Congrats on the HT Laurie, (I`m just a tad jealous), I can see the ca in the photo, I must say I`m surprised as I saw none when I demo`d a pair at SW Optics.
You need to try them in the field like I did. That's when you notice how much CA the HT's have. :-C
I'm so happy with my 10x42 Swarovision binoculars. I don't know how Swarovski could ever improve on these.
Back on topic.
I got to try the Victory HT 8x42 binoculars yesterday afternoon. Yes they were a little brighter than my Swaro 10x42, but once again with Zeiss I get blackout. The HT's look and feel cheap to me, they remind me of my old Pentax PCF binoculars. I also hope Zeiss has solved the problem with the Loutec coatings and fungus.
You're the first to complain about the look and feel of the HTs .....
..... Any evidence to back this up? Or is it just an attempt to attack Zeiss by posting some far-fetched allegations?
Given your posting history here over the past few weeks the latter seems more likely.
Maybe its just me but I`m sick of fatuous comments made on Binoculars at this level regarding build or optics.
Lets be frank these things are made really really well. The optics are cutting edge.
One or the other may suit your personal preference more and swing your decision.
This is a Zeiss thread about the new HT and IMO constant derogatory jabs aimed at it whilst praising a competitor brand is meaningless.
I want to hear from owners on their experience living with the HT whether that is good or bad, not from Swaro boys just out to nit pick whilst slapping themselves on the back for their more enlightened purchase.
End of rant.
P.S I don`t mean Imans comparison which was the kind of post I want to read.
Lyrebird, it seems a few here don't like the cut of your jib. Your posts sound suspiciously like they come from Denver, Colorado, rather than the Gold Coast. That's not a good thing. I don't like the way some of these s**t stirring one-liners (on this, and spurious statements on other threads) reflect on this part of the world. Wouldn't want to come across as a pack of
these now - would we?!
Laurie himself said that there was more CA in the photos than was visible through the bins. The HT's have triplet objectives and FL and HT glass. It's going to be hard in practice to get much better CA performance than this (vaguaries of the internal focusing element, short focal length, and overall optical design notwithstanding).
Allbino's gave the FL's 9.3/10 for CA correction, and said this of the FL's,
"Corrected splendidly in the centre, very well on the edge! Almost perfect!". Given that you had "blackouts", with the HT's - which have less ER than the SV's, I'd have to wonder if you even had them adjusted correctly. You see what you see. Maybe you're just hypersensitive to CA. I know I'm the same way about BS. We're all different, and our eyes see individual things unique to us. Then again we're all put together with pretty much the same bits 'n' pieces - otherwise the manufacturers would have a helluva time trying to keep up with the custom demand!
By all means offer your constructive input, opinion, and any hands-on experience, but the last thing you would want to do, is to have to change your avatar to a *spangled drongo*, or your flag to wa*kersville, Tennessee ..... |8.|
Chosun :gh:
