Interesting discussion, actually!
you said that you "never go back to the 42mm format again". What is the real reason? Regards, Patric
Hi Patric
Well, weight sure isn't the reason, ho ho! These are big heavy binocs! It's a shame really, but manufacturers seem to put less resources into the development of the 50 size than their 40/42mm models. But since my dealer tells me that the 40's outsell the 50's by 100-to-one, that's no surprise! But I'm sure that if the bigger glasses got the same degree of attention, then they'd sell better. Wow, just think how great a 10x50 Swarovski EL would be!
Anyhow, to answer your question, I'd never go back to 40/42 size binocs (despite the weight) because the definition really is much better on all the 50's I've looked at. And all other areas seem better too. There's a little less edge distortion, a bit better depth of focus, etc etc. And the brightness really does make a difference, at least to me.
The best comparision I can make is between a big 1000cc motorcycle and a twitchy little 350cc Yamaha racer. Sure, we know that the 350 Yamaha won all the unlimited races at Daytona in the 70's, and was quicker that the big heavy, more powerful bikes. But the big bikes cruise around with such ease, and with much more power and torque than is required. They could tow a car if required. However, the little bike can be made to perform the same in a small light package, but it handles like a piece of paper in the wind, it's highly-tuned engine screams like an insect and runs at 20,000rpm on the limits of it's construction to produce the required performance. The rider is constantly adjusting the throttle and changing up/down through a dozen or more gears. The big version just chugs along happliy, with performance to spare, just like the big binocs have a 'relaxed' tolerance and can beat the little 'insect' glasses without extreme tweaking to get out the last drop of performance. In other words, the optical dimensions of these big long heavy glasses are the way they should be, not the way they have to be.
Check out Henry Link's reviews of the enormous (but properly dimensioned) Zeiss models to see what I'm trying to explain.
Sure, we can get over the shortcomings of reduced-size optics by good design and quality control, but why should we? Let's use the better dimensions in the first place!
I hope my muddled attempt to explain my rationale answers your question Patric. It's just a personal viewpoint, of course.
All the best
Paul