• 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.

New Swaro Pockets (1 Viewer)

Kammerdiner said:
I'm largely in agreement with Alexis on this one. I don't find the 8x20 UV "fiddly" in terms of ergonomics. I actually like the way your fingers wrap around the open barrels. I tend to pinch the focus knob between right thumb and forefinger though, unlike Alexis. Overall, it has a pretty cool, undercover, 007 kind of feel in the hand. Works great.

I guess if you lack opposable thumbs or still use those giant Kindergarten pencils to write your name it might be a problem. ;)

As for the ergonomics of the new Swaro, well, I don't know. I have far fewer ergo-issues than most as far as I can tell. My theory: you've got the most dexterous biological appendages in the known universe, just USE them.

Where Alexis and I disagree is on the exit pupil. I have never gotten used to that 2.5mm exit pupil. It's just fiddly and it won't get better. I wear glasses, though, so maybe that makes a difference.

Many have suggested in the past that a 3mm exit pupil is the threshhold for "non-fiddly." I would agree, based on my ongoing experience with the 8x25 format. That's why I find the new Swaro intriguing. That plus the possible presence of whatever kind of eyepiece voodoo magic they did to the 8x32 SV. If they applied that juju to the 8x25--well, stand back.

Mark
Click to expand...

Why can't some people make a comment on how binoculars fit some people's hands without making snide, snarky side comments about people whose physical attributes differ from their own? Or even while making comments differing from the opinions about the physical attributes of the binoculars they favor? Is it an inherited trait or acquired?

I would tell you what to do with your "opposable thumbs" but it would be deleted. I think you get the idea! "No winky here!"

I'll compromise with you. You delete that 2nd paragraph and I'll delete this.

After supper. I'm out of here.

Bob
 
kabsetz said:
Ed,

I haven't tried the new Swarovski yet, but have to agree with your assessment of the ergonomics of the Ultravid. I have had one for about five years now, and although the optics are superb, I dislike using them. The handling is indeed fiddly, mainly due to the diminutive size, and what is worse, for me the 2.5mm exit pupil is simply too small for satisfying views. For that reason, I'm eager to try the 8x25 version of the Swaro, since the 3+mm exit pupil should be just this side of adequate.

Kimmo
Click to expand...

Kimmo/Alexis,

I should point out that my mention of a "diminutive and fiddly Leica 8x20 Ultravid" was primarily in reference to its size, since I also own a diminutive and even more fiddly 8x20 SLC. The 10x25 models of either brand are much more to my liking for serious birding and other applications (more groans), but Leica doesn't even provide 16mm eye relief in the 10x. I've never really had a problem with 2.5mm exit pupils once my ER need was met, but the 10x are also large enough for my hand, without inducing the dreaded palm-overhang blackout phenomenon (sorry Alexis). As well, I'm looking forward to the slightly increased weight of the new model to aid with my age related tremble.

Ed
 

Attachments

  • Leica in hand copy.jpg
    Leica in hand copy.jpg
    43.1 KB · Views: 174
  • Swaro in hand copy.jpg
    Swaro in hand copy.jpg
    45.5 KB · Views: 178
Last edited:
ceasar said:
Why can't some people make a comment on how binoculars fit some people's hands without making snide, snarky side comments about people whose physical attributes differ from their own? Or even while making comments differing from the opinions about the physical attributes of the binoculars they favor? Is it an inherited trait or acquired?

I would tell you what to do with your "opposable thumbs" but it would be deleted. I think you get the idea! "No winky here!"

I'll compromise with you. You delete that 2nd paragraph and I'll delete this.

After supper. I'm out of here.

Bob
Click to expand...

OK, some people just don't get the "winky" thing. Good luck with the House Sparrows. I hear there's lots of them this time of day. |8||

;)

Mark
 
Kammerdiner said:
...I wear glasses, though, so maybe that makes a difference...
Click to expand...
I wear glasses too, and actually, I think most of the time it is an advantage with pocket roofs (so long as you have enough eye relief, which most models don't) because you don't have to stick those undersized eyecups into your eyes or eye sockets.

Ed--I know what you mean about the 10x25 format. My first pocket roof was a 10x25 Trinovid, and I liked the length of the barrel for the wrap-around finger real estate, though I've never had a problem with my palm overhang blocking the aperture (mine works more like a lens hood!). I guess you've tried the 10x25 Ultravid? It has the best eye relief of any that I've tried (and it has superb close focus for a 10x as well). I guess at 15 mm officially it is 1 mm less than the 8x20, but I find that even as low as 13 mm works for me with glasses so long as the ocular diameter is small.

I switched from 10x25 to the 8x20 format to get the best close-focus ability possible since one of my favorite uses for pocket roofs is butterflying. Pocket roofs are great for that because butterflies are most active on sunny days or places (so plenty of light), and because the IPD can be adjusted down for excellent field overlap. Their small size/weight allows them to be tucked easily to the side or into a shirt pocket (still on the neck strap) when bending over to use my compact camera to grab pics of hard to ID species.

--AP
 
Kammerdiner said:
OK, I'm jealous. Nearest brewpub: 30 miles. :-C

Mark
Click to expand...

There are a few pretty close to me but I don't frequent them. Their beers are featured in some restaurants I go to.

I usually go to my American Legion Post which overlooks a lake. There is a Bald Eagles Nest near it. They weren't active today but I was told they were around this week when I wasn't there. I'm seeing more Turkey Vultures lately.

Bob
 
Alexis Powell said:
... I guess you've tried the 10x25 Ultravid? It has the best eye relief of any that I've tried (and it has superb close focus for a 10x as well). I guess at 15 mm officially it is 1 mm less than the 8x20, but I find that even as low as 13 mm works for me with glasses so long as the ocular diameter is small.
...

--AP
Click to expand...

I'm guessing, but are you myopic, possibly severely?

16mm just barely works for me with the right glasses on. Less is impossible.

Ed
 
Ed,

I'm about 0.5d hyperopic and 14.5mm seems optimal for me but I can get to about 13mm with a little pressure on the glasses. That's in spite of my nose being on the generous side. I guess it's the rimless thin lenses that does the trick.

David
 
typo said:
Ed,

I'm about 0.5d hyperopic and 14.5mm seems optimal for me but I can get to about 13mm with a little pressure on the glasses. That's in spite of my nose being on the generous side. I guess it's the rimless thin lenses that does the trick.

David
Click to expand...

David,

That seems to explain it. You are apparently on the borderline of emmetropia, which is ± .5D (as I understand it). I'm more hyperopic than you with a spherical correction of +2.00D. My lenses are, therefore, more positive than yours and offset the entry pupils of my eyes so as to require an ER of 16mm —18mm depending on the eyeglass frames. (I refuse to apply pressure with expensive binoculars and spectacles.)

Ed
 
Last edited:
elkcub said:
I'm guessing, but are you myopic, possibly severely? 16mm just barely works for me with the right glasses on. Less is impossible.
Ed
Click to expand...

I do benefit from my prescription for near-sightedness, though it is not severe. I wear carefully chosen modified aviator style glasses (i.e. large lenses that allow lots of peripheral vision and darting eyes) but my face shape is such that they fit as close to my eyes as is comfortable (i.e. just out of reach of my eyelashes. Actually, sometimes I even trim my eyelashes just a tiny bit to remove the occasional long one).

--AP
 
I have not had in internet access for a week hence the delay to followup of my 17 August post

Admittedly my comparison of the new 8 x 25 Swarovski CL pocket binos to the Leica Ultravid 8 x 20 (sorry for stating they are Trinovid in prior post) binos was brief but for this eyeglass wearer the Swarovskis were sharper although not by a landslide. Although not a major issue, in the past I twice ordered the Leicas and subsequently returned them due to a very strong rubber/chemical odor which did not dissipate after 2 weeks (hands smelled after usage) although this was more of an issue for my wife than for me.

As for comparison of Lecia vs Swarovski the latter binos are , in fact, about 50% heavier (12.2 oz vs 8.5oz) but have slightly better eye relief (17mm vs 16 mm) and slightly better FOV at 1000 yards (357 ft vs 341 ft). The Leicas have slightly better close focus (7.2 ft vs 8.2 feet)

Whether to purchase pocket binos at all is dependent on how you use them. For my wife & I they would mainly serve as a pair of optics to take on non-birding vacations (much easier to pack than standard binos)for incidental birding , for possible use at concerts or other similar events and as a backup to our everyday birding binos (in case of need for repair)

BTW my heavily used regular birding binos are Swarovski 8.5 x 42 EL Swarovision which I recommend highly. FWIW since moving to Tucson late last year, it has been my anecdotal impression that Swarovskis are the most popular brand in this very active birding community

As others have stated optics (as well as other birding equipment) are subject to personal preferences/tastes. If you are in the market for pocket binos it is likley either the Leica or Swarovski brands will be a worthwhile purchase

Cheers

Craig
 
Last edited:
Well, good luck with the new versions. I just got the 'old' CL8x30 and I am impressed. It was very easy to pick up and stay on a turkey buzzard as he floated over my property. The hummingbirds at the feeders were never as clear. For sure, whatever Swaro you get, they just can not be beatB :)
 
Dear all,
Yesterday I got the opportunity to look at and to look through the new Swarovski Compact binoculars and the new SLC line.
-1- The design of the Compacts is very nice. Handling comfort is very good, actually better than the smaller pocket binoculars of different brands including the Swarovski pockets. The optical quality of the new compacts for my eyes excellent, those who reported a lack of sharpness/resolution must have an eye problem, since whatever I tried, there was no lack of sharpness. My conclusion: the new Compacts are excellent binoculars for hikers, mountaineers and for everybody who does want to limit the weight of binoculars on his/her trip outside.
-2- The SLC 42's are exactly the same as the old SLC-HD'S, only the hardleather cover is different and, more important for some users: the close focus mechanism is removed, so the new SLC's do have a larger close focus distance. As a consequence the new SLC is slightly lighter and, for users more important perhaps, the price is considerably lower. That has to do with the absence of the relatively complicated mechanism for the close focus facility. The 42's have Schmidt -Pechan roof prisms. Personally I like the look/colors of the old SLC-HD body better, but that is a matter of taste.
-3- The new 56 mm SLC's have Abbe-König roof prisms, a new type of green hard rubber armament and 93% light transmission. The optical quality was outstanding as well as the handling comfort.
I think that Swarovski has done a good job.
Gijs
 
Gijs van Ginkel said:
The optical quality of the new compacts for my eyes excellent, those who reported a lack of sharpness/resolution must have an eye problem, since whatever I tried, there was no lack of sharpness.
Click to expand...

The better your eyes, the more critical you are going to be!
Hence the favoured use of a booster to assess a binocular.

John
 
Gijs van Ginkel said:
Dear all,
Yesterday I got the opportunity to look at and to look through the new Swarovski Compact binoculars and the new SLC line.
-1- The design of the Compacts is very nice. Handling comfort is very good, actually better than the smaller pocket binoculars of different brands including the Swarovski pockets. The optical quality of the new compacts for my eyes excellent, those who reported a lack of sharpness/resolution must have an eye problem, since whatever I tried, there was no lack of sharpness. My conclusion: the new Compacts are excellent binoculars for hikers, mountaineers and for everybody who does want to limit the weight of binoculars on his/her trip outside.
-2- The SLC 42's are exactly the same as the old SLC-HD'S, only the hardleather cover is different and, more important for some users: the close focus mechanism is removed, so the new SLC's do have a larger close focus distance. As a consequence the new SLC is slightly lighter and, for users more important perhaps, the price is considerably lower. That has to do with the absence of the relatively complicated mechanism for the close focus facility. The 42's have Schmidt -Pechan roof prisms. Personally I like the look/colors of the old SLC-HD body better, but that is a matter of taste.
-3- The new 56 mm SLC's have Abbe-König roof prisms, a new type of green hard rubber armament and 93% light transmission. The optical quality was outstanding as well as the handling comfort.
I think that Swarovski has done a good job.
Gijs
Click to expand...

Hi Gijs,

With regard to the old 8x42 SLC-HD, it would now appear that they actually discontinued them, since the log focusing mechanism is one of its defining and most wonderful characteristics. I'll cherish the ones I have knowing that it will inevitably become a rare model for collectors and aficionados.

What is the "hard leather cover" you referred to?

Regards,
Ed
 
Elkclub,
With the hard leather cover I mean the sort of armor that is generally used for Swarovski binoculars, it is not leather but a sort of artificial rubber like on their other binoculars.
Gijs
 
Gijs always assumes that there's something wrong with your eyes (or brain) if you don't see what he sees through the same bin when the difference between his sample and the other reviewed at the Bird Fair by David might well have been due to variance between the two samples.

David also pointed out that the SLC looked sharper than the 8.5 SV EL. While it might seem questionable that Swaro would not check the samples very thoroughly before taking them to a show, we've seen this before with variation in focusers. One member tried samples from "suitcase" full of Swaros at a show and found that every one he tried had a stiff or gritty focuser (remember that thread? maybe our archivist can find it).

I would not assume that one sample even at the alpha level is representative of all samples. Wish that were the case, and for the price they ask, it should be, but anyone who's been around this racket for a long time and has tried a number of binoculars including samples of the same bin knows that sample variation occurs at all price points.

Of course, people do perceive "sharpness" differently as well, sometimes equating better "sharpness" with better brightness or better contrast rather than better resolution. So it's not just the eyes that are the measuring sticks, but also one's perceptions.

When you put those two variables together - variance in samples and variance in users' perception, they probably account for most of the differences people see between samples rather than there being "something wrong" with somebody's eyes.

<B>
 
Last edited:
Brock,

If you're taking the stance of a focus-change denier, I should point out that Gijs simply confirmed what Swaro already said in their blog. I thought the new 8x42 SLC would have an 'improved' focusing system, — but it turns out to be a technology regression like the 8x30CL. Frankly, I've lost interest in their new SLCs altogether.

Ed
 
brocknroller said:
Gijs always assumes that there's something wrong with your eyes (or brain) if you don't see what he sees through the same bin when the difference between his sample and the other reviewed at the Bird Fair by David might well have been due to variance between the two samples.

David also pointed out that the SLC looked sharper than the 8.5 SV EL. While it might seem questionable that Swaro would not check the samples very thoroughly before taking them to a show, we've seen this before with variation in focusers. One member tried samples from "suitcase" full of Swaros at a show and found that every one he tried had a stiff or gritty focuser (remember that thread? maybe our archivist can find it).

I would not assume that one sample even at the alpha level is representative of all samples. Wish that were the case, and for the price they ask, it should be, but anyone who's been around this racket for a long time and has tried a number of binoculars including samples of the same bin knows that sample variation occurs at all price points.

Of course, people do perceive "sharpness" differently as well, sometimes equating better "sharpness" with better brightness or better contrast rather than better resolution. So it's not just the eyes that are the measuring sticks, but also one's perceptions.

When you put those two variables together - variance in samples and variance in users' perception, they probably account for most of the differences people see between samples rather than there being "something wrong" with somebody's eyes.

<B>
Click to expand...

Brock,

If people won't use the reasoning that one sample is not representative of all samples when it comes to how warranties are handled why would you expect them to use it in judging optics?

Bob
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 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

R
8x20 in possession. Which one to add?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
mwhogue
M
G
Uncomfortable Pocket CL 8x25..really?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Elkhornsun
E
R
Curio 7x21 vs Leica trinovid 8x20
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
Swedpat
S
laurencejackson
RFI: most suitable bins for on the water, Alaska and Vancouver Island?
Replies
5
Views
897
grackle314
G
truculenter aspicientis
I've got some new pocket bins NOT Curios.
Replies
7
Views
2K
Captain Dave
C

Users who are viewing this thread

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