Here are the new Victorys: Victory HT (1 Viewer)

[hinnark]

Correct me when I am wrong, but wasn't the complete marketing strategy offering special Schott optic glass called HT for hunters? It was called so bright an 56mm would not be necessary anymore.
Never read the mentioning of an slow focussing anywhere in a Zeiss announcement on this subject.
Jan

That's just ordinary marketing saying as more or less all the companies use to do. Does e.g. that video mean that all products can be seen are purposed primary for the hunters use? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vYgi8eS1qk
I don't think so.

Steve

 

[james holdsworth]

Binomania review of the HT

http://www.binomania.it/binocoli/ZeissHT8x42/ZeissHT8x42.php


Great scores for brightness / sharpness / contrast [even suggesting they are as bright as an 7x50 or 8x56!], good stray light control but some of the same edge attributes as the FL. Still leaves me with more questions than answers.....and no HT to test!

Tested against the SV, the HT had better glare resistance, brightness and [perhaps] better sharpness. What I would really like to see is a test against the SLC-HD, as I think that model is even better than the SV. [brighter, sharper, less distortion]

 

[Troubador]

Sorry?

I think James has understood you to say that HT is short for 'HunTers' when it really stands for High Transmittance.

Lee

 

[jan van daalen]

To be honoust, I don't see the problem.
I'm truelly convinced the HT is primarely designed for hunters.
I would't care less if it is otherwise.
Jan

 

[Troubador]

To be honoust, I don't see the problem.
I'm truelly convinced the HT is primarely designed for hunters.
I would't care less if it is otherwise.
Jan

Jan

What do you think Zeiss would have done differently with the HT if it had been designed for all users and not 'by hunters for hunters' ? I don't think they would include field flatteners as these do not seem part of Zeiss's thinking.

Lee

 

[jan van daalen]

Lee,

From the beginning I understood this bin was designed by Zeiss for the needs of the hunters, espacially the extreem brightness at low light circumstances. I spoke to some Zeiss reps at the last Photokina in Koln and the really gave me that impression. The fact that this bin is also very good for birders etc. does not change the fact that it IS built (according to Zeiss) for their biggest market. The hunters. I will check it again at the IWA.
Jan

 

[ticl2184]

It's only conjecture, but I have a strong feeling Zeiss may be introducing a alpha bin designed specifically for birders. I hope I'm wrong......

Still haven't received my HT's.

Tim

 

[brocknroller]

The only part of the HT design that caters to hunters specifically is the slower focus.

In that case, it would mean that Swaro. designed all of the EL's exclusively for hunters...

Perhaps not exclusively but definitely with hunters in mind. Here's what Peterson's Hunting Magazine had to say about the HT:

"“For hunters, it [HT] may also be the most ergonomic as well, featuring a new, slower-focusing mechanism placed further forward to avoid hat brims and fit hands."

I think that might have meant "fat" hands. as in gloved hands?

So it's not just the slower focus (which is only slightly slower), but it's location that was made with hunters in mind.

The 8x30 SLCneu was the darling of hunters (and the bane of birders, IMO) because of the position of its focuser on the objective side of the bridge. Mooreorless told me this when he bought his SLCs, and I've read at least one other hunter on here echo that sentiment. It's damn cold in the winter in the Northeast, so you don't want to keep pushing your hat back to get at the front focuser and expose your noggin to below freezing temps. Not that hunters can't take the cold, but a frozen brain throws off their aim.

Here's the article:

http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/zeiss-victory-ht-8x42-binocular-wins-petersens-hunting-magazines-editors-choice-award/

<B>

 

[Troubador]

Jan and Brock

I know Zeiss have placed a heavy emphasis on selling this to hunters, saying it was made for them.

The trouble is, comparing it side by side with my FLs I struggle to find anything that is clearly designed just for hunters. There is nothing that I would change because it is a hunter's feature and not suited to my nature observation requirements.

And yet there is one feature that, just possibly, some hunters might want to change. The close focus distance is 1.9m. Perhaps in theory at least a hunter would want a close focus of 5m and an optical system optimised for longer distance rather than compromised by the close focus.

As to how you would change HT it make it less of a hunter's bin and more of a birder's. What would you do? The only thing I can think of, and I have written this in to my product plan for Zeiss in another thread, is to have a new breed of coatings and optics that bring out more deeply saturated colours.

One theory I have always wondered about is that when the FL came out, perhaps Zeiss now think that they gave hunters the impression that the FL was not designed with them in mind, so they feel the need to now 'catch up' and recover some of that lost ground by marketing the HTto hunters even if (behind closed doors) it was designed as an all purpose instrument.

How many headlines are left for them to base their marketing on? They have done the 'conquering of CA' with FL. Next up its either flat field, which they don't seem to want to consider, or light transmission (stand up HT) or colour.

Perhaps colour rendition will be the focus of the HT replacement in 6 years time?

Lee

 

[jan van daalen]

Lee,

Comparing the HT with the SLC HD, they are the same to me.
I don't like the little dioptre focussing ring and where it is placed but I really couldn't find any reason why the HT should not be sold to birders.
It is just my understanding that Zeiss wanted to use this bin for their greatest market. The hunters.
That's all.
Jan

 

[NAB]

For those who have compared the HT's and Swaro's side by side, did you not find the colour definition to be better on the Swaro's? To my eye the colour definition seems very slightly washed out on the HT's, and is this the price paid for the extra brightness obtained (and they are bright!)?

The big play by Zeiss is the benefit hunters get at dawn and dusk i.e brightness.

Update from my UK dealer on HT's, 12 pairs due in the UK this week, but Zeiss UK unable to confirm if 8 x or 10 x models? :C

 

[Argon]

Has anyone done a side by side comparison with Nikon EDG?

 

[joe101]

For those who have compared the HT's and Swaro's side by side, did you not find the colour definition to be better on the Swaro's? To my eye the colour definition seems very slightly washed out on the HT's, and is this the price paid for the extra brightness obtained (and they are bright!)?

The big play by Zeiss is the benefit hunters get at dawn and dusk i.e brightness.

Update from my UK dealer on HT's, 12 pairs due in the UK this week, but Zeiss UK unable to confirm if 8 x or 10 x models? :C

the HT's colours look great in the jungles under cover. open areas it is not that great but not really washed out but I seem to squint alot .

 

[Chosun Juan]

Correct me when I am wrong, but wasn't the complete marketing strategy offering special Schott optic glass called HT for hunters? It was called so bright an 56mm would not be necessary anymore. Never read the mentioning of an slow focussing anywhere in a Zeiss announcement on this subject.

''High Transmittance'' = HT

I think James has understood you to say that HT is short for 'HunTers' when it really stands for High Transmittance.

Holy Moses !! Jan .... :eek!:

That whole HunTers bin thing was the cause of much mirth and merriment 3 - but that was ~ 500 posts ago! :smoke:

The only part of the HT design that caters to hunters specifically is the slower focus.
In that case, it would mean that Swaro. designed all of the EL's exclusively for hunters...

:-O :t:


Chosun :gh:

 

[Chosun Juan]

It's only conjecture, but I have a strong feeling Zeiss may be introducing a alpha bin designed specifically for birders. I hope I'm wrong......
Still haven't received my HT's.
Tim

Tim, after taking an ear-bashing from Birders for near a year and close to 1000 posts, I think that is a fair bet ...... such a lightweight 42mm HT would seem to be on the cards before either 32mm, or 56mm HT's from the snippets being dropped .....


Chosun :gh:

 

[ticl2184]

NAB

As I noted in my review of the 10x HT's vs 10x SV's, I found the colour in the HT's to be very bright. However I couldn't draw any conclusion as to which would render the most natural colour definition, if the light transmission levels were the same for both.

Tim

 

[Chosun Juan]

"One theory I have always wondered about is that when the FL came out, perhaps Zeiss now think that they gave hunters the impression that the FL was not designed with them in mind, so they feel the need to now 'catch up' and recover some of that lost ground by marketing the HT to hunters even if (behind closed doors) it was designed as an all purpose instrument ......"
...... As to how you would change the HT to make it less of a hunter's bin and more of a birder's. What would you do?
Lee

Lee - I think that's bang on the money. Zeiss were either trying to claw back an ignored (implied only!) market, or capitalise on their biggest market (earner).

Zeiss themselves have said it was "designed by HunTers for HunTers" (okay - just funnin' now folks with all the bold capitals!)
The point remains that the HT's have higher transmittance, greater blue and red transmission than the FL's (for those dusk, and European moonlight hunts), a sturdier twin bridge encased focuser, and more robust magnesium construction (not to mention weight! - important stuff when the gun goes 'click' and all that stands between you and meeting a 'grizzly' end, are the blunt heavy instruments in your hands!!). All valid, pertinent stuff for HunTers, but also of great value to birders (well except the weight increase) ...... :-C

And that I think answers your next question - lower weight for birders (a carbon fiber reinforced polycarbonate /or amide, lightweight body, and maybe lighter dual density armouring, should be a shoo-in with the same high H design chassis). Of course better colour rendition (higher transmission) at the extremities of the wavelength spectrum (enhanced contrast) is always welcome, although, the HT looks pretty well saturated (from Tim's pics) - with possibly only an opportunity in the red end .... though a 'natural', 'neutral' colour rendition must be maintained along with any extended table-top flatness in tr% curves .....
A flatter field (with less pincushion) would also be desireable (but not at the expense - cost /weight/ transmission-wise of adding field flattners) .... perhaps there's some room to move with aspheric elements?
I'd also like to see a lightweight (unobtainium?) knurled metal focus knob - just for that "Ferrari" direct focus-'steering' precision ....


Chosun :gh:

 

[binomania]

Hi to all, if you want to use google translate
I've published my impression and the impression of my friend Ugo Lazzara (with a small comparison with other binoculars)

Ugo U soon should buy a copy of Nikon EDG 8x32 , in this way he can give you more information on the differences between the two binoculars.

Best Regards from Italy

 

[mooreorless]

In stock:
http://www.adorama.com/ZS1042VHT.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/883868-REG/Zeiss_524528_8x42_Victory_HT_Binocular.html

 

[Leif]

One theory I have always wondered about is that when the FL came out, perhaps Zeiss now think that they gave hunters the impression that the FL was not designed with them in mind, so they feel the need to now 'catch up' and recover some of that lost ground by marketing the HTto hunters even if (behind closed doors) it was designed as an all purpose instrument.

I assume it is a general purpose instrument i.e. hunting, birding, and nature.

My guess is that Zeiss were disappointed with sales of the FL line, since in many ways the FL bins were optically superior to the competition when released. I certainly thought the FL was superior to the original Swaro EL, but I'm sure that Swarovski sold far more EL units, if dealers I spoke to were on the level. It is possible that the Zeiss marketing wonks think that hunters are the best group to target, with birding and nature secondary.

I do wonder how many high end binoculars are sold more on the fit and finish with a cursory check of the optics, and an assumption that a high price equates to good. If these people constitute a large number, then perhaps the non metal body of the FL was seen as a negative, even though in some respects it was better (more resistant to knocks, and less likely to get very cold).