
If you use Google Chrome to view the site it has a translate function that works. If you want to see the video with english captioning YouTube allows you to do it.
How about a vintage 7x35 with 11°? That's one of the binos in my collection where you can truly see the difference between AFoV and linear FoV. Larger AFoV -- larger "circle" seen through the bino. One reason I like vintage wide angle 8x30s and 7x35s so much. The larger the AFoV the more you get the feeling the bino is actually disappearing as the edge moves further and further outwards until you feel like standing in the scenery, only closer.
A 10° 8x30 or 11° 7x35 will absolutely do this for me. The Kowa BDII 6.5x32 is getting close but still not as impressive considering that an AFoV of 80° or 77° is much more immersive than 65°.
I tried to capture that effect in a short video clip. Of course you can also see the tons of pincushion distortion but that effect always looks worse through a camera than with my own eyes.
Thanks! That is actually one of those small plastic "beckoning cats" or "lucky cats".Nice! I also like the sound of the clock ticking in the background, very relaxing.
Do you like to use this link? Google TranslatePier, mi piacerebbe leggere le tue recensioni. Soprattutto questo e quel recente Kowa 773. Sfortunatamente, anch'io non sono in grado di far funzionare la tua funzione di traduzione. Nemmeno Google Translate è l'ideale in quanto non ho trovato alcun modo per gestire l'intera trascrizione in un colpo solo.
I may not be using it correctly, but that link starts out translating your website in English but then turns back to Italian, when you get in to the substance of your review. It’s like Google sees the marketing stuff as boilerplate, maybe a shell then the unique copy as something else. I think Lee reported this also.Do you like to use this link? Google Translate
Yep, to return to the subject, the AFOV in the SFL:s is more than adequate IMO.
I think Zeiss hit the sweet spot there.
Real AFOV is probably more like 59-60°. Which to me is good enough.
Steady on Vespo, can we really have a fov that is both real and apparent?Real AFOV is probably more like 59-60°. Which to me is good enough.
Real vs calculated...?Steady on Vespo, can we really have a fov that is both real and apparent?
Lee
Measured it is 60, as Zeiss states.Real AFOV is probably more like 59-60°. Which to me is good enough.
It seems to me this is getting to be a very complicated issue to choose to buy an SF. Why would one pay pay $700 more for an SF 32 , when most reviews are confirming the SFL are indeed high end premium (alpha) binoculars ? When the SFL has a larger exit pupil being 40’s, brighter, more neutral in color , same build quality , weighs the same, some have said more contrast and there right up there with a well corrected FOV, then why would one pay for in an SF, FOV is that it?
Then we could ask a similar question about why buy the 42SF for $900 more? It has almost the same exit pupal as the SFL and weighs six plus ounces more and is one of the biggest 42mm binoculars on the market.
If we’re looking at other examples from the other premium makers, all the top binoculars are very close in optics one way or the other and cost about the same. But here with the SF and SFL there’s a large price gap and not even much at all of a optical quality difference for the cost.
What are people thinking here.
Paul
I have both. The SFL only 2 Days. One Thing i can tell you, The SF is in Lowlight better. The Contrast in Lowlight Situations is better. The SFL is also very bright, but not so Structured in Lowlight.It seems to me this is getting to be a very complicated issue to choose to buy an SF. Why would one pay pay $700 more for an SF 32 , when most reviews are confirming the SFL are indeed high end premium (alpha) binoculars ? When the SFL has a larger exit pupil being 40’s, brighter, more neutral in color , same build quality , weighs the same, some have said more contrast and there right up there with a well corrected FOV, then why would one pay for in an SF, FOV is that it?
Then we could ask a similar question about why buy the 42SF for $900 more? It has almost the same exit pupal as the SFL and weighs six plus ounces more and is one of the biggest 42mm binoculars on the market.
If we’re looking at other examples from the other premium makers, all the top binoculars are very close in optics one way or the other and cost about the same. But here with the SF and SFL there’s a large price gap and not even much at all of a optical quality difference for the cost.
What are people thinking here.
Paul
Its a good question Paul and for me the answer is easy: although SFL handles nicely there is no getting away from those 40mm optical tubes and I simply prefer the handling of SF32 with its slimmer tubes. Not only is it more comfortable (for me) in the hand, it is less bulky hanging against my chest and it feels like a minor miracle to have such a slim bino delivering a field of view 23% bigger than SFL. I don't go out in the twilight so don't miss those few extra minutes that a 40mm might provide. Having had both SFL 8x40 and SF 8x32 together for 3 weeks I have no hesitation in nominating the SF as my favourite.It seems to me this is getting to be a very complicated issue to choose to buy an SF. Why would one pay pay $700 more for an SF 32 , when most reviews are confirming the SFL are indeed high end premium (alpha) binoculars ? When the SFL has a larger exit pupil being 40’s, brighter, more neutral in color , same build quality , weighs the same, some have said more contrast and there right up there with a well corrected FOV, then why would one pay for in an SF, FOV is that it?
Then we could ask a similar question about why buy the 42SF for $900 more? It has almost the same exit pupal as the SFL and weighs six plus ounces more and is one of the biggest 42mm binoculars on the market.
If we’re looking at other examples from the other premium makers, all the top binoculars are very close in optics one way or the other and cost about the same. But here with the SF and SFL there’s a large price gap and not even much at all of a optical quality difference for the cost.
What are people thinking here.
Paul
Are you comparing the SFL to the SF42 or are you saying the SF32 is better in low light?I have both. The SFL only 2 Days. One Thing i can tell you, The SF is in Lowlight better. The Contrast in Lowlight Situations is better. The SFL is also very bright, but not so Structured in Lowlight.
Also in Daylight the SF is amazing, because the FOV and AFOV Difference is there. When it comes to Colours in Daylight it is a Matter of taste i think. The SF is more warm than the SFL. But also very clean.
But only 2 Days with the SFL is to little for a Complete Compare. They are both very good, but the SF have still as before his Entitlement i think.
Are you comparing the SFL to the SF42 or are you saying the SF32 is better in low light?
Hi Lee,Its a good question Paul and for me the answer is easy: although SFL handles nicely there is no getting away from those 40mm optical tubes and I simply prefer the handling of SF32 with its slimmer tubes. Not only is it more comfortable (for me) in the hand, it is less bulky hanging against my chest and it feels like a minor miracle to have such a slim bino delivering a field of view 23% bigger than SFL. I don't go out in the twilight so don't miss those few extra minutes that a 40mm might provide. Having had both SFL 8x40 and SF 8x32 together for 3 weeks I have no hesitation in nominating the SF as my favourite.
Lee
That is understandable , larger objectives and higher light transmission, but at a cost of $900 and six to seven ounces in weight.No. I have the SF 8x42 and the SFL 8x40.