Why would you buy a Zeiss HT over an SF? (1 Viewer)

[mfunnell]

See Mike's reply: his reply is very helpful and accurate as usual.

Thanks Lee |:$|

Now, trying to extract something from all of this...

I asked this before of Mike Jensen - Zeiss sells way more 42 mm and up bins. than 32 and smaller - that's likely why the delay. Sure, the 32's are popular here but apparently not to the public at large.

I find this interesting. I wonder how well that holds over the total binocular market.

There isn't a 32mm HT because it was conceived as an instrument specialising in passing as much light as possible, so it performs really well at twilight in and in cloudy, dull conditions. A 32mm version would contradict this design goal.

I can see this, if you're talking about making the most of restricted available light. That depends on conditions. It's a nasty, cloudy, dull, rainy morning here in Sydney and yet the total light available (once sunrise was well past) means that I see much the same brightness (aside from differences in the instruments themselves) for bins ranging from 28mm to 50mm objective sizes (I just checked). Once there's enough light, things such as transmission become important while before that total light gathering through larger objectives matters more. Most of the time, here in Oz, there's plenty enough light. My memories of the UK, or the northerly states of the US, or the southern tip of NZ, suggest that's far from a universal circumstance. Perhaps I'd be a lot less fond of 32mm and smaller bins if I routinely used them where lower light were common for longer periods. That may, at least in part, explain the larger market for larger bins - especially since non-obsessives likely only want one pair of binoculars instead of thinking "I'll use these for this, and those for that".

...how Zeiss have decided to use their available resources. HT 32s or no HT 32s, is not a question that exists in splendid isolation. There are undoubtedly other projects in the pipeline that Zeiss has prioritised.

Well, if Zeiss is spending it's development dollars on their larger market segments that would seem to make commercial sense. Especially as they already have well-regarded 32mm instruments.

...Mike

 

[mfunnell]

...if they come out with a 32mm SF at some stage that follows the same design pattern as the 42mm SF, with SP prisms and long tubes, I believe they'll be in for a difficult time. 32mm binoculars are usually bought for their low weight *and* their smallish size. A 32mm SF that's as long as the 42mm Ultravid HD Plus (or at least almost as long) will have a hard time getting a decent market share even if it comes with a low weight, considering that the Swarovision 8x32 is deemed to be a bit on the long side by quite a few birdwatchers.

That certainly matches my prejudices. I use 30mm-ish bins because they pack away easily and are convenient for me to have with me at times when I just wouldn't bring a larger set. If a "smaller" bin isn't that much smaller I guess my reaction is "why bother?" Sometimes there is a reason to bother but mostly not, at least not for me.

...Mike

 

[Hermann]

Well, if Zeiss is spending it's development dollars on their larger market segments that would seem to make commercial sense. Especially as they already have well-regarded 32mm instruments.

Well, I'm not sure sure here. The Zeiss FL 8x32 is on the way out, and the Conquest HD 8x32 is quite clearly not at the same level as the Swarovision 8x32, the Leica Ultravid 8x32 HD Plus or the Nikon 8x32 EDG.

So, while Zeiss has a well-regarded 8x32 - after all, the Conquest HD is a nice bin - they don't have anything to compete at the highest level. Not really.

Hermann

 

[mfunnell]

Well, I'm not sure sure here. The Zeiss FL 8x32 is on the way out, and the Conquest HD 8x32 is quite clearly not at the same level as the Swarovision 8x32, the Leica Ultravid 8x32 HD Plus or the Nikon 8x32 EDG.

So, while Zeiss has a well-regarded 8x32 - after all, the Conquest HD is a nice bin - they don't have anything to compete at the highest level. Not really.

Hermann

Actually it was the x32 FLs I was referring to, since I wasn't especially impressed with the Conquest HD (optically it seems decent enough, but it doesn't work for me as a total package). I'm not sure how the 32mm FL compares with the SV - since compactness was a major point for me, I never considered the Swarovski nor Nikon offerings in this format, just the Leica and the Zeiss. And while I know newness generates buzz, and the FL is far from new, it still seems a pretty good binocular to me. My comment was really in the context of not developing 32mm HT models (as far as I know, the 32mm FLs are still in production or at least listed in the current line-up on the Zeiss web site).

...Mike

 

[mayabird]

In bird watching. 3D is important so I wonder why Zeiss doesn't have alpha porros. Even the slightly offset objective lens of the Zeiss HT would have less than half of the 3D effect of porros. Don't you guys just love 3D and instead prefer flat views?

 

[mfunnell]

In bird watching. 3D is important so I wonder why Zeiss doesn't have alpha porros. Even the slightly offset objective lens of the Zeiss HT would have less than half of the 3D effect of porros. Don't you guys just love 3D and instead prefer flat views?

