Zeiss SF vs Swaro EL SV review - in DUTCH! (1 Viewer)

perterra · Aug 20, 2015

pesto said:
I agree with you, Perterra: specs are less important than many other desirable features that cannot be expressed using numbers. IMO specs are just a starting point to see if you should at least consider a certain set; the rest is like finding the perfect partner/companion......

I'm not really sure specs in general should be a hard and fast starting point. Theres certainly nothing wrong if you prefer the best you can afford, but it's a red herring in many ways. To say everyone has the same taste is far from factual. Brock said he has become spoiled by ED glass, I can understand it. Some are bothered by rolling bowels, some by CA, but I pick up my Yosemite, and I'm not bothered by any of those. Sure it's not in a class with the Zen Prime or Conquest HD that I have, but it's not far enough off to bother me at all. Others have different opinions, and I would agree with that being their opinion, but it's not my opinion.

I think if people ignored specs completely and just bought binoculars based on what pleased them, the world of binos would be different.

In the world of motorcycles people argue over whether the bike with 146 horsepower is equal to the one with 148 horse power. But sitting on it, you cant tell the difference, in fly rods, it's the 3 oz fly rod is so much easier to use than the 3.4 oz fly rod. Seriously, if less than a 1/2 ounce is too tiring to use, eat your damn wheaties and work out more.

I think we have fallen for marketing and wont admit it.

bobf711 · Aug 29, 2015

One thing always irritates me with these comparisons is the comment about the SV having 'better edge sharpness'.

Whilst the point is true in simple terms, that the edge of the FOV is sharp on the SV, the part of the view which constitutes the unsharp edge of the FOV on the SF, simply doesn't exist in the FOV on the SV. (444 feet versus 399 feet at 1000 yards).

Had they compared the image on the SF at 399 feet (about the 90% of FOV) would the image be sharp at that point?

Put it another way, would you sooner see movement of a bird at the edge of your field of view or simply not see it at all?

Torview · Aug 29, 2015

bobf711 said:
One thing always irritates me with these comparisons is the comment about the SV having 'better edge sharpness'.

Whilst the point is true in simple terms, that the edge of the FOV is sharp on the SV, the part of the view which constitutes the unsharp edge of the FOV on the SF, simply doesn't exist in the FOV on the SV. (444 feet versus 399 feet at 1000 yards).

Had they compared the image on the SF at 399 feet (about the 90% of FOV) would the image be sharp at that point?

Put it another way, would you sooner see movement of a bird at the edge of your field of view or simply not see it at all?

It only matters to me in as much as Zeiss claim the SF is sharp to the edge, the ones I`v tried are`nt, also if you factor in the SV is an 8.5x then the 399ft fov is more competitive with the SF than may first appear.

In my head if the SV was an 8x it would equate to 424ft.

My maths may be wrong ! it frequently is.

GLOBETROTTER · Aug 29, 2015

bobf711 said:
One thing always irritates me with these comparisons is the comment about the SV having 'better edge sharpness'.

Whilst the point is true in simple terms, that the edge of the FOV is sharp on the SV, the part of the view which constitutes the unsharp edge of the FOV on the SF, simply doesn't exist in the FOV on the SV. (444 feet versus 399 feet at 1000 yards).

Had they compared the image on the SF at 399 feet (about the 90% of FOV) would the image be sharp at that point?

Put it another way, would you sooner see movement of a bird at the edge of your field of view or simply not see it at all?

Well is normal that people comment it as Zeiss claims sharp to the edge.......

They should claim sharp until 399 feet like SV and them.....gentle degradation to the edge.

To be honest unless the binocular is tripod mounted everybody places the subject on the center of FOV.

Pileatus · Aug 29, 2015

bobf711 said:
One thing always irritates me with these comparisons is the comment about the SV having 'better edge sharpness'.

Whilst the point is true in simple terms, that the edge of the FOV is sharp on the SV, the part of the view which constitutes the unsharp edge of the FOV on the SF, simply doesn't exist in the FOV on the SV. (444 feet versus 399 feet at 1000 yards).

Had they compared the image on the SF at 399 feet (about the 90% of FOV) would the image be sharp at that point?

Put it another way, would you sooner see movement of a bird at the edge of your field of view or simply not see it at all?

Edge sharpness, from my point of view, minimizes the distractions I encounter with many other models. Over a period of eight years, I noticed a gradual change in my ability to ignore the "soft" edges in my Ultravid, probably due to aging eyes. When the Swarovision came on the market I didn't hesitate to move on. It's a gestalt reaction I am unwilling to ignore.

Troubador · Aug 30, 2015

Torview said:
It only matters to me in as much as Zeiss claim the SF is sharp to the edge, the ones I`v tried are`nt, also if you factor in the SV is an 8.5x then the 399ft fov is more competitive with the SF than may first appear.

In my head if the SV was an 8x it would equate to 424ft.

My maths may be wrong ! it frequently is.

Both Swaro and Zeiss claim their EL and SF are sharp to the edge and neither is as sharp at the edge as in the centre. But are either of them unsharp at the edge? No. For my eyes and during testing I could see great detail in duck plumage at the edge with both models. Agonising over edge sharpness may be fun for some but I'll take the wider FOV anytime: I just don't use edge sharpness in any meaningful way.

And for those who like statistics, the FOV of SF is 25% larger in area than that of EL SV.

Lee

Chosun Juan · Aug 30, 2015

Torview said:
It only matters to me in as much as Zeiss claim the SF is sharp to the edge, the ones I`v tried are`nt, also if you factor in the SV is an 8.5x then the 399ft fov is more competitive with the SF than may first appear.

In my head if the SV was an 8x it would equate to 424ft.

My maths may be wrong ! it frequently is.

Troubador said:
Both Swaro and Zeiss claim their EL and SF are sharp to the edge and neither is as sharp at the edge as in the centre. But are either of them unsharp at the edge? No. For my eyes and during testing I could see great detail in duck plumage at the edge with both models. Agonising over edge sharpness may be fun for some but I'll take the wider FOV anytime: I just don't use edge sharpness in any meaningful way.

And for those who like statistics, the FOV of SF is 25% larger in area than that of EL SV.

Lee

Ay yi yi, *smacks head, rolls eyes smilie*

There's those damn lies and statistics again! :brains:
More than just a little rounding up going on there! .....Are you being a naughty boi Lee? :scribe:

Torview is correct -- if the Swaro 8.5x42 was on an equal 8x power footing, it would have a 424ft FOV. This represents just 4.5% less in linear terms, or 8.8% if you want to pull the area card .... :stuck:

We might forgive you your magenta coated mathematics, and even the 6.25% inferior magnification of the SF that you conveniently forgot to mention *nudge nudge

smilie* ...... but the Blue Badge Ol' Boys Secret Society |:x| won't be so forgiving for failing to mention the SF's mathematically superior Depth of Field!! :smoke:

Chosun :gh:

Vespobuteo · Aug 30, 2015

Chosun Juan said:
Ay yi yi, *smacks head, rolls eyes smilie*

There's those damn lies and statistics again! :brains:
More than just a little rounding up going on there! .....Are you being a naughty boi Lee? :scribe:

Torview is correct -- if the Swaro 8.5x42 was on an equal 8x power footing, it would have a 424ft FOV. This represents just 4.5% less in linear terms, or 8.8% if you want to pull the area card .... :stuck:

We might forgive you your magenta coated mathematics, and even the 6.25% inferior magnification of the SF that you conveniently forgot to mention *nudge nudge smilie* ...... but the Blue Badge Ol' Boys Secret Society |:x| won't be so forgiving for failing to mention the SF's mathematically superior Depth of Field!! :smoke:

Chosun :gh:

check you figures again..

the SF 8x42 FOV covers 24% bigger area than the 8.5x42 swaro,
vs 6.25% more mag in the swaro,

what the swaro would have if etc. we can't really know for sure…

more obvious if we compare the 10x models,
SF 120m vs SV 112m FOV,
means
15% bigger area too look into for the 10x42 SF

also the AFOV and ER is better on the SF,
the SF has/is what I would call
"eye piece of magic"
3

see my thread "Zeiss SF - 10x is the new 8.5x"

just my 49 cents..

Chosun Juan · Aug 30, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
check you figures again..

the SF 8x42 FOV covers 24% bigger area than the 8.5x42 swaro,
vs 6.25% more mag in the swaro,

what the swaro would have if etc. we can't really know for sure…

more obvious if we compare the 10x models,
SF 120m vs SV 112m FOV,
means
15% bigger area too look into for the 10x42 SF

also the AFOV and ER is better on the SF,
the SF has/is what I would call
"eye piece of magic"

see my thread "Zeiss SF - 10x is the new 8.5x"

just my 49 cents..

Hey Vespo ...... Who, who .... me?!

Woo Hoo!

Actually that's 23.8% if you insist on doing one of the finest comparisons of apples to oranges that I've ever seen! :egghead: :eat: :-@ :storm:

If magnification makes absolutely no difference, then we all might as well be toting vintage 6x, and 7x35 wide angle binoculars and just go and stand a whole heap closer to stuff!! :smoke:

Back to the drawing board for you young man ....... :cat:

As for the 10x, yes, well at least that's an apples :-@ to apples :-@ comparison, and nobody is saying Boo! about the 14.8% larger area of the SF. It would be a moot point anyway, since anyone fair dinkum about a 10x would prolly be toting a Swaro 10x50SV anyway, and be so Wowed! by the view that they would have little inclination to dwell on the minutae of differences in direction dependent focusing force, or p**fteenths of real world +/- meterage in "actually sharp" real field details ......... :gn:

We can't let these Zeiss "Boi's" get fast and loose with the truth now can we??

Chosun :gh:

henry link · Aug 30, 2015

It's so much easier to use apparent field rather than real field to compare the off-axis performance of binoculars with different magnifications. What you really want to know is how the binoculars compare at some shared off-axis angle of apparent field like 30º. Then you are comparing apples to apples.

Vespobuteo · Aug 30, 2015

Chosun Juan said:
Hey Vespo ...... Who, who .... me?!

Woo Hoo!

Actually that's 23.8% if you insist on doing one of the finest comparisons of apples to oranges that I've ever seen! :egghead: :eat: :-@ :storm:

If magnification makes absolutely no difference, then we all might as well be toting vintage 6x, and 7x35 wide angle binoculars and just go and stand a whole heap closer to stuff!! :smoke:

Back to the drawing board for you young man ....... :cat:

As for the 10x, yes, well at least that's an apples :-@ to apples :-@ comparison, and nobody is saying Boo! about the 14.8% larger area of the SF. It would be a moot point anyway, since anyone fair dinkum about a 10x would prolly be toting a Swaro 10x50SV anyway, and be so Wowed! by the view that they would have little inclination to dwell on the minutae of differences in direction dependent focusing force, or p**fteenths of real world +/- meterage in "actually sharp" real field details ......... :gn:

We can't let these Zeiss "Boi's" get fast and loose with the truth now can we??

Chosun :gh:

Truth hurts, facts not fruit,
Swaro second to one, not none, anymore,
We should be happy,
Comp is healthy,
Just pick up the 10x SF,
And youll seeee the point,
Weight and ergo does matter...
We have a new champ,
Not master of darkness,perhaps,
But no point carrying 50mm,
All day long, birds do sleep,
Looking for bats?
Don't like garlic?

Chosun Juan · Aug 30, 2015

henry link said:
It's so much easier to use apparent field rather than real field to compare the off-axis performance of binoculars with different magnifications. What you really want to know is how the binoculars compare at some shared off-axis angle of apparent field like 30º. Then you are comparing apples to apples.

Hi Henry,

Yes, I agree, that was the point - there is very little difference in AFov's %wise, between the Swaro 8.5x42SV and the Zeiss 8x42SV. Given that most reports give edge sharpness to the SV we may well have a bigger sharp field in the SV ..... let's see how the fanboi's like 'dem apples!

Although I still can't claim to precisely understand how Zeiss calculates their AFov figure (I 'spose if you have access to their precise distortion characteristics curve it's possible - but I wonder if they don't just measure it

:cat:

Chosun :gh:

PS. Vespo -- I love garlic, but I love the Swaro 10x50SV too, conversely, I love light weight too ......... go figure!

