New Zeiss binos 8x40 SFL and 10x40 SFL (1 Viewer)

[Swedpat]

It's interesting that some find CA a problem with binoculars while it's a non issue for me when it comes to normal handheld magnifications.
Am I less sensitive than the average person, or are you who perceive CA being an issue, more sensitive than the average person? 🤔

 

[Richard D]

It's interesting that some find CA a problem with binoculars while it's a non issue for me when it comes to normal handheld magnifications.
Am I less sensitive than the average person, or are you who perceive CA being an issue, more sensitive than the average person? 🤔

I find significant CA really distracting - particularly the Purple/Cyan type, a little yellow/green slightly less so. It's rarely bad enough that it obscures detail to the point that identification becomes difficult but it makes viewing a lot less pleasant. I want a view that is as close to natural as possible, merely magnified. it's not so bad if it's just barely visible on the outside edge of the image, because my focus is on he central area, although even here if it's bad, when you pan through an image you can get flashes of false colour that jump out. I find flashes of bright purple horribly distracting.

I accept that once you get into the 12x+ magnification area it's harder for manufacturers to control even with a low dispersion element or two, and because you use scopes on a tripod you don't get much movement that can cause it to jump out more.

I used to do a lot of pre-digital photography and there CA could ruin an image - maybe that background has made me more sensitive to it, or maybe my colour receptors are over sensitive - I don't know. It's one of those things that should separate dearer binoculars from less-expensive models. Gains in resolution that can be seen by the naked eye are pretty minor, but I don't expect to see any really noticeable CA in the central view of an 8x binocular in the £1000+ price bracket when handheld. I'm not saying the SFL do have noticeable CA in the hand - photo crops can exaggerate issues, I'd need to try them, the photos merely raise a flag of concern.

 

[Brummie]

It's interesting that some find CA a problem with binoculars while it's a non issue for me when it comes to normal handheld magnifications.
Am I less sensitive than the average person, or are you who perceive CA being an issue, more sensitive than the average person? 🤔

I’d say I’m pretty sensitive to it. And trying out different top-end binoculars and actively looking for it to compare levels has made me notice it even more (there’s a lesson in there somewhere).

There’s definitely a lot of variation in how sensitive people are, and therefore any objective information, like the images here, is useful, even if imperfect.

 

[Hermann]

There’s definitely a lot of variation in how sensitive people are, and therefore any objective information, like the images here, is useful, even if imperfect.

I doubt you can draw any real conclusions from smartphone images. Too many variables, including the image processing inside the smartphone.

Hermann

 

[Troubador]

Ok so we clearly do not see the same things.
I'll be interested to know what you see in the SFL with the naked eye once you get the chance to test them.

I am curious about SFL too and as well as testing for CA using my usual method of looking at a vertical black telepone-line pole and the horizontal black cables against a pale sky, situated just outside our house, I am hopeful of being able to take the review unit to North Uist on the Western Isles and check out its performance in field conditions. Of course CA is never a good thing but it can be low enough to not interfere with one's ability to see fine details.

Lee

 

[pm42]

I doubt you can draw any real conclusions from smartphone images. Too many variables, including the image processing inside the smartphone.

Images were shot in raw mode and processed using an high level raw converter (the fact they were shot in raw was in the original post I think).

The fact that the results match the images I see with my eyes as well as the pictures I shot before in the thread using a very good mirrorless camera with an excellent lens is also significant.

I can shoot with a 60 Mpix full frame sensor using Leica lenses too but the results will still be the same.

 

[pm42]

I am curious about SFL too and as well as testing for CA using my usual method of looking at a vertical black telepone-line pole and the horizontal black cables against a pale sky, situated just outside our house, I am hopeful of being able to take the review unit to North Uist on the Western Isles and check out its performance in field conditions.

Ok. We are waiting for it.

Of course CA is never a good thing but it can be low enough to not interfere with one's ability to see fine details.

Indeed. This is what I think of the SFL: high enough so I can see it if I look for it but I still see the same amount of details as in the NL Pure and the SF so it does not bother me.

 

[Troubador]

It's interesting that some find CA a problem with binoculars while it's a non issue for me when it comes to normal handheld magnifications.
Am I less sensitive than the average person, or are you who perceive CA being an issue, more sensitive than the average person? 🤔

AFAIK our brains apply colours to the scenes captured by our eyes in response to the wavelengths detected by cells in our eyes. Since our eyes and brains aren't identical it is not surprising we perceive things differently. What is surprising is the extent to which we agree.

Lee

 

[Maljunulo]

Even though most of us agree that living, growing grass is “green” none of us will ever know exactly what grass looks to any other person.

 

[SeldomPerched]

Thanks so much for the great info! I agree this may turn out to be a brilliant move by Zeiss, the way the Conquest HD absolutely flipped the $1K "mid priced" market on its head. With Swaro discontinuing the SLC, there's a distinct price gap between the $1K sub-alphas and the now-well-over-$2500 top dogs, and Zeiss may have deftly swooped in and be poised to sell a bunch of these. How many people are going to walk into a shop, balk at the $3K sticker price of the NL or SF, and then grab the SFL and say "this is smaller, lighter, nearly as good optically, and over $1000 cheaper!"

