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

[james holdsworth]

Szimi, your referring to the "rolling bowl" phenomena, which like all such phenomenas only pops into existence with the combination of users optics /processing + instrument.

James is one of the few who has experience with both the FL, and the HT. He is saying that in his experience, the HT is less prone to the phenomena. Others have reported the same - the HT is better in this regard.

If you want to search this thread, click on down arrow next to "Search Thread" on the top rhs of this page - then click "Advanced Search" and go from there.



Chosun :gh:

My 10x40 Classic has rolling bowl - no FL [or HT] has anything close to this. For me, the HT shows no distortion at all in normal birding, just on poles and building edges.

As with anything, your eyes may be more sensitive to this, so I would try before I buy............but, the overwhelming consensus [see the big HT thread] is that the HT is tame in this regard.

Edit - this is directed at Szimi, not CJ, wrong quote....

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Dear all,
In the book : DIE FERNROHRE UND ENTFERNUNGSMESSER by Albert König and Horst Köhler some attention is paid to focussing lenses, but it is only very basic information.
Gijs

 

[elkcub]

Dear all,
In the book : DIE FERNROHRE UND ENTFERNUNGSMESSER by Albert König and Horst Köhler some attention is paid to focussing lenses, but it is only very basic information.
Gijs

Gijs,

Many thanks, ... although I suspect the book is written in German, which is Greek to me.

Henry/Ronh,

My apology for missing your earlier posts #1750 and #1751.

There is no difficulty showing that with a conventional binocular the effective magnification increases as working distance decreases. This is due to adjusting the physical distance between the objective and eyepiece. The increase can be calculated using the basic lens equations Ron mentioned, or measured empirically as you have done, Henry.

There was a point, however, when you were not able to validate the same relationship with either a positive or negative internal focusing lens (can't recall which), and that led to my curiosity about the basic principles of internal focusing lenses for binocular applications. It's rather frustrating that the standard optics texts don't choose to discuss it.

Ed

 

[Troubador]

HTs: 9 months later

Just posted the following on another thread.

It gives an impression of what I feel about the HTs nine months after obtaining them. Thought it worthwhile copying here.

"I am lucky to have a pair of HT 8x42s and am presently on the Isle of North Uist off the west coast of Scotland. This is pur 21st visit here and it's where my bins get the hardest work-out.

It's the first visit by the HTs and although I took them to France earlier this year, there is nothing like visiting familiar places in familiar weather/light to reveal the performance of bins.

I have been bringing a pair of FL 8x42s here for 8years so have a good yardstick to measure the HTs against.

I am truly gob-smacked (= amazed/stunned) at their sheer transparency. Subtle colours glow with intensity and tiny details are revealed.

The optics are just stunning and they handle so beautifully (the FLs were just OK) that I prefer not to wear gloves (lots of cool wind here) so that I can enjoy just the feel of them.

And by the way, I have had them since last December, so I am not in the full flush of delerium of having recently bought them.

Not saying you should buy a HT, but I am saying that if you do, you will be thanking yourself for a long, long, long time".

/INDENT]


TroubaLee​

 

[mooreorless]

I think Lee is a Zeiss Fanboy now! All joking aside, this makes me want to try the HT line. I am glad he likes this binocular!

 

[james holdsworth]

Just posted the following on another thread.

It gives an impression of what I feel about the HTs nine months after obtaining them. Thought it worthwhile copying here.

"I am lucky to have a pair of HT 8x42s and am presently on the Isle of North Uist off the west coast of Scotland. This is pur 21st visit here and it's where my bins get the hardest work-out.

It's the first visit by the HTs and although I took them to France earlier this year, there is nothing like visiting familiar places in familiar weather/light to reveal the performance of bins.

I have been bringing a pair of FL 8x42s here for 8years so have a good yardstick to measure the HTs against.

I am truly gob-smacked (= amazed/stunned) at their sheer transparency. Subtle colours glow with intensity and tiny details are revealed.

The optics are just stunning and they handle so beautifully (the FLs were just OK) that I prefer not to wear gloves (lots of cool wind here) so that I can enjoy just the feel of them.

And by the way, I have had them since last December, so I am not in the full flush of delerium of having recently bought them.

Not saying you should buy a HT, but I am saying that if you do, you will be thanking yourself for a long, long, long time".

/INDENT]


TroubaLee​

Thanks for posting this Lee!

I like this part - ''I am truly gob-smacked (= amazed/stunned) at their sheer transparency. Subtle colours glow with intensity and tiny details are revealed.''

