-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
10X50 Swarovision (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Pileatus
- Start date
HighNorth
Well-known member
Technically it is correct, because the 50 has a bigger exit pupil and a bigger aperture, which gathers more light. Whether or not you are able to see the difference in brightness however, is another question.
HN
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
bigger exit pupil is always nice,
even in good light I think,
the 10x50 SV is available here for 2000 € now, 10% rebated, thats 250 € less than the SF 10x42, hmm, a bit tempting, but no, the weight will be too much, most likely
The weights of the current EL models (i.e. prior to the September 2015 release of the new EL range with new straps, lens covers etc.) are:
10X50 998gms/35.2oz
10X42 840gms/29.6ozs
This is a difference of 158gms/5.6ozs; 18.8%.
I know that I am biased because I have purchased a pair of 10X50, am lucky enough to have steady hands for using 10X and also strong wrists/arms. Even so, I wonder if too much is being made of the extra weight of the 10X50? Yes, having read all about this issue on this forum, even I was worried before making my purchase. However, I know 2 ladies who use EL 10X42's with no problems and I reckoned that my strength would carry my through.
That has proven to be the case BUT I do use a pair of carefully adjusted Swarovski harnesses and these make a huge difference. I have now worn the EL 10X50 for periods of well over 6 hours without taking them off and walked for over 12 miles on hilly country with no ill effects.
Vespobuteo, far be it for me to teach any granny/grandpa to suck eggs, but if you can get the 10X50 for 2000 Euro and if you can trial them with a money back guarantee, I think that you should buy them!! In reality, i do not think that the weight will prove to be the issue that you are expecting.
My pennyworth, for what it is worth.
Rolstone
10X50 998gms/35.2oz
10X42 840gms/29.6ozs
This is a difference of 158gms/5.6ozs; 18.8%.
I know that I am biased because I have purchased a pair of 10X50, am lucky enough to have steady hands for using 10X and also strong wrists/arms. Even so, I wonder if too much is being made of the extra weight of the 10X50? Yes, having read all about this issue on this forum, even I was worried before making my purchase. However, I know 2 ladies who use EL 10X42's with no problems and I reckoned that my strength would carry my through.
That has proven to be the case BUT I do use a pair of carefully adjusted Swarovski harnesses and these make a huge difference. I have now worn the EL 10X50 for periods of well over 6 hours without taking them off and walked for over 12 miles on hilly country with no ill effects.
Vespobuteo, far be it for me to teach any granny/grandpa to suck eggs, but if you can get the 10X50 for 2000 Euro and if you can trial them with a money back guarantee, I think that you should buy them!! In reality, i do not think that the weight will prove to be the issue that you are expecting.
My pennyworth, for what it is worth.
Rolstone
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
I guess it depends on what other equipment you carry,
scopes, cameras, lenses, tripods, food, water etc.
(every gram counts, and grams become kilos…:-C)
and how you do your birding,
a 10x50 could be fine for couple of hours,
but maybe not 2-3 days intense birding from dusk to dawn.
Last edited:
You replied to Rolstones question about the direct comparisons between the EL 10X50 and the 10x42, and actually said that 10x50 will always be brighter.
If it's not always possible to make use of the higher brightness, I don't find it relevant to claim that it's always brighter. That will be like saying that it will always provide a brighter image, which is not true.
Last edited:
Are we haggling over the distinction between "will always be brighter" and "will always look brighter"?
Last edited:
Sanjay Naithani
Well-known member
Are these weights above include weight of strap, eye and optical lense cover. I thought these are weights of binocular only.
Sanjay Naithani
Steve C
Well-known member
The extra light from a 50mm objective has to do something in the image beside show brightness differences, apparent or real. Using exit pupil only, the brightness difference is moot until the sun goes down, whereupon the 50 EL comes out to play. There is however what I think is a better contrast and somewhat better color between the 10x42 and 10x50, favoring the 50. That is at any light level.
As has been alluded to, the significant ergonomic difference between the two will probably be the deciding factor. I'm somewhat torn with keeping my 10x50 SV and returning it for the 10x42 SV I had before I swapped.
As has been alluded to, the significant ergonomic difference between the two will probably be the deciding factor. I'm somewhat torn with keeping my 10x50 SV and returning it for the 10x42 SV I had before I swapped.
