Digiscoped photos of the Zeiss Binoculars part 3. (Victory SF 8 / 10 x42) + Zeiss Harpia 85mm (1 Viewer)

[jackjack]

It will be the third digiscoped - zeiss series.
with this 3 theads, I have posted birds photo of oll kinds of Zeiss product I used in birding. gonna post other brands next time.

again. nothing is edited.

7. Zeiss Victory SF 8x42

x3 zoom with phone camera (24mag)



x3


x3




8. Zeiss Victory SF 10x42

x3


x3


x3




9. Zeiss Harpia 85mm



x3

 

[tenex]

Very nice photos. Do you use any sort of alignment gadget on the eyepiece, or do it all by hand?

 

[jackjack]

Very nice photos. Do you use any sort of alignment gadget on the eyepiece, or do it all by hand?

all by my hands

 

[Viraj]

@jackjack You have amazing digiscoping skills. All the photos are great. Since you have many experiences with Zeiss line, I wanted to ask following question, how do you compare SFL 10x40 with SF 10x42? I own a SFL 10x40 and sometimes feel I am missing the best optical performance mostly because of poor CA control of SFL 10x40. Do you think I loose too much of image quality when using SFL 10x40 when compared to the SF 10x42?

 

[jackjack]

@jackjack You have amazing digiscoping skills. All the photos are great. Since you have many experiences with Zeiss line, I wanted to ask following question, how do you compare SFL 10x40 with SF 10x42? I own a SFL 10x40 and sometimes feel I am missing the best optical performance mostly because of poor CA control of SFL 10x40. Do you think I loose too much of image quality when using SFL 10x40 when compared to the SF 10x42?

it depends. sf has bit more brightness, much wider sweetspot, more 3D rendering and better CA control. sharpness is not worth the price difference but still better.

but in case of color fidelity and agronomics, sfl has a advantage.
overall, SF is a step over but it is not a WHOLE BETTER bino than SFL.

the best upgrade avaliable now will be Swaro NL 10x42. though it have glare and ghost issue, It's image quality is overall best. much wider than SF and much better color fidelity and little bit better CA control in center.
SF is NOT an inferior bino then EL and NL, but in terms of abberation control, Swaro deserves the best between others.

 

[Viraj]

it depends. sf has bit more brightness, much wider sweetspot, more 3D rendering and better CA control. sharpness is not worth the price difference but still better.

but in case of color fidelity and agronomics, sfl has a advantage.
overall, SF is a step over but it is not a WHOLE BETTER bino than SFL.

the best upgrade avaliable now will be Swaro NL 10x42. though it have glare and ghost issue, It's image quality is overall best. much wider than SF and much better color fidelity and little bit better CA control in center.
SF is NOT an inferior bino then EL and NL, but in terms of abberation control, Swaro deserves the best between others.

Thank you @jackjack I have an NL 8x42 so buying another NL was not an option for me. However, I am thinking of buying an NL 12x42 in the future. Have you used NL 12 as well? Do you think it would be a better choice to buy NL 12 than 10?

 

[jackjack]

Thank you @jackjack I have an NL 8x42 so buying another NL was not an option for me. However, I am thinking of buying an NL 12x42 in the future. Have you used NL 12 as well? Do you think it would be a better choice to buy NL 12 than 10?

I have used NL 12x42 too. It's contrast and apparent sharpness may not as good as lower mag nl, but I praise them high because it is the only 12 power that can be used all round right now. other 12 power high level bino is 50mm... I love that specialty...
but if I use one for the birding, I will think twice befor I use 12x42 nl. It is one of the most comfortable 12 power bino, but in short distance, the focus depht and big magnification often make harder to chase small birds moving fast.
if it was accompanied with good 8 power, 12x42 nl will do very well. since I think 8power and 12power can complement each other better than 8 + 10 power.

+ maybe thats whey leica made their DUOVID 8+12 x42

 

[jackjack]

Thank you @jackjack I have an NL 8x42 so buying another NL was not an option for me. However, I am thinking of buying an NL 12x42 in the future. Have you used NL 12 as well? Do you think it would be a better choice to buy NL 12 than 10?

