• 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.

My "Ultimate" Choice (1 Viewer)

Hello everyone at BirdForum. I have read these postings for quite some time and learned a great deal. This is the tale of I made my choice for “Ultimate” once in a lifetime binos. I hope it is useful for those going through this process, and amusing for you veterans!

After several years of on-and-off looking for an “ultimate” binocular, my wife gave me the surprise of a lifetime this Christmas :clap: by giving me my choice of any binocular sold at our local Audubon sanctuary store (at Corkscrew Swamp). The store stocks the top-line Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski bins, and gives you the chance to take all of them out into the field for basically hours of practical testing (if you are buying one of the top models). Although Nikon was not a stock item at the store, I felt confident that the three top German/Austrian makes would do for a range of choices!

This is to be a lifetime purchase for me (I can’t afford to be returning/swapping bins even if newer models are to come in the future), so I chose very carefully. I have no “vested interest” in one brand over another even though I own Zeiss camera lenses and Leica 10x25 binoculars.

By way of background, I am 48 years old, tall with average hand size, in average physical condition and with good eyesight. I am a serious amateur/semi-pro landscape photographer who shoots with Canon “L” (35mm) but, mainly, Carl Zeiss (medium format) film cameras. I am used to ultimate image quality as seen through high-power loupes, and view the Zeiss camera optics as absolutely the finest in the world (along with Leica). As for binoculars, I have been using, for over 15 years, Leica 10x25s. I love the image quality, and am fully aware of the low-light limitations. My new “ultimate” pair” would be chosen from a blank slate, with no preconditions.

My first choice: 8 or 10 power? This was the first, most important decision on a practical level, as magnification drives most of the viewing experience in my opinion. 8x gives wide fields, 10x gives more detail. For all my life, I have been used to 10x. The Corkscrew was a great place to re-visit this preconception. Here you can be in deep forest searching for warblers, and, literally, just turn around to look across large fields for hawks and soaring birds. Wading birds in deep cover, and large storks nesting high in trees are right next to one another. Bright sun, deep shade, close-up small birds and reptiles, and long-distance raptors are all mixed together.

I started in the store with the 8x models. There was a line of high-quality color photos of birds across one side, in relatively dim light. The wide field of the 8s was very evident (especially Swaro and Zeiss), as was their brightness. I could see more of the cards with the 8x. However, it was not nearly as easy to read the print with the 8x, or see the detail of the photos.

In the field, these impressions continued. With the 8x bins, it was amazingly easy to spot forest warblers and soaring distance birds (two areas where my 10x25 Leicas always gave problems). Once spotted and centered, however, I did not see that “every feather” image that the 10x bins provided. I did notice that the newer 10x models also had large fields of view, and that the warbler and soaring bird spotting was really pretty easy with these newer 10x bins as well. Getting a 10x close-up of a yellow warbler at 12 feet was incredible! For longer distances, raptors, etc, the 10x also was the clear choice. The SLIGHT advantage in “getting on the bird” of the 8x models did not become a driving factor for me, considering that the 10s were very close, and gave a much more pleasurable view of the bird and easier ID due to the greater visible detail.

For me, the extra sharpness, extra detail, easier identification of the 10x carried the day. As for handholding, the ergonomics of the newer bins allowed very steady handholding, with the 8x having some, but not any truly decisive, advantage here (more on this below). The 10x preference may be more typical of U.S. birding (definitely of Florida) where wide variations in lighting and terrain are very common. If most of my birding was in forest terrain, 8x would be a serious consideration, but, at Corkscrew, it was no contest–10x won hands down. :cool:

Next Choice: 32 or 42 mm lenses? This was a purely practical choice driven by weight and turned out to be easy. With the modern bins, I really did not see any impediment in the weight of the larger objectives. In most cases, the weight difference was about 8oz, roughly between 20 oz for 32s and 28 oz for the larger lenses. This did not translate into any serious physical burden sufficient to compromise on image quality, especially if you use a bino harness or waist bag instead of a neck strap. It took only a few minutes of handling at the counter to decide this point. This was more than borne out in the field at nightfall, and in the deep swamp, where the 42s were stunning in detail by comparison to 32s. I don’t know how some people can say they see little or no difference–it was very decisive to me.

So, I have decided on 10x42s–now for the nitty gritty! The Austro-German Shootout.! To cut to the chase (for those losing patience), I walked out with Swaro EL s. This was a surprise to me and how I got there might be useful for others considering a similar bankruptcy-inducing purchase.

Zeiss 10 x 42 FL. As you might expect, Zeiss was my pre-conceived favorite, given my years of experience with Zeiss lenses. I will say up front, the FL s are an absolutely superior piece of gear, well worthy of top ranking along with Swaro (to my regret, as a Leica owner, I did not think the Ultravid image measured quite up to these two, although still extremely good). As for their optics, my comments are “eye testing” only. I am not concerned with theoretical advantages or optical formulas (although I know them well), only the view. The Zeiss were extremely bright, with excellent contrast, no noticeable color fringing, and very sharp at the center. Colors were vibrant and very neutral (the quality of the ambient light had much more influence over color than the glass itself). In fact, in the center of the image, in normal light, I would say that the Zeiss view probably has a slight edge over Swaro.

What can I say that is negative? One thing only, this unique issue of “edge softness” that people keep speaking of. It is there and there is no question about it, about 25% of the outer view is soft. This is not to say “out of focus” as you can clearly see a bird and some detail, but very soft nonetheless. On both of the other bins I tried, you can “clean up” the edge by re-focusing, to bring the edge into excellent, almost-center-quality sharpness (while going a little soft in the center). This is typical spherical aberration. On the Zeiss, though, you can improve the edges somewhat, but not to the point of critical sharpness, by re-focusing. There is some other type of distortion present. There was one other thing I noticed. In extreme back-lighting, the brightness of the optics seemed accompanied by a slight veiling flare. This was very slight (backlighting is never a good way to view anything, anyway). My hunch is that this flare is due to internal lack of light suppression as opposed to flare on the lenses themselves, which was not evident in any significant degree.

Now to ergonomics. This is not an insubstantial issue, but often is not given due discussion. One of the grand virtues of this forum is its extreme focus on optical quality, but bins are also focused, carried, held for long periods, shared and otherwise handled. Ergonomics are important for a lifetime purchase. The ergonomics of the Zeiss were very good to excellent. The fat, but tapering tubes were very easy to grasp and hold, with the rubber and ribs giving a very solid grip. Focusing was excellent–very smooth with the image “popping” into focus. There was one flaw, the way the focus wheel is positioned sometimes makes the diopter wheel “pull out” when focusing. This, I must say, was extremely irritating even though it did only happen once (after finally spotting that flighty warbler!) The eyecups were excellent. Build quality seemed very solid, the strap lugs did not interfere with grip. For my hands and my size, the “feel” was very good indeed.

Leica 10x42 Ultravid. Right away, in the store, it seemed that the Leica’s view was not as bright as that of the Zeiss or Swaro. The store’s dim lighting brought this out, as did viewing in deep forest and at dusk. In addition, the field of view was not as wide as the Zeiss or Swaro. Given the price point, these differences disqualified the Leicas pretty promptly (they were the ones we reached for least in the field). Sharpness and contrast were superb, with the image really “snapping” into focus. Colors were vibrant and neutral, and flare was very well controlled. I did not notice objectionable color fringing (maybe just a hair more that the Zeiss and Swaro with crows against white clouds with the sun directly behind).

Ergonomically, the Leicas were more compact that the others, with a very good feel in the hand. Build quality seemed absolutely perfect–with Leica’s “tanklike” quality evident. Eyecups were excellent. Focus was superb-smooth, good speed. No problems with the diopter adjustment. Great rubber coating. They might be even better for people with slightly smaller hands, but also felt good in mine.

Swarovski 10x42 EL WB. The “surprise” winner. I had thought that the “older” optical design might not measure up to the newer models. I was wrong. I do not know if Swaro does “stealth” improvements or not, but the view was every bit as pleasurable as that of the Zeiss. Their fields of view were identical–very wide and open. Brightness was the same, despite Zeiss’ theoretical advantage. The brightness held all the way down to darkfall–it was amazing seeing more detail than my eye could show. Zeiss and Swaro equal here. There was a difference in contrast, because, in the Swaro, the brightness was not accompanied by veiling glare in any circumstance that I could throw at this glass. Flare was virtually non-existent at all angles. Of course, some “spot” flare could be produced on the lenses, when the view was virtually into the sun, but this did not translate to an overall veiling glare that substantially reduced image quality. This was an advantage over the Zeiss but only in severe backlight. In normal light, both had superior contrast and image “snap.” Swaro sharpness was outstanding, with “every feather” detail present all throughout the image. Sharpness extended well out towards the edges, more than the Zeiss, and edge softness could be rectified to critical sharpness by re-focusing as mentioned above. Although Zeiss dead-center sharpness was slightly better than Swaro, edge-to-edge sharpness was better with the Swaro. I preferred the latter, and, on the center sharpness, the difference is not much at all.

As for color, the Swaro had the same vibrant but neutral color tone as the Zeiss. Colors were true, but fully realized and intense. Some people speak of “warm” or “cold” color “tone” from binoculars, but I found that changing ambient light had more influence over the color of the view. I felt that the “tone” of both the Swaro and Zeiss were very similar, and either neutral or very slightly “warm” but I can’t really make a definitive judgment on that. Also, surprisingly, I found the Swaro to have very little color fringing in strong backlight, none that interfered with the view of the bird (given that the view is always terrible in backlight anyway). I could still see some color (minimal) and detail (better) in extreme backlight, which is all anyone can hope for. The Zeiss was not overtly better in these conditions. The Zeiss had no color fringe at all that I could see, but its slightly greater veiling flare made the view in backlight a little less desirable than the Swaro.

By the way, I am picking nits here. We are talking about two absolutely superb optical instruments, and only 3 hours of store/field viewing. Nonetheless, my conclusions were as follows as to optical quality, with the categories listed in order of importance to me:

Center Sharpness: Advantage Zeiss
Edge-to-Edge: Advantage Swaro (not insignificant)
Brightness: Deuce
Contrast: Advantage Swaro in strong backlight (not insignificant).
Color Fringing: Advantage Zeiss in strong backlight only.
Color Fidelity: Deuce
Field of View: Deuce

Overall, my preference was for the Swaro due to the sharpness/flare aspects discussed above, but the preference was slight. It is a preference that might even change on a day-to-day basis as the views are so close.

Ergonomics: This, however, was where the “rubber met the road” for me. There was just no comparison between the Swaro and Zeiss ergonomics. The Swaro “double barrel” design is a true breakthrough that no one has yet equaled. It has decisive advantages in several areas. First, carrying! I wrap my last three fingers around the barrel (it is totally ambidextrous and so does not matter which hand), and my forefinger falls perfectly on the focus wheel and my thumb falls exactly into the indent. I securely carry them in my hand at my side this way for hours in perfect comfort (and can switch hands if I want)–no need for any neckstrap, harness or waist bag at all! (Porro owners–you also enjoy a similar feel) They are “instantly ready” to immediately lift to my eyes and focus, or, if I want to share, to hand off instantly. There is just nothing like it in terms of getting on the bird! Next, viewing. Both hands wrap completely around the barrels for unmatched stability (even if you don’t use the thumb indents), way more that any “bridge” design gave me. Holding 10x was no problem even for long periods, and, with elbows close in on my chest, was stable even at extreme close-up views. It might not be image stabilization, but it is the next best thing. And yes, one-handed operation is very possible and natural if you need to do so.

The rest of the ergonomics are just as good. The barrels are wide (“fat?”) and therefore easy to grip. The rubber coating is just right with great adhesion but no “stickiness”. The focus is 1.5 turns from 8' to infinity, which I found ideal both in terms of speed and precision (I found the Zeiss to be a little too fast, just a personal preference). The focus wheel is smooth with no play and the diopter stays put! The eyecup operation in particular is very smooth and well damped, no “plastic” feel to it (although the detents are so soft as to be almost undetectable–but I don’t care for multiple detents anyway). Quality is evident–I have no rattles or squeaks or noises at all. In sum, not only is the Swaro image absolutely top-notch, its design for “real world” use is second to none.

Finally, a note about close focus. The Zeiss focus to 6.6 ft and the Swaro to 8 feet. I could discern absolutely no advantage in the field to Zeiss from this difference, even for butterfly/dragonfly observation, which I did have the chance to do in my test, as a slight move of your head makes up the difference. I did notice, however, in all binos striving for extreme close focus–(Zeiss FL, Brunton Epoch (really poor image, ugh, and even more expensive!) and Stokes Vortex (a top contender in that price range but not the equal of the big 3))–that the close focus ability came at the expense of requiring very fast focusing speed, making focusing imprecise and more difficult. All in all, I found extreme close focus (closer than 8 feet) a distinct disadvantage in “real world” birding, and I say this as a devout butterfly watcher.

Instead, I bought a pair of $120 Pentax Papillios (a best buy if I ever saw one!), which focus to 18 INCHES, for insect observation.

I hope this helps people looking to make a lifetime purchase.

For my part, I plunked down my $$$$$$$$$. After three more days of intense field use (8 hour days and OVER 50 SPECIES), I must join the ranks of satisfied and contented Swaro owners–these things just get better and better! It’s like HDTV for your eyes! :t:

Guy Harrison
Florida, USA
 
Guy,

Thanks for sharing. Doing your homework with binoculars in hand is certainly the way to go, and you did it well. Enjoy!

Clear skies, Alan
 
My wife and I visited Corkscrew Swamp in May 2004. Aside from the incredibly fascinating sanctuary, the store is spectacular. During the brief time we were there, there was no way to seriously consider book purchases. There was just too much to see. I wasn't surprised to see binoculars there, but I was surprised to see top-line brands. I own the Zeiss 8x42 FL, but I think your evaluation is more pertinent and "fairer" than 90% of what I read here or elsewhere.

Guy: what medium format Zeiss camera are you using? Is this one of the folders that they produced decades ago (e.g. Super Ikonta)?
 
Curtis Croulet said:
My wife and I visited Corkscrew Swamp in May 2004. Aside from the incredibly fascinating sanctuary, the store is spectacular. During the brief time we were there, there was no way to seriously consider book purchases. There was just too much to see. I wasn't surprised to see binoculars there, but I was surprised to see top-line brands. I own the Zeiss 8x42 FL, but I think your evaluation is more pertinent and "fairer" than 90% of what I read here or elsewhere.

Guy: what medium format Zeiss camera are you using? Is this one of the folders that they produced decades ago (e.g. Super Ikonta)?

Chris,

I use the Contax 645 AF. It is absolutely incredible in terms of image quality. I am most distressed to hear that financial problems of Kyocera might jeopardize production of this system. Not that I will bail, I simply will purchase another body or two (used) and make sure I own all the lenses!

Corkscrew is unbelievable. I am so lucky to only live 1.5 hours away. I visit often and it NEVER disappoints. Because of this, I had the luxury of spending time actually using my potential binos in this birding paradise. Certainly, on a day trip or even two, from far away I would not spend time in the store, although it is seriously excellent in terms of books, feeders, and, of course binos, especially for such a remote location (not many scopes, tho). Even better, the profits go to the Sanctuary and their prices are either the same as or only slightly more than B&H.

Guy
 
Guy,

Excellent post. I found it very enjoyable to read through your personal comparison of the bins in question. Would have loved to have seen the Nikons in the mix though. ;)

Good birding.

Frank
 
Well, I hadn't looked in a photo magazine for awhile. I thought the Japanese-made Contax line was long dead. During my photo enthusiast days I enjoyed using a 4x5 view camera, and I still enjoy using a ca. 1951 Rolleiflex sometimes. But we recently had a photographer doing shots of one of our model homes (I work in new-home sales), and he was using a Canon 5d digital camera. He said up to recently he was doing this with 4x5, but the 12 megapixel Canon is sharper in the required print sizes, and, of course, it does away with wet darkroom processing. Perspective issues, such as we used to cure with swings and tilts, are now handled in the processing computer.
 
Absolutely terrific review, and very useful. I recently purchased Zeiss 8x42 FLs, and I personally like and use 8x only. In large part the contest (I was also able to compare the big 3) DID come down to ergonomics, and I felt that in MY case the Zeiss was more comfortable. We all have differing hand sizes, and face shapes, so ergonomics is not an insignificant part of the "equation".

Congratulations on your purchase. I'm sure you will be very happy with your choice.
 
Guy,
You commented in your excellent review that 'I do not know if Swaro does “stealth” improvements or not, but the view was every bit as pleasurable as that of the Zeiss. '

In my experience they do carry out 'stealth improvements' - witness the improved focus which caught everyone out. I think the coatings have been tweaked recently to take on the Zeiss FL - I purchased some 8.5 ELs very recently and they are definetly an improvement on EL models that I have tried in the past.

Dave
 
Guy,

Nice, personalized review. The folks at Swarovski will thank you.

However, I'm truly surprised that other brand loyalists have not been screaming "sample variation" from their respective mountaintops. Perhaps New Year's resolutions came early this year!

Seriously, your review once again proves that there's no substitute for hands-on evaluations.

Enjoy the view.

John
 
I had a very similar experience, and i feel the same when it comes to 8x vs 10x. I loved the Swaro EL 10X42 very much, but the one that i looked at had the slooooow focus, and the Ultravid next to it seemed to have a better color rendition and contrast. My wife likes my Ultravid (i love them too), so we may switch, she gets the Leicas and i buy an EL for myself.
My opinion of the Zeiss 10x42 is not quite as good as yours.
 
guyharrison said:
One thing only, this unique issue of “edge softness” that people keep speaking of. It is there and there is no question about it, about 25% of the outer view is soft. This is not to say “out of focus” as you can clearly see a bird and some detail, but very soft nonetheless. On both of the other bins I tried, you can “clean up” the edge by re-focusing, to bring the edge into excellent, almost-center-quality sharpness (while going a little soft in the center). This is typical spherical aberration.

Glad you were able to try them all. Nothing beats a hands-on trial to see what feels best for you.

Question: if you can bring the edge into focus, is that not field curvature rather than spherical aberration?
 
laservet said:
Question: if you can bring the edge into focus, is that not field curvature rather than spherical aberration?

Paul,

Yep. This is the third time in about a week I've seen this particular confusion of terms. The other two were the BVD review of the Zeiss 8x42 FL and a very poor explanation of the effect of aspheric lenses on the Minox website.

Henry
 
laservet said:
Glad you were able to try them all. Nothing beats a hands-on trial to see what feels best for you.

Question: if you can bring the edge into focus, is that not field curvature rather than spherical aberration?

Paul,

You are correct. The softness at the edge is generally field curvature and astigmatism. Optics having astigmatism acutally have two focal planes - a sagittal plane and a tangential plane. They coincide on the optical axis, and diverge as you move away from the axis. When there is no astigmatism, and these two planes coincide, there is still usually field curvature, which softens the outside of the field when the center is in focus.

I am not sure if binoculars are using enough power to see this, but it is easy to test for astigmatism in a telescope. Place a target with a number of closely spaced horizontal and vertical lines at the edge of the view. There will be a different focus for the horizontal lines than for the vertical lines.

Spherical aberration is an on-axis aberration, so talking about off axis spherical aberration is meaningless.

Clear skies, Alan
 
Last edited:
John Traynor said:
Guy,

Nice, personalized review. The folks at Swarovski will thank you.

However, I'm truly surprised that other brand loyalists have not been screaming "sample variation" from their respective mountaintops. Perhaps New Year's resolutions came early this year!

Seriously, your review once again proves that there's no substitute for hands-on evaluations.

Enjoy the view.

John

John,

Thanks for your kind comments. I have always had a lot of respect for your postings. No question, as I see from the responses and posts overall, that this is a very subjective process, both optically and ergonomically.

Swaro might or might not thank me for my comments (although undoubtedely for my $$$$$$$$) as they seem to sell many of these. I did have preconceptions tending against Swaro (my long-loved Leica 10x25s, my Zeiss camera system, "old" vs. "new" designs, etc), which their product convincingly overcame. By the way, I hope that it was clear that my viewing through all three brands was an extremely enjoyable experience.

By the way, I also fell in love with the Nikon 8x32SE when I had a limited chance to see one in New York. The 10x SE (the magnification I would have preferred) was not so impressive, especially its more ackward shape and extremely deficient close focus. When I am able to afford a second, less expensive pair the 8x SEs will be among my top choices, magnification notwithstanding, as the "view for the dollar" can't be beat as far as I could tell--I recall them being very close to the "Big 3" under the terrible store conditions for 1/3 the price--remarkable! Would like to be able to take them outdoors, though, and will have to find another store for a field test.

I did not overlook sample variation as I have read about it in this forum. The sanctuary store is small and does not stock more than one of the top line brands in each magnification. However, I could and did compare all three top models in both their 8x and 10x versions, and my conclusions were the same across each line. Given this, I must conclude that quality control is generally consistent within each of these brands, and, my preferences notwithstanding, there is a remarkable overall consistency of superior view between the brands. As long as several top brands are available for comparison, I would not hold up buying something just because I could not see several identical ones within a single brand. If, however, there was a serious and noticeable deficiency in one of the top models in comparison with the others, then I would want to see another sample before making the final choice.

Glad to see that even some veterans enjoyed my post!

Guy
 
AlanFrench said:
I am not sure if binoculars are using enough power to see this, but it is easy to test for astigmatism in a telescope. Place a target with a number of closely spaced horizontal and vertical lines at the edge of the view. There will be a different focus for the horizontal lines than for the vertical lines.
Alan,

Binoculars do have enough power to see this. In fact, I think it may sometimes explain the dissagreements over edge sharpness. If a target with vertical lines is focused at the center astigmatism will cause the vertical lines at the edge to look good at 9 and 3 o'clock because each point on the line is stretched in the same direction as the line, but the same lines will look terrible at 12 and 6 o'clock where each point is stretched perpendicular to the direction of the line. The impression of edge sharpness may depend on the orientation of target lines and where they are placed on the edge. And of course any astigmatism in the eye will either tend to be corrected or made worse at different clock face positions along the edge.

Henry
 
Last edited:
Guy:

Excellent review! I'm afraid that the Mercedes v. BMW v. Volvo argument is about to relight... so, here's my unsolicited input

My personal testing of the same three evaluated binos was done in a park with two samples of each in May of this year. I did notice sample variation, optically, in the Swaro and Zeiss but not the Leicas.

My subjective ranking based on optical quality was as follows:

1. Zeiss FL
2. Leica Ultravid
3. EL

The really nice thing in all of this was in finding a dealer who would permit this kind of multiple sample testing prior to purchase and with no sale promised... not many will do it. I did purchase the FL but would have been happy with either of the other fine brands.

Regards,
Bill
 
Last edited:
henry link said:
Alan,

Binoculars do have enough power to see this. In fact, I think it may sometimes explain the dissagreements over edge sharpness. If a target with vertical lines is focused at the center astigmatism will cause the vertical lines at the edge to look good at 9 and 3 o'clock, but terrible at 12 and 6 o'clock, and of course horizontal lines do the opposite. The impression of edge sharpness may depend on the orientation of target lines and where they are placed on the edge. And of course any astigmatism in the eye will either tend to be corrected or made worse at different clock face positions along the edge.

Henry

Henry,

Thanks! I should have given it a try myself - and I will now.

Before spending a lot on new binoculars, everyone should make sure they have had a recent eye exam. You can correct for being nearsighted or farsighted by simply refocussing, but astigmatism requires glasses, contacts, or corrective surgery. Uncorrected astigmatism is quite harmful to the image formed on your retina, and is going to impair the performance of any low power optical instrument.

I agree that this could certainly be a big factor in disagreements in edge sharpness. Your eye plays a significant role when you use binoculars.

Clear skies, Alan
 
Henry--
I've long thought that this issue of astigmatism and line-type test targets must explain the big discrepencies one sees in reports of a particular model's edge of field performance. I wish more reviews described the nature of edge of field image deterioration in detail--most hardly even comment on it, or go so far as to say that the image is "sharp to the edge" (try coming up with a rational explanation for why so many reviews make that crazy claim!).

For some reason, I find astigmatism much more bothersome than field curvature when using binos. The former is always visually/mentally stressful to me, whereas the latter is irritating when inspecting a bino during testing, but I can ignore as I get used to a binocular. I think this is why I prefer the Zeiss 7x42 Classic over the 7x42 FL. They are very comparable in many ways, but the deterioration in the FL image toward the periphery seems to be largely due to astigmatism, whereas in the Classic the issue is mostly one of field curvature.
--AP
 
guyharrison said:
John,

Thanks for your kind comments. I have always had a lot of respect for your postings. No question, as I see from the responses and posts overall, that this is a very subjective process, both optically and ergonomically.

Swaro might or might not thank me for my comments (although undoubtedely for my $$$$$$$$) as they seem to sell many of these. I did have preconceptions tending against Swaro (my long-loved Leica 10x25s, my Zeiss camera system, "old" vs. "new" designs, etc), which their product convincingly overcame. By the way, I hope that it was clear that my viewing through all three brands was an extremely enjoyable experience.

By the way, I also fell in love with the Nikon 8x32SE when I had a limited chance to see one in New York. The 10x SE (the magnification I would have preferred) was not so impressive, especially its more ackward shape and extremely deficient close focus. When I am able to afford a second, less expensive pair the 8x SEs will be among my top choices, magnification notwithstanding, as the "view for the dollar" can't be beat as far as I could tell--I recall them being very close to the "Big 3" under the terrible store conditions for 1/3 the price--remarkable! Would like to be able to take them outdoors, though, and will have to find another store for a field test.

I did not overlook sample variation as I have read about it in this forum. The sanctuary store is small and does not stock more than one of the top line brands in each magnification. However, I could and did compare all three top models in both their 8x and 10x versions, and my conclusions were the same across each line. Given this, I must conclude that quality control is generally consistent within each of these brands, and, my preferences notwithstanding, there is a remarkable overall consistency of superior view between the brands. As long as several top brands are available for comparison, I would not hold up buying something just because I could not see several identical ones within a single brand. If, however, there was a serious and noticeable deficiency in one of the top models in comparison with the others, then I would want to see another sample before making the final choice.

Glad to see that even some veterans enjoyed my post!

Guy

Guy,

I was having a bit of fun with the "sample variation" remark. Though true, I think it's sometimes used to excuse away likes and dislikes.

I agree with your SE 10X42 comments, but then I don't care for 10X anything. The 8X32 SE is another story and my guess is they no longer produce them. I'll bet people aren't interested in buying high-end porros when acceptable roofs can be purchased for a few hundred dollars.

Enjoy your EL!

John
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top