• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Swarovski 8.5x42 EL Swarovision (1 Viewer)

Wow! Less than 3K a year. That is definitely one of those fair weather cars.

The crazy thing is that for the first 15 years the Porsche was my only vehicle. I walked or rode my bicycle mostly. Now I'm older and getting fatter and I have three vehicles including a stupid Ford F-150 with an 8 foot bed, which is just a gloriously dumb vehicle if you got stuff to do.

Hey, maybe it's time for a midlife crisis.

Mark
 
Last edited:
Dennis: ....

.....but the Canon posts have been quiet since.

It seems you and Sancho have moved on to the conventional side, I thought you would ! ;)


Jerry

Hi Jerry,

I'm back on conventional too, after a slight mishap with the bricklike 18x50 IS's which caused me an injured back muscle. I've been more radical though, going to compact size 6.5x reverse porro's.
Maybe if Canon could come up with a waterproof 10x30 L IS, I'd buy a bino harness and blow some life into the Canon subforum... o:D

For now, I'm extremely happy with a pair of bins that weigh 75% less than the monster Canons.

Best regards,

Ronald
 
It seems you and Sancho have moved on to the conventional side, I thought you would ! ;)

Jerry

Hiya Jerry!
Yes, like Ronald, I had an unpleasant upper back incident involving Canon 10x42 (foolishly carried around the neck), an eager terrier on a leash, and a descent over uneven ground. Maybe it was mostly the dog's fault, not the Canon's.
But as you predicted, superior SV optics, and their "point-and-shoot" comfort (without recourse to buttons, refocussing etc.) win the day. When I had Canon 10x30, I found that I could actually discern more detail on distant birds with hand-held Nikon EII 8x30.
I have a pair of Canon 15x50 which I use on days when I need high mag but don't want to bring a scope. These are always carried in a shoulder photographic bag, never around the neck. Handy for seawatching, but 15x binos are really a caprice for birders (although I understand they're crucial to a particular style of stationary long-range hunting in the States).
 
Hiya Jerry!
Yes, like Ronald, I had an unpleasant upper back incident involving Canon 10x42 (foolishly carried around the neck), an eager terrier on a leash, and a descent over uneven ground. Maybe it was mostly the dog's fault, not the Canon's.
But as you predicted, superior SV optics, and their "point-and-shoot" comfort (without recourse to buttons, refocussing etc.) win the day. When I had Canon 10x30, I found that I could actually discern more detail on distant birds with hand-held Nikon EII 8x30.
I have a pair of Canon 15x50 which I use on days when I need high mag but don't want to bring a scope. These are always carried in a shoulder photographic bag, never around the neck. Handy for seawatching, but 15x binos are really a caprice for birders (although I understand they're crucial to a particular style of stationary long-range hunting in the States).

I bought the Canon 15x50's and I just hated them! Narrow FOV and so fussy with the smaller exit pupil and I got all kinds of blackouts! Sent them back the first day. I like the SV's now because you don't have to mess around with them. As you say point and shoot and the best optics to boot.
 
I recently had the opportunity to test drive the new 8.5 x 42SV and was very impressed, a huge improvement on the old (slow focus) model that I used a few years ago, I can understand why so many people are keen to "upgrade". On the day I viewed them I had my 10 x 42 Nikon HGs for comparison, so as could be expected mine were not as bright, they did however seem to be just as sharp and the colour rendition seemed more accurate and saturated to me.If after allowing me to compare for ten minutes the salesman had offered to do a straight swap I honestly would have found it difficult to make a decision, despite the huge price tag on the new Swarovskis.
For many years I used just one binocular (8x30) and the idea of owning what many believe is currently the best in the world, to the exclusion of all others, does hold some attraction. But would I want to own just one hammer? perhaps I can use a 1.25 pound claw for many jobs but I couldn't drive in a fence post with it or pin a picture frame!
I enjoy the flexibility of owning three binoculars (and lots of hammers!) compact 8x20, mid 8x32 and full size 10x42, these cover almost any situation. One caveat, all should be of equal quality or you will certainly regret leaving home with an inferior optic when a better one was sitting in the drawer, this especially applies to compacts - bad ones are really frustrating.
So for the time being I will resist the temptation of trading my little collection for "the ultimate", at least untill the new ultimate comes along.

Petroc.
 