I see the same thing and am amazed when others say they are ''pretty good'' or ''nice'' or some-such. I have [and have used] alot of great glass, but the HT is the best ''view'' I have ever seen - visibly [some times strikingly] better than the others greats I have compared directly.​

 

[Kammerdiner]

Here's a smilie BF should add for when James shows up to tell everyone that his HT is so extra-super fantastic and how surprised he is that others just can't see what he can clearly and plainly see with his otherworldly Superman eyesight:

http://www.librum.us/smileys/bow.gif

Mark

 

[Troubador]

Here's a smilie BF should add for when James shows up to tell everyone that his HT is so extra-super fantastic and how surprised he is that others just can't see what he can clearly and plainly see with his otherworldly Superman eyesight:

http://www.librum.us/smileys/bow.gif

Mark

Mark,

You are doing it again! Just behave yourself for once B
If you don't, one night, when you least expect it, that FL 8x32 will sneak out of that drawer and poke you in the butt.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Lee

 

[Kammerdiner]

Mark,

You are doing it again! Just behave yourself for once B
If you don't, one night, when you least expect it, that FL 8x32 will sneak out of that drawer and poke you in the butt.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Lee

How did you know I was stuck here in the office two feet from my FL?? The Leica 8x20 UV is in there too. Sadly, I'm doing paperwork instead of birding.

Mark

 

[james holdsworth]

Here's a smilie BF should add for when James shows up to tell everyone that his HT is so extra-super fantastic and how surprised he is that others just can't see what he can clearly and plainly see with his otherworldly Superman eyesight:

http://www.librum.us/smileys/bow.gif

Mark

**sigh**

I don't get you, and your personal attacks all the time. Check your posting history, check what you say [glass-houses and all that] and note that I don't attack you for doing the same, even more frequently. I'm glad you have something you like and feel passionately about it - too little of that here sometimes. Would you prefer all Swaro / all the time - with nothing but superlatives and back-slapping?

Anyway, off to Greece for two weeks birding / sightseeing. I think I'll take that POS HT along, even if the views are bound to be compromised by their inherent non-Swarovski-ness.

BTW - this is the HT thread, so isn't this the place to talk about them or is this the place to suppress any positives?

 

[CSG]

I noticed quite a bit of blackouts in the Conquest HD 8x vs. 10x (18mm er vs. 17mm er). However, the HT's are shown as having 16mm er on both the 8x and 10x. When I tried the 10x, they were as perfect a fit for me as any bin I've ever tried but I don't want a 10x pair, I want an 8x pair. Is there *any* difference between them re: blackouts? With the 10x, I experienced none whatsoever and could jam the oculars right into my eye sockets (no glasses) with a perfect fit.

 

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by Kammerdiner View Post
Here's a smilie BF should add for when James shows up to tell everyone that his HT is so extra-super fantastic and how surprised he is that others just can't see what he can clearly and plainly see with his otherworldly Superman eyesight:

http://www.librum.us/smileys/bow.gif

Mark

Said the pot to the kettle...

Ignore him James, literally. Unfortunately, the Ignore List doesn't block posts when they are replied to.

I think it's good that you did a follow-up, because as Jerry described once (can't remember his exact words), but the gist is that when people buy a new bin they like (or in my case with his EL, try a bin they like), many of us tend to get a bit like Dennis, i.e., over exuberant, for a while.

However, as our "crush" wears off and we take off the rose-colored glasses, we begin to see the "warts" that we missed before. Sometimes, they may turn out to be beauty marks, as in your case wit the HTs, but sometimes they are the big, ugly warts that protrude from a witch's nose with a hair growing out of it, and the bin promptly gets "pumped and dumped".

The fact that you are still enamored with the HT after all this time shows it's not a mere crush but the real thing ("talkin' 'bout the real thing makes my heart sing. Shu ba da du ma ma ma ma.").

Some Swaro fanboys are so zealous in their absolute faith in their infallible ELs that any time someone with another brand expresses great enthusiasm for his bin, they ironically try to shoot him down, just as they do when someone dares to express a criticism of their beloved ELs, no matter how well documented that criticism might be.

I'm not sure why Swarovski tends to attract zealots, I would have thought, if anything, Leica owners would be more snobby, but at least on BF, that isn't the case.

I like reading and posting to the BF bin forums, but even with Jan gone, this relentless Swaro chauvinism is starting to irritate me, particularly when it spills over to other brand forums.

I think I need a vacation, too. :flyaway:

<B>

 

[NDhunter]

**sigh**

I don't get you, and your personal attacks all the time. Check your posting history, check what you say [glass-houses and all that] and note that I don't attack you for doing the same, even more frequently. I'm glad you have something you like and feel passionately about it - too little of that here sometimes. Would you prefer all Swaro / all the time - with nothing but superlatives and back-slapping?

Anyway, off to Greece for two weeks birding / sightseeing. I think I'll take that POS HT along, even if the views are bound to be compromised by their inherent non-Swarovski-ness.

BTW - this is the HT thread, so isn't this the place to talk about them or is this the place to suppress any positives?

James:

Enjoy your trip, and especially enjoy the HT.

Be sure to carry that one on. Don't check it!

Jerry

 

[james holdsworth]

James:

Enjoy your trip, and especially enjoy the HT.

Be sure to carry that one on. Don't check it!

Jerry

Thanks Jerry!

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Gijs,

Many thanks, ... although I suspect the book is written in German, which is Greek to me.

Henry/Ronh,

My apology for missing your earlier posts #1750 and #1751.

