-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Chosun Juan
- Start date
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Jerry,
I have no desire to be one of the early adopter test pilot guinea pigs.
....
Like you and others, I eagerly await actual hands-on reports /views from folks that we know can give an accurate impression and /or have similar characteristics /preferences to ourselves. I can't wait!
Despite that, I'm caught up in the excitement just like everyone else around here .... after all, no matter how much we all enjoy our own bins, or our mates better bins that we can get our hands on --- isn't that what we all do here (discussing; looking for the next big thing?!
Enjoy talking, reading, and /or looking in good health :t: o
Chosun :gh:
Hello Chosun,
I cannot believe that it has been a decade, since Zeiss introduced the FL binoculars. Until Henry Liink obtained an example, there must have been thousands of posts in anticipation of the Zeiss binoculars. As you propose, I waited, for years, before getting the 8x32, as a demo. I liked it so much, that I purchased the 10x32, a year later, also, as a demo. The 8x32 supplanted my binoculars by Nikon and by Leica. The 10x32 has been the only 10X, which "works for me." I missed getting the Lotutec versions but I did not feel a need to update. So a little caution and patience may prove worthwhile.
There is no need to be an early adapter. Even before more information and first hand reports from trusted users become available, we can discuss this binocular to our hearts content. It is no matter if we actually buy this glass. However, if it turns out to be excellent, we should realise that we cannot get a Rolls-Royce for the price of a Ford.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:
Last edited:
brocknroller
A professed porromaniac
Wise advice, my friend. I usually try to stay a version behind with Windows OS rather than be the guinea pig, but this time got stuck with the latest but not the greatest Windows 8.1, which was Microsoft's failed attempt at making one OS across "all platforms." To me, it's an abysmal failure with laptops since it detects your finger movement on the touchpad and reads that it as if you were moving your finger across the screen of a smartphone, changing "aps" and toggling between Windows you don't want to see.
It also makes the point size drastically change up and down while using MS Word.
I was told by the rep at Best Buy that MS was no longer installing Windows 7 in computers, and three weeks later I received a e-blast from Best Buy that I could purchase the same laptop I had at the same price with Windows 7. Ugh. Not the "Best Buy." I was tempted to go back and exchange mine for the Windows 7 version, but I already had files and programs downloaded and would have to start from scratch. The first laptop with Windows 8 I bought failed in three days, so I had a good unit, I decided to stick with it.
With the initial slow production rate, those orgasming over the anticipation of the SF, like a certain Sheila we all know and love, well, we all know, will be forced to exercise patience, anyway. Plus, $3,000 is a lot of kiwis.
IMO, no 42mm bin is worth that much money. So I'm not one of those who is "enthused" at the "latest and greatest" offering from Zeiss. My aspirations are more modest. I'd like to see a Terra ED with a slower focuser, and an 8x32 model. And an open hinge Conquest HD and a reissue of the 7x42 Dialyt with updated coatings, eyecups and internal focus. Zeiss no longer makes a 7x in the Victory series. I bet a reissued Dialyt would outsell the FL version.
Also, the fact that the 8x56 B/GA Classic still sells enough units to keep it in production shows the continued popularity of the Classic design.
Nostalgia is "in." Automakers understand this, but sport optics companies haven't caught on.
Brock
Last edited:
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Brock,
Kiwis come from that other antipodal country, New Zealand.
If Zeiss dropped the 7x42 FL, I cannot see them updating the Dialyt to something rather close to what they discontinued, which would not have FL glass. Of course, the Dialyt probably does need FL or HD glass because of it long focal length.
Your speculation is in the same dreamland as those who want a Nikon 8x2 SE with modern eye cups. Neither is likely to happen. If you want to speculate, dwell on a 7x42 SF, which marginally more likely.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :scribe:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Brock! :storm: Wash that potty mouth out with some good ol' fashioned Sunlight Soap and then follow up with a hefty dollop of Keene's Hot English Mustard! :eat: For shame! |:$|
While plenty here will be "Keen" on the SF, nobody will be that excited (especially this little black duck!
