Jan Meijerink tests 10x42 SF (1 Viewer)

Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post

The SF's biggest optical advantage is the bigger FOV.

In my opinion the optics are my priority.

Click to expand...

I agree with you Dennis

Lee

Click to expand...

SF is superior to SV in several respects (all of which are, in my opinion,....my priorities):
*wider FoV
*better glare control
*better handling (lighter and easier to hold with one hand wrapped around a barrel)
*3D view
*faster focuser
On the other hand SV is slightly sharper (to my eyes).

Peter

pesto said:

SF is superior to SV in several respects (all of which are, in my opinion,....my priorities):
*wider FoV
*better glare control
*better handling (lighter and easier to hold with one hand wrapped around a barrel)
*3D view
*faster focuser
On the other hand SV is slightly sharper (to my eyes).

Peter

Click to expand...

HI Peter

There is probably some variation from unit to unit but the SF and EL I tested were inseparable with regard to sharpness except at the edge of the field where the Swaro had an advantage. This is not to say the SF wasn't sharp but it wasn't as sharp as the EL. The writer of the test that this thread started with found that the SF and EL were as sharp as each other and both sharper than our eyes can discern.

For me both of the these bins have top drawer sharpness and I especially like the SF's FOV. Others will have their own priorities.

Lee

Troubador said:

HI Peter

There is probably some variation from unit to unit but the SF and EL I tested were inseparable with regard to sharpness except at the edge of the field where the Swaro had an advantage. This is not to say the SF wasn't sharp but it wasn't as sharp as the EL. The writer of the test that this thread started with found that the SF and EL were as sharp as each other and both sharper than our eyes can discern.

For me both of the these bins have top drawer sharpness and I especially like the SF's FOV. Others will have their own priorities.

Lee

Click to expand...

What about the perceived contrast? SV is very good in that area.
But it might be more about sample variation/quality control.

My reason for getting the SV over the SF was not optical though,
it was about the feel in my hands and "perceived" build quality.

But I might swap to the SF next year...

pesto said:

SF is superior to SV in several respects (all of which are, in my opinion,....my priorities):
*wider FoV
*better glare control
*better handling (lighter and easier to hold with one hand wrapped around a barrel)
*3D view
*faster focuser
On the other hand SV is slightly sharper (to my eyes).

Peter

Click to expand...

I agree with all those except I am not sure the SV is sharper than the SF. As Vespobuteo says the SV has a little better contrast and color rendition which could make it appear sharper. It could be as this new review says the SV had a little more apparent magnification than the SF which could make it appear sharper also. The Swarovision is one of the flattest field binocular's out there so not a tremendous amount of 3D on the SV 8x32. I have the Habicht 8x30 W porro for when I want 3D.

Vespobuteo said:

What about the perceived contrast? SV is very good in that area.
But it might be more about sample variation/quality control.

My reason for getting the SV over the SF was not optical though,
it was about the feel in my hands and "perceived" build quality.

But I might swap to the SF next year...

Click to expand...

VB
The way the SF has been balanced means that to most people, when they pick it up it feels extra light: I have seen this so often, folks break into a smile and say wow its so light its amazing. But not everybody does. A few folks say it feels 'toy' like because it lacks heft and they then draw conclusions about its build quality. In fact SF is only c55 grams or c2 ozs lighter than EL, its the balance that is really different.

Perceived contrast is another subject and I think that the EL might just be ahead there.

For me the comparison of SF and EL is easy: they are so close on sharpness (see the review for confirmation) and contrast etc that you might as well argue about which brand of champagne has more bubbles in a bottle. For me the balance is tipped in favour of SF by FOV and handling.

Lee

Allbinos measured the 10x42 SV at 10.16x so unless the SF 10x42 is significantly lower than 10x there shouldn't be any real difference.

The 8.5x SV, on the other hand, measured 8.44x and that's enough to out resolve my other 8x bins by a skosh.

I never notice a lack of 3D in flat fields, and I use 3 of them routinely. What I notice immediately these days is a lack of flat field. It happened again yesterday when I left the house with a Sightron 8x32. Guess I'm hooked on flat fields. :t:

PS: we all say "skosh" over here but I had never looked up the origins. You might never guess: Japanese! From "sukoshi," meaning a little amount, picked up by US soldiers in occupied Japan after WWII. Who knew?

Mark

Kammerdiner said:

Allbinos measured the 10x42 SV at 10.16x so unless the SF 10x42 is significantly lower than 10x there shouldn't be any real difference.

The 8.5x SV, on the other hand, measured 8.44x and that's enough to out resolve my other 8x bins by a skosh.

I never notice a lack of 3D in flat fields, and I use 3 of them routinely. What I notice immediately these days is a lack of flat field. It happened again yesterday when I left the house with a Sightron 8x32. Guess I'm hooked on flat fields. :t:

PS: we all say "skosh" over here but I had never looked up the origins. You might never guess: Japanese! From "sukoshi," meaning a little amount, picked up by US soldiers in occupied Japan after WWII. Who knew?

Mark

Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry Mark, and others, for a demented moment I thought the 8.5x was the model being tested. I've deleted my post. Meanwhile, back to the land of dreams.......
As for Skosh, you Yanks blame Pearl Harbour for everything>

Lee