• 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.

10X50 Swarovision (1 Viewer)

You have chosen a fine binocular and currently my favorite amongst my other glass. It really is the best binocular that I have laid my hands or should I say eyes on.

And yes it is very important to use and compare various optics to find what suits the individual best.

Bryce...
 
It's certainly a very, very good binocular and much better in my opinion than the 10x42. I find it surprisingly critical with regards to eye relief an IPD. Yes it also has the Swarovski focusser quirks and my personal preference would have been a non-swarovision (flat field, rolling globe) version, but overall it is one of the best offerings out there. I would like to compare it with the Leica HD+ if I get the chance...
 
Rolstone,

Thanks for sharing your experience. But I am doubtful about what you are saying: "In all cases the 10X50 was noticeably brighter". To perceive a brightness difference demands a light transmission difference of several percents. Does the 10x50 really have several percent better light transmission than 10x42 of same series?
Personally I doubt that I should see any difference at daytime between any of the Swarovisions because the eye pupil size will remain smaller than the exit pupils.
 
Rolstone said:
Hi.

There have been some questions on this thread about direct comparisons between the EL 10X50 and the 10x42. Last week I spent 90 minutes at Lakeside Opics just south of Bristol UK mainly comparing the Zeiss Victory SF 10X42 against the EL 10X50 and 10X42. I had anticipated buying the Victory SF.

2 days later I spent another hour at Lakeside Optics mainly comparing the EL 10X50 against the SF 10X42 but also trying the EL 10X42. I left having purchased the EL10X50. Let me stress that I am not a technical expert on binoculars but I have huge experience of using over 15 pairs over the last 50 years. Also I am lucky enough to have very steady hands so the 10X is not a problem. Finally my requirement was for a general purpose binocular; general views, horse racing, birding (about 50% of the use). No astronomy.

The main difference between the EL 10X50 and the 10X42 is the brightness. At LO I was able to compare the binos looking across Chew Valley Lake at distant scenery and into a nearby wood looking down paths and under low hanging branches. In all cases the 10X50 was noticeably brighter. This was during the daytime in late morning on both occasions. They were both dull and cloudy days. I also looked at gulls and other birds. One major difference between the EL10X50 and the other 2 sets, which I had not expected, was that looking up into the sky at the undersides of birds, how much brighter they are through the EL10X50 and how much clearer the colours are. The 10X50 had a wow factor that I did not think that the 10X42 had. Incidentally the Zeiss SF is notably brighter than the EL 10X42 but less so than the EL 10X50. It did not blow my breath away, which was caused not only by the brightness but also the sheer richness and 3Dness of the view through the EL 19X50. I am probably expressing myself badly here.

Last night I spent quite sometime with a friend's EL 10X42 as the night descended comparing them against my 10X50. TBH initially the difference was not as great as I had remembered at LO but, as the evening descended, the 10X50's just pulled further and further ahead.

Much has been made of the extra weight of the 10X50 versus 10X42, 998 gms versus 840, an increase of 158 gms (5.5 oz) or just under 19%. TBH, they are not the bino for less strong people or those with weaker wrists. I do not find this a problem. However I do use a Swarovski harness and this makes a HUGE difference. The weight is taken off the back of the neck and spread equally onto the shoulders. As you raise the binos to the eye, they are pulled (comfortably) into ones eye sockets. My advice is to spend time trying various adjustments. I find that I wear the harness considerably tighter than I first expected to gain the maximum benefits.

These are my views for what they are worth. I am delighted with the EL10X50 but I am in the honeymoon period after purchase. Lakeside Optics gives a 16 day return period but I just cannot see myself returning them. They are not much more expensive than the 10x42 in percentage terms but IMHO offer so much more.

The attached photograph shows, from left to right, EL 10X50, SF 10X42, EL 10X42 and EL 10X32,

My strong advice is to spend a lot of time comparing any binocular that you are thinking of buying against its competitors. Only buy if you are certain!!

Rolstone
Click to expand...
Interesting that you can hold a 10x steady. You must have steady hands. 10x can be difficult to hold steady. The Swarovski SV 10x50 looks smaller in dimensions than the Zeiss SF 10x42 but I am sure it is heavier because of the bigger objective. Does the thumb indent on the 10x50 SV bother you at all? It looks pretty pronounced.
 
Swedpet.

