear on why heritage is important. Current performance is the criteria surely. I have a pair of Nikon HG 8x32 which were at the time of purchase an "Alpha" product. The Nikon Fieldscope 65mm ED was a fine instrument when Zeiss and Leica had abandoned the birding telescope market.
I think a Maclaren road car with less "heritage" than Rolls-Royce would be considered "Alpha".
I suspect Bling as suggested above is the correct answer. Most professional marketing use Maslow's hiearchy of needs as a model. Apparently the Pyramid stage at the Glastonbury Festival is based on Maslow according to the V&A museum London. I have used a pair of Swarovski 8x32s for the past two years and they meet my needs quite satisfactorily but last week I bought a pair of Zeiss 10x42 SFs. Did I need this pair? My wife doesn't think so. She claims it was because you wanted a pair. Level 5 Self Actualisation rather than L4 Status?
It is interesting that not much discussion on this thread relates to "fit for purpose" for which many "sub-alpha" models would qualify.
I think a Maclaren road car with less "heritage" than Rolls-Royce would be considered "Alpha".
I suspect Bling as suggested above is the correct answer. Most professional marketing use Maslow's hiearchy of needs as a model. Apparently the Pyramid stage at the Glastonbury Festival is based on Maslow according to the V&A museum London. I have used a pair of Swarovski 8x32s for the past two years and they meet my needs quite satisfactorily but last week I bought a pair of Zeiss 10x42 SFs. Did I need this pair? My wife doesn't think so. She claims it was because you wanted a pair. Level 5 Self Actualisation rather than L4 Status?
It is interesting that not much discussion on this thread relates to "fit for purpose" for which many "sub-alpha" models would qualify.
The only fit for purpose binocular for my observations near street lights was the Leica 8x32BA or BN.
A bit dim but beautiful for my purpose.
I suppose the Noctivid 8x42 would also work, but pricey and heavier.
The Nikon 8x42 Monarch HG or Zeiss Conquest 8x32 HD certainly don't cut it.
A bit dim but beautiful for my purpose.
I suppose the Noctivid 8x42 would also work, but pricey and heavier.
The Nikon 8x42 Monarch HG or Zeiss Conquest 8x32 HD certainly don't cut it.
Heritage matters because we expect the optics to serve for a long time.
That orients the buyer towards brands with a long track record.
If there were progress in binoculars comparable to what there is in cameras or cell phones, we would be more open to new makes, particularly as the heritage firms would most likely fail to keep up.
