Yeah, I had thought of 2x3mm...which is another option, but it actually adds a small buffer by sticking out. I'll leave it as it is, but either way works
-
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 Victory FL 7x42 - will I regret it if I sell them? (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Staedtler
- Start date
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
Thanks to Gijs van Ginkel's (House of Outdoors) data, I've done a series of overlays in PS. Take them with 'a grain of salt' as I don't have access to the actual data (!!!).
The FL's are in fact slightly higher transmission than SFL's (and lots of other respected bins includling NL's). It's been pointed out wlsewhere that 2-3% differences are for all practical purposes undetectable by the human eye.
I don't own 7x42FL's in order to do the hands-on test, I can say that even though graphs for 8x32FL and 8x32SF show higher transmission for the FL, I found the SF to look brighter. So clearly, contrast and color emphasis, and other factors make a difference?
If someone would please send me a 7xFL, I'd be happy to evaluate next to my SF and SFL ;-)
The FL's are in fact slightly higher transmission than SFL's (and lots of other respected bins includling NL's). It's been pointed out wlsewhere that 2-3% differences are for all practical purposes undetectable by the human eye.
I don't own 7x42FL's in order to do the hands-on test, I can say that even though graphs for 8x32FL and 8x32SF show higher transmission for the FL, I found the SF to look brighter. So clearly, contrast and color emphasis, and other factors make a difference?
If someone would please send me a 7xFL, I'd be happy to evaluate next to my SF and SFL ;-)
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Middleriver post82,
Nice work, I am glad that our work can help. For your comfort: the curves are the results of actual measurements.
Gijs van Ginkel
Nice work, I am glad that our work can help. For your comfort: the curves are the results of actual measurements.
Gijs van Ginkel
How much are the uncertainties of the measurements? and the difference between left and right barrel?
I think asking about uncertainties in a diagramm of measurement curves photoshopped together is a bit exaggerated. Especially, since the specialists here agree that the human eye does not register differences in transmission of below 3%. I think the actual figures from Mr. van Ginkel's lab/apparatus are definitely trustworthy. YMMV of course.
I might have sounded a bit demanding with my question, sorry. I am just curious to know how precise these curves are, and if it makes sense to have such precision if there is going to be too much variance between the left and right barrel. I wonder too if the latter could be as high as the difference between one brand and another
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
The uncertainty in our measurements is +/-1% .
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
Gijs, your graphs and research are a treasure trove. There are soooo few quantitative assessments of binos! Thank you for allowing me to tinker with them... I hope to never misrepresent your data!
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
Also to be perfectly clear:
I've taken the original graphs and stretched them it both axis so that they are scaled the same. I've also changed color, so you can see that. Where the data overlaps closely, I would of course not read too much into it. But it IS interesting - to me, and I hope to others - to be able to compare bins, and see how and where they fall off, or where there are significant enough differences in transmissivity, that they speak to the overall optical design (e.g. AK prisms?).
At the end-of-the-day, there is NO question in my mind that actual use with all the idiosyncracies of each person's eyes, facial structure, brain, etc. is what really matters. But is IS fun to look at data ;-)
I've taken the original graphs and stretched them it both axis so that they are scaled the same. I've also changed color, so you can see that. Where the data overlaps closely, I would of course not read too much into it. But it IS interesting - to me, and I hope to others - to be able to compare bins, and see how and where they fall off, or where there are significant enough differences in transmissivity, that they speak to the overall optical design (e.g. AK prisms?).
At the end-of-the-day, there is NO question in my mind that actual use with all the idiosyncracies of each person's eyes, facial structure, brain, etc. is what really matters. But is IS fun to look at data ;-)
A little over fifteen years ago our car was broken into and our binoculars stolen. I lost a Dialyt 7X, 42; my wife lost her SLC 7X, 42. We decided to put all the insurance money into a Zeiss 7X, 42 T*FL.
We would not then or now be able to afford an alpha binocular on our normal incomes.
We were later able to replace the Swarovskis with an identical pair.
I have, in fact, looked through a binocular I thought was shockingly better (it was a Leica 7X, model unremembered, at the trade show at Cape May).
I don't use my 7X, 42 every day: I don't leave them in the car; I don't check them on an airplane; I don't take them canoeing or backpacking. But I use them whenever that tiny percentage of "better" might make a difference: when I am searching for a known rarity; when I'm on a formal count; when I'm scanning flocks of LBBs.
My wife's scope is also a has-been alpha, a Swarovski STS80 HD. Because of hip and back issues, I carry a Diascope 65 T*FL and live with its "inferiority" to the Swarovski. We could not afford to replace either with an equal quality scope and consider ourselves very lucky to have been able to acquire these well before retirement.
We keep replaceable optics in the car and around the house for casual observation. Although they are entirely serviceable, none of these single binoculars could match the performance of the 7X, 42 T*FL.
Aside from my allegiance to unaffordable quality is excellent service from Zeiss over the years with other optics.
So, at age 76, I hope I will never be tempted to part with my Zeiss 7X, 42 T*FL. I could never come close to replacing it.
Bob M.
We would not then or now be able to afford an alpha binocular on our normal incomes.
We were later able to replace the Swarovskis with an identical pair.
I have, in fact, looked through a binocular I thought was shockingly better (it was a Leica 7X, model unremembered, at the trade show at Cape May).
I don't use my 7X, 42 every day: I don't leave them in the car; I don't check them on an airplane; I don't take them canoeing or backpacking. But I use them whenever that tiny percentage of "better" might make a difference: when I am searching for a known rarity; when I'm on a formal count; when I'm scanning flocks of LBBs.
My wife's scope is also a has-been alpha, a Swarovski STS80 HD. Because of hip and back issues, I carry a Diascope 65 T*FL and live with its "inferiority" to the Swarovski. We could not afford to replace either with an equal quality scope and consider ourselves very lucky to have been able to acquire these well before retirement.
We keep replaceable optics in the car and around the house for casual observation. Although they are entirely serviceable, none of these single binoculars could match the performance of the 7X, 42 T*FL.
Aside from my allegiance to unaffordable quality is excellent service from Zeiss over the years with other optics.
So, at age 76, I hope I will never be tempted to part with my Zeiss 7X, 42 T*FL. I could never come close to replacing it.
Bob M.