Troubador · Aug 30, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
check you figures again..

the SF 8x42 FOV covers 24% bigger area than the 8.5x42 swaro,
vs 6.25% more mag in the swaro,

VB is quite correct.
Whether comparing apples and oranges, ducks or geese, red wine or white: this is one of the choices in the binocular show room.

A bit more magnification (which for some could be a great compromise) or a lot more field of view.

Choose which suits you.

Lee

Vespobuteo · Aug 30, 2015

SF 10x42 - AFOV 65°, FOV 120m
SF 8x42 - AFOV 64°, FOV 148m
EL SV 10x42 - AFOV 60°, FOV 112m
EL SV 8.5x42 - AFOV 60°, FOV 133m
EL SV 10x50 - AFOV 62°, FOV 115m

4-5° difference in AFOV is quite noticeable,

I don't say that bigger AFOV/FOV is better but
I think it's correlated to the wow-factor,
a more immersive view etc.

perterra · Aug 30, 2015

Chosun Juan said:
Hi Henry,

Yes, I agree, that was the point - there is very little difference in AFov's %wise, between the Swaro 8.5x42SV and the Zeiss 8x42SV. Given that most reports give edge sharpness to the SV we may well have a bigger sharp field in the SV ..... let's see how the fanboi's like 'dem apples!

Although I still can't claim to precisely understand how Zeiss calculates their AFov figure (I 'spose if you have access to their precise distortion characteristics curve it's possible - but I wonder if they don't just measure it :cat:

Chosun :gh:

PS. Vespo -- I love garlic, but I love the Swaro 10x50SV too, conversely, I love light weight too ......... go figure!

Pecan rum is pretty good. Just sayin.

perterra · Aug 30, 2015

I think I'll have another thank you.

perterra · Aug 30, 2015

I like chocolate ice cream.

Rathaus · Aug 31, 2015

perterra said:
I like chocolate ice cream.

:-O

I see what you mean

mnich · Aug 31, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
SF 10x42 - AFOV 65°, FOV 120m
SF 8x42 - AFOV 64°, FOV 148m
EL SV 10x42 - AFOV 60°, FOV 112m
EL SV 8.5x42 - AFOV 60°, FOV 133m
EL SV 10x50 - AFOV 62°, FOV 115m

4-5° difference in AFOV is quite noticeable,

I don't say that bigger AFOV/FOV is better but
I think it's correlated to the wow-factor,
a more immersive view etc.

Hello Vespobuteo,

Size AFOV obtained by multiplying magnification binoculars X field in degrees. For example, the EL 8,5x42 SV - the field is 7.6 degree - 8,5x7,6 = 64,6 AFOV

)

Vespobuteo · Aug 31, 2015

mnich said:
Hello Vespobuteo,

Size AFOV obtained by multiplying magnification binoculars X field in degrees. For example, the EL 8,5x42 SV - the field is 7.6 degree - 8,5x7,6 = 64,6 AFOV

)

well you could use the formula, but then Zeiss SF:s (8x and 10x) would have 69° AFOV, so they would still be ahead,

but apparently neither zeiss or swaro use that formula,
all the figures are from the manufacturer themselves,
probably more realistic values:

http://aa.swarovskioptik.com/nature/el-c21011001/el-8p5x42-p5222897

And if you compare them IRL you can
spot the difference, which was my point.
Zeiss SF have the bigger AFOV (and bigger FOV obviously),
and it is noticeable.

People usually don't like a tubelike view
you get with a smaller AFOV,
personally I think 60° - 70° is acceptable,
with the ideal somewhere in the middle.

higher AFOV gives a more immersive view,
if the ER is long enough,
otherwise you may not be able to see the whole field
without peeking around corners/moving your head
but Zeiss have done a great job with the eye piece in SF,

will be interesting to see if Swaro will follow this path
or not.

Zeiss SF vs Swaro EL SV review - in DUTCH! (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

"Experientia Docet”

Moderator

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread