Chosun and Jerry, lets all play together nicely.
Smoke and mirrors sounds like something that doesn't really exist, which is a strange way to describe the position of the focus wheel on SF, which is a development of the position on Zeiss's HT and that contributes materially to the balance of SF by giving it an eyepiece-heavy balance rather than one that is objective-heavy.
Doing your experiment Chosun, SF balances perfectly with my fingertip under the very end of the focus wheel nearest the objectives. When I slide my three fingers around the barrel, and my first finger falls without effort on the forcus wheel, the notch between my first and second fingers is aligned with this point of balance. This means that the weight is partly within my grasp but mainly tipping towards the eyepiece which is exactly the result that Gerry Dobler was looking for, so that objective-end dominance was overcome and the weight rests towards your face. I can't see any smoke and mirrors in a design feature that is a) deliberate and b) is successful in achieving its aims.
Its a shame that SF doesn't suit your shoulder Chosun but you are happy with your ZR and me and Jerry and more than a few others are happy with our SFs.
Peace.
Lee
Lee, I always play nice o
...... though if someone starts it, I'm going to finish it - there's no need for some on here to act like pork chops. I can't stand a bully.
Thanks for conducting the little experiment (that's the way I did it last time I had a pair in hand), and about the result expected from crunching the numbers on the back of an envelope.
The physics of the situation are what they are. :cat:
There are two parts to the SF's balance:
(i) Is the relative weights and distances of the glass elements from this balance point. The deliberate decision to design the optical train so as to place more glass in the eyepieces, and lighten the objectives is a good one which helps achieve this rearward weight balance. This part is a relatively free lunch (there are small moments at play, but I won't blur the issue by going into detail since they are easily countered by the natural range of motion and locking at the wrist).
(ii) The other one is somewhat more arbitrary. By placing the focuser (which can go anywhere within a reasonable range of positions) so far forward (quite clear when you line the cutaways up at the eyepiece end), you ensure that the grip point is forward of the c.o.g - thus also introducing another rearward weight bias.
This second part is a somewhat arbitrary decision that also drags the hands slightly away from the body, and the weight of the arms must be counteracted by a reactionary moment force about the shoulders. The muscles of the shoulder are small, though this is of little consequence if there is no injury, and the elevation angle of the binoculars is varied to release any likely fatigue. For this reason it's not entirely a free lunch, and that's where the smoke and mirrors part comes in.
It's more of an issue when looking horizontally or down, rather than skywards. On balance though (see what I did there!?
ay !
the SF works pretty well for a slight rearward weight balance that makes it seem lighter in the hand than it's actual weight. Anyway that's the physics of the situation, and there's no use anybody getting upset by it.
I of course prefer the Zen's zero gap finger separation method, but the SF is not a bad podium getter (MHG runner up). Of course I also prefer the Zen's better quality eye cups, but sadly that's were the quality advantages end, and it's SF all the way from there! though at about 7× the price
As always people are individuals and YMMV - though that's no reason not to play nice
Chosun :gh:
