Zeiss SF - Allbinos review (1 Viewer)

[james holdsworth]

This is from the Greatest Binoculars Review" by Tobias.

"Only the Swarovision lets you roam around in the image by eye movement only, without any strain or blackouts. I guess the weak baffling makes the exit pupil very accessible under many situations, for best ease of view. The trade off is a bit more flare than usual."

Personally, I would trade a little bit more glare for the comfort and the ease of view of the SV's. I know the SV's have a little more glare than some of the other alphas but it is a design decision by Swarovski. The glare is really not that bothersome under most conditions but the ease of view is there to enjoy all the time. I do feel the Swarovski 8x32 SV is the best all around 32mm binocular that I have tried. I also find the flat transmission curve of the 10x42 SV astounding. No wonder it is such a good performer.:t:

In other words - diminish the problem of bins you own and enhance any perceived problems with those you don't. Got it.

 

[Troubador]

This statement makes an assertion about 'roaming' followed by a "guess" about 'weak baffling', finalized by a hypothetical predictive design 'trade off' between roaming and baffling. It's really quite masterful. :smoke:

Ed

Not to mention the word 'only' at the begining.

I have roamed around a Swaro EL SV too, and several Ultravids, Meoptas, Kites, Kowas and Nikons. Oh, and a Zeiss or two. And all without eyestrain, blackouts, or losing consciousness.

Lee

 

[elkcub]

Chosun,

That was the sum of what Arek told me. From my own spectroscopy experience, I suspect Arek's previous equipment lacked a suitable or stable reference channel. Readings might be prone to fluctuations in the power of the light source over time for example which might account for some high readings on occasions. As Arek states, the relative transmission would normally be unaffected so those results would be accurate for colour. It would be wrong to interpret those older graphs for peak transmission. Those recent results do appear to be produced on a more advanced machine, but I don't know any more details.

It may be hard for those who cannot readily see binocular colour bias to understand, but to my eyes but in the dozens of Swarovskis and Zeiss binoculars I've tried it is quite clear to me that there is significant sample variation in colour balance. I don't see that any of the individual traces from either Arek of Gijs are necessesarily wrong. In fact statistically they must underrepresent the sample variation of the binoculars I've seen, let alone the thousands produced.

As for that ELSV 10x42. I wouldn't know how accurate the absolute values are, but colour wise, I would say that would be entirely consistant with individual ELSV and SLC samples I've tried which were very obviously blue compared to other Swarovski samples to hand.
David

David,

I meant to reinforce this earlier, since much of our discussion is taking place in the absence of knowledge about error margins. We don't know much of anything about production variability, inter-instrument variability, or test-to-test reliability. We also can't study any of the published distributions analytically.

It's getting boring, I know, but so far there has been no answer from transmission providers (sorry, Gijs) about publishing useful data tables. To be specific, I've attached one of several old transmission reports (of my favorite Swift 804ED) showing what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, even here the PDF format properties prevent moving the data to an Excel or SPSS compatible format — almost as if they are being purposely suppressed. (I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, but why are the graphs made available and not the data that produced them?)

In this instance, the left and right tubes are are similar pictorially, but the data tables show numerical differences. I have others binocular reports showing greater pictorial differences between tubes. So, how different is different and by who's expert judgment does it make or not make a difference? Without being able to analyze these distributions mathematically/statistically the whole thing is up in the air. I've already mentioned this prevents being able to bridge the gap between the exit pupil and the eye's perceptual system. :-C

Ed

 

[Kammerdiner]

This statement makes an assertion about 'roaming' followed by a "guess" about 'weak baffling', finalized by a hypothetical predictive design 'trade off' between roaming and baffling. It's really quite masterful. :smoke:

Ed

No, it's really quite experiential. I do believe I was the first to make this conjecture, having lived with a bunch of 8x32's, including the FL, for a number of years. Swaro knows full well what they are doing with the 8x32 SV, and the rest of the SV line.

Mark

 

[[email protected]]

In other words - diminish the problem of bins you own and enhance any perceived problems with those you don't. Got it.

I don't see glare as a problem in the SV's. Even the alpha binoculars have trade off's in design characteristics. I will trade ease of view and eye placement for a little glare. That is why you have a choice. A lot of people still prefer the SV's including Allbino's in their testing. The SV's have been out for quite a few years now and they still beat Zeiss's latest "Wunderkind" SF. We will probably see an updated SV pretty soon and then the margin will grow even wider.

 

[jremmons]

Ease of view with the HTs is phenomenal - and I didn't see nearly the amount of glare (or CA) as I did in the Swarovision; I do not believe you need to induce glare to provide an easy view.

 

[Gilmore Girl]

I don't see glare as a problem in the SV's. Even the alpha binoculars have trade off's in design characteristics. I will trade ease of view and eye placement for a little glare. That is why you have a choice.

A lot of people still prefer the SV's including Allbino's in their testing. The SV's have been out for quite a few years now and they still beat Zeiss's latest "Wunderkind" SF. We will probably see an updated SV pretty soon and then the margin will grow even wider.

I like the first part of your post, but not the second half which turns into chest beating and some sort of silly competition.

You were almost there Dennis...almost.

 

[[email protected]]

Somebody had to have the guts to say it. Frankly it even surprised me that the Swarovski's older SV still beat Zeiss's latest SF in Allbino's ranking. I figured for sure the SF would rise to the top. But Allbino's ranking emphasizes optics more than ergonomics and I will admit the SF would score well in ergonomics. But it is kind of scary because it is about time for an update on the SV. Will the gap grow wider?:eek!:

 

[[email protected]]

Ease of view with the HTs is phenomenal - and I didn't see nearly the amount of glare (or CA) as I did in the Swarovision; I do not believe you need to induce glare to provide an easy view.

I have compared all the top alpha's and I will guarantee you the SV is the "King" of ease of view. try a 10x42 SV sometime compared to your HT.

 

[Gilmore Girl]

You may want to go back to EDG in the case of 10x42 since you put so much stock into Allbino's rankings:

http://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html

 

[jremmons]

Glare and chromatic aberration are much bigger problems for me than distorted edges, hence why I found the HT to have the superior view.

 

[Gilmore Girl]

You may want to go back to EDG in the case of 10x42 since you put so much stock into Allbino's rankings:

http://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html

I actually just read their review now for the 10x42 EDG. I normally don't read the reviews for 10x since I don't own one and have little experience with them.

But Dennis...you will need to run right out and buy a 10x42 EDG since Allbinos is apparently your go to guide for the best of the best.

Look at this summary for the EDG 10x42:

A record-breaking score in our test (no other pair of binoculars, tested by us so far, has reached a result over 150 points) and the lack of flaws that could be put in the ‘cons’ section are an explicit proof what kind of equipment we deal with here. If you don’t want to compromise on anything this set of binoculars is definitely for you.

 

[[email protected]]

You may want to go back to EDG in the case of 10x42 since you put so much stock into Allbino's rankings:

http://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html

If it wasn't for the fact that the EDG wasn't "Dark" it would be a perfect binocular. That is why I have hopes for Nikon's new 8x42 HG Monarch 7. It sounds like they are bumping up the transmission with better glass and maybe coatings. I have a check filled out for that one already. I had three EDG's and for me they were just too dark.

 

[ceasar]

You may want to go back to EDG in the case of 10x42 since you put so much stock into Allbino's rankings:

http://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html

Same with the Nikon 8x32 EDG which is ranked #1 among 8x32s.

 

[[email protected]]

Glare and chromatic aberration are much bigger problems for me than distorted edges, hence why I found the HT to have the superior view.

If you don't like CA try a Zeiss FL or SF. They are a little better than the HT at controlling CA. Especially the FL.

 

[[email protected]]

Same with the Nikon 8x32 EDG which is ranked #1 among 8x32s.

The SV 8x32's are in such demand Allbino's hasn't been able to get a test sample.o

 

[ceasar]

If it wasn't for the fact that the EDG wasn't "Dark" it would be a perfect binocular. That is why I have hopes for Nikon's new 8x42 HG Monarch 7. It sounds like they are bumping up the transmission with better glass and maybe coatings. I have a check filled out for that one already. I had three EDG's and for me they were just too dark.

Who says the EDG is "Dark?" You?

You need to get your eyes examined.

Seriously!

 

[james holdsworth]

And the garbageman puts another thread in the dumpster.....

 

[[email protected]]

Who says the EDG is "Dark?" You?

You need to get your eyes examined.

Seriously!

From the Greatest Binocular Review.

" I find one major fault though - the view is visibly darker then in the Leica Ultravid 8x42, the Zeiss HT and even the Zeiss SF. No matter how sharp the EDG is, it looks a bit subdued where the Leica Ultravid sparkles vividly. Nikon really needs to boost transmission in the EDG, no matter how, by coatings and or better glass. They will then simply have the best 8x42 for general use with a perfect combination of great qualities. Compared to what other companies try to do to reinvent the binocular this should be an easy task. I really hope that Nikon will not withdraw from the high end market and update this wonderful design very soon.
Nikon, I´m waiting for your awesome EDG MKIII."

It is not just me that say the EDG's are dark. Tobias is a well thought of and quite qualified reviewer. When I compared several alphas to see which one I wanted to keep I found the EDG's darker and more subdued than the others. If you don't agree that is ok. This is just my opinion. All of our eyes see differently. Other than that one fault I found them almost perfect. I am looking forward to the new Nikon 8x42 Monarch 7 HG.

 

[[email protected]]

This statement makes an assertion about 'roaming' followed by a "guess" about 'weak baffling', finalized by a hypothetical predictive design 'trade off' between roaming and baffling. It's really quite masterful. :smoke:

Ed

It is an assertion based on a lot of knowledge of binoculars. It sounds like a very reasonable explanation to me. The SV's do allow your eyes to roam more than some of the other alpha's and they do have a bit more glare. I am sure it is a some kind of design decision by Swarovski and Tobias is making an educated guess what it might be.