I broke my SF so you don't have to... (1 Viewer)

[brocknroller]

The replacement SF arrived today! No specks in the optics, or other problems that I could notice at first glance.... :smoke:

HN

Rome wasn't destroyed in a day (it took six), give it a week...

<B>

 

[BruceH]

Rome wasn't destroyed in a day (it took six), give it a week...

<B>

Nah, "Third time's the charm". Glad to hear you got them replaced and all looks good! Notice any differences in these?

 

[brocknroller]

Nah, "Third time's the charm". Glad to hear you got them replaced and all looks good! Notice any differences in these?

I'm keeping my fingers crossed and so are the folks at Zeiss. :smoke:

The nature of manufacturing is such that it sometimes takes more than one sample before you get a good 'en. That happened with the Nikon 8x32 LX, the first had a loose focuser, and the last thing you want on an LX is a loose focuser since the focuser already beats a Corvette Z06 in 0-60. But the second time wasn't "the charm," because the focuser was still too fast and the binocular was impossible to hold comfortably. It was designed for small Japanese hands. But at least it worked the way it was suppose to work if have good focus accommodation and your hands are small. (Bob will chime in below and say that the LX fits his hands perfectly even though he wears a size XXX glove).

Then there was the Pentax 20x60 PCF V. The first sample was superb optically but had a floppy eyecup. The second sample's eyecups were fine but it was slightly out of collimation. B&H ran out of "Vs" and sent me the new (then) WP version, and optically, it was not on par with the "V." So it wasn't three times a charm, but three strikes and you're out.

With the SF, when you buy a new model, you become a guinea pig. Some bugs don't get found until the binoculars get into enough hands and up to enough eyes. The damage to the first sample was unfortunate and could have happened to anyone wearing 50 lbs of winter clothing. :smoke:

If the bin had fallen on any other part except the outer bridge or eyecups, it probably would have survived unscathed or maybe with some minor bruises, but it happened to land on the bin's weakest link. The only way I think they could make the SF's outer bridge more robust is to abandon the design of a hollow metal outer housing around the metal hinge and just make the hinge solid and thicker, but that would probably increase the weight.

Bock

 

[ceasar]

I wonder if HN's are the only two that have been returned for repairs?

Has anybody else had to return an SF for damage repair or for internal flaws?

 

[[email protected]]

I think I got a good deal - 3 for the price of 1! Unfortunately, I didn't have the use of all three simultaneously...

I have been out of the loop for awhile but is this the THIRD Zeiss SF you are on now? Zeiss is getting to know you personally. I'm keeping the Swaro SV 8x32. Here's the sound of my wallet shutting "CLAP."

 

[[email protected]]

I wonder if HN's are the only two that have been returned for repairs?

Has anybody else had to return an SF for damage repair or for internal flaws?

I highly doubt High North was the only who got defective Zeiss SF's. I heard of a multitude of other problems including the focuser and resolution and on and on blah, blah, blah.

 

[Troubador]

I have been out of the loop for awhile but is this the THIRD Zeiss SF you are on now? Zeiss is getting to know you personally. I'm keeping the Swaro SV 8x32. Here's the sound of my wallet shutting

"CLAP."

We have a word for comments like this in the UK and its 'claptrap' :-O

Lee

 

[ceasar]

I highly doubt High North was the only who got defective Zeiss SF's. I heard of a multitude of other problems including the focuser and resolution and on and on blah, blah, blah.

How about you and Brock getting together and starting a thread about all of these problems where they could be discussed?

You will need specific details about the problems and the details about their numbers otherwise you might be accused of 'claptrap.'

 

[HighNorth]

If the bin had fallen on any other part except the outer bridge or eyecups, it probably would have survived unscathed or maybe with some minor bruises, but it happened to land on the bin's weakest link.
Bock

Hi Brock! The bin did not land on the bridge! It landed on the rubber armour, right side up. If it had landed on the bridge, there would have been some scratches or marks from the stone floor on it, which there weren't. Just want to point that out. :smoke:

 

[HighNorth]

I'm keeping the Swaro SV 8x32. Here's the sound of my wallet shutting "CLAP."

Just keep your SV 8x32! I'll keep mine, mostly for its lower weight and size, which are preferable in some situations. I find the SF 8x42 to be optically superior though: it's brighter, has a wider FOV and much better glare control!

 

[BruceH]

............. I'm keeping the Swaro SV 8x32. Here's the sound of my wallet shutting "CLAP."

I believe the sound I heard was a big sigh of relief from Oberkochen, Germany.

I highly doubt High North was the only who got defective Zeiss SF's. I heard of a multitude of other problems including the focuser and resolution and on and on blah, blah, blah.

It is easy to find some problems with any brand when cherry picking the comments. How about Swaros with bad focus mechanisms, sand in the focus, veiling glare, rolling ball, moisture in the barrel, etc. See, easy!

I have been using a 10X42 SF every day for over a month and it has been flawless and the view is sharp and superb. It has the most functional focus I have used, allowing me to lock on to a sharp focus faster than with other binoculars I own. I have never understood these types of comments coming from posters who have never seen a model, much less owned one. I will agree on the blah, blah, blah part, but probably not in the same way it was originally intended

HN - Nice summation!

 

[brocknroller]

Hi Brock! The bin did not land on the bridge! It landed on the rubber armour, right side up. If it had landed on the bridge, there would have been some scratches or marks from the stone floor on it, which there weren't. Just want to point that out. :smoke:

"Right" side up? Meaning it fell on the eyecups? And the front bridge on the "wrong" side of the bin broke??? You'd think that the other two bridges would have absorbed the shock wave.

Please give more details. Inquiring minds want to know. Well, some inquiring minds.

Brock

 

[Hermann]

How about you and Brock getting together and starting a thread about all of these problems where they could be discussed?

Two experts discussing the problems of binoculars they've never seen, let alone handled.

Sounds like fun.

Hermann

 

[g j bee]

No need to discus and argue with anyone ,iv'e had and tried tried them all.Sv's low contrast, soon gone ,Nikon edg ,better than sv's but view not exciting shall we say,gone after a while, leica ultravid ,great binocular ,edge performance,not quite the bees knees,not as good a glass as my bn.The zeiss sf is a keeper,wonderful immersive view ,good to the edge,uniform field brightness,etc, etc, etc.I recommend trying one before criticising and offering unfounded opinions.The glass is addictive.

 

[brocknroller]

How about you and Brock getting together and starting a thread about all of these problems where they could be discussed?

You will need specific details about the problems and the details about their numbers otherwise you might be accused of 'claptrap.'

Please don't lump me in with that claptrap. I am only aware of two "problems" with the SF: (1) the front bridge of one sample broke when the bin fell from a meter onto a stone floor (that investigation is still ongoing, pending further details from the perpetrator), and (2) a speck of some sort was found inside the optics like an ancient insect preserved in amber.

This update was just faxed to our newsroom: The speck has undergone spectroscopic analysis at Zeiss, early test results indicate that it appears to be a small booger. Factory workers at SCHOTT who are known nosepickers are being DNA tested.

As I recall, Leica has a history of speck problems, but I think in those cases, they weren't boogers inside the glass but flecks of paint from the barrels.

Brock

 

[HighNorth]

This update was just faxed to our newsroom: The speck has undergone spectroscopic analysis at Zeiss, early test results indicate that it appears to be a small booger. Factory workers at SCHOTT who are known nosepickers are being DNA tested.

Actually, the speck was a tiny prehistoric mosquito with a drop of dinosaur blood in its stomach, encased in a rare fluorite quartz crystal mined by Zeiss in the Amazon delta. Right now, Zeiss is making a Godzilla-like creature with the dinosaur DNA, which they intend to let loose on other binocular manufacturers. I heard they plan to hit Nikon first! ||

 

[brocknroller]

Actually, the speck was a tiny prehistoric mosquito with a drop of dinosaur blood in its stomach, encased in a rare fluorite quartz crystal mined by Zeiss in the Amazon delta. Right now, Zeiss is making a Godzilla-like creature with the dinosaur DNA, which they intend to let loose on other binocular manufacturers. I heard they plan to hit Nikon first! ||

Of course! Swaro tried to stop Nikon's competition at the top tier with a lawsuit, Zeiss would have to resort to more extreme measures since they are now competing in the same three tiers as Nikon.

Being a birdwatcher, I would have brought back Rodan!

His first target? The engineers who designed the Swaro one-way spring focuser. :eat:

<B>

 

[oetzi]

Right now, Zeiss is making a Godzilla-like creature with the dinosaur DNA, which they intend to let loose on other binocular manufacturers. I heard they plan to hit Nikon first! ||

They dont need to bother with Nikon. With regard to binoculars, this company is
is their own worst enemy: great engineering, crab administration.

 

[Binastro]

. In addition, the CSI are being sent to northern Norway to examine the floor.

 

[Pileatus]

Considering post #1 clearly states where fault lies (the user dropping his bin on a hard surface) Zeiss went above and beyond any warranty obligation. They deserve praise, not a bunch of snide, meaningless commentary.