+ just my taste, but I don't prefer 8x42 nl over 10, 12. because 8x42 nl has too wide and perfect fov (9.1!!!) that I feel somwhat lost in their massive and flat FOV.
It make me enjoy it's full view then looking at the excact target I'm looking for...
It is just my own preference... NL 8x42 has most worm coloring (more yellow) and best flare control between 42mm nl.
but I might get used to HT 8x42, EL 8.5x42 or NV 8x42.
again. just my preference

 

[Viraj]

+ just my taste, but I don't prefer 8x42 nl over 10, 12. because 8x42 nl has too wide and perfect fov (9.1!!!) that I feel somwhat lost in their massive and flat FOV.
It make me enjoy it's full view then looking at the excact target I'm looking for...
It is just my own preference... NL 8x42 has most worm coloring (more yellow) and best flare control between 42mm nl.
but I might get used to HT 8x42, EL 8.5x42 or NV 8x42.
again. just my preference

Thank you again for your nice explanation. I feel same with the NL 8x42. I now think NL 10x42 and SFL 8x40 or NV 8x42 would complement better each other.

 

[jackjack]

Thank you again for your nice explanation. I feel same with the NL 8x42. I now think NL 10x42 and SFL 8x40 or NV 8x42 would complement better each other.

for me, I'll go for 8x40 sfl and 12x42 nl. if I go birding on mountain or forests that I have to mantain more mobility and have more chances to meet birds at close distanse (like small tits running through branches on top of my head), I'll use sfl 8x40. because of the light weight and fast focusing.
weight of the SFL will ne an advantage if you carry it with another bino.

and if I have to bird at open place, such as lakes, seas, and meadows, I would not need THAT much fast focus and FOV since the loger the sight distance gets, more easy for me to follow the targets (if I can see it.)

(I always use 2+ bino for birding. mainly different mags and different mms like 10x32 + 8x42, 10x42 + 8x32)



I explain magnification to novice birder in Korea using this phrase.

'If you want to FIND the birds, go for 8 power. but If you want to OBSERVE the birds, go for 10 power.'

in Korea, majority of birders use binos for finding the bird to photograph with big cameras not just observing them. so I usually suggest 8 power more than 10 power.

12 power is not on my recommend list except for canon 12x32 is and swaro 12x42 NL

 

[Patudo]

One advantage to spotting birds with a 8x (or 7x) if you're a photographer is that the scale is closer to what you'll see in your lens (mostly 400 to 600mm). A bird spotted with 10x can seem disappointingly far away when you switch to the camera. Of course when the day comes that your 10x binocular can snap an image rivalling that of a quality mirrorless or even high-end bridge camera today, that won't be a problem!

Like everyone else I'm super impressed by the OP's binoscopes - a paddling mallard may be an easy target, but small passerines and pygmy woodpeckers certainly are not. The problem though, in terms of assessing the image you see through binoculars via binoscoping, is that the camera introduces a whole new set of lenses (with their own aberrations etc), plus what shows up on the camera sensor may be different to what you see with your own eye. I've noticed this quite a few times taking photos with my own smartphone - I've sometimes had to tinker around with white balance to match the colours of a sunrise, and sometimes I couldn't get a perfect match. Plus, your own eye may be more able to accommodate to things like pincushion and CA than the camera sensor. I'll almost guarantee that (for instance) the three pygmy woodpeckers in jackjack's post 7, for instance, would look a lot better through binoculars, even though the binoscoped image is very good, all things considering.

 

[tenex]

I'll almost guarantee that (for instance) the three pygmy woodpeckers in jackjack's post 7, for instance, would look a lot better through binoculars, even though the binoscoped image is very good, all things considering.

That one has some motion blur on the birds, which may also contribute to the camera having trouble focusing. Very little actually looks in focus.

One advantage to spotting birds with a 8x (or 7x) if you're a photographer is that the scale is closer to what you'll see in your lens (mostly 400 to 600mm). A bird spotted with 10x can seem disappointingly far away when you switch to the camera

Not sure I follow that. Supposing 50mm to be "normal", a 500mm lens would be 10x which is right in the middle of the range you mention (and technically "normal" in 24x36mm format is more like 43mm). And bins typically have somewhat wider FOV than the equivalent camera lens, so shouldn't a bird fill more of the field in the camera, and look relatively larger?

 

[Patudo]

Supposing 50mm to be "normal", a 500mm lens would be 10x which is right in the middle of the range you mention (and technically "normal" in 24x36mm format is more like 43mm). And bins typically have somewhat wider FOV than the equivalent camera lens, so shouldn't a bird fill more of the field in the camera, and look relatively larger?

I'm not quite sure why, but when using binoculars I seem to get a satisfactory image when the bird is more distant than would be the case if I was taking photos. Case in point: peregrine coming over the river earlier today. I'm beside my brother who is shooting a Sony full frame (A9 mark I) and 200-600mm setup which he's very practised with. At the point I think he can start shooting I tell him to do so, but he replies that he needs to wait a bit before he'll get a good image, and at the point he does so, with the bird maybe 80m away, it seems really close to me. I suppose other camera setups with even better sensors and faster lenses may allow better results on distant shots, but in general I've found that long shots tend to be very disappointing compared to what you can see through binoculars. This also seems true if conditions are somewhat less than optimal. I remember once looking at a mistle thrush in evening light and thinking that the photos (from a Sony RX10 mark III at pretty short distance) ought to be good, but they were far inferior. It'd be interesting to know what sort of setup could replicate the image quality of what I saw through the binoculars on that occasion.

 

[tenex]

With photography the possibility of cropping/enlargement seems to complicate the magnification issue, in the sense that one can study a photo as long as desired and could be tempted to try to show even more detail than would actually have been seen in bins, or may need to get the bird quite close in order to be able to do that? Or perhaps it's a question of knowing how to get a sharp enough photo at all? (I gather that takes some skill, and haven't seriously tried myself.)

 

[tenex]

I really don't think magnification will explain why photos would seem less impressive than bins. When I compare the live view through my Z6 with 400mm lens to that through E II 8x30, the two seem roughly[*] similar, as they should. So the Sony gear you describe should do quite well. Just don't hold the photo too far away...

[* - the camera image actually seems a bit less magnified, maybe more like 7.5x, which really is as expected: normal focal length for FF is 43mm, so 400mm is about 9.3x, but the camera viewfinder is 0.8x giving 7.44x.]

 

[dorubird]

Binocular vision benefits from a compensation of our brain that creates the image impression a little bigger than in reality. And the flat two-dimensionality of the photo, as opposed to the three-dimensionality of binocular vision, makes the same image in the photo always less spectacular

 

[tenex]

Binocular vision benefits from a compensation of our brain that creates the image impression a little bigger than in reality. And the flat two-dimensionality of the photo, as opposed to the three-dimensionality of binocular vision, makes the same image in the photo always less spectacular

But merely getting a bit closer for the photo couldn't change this, so what is the problem that it does solve in post 13?

 

[dorubird]

The main characteristic of the photo lens is the focal length. Each focal length of a photo lens corresponds to a visual angle that does not depend on the quality or optical formula of the lenses, but only on the focal length itself. So a 50mm photo lens on a full frame format has always an angular opening of 46°. A 100mm one has 24°. A 200mm one has 12°. A 400mm one has 6°. A 600mm one has 4° and so on... Binoculars cannot be directly compared in terms of focal length with photo lenses because binoculars are afocal, designed for human eyes, not for sensors. Binoculars magnification is not related to a single visual field of view. As we know, we can have binoculars with 6° FOV that have 7x or even 12x magnification. So a 6° binocular will not automatically be equivalent to a 400mm lens on full frame, just because they both have the same 6° field of view, because binoculars are designed for human eyes, not for sensors, being afocal, and they also have the characteristic called magnification. The photo lenses, being specially designed for sensors, are strictly related to them (sensors), not having the feature called magnification. To make things even more complicated with a phot camera, the viewfinder also matters, what resolution, magnification and coverage it has....
So here we are comparing apples to oranges...The main difference is more aesthetic, because through binoculars you look with both eyes, which means a big neuronal advantage, the image through binoculars being much more spectacular than through the camera. The camera, having this "neuronal" disadvantage compared to binoculars, must compensate somehow by capturing more information, which means getting closer to the subject.

 

[tenex]

Each focal length of a photo lens corresponds to a visual angle that does not depend on the quality or optical formula of the lenses, but only on the focal length itself... Binoculars magnification is not related to a single visual field of view.

Technically true, but not for practical purposes. Nearly all 10x bins have fields in the quite narrow range 6.3-6.9° with only a few outliers. 8x bins have 7.4-8° with few outliers. 7x bins today largely overlap with that same range because they're poorly designed, so not a good example. For commonly used 8x or 10x bins, field of view does correlate strongly enough with magnification to make appropriate comparisons with camera lenses, as I did in post 15 above. And I don't find the photo underwhelming, when viewed from a distance appropriate for image size. (Again I don't do a lot of bird photography, which I find quite challenging.)

Edit: interestingly, the same issue has come up in discussion of camera vs binocular view in the new AX Visio:
AX Visio: is it really as bad as some reviewers claim??

...The main difference is more aesthetic, because through binoculars you look with both eyes, which means a big neuronal advantage, the image through binoculars being much more spectacular than through the camera. The camera, having this "neuronal" disadvantage compared to binoculars, must compensate somehow by capturing more information, which means getting closer to the subject.

An interesting theory, though quite subjective... I find that a (sharp!) photo with today's digital cameras captures plenty of information. Of course in some sense it's never quite as dramatic as a live view, but that's an unavoidable limitation of photography, not an issue of field of view or magnification.