• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Zen 7x36 out in the field. (1 Viewer)

stereotruckdriver

Well-known member
Today I really got to use the Zen's in varying habitats! I went from Ocean esturaries to river banks back into the forest and ended lake side! I'am speechless for less then $400 these make an awesome birding glass let alone hunting glass! What a pleasure to use images in all situations were superb! I really pushed to make them fail, try as I might in the field couldn't get it done! They are actually better than my first impressions of them! I brought my 8x32 SE's and carried them in my vest for back-up! I never once grabbed my SE's?! That say's something right there about the Zen 7x36 I didn't need another binocular no matter what we were viewing! Looking into the sun, sun at our backs glare from water in the shade you name it they past everything with flying color's. I won't mention what two of my friends were using, let's just say they have expensive glass ok. And after today they will be buying a Zen-Ray to! You owe it to yourself if you are looking for glass that is affordable with excellent optical properties to give the 7x36 ED 2's a go! I don't work for Zen or any Optics co. for that matter! Though it would be fun!!! Lol!!! Bryce...
 
Bryce,

Your post shows your satisfaction with your new acquisition, but writing that it was more useful than your Nikon 8x32 SE may upset some BFers. I have often read posts that claim the SE is last word in binoculars. However I like the Zen a lot, as well.
It is important to remember that your tastes and needs seem to be well satisfied by the Zen's design compromise.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :scribe:
 
Bryce,

Your post shows your satisfaction with your new acquisition, but writing that it was more useful than your Nikon 8x32 SE may upset some BFers. I have often read posts that claim the SE is last word in binoculars. However I like the Zen a lot, as well.
It is important to remember that your tastes and needs seem to be well satisfied by the Zen's design compromise.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :scribe:

Arthur, my point wasn't that the Zen was more useful? On a day like yesterday I allways use my SE's! My point was more to the point no matter the viewing situation I didn't feel handicapped (excuse this term) using the Zen's and for someone that can't afford top glass to give the 7x36 a go! Bryce...
 
It seems that the Swarovision got the SE beat ;)

http://birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1732868&postcount=25

Bryce,

Your post shows your satisfaction with your new acquisition, but writing that it was more useful than your Nikon 8x32 SE may upset some BFers. I have often read posts that claim the SE is last word in binoculars. However I like the Zen a lot, as well.
It is important to remember that your tastes and needs seem to be well satisfied by the Zen's design compromise.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :scribe:
 
Bryce,

writing that it was more useful than your Nikon 8x32 SE may upset some BFers. I have often read posts that claim the SE is last word in binoculars. However I like the Zen a lot, as well.
It is important to remember that your tastes and needs seem to be well satisfied by the Zen's design compromise.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :scribe:

Upsetting BFers or not,the Zen 7x can be more useful than a pair of SE 8x,in some instances...7X and the extra FOV ,make for a very useful combination for Flying birds..I find myself sometimes missing a bit of reach in the 7x Vs 8x ,but mostly because im too used to 8X ,..detail is as easily discerned at 7X,because of the extra stability,when looking at a still,or relatively slow moving target.. But in fast moving,flying birds ,I find the 7x,477 Feet combination of the Zen to be more responsive. birds are more easy to catch in the FOV and they stay there longer and are more easily trackable...I have shifted a little the aiming of my birding ,and am having longer,more detailed views of fast moving birds while using the binos,because they seem to move slower while crossing the larger field of view at a smaller magnification..so,they are more useful in that respect..Oh,they are also more useful to look at stars,to my like of course...
 
Last edited:
If you will allow? A contrary view....

Based on the many raves here in bf, I purchased a pair of 7x36 ED2's at the end of December. They arrived very promptly just after New Years day. It's been cold in St. Louis this winter so it was a couple of weeks before I could take them out and put them through their paces. I thought that they were very good, as an after thought I compared them to my old bins and was very, very surprised that the old bins seemed just as good.

This brought about a close comparison with the new Zens stacked above, then below my old bins. No matter what I looked at: close or far, hard or soft - my old bins matched the resolution of the Zens??? How could this be? The Zens appeared to have a very, very slight edge in brightness (this was in mid afternoon) and perhaps also in contrast. They certainly had a definate edge in depth of field (a big plus here). They also had a wider FOV, but so what - although that might help in catching birds in flight, a wide FOV has never been important to me. Most importantly, in the field, the Zens did not provide any significant advantage. My old bins were certailnly much more comfortable to use with much better handling. I could not see into deep shadow or shade where I could not see with my old bins. There was no advantage in resolution - that I could percieve. To suggest that I was disappointed, is putting it mildly.