There is no difficulty showing that with a conventional binocular the effective magnification increases as working distance decreases. This is due to adjusting the physical distance between the objective and eyepiece. The increase can be calculated using the basic lens equations Ron mentioned, or measured empirically as you have done, Henry.

There was a point, however, when you were not able to validate the same relationship with either a positive or negative internal focusing lens (can't recall which), and that led to my curiosity about the basic principles of internal focusing lenses for binocular applications. It's rather frustrating that the standard optics texts don't choose to discuss it.

Ed

Hi Ed,

It is true: Whenever the focus works via a shift of the oculars or the objectives, then the magnification increases with decreasing distance of the object.

With an internal focusing lens, the situation is complex, and there seems to be no ad hoc answer to the same question. As I understand, the problem is as follows: The focusing lens can be regarded as a part of the objective. When shifting that lens, the principal planes of the objective are shifting, too, and it is the distance of object and image to these principal planes which eventually defines the magnification. But we cannot tell by which amount these planes are shifting, unless we know the precise technical data of the objective (focal lengths of each lens element, thickness, air space and glass index). Only a ray-tracing of the particular objective layout would allow us to compute the precise amount of magnification shift of such a binocular. Maybe I am wrong and there exists a smart workaround, but I have no idea how ...

Cheers,
Holger

 

[Troubador]

I noticed quite a bit of blackouts in the Conquest HD 8x vs. 10x (18mm er vs. 17mm er). However, the HT's are shown as having 16mm er on both the 8x and 10x. When I tried the 10x, they were as perfect a fit for me as any bin I've ever tried but I don't want a 10x pair, I want an 8x pair. Is there *any* difference between them re: blackouts? With the 10x, I experienced none whatsoever and could jam the oculars right into my eye sockets (no glasses) with a perfect fit.

Hi CSG

The trouble is that the ER is no reliable guide of blackouts or lack of blackouts because the ER is only half the story.

The other half is whether the eyecup actually places your eye in the right place relative to the ER.

I have an 8x42 HT and no blackouts at all. Don't forget also that although in theory the eyecup screwed down is for glasses wearers, and the eyecups screwed all the way up is for those who don't wear glasses, you can sometimes get a better view trying intermediate settings.

I have used Zeiss FLs 32s and 42s also with 'only' 16 mm ER and I wear glasses and never had problems with blackouts. Maybe I'm lucky, but I have had quite a variety of different shaped glasses frames and lenses and been OK with them all.

Try a HT 8x42, I'm sure you will love it.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

How did you know I was stuck here in the office two feet from my FL?? The Leica 8x20 UV is in there too. Sadly, I'm doing paperwork instead of birding.

Mark

Sometimes you are a bit slow Mark. I know where you are because I'm looking at you through my all-conquering, all-seeing HTs :smoke:

Today we are going rock-pooling by the sea. Hope I don't fall in!

Lee

 

[Kammerdiner]

**sigh**

I don't get you, and your personal attacks all the time. Check your posting history, check what you say [glass-houses and all that] and note that I don't attack you for doing the same, even more frequently. I'm glad you have something you like and feel passionately about it - too little of that here sometimes. Would you prefer all Swaro / all the time - with nothing but superlatives and back-slapping?

Anyway, off to Greece for two weeks birding / sightseeing. I think I'll take that POS HT along, even if the views are bound to be compromised by their inherent non-Swarovski-ness.

BTW - this is the HT thread, so isn't this the place to talk about them or is this the place to suppress any positives?

Not enough smilies in the world for some sensitive souls I guess.

James, this is the internet. It's not particularly "personal."

The guys I hang out with, we spend about half our time making fun of each other. No one takes it "personally." We have a hard time taking things too seriously, and that definitely includes binoculars. I sometimes wish I could be a "zealot" about something but it's not really in me. Use what you like.

Anyway, seriously, enjoy your trip and the binos you take. :t:

Mark

 

[Kammerdiner]

Sometimes you are a bit slow Mark. I know where you are because I'm looking at you through my all-conquering, all-seeing HTs :smoke:

Today we are going rock-pooling by the sea. Hope I don't fall in!

Lee

Lee, I reread your other thread about close focus and "specialization" and realized I had used binoculars for everything on your list with the possible exception of sea-slugs. Do sea cucumbers count?? I also realized that every binocular I own focuses closer than 3 meter--and I wouldn't want it any other way.

Enjoy the ocean!

Mark

 

[Troubador]

Lee, I reread your other thread about close focus and "specialization" and realized I had used binoculars for everything on your list with the possible exception of sea-slugs. Do sea cucumbers count?? I also realized that every binocular I own focuses closer than 3 meter--and I wouldn't want it any other way.

Enjoy the ocean!

Mark

Do sea cucumbers count? Do bears play baseball in the forest?

Yes indeedy they do count. Never had the good fortune to knowingly spot a sea cuce. Today was a good day: 5 Aegires punctilucens, 1 Polycera quadrilineata and 1 Ancula gibbosa, plus a load of other stuff, including a White tailed Sea Eagle.

Despite my other thread, none of this lot was viewed through my bins after all, but I did get my 6x18 monoc on them.

Do you get to visit the sea much Mark?

Lee