8x42HT, 8.5x42SV, sharpness (1 Viewer)

Anyone has both or compared side by side of both in terms of sharpness?

Some "claim" that the SV has "better sharpness" than the HT, not just the edge but the whole centre too. Would that be true? Considering the HT is the latest and the state of art from Zeiss, would that really be possible to be "not" as "sharp" as the SV?

Or that's just a certain group of people who are loyal to Swaro, or selling bino that sponsored by Swaro for more rebate, so trying to talk up one by talk down another one...?

Any of you have both those models to compare? Or have chance in store to compare the both in terms of sharpness?

spiralcoil said:

Anyone has both or compared side by side of both in terms of sharpness?

Some "claim" that the SV has "better sharpness" than the HT, not just the edge but the whole centre too. Would that be true? Considering the HT is the latest and the state of art from Zeiss, would that really be possible to be "not" as "sharp" as the SV?

Or that's just a certain group of people who are loyal to Swaro, or selling bino that sponsored by Swaro for more rebate, so trying to talk up one by talk down another one...?

Any of you have both those models to compare? Or have chance in store to compare the both in terms of sharpness?

Click to expand...

You are starting this thread out unhappy, and why is that?

This is a loaded question. What is sharpness and how would you measure that ?

Any observation and a comparison of both of these top optics and how they perform would be simply, personal opinion.

Jerry

When people talk about "sharpness" here they are usually talking about what they "see" or "perceive" as sharpness determined from comparisons of subjects that are convenient to examine closely.

Very rarely does anyone set the binoculars on a tripod focused on a U.S. Air Force 1951 Sharpness Chart for comparison. You can find one in the link below: Scroll down a bit.

http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness/

Bob

I've tried the comparison but unfortunately the light was too poor to give a definitive answer. I could still tell they were both better than the Conquest HD and particularly the Swaro CL on sharpness but beyond that I can't help. I hope to try again next week.

David

Looking forward to watching this thread......B

Spend a little time with an 8X32 SE and you will never question what is meant by binocular sharpness. SE ownership makes binocular evaluations rather simple, something that is next to impossible to explain to people who have never had the experience. Though repetitive, the seemingly endless SE testimonials on BF support the argument that seeing is believing. I haven't seen an HT but I can say the SV satisfies many an SE owner. I hope the Zeiss HT does too!

ceasar said:

When people talk about "sharpness" here they are usually talking about what they "see" or "perceive" as sharpness determined from comparisons of subjects that are convenient to examine closely.

Very rarely does anyone set the binoculars on a tripod focused on a U.S. Air Force 1951 Sharpness Chart for comparison. You can find one in the link below: Scroll down a bit.

http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness/

Bob

Click to expand...

Bob

I'm one of those who when I talk about sharpness am referring to the ability of the binocular (or lens if discussing cameras) to discern fine detail, i.e. its ability to resolve fine detail. My favorite way to determine the sharpness of a particular binocular is splitting doubles under the night sky. Very easy to do when you are comparing binoculars side by side and are familiar with the amount of magnification and or resolution required to split a particular double.

Being the quintessential optics geek I also enjoy resolution testing binoculars side by side from a bench or mounted on a tripod and using resolution charts at a fixed distance. The chart I use most often because I find it allows me notice even a minute difference in resolution capabilities is the ISO_12233 chart. Here is a link to a printable version. http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/ISO_12233-reschart.pdf

Steve

Steve,

That's the "slanted edge" chart which is discussed in the link I supplied above. The comments on it are pretty technical. But for our purposes we can use it and come to our own conclusions.

Bob

My HT has stunning sharpness, the best of any bin I have used. It has that ''slap-in-the-face'' pop, a mix of sharpness, contrast, brightness and amazing stray light control that yields an image better than anything else, IMO.

Compared directly to an 8.5 SV and my FL, the HT [to my eye] had better sharpness, better overall saturation and just a better view. It was quite an obvious thing but opinions will differ.

Mike Penfold and 6 birders did a great test of the HT, SV and SLC-HD and they concluded that the HT was sharper.

I have been spending alot of time comparing the HT to the FL and it is quite a revelation just how much improved the HT is - in every viewing situation. I now find that the FL [and the SV] show something that isn't quite veiling glare [maybe simple scatter] but shows up as barely detectable ''milking'' of the image. The HT, in comparison, shows deep rich colours and details with maximum contrast. You would never see this or notice anything unless you had an HT on hand to compare. I had planned a thread on this subject, but I need to track down an EDG and a few others to see if this is consistent across the alpha spectrum.

I would have thought this sort of improvement would only present itself in ''glarey'' situations, but it shows up almost all the time, even when the light seems ideal for viewing. This is not just my opinion, more than a few owners have commented on the same thing. What it amounts to is, most of the time, the HT will give the better view.

My advice - get an HT and any other competitor and do a long, slow side-by-side, for sharpness and just overall quality of image. To me, it's no contest as the HT represents a new benchmark for image clarity and transparency.

One caveat - do NOT make a judgement based on in-store or brief backyard viewing. It took me a full 3 days to find the perfect IPD, dioptre and eye cup position to achieve the perfect view. On top of that, many of the HT's virtues need to be seen in field testing. Try shorebirding the flats in strong backlight or scan the forest canopy in heavy overcast - you will be amazed.

Bob

Yeah, the chart was originally designed for testing the resolution of camera lenses but works great for evaluating binoculars and other optics. I usually keep it simple and use the one horizontal and two vertical bars near the center that are valued from 1 to 10. I just scan to see the last section where I can still discern white space between the lines and note the corresponding numerical value.

I have a little spare time coming up in a few weeks and hope to do some serious resolution comparisons between my two 8x SEs (505xxx and 550xxx versions) and will probably compare some of my other 8x porros as well (8x30 EII, 8x32 SR GA, and 8x30 Habicht).

Steve

james holdsworth said:

Mike Penfold and 6 birders did a great test of the HT, SV and SLC-HD and they concluded that the HT was sharper.




One caveat - do NOT make a judgement based on in-store or brief backyard viewing. It took me a full 3 days to find the perfect IPD, dioptre and eye cup position to achieve the perfect view. On top of that, many of the HT's virtues need to be seen in field testing. Try shorebirding the flats in strong backlight or scan the forest canopy in heavy overcast - you will be amazed.

Click to expand...

James

The comparison between the HT, SV and SLC-HD sounds like an interesting test that I would like to check out, do you have a link by any chance? I mainly use porros but one of my four roofs is a 8x42 FL and I've always been impressed with both its on axis resolution and its ability to suppress unwanted stray light, if you find the HT noticeably sharper than it must be something really special.

I totally agree with you about the efficacy (or lack thereof) of a cursory in store test. The only way to make a valid comparison is side by side which insures similar lighting conditions, etc. I also give no credence whatsoever to the infamous binocular test seen so often on this forum where one bino is in hand and the other is compared based on memory.

Steve

So this is a loaded side question but I need to ask: why are the top end Zeiss Victories less expensive than the Swaros? Zeiss Victory FL T* 10x32 is going for under $1,700 vs the $2,200+ for Swarovski 10x32 EL Swarovision Traveler. This is the size and mag I am ultimately looking for when viewing wildlife in a distance. So what am I paying for, especially if the Zeiss's are indeed sharper?

Not knowing much about these Alpha lines, am I comparing apples to apples? And how much difference are we talking about? Ergonomics? Or are we into splitting hairs technically.

I await my esteemed Optoholics' considered estimations.

In the US I have always found the flagship Swaros to be more expensive than the Zeiss and about the same price as a Leica. I don't have a definitive answer. Potential warranty service level built into the original price? Prestige associated with owning the most expensive consumer grade bin? Pricing strategy for Zeiss to come in a few hundred less than the competition?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Tantien,

The sharpness/resolution factor on all these binoculars is probably so close that their differences will be miniscule. Resolution can also be affected by contrast which can be affected by changes in light. You are going to have to try them all to satisfy yourself and in the end you will probably get the one that "fits" you the best.

Bob

steve@37n84w said:

... The comparison between the HT, SV and SLC-HD sounds like an interesting test that I would like to check out, do you have a link by any chance? ...

Click to expand...

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2691602&postcount=1372.

ceasar said:

Tantien,

The sharpness/resolution factor on all these binoculars is probably so close that their differences will be miniscule. Resolution can also be affected by contrast which can be affected by changes in light. You are going to have to try them all to satisfy yourself and in the end you will probably get the one that "fits" you the best.

Bob

Click to expand...

Hello Bob,

I like to think that contrast and resolution are separate qualities, which are actually measurable. Together they comprise what we see as "sharpness," a matter of perception, and as you write, differing among people.

As I recall, Leitz lenses for their Leica cameras always favoured contrast in their designs, but never neglected resolution.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

FrankD said:

...Pricing strategy..? ...Your guess is as good as mine.

Click to expand...

Maybe we should start a rumor, like some of those about particular coating lots or leaded glass, that price is indicative of optical performance and build quality. That would explain why, for a given model, the quality of most units sold in Europe (where prices are generally considerably higher than in the USA) is so much higher than for units of the same model sold in the USA. To go on with this, one reason for the lower US quality is that our consumer laws require that we get generous warranty service in the USA, so manufacturers have to reduce quality for USA-bound merchandise to keep the price down. Yes folks, you heard it here first. If you want the best version of a given bino, whether it's a Swarovski EL or a Bushnell Legend Ultra HD, make sure you pay in Euros and have it shipped from a merchant in the old country.

--AP

Alexis,

My comments were purely speculation on my part and I stated as much. As I said I have no idea.

FrankD said:

Alexis,

My comments were purely speculation on my part and I stated as much. As I said I have no idea.

Click to expand...

Sorry the ambiguity of my lamely tongue in cheek response. I agree with you entirely, I was just running with the idea of guessing, or agreeing with the futility of speculating, because it seems clear that if pricing is rational, it has little to do with the properties of the binoculars themselves, but rather other marketing considerations.

--AP

Alexis, sorry if I'm being dense, but what are the actual rumours you're targetting with your spoof?