I recently had the opportunity to test drive the new 8.5 x 42SV and was very impressed, a huge improvement on the old (slow focus) model that I used a few years ago, I can understand why so many people are keen to "upgrade". On the day I viewed them I had my 10 x 42 Nikon HGs for comparison, so as could be expected mine were not as bright, they did however seem to be just as sharp and the colour rendition seemed more accurate and saturated to me.If after allowing me to compare for ten minutes the salesman had offered to do a straight swap I honestly would have found it difficult to make a decision, despite the huge price tag on the new Swarovskis.
For many years I used just one binocular (8x30) and the idea of owning what many believe is currently the best in the world, to the exclusion of all others, does hold some attraction. But would I want to own just one hammer? perhaps I can use a 1.25 pound claw for many jobs but I couldn't drive in a fence post with it or pin a picture frame!
I enjoy the flexibility of owning three binoculars (and lots of hammers!) compact 8x20, mid 8x32 and full size 10x42, these cover almost any situation. One caveat, all should be of equal quality or you will certainly regret leaving home with an inferior optic when a better one was sitting in the drawer, this especially applies to compacts - bad ones are really frustrating.
So for the time being I will resist the temptation of trading my little collection for "the ultimate", at least untill the new ultimate comes along.

Petroc.

Thanks for those observations. Happy to hear the 10x42 HG holds up well against the SV ELs and even beats it in terms of color fidelity and saturation! I'm sure some members who just forked over $2,400 to buy an SV EL will disagree. :)

Your observations don't surprise me since the HG was way ahead of its time and Nikon has long been the leader in AR coatings. I had a chance to use an early EL that was made around the same time as the HGs, and the HG was brighter, sharper, more color saturated, had more contrast, and better edge sharpness.

But, even though the EL was no lightweight contender, the nearly 36 oz. 10x42 HG was quite heavy. I could deal with that much weight in a well balanced porro because the weight is more widely distributed, but the more centrally concentrated weight of a 36 oz. closed bridge roof felt like lead in my hands after lifting it many times.

Bought the lighter HGL, but I felt it the color fidelity and contrast weren't as good as the original. I haven't seen a more color saturated view through another 10x bin than the HG.

Yes, they do have more than average CA, the SV EL beats them there, but only in high contrast situations. The "rolling ball" was more of an issue for me with the HG.

An old stock BNIB 10x42 HG sold for $501 on eBay last month. I was watching the auction and wishing I could bid on it. But remembered the "rolling ball," which you are either immune to or have learned to live with.

Now I'm kicking myself for not selling some bins to buy it since the best non-alpha numeric alternative is the 10x42 SE, which has great views but which I have eyecup issues. "Well, it just goes to show you, it's always something! If it's not one thing, it's another!"

Of course, I could have mounted the HG on a tripod with a Nikon Binoc-u-mount, however, I have an aversion to tripods (ever since that BBC "The Tripods" series).

I prefer to handhold bins, and even as steady as I think I can hold the heavy 10x42 HG (weight does dampen bad vibes) and even the much lighter weight but very well balanced 10x35 EII, when I put them on a tripod or rest them on top of something solid, details I couldn't see before pop out.

Given this, I might as well buy a heavy 10x50 and use it on "tripod".

Then again, I recall Stephen Ingraham's old adage:

"If you can't make the call with 8x, 10x won't be enough either, you need a scope."

Brock

Watch "The Tripods":

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v5610175DXHbqHz
 
Last edited:
The rolling ball effect with the 8.5x42 ELSV may change with use, just as the experience with a progressive eyeglass prescription changes.

Today on County Road 170 in Bruce County just NE of Shallow Lake, scanning the marsh rapidly, I noticed no rolling ball effect.

Swarovski may have responded to issues about a sticking focus wheel (when turned clockwise) from about mid-May, 2011. Mine is butter-smooth.

Mike
 
It is interesting to hear that people still prefer the Nikon HG over the newer top alphas. They must be less sensitive to CA than I. I left the HG long ago because of the CA which really bothered me. I guess some people do not see it. Your lucky if you don't. It saves you money. I found even the Zen Ray 8x43 ED superior optically to the HG and the Zeiss FL's way superior especially in sharpness which the ED glass seems to improve. To my eyes the Swarovision is even a further improvement. I must admit that sometimes I feel people don't want to see the improvements made in the Swarovision because they either can't or don't want to invest that much money in binoculars.
 
I must admit that sometimes I feel people don't want to see the improvements made in the Swarovision because they either can't or don't want to invest that much money in binoculars.