With respect to "sharpness" and "contrast".... these terms are often ambiguous, but I think to some extent what you are talking about when discussing the level of perceived detail is not "contrast" per se (generally defined as the ratio between the brightest whites and the blackest blacks), but rather what we often refer to here as "microcontrast" (the perception of very finely resolved detail). And your perception of the SFL being super sharp, even to the point that you describe is being "so high resolving that the small details felt a bit jittery", is IMO roughly the same phenomenon Tobias Mennle sometimes mentions in his reviews (somewhat pejoratively) as a binocular looking "artificially or digitally sharpened".

For example in his 8x42 EDG review Tobias notes that "some glasses are too sharp which makes the images look a bit digital and artificial". And in the Noctovid review he says, "This is a brutally sharp glass. Too sharp even for my eyes. Sharpness is easy to achieve, and it generally wows people, and counteracts deficiencies of the images. The Nikon EDG and the Ultravids for me give a more natural sharpness." I've noticed this myself when comparing Zeiss vs Leica UV or Nikon EDG, where on the Zeiss it gives the impression of a more detailed almost "etched" look to fine lines and edges.

Now obviously whether this "etched / super sharp" phenomenon is a positive or negative is up to the individual, for Tobias it's too much and feels "artificial" but clearly for others it is a good thing and makes the binocular feel sharper in a pleasing way. I'm not passing judgement on it. But I think it's a real perceptual phenomenon, and I bet that if you did an objective resolution test the difference would not be nearly as great as your subjective perception of such.

Just to say I like your explanation and examples of discussion about sharpness, contrast, microcontrast, over/digital sharpness, Eitan. This is how I often sway to and from between the different makes wondering what feature I like best but usually end up preferring Leica for its particular proportions of good image ingredients.

Tom

 

[SeldomPerched]

I just bought a pair of Helia S(LC) 8x42. Couldn't resist at the price. My rationalization - I don't have a pair of 8x42, and maybe these will take the place of my current low-light binoculars (Maven B6 10x50, which are good, but don't give me the same joy of ownership I get from really top-end optics).

Assuming the optical and mechanical recipe is unchanged from the Sw SLC originals you have got yourself a real treat, Brummie. The view through the SLC 8x42 is awesome and with great contrast. If fast-flying viewing isn't needed I prefer the slower than usual focuser, personally. I'd be interested to hear how you get on with them.

Tom

 

[DrewskiMT]

Images were shot in raw mode and processed using an high level raw converter (the fact they were shot in raw was in the original post I think).

The fact that the results match the images I see with my eyes as well as the pictures I shot before in the thread using a very good mirrorless camera with an excellent lens is also significant.

I can shoot with a 60 Mpix full frame sensor using Leica lenses too but the results will still be the same.

So with shooting raw, you choose/dictate the same white balance for both binocular’s photos? And the exposure is identical? So many variables with imaging!

 

[pm42]

So with shooting raw, you choose/dictate the same white balance for both binocular’s photos? And the exposure is identical? So many variables with imaging!

Yes about the white balance. Exposure may be different because the light is not the same between the 2 pictures.
But one can align it in raw post-processing indeed.

 

[Brummie]

Are we still talking about birding and optics? Cos all this talk of “shooting raw” has me worried I’ve strayed into a very different kind of forum.

Assuming the optical and mechanical recipe is unchanged from the Sw SLC originals you have got yourself a real treat, Brummie. The view through the SLC 8x42 is awesome and with great contrast. If fast-flying viewing isn't needed I prefer the slower than usual focuser, personally. I'd be interested to hear how you get on with them.

Tom

The received wisdom is that they’re the self same SLC, made in the same factory by the same people, just placed in a brown wrapper so you can carry them in public. I believe the go-faster stripes also boost the light transmission.

I’m in East Africa right now, so won’t try them for a couple of weeks. I’m interested in the overall viewing experience, how they do in low light compared to the Maven 10x50, and how they do on a tripod with a Zeiss tripler.

 

[Swedpat]

Even though most of us agree that living, growing grass is “green” none of us will ever know exactly what grass looks to any other person.

That's true. And actually I don't see the same tint with my both eyes.

 

[Ruff-Leg]

I doubt you can draw any real conclusions from smartphone images. Too many variables, including the image processing inside the smartphone.

Hermann

And one more variable would be the device on which you're doing your viewing / evaluating. Phone? Tablet? Laptop? Desktop? How big? What platform? How old? Really - what kind of conclusions may be drawn...

 

[pm42]

And one more variable would be the device on which you're doing your viewing / evaluating. Phone? Tablet? Laptop? Desktop? How big? What platform? How old? Really - what kind of conclusions may be drawn...

 

[dries1]

pm42 thanks for the image it goes a long way these days.

 

[Ruff-Leg]

Well, I seem to have touched a nerve, but my point was not solely to be 'criticial.' When I edit a photo, or view someone else's photo, whatever the source, I see a difference between platforms and devices. That could be one reason others have not reached the same conclusion as you in analyzing the posted phone photos.

 

[pm42]

Well, I seem to have touched a nerve, but my point was not solely to be 'criticial.' When I edit a photo, or view someone else's photo, whatever the source, I see a difference between platforms and devices. That could be one reason others have not reached the same conclusion as you in analyzing the posted phone photos.