10x50 EL or 10x54 HT (2 Viewers)

[ronh]

Hi Bill,

Nice of you to notice. Yep, I'm pretty much down to occasionally popping in to say something snarky! Facts are I never get much chance to test anything new, and am satisfied with my stable of binoculars as is, so have nothing to contribute.

Lately, in fact, I'm so buzzed by my 8x30 FMTR-SX that all "optical advancements" made since seem sort of goofy. And since it's one of, like, three, in existence, a bragging review would serve no purpose but my own geezerism.

But I gleefully log on every night, beer in hand, and follow all the reports on the "latest thang from Stuttgart", and rumors thereof.

Ron

 

[Troubador]

when using glasses the ER of the Swaros are much overrated,
the eye cups are deep, and eats 4-5 mm, of the 20 mm ER.

Hi VB

I might be misunderstanding you here but my first thoughts were these:

If the Swaros have 20mm ER then the eyecups need to place your eyes more or less at 20mm from the top lens. So the eyecups will necessarily be deep. In which case its not really true to say the eyecups 'eat' the ER is it? They are the size that they need to be to put your eyes where they need to be.

Lee

 

[David in NC]

I looked at all the big three and chose Leica for the best view (even though I THOUGHT I'd end up with the HT which had just came out) and am currently happy with my Leica BUT "sparkling colors" might be a marketing ploy or some exaggeration (which I'm prone to do myself sometimes). Granted, I've not tried a +...

I couldn't "edit" so I'll quote myself and backpeddle a bit...


I just noticed on Tobias Mennie's blog that he did mention "sparkling" a bit when referring to the Ultravid HD Plus...

 

[WJC]

Hi Bill,

Nice of you to notice. Yep, I'm pretty much down to occasionally popping in to say something snarky! Facts are I never get much chance to test anything new, and am satisfied with my stable of binoculars as is, so have nothing to contribute.

Lately, in fact, I'm so buzzed by my 8x30 FMTR-SX that all "optical advancements" made since seem sort of goofy. And since it's one of, like, three, in existence, a bragging review would serve no purpose but my own geezerism.

But I gleefully log on every night, beer in hand, and follow all the reports on the "latest thang from Stuttgart", and rumors thereof.

Ron

Hi Ron:

It's hard to miss it when the big guns are not around.

My scummy little 8x32 SE will be performing well for me until I take my dirt nap. Thus, I don't really need to get involved in the peeing contest the appears on these pages, daily. Also, having reason enough to be "snarky" 90% of the time, I have to watch myself, as some folks take optical realities to be raining on their parade. And, although I often rain on misleading parades, I never intend to hurt or offend the organizers. Don't be a stranger. :cat:

"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."---Winston Churchill

Bill

PS Debbie was raised in Atlanta (read: metropolitan swamp) and, for the last 35 years, has been all snuggy in Western Washington, nestled down between the Olympics and Cascades. Thus, getting her used to -5 degree weather with snow spotting the house to the 8-foot level, is really fun to watch.

 

[Vespobuteo]

Hi VB

I might be misunderstanding you here but my first thoughts were these:

If the Swaros have 20mm ER then the eyecups need to place your eyes more or less at 20mm from the top lens. So the eyecups will necessarily be deep. In which case its not really true to say the eyecups 'eat' the ER is it? They are the size that they need to be to put your eyes where they need to be.

Lee

I mean the effective eye relief when wearing eye glasses with the eye cups in the lowest position.

The eye cup design/depth will affect how close you can get with your glasses to the ocular glass and thus how much of the stated ER that is usable.
(stated ER seem to be measured from the ocular glass)

My FL:s have 16 mm ER and the SV:s 20 mm but eye cup designs are so different so they both work pretty much same with glasses.

For the ATX scopes there is a special eye cup for eye glass wearers that gives a bit more usable/effective ER. IMO that would be a good idea for the SV:s also.

 

[Troubador]

My FL:s have 16 mm ER and the SV:s 20 mm but eye cup designs are so different so they both work pretty much same with glasses.

For the ATX scopes there is a special eye cup for eye glass wearers that gives a bit more usable/effective ER. IMO that would be a good idea for the SV:s also.

Thanks VB. Its amazing how small differences in eyeglasses can affect your viewing. I have had 4 or 5 pairs of glasses in the past with different frames and none gave me any issues with FL or HT but my current ones mean I need to have the eyecups screwed outwards a little to reliably see the full FOV.

Interesting info about the ATX scope VB I will take a closer look next time I see one.

Lee

 

[Vespobuteo]

Thanks VB. Its amazing how small differences in eyeglasses can affect your viewing. I have had 4 or 5 pairs of glasses in the past with different frames and none gave me any issues with FL or HT but my current ones mean I need to have the eyecups screwed outwards a little to reliably see the full FOV.

Interesting info about the ATX scope VB I will take a closer look next time I see one.

