packgoatguy
WKR
Has anyone had a chance to do any side by side comparisons with the new Sig Zulu6 hdx Pro 50mm OIS? Perhaps compared with the Kite APC 50 or even the previous model Zulu6 HDX 16x42, or Canon 15x50?
I currently have a Zulu6 HDX 10x30 and 16x42. I had a chance to pit them against my Meopta Meostar 15x56 binos last week during some long glassing sessions. In the end, I ended up packing both a set of OIS and the Meopta... because they both have their strengths. I'm hoping that an upgraded OIS might come closer to being a better replacement/do-it-all...
The 10 and 16X Zulu6 were great for windy conditions mounted on my tripod. There came a point during one afternoon session that the wind really picked up, and I was no longer able to use the Meopta effectively with the vibration induced by the wind. But the OIS binos worked under those conditions.
The Zulu6 were great during my hikes to and from glassing spots. I could either hand hold or mount on my monopod trekking staff and look quickly at anything that caught my eye. The Meopta on the other hand, was not useful unless completely stationary with the tripod legs deployed. Just too heavy to hold steady enough, even on the monopod.
The Zulu6 was better during glassing session periods when I was trying to grid a hillside quickly using the tripod, because when moving from one scanned area to the next, the image stayed viewable during that brief transition. The Meopta on the other hand was only useful when completely static and not moving, or even being touched (I have a fairly lightweight tripod, so I get movement from touching it, so I usually glass only after I've stopped touching it.)
The Meopta was far better in low-light. Even mid afternoon cloudy conditions made a huge difference for my eyes. The hillside still was bright and easy to see with the Meoptas, where the Zulu6 was dull and I had to give my eyes time to adjust to changing light conditions. Once the sun went down, the Zulu6 quickly lost its value... whereas the Meopta was viewable 40 minutes after sunset.
The Meopta had better pin point resolution than the Zulu6. There were details I could resolve on a hillside nearly 2 miles away with the Meopta that I could hardly see with the 16x42. Its also difficult to describe, but with the wider field of view of the Meopta, the image felt more magnified... it felt closer than looking through the 16x42.
The Meopta was far easier on my eyes to just look through for extended periods of time. My eyes felt tired after just a few minutes of looking through the OIS binos.
Anyway... these are just a few of my amateur observations. If a new OIS bino had better low light performance, was easier on the eyes to look through, and had a bit better resolution... I think it could replace my Meopta binos... which would save a couple pounds of weight. That would be great... but is that asking too much of these OIS binos?
I currently have a Zulu6 HDX 10x30 and 16x42. I had a chance to pit them against my Meopta Meostar 15x56 binos last week during some long glassing sessions. In the end, I ended up packing both a set of OIS and the Meopta... because they both have their strengths. I'm hoping that an upgraded OIS might come closer to being a better replacement/do-it-all...
The 10 and 16X Zulu6 were great for windy conditions mounted on my tripod. There came a point during one afternoon session that the wind really picked up, and I was no longer able to use the Meopta effectively with the vibration induced by the wind. But the OIS binos worked under those conditions.
The Zulu6 were great during my hikes to and from glassing spots. I could either hand hold or mount on my monopod trekking staff and look quickly at anything that caught my eye. The Meopta on the other hand, was not useful unless completely stationary with the tripod legs deployed. Just too heavy to hold steady enough, even on the monopod.
The Zulu6 was better during glassing session periods when I was trying to grid a hillside quickly using the tripod, because when moving from one scanned area to the next, the image stayed viewable during that brief transition. The Meopta on the other hand was only useful when completely static and not moving, or even being touched (I have a fairly lightweight tripod, so I get movement from touching it, so I usually glass only after I've stopped touching it.)
The Meopta was far better in low-light. Even mid afternoon cloudy conditions made a huge difference for my eyes. The hillside still was bright and easy to see with the Meoptas, where the Zulu6 was dull and I had to give my eyes time to adjust to changing light conditions. Once the sun went down, the Zulu6 quickly lost its value... whereas the Meopta was viewable 40 minutes after sunset.
The Meopta had better pin point resolution than the Zulu6. There were details I could resolve on a hillside nearly 2 miles away with the Meopta that I could hardly see with the 16x42. Its also difficult to describe, but with the wider field of view of the Meopta, the image felt more magnified... it felt closer than looking through the 16x42.
The Meopta was far easier on my eyes to just look through for extended periods of time. My eyes felt tired after just a few minutes of looking through the OIS binos.
Anyway... these are just a few of my amateur observations. If a new OIS bino had better low light performance, was easier on the eyes to look through, and had a bit better resolution... I think it could replace my Meopta binos... which would save a couple pounds of weight. That would be great... but is that asking too much of these OIS binos?
