New bin, EL10x50SV (1 Viewer)

Uhu74 · Jun 17, 2015

Yesterday, I went to my local optics store to check out and try some bins, mainly intended for astro use/low light/extended ranges.
As some side info, my other bins are an EL8x32SV, and a recently purchased new Leica Trinovid 8x42, both very nice bins, and a joy to use.

I was looking into the 10x50/56 range, and went to the store with the Conquest HD 10x56 or something similar in mind.
First thing I noticed when the salesman took it out of the cabinet, was it's size. Man that thing is HUGE! Anyway, took it outside to test it.
Long story short, I liked it. Sharp and bright, certainly a nice bin for the money. But it's also a specialists bin because of it's size and weight.

Because the Conquests size and weight kind of scared me off a bit, I think It would only see use for astronomy, and most likely, I would not carry it with me on a full day in the field.
That's actually not really the plan. When I spend my money, I want to use things as much as possible.

So, I got an idea. If I could find a bin which could partly replace the Trinny 8x42, and partly the Zeiss CHD, then I would get the best of both worlds with limited concessions.
Looking for a premium 10x42 was not an option, the 4.2mm EP is too small for me in low light use. When looking into the Swarovski cabinet, the 10x50SV caught my attention.
Man, that thing is small compared to the Conquest, it's only slightly larger than the 10x42SV. Very nice, I'm sure I can use the 10x50SV a full day in the field, AND it's very good for astronomy.
Seemed like the perfect compromise to me, so let's take it outside to compare it with the Conquest.

First glance through the SV felt like coming home. What a nice, warm, comfortable view. Put it to your eyes, and bam, there it is. Amazing.
I know it's not fair to compare a top tier bin with a second tier, but the SV made the Conquests image look cold and emotionless. I guess that difference is exactly the part which cost you a lot of extra money.

My mind was made up in a heartbeat the moment I put the big SV to my eyes. I didn't mind having to sacrifice the not even 2 months old 8x42 Trinny in favour of the SV, although I really liked the Trinny a lot.

Long story short, I came home with the 10x50SV, and without the Leica. So, still 2 bins, but they complete each other. My range of useage is more then covered now, without having to sacrifice too much regarding the need for a big EP.
When I arrived home, I instantly started to play around with my new toy. A 40yo, as happy as a little kid during christmas time.

I like it even better than the 32SV, the glare which the 32 sometimes shows, is almost non-existent. I tried to provoke it, but I could not see any.
Even when looking around towards a street light I could not see any weird spikes or glare.
The focuser is as good as it gets to me, a nice, smooth, even resistance clockwise and anti-clockwise. Definitely better than the SLC I had, and the 32SV.
Contrast and sharpness is very good, it appeared to be sharper than the Conquest, but maybe that's due to the better contrast of the SV.
What also came to mind is the fact it actually feels lighter than it is. It's also very nicely balanced and stable. Not difficult at all to hold still. Even my wife said it is easier to hold still than the 32SV, despite the higher magnification.
CA is also nicely controlled, and the big EP makes it very easy on the eyes. Apparent FOV is high, so it actually makes you feel "you're there"

Before I forget, when moving from the 32SV to the Leica, I really had to get used to the regular view of the Leica. So I happen to be more comfortable with a "rolling baller":-O

Kind regards,

Gijs

King Parrot · Jun 17, 2015

Congrats on the new purchase! Good SV choice to complement your other SV 32 bins. Any reason for not going for EL 12x50 for Astro use?

Cheers
Mark

Uhu74 · Jun 17, 2015

King Parrot said:
Congrats on the new purchase! Good SV choice to complement your other SV 32 bins. Any reason for not going for EL 12x50 for Astro use?

Cheers
Mark

Thanks Mark, reason is that the 12x50's magnification is a bit too much for general use (birding, nature, airplanes, sea watching), while 10x is still a nice magnification for astro use. 12x is too much a specialist bin. FOV is "only" 100m compared to 115m for the 10x.

Regards,

Gijs

Theo98 · Jun 17, 2015

Uhu74 said:
First glance through the SV felt like coming home. What a nice, warm, comfortable view. Put it to your eyes, and bam, there it is. Amazing.
I know it's not fair to compare a top tier bin with a second tier, but the SV made the Conquests image look cold and emotionless. I guess that difference is exactly the part which cost you a lot of extra money.

Long story short, I came home with the 10x50SV, and without the Leica. So, still 2 bins, but they complete each other. My range of useage is more then covered now, without having to sacrifice too much regarding the need for a big EP.
When I arrived home, I instantly started to play around with my new toy. A 40yo, as happy as a little kid during christmas time.

Kind regards,

Gijs

Nice Gijs! I understand that "new toy" excitement! "Looks Like" you've got all the ranges covered now. Bet the 50mm helps in very low light, huh!? ENJOY! :t:

Ted

brocknroller · Jun 17, 2015

Uhu74 said:
Yesterday, I went to my local optics store to check out and try some bins, mainly intended for astro use/low light/extended ranges.
As some side info, my other bins are an EL8x32SV, and a recently purchased new Leica Trinovid 8x42, both very nice bins, and a joy to use.

I was looking into the 10x50/56 range, and went to the store with the Conquest HD 10x56 or something similar in mind.
First thing I noticed when the salesman took it out of the cabinet, was it's size. Man that thing is HUGE! Anyway, took it outside to test it.
Long story short, I liked it. Sharp and bright, certainly a nice bin for the money. But it's also a specialists bin because of it's size and weight.

Because the Conquests size and weight kind of scared me off a bit, I think It would only see use for astronomy, and most likely, I would not carry it with me on a full day in the field.
That's actually not really the plan. When I spend my money, I want to use things as much as possible.

So, I got an idea. If I could find a bin which could partly replace the Trinny 8x42, and partly the Zeiss CHD, then I would get the best of both worlds with limited concessions.
Looking for a premium 10x42 was not an option, the 4.2mm EP is too small for me in low light use. When looking into the Swarovski cabinet, the 10x50SV caught my attention.
Man, that thing is small compared to the Conquest, it's only slightly larger than the 10x42SV. Very nice, I'm sure I can use the 10x50SV a full day in the field, AND it's very good for astronomy.
Seemed like the perfect compromise to me, so let's take it outside to compare it with the Conquest.

First glance through the SV felt like coming home. What a nice, warm, comfortable view. Put it to your eyes, and bam, there it is. Amazing.
I know it's not fair to compare a top tier bin with a second tier, but the SV made the Conquests image look cold and emotionless. I guess that difference is exactly the part which cost you a lot of extra money.

My mind was made up in a heartbeat the moment I put the big SV to my eyes. I didn't mind having to sacrifice the not even 2 months old 8x42 Trinny in favour of the SV, although I really liked the Trinny a lot.

Long story short, I came home with the 10x50SV, and without the Leica. So, still 2 bins, but they complete each other. My range of useage is more then covered now, without having to sacrifice too much regarding the need for a big EP.
When I arrived home, I instantly started to play around with my new toy. A 40yo, as happy as a little kid during christmas time.

I like it even better than the 32SV, the glare which the 32 sometimes shows, is almost non-existent. I tried to provoke it, but I could not see any.
Even when looking around towards a street light I could not see any weird spikes or glare.
The focuser is as good as it gets to me, a nice, smooth, even resistance clockwise and anti-clockwise. Definitely better than the SLC I had, and the 32SV.
Contrast and sharpness is very good, it appeared to be sharper than the Conquest, but maybe that's due to the better contrast of the SV.
What also came to mind is the fact it actually feels lighter than it is. It's also very nicely balanced and stable. Not difficult at all to hold still. Even my wife said it is easier to hold still than the 32SV, despite the higher magnification.
CA is also nicely controlled, and the big EP makes it very easy on the eyes. Apparent FOV is high, so it actually makes you feel "you're there"

Before I forget, when moving from the 32SV to the Leica, I really had to get used to the regular view of the Leica. So I happen to be more comfortable with a "rolling baller":-O

Kind regards,

Gijs

Gijs,

Always good to hear when someone finds a bin that he's very happy with, particularly when it's an unexpected find, even better when he can get dual use from the bin. No doubt, the 10x50 SV cost you many more euros than the 10x56 CHD, but the Conquest would have been more limited in its use. So if you have to rationalize it, I would, it's like you bought two bins in one - a bin for stargazing and a bin for low light nature observation.

I know what you mean about open bridge roofs feeling lighter than their actual weight, I've mentioned this many times on these forums. The ability to wrap your fingers around the bins shifts the weight to different muscles than you would use holding and closed bridge roof. Our hands were designed for grasping objects with our fingers, which is hard to do with a closed bridge roof, you have to push against the sides., cross your fingers over the top, and try to support the bins underneath with your thumbs, which is not as easy to do as it is with a porro or an open bridge roof, particularly if there are no thumb indents or if the thumb indents are not in the right place for your hands, which I find is often the case for me.

The open bridge design is also good for stargazing since your hands/arms will take longer to fatigue.

Am I understanding you correctly that you DO see "rolling ball" through the SV ELs, and that you haven't adapted to it, but that it doesn't bother you?

Brocknrollingballer

dalat · Jun 17, 2015

Hi, congrats to the buy!

just a small question: did you have the chance to compare the SV to the Leica Ultravid plus before buying? Spec-wise the two 10x50 are very similar, and I've not yet seen a comparison between these...

Regards,

Uhu74 · Jun 17, 2015

@Ted, thanks!
I have had bins of all of "the big three", but it looks like I keep coming back to Swarovski☺

@Brock,
I have to say the Zeiss is a very comforable bin to hold as well, regardless the convertional design. The weight didn't really bother me, it was the size. The CHD was just too big to me for all purpose use.
So instead of one alpha, and two second tier bins, I made the choice to go for 2 alpha's which cover my range of use.
Because I traded in my nearly new Trinovid, the money I had to pay extra for the SV also would have covered the price of the CHD. Speaking of money , the difference was kind of negliable.
But I chose to go the "2 bins and use them a lot" route instead of the "3 bins and don't know which one to take" route☺

Regarding rolling ball, I can't really say that I see it, but I do see a difference when panning with a flat fielder compared to a classic design. It is not bothering me for sure.
Maybe it's because of using the little SV a lot, that I got use to that view. When panning in the woods for instance, I focus on the center and the vertical objects. It was very weird to see the Leicas image bending straight objects like trees or street lights when they're moved off center. I prefer a flat field, and now I know for sure☺

@Florian, Thanks☺ Maybe it's stupid, but to be honest I haven't tried the UHD 10x50, although they are pretty similar regarding size and weight. The price of the UHD was a bit lower, but I really like the flat and sharp to the edges image of the SV, especially for astronomical use.
Also the SV's control of CA seems to be better than Leicas in general. That's also practicly the only thing to complain about in the Trinovids in some situations. For the money, the're terrific bins and I really liked the saturated colors and contrast. There are not many bad things to say about Leica.

Cheers,

Gijs

denco@comcast.n · Jun 17, 2015

Uhu74 said:
Yesterday, I went to my local optics store to check out and try some bins, mainly intended for astro use/low light/extended ranges.
As some side info, my other bins are an EL8x32SV, and a recently purchased new Leica Trinovid 8x42, both very nice bins, and a joy to use.

I was looking into the 10x50/56 range, and went to the store with the Conquest HD 10x56 or something similar in mind.
First thing I noticed when the salesman took it out of the cabinet, was it's size. Man that thing is HUGE! Anyway, took it outside to test it.
Long story short, I liked it. Sharp and bright, certainly a nice bin for the money. But it's also a specialists bin because of it's size and weight.

Because the Conquests size and weight kind of scared me off a bit, I think It would only see use for astronomy, and most likely, I would not carry it with me on a full day in the field.
That's actually not really the plan. When I spend my money, I want to use things as much as possible.

So, I got an idea. If I could find a bin which could partly replace the Trinny 8x42, and partly the Zeiss CHD, then I would get the best of both worlds with limited concessions.
Looking for a premium 10x42 was not an option, the 4.2mm EP is too small for me in low light use. When looking into the Swarovski cabinet, the 10x50SV caught my attention.
Man, that thing is small compared to the Conquest, it's only slightly larger than the 10x42SV. Very nice, I'm sure I can use the 10x50SV a full day in the field, AND it's very good for astronomy.
Seemed like the perfect compromise to me, so let's take it outside to compare it with the Conquest.

First glance through the SV felt like coming home. What a nice, warm, comfortable view. Put it to your eyes, and bam, there it is. Amazing.
I know it's not fair to compare a top tier bin with a second tier, but the SV made the Conquests image look cold and emotionless. I guess that difference is exactly the part which cost you a lot of extra money.

My mind was made up in a heartbeat the moment I put the big SV to my eyes. I didn't mind having to sacrifice the not even 2 months old 8x42 Trinny in favour of the SV, although I really liked the Trinny a lot.

Long story short, I came home with the 10x50SV, and without the Leica. So, still 2 bins, but they complete each other. My range of useage is more then covered now, without having to sacrifice too much regarding the need for a big EP.
When I arrived home, I instantly started to play around with my new toy. A 40yo, as happy as a little kid during christmas time.

I like it even better than the 32SV, the glare which the 32 sometimes shows, is almost non-existent. I tried to provoke it, but I could not see any.
Even when looking around towards a street light I could not see any weird spikes or glare.
The focuser is as good as it gets to me, a nice, smooth, even resistance clockwise and anti-clockwise. Definitely better than the SLC I had, and the 32SV.
Contrast and sharpness is very good, it appeared to be sharper than the Conquest, but maybe that's due to the better contrast of the SV.
What also came to mind is the fact it actually feels lighter than it is. It's also very nicely balanced and stable. Not difficult at all to hold still. Even my wife said it is easier to hold still than the 32SV, despite the higher magnification.
CA is also nicely controlled, and the big EP makes it very easy on the eyes. Apparent FOV is high, so it actually makes you feel "you're there"

Before I forget, when moving from the 32SV to the Leica, I really had to get used to the regular view of the Leica. So I happen to be more comfortable with a "rolling baller":-O

Kind regards,

Gijs

The 10x50 SV is the best 10x I have ever looked through. It shocked me how good it was when I first looked through it. As you say not that big either and excellent balance. That big 50mm aperture gets rid of glare nicely doesn't it?

kestrel1 · Jun 17, 2015

Hi Gijs,
Welcome to the Swarovision club of "caliber 50".
I was also impressed by the balance and good stability of my 12x50.
Looking at night sky is outstanding with these 50´s.

King Parrot · Jun 18, 2015

Hi Gijs, you are fortunate to have a good retailer around to be able to try all three alpha binocs, compare and decide and not to even mention trade in your old Trinny - no such luck for me in Brisbane. Only a few brick and mortar shops having alpha binocs and trade in is no option. I would have to sell my old binocs second-hand at less than half price no matter what.

Hi Kestrel, I noticed you moved from EL8.5x42 to 12x50. What is the reason and what is the difference in every-days use. I am a proud owner of the EL8.5x42 since a few weeks ago a couldn't be happier with the choice

I have considered 10 and 12 power Els due to size/weight not being very different. My primary concern was stable hand-holding while glassing. I like to get out and about and do tracking mixed with birdwatching so tripod is not an option.

I am interested in Astro viewing experience too - in particular what can you see well thru 12x50 apart from the Moon of course. Would a scope like 30-70x95 be a better proposition (which would mean having two units - binocs + scope).

Cheers
Mark

stereotruckdriver · Jun 18, 2015

Uhu74 said:
Yesterday, I went to my local optics store to check out and try some bins, mainly intended for astro use/low light/extended ranges.
As some side info, my other bins are an EL8x32SV, and a recently purchased new Leica Trinovid 8x42, both very nice bins, and a joy to use.

I was looking into the 10x50/56 range, and went to the store with the Conquest HD 10x56 or something similar in mind.
First thing I noticed when the salesman took it out of the cabinet, was it's size. Man that thing is HUGE! Anyway, took it outside to test it.
Long story short, I liked it. Sharp and bright, certainly a nice bin for the money. But it's also a specialists bin because of it's size and weight.

Because the Conquests size and weight kind of scared me off a bit, I think It would only see use for astronomy, and most likely, I would not carry it with me on a full day in the field.
That's actually not really the plan. When I spend my money, I want to use things as much as possible.

So, I got an idea. If I could find a bin which could partly replace the Trinny 8x42, and partly the Zeiss CHD, then I would get the best of both worlds with limited concessions.
Looking for a premium 10x42 was not an option, the 4.2mm EP is too small for me in low light use. When looking into the Swarovski cabinet, the 10x50SV caught my attention.
Man, that thing is small compared to the Conquest, it's only slightly larger than the 10x42SV. Very nice, I'm sure I can use the 10x50SV a full day in the field, AND it's very good for astronomy.
Seemed like the perfect compromise to me, so let's take it outside to compare it with the Conquest.

First glance through the SV felt like coming home. What a nice, warm, comfortable view. Put it to your eyes, and bam, there it is. Amazing.
I know it's not fair to compare a top tier bin with a second tier, but the SV made the Conquests image look cold and emotionless. I guess that difference is exactly the part which cost you a lot of extra money.

My mind was made up in a heartbeat the moment I put the big SV to my eyes. I didn't mind having to sacrifice the not even 2 months old 8x42 Trinny in favour of the SV, although I really liked the Trinny a lot.

Long story short, I came home with the 10x50SV, and without the Leica. So, still 2 bins, but they complete each other. My range of useage is more then covered now, without having to sacrifice too much regarding the need for a big EP.
When I arrived home, I instantly started to play around with my new toy. A 40yo, as happy as a little kid during christmas time.

I like it even better than the 32SV, the glare which the 32 sometimes shows, is almost non-existent. I tried to provoke it, but I could not see any.
Even when looking around towards a street light I could not see any weird spikes or glare.
The focuser is as good as it gets to me, a nice, smooth, even resistance clockwise and anti-clockwise. Definitely better than the SLC I had, and the 32SV.
Contrast and sharpness is very good, it appeared to be sharper than the Conquest, but maybe that's due to the better contrast of the SV.
What also came to mind is the fact it actually feels lighter than it is. It's also very nicely balanced and stable. Not difficult at all to hold still. Even my wife said it is easier to hold still than the 32SV, despite the higher magnification.
CA is also nicely controlled, and the big EP makes it very easy on the eyes. Apparent FOV is high, so it actually makes you feel "you're there"

Before I forget, when moving from the 32SV to the Leica, I really had to get used to the regular view of the Leica. So I happen to be more comfortable with a "rolling baller":-O

Kind regards,

Gijs

I use this same tandem. Nice to see others confirm what I see and others as well. To many people feel the need to label or knock a binocular with out actually trying or because of brand.

I'm still floored every time I use them.

Enjoy.

I know I won't be replacing the 10x50 or 8x32 sv's, I'm old enough and the glass is exceptionally good!

Bryce...

jgraider · Jun 18, 2015

King Parrot (or anyone else for that matter), did you notice much difference in the view between the 8.5 and 10x Swarovisions you tested, besides the obviously bigger image in the 10x ????

King Parrot · Jun 18, 2015

jgraider form memory not much difference in magnification which is outweighed by the reduced FoV and increased shakiness in particular with the 10x32 model. For my use (mixed open areas and forest tracks sometimes very leafy and dark) 8.5x42 as allrounders are best suited. If you are out in the open a lot and viewing subjects at a greater distance I can see the benefit of 10 or even 12 power binocs assuming you can hold them steady for long. For such observation you don't need a super wide FoV, its much easier to spot and track a bird there as compared in to a forest. Additionally 10x32 or 10x42 have a smaller exit pupil more prone to blackouts and not as bright as 8.5x42 (I have tried them in late afternoon and could see the difference in brightness particularly when the clouds has covered the Sun). 10x50 would have comparable EP and brightness to 8.5x42 but are a bit larger and heavier (by 150 grams I think). So it is a bit of a compromise depending on what's most important to you.

Cheers
Mark

brocknroller · Jun 18, 2015

Uhu74 said:
@Ted, thanks!
I have had bins of all of "the big three", but it looks like I keep coming back to Swarovski☺

@Brock,
I have to say the Zeiss is a very comforable bin to hold as well, regardless the convertional design. The weight didn't really bother me, it was the size. The CHD was just too big to me for all purpose use.
So instead of one alpha, and two second tier bins, I made the choice to go for 2 alpha's which cover my range of use.
Because I traded in my nearly new Trinovid, the money I had to pay extra for the SV also would have covered the price of the CHD. Speaking of money , the difference was kind of negliable.
But I chose to go the "2 bins and use them a lot" route instead of the "3 bins and don't know which one to take" route☺

