Having looked through both I suspect you would've still gone for the SF 10x42s…
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
New Zeiss binos 8x40 SFL and 10x40 SFL (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter batho66
- Start date
I would welcome correction if I am wrong but think this phrase translates as "for an even better ergonomic feel" and while it is true that the ergonomics of binos (e.g. where the focus wheel it located) is a separate issue from what the focus wheel feels like as you use it (haptics), taken together I think this phrase is perfectly understandable.
Lee
Courtesy Wikipedia and others:
„Haptics is the science and technology of transmitting and understanding information through touch. At its most basic, “haptic” means anything relating to the sense of touch. (It’s derived from the Greek word for touch.)“
So the haptics of a binocular have to with its surface material, the feeling we get in our fingers when holding and handling the bino.
Ergonomics, on the other hand, deal with „the study of designing equipment and devices that fit the human body, its movements, and its cognitive abilities.“
So ergonomics of binoculars concern its size, weight, shape as these affect the interaction between the human and the bino: how well does the binocular rest in the hand, how easy is it to find a comfortable viewing position, etc. etc.
For me, two very different subjects - I wonder what Zeiss had in mind when they created the term „better ergonomical haptics“ …
maybe they see the relation between the subjects and how haptics are part of ergonomics.
Thank you, and I couldn’t agree more.
Maybe they meant “The buttons are all in the best place, and they feel good to use.“ In truth, I wouldn’t even try to guess what marketing hype means, especially if multiple languages are involved.
Robert/Swissboy: I was in the store the other day, picking up a monopod and I only had time for a very brief look through the SFL 10x40 and for some reason it does not gel that well with me as the 8x40.
CA is on a level where I find it disturbing for me, but as I had the missus in the car outside I did not look for more than a minute while they were getting the monopod out from the back. I am sorry I don't have any detailed or long term findings with the 10x40 - all I can say that I have looked through it three times now - all brief stints - but none of the times have given me any "wow" moments. It feels great in hand but I don't find it performing as well as the SF 10x42 (which I don't like either, but for other reasons) and nothing I would choose over the Meopta 10x42 HD.
Next time around I will ask if I can borrow it for an hour or two, but going by my first three impressions - it is not for me.
CA is on a level where I find it disturbing for me, but as I had the missus in the car outside I did not look for more than a minute while they were getting the monopod out from the back. I am sorry I don't have any detailed or long term findings with the 10x40 - all I can say that I have looked through it three times now - all brief stints - but none of the times have given me any "wow" moments. It feels great in hand but I don't find it performing as well as the SF 10x42 (which I don't like either, but for other reasons) and nothing I would choose over the Meopta 10x42 HD.
Next time around I will ask if I can borrow it for an hour or two, but going by my first three impressions - it is not for me.
The stress of having Mrs HenRun waiting outside probably did not assist a sober assessment of SFL........
Lee
Both the SFL 8x40 and the conquest 8x32 have FOV of 140mm. But the AFOV differs 4 degrees. I still don't get that. 4 degrees is quite a difference I would say. Is that noticable in praxis? Where does that difference come from?
| Field of view at 1,000 m (yds) | 140 m (420 ft) |
| Subjective viewing angle | 64° Ww |
| Field of view at 1,000 m (yds) | 140 m (420 ft) |
| Subjective viewing angle | 60° Ww |
henry link
Well-known member
The Conquest AFOV has been calculated, using the simple formula: real FOV in degrees X magnification. In this case 8º X 8x. that calculation is nearly always wrong because there is virtually never enough pincushion distortion in any binocular to make it happen.
The SFL AFOV appears to be accurately measured to include the exact amount of pincushion used in the SFL.
The SFL AFOV appears to be accurately measured to include the exact amount of pincushion used in the SFL.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Are they not about the same in FOV either way. Your not going to notice the difference of a few feet.
From all the quality reviews here, I don’t think most buyers are choosing between conquest and SFL. Seems the SFL is a few steps up and the conundrum for a buyer more likely would be between the SFL and an SF, or possibly a premium swarovski and Leica.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Lee, can we assume your choice of those two would be between the the 8x40SFL and 8x32EL? 🤔
Paul
Yes.
EL32s are essentially gone...
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Very unfortunate, great binoculars. I have the 8x32 , top of the line, some are on par but nothing really better. Maybe Swarovski will be surprising us with some new in the 32 category.
Paul
Not too much need for teeth gnashing Paul. Swaros already done it. NL 32s seem a reasonable, maybe slightly better replacement for the EL32, performance-wise. Some prefer them to the SFs. Admittedly the NL price does suck. And/but therein might lie the underbelly of this whole conversation.
I still think Canip has suggested a most intriguing thing about the SFL. What was Zeiss thinking? $1800.00? Huh? What? How? Why? Somewhat under discussed on BF, (for whatever reason), price is a large factor in our purchase decision no matter how much we talk about ergos, FOV, color/tint, focuser smoothness, etc. Value matters. We've talked about the potential for the SFLs to cannibalize several times. It seems clearer the SF/NL 32s are squarely in the sights of the SFL with its similar length, weight, better EP and price. Maybe to a smaller degree but folks who dislike the weight of 42s but are worried about EP will also find the SFL something to evaluate. If the SFL price was closer to Conquest, maybe some would trade up, but I share your guess there, Paul. I wonder if we're going to see the SFL is more a competitor to existing models, something to take share, rather than being a revolutionary, new, higher performance bino, that has increased the size of the pie?
Cant help but be reminded of the summer of 2020, (was it?). Time flies. Much conversation here was about the spring announced SF32. All the buzz, folks were laying down deposits and posting hypothetical anticipatory conversations like these, but still waiting mid summer.. for fall delivery. Then Swaro dropped the NL bomb with the 42s. Folks went back to the drawing boards. The conversation switched. Deposits were canceled. If Zeiss lacked market intelligence, was blindsided as it seemed they might've been, they had to be pissed. The SF 32s finally landed, if with a bit of wind sucked from their sails. And to a couple early reviews that weren't the best. Then 6 months - 8 months later the NL32 dropped. The bino wars are on. We get to spectate, comment, debate. Our buying will decide.
Anybody watch Serena Williams last night? Sorry, ahem.