Thanks for your response. "In all cases the 10X50 was noticeably brighter". Yes I felt that it was. The yacht club on the other side of the lake was always whiter, there was more colour under the low lying branches of the trees and, when looking at flying birds, I was able to pick out th colours of their undersides better against the bright background of the sky. These were not results that I was particularly looking for or expecting. I have to be honest, last night when comparing against my friend's El 10X42, the difference was NOT as great as I expected but became increasingly pronounced as the light faded, which I guess was what should be expected. Whether I have used the right adjective 'brightness' I am not sure but that was how it felt.

Denco

I have played a lot of squash in my time and I think that has strengthened my wrists. i had not realised before I came on BF, but I am probably unusual in being able to hold a 10X so steady. I never use a tripod. My brother, similar build and same genes, will use nothing bigger than an 8X for all the reasons that you have hinted at.

The Zeiss SF 10X42 is more or less the same length as the EL 10X50 but a lot lighter, 780 versus 998 grams. Dare I say this on the Swarovski forum, but I prefer it to the EL 10X42. It has faster focusing, is brighter (but lacks the Wow factor of the EL 10X50) and a wider field of view 120 meters at 1,000 meters against 112. I found the ergonomic features on the Zeiss SF, weight nearer to the eyepiece and focus wheel below the bridge, not really very significant. I, perhaps unfairly, find myself concerned about the SF's build quality in the light of other postings on this and other forums.

I have no problems with the thumb indent on the EL 10X50 at all and do use them. Lakeside Optics told me that, because of the weight of the EL 10X50, I would find myself holding it nearer to the lenses but this has not happened.

Dear everyone. Sorry, if as a very new member, I am making rather a lot of noise on the forum but I am just trying to report as I have found.

Rolstone

P.S. Having expected to end up with a Zeiss SF 10X42, I changed my views after trying the EL 10X50 and put my money where my mouth is.
 
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
Interesting that you can hold a 10x steady. You must have steady hands. 10x can be difficult to hold steady. The Swarovski SV 10x50 looks smaller in dimensions than the Zeiss SF 10x42 but I am sure it is heavier because of the bigger objective. Does the thumb indent on the 10x50 SV bother you at all? It looks pretty pronounced.
Click to expand...

Dennis,

Personally, I really can't comment about the SF 10x42 ergonomics or optics, as I haven't taken the opportunity to compare them yet. But, an SF 10x50 (near future?) could certainly be bigger and maybe equal weight (or more) to the 10x50 SV. :eek!: So you are correct about size and weight, but as per the comparison, it's not really apples with apples.

However, I can comment about the 10x50 through my perspective. I'm not a big guy (5'10"-170#), age 61 and have No Problems holding the Swaro 10x50 Steadier then Any roof prism 8x25's, 10x25's, 8x32's 8x42's or 10x42's I've either owned or have experience with (to date, well over 20 binos)! The thumb indents actually assist me with holding leverage I need for good balance, creating a stabilized FOV that moves less with my style than any of the above mentioned optics. The EL 10x50 SV's are the heaviest I've owned or tried, but something about their 998g just feels right in my hands...go figure!

Yes, fatigue creeps in a little faster then lighter optics, but I buffer that with the SWARO bino shoulder harness. The day\night detailed 'WOW' factor of the 10x50 SV's makes this optical instrument work very well for me! :t:

Ted
 
Rolstone said:
Dear everyone. Sorry, if as a very new member, I am making rather a lot of noise on the forum but I am just trying to report as I have found. Rolstone
Click to expand...

Rolstone,

Since I haven't done it sooner, Welcome to BF! |:D|

Whether members agree with your personal observations\experiences or not (I just happen to), your comments are heartfelt and appreciated. Being new doesn't matter (I've been called a newbie, or worse), you SEE what you SEE :eek!:, and it is good to hear your candor descriptions of optical performances.

Keep up your informed comments, we can all share and learn from each others' opinions!

Thanks,

Ted
 
Rolstone said:
Swedpet.

Thanks for your response. "In all cases the 10X50 was noticeably brighter". Yes I felt that it was. The yacht club on the other side of the lake was always whiter, there was more colour under the low lying branches of the trees and, when looking at flying birds, I was able to pick out th colours of their undersides better against the bright background of the sky. These were not results that I was particularly looking for or expecting. I have to be honest, last night when comparing against my friend's El 10X42, the difference was NOT as great as I expected but became increasingly pronounced as the light faded, which I guess was what should be expected. Whether I have used the right adjective 'brightness' I am not sure but that was how it felt.

Denco

I have played a lot of squash in my time and I think that has strengthened my wrists. i had not realised before I came on BF, but I am probably unusual in being able to hold a 10X so steady. I never use a tripod. My brother, similar build and same genes, will use nothing bigger than an 8X for all the reasons that you have hinted at.

