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

[Troubador]

Tea is King

You are all barking up the wrong tree.

Coffee? It's great maybe once a day.

Now Tea is another matter entirely: Assam as an energy booster, Ceylon as a refresher.

And Boys: Tea improves the transmission of light through your eyes by up to more than 95%!!

TroubaLee B

 

[Chosun Juan]

You guys ain't tasted nothin'. See this page in the current thread: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=223810&page=36.

Yeah. |[email protected]| Thanks heaps for that pomp! :storm:

So here I am, reclining on the back deck, enjoying the warmth of the day, and a nice hot cup of Earl Grey tea, with full cream milk, and a liberal dose of Yellow Box Honey, imagining what the view would be like through some awesome crystal clear HT's, which I hoped to read further reports on ..... when I click on your link.

And what do I find? - some sort of tropical :cat: that takes great delight in peeing on ceilings, and bl**dy Brock (of all people! :scribe: |^|), whining about #@*^$&%!! "rolling ball" in Zeiss HD's :'D

Startled by my own involuntary exclamation! of surprise |8.| I spat the tea out in a fine spray that formed a lovely (but dreadfully wasteful) pearlescent rainbow ....... somethings never change :egghead: ...... and I thought quibbling over the price of coffee was tangential enough ........


Chosun :gh:

 

[Troubador]

Yeah. |[email protected]| a nice hot cup of Earl Grey tea, with full cream milk, and a liberal dose of Yellow Box Honey

Chosun :gh:

MMMMmmmmmm yummy :eek!:

Lee

 

[eddy the eagle]

I was always taught that if you have nothing to say,say nothing!!! ...Eddy

 

[Troubador]

I was always taught that if you have nothing to say,say nothing!!! ...Eddy

No Eddy it goes like this:

" If you can't say nothing nice, don't say nothing at all" and it's from Snow White and the Seven Altitudinally Challenged Persons.

:-O

Lee

 

[pompadour]

CJ, am taking a break from BF (for various external reasons) but, glancing at that, have been stung to response.
• Sorry about your tea. Excuse our fauna - If your roos lived in ceilings they'd they'd be no better behaved. Arrogant homo saps puts up strange structures and confuse these innocent creatures. Among the things I'm involved in (aforesaid reasons) is a biography of a conservationist in these parts. His family sit down to lunch, and from on high descends a stream of liquid right on to someone's plate... (hope that tea is safely inside now).
• I note that among the material referenced by me you say nothing about the coffee - my main point. Now this means (a) you're being your usual delicate and proper little self, and/or (b) the nice subtlety there in the prose of us Bfers passed you by. If so then don't re-read and sort it out - you'll never again drink coffee and will just have to stick with your tea.
• You're ruining your health with that rich, sweet stuff. Obsolete hedonism.
• Good old Brock sees RB anywhere, and you see him! At that point our coffee conference is over, and another post invites him back into into the thread.
• HT, bah, wait for the New Tech.

 

[ronh]

Finally got my hands on a 10x42 HT, briefly, in Sportsman's Warehouse yesterday. This is pretty anticlimactic, but I guess every little bit helps huh?

The design is an ergonomic success, with lots of hand room, a comfortable reach to the focus knob, and a secure one handed grab. The armor is gummier and more aggressively grippy then the FL's, giving a very secure feeling, but I don't think it will ever get to a patina. It seemed a little bit heavier than my 8x42 FL, as expected from its magnesium body replacing the FL's composite, but I'd still call it lightweight.

The focusing is slower than the FL, and seemed about like that of the Swarovision: one exaggerated big crank gets you down to 12 feet or so, with lots more cranking required to get down to closest focus. The focus knob was very smooth, like the FL's, with no backlash. The hinge was stiff and smooth.

The eyecups were comfortable and worked like those of the FL, with about the same positions clicking into place and enough resistance between clicks to stay put fairly well. It was easy to adjust so the full field could be seen with minimal blackout. Eye relief seemed about the same as the FL. With cups fully down and my semiwraparound Bushnell "Daddy-Os" on, less than the full field could be seen, about average in that department.

This unit had a problem--the diopter adjustment would not turn. Two clerks tried, but no dice.

In the artificially lit, brightly colored and high contrast environment, I couldn't tell the optical quality from that of any other top line binocular, not to disparage the view in the least, just, those stores are such strange places that they confuse me. I thought it had a slightly bigger sweet spot than the FLs I'm used to, the 8x42 and the 10x56, but that could be a consequence of its shorter eyepiece focal length, which usually brings an improvement there. The typical Zeiss pincushion distortion is present, and panning seems smooth and natural.

All in all the HT seems a worthy successor to the FL and an improvement for the ergonomics alone. The feel of the view is very similar. It would take a finer test in natural and varied lighting conditions to see the anticipated difference in clarity and brightness, the state of the color correction, or an improvement in glare resistance.

Ron

 

[james holdsworth]

Ron,

I was looking forward to your review.......:-C

When you get the chance, do some serious side-by-side comparisons with your FL, you will be very surprised at the results.

I would be even more intrigued as to how you think the HT stacks up with your 10x56 FL. Maybe you need to go and 'rent' the HT for a day.......