Psychological perception of 3D is about more than just separation of view through different eyes (though that's obviously a very strong cue). Any photographer who has tried to convey the illusion of 3D in a literally 2D medium could tell you that. And do note that "more separation" in Porro-prism design does not equal "no separation" in a roof (or perhaps still less in a reverse-Porro). That's not to say I don't appreciate the enhanced-3D effect through a good Porro because I do, very much so. But that's not all there is.

...Mike

 

[mayabird]

When you hold the Zeiss HT, aren't their a lot of shakes? Isn't it what IS (Image Stabilizers) handle? How long can you hold the Zeiss HT watching birds and tracking them.. doesn't the weight of it bother anyone?

 

[mfunnell]

When you hold the Zeiss HT, aren't their a lot of shakes? Isn't it what IS (Image Stabilizers) handle? How long can you hold the Zeiss HT watching birds and tracking them..

No worse than any other alpha-level bin of the same format:

SF 780g
HT 785g
EDG 785g
SV 794g

Contrast with the Terra ED (considered quite light for the format) @690g or the Conquest @750g.

doesn't the weight of it bother anyone?

Lots of people use 8x42s. I guess if the weight bothers them they buy a different format. Or, as you mentioned, if weight leads to shake and that bothers people enough they could buy a stabilised bin. That, though, leads to other cans of worms. For example the Canon 10x42L IS (the only one I know of with alpha-level optics) is heavy and awkward and has a warranty that's more "consumer electronics" than "sports optics". Nice views, though.

...Mike

 

[NDhunter]

No worse than any other alpha-level bin of the same format:

SF 780g
HT 785g
EDG 785g
SV 794g

Contrast with the Terra ED (considered quite light for the format) @690g or the Conquest @750g.
Lots of people use 8x42s. I guess if the weight bothers them they buy a different format. Or, as you mentioned, if weight leads to shake and that bothers people enough they could buy a stabilised bin. That, though, leads to other cans of worms. For example the Canon 10x42L IS (the only one I know of with alpha-level optics) is heavy and awkward and has a warranty that's more "consumer electronics" than "sports optics". Nice views, though.

...Mike

Mike:

It is interesting you have posted some weights of some very nice binoculars.

I suppose you know, weight means nothing, and does not matter much in
how someone judges any binocular.

Jerry

 

[mfunnell]

I suppose you know, weight means nothing, and does not matter much in how someone judges any binocular.

Quite so, Jerry. It was someone else's concern (or perhaps faux-concern, as I'm beginning to suspect) not mine. I was trying to point that out.

...Mike

 

[mayabird]

No worse than any other alpha-level bin of the same format:

SF 780g
HT 785g
EDG 785g
SV 794g

Contrast with the Terra ED (considered quite light for the format) @690g or the Conquest @750g.
Lots of people use 8x42s. I guess if the weight bothers them they buy a different format. Or, as you mentioned, if weight leads to shake and that bothers people enough they could buy a stabilised bin. That, though, leads to other cans of worms. For example the Canon 10x42L IS (the only one I know of with alpha-level optics) is heavy and awkward and has a warranty that's more "consumer electronics" than "sports optics". Nice views, though.

...Mike

I thought the HT weighted more than 1000g... 785g is indeed light and just a hundred gram more than the Terra ED.. but the HT is much bigger.. how could they make it so light compared to the Terra?

I think overall the Zeiss HT is the best alpha roof even overtaking the SF (this has bad green cast)?

 

[mfunnell]

I thought the HT weighted more than 1000g...

That's what spec sheets are for.

but the HT is much [really? much??] bigger.. how could they make it so light compared to the Terra? [my commentary]

For that you'd have to ask the design and manufacture teams.

I think overall the Zeiss HT is the best alpha roof even overtaking the SF (this has bad green cast)?

Isn't it funny how the internet can turn "a subtle shift in colour" into "bad green cast". All I can really say to that is "look through them and see if it bothers you". It actually takes a bit of work, even training yourself, to see colour shifts as subtle as these: your mind tends to want to compensate (our own version of "auto white balance"). I want to see that sort of thing when using colour-managed workflow for photography. I want to avoid seeing it when looking through binoculars. (To look at things, that is. If you're evaluating them it might be useful to notice colour shifts, it's quite the opposite if you're using them.)

...Mike

P.S. I think I might have fed it enough for now...

 

[Hermann]

No worse than any other alpha-level bin of the same format:

SF 780g
HT 785g
EDG 785g
SV 794g

Be careful with the weights quoted by the manufacturers. The HT 8x42, for instance, weighs 830 gr.: http://www.zeiss.de/sports-optics/d...eser/victory-ht-fernglaeser.html#modelle#0842 785 gr. was the weight Zeiss gave after the introduction of the HT. They later corrected it when people found the bins were in fact heavier than Zeiss said.

I find weight does matter. If you use your binoculars all day long 100 gr. more or less makes quite a difference at the end of the day.

Hermann

 

[mfunnell]

Be careful with the weights quoted by the manufacturers. The HT 8x42, for instance, weighs 830 gr.: http://www.zeiss.de/sports-optics/d...eser/victory-ht-fernglaeser.html#modelle#0842 785 gr. was the weight Zeiss gave after the introduction of the HT. They later corrected it when people found the bins were in fact heavier than Zeiss said.

I find weight does matter. If you use your binoculars all day long 100 gr. more or less makes quite a difference at the end of the day.

Hermann

Fair point. I pulled the cross-brand comparison from the "compare" function on the B&H web site, just because it was easy. The Zeiss site (English or German) does have the 830g figure (now). Not the 1st time spec sheets have been wrong (these days I should be more inclined to assume they are wrong rather than right given how error-ridden they seem to be from pretty much all manufacturers or resellers). That makes the HTs the heaviest of those I noted by about 40g (assuming the other figures are accurate!) which, while not the end of the earth, might be significant (especially, as you say, if used for long periods).

...Mike

 

[Troubador]

In bird watching. 3D is important so I wonder why Zeiss doesn't have alpha porros. Even the slightly offset objective lens of the Zeiss HT would have less than half of the 3D effect of porros. Don't you guys just love 3D and instead prefer flat views?

Mayabird

I find holding a porro is like shaking hands with an alien so it doesn't work for me, but in any case doesn't the 3D effect fade with distance from the bins so that at normal viewing distances it has disappeared?

Lee

 

[Troubador]

No worse than any other alpha-level bin of the same format:

SV 794g

...Mike

Mike
This weight was an error and Swaro corrected it back to 835g on their website.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

Well, I'm not sure sure here. The Zeiss FL 8x32 is on the way out, and the Conquest HD 8x32 is quite clearly not at the same level as the Swarovision 8x32, the Leica Ultravid 8x32 HD Plus or the Nikon 8x32 EDG.

So, while Zeiss has a well-regarded 8x32 - after all, the Conquest HD is a nice bin - they don't have anything to compete at the highest level. Not really.

Hermann

Hi Hermann

Well, as far as I know the FL is still in production and will remain so until the next Victory 32 comes out, whenever that might be. And in commercial terms I would agree that replacement of FL is long overdue. Technically I would say it is still competitive in that it is more compact than EL SV and doesn't suffer from glare and compared with Leica's excellent and lovely to use Ultravid + I think its more a matter of personal taste.

BTW I am currently enjoying a quite different brand from my normal one and that is Meopta. I have the Meostar 8x32 (and an S2 scope) and it really is a delightful instrument. More follows when the weather cheers up and I can do field work.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

I think overall the Zeiss HT is the best alpha roof even overtaking the SF (this has bad green cast)?

The subtle green cast that a small number of observers has reported isn't noticed by everyone. And before anyone tells me that it matters more if its there rather than whether it is noticed, I would point to Gijs van Ginkel's analysis of the light emerging from SFs which suggest strongly that there is no excessive green light.

This type of observation was also levelled at FL from time to time but again, not many people reported it.

As Mike has pointed out, you really need to try SFs out and make your own mind up rather than have it made up by anyone else, including me.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

Fair point. I pulled the cross-brand comparison from the "compare" function on the B&H web site, just because it was easy. The Zeiss site (English or German) does have the 830g figure (now). Not the 1st time spec sheets have been wrong (these days I should be more inclined to assume they are wrong rather than right given how error-ridden they seem to be from pretty much all manufacturers or resellers). That makes the HTs the heaviest of those I noted by about 40g (assuming the other figures are accurate!) which, while not the end of the earth, might be significant (especially, as you say, if used for long periods).

...Mike

Mike

You are so right about websites and I include Zeiss in this. I notice contradictions regularly and report them and eventually corrections get made but considering that websites are the world's shop windows these days you would think that basic facts should be controlled in a better way.

Lee

 

[[email protected]]

The subtle green cast that a small number of observers has reported isn't noticed by everyone. And before anyone tells me that it matters more if its there rather than whether it is noticed, I would point to Gijs van Ginkel's analysis of the light emerging from SFs which suggest strongly that there is no excessive green light.

This type of observation was also levelled at FL from time to time but again, not many people reported it.

As Mike has pointed out, you really need to try SFs out and make your own mind up rather than have it made up by anyone else, including me.

Lee

When I compared the SF 10x42's to the HT 10x42's I saw no green cast in either. Weight does make a difference and the SF's felt amazingly light for a 42mm binocular. I feel that is one of their best advantages. You have a 42mm binocular that feels like a 32mm. Pretty cool.