Zeiss 15x60 B/GA T*...How good is a late model by today's standards? (1 Viewer)

[roweraay]

Also, to me, the 14x52 (and the 15x60) are very hand-holdable, mainly since I have very steady hands. Very similar to my experience with the 12x42NL. I can easily read small lettering on a package from a distance.

This was one of my worries about a high magnification binocular, but all of those concerns have been allayed. To me, if these were not handholdable, I would not have used them regularly, since Tripods are not something I like to lug around too much, unless I am viewing from in-and-around the house.

Also, even though the 15x60 is a heavier instrument, in the hands while viewing, we simply don't feel that extra weight, due to its exceptionally well balanced design. I would have no problems whatsoever, in using this totally handheld.

 

[Thotmosis]

Not sure why, but the NL 14x52 seems to have a noticeably higher magnification than the 15x60. I repeated it with various static subjects, and the finding is the same. I would have expected the reverse to be true. So a bit confused by the finding.

Focus speed itself feels to be about what I am used to (normal to me). Very similar to my other NL, the 8x42. I used to have a 10x42 Conquest HD in the past, but don't have it any longer to compare wiInteresting as i when i compared my specimen the Zeiss had

Interesting, when i compared the Zeiss (BGAT) with the NL, the Zeiss seemed to have higher magnification. Sample variation can play a role here or also steadiness due to weight. The outcome could be reversed when both binoculars where compared on a tripod and son on. I remember from the short period i had both in my possession that the NL was really brighter at night when looking at cats under a tree at approximately 300 m. Also when i looked at the Pleiades and Orion belt the NL was the better binocular. But again this was in a handheld situation.

For me the focus speed in the Zeiss was much “faster” then with the NL and also less need to focus. But the GAT and BGAT are a bit different, the GAT has a wider FOV as im not mistaken.

 

[Thotmosis]

Also, to me, the 14x52 (and the 15x60) are very hand-holdable, mainly since I have very steady hands. Very similar to my experience with the 12x42NL. I can easily read small lettering on a package from a distance.

This was one of my worries about a high magnification binocular, but all of those concerns have been allayed. To me, if these were not handholdable, I would not have used them regularly, since Tripods are not something I like to lug around too much, unless I am viewing from in-and-around the house.

Also, even though the 15x60 is a heavier instrument, in the hands while viewing, we simply don't feel that extra weight, due to its exceptionally well balanced design. I would have no problems whatsoever, in using this totally handheld.

Agree, both are very hand-holdable (for me), at least for shorter periods. After a while when using my Zeiss i go back in gear to 12 and then 10 and in the end im happy to cruise the world and sky in 7x modus.

 

[Pinewood]

Hello roweraay,

I think that is has been noted that roof prism binoculars appear to have a higher magnification than Porro binoculars of the same magnification.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

 

[Maljunulo]

Hello roweraay,

I think that is has been noted that roof prism binoculars appear to have a higher magnification than Porro binoculars of the same magnification.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

Do you know why this is?

 

[Pinewood]

Do you know why this is?

Hello,

Here is a thread devoted to that subject, which has some more links.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

 

[Maljunulo]

Hello,

Here is a thread devoted to that subject, which has some more links.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

Fascinating!

Thank you, Arthur.

R.

 

[roweraay]

Hello roweraay,

I think that is has been noted that roof prism binoculars appear to have a higher magnification than Porro binoculars of the same magnification.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

Yes, the explanation in that thread makes sense, and aligns to my findings. Anything within around 50-150 feet distance, has that effect. Anything further out, say a 1000 feet away and beyond, the effect goes away, and the magnification is seen exactly as it is.