I have a pair of the 10x43 ZEN ED and have a question about the field curvature in them. I have a pair of Audubon equinox HP 8x42 and they have much less field curvature than my 10x ZENs. Is this normal because the ZEN's are 10x or could I have a defected ZEN ED? Any comments are welcome. I would like to here from someone else who has the 10x ZEN or who has looked through them. Thanks!
-
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.
Are Zen Rays 8x43 ED's really that good? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
falcondude
Well-known member
I only have 8x43 ZEN ED. There is direct correlation between field curvature and magnification power for the same series of binoculars if their AFOV is the same. Just my observation and don't know why. Maybe some experts here can provide some explanation. On top of that, the Audubon 8x42 seems to have some major field stop in its optics with its 336ft FOV, even narrower than 10x43 ZEN (340ft). That's only 52 degree AFOV vs 65 degree for ZEN. I suspect any field curvature of Audubon is shielded outside its FOV range.
Thanks for your feedback falcondude. Is the AFOV the same in the 8x43 and 10x43 ZEN ED? When looking through my Equinox 8x (FOV = 336) and ZEN ED 10x (FOV = 340) the Equinox has a wider field of view. So one of the 2 listed FOV are not accurate. Anyone else who has looked through both 8x and 10x ZEN ED, or who could help, I would greatly appreciate your input concerning my previous post. Thanks!
Steve C
Well-known member
The AFOV on the ZEN ED 8x43 is 64.9*
The AFOV on the ZEN ED 10x43= 64.7*
That is the old fashioned way of figuring AFOV. The 426 fov of the 8x43 divided by 52.5 times magnification gives the 8x43 an 8.11* field, the 340 fov of the 10x43 gives a 6.47* field. Multiply each field width by the magnification for the AFOV. Nikon has started using a different computation, which reduces the old standard computation by a degree or two, but the non existent difference will not change, and both will still fall into the wide angle category. You will note Zen Ray rounded those to 65*
http://www.zen-ray.com/comparison.shtml
As to your previous post about field curvature, it was pretty close to non existent on both the 8x43 ZEN ED I bought and the 10x43 I also reviewed. They both showed a bit of field distortion at the edge, which will be found to some degree in any binocular. I am not sure from your question whether or not you are seeing a little edge distortion or actual field curvature. People are often prone to be either more or less sensitive to these.
The AFOV on the ZEN ED 10x43= 64.7*
That is the old fashioned way of figuring AFOV. The 426 fov of the 8x43 divided by 52.5 times magnification gives the 8x43 an 8.11* field, the 340 fov of the 10x43 gives a 6.47* field. Multiply each field width by the magnification for the AFOV. Nikon has started using a different computation, which reduces the old standard computation by a degree or two, but the non existent difference will not change, and both will still fall into the wide angle category. You will note Zen Ray rounded those to 65*
http://www.zen-ray.com/comparison.shtml
As to your previous post about field curvature, it was pretty close to non existent on both the 8x43 ZEN ED I bought and the 10x43 I also reviewed. They both showed a bit of field distortion at the edge, which will be found to some degree in any binocular. I am not sure from your question whether or not you are seeing a little edge distortion or actual field curvature. People are often prone to be either more or less sensitive to these.
Last edited:
falcondude
Well-known member
Yes, all of my binoculars show some level of pincushion distortion at the edge. The eyes and brain do some amazing thing so I always thought the edge line was straight when I looked at the object in the center. But when I intentionally focus on the edge, I can tell it is bended inward a little.
henry link
Well-known member
Are you two on the same page regarding field curvature and rectilinear distortion? Field curvature causes the image to go out of focus toward the edge of the field, but has no effect on the straightness of lines. Rectilinear distortion, either barrel or pincushion, causes lines to curve toward the edge of the field, but has no effect on focus or sharpness.
My original question was concerning field curvature. Where the outside of the FOV is out of focus when the center portion is in focus. I have the ZEN ED 10x and am wondering if the field curvature in them is worse then it should be. The view through them is great but only about 3/4 of the FOV is in focus. The other 1/4 on the edges is not greatly out of focus, but it is out of focus. I was expecting the field curvature to be less than or at least equal to my $220 Audubon Equinox HP 8x42 but the ZEN 10x has much more. Wondering what I should do...just keep them or send them back. But I don't want to send them back if this is not a defect.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Your Audubon Equinox HP 8x42 has a FOV of 336 feet and the ZR ED is about 340 feet but they have different AFOV with the Zen being a 10x being larger by about 20%. If the ZR had the same AFOV as your Equinox they'ed probably a similar flat field.
People's sensitivities to edge sharpness (either field curvature or coma or other astigmatism) varies. I find I put the bird of interest in the center of the field so it never bothered me when I had the 10x Zens. And that's true of most bins I have: it never bothers me unless it's close to the center. In fact I have to look to see a problem (and there usually is one) in any modern bin at the edge of field.
So I suspect its normal and you are more sensitive or perhaps it isn't. Do you have any other reference points? I concur with Steve in I didn't see much field curvature at the edge of field.
The other point of Henry's is a good one ... you do really mean field curvature and not distortion. They're different things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_aberration
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/OpticalAberrations.html
People's sensitivities to edge sharpness (either field curvature or coma or other astigmatism) varies. I find I put the bird of interest in the center of the field so it never bothered me when I had the 10x Zens. And that's true of most bins I have: it never bothers me unless it's close to the center. In fact I have to look to see a problem (and there usually is one) in any modern bin at the edge of field.
So I suspect its normal and you are more sensitive or perhaps it isn't. Do you have any other reference points? I concur with Steve in I didn't see much field curvature at the edge of field.
The other point of Henry's is a good one ... you do really mean field curvature and not distortion. They're different things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_aberration
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/OpticalAberrations.html
gnowellsct
Member
Maybe yes maybe no
One of the problems with Chinese production is inconsistency between units. So it's not just that Alpha brand X is or is not better, it's that with Chinese brand Z you may only have a 60% chance of getting something that is 98% as good as Alpha Brand X. A crap shoot, to summarize. There are also questions as to which one will hang together better when you drop it.
I'm mostly an astronomy guy so I'll take the birders' words for it, but it seems to me that with hand held binoculars in daytime use you are not able to use the instruments to their full optical advantage. Your hand is shaking, the bird is moving, that has an impact. Even when the you're looking at a mountain or something that isn't moving, your own motion still has an impact. When you get to high end optics you're talking about levels of performance which may be discernible only once in a blue moon; with a telescope the decisive factor is seeing, but I've seen heat waves and other atmospheric effects in daytime viewing that do much the same thing. It's like having someone smear your optics.
The question as to whether China will ever catch the alphas in performance and/or prestige is interesting. My take on it is that if Pentax and Minox haven't gotten there yet, it will be a while longer before China does.
If ever. I've seen some nice Chinese telescope focusers but they just aren't at the level of the best U.S. machining and so far the same is true of telescope mounts. The binocular market is more interesting because it is larger, so there is more of an incentive to get good. But there are so many ways that I've been let down by lack of quality control in so many different imports from China (never mind the poisons in toys etc.) that I just don't look to China for anything that I expect to perform "high end."
The Orion telescopes aren't bad, and you know, one might consider Orion binoculars, since Orion is probably one of the most experienced Chinese importers in the U.S. and the astronomy applications are fairly demanding.
Just a thought,
Greg N
One of the problems with Chinese production is inconsistency between units. So it's not just that Alpha brand X is or is not better, it's that with Chinese brand Z you may only have a 60% chance of getting something that is 98% as good as Alpha Brand X. A crap shoot, to summarize. There are also questions as to which one will hang together better when you drop it.
I'm mostly an astronomy guy so I'll take the birders' words for it, but it seems to me that with hand held binoculars in daytime use you are not able to use the instruments to their full optical advantage. Your hand is shaking, the bird is moving, that has an impact. Even when the you're looking at a mountain or something that isn't moving, your own motion still has an impact. When you get to high end optics you're talking about levels of performance which may be discernible only once in a blue moon; with a telescope the decisive factor is seeing, but I've seen heat waves and other atmospheric effects in daytime viewing that do much the same thing. It's like having someone smear your optics.
The question as to whether China will ever catch the alphas in performance and/or prestige is interesting. My take on it is that if Pentax and Minox haven't gotten there yet, it will be a while longer before China does.
If ever. I've seen some nice Chinese telescope focusers but they just aren't at the level of the best U.S. machining and so far the same is true of telescope mounts. The binocular market is more interesting because it is larger, so there is more of an incentive to get good. But there are so many ways that I've been let down by lack of quality control in so many different imports from China (never mind the poisons in toys etc.) that I just don't look to China for anything that I expect to perform "high end."
The Orion telescopes aren't bad, and you know, one might consider Orion binoculars, since Orion is probably one of the most experienced Chinese importers in the U.S. and the astronomy applications are fairly demanding.
Just a thought,
Greg N
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Not time for a full reply but birding use is rather more demanding than you suppose.
Color accuracy. Stray light suppression (you don't have that at night!). Transmission is even more important to birders looking for subtle color differences in plumage than to astronomers (who tend to go for large objectives and stick them on a tripod rather than needing to be portable).
The quality of Chinese optics (and consistency from optic to optic) has improved dramatically in the last 5 years. I think you viewpoint (for bins) was accurate about that long ago.
You should try the Chinese EDs and perhaps read a few of the reviews in the forum to see how close China is already to alpha class optics.
From a birding POV Orion doesn't stand out as a Chinese ODM/OEM. But Vortex does.
Color accuracy. Stray light suppression (you don't have that at night!). Transmission is even more important to birders looking for subtle color differences in plumage than to astronomers (who tend to go for large objectives and stick them on a tripod rather than needing to be portable).
The quality of Chinese optics (and consistency from optic to optic) has improved dramatically in the last 5 years. I think you viewpoint (for bins) was accurate about that long ago.