..... next you'll be rabbiting on about the mooted 'IS' version - batteries included! ||3000 'bucks' is a lot of moolah ..... not sure what the taxation situation is in the land of the wrong white crowd, but over the pond here it's +10% GST. Those paying a VAT are prolly in a similar boat, if not worse. Folks in the US don't realise how good they've got it with the ponzi scheme consumer society and it's global buying power discounts .... :brains:
If the SF has to be a great bin in the US, it needs to be sensational! in the tax added countries! |8.|
As for your strange nostalgic 'silent bin' aspirations, first port of call is most likely your nearest Delorean dealership!! (o)<
Chosun :gh:
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Brock, I know how you feel on that. Unfortunately, "progress" doesn't always mean that the latest product is better in all ways or for all users than the technology it supposedly replaces. With bicycles, the old tech (almost) never becomes extinct, so you can use what you like. With binoculars, old products last, so if you can find it somewhere you can use it. But with computers, we are forced to move with the herd. But the good news is that many others are in the herd and similarly annoyed and find solutions for the most annoying aspects of the new. I was forced to switch from XP to Windows 8 about a year and a half ago. The good news (for me, given my needs) is that a lot of old software that supposedly isn't compatible with 8.1 actually is (and I keep a laptop with XP just in case). My advice: install Classic Shell (http://www.classicshell.net/), get your desktop and start menu back as the portals to everything you do on the computer, spend an hour or so learning how to customize Classic Shell according to your tastes, and be done with "apps" and the 8.1 interface (which reminds me of the level of functionality of Windows 3.1). Not sure why you're having issues with Word--I've not experienced that.
--AP
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Wrong. I know at least one person who agrees with that--me. And I'm not alone. Brock was accurately reporting many reviewers' initial reaction to the FL. The exposed metal of older rubber-armored bins has a different sound and feel to the exposed portions of the FL, especially its very plastic feeling focus knob. Set the diopter on an FL and you will experience plastic. Set the diopter on a Leica Trinovid or Ultravid and you feel metal. The feeling is more about perceptions than the reality of construction, but it is a different feel, especially when compared to older generation alphas, to which many deciding whether to upgrade from were making comparisons.
--AP
P.S. I'm not saying that I don't like the FL, or that I think they are substandard in construction, I'm just commenting on how they feel. Previous Zeiss bins also made use of plastic in innovative ways (e.g. the 7x42 Classic, with its plastic ocular yoke and housing), but the plastic didn't call attention to itself as much as in the FL (especially that rattling sand trap in front of the focuser
Alexis, this is a good point. The 'tactile' parts (focus wheel, diopter adjustment) of a bin (ie. apart from any exposed chassis and rubber or perforated leather armouring) need to be metal IMHO if they are to exude the quality reminiscent of finely crafted instruments from the olden days. By all means make the rest of the construction 20th Century technology such as CFRP (Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic). There are many many advantages to this construction:- Lighter, Stronger, and Cheaper. It is also a better Insulator. To me Zeiss were sooooo close with the Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic bodies of the FL line, it seemed like a no-brainer to just chuck in some Carbon Fiber instead. Dumkopfs went the wrong way! |8)| .... I see nusscing!!
Instead, they went all hunterly and ya vul herr frauline with the HT, and now the SF too - wasting a bucket load of marketing money - following some obscure fashion dictates and historical market expectation. (o)<
There will be those hairy-chested types that don't mind the extra weight, need it to damp out the shakes, or erroneously equate it with strength, or quality. But for the rest of us - lighter is better! I've just started carting 6lb of camera equipment around too - so even the 780g of the SF is looking like a magnesium tube too far .... :-C
Brock came up with a cute reference to magnesium bicycle tubing - but really none of those dynamic qualities are needed for bins, and certainly the reduced hoop strength requirements do not need that excessive wall thickness and weight. In efforts to bring the weight down with a magnesium chassis, the design, casting, and machining is having to become ever more intricate and expensive. CFRP solves all of that, let alone honeycomb sandwich construction ..... :brains:
It will be interesting to see if any of Zeiss's competitors make the step change ..... :cat:
Chosun :gh:
While plenty here will be "Keen" on the SF, nobody will be that excited (especially this little black duck!
Chosun :gh:
I'm one of those people who just can't get into this binocular. It has all the bells and whistles such as wide FOV,
close focus, very nicely designed and I'm sure it will live up to Zeiss' rep for fine optics and nice smooth focus.
But, I just find myself not moved by it. Zeiss, Swaro and Leica all have their own particular or unique style.
The FL and HT , to me, seem uniquely Zeiss which I like. But, the SF does not have a unique Zeiss look to me
and maybe this is partly why I don't find myself interested. It looks like a Zeiss/Swaro hybrid or collaboration project.
I get that Zeiss is targeting the EL, but perhaps that's precisely the turn off for me. Plus, it's super expensive and
looks to be rather big (long) in size which I don't like.
