KennyJ
The British Flash
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 20139
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< not to sidetrack this discussion by a whole lot, I'm wondering what the Zeiss' 'mechanical' feel is like? >
It varies from model to model .
The 7 x 42 classic has a narrow central focus wheel , which I thought was a little stiff when I first got the bino 5 years ago , but is smooth as silk now . I still don't particularly like it's narrowness though .
The right diopter stays put , but even that is a little fiddly for my rather chunky fingers .
The hinge moves smoothly for IPD adjustment and stays put .
Eyecups do NOT rock , nor tend to get disloged from their correct position following an incidental head - butt , as I've found with almost all cheap binoculars .
It FEELS like a TOP quality product in the hands - unlike the FLs I've held .
It has just as wide a field of view as the Victory FLs , so no brownie point lost in that respect .
To MY eyes , the FLs ARE brighter , and show less C.A -- and of course , most importantly , have TWIST OUT , adjustable eyecups , unlike the old rubber fold backs on the classic , but that is about ALL that is " superior " in my opinion about the FLs v classics .
To me , Leica Ultravids and Swarovski ELs , and even , if not especially , Nikon HGLs , just FEEL better in MY hands .
Regards , Kenny
--------------------
Milton Wilcox R.I.P
|
Erik D
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 4066
Loc: Central New Jersey, USA
|
|
"Bino preference is as individual as spouse preference; you really need to get your hands on it to see how it feels to you. "
_____________________________________
Hmmm....
How long into the courtship does one need to wait before finding out how she "feels"? ;-))
Erik D
|
15x60
member
Reged: 09/19/06
Posts: 74
Loc: Milan, Italy
|
|
Quote:
Just to help you keep track of the regulars and their optics: Kenny J has a Nikon Superior E 10X42, A Zeiss Classic 7X42 roof, Ziess Diascope 85 FL.....No 42mm FL.
Hi Erik,
I beg your pardon for the confusion in my mind! 
Sorry Kenny!
Fabio
--------------------
Zeiss 15x60 B/GA T*
Carl Zeiss 7x50W Jenoptem
Zeiss Victory 10x56 FL
Miyauchi BJ-100 iC
|
camvan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 2142
Loc: British Columbia
|
|
thanks for that reply Kenny, but I meant binoculars in general, not different Zeiss compared against each other. there are some pretty decent binoculars out there for about $300USD...how are their mechanics in comparison? not that you can speak from person experience, so anyone can feel free to answer, what about something like the 15x70 GO Signature bino's vs. the Nikon/Fuji's they compete against? they're half the price but have optics that challenge them. how do they fair mechanically against them?
--------------------
Cameron
"Aperture can only be replaced by even more aperture. Dark transparent skies cannot be replaced by anything else." - Stathis Kafalis
Intes MN66
Meade SN8
handfull of cheap ep's
|
Erik D
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 4066
Loc: Central New Jersey, USA
|
|
Quote:
I'm wondering what the Zeiss' 'mechanical' feel is like? by that I'm meaning the diopter and focus adjuster. are there other binoculars out there that don't cost nearly the same price that would rival, meet or beat the Zeiss on their mechanics if it's as good as the optics are? 
Cam,
You can get some excellent binoculars that cost 1/3 the price of a Zeiss or Leica Ultravid(~$500 USD). The $500 bino will have very good mechanical feel but it will not "beat" the top European roofs. You an spend 2 or 3 times more than than that for 5-10% gain in perfomance. The Eagle Optics P Ranger Focuser feels VERY nice to me but it's not a Ultravid
Keep in mind the "feel" of a binocular is very SUBJECTIVE, especially among the top tier L, S, Z models. The Swarovski EL has very precise click stop right diopter adjustment but insufficient adjustment range for my right eye. I love the way the Ultravid adjustments work but some don't. Some people like the Prorche 911 Turbo, others love Ferraris.....
ERik D
|
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 2039
Loc: Lake Michigan Watershed
|
|
Quote:
Nikon 12x50 SE
The binocular i most regret not getting, was the Zeiss 15x60 BGAT*P, the largest of the Dialyt, or "Classics" series. 
Anyway, the 10x56 FL does not have an integrated tripod thing for an L bracket (right?) which i find to be weird for a glass that size. Have not looked through one though...
The glass-for-astronomy-only, that is my current object of desire, is the Nikon 12x50 SE (would be used on tripod with the $40 Nikon tripod adaptor, need my hands free for sketching, so IS need not apply...  ).
If i am not mistaken, the 10x56 FL is actually geared towards the European hunting market, which has a leaning towards these large light bucket designs?
--------------------
"May I have the ability to reduce the uncertainties I can; the willingness to work with the uncertainties I cannot; and the scientific knowledge to know the difference."
Based upon an adaptation from Reinhold Niebuhr's Serenity Prayer, by J. Barsugli, C. Anderson, J. Smith and J. Vogel.
Edited by moynihan (02/17/07 11:25 AM)
|
camvan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 2142
Loc: British Columbia
|
|
Quote:
Some people like the Prorche 911 Turbo, others love Ferraris.....
I prefer the Dodge Viper SRT10 myself  and that will give you a clue into my inner-psyche. I tend to prefer what brute force entails. high magnification, strong beer, strong coffee, intense flavored foods etc etc etc...it's my personality. my dad coins my tastes very well with this phrase, 'you have champagne tastes on a beer budget.'. sadly...it's true. I think I've said it before, but I will say it again. on the limited budget I have, I have to be very careful about my long term expensive purchases, making sure that they will suffice because I literally cannot 'afford' to make mistakes. the GO's I just ordered took me half a year to save up for and I could 'just' afford them
--------------------
Cameron
"Aperture can only be replaced by even more aperture. Dark transparent skies cannot be replaced by anything else." - Stathis Kafalis
Intes MN66
Meade SN8
handfull of cheap ep's
|
Erik D
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 4066
Loc: Central New Jersey, USA
|
|
I would select the Nikon 12X50 SE ahead of the 10X56 Zeiss FL for astronomy, Even if price is not a factor. Increase the magnification of the Zeiss FL to 12/15 X 56mm and the balance tips towards Zeiss. The Nikon 12X50 SE is a much better value.
Erik D
|
Erik D
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 4066
Loc: Central New Jersey, USA
|
|
Cam,
No need to regret not been able to afford European Premium Roofs. You can do very well with binos in the $300-$500 USD price range. I can afford a Leica Duovid or a Swarovski EL but I elected to purchase other optical equipment first. I don't feel deprived when I am using a $350 roof prism.
ERik D
|
camvan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 2142
Loc: British Columbia
|
|
oh...I'm not regretting the ability not to. I don't think I would ever spend that much even if it was in my forseeable ability. I think I'd much rather have several almost as good pieces of equipment. at the level we're talking, more is better  I just want best bang for my buck. besides, I'm so new to the scene that I won't be able to tell the difference from most binoculars right now. I do know that the ER of my Bushnell's isn't that good. I have to rest my glasses nearly on the ep's of them to get a full view of the field.
from my earlier questions about ED/Apo glass and the doublet/triplet designs, are there other binoculars that use a triplet design? are there any with the quadruplet design you spoke of?
if there's something I really look forward to, it's the opportunity to get to hold and see what a pair of premium binocualrs are like.
another reason why binoculars require careful consideration before purchase is that unlike a telescope that you can enhance with doodads and add-on's, they are a you 'get what you see' type deal...so you have to do it right the first time.
--------------------
Cameron
"Aperture can only be replaced by even more aperture. Dark transparent skies cannot be replaced by anything else." - Stathis Kafalis
Intes MN66
Meade SN8
handfull of cheap ep's
|
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 2039
Loc: Lake Michigan Watershed
|
|
As far as high end German glasses go, re astronomy, the only one i can speak to from alot of experience, is my old Leica 10x42 BA's. They are my current favorite for handheld/night.
Yes, they are sharp, good edge, etc. But the main thing about them is the contrast. 
Say when you are scanning the Milky Way in Summer. You really notice the the dusty areas, kinda 3D. Don't know if that makes sense. Its the dark areas and dust clouds that really pop.
--------------------
"May I have the ability to reduce the uncertainties I can; the willingness to work with the uncertainties I cannot; and the scientific knowledge to know the difference."
Based upon an adaptation from Reinhold Niebuhr's Serenity Prayer, by J. Barsugli, C. Anderson, J. Smith and J. Vogel.
|
Rich N
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/22/04
Posts: 5618
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area, Calif...
|
|
Quote:
not to sidetrack this discussion by a whole lot, I'm wondering what the Zeiss' 'mechanical' feel is like? by that I'm meaning the diopter and focus adjuster. are there other binoculars out there that don't cost nearly the same price that would rival, meet or beat the Zeiss on their mechanics if it's as good as the optics are?
My 10 year old Orion 8x42 Ultraview porro has a very smooth focuser movement. However, the diopter adjustment is pretty ordinary the usual "twist the right eyepiece" design. I like the feel of the Zeiss 10x42FL focuser. The FL's diopter adjustment is very nice, much like the Swarovski ELs. My favorite diopter adjusting system is the one used by Leica where you split the focuser wheel, with one half adjusting the left side and the other half adjusting the right side. When you snap the focuser wheel sections back together both sides move as one (the movement of the optics is all internal).
I don't mind the feel of the outside material on the FLs. The older classic Zeiss were "rubber" armored. The "rubber" had a little softer, more gripy feel. The older Zeiss also weighted more for their size. The FLs are very light weight so that may also give more of an impression of being made of plastic.
There may be some mid range roof binoculars with very nice controls but I've not handled a lot of the newer ones.
The stars in my FL are pin points but, as with Leica and Swarovski, the stars are a little out of focus near the edges of the field. Leica says they build in pincushion so that when panning in the daytime don't see that sickening rolling view in eyepiece. AFAIK, the 42mm and 50mm Leicas, Swarovski and Zeiss binoculars are designed with terrestrial viewing in mind.
I bought my FLs for birding but I found out they are also very nice for astronomy. The FLs give a beautiful high contrast image. The higher congrast makes a big difference in seeing subtle differences in brightness on a nearly featureless background.
Try before you buy is best way to go. If you must buy without trying, then I would look for a dealer that has a very good return policy in case you find you don't like the binocular.
Rich
|
camvan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 2142
Loc: British Columbia
|
|
Quote:
As far as high end German glasses go, re astronomy, the only one i can speak to from alot of experience, is my old Leica 10x42 BA's. They are my current favorite for handheld/night.
Yes, they are sharp, good edge, etc. But the main thing about them is the contrast.
Say when you are scanning the Milky Way in Summer. You really notice the the dusty areas, kinda 3D. Don't know if that makes sense. Its the dark areas and dust clouds that really pop.
I will guess that's due to binoculars of that class focusing on DoF as an important feature, perhaps?
--------------------
Cameron
"Aperture can only be replaced by even more aperture. Dark transparent skies cannot be replaced by anything else." - Stathis Kafalis
Intes MN66
Meade SN8
handfull of cheap ep's
|
hallelujah
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/14/06
Posts: 3980
Loc: Colorado Rocky Mountains
|
|
Kenny J mentioned the Leica and Minox models in the very beginning of the thread. I agree that the Minox BD 10x58 BR ED/Fluoride-glass would be a very interesting binocular to compare to the Zeiss FL and for alot less money.
Another one that we don't hear much about is the Kowa Genesis 10.5x44mm with the Prominar XD lens elements which eliminate chromatic aberration. Schmidt-Pechan prisms with dielectrics coating for 99+% light transmission.
--------------------
Nikon7x35GoldSentinel 9.3*(2)+Pentax8x40PCFWPII+MinoxBD10x44BP+FujinonFMTRSX7x50
Nikon10x50GoldSentinel+Pentax12x50 5.5*Japan+Pentax12x50PCFWPII+Vixen8x56Geoma
Fujinon12x60HB+Pentax16x60PCFWP+Pentax20x60PCFWP+Pentax20x60PCFWPII
Tento20x60USSR+Orion12x63MiniGiant+Spectrum I 20x65+Orion15x70LittleGiant II
Orion20x70LittleGiant II+Orion16x80Giant+Orion30x80MEGAView+Barska30x80X-Trail
BurgessOptical20x90SeriesII
|
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 2039
Loc: Lake Michigan Watershed
|
|
Probably not, since we are talking about the focus being at "infinity", so to speak. It must be something with the optical formula, and/or coatings.
jay
--------------------
"May I have the ability to reduce the uncertainties I can; the willingness to work with the uncertainties I cannot; and the scientific knowledge to know the difference."
Based upon an adaptation from Reinhold Niebuhr's Serenity Prayer, by J. Barsugli, C. Anderson, J. Smith and J. Vogel.
|
Rich N
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/22/04
Posts: 5618
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area, Calif...
|
|
Quote:
Kenny J mentioned the Leica and Minox models in the very beginning of the thread. I agree that the Minox BD 10x58 BR ED/Fluoride-glass would be a very interesting binocular to compare to the Zeiss FL and for alot less money.
Another one that we don't hear much about is the Kowa Genesis 10.5x44mm with the Prominar XD lens elements which eliminate chromatic aberration. Schmidt-Pechan prisms with dielectrics coating for 99+% light transmission.
I would love to try a Kowa 10.5x44 Prominar.
On the Anacortes site they have the word Prominar in quotes when talking about the Kowa Genesis ED 10.5x44. So, I guess the view is nearly like it would be if they had used a fluorite element.
Rich
Edited by Rich N (02/17/07 12:44 PM)
|
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 2039
Loc: Lake Michigan Watershed
|
|
Another difference I have noticed with my Leica's is with comets. They seem to show more detail, and sub-tails, or gas tail phenomena, that say, i cannot see in my Celestron 10x50 Ultimas (older Japanese ones).
That is one reason I am interested in the Nikon 12x50 SE model. At 50% less cost than the 50mm range German glass (which in poro vs roof terms should match them in optical quality?), I'd pick up some aperture (to the 50mm "standard"), and a 2x increase in mag. I do know the SE line is really good. I may get to Eagle Optics in a few weeks, to do some in store comparing. 
--------------------
"May I have the ability to reduce the uncertainties I can; the willingness to work with the uncertainties I cannot; and the scientific knowledge to know the difference."
Based upon an adaptation from Reinhold Niebuhr's Serenity Prayer, by J. Barsugli, C. Anderson, J. Smith and J. Vogel.
|
15x60
member
Reged: 09/19/06
Posts: 74
Loc: Milan, Italy
|
|
Quote:
The stars in my FL are pin points but, as with Leica and Swarovski, the stars are a little out of focus near the edges of the field. Leica says they build in pincushion so that when panning in the daytime don't see that sickening rolling view in eyepiece. AFAIK, the 42mm and 50mm Leicas, Swarovski and Zeiss binoculars are designed with terrestrial viewing in mind.
I bought my FLs for birding but I found out they are also very nice for astronomy. The FLs give a beautiful high contrast image. The higher congrast makes a big difference in seeing subtle differences in brightness on a nearly featureless background.
Hi Rich,
thanks for these data from your experience.
In your wiew, which is the top (among Zeiss FL, Leica and Swarovski) for astronomy? (Pinpoint stars and control of CA).
Thanks again,
Fabio
--------------------
Zeiss 15x60 B/GA T*
Carl Zeiss 7x50W Jenoptem
Zeiss Victory 10x56 FL
Miyauchi BJ-100 iC
|
Rich N
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/22/04
Posts: 5618
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area, Calif...
|
|
My Nikon 12x50SE always seems to give a brighter image than my Leica 12x50BA and it is sharper near the edge of the field. I usually have them both with me when I know I'm going to spend time doing binocular astronomy. The Leica seems to have a little better contrast and seems sharper in the middle of the field but, the Nikon 12x50 SE is so good sometimes I think I'm fooling myself about the differences in the view... other than the brightness of the Nikon SE. However, for some reason I usually spend more time using the Leica 12x50.
I've not tried the new Leica Ultraview 12x50. It may give show a greater difference in views when compared to the Nikon. I have used the Leica 10x42 Ultavid and it is very nice. I had a heck of a time seeing any difference in the image between it and the Zeiss FL.
The Leica is watteproof and likely more rugged than the Nikno SE. But, most astro types I know are pretty careful with their binoculars, unlike some birders I know.
I would go with the Nikon SE if you want it imostly for astronomy. I would also worry a bit about how long Nikon will keep making the SE series. It might be better to buy an SE while you still can. I think it is unlikely that Leica will stop making their 12x50 any time soon.
Rich
|
Rich N
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/22/04
Posts: 5618
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area, Calif...
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The stars in my FL are pin points but, as with Leica and Swarovski, the stars are a little out of focus near the edges of the field. Leica says they build in pincushion so that when panning in the daytime don't see that sickening rolling view in eyepiece. AFAIK, the 42mm and 50mm Leicas, Swarovski and Zeiss binoculars are designed with terrestrial viewing in mind.
I bought my FLs for birding but I found out they are also very nice for astronomy. The FLs give a beautiful high contrast image. The higher congrast makes a big difference in seeing subtle differences in brightness on a nearly featureless background.
Hi Rich,
thanks for these data from your experience.
In your wiew, which is the top (among Zeiss FL, Leica and Swarovski) for astronomy? (Pinpoint stars and control of CA).
Thanks again,
Fabio
Hi Fabio,
Thanks, happy to help.
The Swarovski 8.5x42 EL seems to have a larger sweet spot the Zeiss 10x42 FL and Leica 10x42 Ultravid. I so seldom use my Swarovski 10x42 EL (because of the shorter eye relief) that I'd have to look through it again to check the size if its sweet spot.
It is a little hard to give a really good answer about the 8x models because I've not used the Leica 8x42 Ultravid and I have only a small time looking through a Zeiss 8x42 FL. My Leicas are the older BAs and BN.
I spent quite a bit of time comparing the Leica 10x42 Ultravid and Zeiss 10x42 FL. They both give outstanding views. The views are so close that after 30 minutes of switching between one and the other, looking at differend objects, outside, in the daytime, I'm still not sure I could tell which binocular I was looking through just from the view. Maybe someone with younger eyes could more easily see a difference. The Ultravid is a great binocular and so is the FL.
I have a Swarovski 10x42 EL but I very seldom use it because the shorter eye relief bothers me. I don't think the image is as "snappy" (high resolution and high contrast) as in my Zeiss 10x42 FL. I don't know if it is true for all Swarovski 8.5x42 ELs and 10x42 ELs but my 8.5x EL seems to have a little sharper and higher contrast image than my 10x42 EL.
Between the three brands I think the image quality of the 10x Ultravid and 10x FL is a litte better than the 10x Swarovski EL. I really can't say how well the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL comapres to the 8x Ultravid and 8x FL in image quality. But, I do love the view of the night sky through my Swarovski 8.5x42 EL.
All the best,
Rich
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