The Zeiss SF 10X42 is more or less the same length as the EL 10X50 but a lot lighter, 780 versus 998 grams. Dare I say this on the Swarovski forum, but I prefer it to the EL 10X42. It has faster focusing, is brighter (but lacks the Wow factor of the EL 10X50) and a wider field of view 120 meters at 1,000 meters against 112. I found the ergonomic features on the Zeiss SF, weight nearer to the eyepiece and focus wheel below the bridge, not really very significant. I, perhaps unfairly, find myself concerned about the SF's build quality in the light of other postings on this and other forums.

I have no problems with the thumb indent on the EL 10X50 at all and do use them. Lakeside Optics told me that, because of the weight of the EL 10X50, I would find myself holding it nearer to the lenses but this has not happened.

Dear everyone. Sorry, if as a very new member, I am making rather a lot of noise on the forum but I am just trying to report as I have found.

Rolstone

P.S. Having expected to end up with a Zeiss SF 10X42, I changed my views after trying the EL 10X50 and put my money where my mouth is.
Click to expand...
No your reviews and opinions are valued. You are simply reporting what you are seeing untainted by anybody elses opinion.
 
Swedpat said:
Rolstone,

Thanks for sharing your experience. But I am doubtful about what you are saying: "In all cases the 10X50 was noticeably brighter". To perceive a brightness difference demands a light transmission difference of several percents. Does the 10x50 really have several percent better light transmission than 10x42 of same series?
Personally I doubt that I should see any difference at daytime between any of the Swarovisions because the eye pupil size will remain smaller than the exit pupils.
Click to expand...

you may be correct, but how about this:

1. The human eye is said to be able to distinguish +-10% in brightness differences.
2. A 50mm objective lens can catch 42% more photons than a 42mm.
3. Maximum eye pupil size can vary between individuals (5-9 mm).
4. What we define as "daylight" can vary. Let's say it's a bit dim.
5. Then with a current eye pupil size of 4.5 mm.
6. The eye could utilize some of the larger exit pupil of the 50mm (5mm vs 4.2mm)
7. And then the EYE would get 15% more light (since the 42mm binocular will be limited to a 4.2mm EP)
8. Which should be possible to distinguish

so it's all in the eye of the beholder,
or the eye pupil size rather,
 
Last edited:
standard binoculars brightness

Here's a quick reminder of the increase in ligh gathering for standard binoculars, the numbers can be added up.

From 20 to 25mm : +56%
From 25 to 32mm : +64%
From 32 to 42mm : +72%
From 42 to 50mm : +42%
From 50 to 56mm : +25%

As a quick note, it is interesting to note that even though the difference between a 50 and a 56mm is "only" 25%, if one takes into consideration that top 56mm use abbe koenig prisms which add another 3 or 4%, we get near 30%, this is the sort of advantage that a Swaro 10x56 HD will have over a 10x50 Swarovision...
 
plc22 said:
Here's a quick reminder of the increase in ligh gathering for standard binoculars, the numbers can be added up.

From 20 to 25mm : +56%
From 25 to 32mm : +64%
From 32 to 42mm : +72%
From 42 to 50mm : +42%
From 50 to 56mm : +25%

As a quick note, it is interesting to note that even though the difference between a 50 and a 56mm is "only" 25%, if one takes into consideration that top 56mm use abbe koenig prisms which add another 3 or 4%, we get near 30%, this is the sort of advantage that a Swaro 10x56 HD will have over a 10x50 Swarovision...
Click to expand...

IF your eye pupil can dilate to 5.6 mm,
depends (typically) on your age:

http://content.lib.utah.edu/utils/a...7&DMHEIGHT=464&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=&DMROTATE=0
 
42% more light gathering...Interesting! Maybe someone should tell these pro birders and enthusiast HERE Why they are seeing what they are Seeing...they seem to be All Confused, hehe!

Ted
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 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.

Similar threads

B
EL 12x50 swarovision eyecups (inadequate eye relief)
Replies
12
Views
689
ReinierB
R
etc
A quick review of Swarovski 12x50 EL versus Zeiss 10x54 HT
Replies
11
Views
2K
Scott98
S
T
First Love Rekindled
Replies
8
Views
815
Tringa45
T
J
Brief comparison between Swarovski AX Visio 10x32 vs EL 10x32 Swarovision
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
tehri
tehri
etc
Swarovski 10x50 EL question
Replies
10
Views
2K
mwhogue
M

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top