Regarding rolling ball, I can't really say that I see it, but I do see a difference when panning with a flat fielder compared to a classic design. It is not bothering me for sure.
Maybe it's because of using the little SV a lot, that I got use to that view. When panning in the woods for instance, I focus on the center and the vertical objects. It was very weird to see the Leicas image bending straight objects like trees or street lights when they're moved off center. I prefer a flat field, and now I know for sure☺

@Florian, Thanks☺ Maybe it's stupid, but to be honest I haven't tried the UHD 10x50, although they are pretty similar regarding size and weight. The price of the UHD was a bit lower, but I really like the flat and sharp to the edges image of the SV, especially for astronomical use.
Also the SV's control of CA seems to be better than Leicas in general. That's also practicly the only thing to complain about in the Trinovids in some situations. For the money, the're terrific bins and I really liked the saturated colors and contrast. There are not many bad things to say about Leica.

Cheers,

Gijs

#ConquestHD = I could see how those fat barrels would give ample room for your fingers to wrap around, but I wouldn't be able to hold a 44.6 oz. roof up for stargazing for more than a few minutes even if I ates me spinach. The 32.5 oz. 10x50 SV EL with its open bridge would be much preferred (if I didn't see RB, that is, Ed said he saw it even while stargazing, I did, too, while using the 10x42 Nikon HGL for stargazing - now I know what the Greeks meant by the "Celestial Sphere"

)

The difference in price btwn the 8x56 Conquest HD and the 10x50 SV EL in the U.S. is not negligible (I misspelled that word, too, I had to use spell check). The difference is about $1,300, almost enough to buy a Leica 8x42 Trinovid. I like a flat field too, but not at the expense of smooth panning. OTOH, too much pincushion can be as bad as too little.

With two Swaros, you are now eligible for membership in the Knights of the Absam Roundtable. Your application will be sent via email. Once you pay the fee, you will be given your official KAR card, secret message ring decoder, and a pewter statue of a Peregrine falcon for your mantle shelf.

Enjoy!

Brock

dalat · Jun 18, 2015

Uhu74 said:
@Florian, Thanks☺ Maybe it's stupid, but to be honest I haven't tried the UHD 10x50, although they are pretty similar regarding size and weight. The price of the UHD was a bit lower, but I really like the flat and sharp to the edges image of the SV, especially for astronomical use.

No worries, I guess its the best way to buy: if one fits, get it and stop shoping around.... And while similar in many specs, the flat field and the ergonomics are certainly different in the UV+ and the SV. I was just curious about the Ultravids, as also the 50s have recently been upgraded to + but not many reports yet (while a lot of positive ones about the 42s +).
Enjoy your bin!

Uhu74 · Jun 18, 2015

Thanks for the kind words everyone.

@Bryce You're the one who got me over the fence to move from SLC42 to SV32, and I still am grateful for that.:t:
It might sound funny coming from my mouth but I'm not a Swarovski fanboy. On the other hand, I certainly do like their products. As a part of my optics hobby, I like to try different brands as well. Each brand has it's own strong and weak points, and the buyer has to find a compromise about what he/she thinks what's most important in a pair of binoculars. The only way to find out how a bino performs is to try or buy. Reading reviews can give a coarse impression, but I always want to find out myself:eat:

@brock, The price difference IS substantial between SV and CHD, the SV is about twice the price of the CHD.
What I meant is, I traded in the little Trinovid (1050 euro here, minus current 200 euro cashback action makes 850euro) and the cash I had to leave behind was about the same whether I would buy the Swaro and trade in the Trinovid, or buy the CHD and keeping the Trinny.
B.t.w. I already am a full fledged member of the Absam Knights of the flat table with sharp edges, I already had a ATX85 scopeo

Regarding the typo, I hate it that I sometimes misspell things, but sometimes it can be difficult. English isn't my native language, as you might know, but thanks for the correction anyway:king:

@Mark When I started the astronomy hobby (I'm still a rookie regarding that) I bought a ATX85 spotter to start exploring the skies. IMO you'll learn more when you are searching for objects yourself, than let a GoTo mount do the work
If astronomy is your "core business", I would suggest, buy a decent APO refractor with some nice Nagler type or other eyepieces and start from there.
It likely is cheaper than a decent spotter, and it will give you better results for astronomy.
I use the ATX for digiscoping as well, but purely from an astronomical point of view, there might be better (and cheaper) choices IMO.

@Florian, I should have tried the UHD when I think of it now. It's likely the outcome would have been the same, but at least then I would have known what the UHD50 can do|=)|

I used the SV50 yesterday evening at 22:30 local time, and I was amazed that I could even distinguish colors in low light.
This bin is getting pretty close to perfection IMO, I'm glad I chose the 2 bin route.o

I'm very happy with it.

Cheers,

Gijs

Maljunulo · Jun 18, 2015

After I bought my EL SV 10X42, I would sit around having long discussions with myself over whether or not I should have bought the 10X50 instead.

That was all behind me ........... until I read this thread, and the voices started up again.

HighNorth · Jun 18, 2015

I'm considering buying either the 10x50 EL SV or the Canon IS 10x42 for stargazing/long(er) range viewing. Although the 10x50 is tempting due to its large AFOV and aperture (and great view if the hype on this forum is to be believed), I am nudging towards the Canon IS due to the stabilisation and lower cost. Also, I doubt I could hold an unstabilised 10x still enough to avoid "dancing stars" when using it for astro.

brocknroller · Jun 18, 2015

Uhu74 said:
Thanks for the kind words everyone.

@brock, The price difference IS substantial between SV and CHD, the SV is about twice the price of the CHD.
What I meant is, I traded in the little Trinovid (1050 euro here, minus current 200 euro cashback action makes 850euro) and the cash I had to leave behind was about the same whether I would buy the Swaro and trade in the Trinovid, or buy the CHD and keeping the Trinny.
B.t.w. I already am a full fledged member of the Absam Knights of the flat table with sharp edges, I already had a ATX85 scopeo
Regarding the typo, I hate it that I sometimes misspell things, but sometimes it can be difficult. English isn't my native language, as you might know, but thanks for the correction anyway:king:....

Cheers,

Gijs

Gijs,

You wrote: "Because I traded in my nearly new Trinovid, the money I had to pay extra for the SV also would have covered the price of the CHD. Speaking of money, the difference was kind of negliable."

The second sentence starting with "Speaking of money" didn't seem like it was connected to the first sentence, which is why I thought the CHD was about the same price as the SV EL in the Netherlands. European prices are different than the U.S. (usually more expensive), but the price difference should still be about the same. Thanks for clarifying that.

Yes, that should have been Knights of the "Flat Table" in your case since you don't see RB.

The word "eligible" is difficult to spell even for English speaking natives, because "a"s and "i"s are used so interchangeably in English that you have to memorize every word, you can't sound it out and spell it.

Your English is better than some Americans I know. Also, the spellcheck doesn't always work. If you misspell a word so badly that it doesn't recognize it, and you hit spellcheck again, it will stop highlighting the word and mislead you into thinking it's spelled correctly.

I had two years of German in H.S., and two years in college, and I couldn't write a paragraph as good as yours without having a Deutsch-English dictionary by my side. Even then, I would probably flub the grammar since German syntax is different than English, for example, the verb coming at the end of the sentence.

If you don't use it, you lose it. If I lived near the Pennsylvania Dutch I might get a chance to use my German although they have their own dialect.

Btw, do you know the other Gijs on here (the optics expert) and Jan? Jan owns a big optics store in Holland (or one of them, there are supposed to be two Holland provinces in the Netherlands). When I was a young kid in school, the Netherlands was called Holland. They wore funny hats and shoes made of wood. I saw a travel documentary on Amsterdam recently, and it was a thoroughly modern city - no clogs or funny hats!

Brock

ceasar · Jun 18, 2015

When I was stationed at Ft. Sam Houston, longer ago than I like to remember, we had two guys in my barracks who were small children when they came to America. They both spoke Dutch. One was from Rotterdam and and the other one was from Friesland. They couldn't understand each other unless they spoke English. It the guy from Friesland spoke really slow, simple sentences like "The grass is green" we could understand him.

Bob

New bin, EL10x50SV (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Eurasian Goldfinch

porromaniac

...

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

porromaniac

...

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread