Sony VCL-FS2K "Zoomeye"/Nikon Fieldscope III (1 Viewer)

[looksharp65]

Found and bought this tonight:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/140856191665?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649

This is probably the non-ED Fieldscope III, and as such it should be cheaper than the EDIII. The fact that it is not Nikon branded could also be a reason for the low price. But it seems like a bargain, huh?

This thread was very helpful when I was in agony whether to buy or not:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=94620
Thanks to Alexis, Henry and Steve!

//L

 

[mooreorless]

Hi Lars, That sure looks like the non ED Nikon. I no longer have my non ED 60mm Fieldscope, bought a used Nikon 60mm ED Fieldscope. The fellow seemed to really like my "old" 60mm Fieldscope, in fact he sent back a new Bushnell Ultra Legend HD 15-45x60 because the Nikon was better. He could read something at a distance with the Nikon that he couldn't with the Bushnell, both max 45x.

Looks like a very good price!

 

[looksharp65]

Thanks Steve,

and I too assume it's the non-ED. There have been shifting opinions on BF whether or not the ED glass makes a real difference up to 30x magnification.
Even whether the ED50 or the Fieldscope III has the better image. I think I found a post from Alexis where he clearly stated that ED is the real thing, but in the thread I linked to he doesn't express that.

So I went to Flickr to find digiscoped images based on a "Fieldscope III" search. That also generated results for the ED version. I began with looking at an image, then check whether it was the non-ED or the ED version.
And I have to say that I easily could identify most of the ED images. Others were clearly non-ED. Most of those where I was in doubt were from the non-ED scopes, and they were quite good although lacking some, but not much, brilliance.

The Fieldscopes II and III are generally considered to control CA very well. If they match or better my HG 10x32 in that regard, I'm perfectly satisfied. After all, I have the ED82A too. :king:

Hopefully the scope will arrive soon, but I'm pretty dejected after my encounters with Swedish and foreign postal services. :C

The single most interesting question is whether these really are waterproof and nitrogen-purged. In the instruction manual it says the equipment should be kept away from dripping water.
Since the cameras weren't waterproof, one might suspect that Sony, when ordering the Sony branded scopes from Nikon, were offered a version with lesser waterproofing.
If so, there will definitely be no internal protection glass visible. And I will need to get a stay-on case too.

 

[looksharp65]

The "Zoomeye" arrived today and I could only play with it very briefly.
This is clearly the non-ED model. At 60x the CA is most disturbing when watching small branches against a grey sky (this was at noon).
This is a solid product and I kind of wish that Nikon had offered their Fieldscopes in the same colour. There is a multicoated internal glass plate in front of the eyepiece, so I'm confident the scope is waterproof.

The Zoomeye/Fieldscope III is very back-heavy and probably impossible to balance with a fluid head, which is a clear disadvantage. Since this is a straight scope, I'm considering a pivot mount where the scope hangs instead of being imbalanced all the time.

The 20x eyepiece is very similar to the 20x/25x MC with a 60 degree AFOV, but the coatings rather look like single-coated. There is no doubt that the Wide eyepieces are superior. The Wide DS 16x/24x/30x is quite a bit sharper at the edge than the 20x despite its considerably larger AFOV.

The 10x eyepiece (focal length 42 mm?!) , which is clearly not a Nikon product, is quite interesting. It is made for shooting video and the eye-relief is extremely long - I can't get closer than about 80 mm before blackouts begin. At the other end of the range, the maximum eye-relief seems to be about 100 mm.
The expense is the very narrow FOV.
I'll see if and how this peculiar eyepiece could be used.

Anyone who likes the Fieldscope II or III could buy the Zoomeye with confidence.
There can't be many out there, but when they show up, the prices can be quite low (obviously).
But the image quality of the ED scopes including the ED50A is clearly better if you're sensitive to CA or plan to digiscope with it.

//L

 

[mooreorless]

Lars, Does this scope hold up to 60x ok? I know the 60mm gets dimmer at this range. Funny I wasn't bothered that much with CA in my non ED 60 Fieldscope until I had use of the Theron 60 Saker ED scope in the middle of Winter and with snow on the ground. This was the reason I bought a used Nikon 60ED scope.

Thanks for your thoughts on this scope.

 

[looksharp65]

Lars, Does this scope hold up to 60x ok? I know the 60mm gets dimmer at this range. Funny I wasn't bothered that much with CA in my non ED 60 Fieldscope until I had use of the Theron 60 Saker ED scope in the middle of Winter and with snow on the ground. This was the reason I bought a used Nikon 60ED scope.

Thanks for your thoughts on this scope.

Thanks Steve, the Zoomeye's CA was really distracting when I turned the zoom to 60x. It seemed to increase exponentially once I passed 45x something.
60 mm is not a large aperture and 60x magnification requires a lot of light.
The ED50A at 40x is brighter than that. This is expected since the area of the 1.25 mm exit pupil (40x50) is 56% larger than that of the 1.0 mm (60x60).
Sharpness seems fine at 60x though. Edit: just tried it by watching the Moon and it was perfectly sharp at 60x, although the 82 mm had a more contrasty image and virtually no CA. The purple fringing at the edge of the Moon was clearly visible with the 60 mm, but varied a bit with eye placement. The Pentax PF-65EDAII I used to have was not as sharp as the Zoomeye but it had less CA, though not as little as the ED82A.

I haven't decided yet how to use it. It is not really suitable for the monopod , especially not with the zoom, so a lightweight but sturdy tripod would be needed. And it must expand higher because of the straight scope.
If I find a 30x MC Wide eyepiece, I think that would be the best option. A 30x WF would do, too.

The EDIII is a wise move you made, but I'm very content with the ED82A and assume its brightness to be superior.

//L

 

[mooreorless]

Hi Lars, Thanks for your reply! When I compared the Theron 60ED and non ED Nikon Fieldscope I used up to 45x on both, I noticed the CA quite a bit in the Nikon scope.

Lars I would love your set up, 50ED and the 82ED with the wide eyepieces.:t: