Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
KennyJ
   
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Zeiss 7 x 42 B GA *T* *P* ClassiC Dialyt
A “non -technical” review by Kenny Jones
An Introduction :
The Zeiss 7 x 42 ClassiC is a Roof Prism binocular with a long history.
This model first appeared in July 1981 since when ,particularly in the first decade of existence , it gained a reputation with serious “birders” as being one of the very best binoculars ever produced , if not THE best .
It’s now dated design ( 23 years later ) has mixed consequences .
On the one hand , it is an instrument tried , trusted and adored by countless connoisseurs who surely can’t all be wrong , and one that never fails to impress anyone looking through one for the first time.
On the other hand , it’s outdated appearance and body texture , increasingly unfashionable low power , questionably over -sized exit pupil , odd shape and generic features such as rubber eyecups and narrow central focusing wheel seem to have slowly had the effect of removing it from people’s minds when it comes to considering the purchase of any of the very best low power binoculars currently available .
My primary uses of binoculars are for daytime terrestrial activities ranging from watching soccer and cricket from distances between roughly 50 and 100 yards , tracking aircraft , nature study and medium to long range landscape and seascape viewing.
Much of this type of viewing involves moving objects , and because of this I find 7x with an extra -wide field to be about the best compromise.
To me ANY binocular configuration is a compromise and there is definitely no such thing as any one “perfect binocular” , but for most of my type of viewing , this binocular comes as close as any I’ve ever tried in around 40 years of regular use. During the past 4 years I have become increasingly interested in astronomy , or at least in very basic sky -gazing for fun and relaxation, and for this hobby too , this is a very useful instrument that provides very satisfying views , particularly in darker sky locations.
Prior to the introduction of the Ultravid Range from Leica , and Victory 2 range from Zeiss , I spent many hours trying out practically every top quality binocular from the stables of those two legendary central European manufacturers , in addition to the most recent offerings that existed in early 2002 from Nikon and Swarovski , along with several other models that seemed very highly rated by other experienced binocular users , particularly from Pentax , Canon and Minox and I emerged convinced that this model , purely on optical performance , was still right up there with the very best of the best .
Nothing I have seen since then has changed my mind about that.
Phase correction, which is achieved by coating the prisms,is a feature added to the original model about a decade ago ,and corrects for an inherent “disadvantage” in a roof prism binocular as compared with porro prism models , and before it was introduced by Zeiss , and without it to this day , NO roof prism binocular would be capable of optically equalling the performance of the very best porro prism binoculars.
In fact,personally ,I am not yet convinced that even this vast improvement quite brings the very best roofs to an equal level optically speaking to the very best porro prism binocular I’ve ever used , which is undoubtedly the Nikon 8 x 32 Superior E.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Rubber Armoured Roof Prism
Centre Focus with Right diopter
7x magnification
42mm objective lenses
Exit -Pupil - 6mm
Weight -- 28 ozs -----800 gms
Height -- 7.5 inches - 190 mms
Width - - 5 inches -- 125mms ( at 67mm IPD setting )
Eye Relief - 19mm
Twilight Factor - 17.1
T.F.O.V -----8.6 degrees --- 450 feet at 1000 yds ---150 metres at 1000 metres.
A.F.O.V -----60.2 degrees
Waterproof -- YES according to Zeiss - No according to some.
Nitrogen Purged -- NO
UK price NEW in 2004 is around £575.
BUILD QUALITY
This robustness of this model is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that after many years of use in the field in all conditions by hundreds of die -hard birders I have never once heard a report of any being adversely affected by rain , moisture or physical shock. It looks and feels as if it would withstand an hour in a washing machine , followed by an hour in a dishwasher , followed by an hour in a tumble dryer although I would NOT recommend this be put to the test.
The slightly shiny rubber armouring does not conform to everyone’s idea of elegance or of being pleasing to the touch , but on both counts this feature presents no problem for me.
As mentioned above , the central focussing wheel is very narrow compared with those on almost every other binocular I’ve ever seen , and I must admit I do not particularly like the feature myself. Some users have commented on the stiffness of this narrow wheel , but I found that the movement gets looser with continued use, but tends to stiffen up again if it is very cold.
The focussing gear ratio is very positive , i.e it takes only a very slight adjustment to alter focus from an object 50 yards away to one 500 yards away.
In this respect it is the complete opposite of that of the original Swarovski EL models, which can require as much as a full turn to re -focus from near to far terrestrial objects.
The rubber eyecups are another feature which many people do not like , and which have clearly been improved upon for eye-glass wearers since the introduction of the twist -up / down -- pull -up / down type of adjustable eyecups found on almost every other top quality roof prism binocular ( including the Zeiss Victory models)
Unlike most people ,if not wearing my glasses ,I actually PREFER soft rubber eyecups to the harder flatter surfaces found on twist -up / pull -up types that all the other top end roofs have these days , and have long considered “winged” eyecups to be amongst the most underrated feature of any binocular. I have very deep set eyes below a very protruding brow and as a result I am particularly sensitive to and annoyed by extraneous light entering the eyecup areas.
Not that the eyecups on the Zeiss 7 x 42 are of the winged variety.
Coatings are Zeiss patented and have a distinct purple colour.
BASIC IMPRESSIONS
Until I started wearing glasses to correct for astigmatism and short -sightedness in both eyes ( worse in my left eye ) I had considered these binoculars to be EXCELLENT for daytime terrestrial use ,(particularly when viewing objects from the “closest -focus” distance of around 11 feet up to around 100 yards, between which distances the experience of looking through them literally DOES appear as though you are simply standing 7x closer to the object)
but lacking somewhat for astronomy use.
I could never seem to attain that sharp , crisp , “diamonds against black velvet” effect that I had read about other people experiencing with some of the top Japanese binoculars from Nikon , Fujinon and Takahashi , and presumed this was the downside of it being an extra -wide field binocular optimised for daytime use. My glasses seem to have eliminated about 80% of that.
There is still some field curvature at the edges but with such a whopping wide 8.6 degree TFOV I don’t even need to look near the edges really.
I’m not a walking encyclopaedia of the heavens ,but all I can say is that these binos offer seriously NICE wide -field views of the night skies with pin-point stars.
At 7x the image is easy to hold steady , which is just as well because like my other most favourite binocular , the Nikon SE 8 x 32 , it has NO facility for a tripod adaptor. Lying on my back on a comfortable sun -lounger on a warm early autumn night in the Mediterranean or Canary Islands with these at my eyes is one of the greatest “outer -body” pleasures I have ever experienced.
In daylight ,the image through these 7 x 42s is brighter than that through ANY 7 x 50 binocular I’ve ever used.
Although not strictly “optical “terminology, I think most readers will understand my non -technical description of the image being almost unbelievably bright , sharp , crisp and clear.
When testing against very bright and highly contrasting objects next to each other I have never noticed the slightest sign of chromatic aberration( green, yellow and blue coloured rings around objects are something I HAVE spotted in both Nikon and Swarovski roof prism binoculars which cost a good deal more)
Speaking of colours , colour rendition through this binocular is pleasantly neutral ,yet retaining a "vibrancy" factor which seems to inject extra life into fauna and flora.Through it, a study of plant leaves from a distance of about 20 feet displays variations in colour shades as subtle as those found on paint colour charts, with every shadow , crevice and complex detail seemingly even more apparant than if viewed by naked eye from 2 feet away.
Every single person I have allowed to look through these binoculars has reacted with almost disbelieving “wow” comments.
Realising this review has probably gone on too long already I will conclude with an attempt to summarise my feelings about this model.
In my opinion it’s most outstanding features are :
1. Incredibly bright , clear , sharp images.
2. Extra - Wide field of 8.6 degrees ( 450 feet at 1000yds ) ( 150m at 1000m ).
3. Because of 1 and 2 above - and it’s “low “ 7x power - great “ease “ of view.
4. Excellent resolution and contrast and good depth of field.
Features that COULD be improved upon include
1. The narrow focusing wheel .
2. There is some doubt about whether or not this model is truly waterproof.
3. Not everyone likes the feel of the rubber armour.
4. The “all inter -connected ” bino , case , rainguard and lanyard is a good idea but one which I personally find rather annoying.
My bottom line is this :
If anyone is seriously considering spending up to £1000 UK for a low -power binocular , I greatly urge them to at least TRY this model ( for around half the price of some) before making their final decision.
Kenny Jones , March 2004.
-------------------- If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Great review Kenny! I'm especially impressed that you were able to put it together in such a short amount of time. It was a very interesting review from start to finish and hopefully one of many more to come.
|
Erik D
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 2555
Loc: Central New Jersey, USA
|
|
Kenny!
My friend, you put down more content in your mini-review than I can come up with in a full-length review. How can I EVER keep up with that? :-))
Really enjoyed getting the full report on you favorite binos. How about a photo of this pair in action at your scenic viewing spot? Yes, put your new Manfrotto tripod to work.
Erik D
|
craig_oz_land
sage
Reged: 01/21/04
Posts: 343
Loc: Sydney, Australia
|
|
Good one Kenny.
The winged eyecups comment is good. I bought a set for my Fujis and after using them I find it very hard to go back to the standard eyecups. The only reason I do is the polarisers only work with the standard eyecups.
You know what I think about the Classic 7x42? If they could put those optics in a Victory body they would sell a truckload more of them. I don't know why but I am sure they are optically superior to the Victory 7x42s. I would probably buy a pair also. Anyone else done a Victory vs Classic side by side?
Cheers, Craig.
-------------------- Takahashi FS-102
Fujinon FMT-SX2 7x50
Takahashi Astronomer 22x60
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
   
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Kenny,
Remove all doubt from your thoughts that you might not be able to write a positively enjoyable clearly presented and information filled review. You have done it!
Thank you for the fine work.
edz
-------------------- Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
lighttrap
   
Reged: 02/06/04
Posts: 3833
Loc: cloudy, foggy, humid NC, US
|
|
Wow! That's a hard act to follow. Good on ya dude.
I, too, like the comments about the relevance of specific eyecups. I hate those plastic pull-up, fall down thingees. I liked the winged eyecups on the Steiner Nighthunters and Kahles so much that I just got in some Orion winged eyecup pieces for some of my telescope eyepieces. I also got in some of the Orion accordian folded soft rubber eyecups, and those are great too, though I haven't yet had the chance to see if either will fit existing binocular occulars.
Anyway, I liked your review.
Mike Swaim
-------------------- 18" Starsplitter II f/4.5
8" Hardin Dob f/6
C5 workhorse mini SCT f/10 or f/6.3
70mm TV Ranger dual purpose birding/astro
77mm Leica Televid APO
16x70 Fujinons on UA Deluxe Mt.
12x50 Nikon SE
8x30 Nikon E2s
and many others
|
KennyJ
   
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Thank you all for your kind comments.
Coming from people like yourselves is high praise indeed.
I only wish I could have quoted more astro-specific references.
Erik -- I wish there was a tripod adaptor to FIX it to the new tripod set -up WITH ( which is due here TOMORROW )
I'm sure I'll find a way :-)
P.S At least I've got the Swift 10 x 50s and Helios 15 x 70s to play with on them !
Looking forward to that very much.
Regards -- Kenny.
-------------------- If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Neil Weiner
member
Reged: 08/29/04
Posts: 98
|
|
Kenny,
For your very uses--
"My primary uses of binoculars are for daytime terrestrial activities ranging from watching soccer and cricket from distances between roughly 50 and 100 yards , tracking aircraft , nature study and medium to long range landscape and seascape viewing."--
On optics/view only, do you prefer your Nikon 8x32 SE or Zeiss 7x42 ClassiC?
(Besides other factors, please comment on possible flat view through roofs vs. stereo view through porros.)
Thanks,
Neil
Edited by Neil Weiner (09/07/04 11:30 AM)
|
KennyJ
   
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Greetings Neil,
First may I make it quite clear that I do NOT own ANY Nikon SE binoculars -- but have tried and been greatly impressed by the 8 x 32 and 10 x 42 models every time I have.
Sadly , I have not seen a 12 x 50 SE in Britain.
For anyone who might be reading this but who has NOT read my binocular reviews here on the CN mini -reviews section , may I also make it quite clear that 90% of my binocular useage and comments are related to DAYTIME terrestrial use.
I have used the Zeiss 7 x 42s many times for astronomy , but never Nikon SEs for astronomy.
As regards the specific points Neil highlights , the Nikon SEs provide a FLATTER field than the Zeiss.
This is possible due , in some part at least, to the narrower ACTUAL field of view , although APPARANT field of view , at around 60 degrees , is practically the same for ALL Nikon SEs AND for the Zeiss 7 x 42s.
As I said in my Zeiss 7 x 42 review , we are talking here about just TWO models of binoculars which I happen to consider provide overall THE most satisfying views out of probably around TWO HUNDRED models of binoculars I have tried or used over the past 40 years.
They are indeed very much "neck and neck" overall in my opinion in terms of optical quality , which means that the Nikon 8 x 32s ( at around £150 UK CHEAPER in the UK ) are the BEST VALUE of the two ( bearing in mind that the legendary Zeiss 7 x 42 BGA *T* *P* Dialyt classic to which I refer is now "officially" a discontinued model , after 21 years of existence , the first half of which when it was almost unanimously accepted as THE best birding binocular ever produced.
The suggested "flat fields through roofs as opposed to porros" is therefore a complete nonsense.
A "flat" field has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a bino is of porro or roof design , but in my opinion , desireable as a "flat" field is for celestial use of binoculars , it is not , IN MY OPINION , necessarily such a great thing for TERRESTRIAL use in itself.
I read one review once which pointed out that the STEREO quality of a Fujinon FMT SX 7 x 50 Porro was noticeably superior to that through a Zeiss 7 x 42 roof , and while I have no reason to question that observation ( never having held a Fujinon FMT SX 7 x 50 ) I hasten to add that the reviewer who made that comment actually SOLD the Fujinon 7 x 50 in favour of the Zeiss 7 x 42.
I must say that I have not noticed any marked LACK of depth of field with my Zeiss 7 x 42 roofs whatsoever , and if minimal tweaking of the central focusser to compensate for differing distanced objects is any measure of a binocular's "depth" of field , then in this respect , the Zeiss is outstanding.
Even though "blackouts" or "kidney beaning" will occur if one uses the Zeiss with eyecups rolled down while not wearing glasses , I find it one of , if not THE easiest binocular to get a "perfect" view through of any model I've ever tried.
I also suspect the 7x makes it JUST that much easier to hold steady than the 8x of the 8 x 32 SE.
Even though the 8 x 32 SE is INCREDIBLY bright ,the main disadvantage of it's 4mm exit -pupil compared with the 6mm exit -pupil of the Zeiss comes at twilight, when the latter performs so well that it could almost be marketed as a "night -vision" instrument.
All theoretical formulae for "twilight factor" seem to go out the window when comparing the Zeiss 7 x 42 with any other binocular I've ever used.
Also ,that extra 1.1 degree TFOV may not sound much , but it really does make a difference for finding objects and following action of any kind.
The "edge" performance of the Nikon SE is superior to that of the Zeiss 7 x 42 , but the ( very large) ON -AXIS image quality offered by the Zeiss , in terms of clarity , resolution , brightness , colour and contrast is , in my opinion , second to none , and I've compared this with Swarovskis , Leicas and Nikon High Grade Roofs.
The longer body of the Zeiss roofs and it's superb ergonomics also seem to make it easier to hold steady than any porro prism binos I've ever held ( which admittedly amounts to only around 140 different models )
Zeiss also warrant the model to be waterproof , a fact often disputed , but rarely if ever disproved , and we are talking here about a model which has been REALLY tested in the field by hundreds of HARD users , over 20 years.
I'm convinced that if ANYBODY were to receive EITHER of these two outstanding models in their Xmas stocking , and that person's main interest was terrestrial viewing , that person would not even consider ever selling that present.
They are two very rare "winners" in a competition littered with innumerable "losers".
I hope this helps -- but point out that I DO entitle ALL my binocular reviews as "NON -TECHNICAL"
Regards , Kenny.
-------------------- If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
craig_oz_land
sage
Reged: 01/21/04
Posts: 343
Loc: Sydney, Australia
|
|
Neil,
The stereoscopicness of a binocular comes from the separation of the objectives. The further apart the more stereoscopic. Roofs are in line and so the objectives are less seperated than a conventinal porro design. The reverse porro however is closer spaced than the other two.
The field flatness in binos usually comes from extra element(s) for correction. Much like a field flattener used for telescopes. Fujinon have a MT and FMT model and I believe the difference is the field flattener element. I believe the Nikon Superior E (porro) and the Venturer LX (roof) models both use field flattening correction.
I had a chance to look throgh the Nikon LX 10x42, Swarovski EL 10x42 and Leica Ultravid 10x42 side by side and preferred the Nikon of the three.
To make you mind up you would be best to do a side by side comparison if possible.
Cheers, Craig.
|
btschumy
Think Astronomy
   
Reged: 04/13/04
Posts: 1110
Loc: Austin, TX, USA
|
|
Quote:
The stereoscopicness of a binocular comes from the separation of the objectives. The further apart the more stereoscopic. Roofs are in line and so the objectives are less seperated than a conventinal porro design. The reverse porro however is closer spaced than the other two. Cheers, Craig.
I don't see how this can be the case for astronomical objects. The distance between the objectives is trivial compared to the distances to the objects. Any stereoscopic effect must be purely illusionary. That's not to say it doesn't look nice, but, for example, any indication that one star is closer than another in a cluster is purely fantasy.
|
KennyJ
   
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Bill,
With respect, Neil's original questions to me WERE related to MY uses -- daytime terrestrial ( admittedly off -topic STRICTLY -speaking - but hey -- we all love BINOCULARS I hope and all want to learn as much as we can )
To that end I feel that Craig has a valid point.
That said -- you make a very interesting point --and I'm surprised no -one else has chipped in here with further comments.
Clear skies -- Kenny.
-------------------- If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
btschumy
Think Astronomy
   
Reged: 04/13/04
Posts: 1110
Loc: Austin, TX, USA
|
|
Quote:
Bill, With respect, Neil's original questions to me WERE related to MY uses -- daytime terrestrial ( admittedly off -topic STRICTLY -speaking - but hey -- we all love BINOCULARS I hope and all want to learn as much as we can )
To that end I feel that Craig has a valid point. Clear skies -- Kenny.
Kenny,
You're right. I think the stereoscopic effect is probably real for terrestrial viewing. I hadn't realized that was what was being discussed. Thanks for gently pointing that out.
I guess it is a bit of a "hot button" for me when people refer to stereoscopic viewing at astronomical distances. I personally think it is fallacious, but I'm willing to be convinced if anyone has a good argument.
Bill
|
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 1517
Loc: Wisconsin
|
|
Just read your mini-review for the first time i think. Good write up. The Zeiss 7x42 classics are my favorite i own, and favorite period. You know alot of people never mention (i think you did) the quite incredible hand balance feel they have. Given the barrel length, they would not appear to balance so nice, but they do. I guess one of the most telling kudos to this particular glass is that it the glass of choice by people who do counts on Warbler migrations.
-------------------- "Gosh, you've... really got some nice toys here"
Dual mount/ambient temperature Hominid Widefield Photon Collectors®
Pleistocene™ ½ watt Wetware Integration Unit.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
|
Neil Weiner
member
Reged: 08/29/04
Posts: 98
|
|
Thanks to all for thoughtful replies.
I guess two binocular performance aspects got muddled.
The first is characterized by words such as stereoscopic, 3D and depth perception.
The second is called flat field, which seems to be about extending center-of-field qualities to the edges, especially perhaps the qualities of "sharpness" and "linear fidelity." (Sorry for the imprecise terms. I'm not an optics guy.)
The muddle comes because a view that lacks stereo, 3D or depth might be called "flat." Maybe we should reserve that word for use only with the second aspect, "flat field."
(Note "depth of field" seems a third aspect, not to be confused with depth perception. Depth of field seems about what's in focus.)
Anyway, again thanks.
Neil
Edited by Neil Weiner (09/09/04 10:31 PM)
|
craig_oz_land
sage
Reged: 01/21/04
Posts: 343
Loc: Sydney, Australia
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The stereoscopicness of a binocular comes from the separation of the objectives. The further apart the more stereoscopic. Roofs are in line and so the objectives are less seperated than a conventinal porro design. The reverse porro however is closer spaced than the other two. Cheers, Craig.
I don't see how this can be the case for astronomical objects. The distance between the objectives is trivial compared to the distances to the objects. Any stereoscopic effect must be purely illusionary. That's not to say it doesn't look nice, but, for example, any indication that one star is closer than another in a cluster is purely fantasy.
Bill,
Interesting point. Kenny was right that I was referring to objects relatively close. Most people assume no depth perception at infinity. That said have a look at the views through a good binocular with one eye and two. There is a definite immediate improved perception of the view. One can speculate all one wants about why it is but the effect is there. Some say a binoviewer + telescope has a 3D and depth perception effect when used for astronomy. Other say that a true bino-telescope has more pronounce 3D and depth when looking at stars compareed to a binoviewer.
Anyway I am diverging from the thread.
|
|
7 registered and 11 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: EdZ
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 3323
|
|
|
|
|
|
|