I contacted (emailed) Charles at ZR customer support. Charles was very polite and helpfull, he suggested that I return the Zen's and he would check them out. Also that, it might be difficult to see the advantages that the Zens should present in resolution and brightness in the field during mid day. He suggested looking at something like an eyechart in dim light, so I would be able to begin to measure respective resolution differences. Accordingly, I printed out in draft mode one of the emails we had interchanged. The lower case letters were 1/20" (0.05") high. I taped this email to my living room wall, Illuminated it with a 40 watt bulb facing a perpendicular wall about 8 feet away. Thus, I now had a dimly light optical chart that I could back away from through my living room and into the kitchen. I set a 25' tape on the carpet and stepped back to 5 feet from my "chart" and easily read the email while hand holding the Zen's. My old bins would not focus this close, so I had to move back to 7' or 8' for them to be able to read the "chart". I stepped back to 10 feet and both bins could still easily reed the "chart". Back to 15 feet. Now it was a bit more difficult. I had to concentrate and hold the bins steady, but when I did - both could still read a few words at a time. Back to 20 feet. I braced myself against a wall, my old bins - could still read an individual word, one word at a time; while the Zens could not. At best they could only identify a capitalized letter - they could not read a word. At 25 feet back, neither pair could read anything. I emailed Charles the results of this test and he suggested that I return the Zen's for examination, I did - with a request for a replacement, if the original pair were not up to standard.

Charles examined my returned pair and emailed me that they had center resolution of 4.4arcsec. a bit below ZR's standards and that he had hand picked out a replacement pair that had 4.01arcsec. of center resolution. He also suggested that it was a bit tricky comparing the 7x36 ED2's to a pair of 8x42's as a perfectly executed pair of 8x42's was capable of resolution of 3.7arcsec. I pointed out to him that the entire reason that I purchased the Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2 was for their reputed outstanding resolution.

Originally, I had been concerned about the specified 16.8mm of eyerelief which turned out -for me, to be entirely comfortable with my eyeglasses. Additionally, the problem with glare/flare was nonexistent on the pair that I received and focusing was very light -not a bit stiff. Finally, I had been surprised by the 7x36's handling, it was not anywhere near as awkward as I expected from a Euro open bridge design. But, overall I was willing to purchase and overlook all of the above in order to receive the benefits of their outstanding resolution. However, without their reputed excellent resolution I would not be interested in owning a pair of 7x36.

The second pair arrived quickly and went back the following day. I could perceive no added benefit. In fact when I repeated the email "chart" test, I got the exact same results. I spent a total of $50 shipping (including insurance) the ZR 7x36 binoculars back and forth to Portland. I can only conclude that my original bins (8x42 Nikon Monarchs) came from the happy end of the bell curve and that those on bf who would label Monarchs as mediocre have not looked through mine. Perhaps I was expecting too much, but in the field, I did not see what everyone else was so excited about?

As advertised Zen-Ray has excellent customer service, I received a full credit on the purchase price.
 
Last edited:
bearclaw,

Just as a point of curiosity, just what are your old bins? That would be nice to know. Another point of curiosity, you have your location listed as Portland too.
 
bearclaw,

Just as a point of curiosity, just what are your old bins? That would be nice to know. Another point of curiosity, you have your location listed as Portland too.

I was curious to seeing he was in Portland and it cost $50 shipping both ways for 2pr? I will be the first to admit that one sample of the 7x36 2's that I had didn't quite match the 1st one. I felt it had a smaller sweet spot, center field resolution was a wash in all respects. And I feel that's where the Zen's excell is in the center field, and they are as good in this respect as most other high-end glass. And yes I have had my share of good glass, if I haven't owned it I knew somebody that did! I have not tried the 56mm Zeiss the new Swarovski or Leica HD's though I have had or used the latter version's of all of those! Bryce...
 
Steve C:

Old Bins are identified as 8x42 Nikon Monarch's, about 1.5 years old. They have aluminum coatings not the newest with dielectric coatings. That's why I was so surprised about the very slight difference in brightness, of course my field use was in mid afternoon. But "chart" use was inside with dim light in the evenings. I have a project in St. Louis, but should be back in Tualatin (suburb of Portland in four or five months. I can not get the spellcheck to work? Sorry about mis-spelling.
 
bearclaw,

Just as a point of curiosity, just what are your old bins? That would be nice to know. Another point of curiosity, you have your location listed as Portland too.

It's in that last paragraph. And it's a bin you have, Steve.