You should try the Chinese EDs and perhaps read a few of the reviews in the forum to see how close China is already to alpha class optics.
From a birding POV Orion doesn't stand out as a Chinese ODM/OEM. But Vortex does.
Steve C
Well-known member
There are never ending political and cultural position statements one can entertain with regard to China. You are welcome to whichever you choose.
However, you really need to get a good long hard look at something like the ZEN ED. The crappy or poor quality Chinese junk really does not apply here.
I think you would be in for an eye opening experience, literally and figuratively. There is ample reason for the positive comments posted here.
Veracocha
Well-known member
100% for me, the set I tested and the two that I bought.
I know I will feel five times less sick if I drop the Chinese Hawkes than a set of Alpha's.
"From a birding POV Orion doesn't stand out as a Chinese ODM/OEM. But Vortex does.[/QUOTE]"
I don't agree with that statement after trying the Orion Ultraview 8x42 Porro-prism binoculars. They are excellent for $150.00. Overall view is 95% as good as the Nikon 8x32 SE's and we all agree the SE's are one of the optically best binoculars out there. Their build quality is excellent and they are a fine example of a high quality porro prism binocular. But I guess they are made in Japan.
But I agree in that the Chinese binoculars are really getting close to the the Alphas in quality. Especially optical. Maybe the build quality isn't quite up to a Swarovski EL yet but they are just as functional and the view is IMO just as good. For less than $400.00 I will take a Zen Ray ED 8x43 over a $2000.00 Swarovski any day! Who cares about dropping them they are guaranteed for life just send them back to the manufacturer. I guess maybe the comparison would be like a Casio watch compared to a Rolex. The Casio is just as functional and just as accurate but if you are into impressing people then you would probably buy the Rolex.
Dennis
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
That's a sample of one (a current hot bin of yours, Dennis 
).
Do I have to trot out all the bins (roofs!) that Vortex have got right for birders? Diamondback, Fury, Razor and Viper?
And compare the warranty: Orion typically 1 year or a perhaps a couple limited lifetime (defects only) versus Vortex lifetime.
I'm not a brand fan but in this case I think Vortex does a much better overall job for birders than Orion perhaps because that's their focus. Orion does a good job for astro folks because that's their focus.
Orion's other downside if their a sole-source name brand so it's more difficult to see the bins in other places to try them out (compared to most other brand). The other astro suppliers have similar issues (e.g Celestron). So they tend not to get seens an reviewed in fora like this one.
). Do I have to trot out all the bins (roofs!) that Vortex have got right for birders? Diamondback, Fury, Razor and Viper?
And compare the warranty: Orion typically 1 year or a perhaps a couple limited lifetime (defects only) versus Vortex lifetime.
I'm not a brand fan but in this case I think Vortex does a much better overall job for birders than Orion perhaps because that's their focus. Orion does a good job for astro folks because that's their focus.
Orion's other downside if their a sole-source name brand so it's more difficult to see the bins in other places to try them out (compared to most other brand). The other astro suppliers have similar issues (e.g Celestron). So they tend not to get seens an reviewed in fora like this one.
That's a sample of one (a current hot bin of yours, Dennis
Do I have to trot out all the bins (roofs!) that Vortex have got right for birders? Diamondback, Fury, Razor and Viper?
And compare the warranty: Orion typically 1 year or a perhaps a couple limited lifetime (defects only) versus Vortex lifetime.
I'm not a brand fan but in this case I think Vortex does a much better overall job for birders than Orion perhaps because that's their focus. Orion does a good job for astro folks because that's their focus.
Orion's other downside if their a sole-source name brand so it's more difficult to see the bins in other places to try them out (compared to most other brand). The other astro suppliers have similar issues (e.g Celestron). So they tend not to get seens an reviewed in fora like this one.
I know Vortex are very good but you really should check out the Orion Ultraviews 8x42. Very sharp, bright and a big FOV. Field curvature is more than some but you don't notice it with the big FOV. They are quite a bargain for $150.00 and also have a ten year warranty. FrankD started a thread about them and I tried them and I am quite impressed.:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=137247
Dennis
Last edited:
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
I've read that thread (I think I even commented in it). I've even considered getting one (I do like good porros!).
But that wasn't my point ... Orion have (had) made one interesting bin in recent times. That's actually a lot less than say Celestron (8x32 DX Ultima, Noble 8x32 and the Regals). Just as an example.
My point is that Orion are not a good example of a company that looks after birders.
The phrase "even a stopped clock is correct twice a day" comes to mind.
Not that I think that Vortex are the bees knees. I'm not brand loyal. But they're pretty consistent.
Yes. Orion is definitely more astro oriented. Probably some of the best less expensive scopes. I was just surprised how good their Ultraview binoculars were.
Dennis
keithdrengen
Well-known member
Does the Hawke 8x43 ED have the same focus characteristics as the Zen Rays? Zen Ray: 2 turns from 6 feet to 30 feet and 1/2 turn from 30 ft to infinity. Is it the same with the Hawke 8x43 ED?
Carsten
Carsten