Last edited:
I have posted before that the weight of my EL SV 10X42 with strap, and rain guard is 954 gm. This does not include the objective covers.
brocknroller
porromaniac
It might even be the worlds widest PORRO..
definitely missing a porro in the zeiss line up,
:t:
Except for one dinosaur that still roams the Earth (7x50 B/GA), Zeiss eventually abandoned the porro design after the Soviets seized its factories in what became East Germany, and Zeiss Jena continued making porros that Zeiss had been making with forced labor during WWII. I owned the aus Jena 8x50 Octarem, which was an elegant looking "gem."
I have a theory that the duplication of identical porros, both with the name "Zeiss" forced Zeiss West to look for something different to sell. Zeiss engineers came up with phase coatings for roof prisms, which sparked the Roof Revolution that continues today. You can read about this in Thomas Friedman's book, The World Is Flat.
Given Zeiss' success with roofs, I think we will only see a new Zeiss porro when....
Hell Freezes Over!
<B>
In some way I find it worthless to talk about brightness which isn't useful.
A person who has no knowledge about these optical laws surely will understand the sentence "always be brighter" as that it will always provide a brighter image for the eyes, which will be misleading.
I think a better explanation is that 5mm exit pupil will always deliver a brighter image than a 4,2mm exit pupil providing the eye pupil size is larger than 4,2mm. Which is not always the case.
Well; no need for further discussion of this I think. Maybe I am too finicky...
Last edited:
HighNorth
Well-known member
Sanjay
Very unscientific but, using my kitchen scales, the weights of the EL 10X50 are:
Bare instrument 975gms (which suggests that, if Swarovski's figure of 998 is correct, the kitchen scales are under reading by about 2 percent).
Weight of binocular including all lens caps, the short pieces that fit though the loops on the side of the binoculars and the device that holds the eye lens cover onto the binocular using the short piece of cord and the clamp, 1,050gms
Total weight including harness; 1,150gms.
Yes, the harness really does weigh only 100 gms, less than I expected,
Rolstone
Very unscientific but, using my kitchen scales, the weights of the EL 10X50 are:
Bare instrument 975gms (which suggests that, if Swarovski's figure of 998 is correct, the kitchen scales are under reading by about 2 percent).
Weight of binocular including all lens caps, the short pieces that fit though the loops on the side of the binoculars and the device that holds the eye lens cover onto the binocular using the short piece of cord and the clamp, 1,050gms
Total weight including harness; 1,150gms.
Yes, the harness really does weigh only 100 gms, less than I expected,
Rolstone
HighNorth
Well-known member
He could always decrease weight further by using an even lighter harness. The Swarovski harness is notoriously elaborate and over-engineered.
HN
Why seems everyone to be bothered by a couple of grams? Yes, the SV50 is a bit heavier than the SV42, but for me personally it is just a matter of getting used to. When weight is important I think it might be wise to buy a 42mm instead. Weight also brings extra stability and less shake. I prefer the bigger EP and the more relaxed view of the 50mm over a little less weight of the 42mm. I didn't even bother to look at the 42, for me 50 is the way to go.
When we would have been talking about 8x bins, it's likely the 42mm would be my choice. 5.25mm EP is fine. That's probably also the reason why a 8x50SV doesn't exist.
When we would have been talking about 8x bins, it's likely the 42mm would be my choice. 5.25mm EP is fine. That's probably also the reason why a 8x50SV doesn't exist.
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
Gijs,
I agree, it's what you get use to. I'm a small guy and can handle the 10x50's just fine. In testing, comparing and evaluating binos, Optical Performance was #1, then overall ergonomics was #2 in my priorities. As you've stated (and many others before and after), the EL 10x50's just had that WOW factor, as soon as, and every time I bring them up to my eye sockets! HERE is where I documented most binos I tried to get to the purchase I have now. Yes, they are really easy on the eyes with their immediate 3-D DOF, superb clarity, wide FOV and "as-if-you-are-there" breath of fresh air view. They are the best I've looked through...Period!
Ted
No Tern unstoned
New member
I have been lucky enough to use the 10x50 el swaro's, and yes they are bright, but in good light not noticeably more so that my Zeiss 10x32 fl. Two things however did strike me #1 even in bright strong light viz migging colours were outstanding and details were resolved that I just couldn't get with other bins, #2 this is a biggie for me and the reason these will soon adorn my neck; they were never ever out of focus, I could follow fast moving swifts passing within 20ft of me with minimal refocusing, so when something shoots past you'll be on it, the difference between nailing features or frustration with missing a diagnostic feature.
Close focus has being pushed to the limit, in my opinion at the expense of depth of field, my fl's focus on my feet, even when insect watching, when do you ever use it????
Close focus has being pushed to the limit, in my opinion at the expense of depth of field, my fl's focus on my feet, even when insect watching, when do you ever use it????
Similar threads
