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

[jan van daalen]

I do think all this talk about Schott glass is interesting. They have
many different products to offer. That same glass may be available
to others. Zeiss likes to name drop, as Schott is a family member.
Other brands may not feel the need or even want to.

Nobody here knows what those things are, unless you are privy to
some very confidential information.

I would not be concerned in the least. Any binocular is a sum of its
parts. The glass brand is a small part.

Jerry

:t::t::t:

 

[Hermann]

I would not be concerned in the least. Any binocular is a sum of its parts. The glass brand is a small part.

Agreed. As long as I like the optics I couldn't care less what types of glass are used in the binocular.

Hermann

 

[jan van daalen]

Jan, (and Brock too.)

This is about Swaro and Nikon.

Do either of you think Nikon got Swaro's permission to make and sell this particular double hinged binocular?

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/Nikon-Products/Product-Archive/Binoculars/Monarch-X-8.5X45.html

If not, why would it have been necessary to get it for the EDG?


Bob

Bob,

First, this is NOT a double hinged bridge like the SF/SV. This Nikon, has a axe between the two bridges, so wrong example.

I have never believed Nikon needs permission from a other brand or visa versa, nor will Zeiss take any contact with Swarovski in this matter.
It's totally out of reality.
Brocks suggesting that if Mike does not respond on this item he is not allowed to, falls in that same category.

Jan

 

[Troubador]

Jan, (and Brock too.)

This is about Swaro and Nikon.

Do either of you think Nikon got Swaro's permission to make and sell this particular double hinged binocular?

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/Nikon-Products/Product-Archive/Binoculars/Monarch-X-8.5X45.html

If not, why would it have been necessary to get it for the EDG?


Bob

Hi Bob

This unit has a spindle extending between the two bridges, thus taking up the space where your fingers would like to go. The absence of such a spindle, and the space it frees up for fingers, was a specific feature of the EL patent along with the twin bridges and the focusing mechanism.

To this extent, then, it seems to me Nikon did not break Swaro's patent protection with this model.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

Jan,

If Zeiss Optics has no leverage, why does Schott not offer HT glass to other manufacturers ?
Why is HT glass proprietary and exclusive to Zeiss optics only ?
Wouldn't Swarovski benefit by using HT glass in their newest SLC binoculars with Abbe-Konig prisms ?

Saggi, the HT glasses are catalogue items for Schott and are freely available for anyone to buy.

Lee

 

[Leif]

Isn't out-of-focus CA proportional to in-focus CA, so isn't measuring "in-focus" CA just the simplest way to measure CA of any sort? Isn't CA a fixed property of the way a given optic at a given setting refracts light, so isn't it there to the same extent in both high and low contrast targets (but differently perceptible by the brain and its efforts to 'photoshop' CA out of perceptual awareness), thus making the use of high contrast targets simply the most efficient to use for its detection and quantification?

I don't disagree that a full description requires testing at a range of subject distances. That is certainly the case with camera lenses, many of which move multiple elements during zoom and focus over their often huge ranges of focal lengths and near to far focus. But for bins, unlike camera lenses, I must say that I've never noticed a big change in optical characteristics (e.g. relative sharpness of edge versus center) over their focus range (and as a butterfly+bird watcher, I frequently use bins at their close and far limits). I'm sure it is there, but it is _much_ more subtle than with camera lenses, to the extent that I cannot think of a single objective test shared on Birdforum by Henry Link or anyone else that was invalid for describing the performance of a bin at a distance different than that used for testing. If you can cite one, I'd be appreciative for the help in refining my understanding. For that matter, I can't recall an objective test by Henry that didn't match my own objective and subjective experiences with the binocular in question. Sure, I have my own idiosyncratic tastes, and some things matter to me a lot and other things little in comparison to other binocular users, but for the most part the quantitative and maligned "astronomical type" tests seem valid descriptions to me of the optical personalities of different binoculars during birding, and for those interested, provide some insight into the technical reasons for those differences in performance.

--AP

My comments are based on the fact that I have yet to see so-called objective tests that match observation, although they can provide valuable insights as you say. I have tested many binoculars with nearby targets. I recall testing a Zeiss HT and Swaro SV by viewing a nearby restaurant sign against a bright sky with similar results. There was a trace of lateral CA, nothing too much. Only when I viewed distant objects could I see strong off-axis purple secondary images with the Swaro, something I have confirmed with three samples, in one case over a period of many months. And to make matters worse, on some days the Swaro showed no purple fringing, a fact I ascribe to the size of my pupils, and the lighting, at the time. I assume this fringing arises in the focus lens and objective.

I have seen similar results with photographic optics. A nice Nikon zoom showed no CA at infinity focus, but strong purple fringing at close focus. Resolution and contrast also change, often significantly, with focus distance. I am certain some photographic optics manufacturers optimise performance for focus distances used by MTF tests, which now dominate photographic reviews.

I suspect that off axis sharpness in binoculars, a subject of much debate on these forums, may also vary with focus distance.

 

[bh46118]

Do all people see the same way or see the same thing, or does their perception of what they see, or the importance they place on certain things they see that someone else also sees the same way but isn't bothered by, account for all of the different observations of the same binocular. An unanswerable question I'm sure, but one I ponder from time to time.

 

[henry link]

Henry I hope this does not mean that you will not post reviews/ posts etc. on here. I could understand why you might not want to. I would sure miss your posts!!
Regards, Steve

Thanks Steve. I wasn't contemplating anything like that. My reviews have always been limited because I don't have good access to new models.

Henry

 

[Troubador]

Do all people see the same way or see the same thing, or does their perception of what they see, or the importance they place on certain things they see that someone else also sees the same way but isn't bothered by, account for all of the different observations of the same binocular. An unanswerable question I'm sure, but one I ponder from time to time.

BH thats a big question.

I am sure none of us see's the same thing in exactly the same way. Just take the average difference in colour perception between men and women for a start.

Even the word 'see' appears to be fraught with assumptions to me now. Mainly one that tells us our eyes relay what is out there to our conciousness, whereas in reality our eyes gather data about what is out there that our brain then processes before passing them on to our conciousness. These processes vary from person to person.

However on average most of see a similar view to each other most of the time and for most purposes this is just fine. Get around to chat about binoculars, or the differences between two eye-witnesses' report on the same crime or accident and you start to enter a different world.

Lee

 

[bh46118]

Hopefully what I 'see' tomorrow with my new SV 10X will be pleasing to my eye-brain interface. Some of the CA reports concern me a little.

Bruce

BH thats a big question.

I am sure none of us see's the same thing in exactly the same way. Just take the average difference in colour perception between men and women for a start.

Even the word 'see' appears to be fraught with assumptions to me now. Mainly one that tells us our eyes relay what is out there to our conciousness, whereas in reality our eyes gather data about what is out there that our brain then processes before passing them on to our conciousness. These processes vary from person to person.

However on average most of see a similar view to each other most of the time and for most purposes this is just fine. Get around to chat about binoculars, or the differences between two eye-witnesses' report on the same crime or accident and you start to enter a different world.

Lee

 

[Leif]

Hopefully what I 'see' tomorrow with my new SV 10X will be pleasing to my eye-brain interface. Some of the CA reports concern me a little.

Bruce

There is considerable variation between observers, as confirmed by squabbling here, and the excellent Italian tests involving many people. Concentrate on using them.

Don't worry about my recent comment on CA and the SV, if you noticed it, it is a high quality instrument. I notice CA more than most people. I hope you don't see any rolling balls though. Apparently it is filled with them.

 

[bh46118]

Me too.

I notice CA more than most people.

 

[bh46118]

For those who have seen both the SF and SV, do you consider both of them to be equally superb, slightly differing variations on the same theme, or is one or the other superior overall ? In your opinion of course.

Bruce

 

[SteveTS]

I notice CA more than most people.

Fewer people notice CA than I do. :t:

 

[jan van daalen]

For those who have seen both the SF and SV, do you consider both of them to be equally superb, slightly differing variations on the same theme, or is one or the other superior overall ? In your opinion of course.

Bruce

When I looked trough both of them is was cloudy, so CA was not noticable in both bins.
Pro's for the SF: the "finger freedom", the better outlined balance and the BIG fov.
Con's is the grip on the rubber structure and its color. Personally I find the rubber armouring too thin and I am afraid it will come loose in time, but since that has not happened yet, one can discuss over the fact if that's a con.

Jan

 

[bh46118]

Which one would you, or did you buy with $2500 of your hard earned money ? Not trying to put you on the spot or anything .:-O

When I looked trough both of them is was cloudy, so CA was not noticable in both bins.
Pro's for the SF: the "finger freedom", the better outlined balance and the BIG fov.
Con's is the grip on the rubber structure and its color. Personally I find the rubber armouring too thin and I am afraid it will come loose in time, but since that has not happened yet, one can discuss over the fact if that's a con.

Jan

 

[jan van daalen]

Which one would you, or did you buy with $2500 of your hard earned money ? Not trying to put you on the spot or anything .:-O

I posted that answer earlier
Don't make me say it twice......

Jan

 

[Troubador]

For those who have seen both the SF and SV, do you consider both of them to be equally superb, slightly differing variations on the same theme, or is one or the other superior overall ? In your opinion of course.

Bruce

At the British Bird Fair the two models were on their respective booths so side-by-side comparisons were not possible.

Like Jan I was impressed by the huge field of view of SF 8x compared with Swaros 8.5x. This difference in magnification means that in some ways the two models aren't technically comparable, but in the sense that anyone walking into an optics store with the intention of walking out with one of these will be making this comparison, then it is definitely legitimate to compare one with the other.

I hope to get SF and EL SV together later this autumn and see how they square up to one another.

Lee

 

[Chosun Juan]

Which one would you, or did you buy with $2500 of your hard earned money ? Not trying to put you on the spot or anything .:-O

I posted that answer earlier
Don't make me say it twice......

Jan

Hahaha @[email protected] :-O LOL !!!! 3 :king:

That, Jan, was very funny ! :t:

For a display of great dryness such as that, you have been awarded honorary "Ozzie" status ..... onya mate |:d| B
(don't get too carried away - it's only temporary ..... )


Chosun :gh:

 

[bh46118]

I guess I missed the joke.

Hahaha @[email protected] :-O LOL !!!! 3 :king:

That, Jan, was very funny ! :t:

For a display of great dryness such as that, you have been awarded honorary "Ozzie" status ..... onya mate |:d| B
(don't get too carried away - it's only temporary ..... )


Chosun :gh: