New Roger Vine Reviews (1 Viewer)

[Patudo]

Both me and Chuck easily found the right eyecup position with SF 8x32. Mine have been on my work station for several days so I could grab quick views of birds flying by or in the tops of our Hawthorn trees so I am often twisting my body round quickly while sitting in my chair at my computer and by no means in a good position to accurately line up the SFs....

That's with the 8x32 though - the 10x32 could conceivably be more finicky, what with the smaller exit pupil etc...

I would say the biggest difference with a dialyt versus modern stuff is contrast...this seems to be where most of the coating improvement have been manifested. I like the view through mine but it doesn’t have the same contrast pop of good current glass.

I think the 7x42 is better in this respect than the 10x40 (both P models). The 7x42 has the more "contemporary" (in your own words) view - brighter, more neutral colour rendition and yes, I'd agree more contrast. The 10x40 is better packaged but the 7x42 has a better view. A shame Zeiss never thought to combine the best of both words in an Abbe-Koening 10x42 T*P* Dialyt, packaged like a longer-bodied 10x40...

I agree that not just the 7x42 Dialyt but probably any 7x42 is going to find it hard to impress one who already owns and likes the 7x42 FL. The 7x35 Retrovid is actually remarkably competitive with the 7x42 Dialyt if my experience from about a year ago trying the two, one after another, is anything to go by.

The 7x42 d***o owned, incidentally, was not a P model and for all we know might not even have been a T asterisk (I can't add the symbol without screwing up the formatting). Still good enough to find "tons of warblers" in late February in Colorado though...

 

[Troubador]

That's with the 8x32 though - the 10x32 could conceivably be more finicky, what with the smaller exit pupil etc...

That is a possibility which I will be exploring over the next few weeks with an SF 10x32 on loan for review.
Lee

 

[Hermann]

I agree that not just the 7x42 Dialyt but probably any 7x42 is going to find it hard to impress one who already owns and likes the 7x42 FL. The 7x35 Retrovid is actually remarkably competitive with the 7x42 Dialyt if my experience from about a year ago trying the two, one after another, is anything to go by.

Agreed. Don't underestimate the Leica Ultravid 7x42 HD+ though. It's quite a remarkable binocular.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

That's with the 8x32 though - the 10x32 could conceivably be more finicky, what with the smaller exit pupil etc...

ANY 10x32 will be more finicky than an 8x32 of equal quality. Exit pupil matters. A lot. The question is whether you can live with the small exit pupil, and that depends on what you use the binoculars for, for instance, if you want a truly light 10x binocular, you may well find a10x32 works for you. It also depends on how well the 10x32 is constructed, some eyepieces just work better than others. For instance, the Swarovski 10x30 CL works nicely for me. The Zeiss 10x32 FL doesn't.

Hermann

 

[b-lilja]

I appreciate his review. I differ in his conclusions relative to the SF and the NL Pure. The SF fails for me because of unacceptable color rendering (too many situations shifting the color towards yellow/green unacceptably - not an ok trade off for the cool toned pop he likes), and the NL fails for me due to veiling glare.

The more I use the 7x42 UVHD+, the more I just love it.

 

[dipped]

New up Zeiss 8x32 Victory SF http://scopeviews.co.uk/ZeissVictory8x32SF.htm

 

[Maljunulo]

An interesting review.

My serial number is roughly 3000 greater than the example shown in the review. I have no idea when mine were manufactured.

I think for mt eyes (and attached brain for signal processing) mine are absolutely brilliant, with better color contrast and subtle shading detail compared to the purchased in 2014 EL SV 10X42 they replaced.

For the first time I saw Mallards as beautiful ducks, especially the females. That is something which can't be quantified in specifications, I think. I used to think "Oh yeah, there are Mallards there." and move on, now I pause to look at them. I am most anxious for warmer weather and the resolution of some medical problems to enable me to have more time with them.

I am well pleased with my purchase, which was motivated by the fact that getting older has made the Swarovski glasses a bit too heavy, and my desire to give 8X a try. I feel fortunate to have the means to afford them, the eyesight to appreciate them, and the leisure to enjoy them.

 

[Conndomat]

I appreciate his review. I differ in his conclusions...The more I use the 7x42 UVHD+, the more I just love it.

Me too...

Roger is just a Swaro/Zeissman, he can't do that much with the Leica's.

I can't quite understand his assessment of the 7x42 Ultravid, Stars are distorted from a field with of 40-50% and from 65% very progressive blurring occurs, a large part of which Astigmatism???
Did Roger catch a banana?

Significantly, he did not notice these inconsistencies when testing the Zeiss FL 7x42, why not, the FL 7x42 is not the king of glasses on this point. !?,
"The field has a large perfect sweet spot, but the field curves heavily at the very edge where it is only good for context. This is typical for most Zeiss binoculars."
And we'd better put a cloak of silence over astigmatism ...

Roger and Leica, that just doesn't work.

Andreas

 

[dipped]

New up Zeiss 8x42 Conquest HD Review. http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/ZeissConquest8x42HD.htm

Roger continues his Sunday reviews. Expect 8x25 Victory's next.

 

[dipped]

New up and for a change a spotting scope the Zeiss Victory Harpia 85mm Scope Review http://scopeviews.co.uk/ZeissHarpia85.htm

 

[henry link]

Odd to to read that Roger Vine thinks the Harpia has a focal ratio of f/1.94 at 23x. Apparently he doesn't know and didn't notice when he tested the scope that the clear aperture shrinks at magnifications below 40x until it's only 57.5 mm at 23x, something Zeiss acknowledged long ago. Even so, a focal ratio of f/3 at 23x is still crazy low.

 

[james holdsworth]

Considering how very well Zeiss contains CA in the FL / HT series, it surprises me to see so much in the Harpia...similar to my experience with the 15x56 Conquest HD. In the Conquest, I’m sure they could do better but have chosen the less costly option. For the Harpia, the reasoning escapes me.

 

[Sebzwo]

Meopta made with different glass?

 

[hopster]

Me too...

Roger is just a Swaro/Zeissman, he can't do that much with the Leica's.

I can't quite understand his assessment of the 7x42 Ultravid, Stars are distorted from a field with of 40-50% and from 65% very progressive blurring occurs, a large part of which Astigmatism???
Did Roger catch a banana?

Significantly, he did not notice these inconsistencies when testing the Zeiss FL 7x42, why not, the FL 7x42 is not the king of glasses on this point. !?,
"The field has a large perfect sweet spot, but the field curves heavily at the very edge where it is only good for context. This is typical for most Zeiss binoculars."
And we'd better put a cloak of silence over astigmatism ...

Roger and Leica, that just doesn't work.

Andreas

He was pretty critical of the Noctivid too, not saying much about the excellent colour, sharpness and contrast which is immediately apparent when looking through them. He also mentions in various reviews that he likes a 'cool' colour balance, and his primary interest in astronomy also makes him a fan of flat fields. His review database is excellent if you bear in mind these preferences.

 

[hopster]

He was pretty critical of the Noctivid too,

Perhaps 'critical' is not completely fair, but maybe 'ambivalent' or 'underwhelmed'.

 

[Conndomat]

He was pretty critical of the Noctivid too, not saying much about the excellent colour, sharpness and contrast which is immediately apparent when looking through them. He also mentions in various reviews that he likes a 'cool' colour balance, and his primary interest in astronomy also makes him a fan of flat fields. His review database is excellent if you bear in mind these preferences.

If he prefers “cool” colors, he might not like the color saturation in the Noctivid at all?!

By the way, to my eyes the colors in the Swarovski, especially in the SLC 56 and the NL, are not "cool" but rather neutral. IMO Swarovski has succeeded in making the NL more neutral than the "cool" EL without being subjective perceived loss of brightness.
IMO, in terms of contrast and sharpness, the NL are on par with the Noctivid.

By the way, Tobias Mennle, a die-hard Leica fan, doesn't think the Noctivid is that good either.
It's always difficult, the advantages that you find in a pair of binoculars may not apply to someone else because they have different priorities, which is why reviews are and will always remain somewhat subjective; ultimately, the decisive factor should be your own assessment.

Andreas

 

[hopster]

If he prefers “cool” colors, he might not like the color saturation in the Noctivid at all?!

By the way, to my eyes the colors in the Swarovski, especially in the SLC 56 and the NL, are not "cool" but rather neutral. IMO Swarovski has succeeded in making the NL more neutral than the "cool" EL without being subjective perceived loss of brightness.
IMO, in terms of contrast and sharpness, the NL are on par with the Noctivid.

By the way, Tobias Mennle, a die-hard Leica fan, doesn't think the Noctivid is that good either.
It's always difficult, the advantages that you find in a pair of binoculars may not apply to someone else because they have different priorities, which is why reviews are and will always remain somewhat subjective; ultimately, the decisive factor should be your own assessment.

Andreas

Maybe not so much the saturation (which it certainly does possess) but more the fact that it does not filter out the red end of the spectrum at all, unlike most (e.g. Zeiss and Swaro) which do.

I have not seen the SLC 56, but I have seen the 42 and it seemed just slightly the yellow side of neutral but missing deep red. Apart from that, a lovely glass albeit with a slow focuser. The NL is probably the colour balance I like most in Swaros but still too much blue and not enough red to my eyes, and in my view still not quite the level of contrast, saturation and central sharpness that you get with the Noctivid after directly comparing the 8x's for some time. Having said that, it's a great view in its own way and if you like the wide and flat FOV perhaps the best x42 as long as the glare performance doesn't trouble you. Great handling also.

Tobias' first review of the NV 8x was gushing with praise if I remember rightly, then he was very disappointed with the 10x, then he complained about glare at length here which most people disagreed with. He is clearly a passionate optic-lover with a thing for curved fields (one of his main complaints about the NV being it was 'too flat' which I cannot agree with because I think it is a well judged compromise) and saturated colours, but he is not in my experience 100% reliable in his judgements - like most of us. See e.g. his complaint about the Nikon EDG being dark and then after looking at a second sample retracting that judgement. Or his initial passions waning for the Swaro SLC (because the yellow cast got on his nerves) or Zeiss HT (because the edges were too 'messy'). You have to give him credit for communicating his observations honestly and well.

 

[Conndomat]

Maybe not so much the saturation (which it certainly does possess) but more the fact that it does not filter out the red end of the spectrum at all, unlike most (e.g. Zeiss and Swaro) which do.

I have not seen the SLC 56, but I have seen the 42 and it seemed just slightly the yellow side of neutral but missing deep red. Apart from that, a lovely glass albeit with a slow focuser. The NL is probably the colour balance I like most in Swaros but still too much blue and not enough red to my eyes, and in my view still not quite the level of contrast, saturation and central sharpness that you get with the Noctivid after directly comparing the 8x's for some time.

Some time ago I stopped discussing the advantages and disadvantages of binoculars.

Our perceptions, needs, areas of application and ideas are so different that most discussions are pointless.

At best, I can describe my subjective impressions of binoculars, making them available as a source of information, so to speak. Whether the interested reader can do something with them remains with them.

Andreas

 

[hopster]

Some time ago I stopped discussing the advantages and disadvantages of binoculars.

Our perceptions, needs, areas of application and ideas are so different that most discussions are pointless.

At best, I can describe my subjective impressions of binoculars, making them available as a source of information, so to speak. Whether the interested reader can do something with them remains with them.

Andreas

I agree really, so much is subjective and the debate usually 'generates more heat than light' because egos become more important than the issues themselves.

There are objectives clues or hints though e.g.

In dilemma Noctivid 10x42 vs NL Pure 10x42

I'm going to buy a pair of NL Pure (12x) but I am not sure its magnification. I had HGs. Now I have Ultravid and SLC. I have tried recently 10x42 NL and 10x42 Noctivid at the same time and I was absolutely astonished by the NL. It was a magic to my eyes! The best glass I’ve ever tried. My only...

www.birdforum.net

 

[Conndomat]

There are objectives clues or hints though e.g.

Yes, you can of course also measure the optics, the question is whether this data reaches the eye of the beholder.

There are these eternal discussions about the "green" Zeiss, I myself see a noticeable "green dominance" in SF since the FL models, but Gij's laboratory findings contradict what is happening now, that SF remains "green" despite better knowledge.

It probably remains an unsolved question...!?

Andreas