Last edited:
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
No signs of life from the Birdfair-visitors?
Perhaps they got stuck in the "try the SF and get a fee bumper sticker"-queue…?
Perhaps they got stuck in the "try the SF and get a fee bumper sticker"-queue…?
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Beth,
You are right about the looks not being 'typically' Zeiss. The FL, HT, Conquest (and (HD)), and even Terra ED, all have that dour Teutonic look and styling. I don't think it's necessarily the open bridge style that is the culprit - it seems to be the no-man's land grey rubber armouring .... I'd really like to see this bin in the flesh to see if it's as bad as it appears. Something like a perforated black leather I think would be perfect, and sufficient to rescue the styling and family ties.
The fact that the bin is physically long could be a turn-off for some looking for compact dimensions, but, hopefully turns out to be a plus in terms of the focal length and slower ratio leading to better controlled aberrations (in concert with the 7! piece ocular). It will also provide more real estate for those with larger hands, and the balance point is supposedly not affected, and really, the weight is about that of my Zen ED3, so it's by no means a rock, but could have been oh- so much lighter using CFRP. Even with all that glass, surely sub 700g (<25Oz) was possible. :cat:
I feel that maybe it doesn't move you (and others) since it supposedly just does everything well and better than the competition before .... nothing stands out as characterful ..... kind of a bit like a Toyota ---- efficient but bland! A nice black leather coat would fix all that! :t:
I posted above, that if folks find the thought of ~ 2.5 G an excessive ask in the US .....imagine what it's like for us in the rest of the world faced with 3000 or more! Despite all the "seventh sense" marketing hoopla - I just don't think this bin will be able to live up to the marketing hype or the pricetag ...... :-C
Still, it won't be long now before we find out more for sure - minus the marketing gobbledegook .... some of our english friends may even have their hot little hands on the bin as we speak .....
Chosun :gh:
I don't really think of it as bland actually. I think the design is very nice...it's attractive and I do like the gray armor...it's different. I like the gray colored Terra (and yes, the Terra looks 'Zeiss' to me too) as well and like the fact that they are not going standard black (not that I have anything against black). But, I think it's just that it looks like a hybrid and not truly a 'Zeiss'.
Yes, lighter materials would have been nice ! o
Maybe you're right about it seeming too 'perfect' (in terms of the specs)and 'elite'...I dunno.
These days I become more interested when Frank or someone else reveals a nice find in an inexpensive bino that performs high above its price point. I've decided recently that I can't justify (for me) spending over 1k for a binocular. And, I know I could find something that suits my needs very well for much less than 1k in the future.
It's like the handbags...I had a Fendi that I just sold b/c I thought ... what the heck am I doing with such an expensive bag? That's not really "me". I wear my LeSportSac bags more b/c they are so comfy lol. This is not to put down anyone who spends money on expensive bins, clothing,etc. Nothing wrong with spending your money how you see fit.
Someday they'll have the SF at the Audubon store I go to and I'll get to see it in person.
~ Beth
I'm sure others, and Lee in particular, have spent a lot more time with the SF than I managed in the scrum of the Zeiss stand today and will write a more detailed accounts in due course. In the mean time I'll offer a couple of observations to wet the appetite.
Firstly I want to challenge a couple of claimed USPs. I don't understand what the 'Smart Focus' claim is based on. I found no evidence of anything 'smart', no two speed mechanisms or anything particularly unique. However it was very smooth, fast and light and offered the finger trip control I like. Getting to 1.5m takes a bit of cranking but 5m to infinity was very quick, perhaps about a quarter turn. The second point is the clam that they have shifted the balance point towards the oculars. As best I can judge it's actually slightly further forward than on the HT. However the forward positioning of the focus wheel does mean that the balance in the hand feels particularly good, and consequently the view was very steady.
Apart from those points I do I think it delivers everything else promised. The view is very wide, nearly flat with very sharp and very wide sweet spot. Much better than the obvious comparison in my opinion. The view across the lake is not the best test of RB but I saw no sign of it. Colour and contrast appeared excellent.
It gets my vote as the new king of the castle. Unfortunately those with a heap of cash burning a hole in their pockets will have to wait a while for availability. Shipping in October I heard suggested but I don't know if that was official.
David
Firstly I want to challenge a couple of claimed USPs. I don't understand what the 'Smart Focus' claim is based on. I found no evidence of anything 'smart', no two speed mechanisms or anything particularly unique. However it was very smooth, fast and light and offered the finger trip control I like. Getting to 1.5m takes a bit of cranking but 5m to infinity was very quick, perhaps about a quarter turn. The second point is the clam that they have shifted the balance point towards the oculars. As best I can judge it's actually slightly further forward than on the HT. However the forward positioning of the focus wheel does mean that the balance in the hand feels particularly good, and consequently the view was very steady.
Apart from those points I do I think it delivers everything else promised. The view is very wide, nearly flat with very sharp and very wide sweet spot. Much better than the obvious comparison in my opinion. The view across the lake is not the best test of RB but I saw no sign of it. Colour and contrast appeared excellent.
It gets my vote as the new king of the castle. Unfortunately those with a heap of cash burning a hole in their pockets will have to wait a while for availability. Shipping in October I heard suggested but I don't know if that was official.
David
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Maybe the color scheme is a nostalgic flirt with the Zeiss 6x42 Nautik (see attached photo).
Grey is a bit boring, but the design of the SF I think look pretty cool, odd, but not too ugly, though the HT:s have cleaner looks. No doubt the SF:s look better than the FL:s, and the ergonomics will be better.
The only problem I have with the SF:s so far is that they don't come in a 7x model…
Attachments
ticl2184
Well-known member
Spent about 4 Hours today at Birdfair. About 2 hours looking at the SF.
First impressions before I do a full review of 10x42 SF vs 10x42 SV.
Positives
Brighter than SV, lighter than SV, Less CA than SV, less rolling globe, Massive FOV, and I mean massive. Silky smooth focus,less internal reflection from bright light source. Balance is perfect.
Negatives
Edge to edge sharpness is not as good as SV. Patches of distortion... Eye cups a bit plastic... Cold image, to my eyes. Colour rendition note as accurate as SV's.
Tested the 8x42 SF's a bit. I kid you not, the FOV of this binos is unbelievable. You can't even see it all. Outstanding.
Give me a few days and I'll post full review with pics...
PS. Where were u guys today. Kept asking people if they posted on birdforum....
Cheers Tim
First impressions before I do a full review of 10x42 SF vs 10x42 SV.
Positives
Brighter than SV, lighter than SV, Less CA than SV, less rolling globe, Massive FOV, and I mean massive. Silky smooth focus,less internal reflection from bright light source. Balance is perfect.
Negatives
Edge to edge sharpness is not as good as SV. Patches of distortion... Eye cups a bit plastic... Cold image, to my eyes. Colour rendition note as accurate as SV's.
Tested the 8x42 SF's a bit. I kid you not, the FOV of this binos is unbelievable. You can't even see it all. Outstanding.
Give me a few days and I'll post full review with pics...
PS. Where were u guys today. Kept asking people if they posted on birdforum....
Cheers Tim
henry link
Well-known member
Thanks for that David. Did you try the 8x or 10x? I'm not at all surprised to hear that the focuser is conventional and a reasonable speed. None of the information supplied by Zeiss suggested anything else. Certainly the patented two speed/one knob Dyascope focuser discussed earlier in this thread would be a nightmare on a binocular.
Tim, what do you mean by "patches of distortion'?
Henry
Tim, what do you mean by "patches of distortion'?
Henry
Last edited:
Henry,
Nearly all my limited time was with the 8x. Couldn't do a direct comparison with the ELSV but I'd suggest a shade more field curvature and pincushion but I saw no hint of bouncy magnification distortion either.
By the way, the HT 8x54 I tried was not as sharp as the HT 8x42 but I didn't explore it in any detail. Gerold Dobler did stress it was designed for low light hunting with an emphasis on contrast. I personally don't understand why this isn't compatible with good 'sharpness'.
David
Nearly all my limited time was with the 8x. Couldn't do a direct comparison with the ELSV but I'd suggest a shade more field curvature and pincushion but I saw no hint of bouncy magnification distortion either.
By the way, the HT 8x54 I tried was not as sharp as the HT 8x42 but I didn't explore it in any detail. Gerold Dobler did stress it was designed for low light hunting with an emphasis on contrast. I personally don't understand why this isn't compatible with good 'sharpness'.
David
brocknroller
A professed porromaniac
Yeah, I realized that after I wrote it but had to pick up some stuff for my dad and had to leave, but I figured some know-it-all with more time than I have would probably point out the mistake before I logged back in. Thanks.
Me buying an SF for $2,600, now that would really be dreamland! o
Brock