There are plenty of other reasons besides price for choosing another binocular. The only area in which the SV beats its competition hands down is edge sharpness. In my case I prefer the image quality across the center 50% of the field in my current binocular. I wouldn't be interested in trading center image quality for better edge sharpness. Then there are issues like rolling globe (not baloney to everyone), the absence of some folk's favorite magnifications, like 7 and 8x, no models with large exit pupils (my thing), too much weight for some, plenty of reasons.
 
The only area in which the SV beats its competition hands down is edge sharpness. In my case I prefer the image quality across the center 50% of the field in my current binocular. I wouldn't be interested in trading center image quality for better edge sharpness. Then there are issues like rolling globe (not baloney to everyone), the absence of some folk's favorite magnifications, like 7 and 8x, no models with large exit pupils (my thing), too much weight for some, plenty of reasons.
Good points - thanks.
 
When I change my progressive/multifocal eyeglass prescription, there is incredible barrel distortion for about a week; this is not trivial -- you really need to be careful walking down stairs. However, after a week or so, there is no distortion. The inescapable inference is that the brain adapts to this optical input, by matching what it sees to what it knows to be dimensional reality.

Similarly, the rolling ball effect with the ELSVs does not match this reality, and unless my phenomenological experience is not representative, after a relatively brief time, you don't see it.

I'd be interested in information comparing the resolution of the 8.5x42 ELSVs and the 8x42 FLs. I've looked at the Zeiss for years now, and while they are marginally lighter, the focus wheel is too fast for me (much like my 2nd generation 8x42 Bausch and Lomb Elites). The field area of the FLs and ELSVs is almost identical, and the trade-off of magnification and depth of field is reasonable IMO. Having said that, I've seen some spectacular birders using FLs.

The addition of an extra detent on the eyecups of the ELSVs, and the fix to the focus wheel sticking on the sample I have, apart from the brightness, resolution, contrast, focus snap, and handling of flare pretty much convinced me. The 4.94mm exit pupil is as much as my dark-adapted eyes can handle, another reason that brought me to the ELSVs after experience offshore with 10x32 ELs (which I'm keeping, as their field area is very close to my 8x42 Elites).

What finally convinced me was the experience of an enthusiastic FL user on this forum, who smashed his binocs in an apparently minor fall, and did not stay with Zeiss.

Mike
 
Last edited:
There are plenty of other reasons besides price for choosing another binocular. The only area in which the SV beats its competition hands down is edge sharpness. In my case I prefer the image quality across the center 50% of the field in my current binocular. I wouldn't be interested in trading center image quality for better edge sharpness. Then there are issues like rolling globe (not baloney to everyone), the absence of some folk's favorite magnifications, like 7 and 8x, no models with large exit pupils (my thing), too much weight for some, plenty of reasons.

And there's the problems with the focussing widely reported on different forums - sticky focussers and focussers that are more difficult to turn in one direction than the other. That's one of my pet peeves, I simply can't work with binoculars that don't focus smoothly. The two Swarovisions I looked at so far both weren't really up to scratch in that regard.

Hermann
 
Could the folks referring to a sticky focus wheel on the ELSVs (when turned clockwise), or greater effort required to turn the focus wheel one way than the other be talking about the same thing?

Swarovski is very aware of this issue, and anyone experiencing it can have it fixed easily, and it won't take months.

Mike
 
Could the folks referring to a sticky focus wheel on the ELSVs (when turned clockwise), or greater effort required to turn the focus wheel one way than the other be talking about the same thing?

Swarovski is very aware of this issue, and anyone experiencing it can have it fixed easily, and it won't take months.

Mike

Probably it's the same thing. I've speculated before that Swaro may set very tight tolerances on the focus mechanism and then let the optical train break in with use. This guarantees there won't be any slop in either barrel (which can be very annoying, especially when the amount of slop is slightly different in each barrel. I have seen bins like that--they focus better one way than the other and you can't equalize them with the diopter).

That's a guess, but here's my experience: I've used the SV almost exclusively for a few months and they are very smooth now--no notchiness at all. They still turn a bit stiffer CW than CCW, but in use I don't even notice it. The focus is simply not an issue.

As for the flat field, a couple weeks ago I was watching American White Pelicans fishing cooperatively and what a joy to see the whole group fill the view and all were razor sharp.

