-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
the HT's (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter george-spiridakis
- Start date
I thought the originals looked "dull and lifeless" and I didn't want Lee to mistaken them for the FLs.
<B>
LOL!!!!
Nice one Brock, I'm still laughing...
Lee
Hi James
Regarding colour and contrast the HTs have more of everything. So on a day when rain has put a nice gleam on the roofs of the houses across the valley, some of which are black and some are (conveniently) red, the blacks are blacker and the reds are redder, compared with the FL in my other hand. Moreover the gleaming highlights from which the sun is reflected off wet surfaces gleam more brightly through the FL. I don't have to 'search' for these differences or convince myself for a fleeting moment that there was a bit more light through the FL, swapping quickly from one to the other the difference is obvious.
Whites look nicely white through the FL but are whiter through the HT and fit in with the brighter gleam off wet surfaces mentioned above.
Both Eddie and myself reckon that the sharp sweet spot extends way past 80% to around 85% or in my case I thought it was a bit more than this but I am a novice at estimating this characteristic as I centre subjects and don't bother with edges of FOV in normal viewing.
Pick up the FL in isolation and it is still IMHO superb. A and B the HT and FL and the difference is clear. One word of caution, its early winter here in the UK so I have not compared both under bright cloudless skies yet.
Lee
brocknroller
porromaniac
I'm glad you're finally going on record with your estimate of the HTs edge sharpness and even more glad that it agrees with Eddy Eagle Eyes' estimate. Now please take a step farther out and tell us what's going on beyond the 80%? field curvature? astigmatism? pincushion? a distracting mishmash of mixed aberrations?
As the bard wrote, "All's well that ends well". I think 80-85% would be a very generous sweet spot, on par with the EDG, SE series, EL WB and even some SLCs. Very sensible edge performance w/out going off the AMD cliff like the SV EL and Premier LXL.
But the opposite extreme isn't good either, i.e., if there's a sudden, steep fall off into the abyss beyond the edge of the sweet spot, i.e., you "fall in to a burnin' Ring of Fire,and you go out, out, out and the blurriness keeps on getting higher, and it distracts, distracts, distracts, that Ring of Fire, that Ring of Fire".
At least it distracts me when I pan, not being a "static birder".
The fact that the FL shows more "gleaming" on bright spots should not trouble the Troubador. The greater contrast in the HT probably tones that down so you get bright images without "hot spots". I count that as an improvement.
Now if the edges are not "nasty" and flare control is good (though apparently not as good as the SV EL, from what someone -- Eddy? -- wrote earlier), but hopefully still "good enough" not to interfere with viewing, Zeiss might just have come up with a product that could compete nicely with the "one and only alpha" - the SV EL (Jan might have to revise that title after trying the HT). And on a "shoestring" R&D budget, to boot!
Now if Zeiss would move its production to Upper Carniola so I could be a Superbirder!
CK
Last edited:
Correction - Correction
Typing too quickly was my undoing. References above to the FL gleaming more than the HT were a mistake. The HT gleams more than the FL and that is what I should have typed. Sorry to all and sundry.
Lee
Typing too quickly was my undoing. References above to the FL gleaming more than the HT were a mistake. The HT gleams more than the FL and that is what I should have typed. Sorry to all and sundry.
Lee
I'm glad you're finally going on record with your estimate of the HTs edge sharpness and even more glad that it agrees with Eddy Eagle Eyes' estimate. Now please take a step farther out and tell us what's going on beyond the 80%? field curvature? astigmatism? pincushion? a distracting mishmash of mixed aberrations?
As the bard wrote, "All's well that ends well". I think 80-85% would be a very generous sweet spot, on par with the EDG, SE series, EL WB and even some SLCs. Very sensible edge performance w/out going off the AMD cliff like the SV EL and Premier LXL.
But the opposite extreme isn't good either, i.e., if there's a sudden, steep fall off into the abyss beyond the edge of the sweet spot, i.e., you "fall in to a burnin' Ring of Fire,and you go out, out, out and the blurriness keeps on getting higher, and it distracts, distracts, distracts, that Ring of Fire, that Ring of Fire".
At least it distracts me when I pan, not being a "static birder".
The fact that the FL shows more "gleaming" on bright spots should not trouble the Troubador. The greater contrast in the HT probably tones that down so you get bright images without "hot spots". I count that as an improvement.
Now if the edges are not "nasty" and flare control is good (though apparently not as good as the SV EL, from what someone -- Eddy? -- wrote earlier), but hopefully still "good enough" not to interfere with viewing, Zeiss might just have come up with a product that could compete nicely with the "one and only alpha" - the SV EL (Jan might have to revise that title after trying the HT). And on a "shoestring" R&D budget, to boot!
Now if Zeiss would move its production to Upper Carniola so I could be a Superbirder!
CK
Brock
See my remarks in my correction post. All extra-gleaming characteristics are the HT not the FL (although this is still a star performer in my view).
Regarding the sweet spot and what happens beyond. It goes a bit fuzzy but is refocussable. Have a look at Eddie's post because he covered this better than me. I find squinting towards the edge of field quite uncomfortable. If I remember Eddie correctly I think he found the view fuzzed out in the last 10 % or so and I think he said he could refocus.
Lee
brocknroller
porromaniac
I read Eddy's comments but I wanted to see if you agreed with him there too. Trying to reach a consensus before I sell off all my Nikons.
<B>
I read Eddy's comments but I wanted to see if you agreed with him there too. Trying to reach a consensus before I sell off all my Nikons.
<B>
To my shame Brock I have never looked through a Nikon. I can't seem to get my head around their reputation in bins although I absolutely respect their rep in photographic stuff (although I am a Canon man).
Lee
brocknroller
porromaniac
Probably won't see that thrilling match up until there's a birding event next year in Manila.
<B>
Hermann
Well-known member
Actually, as far as I'm concerned a comparison between the HT 10x42 and the Nikon 10x42 SE would do nicely ...
Hermann
brocknroller
porromaniac
Actually, as far as I'm concerned a comparison between the HT 10x42 and the Nikon 10x42 SE would do nicely ...
Hermann
Yes siree bob. Since I have the 96% light transmission 10x SE, a comparison with the HT would be very enlightening.
<B>
eddy the eagle
Well-known member
I am not in a position to do comparative tests as I do not have a decent bino shop within 500 kilometers,I think there is a lot of hype about these binos,all I can say is that they have certainly improved my enjoyment of my hobby with the ability to see more detail than before over longer distances and in poor light situations.I do not have access to another Alpha bin to make comparisons only my Alpha scope the Zeiss 85 to which I refer in my previous posts.If you want a comparison get down to your local shop and do one yourself thats the only good way for you to compare with your own eyes.Regards to all Eddy
Just weighed my 8x42 at 835 gms excluding strap and rainguard. And yes that is exactly 50 gms heavier than spec.
I had, in a way, hinted at this already by observing that the HT is about 7 mm longer than spec, resulting in much better shrouding of the objectives from flare-inducing light compared with FL. This extra 7 mm clearly doesn't weigh 0 gms.
So this means HT weighs exactly the same as the published weight of Swarovision 8.5.
Lee
joe101
Well-known member
Thanks Lee,
anyway i got a letter from zeiss this is what they said
"Unfortunately it is true that we are not able to dispatch the binocular Victory HT just in time. Due to technical problems in the serial production and the very large number of orders on hand, the delivery situation will not ease up much earlier.
We regret the delay and and hope being able to serve you in the usual reliable way in the near future.
If we can help you in any other way, please let us know.
Many greetings from Wetzlar,"
It would seem they cannot mass produce it still
anyway i got a letter from zeiss this is what they said
"Unfortunately it is true that we are not able to dispatch the binocular Victory HT just in time. Due to technical problems in the serial production and the very large number of orders on hand, the delivery situation will not ease up much earlier.
We regret the delay and and hope being able to serve you in the usual reliable way in the near future.
If we can help you in any other way, please let us know.
Many greetings from Wetzlar,"
It would seem they cannot mass produce it still
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Maybe this is the cause of the delays in delivery - changing the barrel length to prevent flaring. Pretty complicated fix though, as it would require a total re-design.
Do the end of the barrels look to be an add-on part or a single barrel?
