Going through camera lenses with their own coatings is not the same as what you see through your eye...
Rifle Scopes Alpha Class High Magnification 6-36/7-35 FFP Scope Review
- Thread starter Glassaholic
- Start date
Going through camera lenses with their own coatings is not the same as what you see through your eye...
Back to the A419 test, it covered multiple days over different times and conditions. depending on when the screen shot was taken and under what conditions is a factor themself:
I’m saying that the conditions might not have been exactly the same, and I’m not a camera expert like @Glassaholic so maybe he can answer if all those settings need to be changed for each scope to show the best image or if those settings are all the same across the board.
So in your opinion the ZCO doesn’t look like that at 35x in real life? Which is better at 35x, ZCO or Kahles from what you have seen. Is the Kahles brighter?
So in this test they rated the ZC840 with the highest resolution where that title was to the TT, IMO it's splitting hairs at this point between the two of the best.
That's why I'm on the phone for hours everyday helping each customer get the best option for their specific use and budget. There is no one best for everyone.
We sell everything except for the DNT and do our best to fit the right optic to the customer.
Richard
916-628-3490
That's why I'm on the phone for hours everyday helping each customer get the best option for their specific use and budget. There is no one best for everyone.
We sell everything except for the DNT and do our best to fit the right optic to the customer.
Richard
916-628-3490
Have you watched the complete video? The Kahles is known to be very bright for the coatings they use, there are pros and cons to that.
Starting a Teams meeting soon, so I might not respond for awhile.
This is exactly why I frown upon through the scope imagery, you are expecting or hoping that the stars aligned for each scope with everything else being equal (but was everything else equal?). Was everything exactly the same and was there perfect alignment of the camera and lens behind the scope? I can tell you from experience that sometimes everything "looks" right but without calibrated equipment it is more an exercise of "I think this is aligned" but if the system was slightly off for one scope it could really skew results (with both through the scope video and stills). I agree that based on the above images, the atmospherics in the bottom shot labeled ZCO appears to be playing a bigger factor; was it the atmospherics, was it from the camera system being slightly off or was it because the TT out resolves and has better contrast vs ZCO? I couldn't tell you because I wasn't there and I did not witness the scene using both scopes calibrated for my eye which is what really needs to happen - and then lots of back and forth looking and checking off between different categories.
I understand the desire to take through the scope video because most of these are youtube channels and that's what the audience expects, but again, without some very expensive equipment that is designed for perfect alignment behind a rifle scope there are too many factors that could affect the final outcome. The only way to know for certain is to calibrate each scope to your eye (diopter) and look at the same exact scene, same time, same exact magnification (good luck but you can get close) and evaluate each scope watching for minute differences in the image presented to your eye. And even with that it is not perfect, but after over 10 years of doing these types of reviews this is the system I have come up with that affords me the best opportunity to evaluate multiple scopes side by side.
I still like the video and appreciate what Area419 did here, but I would caveat all the through the scope video and images with a cautionary note given the above possibilities for slight error. It would be a shame for a bunch of shooters to either watch the video or look at the above image and make a decision based on this where they think, "wow, the Tangent looks to have so much more pop than the ZCO, I'm going to buy a bunch of Tangents because clearly it's a lot better" when to their own eye the ZCO could be right on par or even exceed the perceived quality of the TT.
All these reviews are great, but it's best to think of them as a starting point and not the end of the conversation... if after reading or watching a number of reviews you have come down to either TT or ZCO then I recommend you get both, set them up for your eyes and take them out in good light and in poor light, both near and far and judge for yourself. All our eyes are different, someone may prefer TT and another may prefer ZCO - there is no right or wrong answer here, it comes down to how each of our eyes interprets the image through the scope. And after deciding, then sell the other scope, doubt you will lose much off of it especially considering the price point of these scopes. But I will also issue another warning... don't just look through a friends scope that was setup for their eye in the middle of the day, you need to adjust and fine tune that diopter to your own eye before doing critical evaluation and make sure you evaluate during low light as well - many scopes look pretty good during daylight, but low light will always separate the "good" from the "amazing".
I asked that very question and they have not responded to this question.
A rifle scope is its own optical system that is specifically designed for the human eye to be behind the scope. A camera with a lens is calibrated to present an image in perfect alignment with the focal plane of the camera (where the digital sensor resides), if you put another optic that is not designed for the camera system in front of the lens of the camera you have now introduced additional elements the system was not designed for and if you are not in perfect alignment you introduce optical aberrations through which the light from the scope is doing things the camera system is not designed for. Even slightly off axis can yield a result that would skew the image the digital sensor "sees".
I am not saying that is what has happened here, what I am suggesting is that there is the possibility that this could happen and to base ones opinions on how good a scope is or isn't based on through the scope images taken with a camera and lens (this includes phones and even dedicated devices like the TriggerCam) is suspect at best.
When I asked @Lowlight his thoughts on the ZC840...
www.snipershide.com
"To me, the ZCO 840 is the scope everyone wished for, high mag, high resolution throughout the magnification range, its optical perfection.
At first I wasn’t sure about the size, i try to shoot a lot of smaller calibers, lighter rifles, so I was like, man it’s long, but after using is it, seem less to get behind it.
With Zco, I like the simplicity, they are not trying to whizz bang the features, it’s straight forward and solid. It’s really nice to be behind, and i find I can shoot on Higher magnification with the optical perfection of this scope.
See I generally have a personal sweet spot with scopes are 12-18x power. I feel the 25x cleans up around 18x, gives me enough eye box and magnification to stay behind it even during recoil. Now with the 8-40x, I am much higher in the 20x, around 27x so for smaller targets and using the reticle so much better resolution.
I am gonna talk on a video with this optic, I was just waiting on the right timing, which is probably everyday as it’s that good.
But I am religious behind it, I love my ZCo, 840 …
I’m on an Airplane ask me anything we got time
Flying back from the Daytona 500 So there is a few hours to kill, so let’s catch up ? Oh did you see, my UFO stuff is going viral on X cuz I said I taught classes at Rifles Only to the UFO guys So let’s light those candle. Hopefully no DEI pilots, but if there are, you have a front row seat
www.snipershide.com
"To me, the ZCO 840 is the scope everyone wished for, high mag, high resolution throughout the magnification range, its optical perfection.
At first I wasn’t sure about the size, i try to shoot a lot of smaller calibers, lighter rifles, so I was like, man it’s long, but after using is it, seem less to get behind it.
With Zco, I like the simplicity, they are not trying to whizz bang the features, it’s straight forward and solid. It’s really nice to be behind, and i find I can shoot on Higher magnification with the optical perfection of this scope.
See I generally have a personal sweet spot with scopes are 12-18x power. I feel the 25x cleans up around 18x, gives me enough eye box and magnification to stay behind it even during recoil. Now with the 8-40x, I am much higher in the 20x, around 27x so for smaller targets and using the reticle so much better resolution.
I am gonna talk on a video with this optic, I was just waiting on the right timing, which is probably everyday as it’s that good.
But I am religious behind it, I love my ZCo, 840 …
But what???
Surely we’re not supposed to draw a conclusion based on a screenshot of a video.
Edit. I commented before I saw the onslaught of others thinking the same thing. Anyway, stands true.
Does your experience with both scopes mimic what’s shown in the screenshot, in that the contrast falls off past 30x? You have said in the past that the ZCO image falls off at high mag.
Are the newer batches of the 840 really better than the first ones, and if so, in what way? I'm looking at getting another alpha... With my 527 vs tt525, I found the 527 to be warmer, the TT to be brighter and perhaps better in shadows / low light, but by the slimmest of margins, and with no difference in absolute resoution. More a flavor difference rather than a quality difference. Does this carry over with the 840 / 735 comparo?
It's Nov/Dec build..
It's good.....much much better than the first samples I had from some time ago.
I would gladly use it.....it's just the TT is that bit better.
When I had the earlier samples of the ZCO 8-40...ZCO,s own 5-27 was much much better optically.....sharpness,contrast.
The newer build 8-40 reverses that scenario!!
The newer build 8-40 reverses that scenario!!
The other higher mag scope that has surprised the crap out of me is the S&B 5-45 High Power.....I have 2 now and am extremely impressed with the sheer clarity and resolution.......especially at the top end of the power range!!!
Both the 5-45 are NEW production....and it appears S&B may have improved somehow the 5-45!!
Both the 5-45 are NEW production....and it appears S&B may have improved somehow the 5-45!!
Every manufacturer makes improvements over time to the same model, well maybe not "every" manufacturer, but most who care about their product line. Some will put out Gen 2, Gen 3, etc. but most will make incremental updates over time to the optical formula to improve upon performance without doing any kind of press release or official announcement. That being said, the Schmidt 5-45 I had a few years back was extremely impressive for a 9x erector design.
I was comparing both of mine (PMII 6-36 and TT735) last week at the range and I'd agree with the general consensus is that the TT is the better scope (subjective), but I certainly would not turn my nose up at the Schmidt. It's been said before a thousand times, but at this level of scope, I don't think that there's a bad choice - pick the reticle that you like and forget about the rest of the noise. None of these scopes should really hold you back compared to others. If I'm missing a shot, I can be damn sure that it's the indian, not the arrow.
For what it's worth, the Schmidt is the full FOV version, so that should be taken into consideration.
What surprised me and others when we compared the S&B 5-45 to the other optics .. ZCO ,TT and S&B,s own 6-36...... is at 30x and above the S&B 5-45 comes into its own !! It resolves fine detail and clarity better than the rest.
This was/is a huge surprise!!
My 5-45 was the biggest pos. Maybe the worst scope I have used.
Mainly it was dark. Been a while but the image was awful. Maybe I got a lemon or something.
I’d blame my eyes preferring NF / zco style glass , but had multiple buddys that agreed with me
I've had tons of complaints from owners and previous owners of the 9x erector S&B's, they came to us for something else...
I have looked through surplus binoculars and some were dark. The explanation was they had an anti laser filter. I then ran into the same issue with a Hensoldt scope. The word was it had a similar filter. I wonder if some Schmidts were equipped with filters.
That sounds crazy but I looked through the optic and we tried. It was an older optic, Always had a warm tone and didn’t have the resolution of the new atacrs we compared it too.
So I've been thinking about this a bit more - the issue of taking video or images through a riflescope using some type of camera system. I think I've come up with a new disclaimer I will put in my reviews, let me know what you think:
For a number of years now I have discouraged shooters from attempting to post "through the scope" images from their riflescopes taken from another optical capturing system such as a camera and lens - this includes DSLR, Mirrorless, phones, etc. This was first made popular with the spotting scope crowd and was dubbed "digiscoping" and since a spotting scope and riflescope share fairly similar properties the same can be applied for each. First of all, anyone who has attempted to do this without some type of calibrated cage for alignment has quickly understood that it can be a real pain to get the two systems to align properly (collimate) in order to get a clear sight picture to display within the image capturing device such as your camera. The reason for this is the challenge of aligning two separate optical system together, also known as daisy chaining optical assembly's. This only works if you match the pupils by placing the exit pupil of the riflescope onto the entrance pupil of the camera/lens - the challenge is getting these pupils to align perfectly (collimated) in order to capture the image properly. And even if you do get perfect alignment you still have the issue of optical abberations introduced by the image capturing system - both the sensor of the camera as well as the quality of the lens. As well as setting up everything to be manual so the camera system itself is not overriding settings as you switch from one riflescope to another and then being able to focus the image on the sensor plane perfectly. Another factor that is going to effect the outcome is shake, for most professional photographers we understand that either a good tripod or IBIS system is going to cut down on shake which is a primary cause of blurry images projected onto the sensor. As you can see, there is a lot that is going on and a lot that needs to happen in order to even get close to accurately capturing an image behind two riflescopes setup properly (diopters adjusted the same and side focus adjusted for clearest image) and any slight shift off-axis between the two systems as well as shake has the potential to cause the resulting image to be less than ideal thus giving bad data. The viewer is expecting everything to be equal, but it is extremely difficult to get everything to be equal and most posters do not comment on their detailed methodology and the possibility for there to have been error. For example, I could take through the scope images of a Tangent Theta 5-25 and a Vortex Strike Eagle 5-25 riflescope, and using slight offset in axis with the TT I can get the image to look washed out and not very clean, but I can better align the camera/lens behind the Strike Eagle and obtain an image that appears to "look" much better than the TT - are these examples true to what the human eye see's behind the scope? No, they are not, but to the viewer on a YouTube channel or side by side comparison of images in a thread on a forum such as this, the viewer is left with a false impression with the potential to spread misinformation throughout the community, "did you see soandso's post, clearly the Strike Eagle is a much better scope vs. Tangent Theta..." obviously this is an extreme example but hopefully most get the concept and realize that scopes that are much closer in optical quality can be more greatly affected by off-axis/misaligned performance. It is for these reasons I discourage viewers from making optical evaluations of riflescopes from video or images taken "through the riflescope".
For a number of years now I have discouraged shooters from attempting to post "through the scope" images from their riflescopes taken from another optical capturing system such as a camera and lens - this includes DSLR, Mirrorless, phones, etc. This was first made popular with the spotting scope crowd and was dubbed "digiscoping" and since a spotting scope and riflescope share fairly similar properties the same can be applied for each. First of all, anyone who has attempted to do this without some type of calibrated cage for alignment has quickly understood that it can be a real pain to get the two systems to align properly (collimate) in order to get a clear sight picture to display within the image capturing device such as your camera. The reason for this is the challenge of aligning two separate optical system together, also known as daisy chaining optical assembly's. This only works if you match the pupils by placing the exit pupil of the riflescope onto the entrance pupil of the camera/lens - the challenge is getting these pupils to align perfectly (collimated) in order to capture the image properly. And even if you do get perfect alignment you still have the issue of optical abberations introduced by the image capturing system - both the sensor of the camera as well as the quality of the lens. As well as setting up everything to be manual so the camera system itself is not overriding settings as you switch from one riflescope to another and then being able to focus the image on the sensor plane perfectly. Another factor that is going to effect the outcome is shake, for most professional photographers we understand that either a good tripod or IBIS system is going to cut down on shake which is a primary cause of blurry images projected onto the sensor. As you can see, there is a lot that is going on and a lot that needs to happen in order to even get close to accurately capturing an image behind two riflescopes setup properly (diopters adjusted the same and side focus adjusted for clearest image) and any slight shift off-axis between the two systems as well as shake has the potential to cause the resulting image to be less than ideal thus giving bad data. The viewer is expecting everything to be equal, but it is extremely difficult to get everything to be equal and most posters do not comment on their detailed methodology and the possibility for there to have been error. For example, I could take through the scope images of a Tangent Theta 5-25 and a Vortex Strike Eagle 5-25 riflescope, and using slight offset in axis with the TT I can get the image to look washed out and not very clean, but I can better align the camera/lens behind the Strike Eagle and obtain an image that appears to "look" much better than the TT - are these examples true to what the human eye see's behind the scope? No, they are not, but to the viewer on a YouTube channel or side by side comparison of images in a thread on a forum such as this, the viewer is left with a false impression with the potential to spread misinformation throughout the community, "did you see soandso's post, clearly the Strike Eagle is a much better scope vs. Tangent Theta..." obviously this is an extreme example but hopefully most get the concept and realize that scopes that are much closer in optical quality can be more greatly affected by off-axis/misaligned performance. It is for these reasons I discourage viewers from making optical evaluations of riflescopes from video or images taken "through the riflescope".
On the other hand the S&B 3-27 High Powers I have are the worst optically!!....hazy and very very soft!!
Best scope made in my opinion, great choice in reticle as well. I have the same, love it.
I'm coming off tree reticles, so its an experiment but i do think i will enjoy the non-tree more. We will see this weekend!
I love the J-Tac reticle. So clean and smooth. Like a shaved…..
Beautiful, just the box is exciting
Seriously though, as you can see from my review, I feel the TT 7-35 is the best optical FFP scope available today. In a couple months I will be reviewing the TT 7-35 with a new version ZCO 8-40x56 and I'm trying to figure out how to get a hold of a Kahles K540i and maybe a March G2 5-42 as well. I think this would finalize this high magnification review quite well and help settle the debate...
I hope you get your hands on the new Kahles, I have high hopes for that one.
Kahles let's you down every time you get behind one tho! I was behind the new 4-28 or whatever it is 2 weekends ago, and you had to have parallax at infinity to get anything near fucus past 400y above 14x, image was shit to my 7-35 theta. Not impressed whatsoever.
Idk man, never had any issues when I’ve tried different Kahles.
And I consider myself kinda picky.
Been thinking of replacing my Premier, and the 5-40 seems to be a decent candidate, at least spec wise.
Similar threads