 

[ronh]

James,

Hey, my review was obviously biassed and pro-Zeiss! Yeah really, I'd love to put one through its paces and see what it would do...at least that's a start.

Ron

 

[Chosun Juan]

Finally got my hands on a 10x42 HT, briefly, in Sportsman's Warehouse yesterday. This is pretty anticlimactic, but I guess every little bit helps huh?
...... This unit had a problem--the diopter adjustment would not turn. Two clerks tried, but no dice ......

|8.| ..... (can't let that one go through to the keeper)

..... I thought it had a slightly bigger sweet spot than the FLs I'm used to, the 8x42 and the 10x56 ......

|8.| |8.| ..... (nor that one!)



Chosun :gh:

 

[james holdsworth]

As the whole HT experience seems to have gone cold here on Birdforum, thought I would add a few more thoughts on my HT's.

Using them in high glare situations like bright, scattered sunlight reflected off the surface of the water [a situation that would really trip up the FL], the HT is miles ahead, nearly perfect. The eyepieces of the HT also produce fewer reflections than the FL, even with the eyecups screwed all the way down, so no problems when the sun is low and behind.

I'm still amazed at the optical quality of the HT - it still wows me again and again - a stunning mirror-like image, so luminous, contrasty and richly detailed. I'm not sure where the improvements over the FL have come - whether the HT glass is mostly to account, or if Zeiss have changed eye-piece design or coatings significantly but it all adds up to a binocular that really puts the venerable FL in the shade. Congrats to Zeiss for taking a great bin and improving it in every possible way.

 

[pompadour]

... not sure where the improvements over the FL have come - whether the HT glass is mostly to account, or if Zeiss have changed eye-piece design or coatings significantly ...

Do the "alpha" makers themselves ever tell? If not, seems it's nearly imposs. to work out some of these things. This video by Zeiss sets out to explain (HT vs FL tech) but doesn't reveal much at all not generally known, even at the time it first came out (I forget where, in the Zeiss website or YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxSrtbWz1kY 1:20-2:16. Now, if they'd only make a 7x!

 

[Pileatus]

Do the "alpha" makers themselves ever tell? If not, seems it's nearly imposs. to work out some of these things. This video by Zeiss sets out to explain (HT vs FL tech) but doesn't reveal much at all not generally known, even at the time it first came out (I forget where, in the Zeiss website or YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxSrtbWz1kY 1:20-2:16. Now, if they'd only make a 7x!

Zeiss clearly stated it...
Better glass, better coatings and a more efficient prism.
If brightness is your primary goal, Zeiss delivers.

 

[ceasar]

The major clue to their brightness begins about 1:15 into the video where he talks about an entirely new type of glass used in the lenses which has "almost 100%" transmission.

Bob

 

[james holdsworth]

The major clue to their brightness begins about 1:15 into the video where he talks about an entirely new type of glass used in the lenses which has "almost 100%" transmission.

Bob

That's the HT glass, but [to my eyes] there is more to it than brightness - it is tangible improvements across the board.

 

[kbrabble]

I couldn't agree more, James. The HT is a big improvement on the FL, and brightness is only a small part of it. I almost bought the Swaro when I was comparing it to the FL, and am now glad I decided to try the HT before making my decision. In my opinion, in the field, the HT cannot be beat!

Kevin

 

[Binoseeker]

http://www.google.se/imgres?biw=136...74&start=22&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:38,s:0,i:198

 

[james holdsworth]

http://www.google.se/imgres?biw=136...74&start=22&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:38,s:0,i:198

Thanks! Looks [to my eye] to be the same design as the FL.

 

[henry link]

Thanks Binoseeker!

I agree James, very similar. Below is a composite of HT and FL cutaways. Sorry about the poor quality of the FL image. Although cemented doublets are hard to make out in the HT cutaway because the lenses are not sliced, it appears to me that the HT eyepiece is more or less the same 2-2-1 design (I think a Konig variation) and the objective still looks to be a fixed triplet with a singlet focusing lens. The design may have been tweaked, but certainly not radically changed. Perhaps the most interesting difference is the shallow cone shaped baffle positioned between the fixed elements of the HT objective and its focusing lens. If there is better resistance to veiling glare in the HT that 50¢ piece of metal is probably the reason why.

BTW, the little insert cutaway of an eyepiece in Binoseeker's link is not the HT eyepiece. That comes from an image of one of the 56mm FL's. Anyone could be forgiven for not noticing since the eyepieces appear to be so similar.

Henry

 

[Mac308]

Have to say, when I finally saw what passes for Objective Covers that come with the new HT's I was shocked.

Obviously the irregular shape of the exterior barrels makes it impossible to supply the terrific tethered objective covers that come with the FL's, but man... what a huge disappointment. Seems to me it would have been a simple ergonomics compromise to end the irregular shape of the armoring prior to the end of the barrels to allow for the excellent FL-style covers.

Objective covers are critical to how I use my bins and it looks like, no matter how good the HT's are, I'll absolutely be passing on them.

Really dumb move Zeiss... really dumb.