What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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.
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Zeiss
Zeiss SF vs Swarovision FULL FIELD OPTICS REVIEW !!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="arran" data-source="post: 3186867" data-attributes="member: 11246"><p>Thanks for great and extended review.Wow!!!</p><p>I have been comparing the SF and the SV in the 10x42 versions at 2 locations in sunny and cloudy conditions.</p><p>Overall I agree with the experience you had.</p><p>Although , what appeared to be clair was that the zeiss was much brighter in an overshadowed street and the microcontrast and the resolution scores were better with the SF.This was made clear trying to read small letters , black on white in a long overshadowed tunnel.We both were convinced being able to see better the small letters with SF.</p><p>In full sun conditions, the difference was small and almost no internal glare issues with SF</p><p>Issues focus drive: while turning the SF focus , I felt different resistance , but the micro focussing was OK but not as smooth as eg the zeiss conquest that resembles the Japanese made focusdrives.The SV focus drive was much smoother overall , but the fine focus drive remains a bit nodgy and hesitating.</p><p>Eye cups : what surprises me is that there is only two steps up in the turning out of the cups.This first one is OK for me, but look at the conquest , you have more turnout steps.</p><p>Design : i like the beautiful design of the SF , but the length is quite pronounced and might be bothering for some</p><p>In this way I rather like the leica ultravid design.</p><p>Diopter : no issues at all , i do not expect any diopter shift like with the EDG I we had in the past.</p><p>The field of view as mentioned in the tech specs is a pro of course .</p><p>Comparing with the new leica hd plus : the eyecups and compactness are best as is the focus drive.</p><p>The image of the leica is not as bright , but only slight difference.</p><p>I went out with a Leica hd plus which will be my companion for,the next years.</p><p>There has been a time I was a bit swaro crazy with their flat field , open bridge,...</p><p>But after several repairs of the swaro focus drive, I,totally reviewed my idea on quality of a bin.</p><p>I am back in the camp of Leica again, a bin like my old brick in the eighties , never let me down as my wife's ultravid during the most harsh conditions.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="arran, post: 3186867, member: 11246"] Thanks for great and extended review.Wow!!! I have been comparing the SF and the SV in the 10x42 versions at 2 locations in sunny and cloudy conditions. Overall I agree with the experience you had. Although , what appeared to be clair was that the zeiss was much brighter in an overshadowed street and the microcontrast and the resolution scores were better with the SF.This was made clear trying to read small letters , black on white in a long overshadowed tunnel.We both were convinced being able to see better the small letters with SF. In full sun conditions, the difference was small and almost no internal glare issues with SF Issues focus drive: while turning the SF focus , I felt different resistance , but the micro focussing was OK but not as smooth as eg the zeiss conquest that resembles the Japanese made focusdrives.The SV focus drive was much smoother overall , but the fine focus drive remains a bit nodgy and hesitating. Eye cups : what surprises me is that there is only two steps up in the turning out of the cups.This first one is OK for me, but look at the conquest , you have more turnout steps. Design : i like the beautiful design of the SF , but the length is quite pronounced and might be bothering for some In this way I rather like the leica ultravid design. Diopter : no issues at all , i do not expect any diopter shift like with the EDG I we had in the past. The field of view as mentioned in the tech specs is a pro of course . Comparing with the new leica hd plus : the eyecups and compactness are best as is the focus drive. The image of the leica is not as bright , but only slight difference. I went out with a Leica hd plus which will be my companion for,the next years. There has been a time I was a bit swaro crazy with their flat field , open bridge,... But after several repairs of the swaro focus drive, I,totally reviewed my idea on quality of a bin. I am back in the camp of Leica again, a bin like my old brick in the eighties , never let me down as my wife's ultravid during the most harsh conditions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Zeiss
Zeiss SF vs Swarovision FULL FIELD OPTICS REVIEW !!!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top