|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 399
Campfire Member
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 399 |
A few months ago, I was doing some scope comparing between the Leupold VX-3 3.5-10x40, the Swarovski Z3 3-10x42, and the Swarovski 3.5-18x44....specifically, which had the best image at "dark 30" and beyond.
I was very familiar with how well the Leupy gathered light right at dark, and was looking forward to seeing how much better the Swaro's were.
First, the Z3 3-10x42 was very clear and bright....but I was hard pressed to see much (if any) difference in how nice of an image I got right before total darkness. I was honestly a little dissapointed.
Second, I had a chance to take out a Swaro Z5 3.5-18x44 the next week to compare. I honestly was expecting about the same as the Z3, but was REALLY impressed at how sharp and clear images were WAY, WAY, WAY, past legal shooting light. Without a doubt, the sharpest imagae I've seen through a scope at near total darkness.
So here's my question....according to Swarovski, the Z3 and Z5 use the same glass can coatings....and there was only 2mm of difference in the objective size.
Why did the Z5 seem so much better at dusk to me? Have others had the same experience or did the 2 scopes seems about the same to you?
Curious.....
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 18,453
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 18,453 |
If you had them set at the same power, was there a larger field of view with the Z5 ?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,259 Likes: 6
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,259 Likes: 6 |
I thought the glass in the Z5 was closer to the glass in the Z6, but that's just a SWAG.
It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 399
Campfire Member
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 399 |
RDFinn,
To be totally honest, I can't remember if I compared FOV between them. Having said that, it does seem like the Z5 had a larger FOV.
Would that have anything to do with the Z5 seeming brighter/sharper to me?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,860 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,860 Likes: 4 |
All I know is I decided the duplex in my Z5 was too thin for hunting. But then I tried it anyway and was very favorably impressed with how it held up when the light went down. I could have shot later with a thicker reticle, but the game warden would have looked at his watch and come for me.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,259 Likes: 6
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,259 Likes: 6 |
Your azz would've been grass and he would've been the lawmower, huh?
It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 18,453
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 18,453 |
Sometimes a larger sight picture appears to be brighter.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 399
Campfire Member
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 399 |
All I know is I decided the duplex in my Z5 was too thin for hunting. But then I tried it anyway and was very favorably impressed with how it held up when the light went down. I could have shot later with a thicker reticle, but the game warden would have looked at his watch and come for me. Mathman, I had the same experience. Initially thought the duplex would dissapear in low light because it was thinner than what I was used to, but it stayed very visible in contrast to the target until near total darkness
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,860 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,860 Likes: 4 |
Your azz would've been grass and he would've been the lawmower, huh? Something like that.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,864
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,864 |
SCHOOLCRAFT,
I purchased four z5 5-25X52. The first one was better than my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 during low light. The next two were equal to but no better than than the 6500 and the next z5 was much better than the 6500 in low light only. My criteria was on what magnification setting could I see the fork antlers 131 yards away well enough to shoot at the buck growing them.
I will include a small comparison of the z5 with a Bushnell 4200 4-16X40. This morning, December 13, 2011, there is fog but not so much I couldn't see the woods beyond the pump house. So of course I laid out a couple sand bags on the porch edge. (The temperature is a chilly 25 degrees.) I put the Bushnell 4200 and the Swarovski z5 on them. I set them on their lowest settings: Bushnell on 4X and Swarovski on 5X. I could not make out the antlers which are about 131 yards away with either. I could see the antlers but could not make out the forks on either side. I turned them both up to 6X. With the Bushnell I could distinguish the forks but I could not with the Swarovski.
Dispite the 6500 starting at 4 1/2X and the z5 starting at 5X the field of view is larger in the z5. The field of view in both of my 4200's is larger than the z5.
According to Swarovski customer service the z5 and the z6 use the same lenses. I never tried the z6 because they weighed too much for my criterial of less than 18 ounces. I didn't consider the 3 1/2-18X because it was about the same weight as the 5-25X.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900 |
All I know is I decided the duplex in my Z5 was too thin for hunting. But then I tried it anyway and was very favorably impressed with how it held up when the light went down. I could have shot later with a thicker reticle, but the game warden would have looked at his watch and come for me. Mathman, I had the same experience. Initially thought the duplex would dissapear in low light because it was thinner than what I was used to, but it stayed very visible in contrast to the target until near total darkness Ran into the same thing with the S&B Summit.....folks on here said "...you'll lose the reticle cause it's too thin..." And yet aiming at plenty of deer with it to past legal light, I did not lose the reticle.A pal has a Z6.....same thing...
The 280 Remington is overbore.
The 7 Rem Mag is over bore.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881 |
What I've noticed is that twilight conditions can vary alot. I've seen clear, full moon nights where my 8X32 binoculars would work. And legal shooting conditions where my 8X42 Leica would just barely work. Another consideration is the magnification the scope is set on. Lowering the magnification from 8X to 6X, even down to 4X will sometimes make a thin reticle visable where it wasn't before. E
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 10,102
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 10,102 |
I've owned both Z3-Z5, hard for my eyes see any difference. Now my Z6 scopes I can definitely see a crisper image & colors little better. Can't go wrong with any Swaro glass IMO.
|
|
|
|
568 members (1lessdog, 17CalFan, 10gaugemag, 06hunter59, 10gaugeman, 59 invisible),
2,457
guests, and
1,218
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,397
Posts18,488,893
Members73,970
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|