Lee

That may be due to vignetting by a too large EP vs a smaller eye pupil?
otherwise it sounds a bit strange.
The light rays from exit pupil is more of a cone (ending in a focal point) than a tube so it means that the correct distance will match your pupil size,
being too close might give blackouts??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVfp49RoBcI

For me it's more of getting close enough to see the whole FOV,
a quite generous AFOV in both EL and FL:s is probably a part of the "problem".
Of course I can move the bins around a bit to see the whole field but it's
not always convenient.

My glasses are rather thin but a bit bent around the face so thats another issue,
with a scope EP it's easier to get a single eye glass aligned flat to the ocular and thus less ER is required for me.

The "low rimmed" ATX eye cup is a special order item, it was nice and gives about 2mm extra ER.

 

[Troubador]

That may be due to vignetting by a too large EP vs a smaller eye pupil?
otherwise it sounds a bit strange.
The light rays from exit pupil is more of a cone (ending in a focal point) than a tube so it means that the correct distance will match your pupil size,
being too close might give blackouts??

It is the latter problem that you mention.

These glasses fit closer to my face so my eyes are just a little closer to the eyecups and if I am not careful lining up my eyes I get blackouts. This is easy to correct however with adjustments to the eyecups.

Lee

 

[WJC]

That may be due to vignetting by a too large EP vs a smaller eye pupil?
otherwise it sounds a bit strange.
The light rays from exit pupil is more of a cone (ending in a focal point) than a tube so it means that the correct distance will match your pupil size,
being too close might give blackouts??

It is the latter problem that you mention.

These glasses fit closer to my face so my eyes are just a little closer to the eyecups and if I am not careful lining up my eyes I get blackouts. This is easy to correct however with adjustments to the eyecups.

Lee

Hi Lee:

I hate to throw a wrinkle into what you have said, but feel I have to. Although much of what you have said is true, the rays leaving an instrument are not conical, but parallel. Note that when you pull a bino away from your face, the field is increasingly vignetted, but the center of the image is still in focus. If the rays converged and were conical, this could not be. It is only after reaching the lens of the eye that the rays, again, converge to a focus.

I have attached two graphic examples to illustrate my point. I hope you are not mad at me.

Bill

 

[Vespobuteo]

Hi Lee:

I hate to throw a wrinkle into what you have said, but feel I have to. Although much of what you have said is true, the rays leaving an instrument are not conical, but parallel. Note that when you pull a bino away from your face, the field is increasingly vignetted, but the center of the image is still in focus. If the rays converged and were conical, this could not be. It is only after reaching the lens of the eye that the rays, again, converge to a focus.

I have attached two graphic examples to illustrate my point. I hope you are not mad at me.

Bill

Don't blame poor Troubador, he just quoted me and
I quoted the video from Swarovski.

Did you look at the video, first seconds?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVfp49RoBcI

It sure does look like a cone since the size of the projection is changing.

This model is also shown in wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_pupil

But I might have gotten something wrong here.
:smoke:

Since this is a bit off-topic I started a new thread here

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=316721

 

[WJC]

Don't blame poor Troubador, he just quoted me and
I quoted the video from Swarovski.

Did you look at the video, first seconds?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVfp49RoBcI

It sure does look like a cone since the size of the projection is changing.

This model is also shown in wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_pupil

But I might have gotten something wrong here.
:smoke:

Since this is a bit off-topic I started a new thread here

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=316721

Ah, you’re no fun! Lee is always such fun to blame—even beat! His soft spot never healed and, when whacked in the head, he makes this mellifluous squishy sound. Actually, I respect him quite a lot; that’s why I soft-pedaled so much.

Telescope manufacturers and importers are notorious for dumbing down info they know most of their audience won’t understand. That’s why thousands of books, websites, and sales propaganda illustrate light coming from a visual instrument as coming to a point. Think about it, if the light came to a point, that point would be infinitely small. Thus, how could you make an image out of a point!?

That point represents the focal PLANE, is where the image is formed, and is made up of an infinite number of points coming from myriad angles—at least all the angles the instrument was designed to “see.”

One of the reasons I get hurt and frustrated with a few people who talk about ME “talking down” to the group is that advertisers have been doing it for DECADES with the novices among us lapping it up as gospel. But, hey, how about those 20-180x80 binos!? Do you think that company’s market has a clue that, at 180 (or 150) (or 120) (or 100) power, the instrument would be WORSE THAN USELESS? Nope! They just love the big numbers. Besides, with just believing the advertising relieves them of the responsibility of pulling up their socks and doing any research on their own.

In your case, the information is only slightly misleading.

Attachment #1 illustrates how such is portrayed by the manufacturer/importer. Attachment #2 and 3# illustrate (in an overly simplified way) how an eyepiece, behind that focal point, sends the image to the eye, where it is focused and inverted. :cat:

I hope this helps.

Bill

 

[Vespobuteo]

In your case, the information is only slightly misleading.

Attachment #1 illustrates how such is portrayed by the manufacturer/importer. Attachment #2 and 3# illustrate (in an overly simplified way) how an eyepiece, behind that focal point, sends the image to the eye, where it is focused and inverted. :cat:

I hope this helps.

Bill

Check out the other thread for a nice illustration:

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3327300

 

[WJC]

Check out the other thread for a nice illustration:

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3327300

Yep; I responded over there.

Several blind men, who had never seen, or even heard of, an elephant were asked to TOUCH one and then describe it. Their answers ranged from "snake like," to "thin and flat," to "a rubbery tree," depending on where they touched the critter. The same principle applies. Henry was right on. But then, so was I. :cat:

Bill

 

[Inquisitor]

I have not logged on for a while. Thinking about binoculars again and thought I would bump my old thread just for fun. I ended up getting the 10x50 EL bins. Absolutely stellar. That said, I am going to figure out how to sell them and get an 8x HT and save any leftover cash as the beginning of a scope fund.

What I found was that in real life I still continued to use my 8x42 more and simply wished they had that same level of sharpness and utter clarity as the Swaros. It pains me somewhat to admit that after using them (10x50) in the field that they are one notch too big for my practical tastes, and the shake and loss of field of view pretty much canceled the magnification for me. Yes, they are balanced very well and that is what made me think I could get away with it. Sure they are great for a short while but prolonged and repeated use from funny postures favored the 8x, hands down. Off of a sandbag from the car roof they were phenomenal. But why not enjoy a 12 or 15, or scope if using that technique?

I want the brightest, cleanest, and sharpest 8x42 available and to my knowledge that should be the HT. I am not very tempted by the 8.5 Swaro or the SF because I have also learned that I prefer unbridged binoculars and lean towards the perceived sharpness and depth of a classical field over a flat one. This flat field stuff is nice but not worth the noise- I still spent most of my energy hyper tuning the true sweet spot.

The biggest competitor in my mind is the Leica HD+ but from what I think I have read, their transmission is still below the HT. Although there is a part of me that wonders about the 7x Leica....that has got to be a sweetheart and I am sure the extra exit pupil trumps a touch better transmission.

Who here has comments about the HT vs HD+ in the 7,8x42 size? I feel like my mind is basically made up but I could be easily persuaded with some good information. Just checking to see if those who know better than me have any strong advice. Thanks

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Inquisitor, post 34,
I am working on a test report of new 8x42 binoculars in the higher price range among them the Leica Ultravid HD-plus, the Swarovski SLC-WB, the Swarovski EL-SV, the Zeiss HT and the Zeiss SF. The report about the 7x42 Ultravid HD-plus is some weeks ago publised on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor.
The Ultravid HD-plus is a very compact binocular with good optical performance and nice handling comfort, but the SLC is also compact and also has a pleasant handling comfort, and it beats the Leica for example in some respects like: higher light transmission, better eyerelief, larger FOV (not much but nevertheless), and perhaps also important: approx. 400 euros cheaper.
It may be wise to compare them in a shop side by side, so you can find out which one suits you best. I wish you success,
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Inquisitor]

Thank you, Gijs,

I am looking forward to your upcoming report on 8x42 bins. I am particulary interested in your SLC recommendation. I like the idea of Leica-like handling along with the benefits you described. I will be certain to compare the feel of the SLC to the HT before making a binding decision. Leicas are very hard to get one's hands on over here.

The catch is that somehow I had mentally lumped the SLC (since the HD model was taken away) into an overpriced 2nd category of bin comparable wth the Conquest HD, MeoStar, Razor, and Trinovid- probably from sloppy reading of too many forum posts. I hope your testing proves me very wrong and that the SLC will prove to be a serious contender.

 

[james holdsworth]

If you haven't seen it already, Tobias had a nice shoot-out review....

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/shootouts/shootoutpremier8x42s/8x42shootout.html

Not overly technical but does capture the essence of the image better than raw numbers ever could.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Inquisitor,
I reread your post 34 and I also read post 36.
If you are looking at the brightest binocular in the 8x42 range, than the Zeiss HT is certainly the winner. However it may be wise to try a few different ones like the Leica and the SLC, certainly if one looks at compactness and the SLC has the advantage that it is 500 euros cheaper. Test reports are good for ones orientation, but one must really feel the instruments to judge whether you like the handling and user comfort and whether you like the optical performance as judged by your own eyes.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[SuperDuty]

Raw numbers are a rough guideline, that's about it. One non optical example would be loudspeakers that measure virtually the same but sound very different from one another when actually being listened to.

Not overly technical but does capture the essence of the image better than raw numbers ever could.

 

[14Goudvink]

I found the SLC's sweetspot to be clearly bigger than the HT's and their easy of view (eye placement, possibility to roam around the FOV) to be greater.

On the other hand they have less close focus and they focus (a lot) slower.