Swarovski New binocular launch (2 Viewers)

stephen b said:

Brock,

I have a question for you ( but you may not see it if you still have me on you ignore list- apparently I ruffled your feathers at one time).

With all the time and dialog that you spend discussing Swarovski focus mechanisms, I am curious as to how many Swarovski binoculars you have ever tried. Actual models and total number. Because there is some discussion on here ( and I have experienced it myself- even though I own a number of Swaro's) about sample variation with their focusers.

So what Swarovski binoculars have you actually used or tested, and how many different ones. Just curious, because with how much you write about Swarovski binoculars, you must have handled and tested a lot of them.

Thanks

Click to expand...

brocknroller said:

Troubador said:

Ugh. Forgot it was you with your oxymoron. As I mentioned earlier, "smooth and luxurious" and "so stiff that I had a hard time getting a focus on even moderately fast birds" don't add up to a logical sentence. If a focuser is "smooth" it turns easily, not stiffly even it has no rough spots like the other Swaro focusers that you've found objectionable. To me, what you're saying is that it wasn't as bad as the other Swaro focusers, which is a left-handed compliment. Are you a Southpaw?

Swaro is touting the CL as a traveller's companion ie for sight-seeing in town and country, but no longer birding? I can't keep up with the slippery marketing!

The CL would probably be great for sight seeing since most "sights" to be seen in town don't move -statutes, trees, historic buildings, storefronts, old folks playing chess in the park with pigeon poop on their shoulders. But in the country, it's another world - life is on the move and no more so than birds, which other than while eating at a tube feeder rarely stay in one place too long. Since we don't agree on the definition of "smoothness," I'll use another word. "Fluidity" is the key characteristic needed in a birding bin focuser, not stiffness.

You can't design a bin to be all things to all people. Like your friend Herr Dobler said, "All binoculars are compromises and have good points and bad points." That includes focusers.

If I recall correctly, Annabeth also found the CL's focuser to be a bit stiff. Not sure if that's why she sold it, but birders do like the kind of smooth that turns easy, some even like them faassssst (1/3 cf to infinity), though the latter is not my cup 'o tea. Neither are stiff focusers. Like Baby Bear's porridge, they need to be "just right" for birding.

From your comments, I gather that the CL wouldn't be your first choice walking out the door to go birding, nor for Otters, given that you prefer WF bins for that purpose.

Even though Swaro is trying to cast a wide net to capture as many buyers as possible, AFAIK, hunters seem to be the primary customers just as they were for the 8x30 SLC that came before the CL. And for them, the "smooth and luxurious" focuser of the CL should work just fine, as it was intended.

So I will take back my comment about the CL focuser being "wonky," it's just smooth and luxuriously stiff. :smoke:

Try a few more at Birdfair and see it the sample your tried was typical.

Brock

Click to expand...

I sometimes wonder if either of you guys have used a CL Companion.

On my 8x30, which I use often, the focus wheel turns clockwise just a smidgeon more than 360 degrees. At about 180º you reach 8' closeup focus, at about 270º you reach 20' focus and at about 300º or so you reach infinity--the rest is focus past infinity. There isn't much turning of the focus wheel required to follow a bird from closeup out to infinity.

The wheel is well damped, smooth and not stiff at all.

The FOV is 7.1º or 372.75'@1000yds. Compare that with the Leica Ultravid HD 8x42 which is 7.4º or 388.5'@1000yards (and about 10 ounces heavier). Those FOVS make about 5' difference at 100 yards and less than 2' at 100 feet. ER is about the same for both.

The price difference at the current sale price of the Leica Ultravid HD comes to $800.00 less for the Companion.

They are both bargains.

Bob

Click to expand...

ceasar said:

I sometimes wonder if either of you guys have used a CL Companion.

On my 8x30, which I use often, the focus wheel turns clockwise just a smidgeon more than 360 degrees. At about 180º you reach 8' closeup focus, at about 270º you reach 20' focus and at about 300º or so you reach infinity--the rest is focus past infinity. There isn't much turning of the focus wheel required to follow a bird from closeup out to infinity.

The wheel is well damped, smooth and not stiff at all.

The FOV is 7.1º or 372.75'@1000yds. Compare that with the Leica Ultravid HD 8x42 which is 7.4º or 388.5'@1000yards (and about 10 ounces heavier). Those FOVS make about 5' difference at 100 yards and less than 2' at 100 feet. ER is about the same for both.