I can only conclude that my original bins (8x42 Nikon Monarchs) came from the happy end of the bell curve and that those on bf who would label Monarchs as mediocre have not looked through mine. Perhaps I was expecting too much, but in the field, I did not see what everyone else was so excited about?

I think you are perhaps expecting too much.

The combination of your eye (with perhaps 60 arc seconds resolution) and the bin will be limited by your eye not by the bin. For example, for 8x bins you with eye with 60 arc seconds resolution the ultimate resolution you'd see is 60/8 or 7.5 arc seconds. I'm sure both the Monarchs and the ZR

The other factor is magnification: with any 7x you will measure at a lower resolution than an 8x with the naked eye. In this hypothetical case it would be 8.6 arc seconds for the 7x. Or to put it another way the 8x should read the same chart 14% further away than the 7x (i.e. 8 / 7 = 1.14). That's about 3 feet difference in your measuring scheme.

Notice how these resolutions are both less than the measured resolution of the ZRs. To see the difference in ultimate resolution you'd need to boost the magnification by adding a small monocular/binocular at the eyepiece of the bin. Search on the forums and you'll see how Henry Link and others do these measurements.

The differences for the ZR ED2 7x36 over the Monarch: ED glass (and LaK in the EP) reducing longitudinal and lateral CA increasing perceived sharpness; high contrast from higher transmission; flatter spectrum (the Monarch with a silver mirror will be a bit warmer than the ZR which has higher transmission at the blue end of the spectrum ... this is a subtle effect); FOV (9.1° over 6.2°) which makes it easier to find the birds. 7x over 8x for less shake (but lower total resolution). And closer focus too.

I think you were perhaps had the wrong expectations of the ZR. Moving up from a Monarch the effects are more subtle but completely noticeable. They are noticeable to me even moving from a non-ED Zeiss or Meopta or Pentax to any of the ED bins I've used ("Chinese ED" or top Euro bins).
 
Kevin Purcell:

Perhaps you are correct? The one bin that I have noticed a very positive jump in resolution was with Vortex Viper 10x42's. Very, very nice, but .... I can not hold 10x steady, the 8x42 Vipers do not impress. The 10x42 Nikon Monarch's also do not impress - me. Actually the Viper 10x are the only 10x that I've ever liked? I've not seen any of the other Zens, so I have no idea of their resolution capabilities.

But if as you suggest, if I can't see a difference, why then would I want them? My expectation may well have been unrealistic, but I was looking for a very real and noticable increase in resolution. Much to my disappointment, I did not see any increase in resolution. Oh, and if I can't see it, how can you see it?
 
You'd want it for the other reasons I described: improved color balance; perceived sharpness due to reduced CA; improved brightness (especially at the blue end) so better contrast; wider field; less shake with a 7x; much wider field of view; very good resistance to glare.

Plenty of reasons at least for me!

The more apples to apple comparison would be Zen Ray 8x43 (especially the ED2) to the Monarch. Both 8x. And I'd test it outside. Look at some high contrast targets (crows against the sky; wires against the sky to see the improvement with CA) and subtly colored low contrast targets to see how well the color is seen (BC Chikadee flanks work very well). Try it at twilight too.

Of course if you can't see a difference then stick with what you've got and save the money (and the weight ... that's certainly one thing in the Monarch's favor ... they're very light for a 40ish mm bin). I still see plenty of people (including a lot of serious twitchers/birders) using Monarchs in the field. For a lot of people it's all the bin they want.

But the real issue is actual (monochromatic) resolution won't increase for any 8x bin because it's limited by your eye. You need to look at other properties of the bin.

One other thing for you to look at might be the Canon IS bins. The Canon IS 10x30 is very nicely priced and is easy to hold steady even without IS (the boxy shape seems to help). And of course is more steady when the IS is on. Not waterproof or dustproof though. And doesn't control the CA as well as I would like. Only a 6° FOV but a nice flat field that is sharp to the edge. I like mine. It makes a nice compliment to the ZR 7x36 too. The later for close in woodland or urban birding and the former for distant birding.

Try searching for Chinese ED bin reviews here like Promaster 8x42 or Hawke 8x43 or the Zen Ray 8x43 to see why other folks like them.
 
Last edited:
Discussions like these are always useful.

If Bearclaw prefers his Nikon Monarchs, fair enough.

But I wonder whether the test he put the bins to was both fair and appropriate. I am not against testing, btw, I think tests are an excellent way to achieve objectivity. But a test of resolution between a 7x36 and an 8x42 is not a fair one. AEBE, on resoution, a 8x42 will have the advantage.

And how important is resolution anyway? Note: I'm not saying it's unimportant. Bearclaw admits he ignores the FoV difference. That's his choice, but to most people the ZR's 9.1° over the Nikon's 6.2° is a HUGE difference. Making the ZR a much more useable bin. Excluding optician tests! I won't go into CA, CF etc, the same holds true.

At the same time, whilst Kevin lists all the sexy things that go into making the ZR special (ED glass, dielectric coating etc), the ultimate test of a bin is of course not what it's made of but what it does. If Bearclaw either doesn't notice or doesn't value things like FoV, CA, CF, then the ZR is not the bin for him. Similarly (conversely?), if the ZR 7x36 is as big and as heavy as a competitor's ~x42, then it is only fair that they are compared.
 
Last edited:
Color is certainly important for birds, so I want all the color and brightness I can for a particular magnification and objective size. You can get used to birding with both 7x and 8x. You will know the familiar birds better, so often a scope is not needed.

The hand shake business is individual, so not much can be generalized. I saw a small number of geese high up and could not ID as a species, but they were certainly geese or swans. I had 10x in hand.
 
Yeah I do have the Monarch. And, yes I did miss it in the post :eek!:. I am really surprised that bearclaw got the results he did, because my Monarch is nowhere in the same league as the ZEN. However, it does serve to illustrate that no single design can please everybody and everyone's eyes "see" things differently. No substitute for actually using one to determine its ultimate usefulness for a particular person.

Edit: I might add here that my Monarch 8x42 seems to be a pretty cherry binocular. It is beter than the several other 8x42 Monarch's I have compared it to.
 
Last edited:
At the same time, whilst Kevin lists all the sexy things that go into making the ZR special (ED glass, dielectric coating etc), the ultimate test of a bin is of course not what it's made of but what it does. If Bearclaw either doesn't notice or doesn't value things like FoV, CA, CF, then the ZR is not the bin for him.

And I think I said that: if the user prefers Monarchs then stick with the Monarchs.

It's true of all binoculars: they're compromises of a series of optical, mechanical, ergonomic and commercial parameters. How that matches the the user is a critical point.

But I responded here mostly because the user doesn't understand where the limits in observable resolution are (i.e. the test is not a good or a fair one) and so has an unreasonable expectation of what better binoculars are.

It's understanding various binocular properties is valuable when selecting a pair of bins.

Similarly (conversely?), if the ZR 7x36 is as big and as heavy as a competitor's ~x42, then it is only fair that they are compared.

That's just one parameter so saying the bin "is the best" because it's lighter isn't that useful because other people may have different views. Of course "saying it's best for me" is another matter and I wouldn't disagree with that.

And making people aware of a property that they might assume is different is a rather a great use of this forum!
 
Spitfiretriple:

Ah, you hit the nail on the head the ZR 7x36 weigh a bit more than the 8x42 Monarchs and they are as big as the Monarchs. I very much value being able to use a bin with one hand as my left hand is always holding Sadie's leash, otherwise she would be in the water.

Kevin you mentioned something interesting, I much prefer the rendering of color through the Monarch's. Colors are a bit more vivid/intense. The worlds a bit duller through the Zens. That would be the warmth associated with the Monarchs versus the cool blue world of the Zens.

I'm not bummed out in any way and I consider the $50 for shipping to be well spent. I got to see what all the fuss was about. Zen-Ray certainly has very good customer service. I found that although I did not like the Euro open bridge design - it was better than I expected. One thing the strap attachment was a bit further toward the objective lens then I would like. I had to reach back with my index figer for the focus control. A bit awkward, but focus was actually light and very positive. No hesitation.

The "optic chart" test may have been unfair, but it was iluminating. There is no question which bin I prefer in the field. I guess the biggest disapointment with the Zen was that it could not see into shade better than my Monarch's. I'm pretty sure my Monarch's have aluminum coatings not silver. The new Monarch's are supposed to have dielectric coatings. Puzzling.
 
I'm pretty sure my Monarch's have aluminum coatings not silver.

I'm not sure but I suspect they must be silver otherwise they'd have a "cold" bluish bias.

I agree about the strap attachment. That could be 5mm or more back towards the EP. I find I sometime hit it with my fingers.
 
Similarly (conversely?), if the ZR 7x36 is as big and as heavy as a competitor's ~x42, then it is only fair that they are compared.

Spitfiretriple:

Ah, you hit the nail on the head the ZR 7x36 weigh a bit more than the 8x42 Monarchs and they are as big as the Monarchs.

Here's something that doesn't get enough airplay. To realize the advantages of a sub 42mm bin over it's 42mm competition, there has to be some. Otherwise, what's the point?
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top