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