Mark
 
There are plenty of other reasons besides price for choosing another binocular. The only area in which the SV beats its competition hands down is edge sharpness. In my case I prefer the image quality across the center 50% of the field in my current binocular. I wouldn't be interested in trading center image quality for better edge sharpness. Then there are issues like rolling globe (not baloney to everyone), the absence of some folk's favorite magnifications, like 7 and 8x, no models with large exit pupils (my thing), too much weight for some, plenty of reasons.

Henry:
Interesting your take on the SV. I will ask you more about "trading center image
quality" for better edge sharpness. The SV has very good center image quality and
it extends all the way to the edges. No trade-off here, have you found another
with better center image quality?;) I am thinking we would now be getting into
personal opinion, unless carefully measured resolution, would prove otherwise.

Jerry
 
Probably it's the same thing. I've speculated before that Swaro may set very tight tolerances on the focus mechanism and then let the optical train break in with use. This guarantees there won't be any slop in either barrel (which can be very annoying, especially when the amount of slop is slightly different in each barrel. I have seen bins like that--they focus better one way than the other and you can't equalize them with the diopter).

That's a guess, but here's my experience: I've used the SV almost exclusively for a few months and they are very smooth now--no notchiness at all. They still turn a bit stiffer CW than CCW, but in use I don't even notice it. The focus is simply not an issue.

As for the flat field, a couple weeks ago I was watching American White Pelicans fishing cooperatively and what a joy to see the whole group fill the view and all were razor sharp.

Mark

Mark:

My experience with the SV echos your post. The focus does get smoother
with use, and they are a very nice binocular. ;)

Jerry
 
Henry:
Interesting your take on the SV. I will ask you more about "trading center image
quality" for better edge sharpness. The SV has very good center image quality and
it extends all the way to the edges. No trade-off here, have you found another
with better center image quality?;) I am thinking we would now be getting into
personal opinion, unless carefully measured resolution, would prove otherwise.

Jerry

I am sure he is referring to his Zeiss 8x56 FL's which do have a very good center image having had them( My Back STILL hurts) especially of course in low light with the huge aperture. In daylight I think it would be a matter of opinion if the Zeiss were better than the SV's. Both have an excellent center image without doubt and both are very fine binoculars.
 
Last edited:
Henry:
Interesting your take on the SV. I will ask you more about "trading center image
quality" for better edge sharpness. The SV has very good center image quality and
it extends all the way to the edges. No trade-off here, have you found another
with better center image quality?;) I am thinking we would now be getting into
personal opinion, unless carefully measured resolution, would prove otherwise.

Jerry

Jerry,

Yes, the 8.5x42 SV has "very good" image quality in the center of the field, but in bright daylight I've found the 8x56 FL to be visibly better: brighter, sharper, cleaner, more transparent. True, that's my personal observation, but there are demonstrable optical reasons for it. Mostly I think it's down to the usual list of optical advantages that come from stopping down a large aperture/long focal length binocular. The aberrations and defects of binoculars like that are better corrected than smaller exit pupil binoculars of equal quality when both are stopped down to the same effective exit pupil size by the pupil of the eye in daylight.

Then there are other purely geometric advantages to large exit pupils in bright light that I like, such as increased resistance to glare since the edge of the exit pupil falls on the iris of the eye well outside the pupil, more forgiving pupil alignment and more even field illumination from a less vignetted exit pupil at the field edge.

None of this has anything to do with "resolution". When an 8x and 8.5x are both reduced to 3mm exit pupils by the eye, it's the 8.5x that retains a larger effective aperture (25.5mm vs 24mm), so the 8x56 has no aperture or resolution advantage in daylight. You can always see slightly smaller details through any decent 8.5x binocular compared to even the best possible 8x.

I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with the SV's optics. If I were in the market for an 8/8.5x42 or 10x50 they would be at the top of my short list, but at the current state of the art I'm finding that a large exit pupil binocular is still required to keep an image quality junkie like me happy. I'm sure I could fall for an 8x50 or 8x56 SV, but I hear there are no plans for such a thing.

Henry
 
Last edited:
And there's the problems with the focussing widely reported on different forums - sticky focussers and focussers that are more difficult to turn in one direction than the other. That's one of my pet peeves, I simply can't work with binoculars that don't focus smoothly. The two Swarovisions I looked at so far both weren't really up to scratch in that regard.

Hermann


Careful fellas'.....you're going to send denco straight to WallyWorld Pharmacy to get depression meds........

SV's are not my thing either.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top