Zeiss sf regular guy review (1 Viewer)

[bh46118]

Get some of those moldy bills out from under your mattress and buy a pair. :king: Owning your dream binocular will never be disappointment. :t:

I did get to try the Hdx Leica 7x42 today and I'm smitten, I haven't worked out why yet but this will be my Alpha roof purchase. Simply stunning to me.

 

[elkcub]

Ed, post 57
Attempts to clarify things is never offense, so do not worry, I sleep well. The term "brightness" obviously is a matter of definition and language. When you consult different textbooks, you will see that in quite a few "brightness" in the sense of light current/lumens is not the only way to understand the term brightness.
I will try to simplify it as much as possible:
Suppose our eye receives a photo current of 1000 photons of violet light per square centimeter and also of 1000 photons of yellow light per square centimeter (I know that you have to define the wavelenght with much more precision, but let us not look at that for a moment). In that case our eye-brain system interprets the yellow signal as brighter than the violet signal, that is what a number of textbooks say when they make a definition of brightness. Others tell us: no brightness is fully determined by the photonflux, so 10000 photons per square centimeter is brighter then 1000 photons per square centimeter regardless of the color and that is their definition of brightness.
Gijs

Hi Gijs,

First let me say we are not disagreeing, or even defining the word "brightness" differently (in this case), — but a critical concept is missing. So, I'll give it another try and hope we can tie this together.

Referring to what you said earlier,

..."Brightness is not only determined by the light intensity the eye is exposed to (this is the combination of exit pupil and transmitted light). The color hue also plays a role in our perception of brightness..."

by "light intensity" I'm reasonably sure you meant the photons the eye is exposed to. Then you went on to say the "color hue also plays a role in our perception of brightness." I agree completely. But this begs the question: "How much of a role does color play, and how is that measured and incorporated into a mathematical expression for estimating total instrument brightness? What are the units of measure?

Fortunately for us, the the solution lies in the fact that visual scientists already consolidated the perceived brightness differences between individual frequencies into a standard formulation called the Human Luminosity Function. [Actually several, but we'll limit this to the photopic adapted eye, i.e, daylight.] This conveniently allows us to transition from the physical domain of photons to the psychological domain of perceptions. Such devices are commonly referred to as psycho-physical functions.

Returning to your example, then, if one wants to express numerically the brightness difference between violet and yellow light having the same number of photons, or any other colors for that matter, one simply compares their values on the luminosity function.

Which leads us to evaluating overall brightness numerically. This is important because the light entering the eye through binoculars is typically of mixed frequencies. Since each frequency makes its own contribution to brightness, a frequency-independent overall measure is obtained by cross multiplying the physical energies and the luminosity values, and then adding them up. Mathematically, this is simply the 'dot-product' of the energy and luminosity vectors over the visual range. The units are called lumens.

I wouldn't be so confident in making this statement were it not for the fact that nowadays every other product involving light, be they light bulbs, computer screens, TVs, or whatever, uses lumens to express overall brightness. It's an international standard. Why isn't it used for evaluating optical instruments?

Ed

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Ed, post 82, thank you for your clear reaction, I agree completely, but I think that binocular and telescope producers do exactly what you describe to predict the color reproduction of their instruments, that is at least what I understood from talking to employees form different companies. I f I remember whell they even have a DIN norm to use for it.
Gijs

 

[Vespobuteo]

I'm no Einstein:king:, but I know for sure that the SV has an extraordinarily bright image along with rich, dense color saturation. I can't help but wonder if some of the reason is the 93% transmission in the blue spectrum ? Bright usually = washed out, at least considerably more than I see in the SV. The two SE's I had were very bright, but I felt contrast suffered.

no doubt the SV:s have very good contrast in low light,
but note the difference in transmission diagrams between the 10x and 8.5x model (from Allbinos.com).
About 5% diff in the blue spectrum, thats quite a lot,
but is it detectable with the human eye?
(could this be due to different generations of coatings or a difference between models?)

http://www.allbinos.com/223-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_10x42_Swarovision.html

http://www.allbinos.com/251-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_8.5x42_Swarovision.html

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Vespobuteo, post 84,
The transmission differences between both SV's start really below 450 nm, a wavelenght range in which our eyes are not very sensitive at daylight, so I think that we can hardly or not see this 5% blue transmission difference.

 

[james holdsworth]

Hi Lee, I'm just enjoying the chat on here too, and give my point of view with no expectation that others will concur, but that's what I like about this forum.

I really like the SV & SF both, but I don't lust after either.

I did get to try the Hdx Leica 7x42 today and I'm smitten, I haven't worked out why yet but this will be my Alpha roof purchase. Simply stunning to me.

I know you hate distortion, and the last 7x42 HD I tried had lots of it, more than the SLC or HT [models I recall you didn't get on with].

Did the HDX have less? Leica have usually used a formula involving a bit more than average pincushion.

 

[Torview]

I know you hate distortion, and the last 7x42 HD I tried had lots of it, more than the SLC or HT [models I recall you didn't get on with].

Did the HDX have less? Leica have usually used a formula involving a bit more than average pincushion.

The pincushion was there still, less than the HT SLC (from memory), I felt it was less than the HD, remaining sharp further to the edge.

However being a 7x42 with class leading resolution and contrast, great depth of field, it's the one for me, I'll forgive the distortion, haven't found a compromise free binocular yet.

 

[NDhunter]

The pincushion was there still, less than the HT SLC (from memory), I felt it was less than the HD, remaining sharp further to the edge.

However being a 7x42 with class leading resolution and contrast, great depth of field, it's the one for me, I'll forgive the distortion, haven't found a compromise free binocular yet.

Have you tried the Nikon EDG 7x42 ? The EDG models are very good,
and they are class leading, many ways better than the Leica.

If you have a 7x42 model in your future, you are not done shopping until you check out the Nikon.

Jerry

 

[Torview]

Jerry, try as I might I just haven't been able to try a 7x Edg, I really like the Edg overall, but a 7 is my goal.

I know memory is unreliable when comparing performance but I do think the revised Leica is a marked improvement in overall clarity on the HD. Just wish there was a 7x SF SV SLC to add to the choice.

John.

 

[james holdsworth]

The pincushion was there still, less than the HT SLC (from memory), I felt it was less than the HD, remaining sharp further to the edge.

However being a 7x42 with class leading resolution and contrast, great depth of field, it's the one for me, I'll forgive the distortion, haven't found a compromise free binocular yet.

Well, if that's the case, then it is a clear fail for Leica marketing, as we hardly hear a peep about the 'plus' models.

The HT was a similar upgrade from the FL, yet it generated a thread with 275,000 views [vs. 16,000 for the Plus] and oodles of anticipation and showed up in lots of reviews / awards - deserved or not. I'm not sure the HD to HD Plus is as big a change but you would think, by the disinterest, that it was no change at all.

 

[bcskr]

Here we go again, thread drift.

 

[ceasar]

Well, if that's the case, then it is a clear fail for Leica marketing, as we hardly hear a peep about the 'plus' models.

The HT was a similar upgrade from the FL, yet it generated a thread with 275,000 views [vs. 16,000 for the Plus] and oodles of anticipation and showed up in lots of reviews / awards - deserved or not. I'm not sure the HD to HD Plus is as big a change but you would think, by the disinterest, that it was no change at all.

To be fair the Zeiss HT upgrade of the FL was not similar to what Leica did with the Ultravid HD+. It was a complete redesign. They don't even look related.

The only change made with the Ultravids was to improve the glass and the coatings. The bodies hardly look any different. Leica also kept the 7x42 which is worth noting! :t::t:

Bob

 

[dalat]

The HT was a similar upgrade from the FL, yet it generated a thread with 275,000 views [vs. 16,000 for the Plus] and oodles of anticipation and showed up in lots of reviews / awards - deserved or not. I'm not sure the HD to HD Plus is as big a change but you would think, by the disinterest, that it was no change at all.

If anything, it just proofs how big the impact of marketing is on what happens in this forum

Zeiss made a big fuss about the introduction of the SF and the HT, while Leica's HD+, new Trinovid, new Geovid (at least the ladder was a complete new design) were simply announced and two months later they were in the shops.

The amount of fuss produced by the marketing departments is directly correlated with the number of posts in BF.

 

[jan van daalen]

If anything, it just proofs how big the impact of marketing is on what happens in this forum

Zeiss made a big fuss about the introduction of the SF and the HT, while Leica's HD+, new Trinovid, new Geovid (at least the ladder was a complete new design) were simply announced and two months later they were in the shops.

The amount of fuss produced by the marketing departments is directly correlated with the number of posts in BF.

Still, given the salesfigures, it only proves that marketing has a Key role.

Jan

 

[Vespobuteo]

Vespobuteo, post 84,
The transmission differences between both SV's start really below 450 nm, a wavelenght range in which our eyes are not very sensitive at daylight, so I think that we can hardly or not see this 5% blue transmission difference.

ok, perhaps, just wondering whats going on...:smoke:
to me more yellow/red seems to be the way to increase contrast?
(like in sports/bike glasses, yellow glass is said to increase the contrast, but they are horrible to look through…)

will be interesting to see the transmission curve for the SF,
will it be as flat as the SV binos?
or same old peaked zeiss-curve?
a few complaints about the SF-colors I have heard.
but most people seem to like them better than the FL:series,

The difference between the ATS and ATX scopes color rendition is also interesting,
seems that latest Swaro scopes now are less cool blue and have a warmer more neutral tone in them?

Zeiss is getting cooler and Svaro warmer, and leica is getting the HT-glass…will all alpha binos look the same in a few years?

 

[perterra]

Here we go again, thread drift.

It's what conversations are all about,

 

[David in NC]

Anyone with a military background will see some humor here, but all "regular guy" reviewers will get "tabbed":

 

[Troubador]

If anything, it just proofs how big the impact of marketing is on what happens in this forum

Zeiss made a big fuss about the introduction of the SF and the HT, while Leica's HD+, new Trinovid, new Geovid (at least the ladder was a complete new design) were simply announced and two months later they were in the shops.

The amount of fuss produced by the marketing departments is directly correlated with the number of posts in BF.

Dalat

It could also be that the number of posts is directly correlated to market share and could also be correlated to the delay between announcement and actual presence in the shops (more time for speculation and discussion and complaints).

And don't forget the influence of the Moon, the tides and the second coming of the prophet Zarquon... :smoke:

Lee

 

[dalat]

And don't forget the influence of the Moon, the tides and the second coming of the prophet Zarquon... :smoke:
Lee

And more earthly, whether or not brock is taking a break...

 

[bh46118]

The Swaro roof view of a few years ago looked yellowish, I didn't like it at all.

yellow glass is said to increase the contrast, but they are horrible to look through…)