Zeiss SFL versus Zeiss Victory FL contrast and color reproduction. (1 Viewer)

[Maljunulo]

Well, 'fairy dust' is a poetic turn of phrase and perfectly sums up my feelings after I have picked up a compact but wide-field 32mm bino. And yes I know the fov is governed by the eyepieces and not the size of the binos, but I have nevertheless often said to myself 'this little bino has a sprinkle of magic' which I am sure is just another way of saying 'fairy dust'.

Lee

This is exactly why the endless spec-sheet wars here both amuse and repel me.

It cannot be quantified, or put on a spec sheet, or given a number, but it is an instant source of delight and amazement over a lifetime.

Sadly, based on posts seen in this forum, some have either never seen it, or did not recognize and appreciate it if they did.

 

[Vespobuteo]

I have two 42 mm binoculars: Zeiss Victory FL 7x42 and Leica Noctivid 8x42 and I would like to keep only one but I can't decide because I love both : the over saturated colors of Noctivid and the cleaner colors of Victory. I've read a lot of reviews about the new Zeiss SFL and I think that since I want my binoculars to be smaller and lighter but still have a decent exit pupil and brightness, the Zeiss SFL might be the right binocular for me. . I would like to know from someone who had the opportunity to compare the Victory Fl with the SFL, how do the two binoculars compare in terms of color reproduction, is the new SFL much better in terms of contrast and colors than the Victory FL? Thanks in advance for any information.

I know that when it comes to the appreciation of colors and contrast, people can be extremely subjective because not everyone perceives colors in the same way, but I would like to know if there are such big differences that almost anyone can notice them. I have this curiosity because in many reviews people say that SFL has the most pleasant colors.

No.

 

[binomaniac]

No.

Thank you very much.

 

[Patudo]

the often exciting discussions here are almost always basically technical, but all too rarely describe the feeling, almost magic by the transcendence of the vision brought by what is known as the 'Alphas' Optics :!!
Many things to say about it, to describe, and not only in terms of Absam ring, Collimation, Kidney bean, Blackout, Parallax effect, glare, etc etc and so on... but in terms of poetic feeling, emotion, transcendence, magic, 'supravision', etc etc...

This I believe is partly because a good proportion of commentators here on BF are British and American, and - I hesitate to generalize but I think English speakers tend to write about their binoculars more rationally, emphasizing sharpness, colour accuracy, edge performance and so on, and less emotionally. This is partly to avoid giving the perception that one is "bigging up" one's kit, but I also think that understatement is very much part of the British (in particular) psyche. Yes there are some that, like Troubador and Ratal from this parish, can wax lyrical with the best of them, but I think you could pass your NLs or whatever to very many UK birders for a trial, and whatever they might think, all you might get from them is a grunt and "They're really pretty decent, aren't they?" (or words to that effect).

 

[SeldomPerched]

This I believe is partly because a good proportion of commentators here on BF are British and American, and - I hesitate to generalize but I think English speakers tend to write about their binoculars more rationally, emphasizing sharpness, colour accuracy, edge performance and so on, and less emotionally. This is partly to avoid giving the perception that one is "bigging up" one's kit, but I also think that understatement is very much part of the British (in particular) psyche. Yes there are some that, like Troubador and Ratal from this parish, can wax lyrical with the best of them, but I think you could pass your NLs or whatever to very many UK birders for a trial, and whatever they might think, all you might get from them is a grunt and "They're really pretty decent, aren't they?" (or words to that effect).

How true. I am half-English and though commendable in many ways this understatement often strikes the other, non-English half of me as frustrating and unappreciative. For instance, sometimes I will say something like 'just look at those clouds' in a tone of wonderment but the response is like throwing a jet engine into reverse: 'they're just clouds, Tom. Haven't you seen clouds before?'

Except when it hinders identification I don't see why a binocular needs to be strictly natural (whether possible or checkable) any more than a painting needs to be. I like the choice of different looks that I see from different makes and models. And sometimes I tire of particular looks and have a spell of using something else. The same with photography and interestingly my favourite lenses for years have also been Leitz / Leica. Of course choice of film or style of digital editing has an influence here too.

 

[Trinovid]

I truly do not understand why folks are incapable of accepting what is, and seeing things as they are (to normal, unenhanced vision) and always need colors to “pop” and so on.

Good grief! It’s the world …… not a TV screen with all the controls maxed out.

Such a funny post, but also spot on and all I can say is that the ‘world as it is’ view of my original Leitz was perfect, even though the ultra saturated colors and sharper contrast of the HD+ are also addictive.

We’re all going to like what we like and it’s good at times to examine why it should be assumed that richer colors are superior when all they are is another choice of preference.