New Product Introduction Today From Swarovski ? (1 Viewer)

[jan van daalen]

If you mean Stefan and Wolfgang I think they're marketing guys, not techies. Wolfgang was thrown off by a simple question about the prism type. Still, I couldn't help but like them. Their deliveries were quite the opposite of smooth "influencers". My guess is one take was all they could stand.

Correct. One shot on his watch while pointing on a NL showed real time, so it was life. He is the product manager btw.

Jan

 

[dalat]

Well, a good thing Zeiss triggered a race on better FOV and ergonomics. Certainly two parameters where improvements really matter to the user. It comes at a cost though, price, size and elegance (the 42 SF is ugly but the NLs are cleary worse), but these will be negligeable for people who really use their bins or for whom cash does not matter.

Now who's finally pushing things on IS?

 

[dries1]

Well it will be two months until all the models are out and eyes are behind them, unless someone gets a few beforehand and does a detailed review. I do have to give it to Swarovski, it was all in the timing. I am interested in the 8 or 10X42, I really don't see any major advantage of the 12X42 over the SV 12X50 except perhaps weight and FOV.

Andy W.

 

[Bill Atwood]

at Eurooptic.com

8x - $2,969USD

10x - $3,029USD

12x - $3,099USD

Headrest - $139

 

[Hermann]

Now who's finally pushing things on IS?

Not Leica. Not Swarovski. Not Zeiss.

They happily indulge in promoting yesteryear's technology.

Hermann

 

[The BulbMogul]

Correct. One shot on his watch while pointing on a NL showed real time, so it was life. He is the product manager btw.

Jan

What kind of watch was he wearing..?

 

[The BulbMogul]

Well, a good thing Zeiss triggered a race on better FOV and ergonomics. Certainly two parameters where improvements really matter to the user. It comes at a cost though, price, size and elegance (the 42 SF is ugly but the NLs are cleary worse), but these will be negligeable for people who really use their bins or for whom cash does not matter.

Now who's finally pushing things on IS?

Surely do not feel that they are ugly at all and thats just a personal preference. I myself think they are quite sweet looking...

 

[jgraider]

Not Leica. Not Swarovski. Not Zeiss.

They happily indulge in promoting yesteryear's technology.

Hermann

And relying on batteries when you're in the middle of nowhere Alaska, Africa, Mexico, etc is a good idea? Negative.

 

[dalat]

Surely do not feel that they are ugly at all and thats just a personal preference. I myself think they are quite sweet looking...

Sure its personal and sure are they ugly

Leicas (Retrovid, Ultravid, Noctivid) are good looking bins, I like the Zeiss SF 32s as well.

 

[wllmspd]

I posted before I’d watched to the very end...Yes the illusion dropped in the questions... how long were they working on the new product, which prisms? Given they only release new stuff very infrequently the “we are constantly testing new products” sounded odd,

Peter

 

[jan van daalen]

What kind of watch was he wearing..?

One that shows you the timeB

 

[lmans66]

Well, a good thing Zeiss triggered a race on better FOV and ergonomics. Certainly two parameters where improvements really matter to the user. It comes at a cost though, price, size and elegance (the 42 SF is ugly but the NLs are cleary worse), but these will be negligeable for people who really use their bins or for whom cash does not matter.

Now who's finally pushing things on IS?

Actually I feel the Zeiss bins are cutting edge....I like the look and the new Swaro, well...it is finally joining them!

Canon is pushing IS.....

 

[Hermann]

And relying on batteries when you're in the middle of nowhere Alaska, Africa, Mexico, etc is a good idea? Negative.

1. The Canons also work just like conventional bins if you run out of juice.

2. There are also mechanical stabilisers around - the Zeiss 20x60S and the 20x60S Mono. They appear to have abandoned this technology even though the 20x60S appears still to be in production.

3. How much time do you spend in the middle of nowhere? And if you do spend weeks and months in places whrere you can't get a simple set of AA batteries, you'll most likely carry some way to recharge batteries. That's not rocket science, you know.

Hermann

 

[jgraider]

Glad you like them Hermann. I was a guide and outfitter for 16 years and never saw the first Canon anything come into camps, for good reason. In this realm, they suck, as do the old Zeiss stabilized binos.

 

[dalat]

Canon is pushing IS.....

No they are not. Their top version, the 10x42 is unchanged since a long time. It works well with fine optics. But it is big, heavy, ugly and does not fit everyone's face (not mine at least). The other versions are not bad, but not good and attractive enough for "pushing" things.

 

[SUPPRESSOR]

I have that ATX 95MM Combo with the tripod so this will blend right in with the new BINS..

View attachment 731140

Why don't you just come out and say it....Your not short of a bob or three!!!
Pete.

 

[Loud Green Man]

As a point of interest am I alone in wondering how many BF members have missed spotting a bird due to lack of FOV?

Put another way how important is FOV to the study of a given subject once you have the critter in your sights?

A 99.9% light gathering figure and limited but awesome "sweet spot" appears far more desirable to this admitedly Old Reactionary.

LGM

 

[temmie]

As a point of interest am I alone in wondering how many BF members have missed spotting a bird due to lack of FOV?

Put another way how important is FOV to the study of a given subject once you have the critter in your sights?

A 99.9% light gathering figure and limited but awesome "sweet spot" appears far more desirable to this admitedly Old Reactionary.

LGM

advantages of wide FOV:
1. frequently diving birds (grebes, divers,...) The more FOV, the faster you will get them sharp in your bins.
2. fast moving birds in canopy / bushes. The more FOV, the faster... etcetera.
3. counting flocks on migration overhead. A large FOV enables you to keep all birds in your view.
4. watching hummers that hoover, move quickly for some meters, hoover again,... Just try following them with your small FOV.
5. scanning lakes edges for movement.
6. scanning the sea while seawatching. A wide FOV is all the difference between catching and not catching that low-flying shearwater that flies under the waves for some time.
7. scanning the action: for example foraging waders constantly running around, or that same flock flying around, or murmuring starlings. If you don't have a wide FOV, you simply don't see the whole story of the interaction / dynamics.
8. I can go on and on...

Maybe the best example: My avatar is a Western Tragopan. That's a shy forest pheasant of the Western Himalayas. I saw the bird moving in the understory, but as there is a lot of cover (mainly ringal bamboo), I didn't know for sure where it would pop up next (or completely disappear) while moving around. I focused on an area with less dense vegetation (with my bins). With a small FOV, I could have easily just missed them coming out of the woods... That is the difference: people who don't appreciate large FOV actually don't know what birds they are missing, simply because they haven't seen them! ha!

I wonder if you have ever actually watched birds?

 

[Kammerdiner]

As a point of interest am I alone in wondering how many BF members have missed spotting a bird due to lack of FOV?

Put another way how important is FOV to the study of a given subject once you have the critter in your sights?

A 99.9% light gathering figure and limited but awesome "sweet spot" appears far more desirable to this admitedly Old Reactionary.

LGM

Agreed!

 

[dries1]

I think one can be a good birder with a FOV of 7 degrees as well as 8.5 degrees, it is not a dire necessity. My other use of glass was never hindered by having slightly less FOV, once locked on that is all that was needed.

Andy W.