New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (1 Viewer)

[Vespobuteo]

I am going to the UK birdfair for the first time and I hope I can get my hands on the New SF,pun intended,as I find the double bridge of the Swarovski SV awkward for hand placement but the HT with it´s long barrels perfect even for one handed viewing.The SF has a triple bridge so it will be interesting how the ergometrics work with my large hands.Time will tell......Eddy

found this in the SF instruction manual:

"The groundbreaking balance and design of the Zeiss SF
will make them SUCK into you eye sockets and stay there, until removed by force,
and your hands are free to use for other, more important things, such as pointing fingers to other inferior brands owners,
to remove the binoculars from your eyes, just pull them forward until you hear a popping sound."

|8.|

 

[jan van daalen]

found this in the SF instruction manual:

"The groundbreaking balance and design of the Zeiss SF
will make them SUCK into you eye sockets and stay there, until removed by force,
and your hands are free to use for other, more important things, such as pointing fingers to other inferior brands owners,
to remove the binoculars from your eyes, just pull them forward until you hear a popping sound."

|8.|

Are there batteries included:eek!::eek!:

 

[SteveTS]

There's pun in there somewhere, Jan, where you substitute Zeedijk for Zeiss SF in Vespobuteo's quote but I can't quite make it work ...

 

[jan van daalen]

There's pun in there somewhere, Jan, where you substitute Zeedijk for Zeiss SF in Vespobuteo's quote but I can't quite make it work ...

LOL,

I think Zeiss is making multi functional tools. If it doesn't SUCK, at least it will.....8-P

Jan

 

[The Kingfisher]

I don´t think I will buy the Zeiss SF - way too expensive! The lowest price on Pricerunner for a pair of 10x42 is 99999 SEK, ie 14723 USD or 10817 EUR...

 

[Troubador]

Yes. This is correct--I did not notice any shift in the weight during actual focusing. I wasn't paying specific attention to that, but if there was a difference, it sure wasn't apparent.

Hey Laura

All of the reports praise the SF's focusing speed but at 1.8 turns this sounds slower than the HT (1.4) and FL (1.2).

How was it for you?
Did Zeiss explain how the focus works?

Lee

 

[Troubador]

I don´t think I will buy the Zeiss SF - way too expensive! The lowest price on Pricerunner for a pair of 10x42 is 99999 SEK, ie 14723 USD or 10817 EUR...

Tough luck Kingfisher, looks like your government devalued the SEK while you weren't looking.

Nevermind, some meatballs and a bottle of Spendrups Old Gold will make all the problems go away B

Lee

 

[Troubador]

found this in the SF instruction manual:

"The groundbreaking balance and design of the Zeiss SF
will make them SUCK into you eye sockets and stay there, until removed by force,
and your hands are free to use for other, more important things, such as pointing fingers to other inferior brands owners,
to remove the binoculars from your eyes, just pull them forward until you hear a popping sound."

|8.|

Nicely translated VB.

And of course in this context, eye relief is what you feel when you take the bins off your face.

The interpupillary distance range refers to how, with the SFs sucking your eyeballs, you can use the bins to squeeze your eyes closer together to utilise the extreme close focus distance, or stretch the distance between your eyes for a more porro-like 3-D view. Get this wrong and its likely you will suffer from rolling eyeballs, although its always less than with EL SV of course.

For those who find the whole eye-sucking and IPD adjustment experience too extreme, Zeiss is introducing the Zeiss Acute Rehabilitation Programme (ZARP) where intense councelling methods are employed to slowly and gently return you to reality. Of course you will not be allowed to view Bird Forum during this healing process as this could prejudice your recovery.

Enjoy in good health.

Lee

 

[brocknroller]

I don´t think I will buy the Zeiss SF - way too expensive! The lowest price on Pricerunner for a pair of 10x42 is 99999 SEK, ie 14723 USD or 10817 EUR...

Kingfisher, you have the dubious honor of being our first price barrier alpha drop out! The Consumer Optics Price Index Poll is starting to kick in.

Given that Zeiss is only making a limited quantity of SFs, perhaps they should dispense them through some sort of lottery system to assure that buyers internationally get a fair shot at owning one, rather than most being sold in the U.S.

I had a thought that made me feel a little better about the SF. Again, I will go to the auto industry for an analogy because I write about the industry for a business journal, and I read Car and Driver and Motor Trend every month, so I'm familiar with how the industry works.

Many automakers design top of the line, limited production cars that few people can afford to buy or even want to buy. For example, the Honda NSX-Rs, which sells for $130,000. Or the Honda S2000 for $70,000 (I think that model was recently discontinued). Another example is the Nissan GT-R AMS Alpha 12, which cost $200,000. Just a few examples, but most well known brands have such limited production uber expensive cars.

What does that means to us plebes who could never afford to buy one even if we had our extra organs harvested? Well, it turns out that some of the technology developed for these top models eventually trickle down the food chain to more affordable cars such as Honda's V-tec engine, ABS brakes, GPS, etc. Of course, this has increased the price of the average car. There's no "free lunch" unless it's Made in China.

We've also seen "trickle down binonomics" in sports optics, too -- phase coatings, dielectric prism coatings, improved AR coatings, twist up eyecups, on the focuser diopter control, open hinge designs, ED glass, etc. Thanks to off shoring, these improvements haven't greatly increased the price of low- to mid-priced sports optics.

Someday we could see an open bridge Conquest HD II, maybe even with field flatteners. Made in China to keep the cost within range of the upwardly mobile but not so deep-pocketed buyer.

Brock

 

[Chickadee Whisperer]

Hey Laura

All of the reports praise the SF's focusing speed but at 1.8 turns this sounds slower than the HT (1.4) and FL (1.2).

How was it for you?
Did Zeiss explain how the focus works?

Lee

Hey, Lee:

If they explained it, it went over my head. During my field use over three days, I wasn't needing to move it much to bring new things into focus--it seemed as effortless as anything I've ever used in the field before. The few times I really tested them on nearby insects, I had to turn it a bit, but it seemed relatively effortless (and boy do they focus close up!), but I'm afraid I didn't actually count how many finger movements I had to make. It seemed so easy I didn't think about it--just thought, "Yep. Smart Focus alright."

 

[jan van daalen]

Free lunches are made in Austria.

 

[Chickadee Whisperer]

I suspect the larger number of turns compared to the HT and FL may be related to the lower close-focus distance. The 10x42 HT focuses to 6.2 feet, and the 10x32 FL to 6.5 feet, while the 10x42 (the one I was using) goes down to 4.9 feet--and I think may have actually gone a bit closer. I'm 5'5" and could easily focus on the tops of my shoes.

 

[etudiant]

Many automakers design top of the line, limited production cars that few people can afford to buy or even want to buy.
Brock

Brock, you're on to something!
Superior performance has a powerful 'halo effect'. It drives markets, in cars, in electronics, in optics, everywhere.
There is a big segment of the buyers who want the best specifications, full stop. Yet the market leaders, notably Swarovski, Leica and Zeiss, but also Nikon, all seem disinterested in specification marketing.
It may be that standard binocular specifications are so vague as to be meaningless, in which case it is up to the manufacturers to provide better. Perhaps some of the experts on this forum could offer their input as well.
The goal would be to develop the 'Brockometer', a goodness specification that allows for rating binoculars at a specific magnification. Maybe there needs to be a companion slop factor, to measure how likely that model is to be at spec.
Pending arrival of the 'Brockometer', I'd be happy if Zeiss simply provided the buyers with the measurement documentation on the SF and/or on its components. No progress is likely until the customer can see what is considered important to measure. The SF seems like a very good place to start, because it will be offered in small quantities to customers rich enough and presumably savvy enough to appreciate what they are buying.

 

[Chickadee Whisperer]

Do we have solid information from Zeiss that they'll only be manufacturing ten per day?

 

[Troubador]

Hey, Lee:

It seemed so easy I didn't think about it--just thought, "Yep. Smart Focus alright."

the 10x42 (the one I was using) goes down to 4.9 feet--and I think may have actually gone a bit closer. I'm 5'5" and could easily focus on the tops of my shoes.

Thanks Laura. The next time I'm looking at my shoes through binoculars I will think of you

Lee

 

[Chickadee Whisperer]

If you're taller than I am, you'll have more binoculars with which to do this. Unless, of course, you take your shoes off first.

 

[Troubador]

Do we have solid information from Zeiss that they'll only be manufacturing ten per day?

One of your fellow reviewers on the SF launch gig posted this on her blog. Although there was no further clarification. For example it wasn't clear if this is the long term production rate or just the ramp up quantity due to the recent start of production.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

If you're taller than I am, you'll have more binoculars with which to do this. Unless, of course, you take your shoes off first.

Well, I am 6' 1" and the FL 8x32s I have by my side won't quite focus on my battered Spanish Mountain boots, so I will have to take them off.

I'll get back to you when I have recovered from the ambience.......

Lee :smoke:

 

[Troubador]

Brock's Spindle

CF,

According to the brief filed above by Troubalee, J.D., Zeiss had to add the third bridge to avoid patent infringement. Something about a "spindle" (or was that "swindle"?) in there, too, but that's probably legalese.

Brock

Brock

There you go again, misquoting me!

Here is what I posted:

The patent referred to two bridges and no spindle.

The SF has three bridges and a spindle that passes between two of the bridges.

The SF focusing mechanism is undoubtedly different from the EL.​

Nowhere do I say that any of the above was done to avoid infringement of the patent, I just said here is what the SF is like and it doesn't look like an infringement to me.

You also seem to have trouble with my use of the word 'spindle'. It means an axle or you could call it just a pin. Bins normally have one of these threaded all the way through their bridges and the pin acts as the hinge around which the optical tubes rotate to adjust the IPD.

The EL has one bridge with the focus wheel on it and another down near the objectives and each bridge has its own short pin, not a long one passing from one bridge to the other. This was one of the main points of the EL patent and was explained by saying that using two short pins for each bridge left the space between the optical tubes free for the users fingers.

The SF on the other hand does have a long pin that connects the top two bridges, whilst leaving the space between the middle bridge and objective bridge free. In my view this creates a stiffer structure, allows more room for the focus mechanism, but still leaves room for fingers.

The best of both worlds then :t:

Lee

 

[Jerrythesnake]

Ok but the biggest question is going to be 8x42 or 10x42?