The price difference at the current sale price of the Leica Ultravid HD comes to $800.00 less for the Companion.

They are both bargains.

Bob

Click to expand...

brocknroller said:

If a focuser is "smooth" it turns easily, not stiffly even it has no rough spots like the other Swaro focusers that you've found objectionable. To me, what you're saying is that it wasn't as bad as the other Swaro focusers, which is a left-handed compliment. Are you a Southpaw?

Brock

Click to expand...

Troubador said:

The example that I have now is well damped and smooth as you describe, and this is the characteristic that I have called luxurious.

When I say the focus is slow, I do not mean the number of turns required from near to far and back again.

I mean that I can't physically rotate the wheel fast enough, it feels like it is lubricated with grease that has a very high viscosity and I am forced to use the word 'stiff' because I can't think of another.

However hard Brock tries to rope this into his Swaro focuser crusade, the feel of the focuser on this particular Companion does not feel anything like the few Swaro focusers that I have found objectionable, all of which felt rough and gritty.

Lee

Click to expand...

brocknroller said:

My only "crusade," as you call it (I call it "anti-propaganda campaign"), is against The Defenders, however, enough info is out there now for new members to make a well informed decision if they do their homework. If they don't, and the listen to the denials, then they do so at their own peril. "For those who have fingers, let them feel."

This confusion arose because your wording seemed paradoxical. However, I understood what you meant once you explained it better. I wouldn't chose the words you did, but I understand what you mean by them.

My original point stands, namely, that we still hear reports regularly of "wonky" focusers in Swaros (SV ELs and SLCs), so the focuser "issues" haven't been resolved. I doubt if the ProField series is any different, getting a smooth focuser (in the generic sense of the word) will still be a crap shoot. If Swaro had redesigned the focuser, they would have advertised that front and center since it's more than a cosmetic, but rather a functional change, one that would be widely embraced unlike the strap lugs.

What amazes me is that Swaro would tweak the level of pincushion in the SV EL line's optical design but not redesign the focuser, whose issues have impacted a far greater number of users! That was the other reason for my "crusade," to make Swaro reps who read BF aware of the reports of "wonky" focusers so they might make recommendations to their superiors. That obviously hasn't happened, or if it did, they were ignored.

My other point stands, too, that such a focuser as you describe on the CL (assuming it is typical) is not well suited for birding, but would work fine for hunting, sightseeing, watching sporting events, etc., any use where rapid focusing isn't needed. The Swaro rep in the promo I linked to included birding under that wide net. If an experienced birder like you can't catch moderately fast birds, what hope is there for a less experienced birder catching warblers or swallows with the CL?

Btw, there's the Barclays Premier League match with Manchester United vs. Tottenham Hotspur @ Old Trafford on August 8 where those CLs would come in handy!

Brock

Click to expand...

brocknroller said:

This confusion arose because your wording seemed paradoxical. However, I understood what you meant once you explained it better. I wouldn't chose the words you did, but I understand what you mean by them. Brock

Click to expand...

brocknroller said:

My other point stands, too, that such a focuser as you describe on the CL (assuming it is typical) is not well suited for birding, but would work fine for hunting, sightseeing, watching sporting events, etc Brock

Click to expand...

brocknroller said:

My only "crusade," as you call it (I call it "anti-propaganda campaign"), is against The Defenders, however, enough info is out there now for new members to make a well informed decision if they do their homework. ........................................


.................................................................................

My other point stands, too, that such a focuser as you describe on the CL (assuming it is typical) is not well suited for birding, but would work fine for hunting, sightseeing, watching sporting events, etc., any use where rapid focusing isn't needed. The Swaro rep in the promo I linked to included birding under that wide net. If an experienced birder like you can't catch moderately fast birds, what hope is there for a less experienced birder catching warblers or swallows with the CL?

................................. .............................

Brock

Click to expand...

Torview said:

I`m worried my SV focuser is too smooth, there`s no roughness or issues of any kind, do you think I should send them back to see if Swaro can make them like the majority out there, I`d hate to think mine was a lemon.

Click to expand...

ceasar said:

Let me address this to anyone who is considering buying a Swarovski 8x30 CL Companion mostly for birding but also for other uses. Both myself and my wife use it in this manner. It is a very handy, light weight, versatile binocular. I think that is why Swarovski named the Sand colored model we have the "Traveler."

If you are comfortable with using a binocular that can show you great detail on a bird 20 feet from you while still allowing you to follow it 100 feet away from you with barely a quarter turn of the focus wheel (which is hardly a nudge with the tip of your index finger) you will be happy with this binocular!

Following warblers is no problem. I used it last week observing Yellow Warblers about 50' away from me flitting through some small Seckle Pear trees while sitting on the deck of my brother's house in a rural area of Mountaintop, PA.

Bob

Click to expand...

brocknroller said:

No, it means you kissed the Blarney Stone, so buy a ticket in the National Lottery and see if your luck continues.

Not every Swaro focuser is "wonky," but too many are for the price point.

<B>

Click to expand...

brocknroller said:

If I'm the "chronic complainer," you're the "very easy to pleaser" (which your wife must surely appreciate). You almost never experience problems that other people do with bins (not just me, I mean anyone who has commented on a wide range of issues, from CA to RB to loose rubber armoring to wonky focusers to bins been too heavy or too lightweight, to eyecups that don't fit their face -- you name it.

Other than the one bin you mentioned that was defective, is there any pair of binoculars that wasn't defective which had some feature that you considered flawed?

Let me just sit down and brace myself in case I faint if there is.

<B>

Click to expand...

ceasar said:

Define "defective" as it relates to binoculars and be specific.

As for the 8x30 CL Companion, there is not a damn thing wrong with it.

Bob

Click to expand...

brocknroller said:

Bob,

Got to work this weekend, so no time for another semantics debate. You mentioned one bin that you didn't like that was out of collimation or had a loose eyecups or something that didn't work properly, I don't remember what it was, but that's about the only time I've ever heard you say anything negative about any bin you've owned. As long as nothing is greatly out of whack, you seem to adapt to it.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing, it's actually a good thing, because it gives you a vast array of bins to chose from (though I don't know how you could chose one over the other if they all seem good). However, it always puts you at odds with others who see CA, RB, too much pincushion, too much field curvature, small FOV, lack of brightness, not enough color saturation, etc. or who don't like the eyecups or ergonomics or focuser tension or speed or whatever else it was that caused them to choose one bin over the other.

While Lee wouldn't damn the CL (unless it fell objective side down on his barefoot big toe), he did find the focuser (while smooth and luxurious) too slow for catching moderately fast birds while you find it fine for following fast moving warblers. So either your samples are very different or your perceptions of what constitutes "stiff" are very different (more likely).

I'll leave you and Lee to discuss that while I write about this year's impact fees and Marcellus engineering trends. Ugh.

I'd rather have an 8x30 EII, but in a pinch, an 8x30 CL would do me fine, but not for 999 (dollars, that is).

I like looking at historic buildings, scenery, statues, and old people playing chess in the park with pigeon droppings on their shoulders (counting the berry seeds in the droppings is a good test for resolution).

Brock

Click to expand...

brocknroller said:

Bob,

Got to work this weekend, so no time for another semantics debate. You mentioned one bin that you didn't like that was out of collimation or had a loose eyecups or something that didn't work properly, I don't remember what it was, but that's about the only time I've ever heard you say anything negative about any bin you've owned. As long as nothing is greatly out of whack, you seem to adapt to it.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing, it's actually a good thing, because it gives you a vast array of bins to chose from (though I don't know how you could chose one over the other if they all seem good). However, it always puts you at odds with others who see CA, RB, too much pincushion, too much field curvature, small FOV, lack of brightness, not enough color saturation, etc. or who don't like the eyecups or ergonomics or focuser tension or speed or whatever else it was that caused them to choose one bin over the other.

While Lee wouldn't damn the CL (unless it fell objective side down on his barefoot big toe), he did find the focuser (while smooth and luxurious) too slow for catching moderately fast birds while you find it fine for following fast moving warblers. So either your samples are very different or your perceptions of what constitutes "stiff" are very different (more likely).

I'll leave you and Lee to discuss that while I write about this year's impact fees and Marcellus engineering trends. Ugh.

I'd rather have an 8x30 EII, but in a pinch, an 8x30 CL would do me fine, but not for 999 (dollars, that is).

I like looking at historic buildings, scenery, statues, and old people playing chess in the park with pigeon droppings on their shoulders (counting the berry seeds in the droppings is a good test for resolution).

Brock

Click to expand...

stephen b said:

..........I am talking about someone that is on regularly with a great amount of post numbers, and word content "discussing" issues with models that they have no real world experience with. To me, that would seem a bit odd.

Click to expand...