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.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chosun Juan" data-source="post: 3314082" data-attributes="member: 92780">Lee, there is no doubt that Zeiss has made an effort to concentrate the glass weight towards the rear, part of this is inherent in having a Field Flattner design and the more elements this contains, so there's no magic there, however that is just a part of the story - the other part is moving the focus and grip point forward, thus placing the c of g of the instrument behind the grip point and thereby inducing a turning moment of force toward the rear.  There's no free lunch, and this turning moment must be counteracted by a turning moment in the opposite direction enacted through the hands, and also transposing force onto the shoulders   :cat:   ...... my right shoulder has a 40mm tear in it which is not really operable - at this juncture I'm working more on miracles instead of pilates  <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />  The cutaways (particularly in comparison to the SV) should be lined up at the ocular surface as a baseline - then you can see that the SF ocular is quite compact in comparison ..... although with its weirder distortion profile it's arguable which one gives the more successful field characteristics - I have no doubt we will see some tweaking of the SF's optical prescription over time to try and catch up to the SV who seems to have arrived (after several secret and continual iterations) at a more Rolling Ball resistant formula for a greater proportion of the population.  Telling are the reports by folks that don't see RB in the SV, but do see it in the SF .......  :eek!:Field characteristics aside, this more compact ocular allows the reversed prisms to be placed closer to the rear right next to them, and the other conscious decision Zeiss made was the slimmed down minimalist objective design with a lightweight Ultra-FL glass element. Provided there is no CA penalty (has anyone A/B'd them against accepted  :king:  the Kowa Genesis XD ?), this is certainly good thinking and helps to achieve a lighter weight optical train with rearward weight distribution, BUT, it's the grip placement that gives most of the rearward tilt - NOT marketing magic!  :smoke:Swarovski should reappraise the whole optical train to see where improvements can be made - perhaps a Nikon EDG style ocular could offer similar compactness?  I would also like them to investigate a PorroII prism system as well, but most importantly they need to offer the formats I suggested, and use the very best of the best glass.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if Swarovski already used some HT glass elements given the very high blue transmission  as evidenced by the 10x42SV transmission graph:  <a href="http://www.allbinos.com/223-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_10x42_Swarovision.html" target="_blank">http://www.allbinos.com/223-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_10x42_Swarovision.html</a>No need to be a member of a fan club   <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />, the HT, and Ultra-FL glass is available to anyone from the Schott catalogue, or it's Ohara or other makers equivalents ........ Canon has been using fluorite "L" glass in its high end lenses since before my time, and Leica UVHD+ has just employed such glass upgrades.   :t:Chosun  :gh:</blockquote>

Verification