8.5x42 SV vs 8x32 SV (1 Viewer)

In anticipating of the upcoming 8x32 EL SV, compared to the 8.5x42, wondering how members feel and like the two different sizes?

The 32 would be a lot smaller, lighter, slightly wider FOV;
the 42 is about 1mm larger in exit pupil (and a little bit higher power).

Or how many would use the 32 size compared the 42 size?

Comparisons of binoculars yet to be released, I love it!

What about Svarovison 8x32 vs. Leica Übervid (love that name too!) 8x32 vs. Zeiss Victory FLHD*** 8x32? Not to forget the new 8x28 Zeiss and Leica will release next year, how would they compare to the Swaro CL???

:-O

spiralcoil said:

In anticipating of the upcoming 8x32 EL SV, compared to the 8.5x42, wondering how members feel and like the two different sizes?

The 32 would be a lot smaller, lighter, slightly wider FOV;
the 42 is about 1mm larger in exit pupil (and a little bit higher power).

Or how many would use the 32 size compared the 42 size?

Click to expand...

Never been one to shy away from speculation!

Haven't tried the SV EL version, but I liked the 8x32 EL better than the 8.5x42 EL. No doubt the 8.5x and larger objectives give the big daddy an advantage in less than favorable conditions, but carrying them around all day was hard on the neck vs. the 8x30 SLC, which is a little lighter than the 8x32 EL. I only used the baby EL sitting so I didn't get a feel for "hang" and weight, but they weigh 21.5 oz, so they should feel as comfortable to carry for long periods as the 8x30 SLC.

While the 8.5x SV EL is more svelte than the original version, they aren't much lighter. What they got rid of was "bulk". I can imagine that some users with smaller hands welcomed that change.

Following the redesign of the SV EL, Swaro will lose the thick metal plates on either side of the open bridge and make a slimmer inset bridge on the 8x32, which could cut an ounce or so from the already light weight.

The barrels themselves are probably as slim as the 8x32 is going to get. They are already straight rather than curved and are made of magnesium-alloy. Further slimming could lower their robustness.

As far as size, we're talking 6.3" by 4.8" for the 8.5x vs. 5.4" by 4.5" for the 8x32. The 8x32 EL is about the same size as a Zen Ray 8x42 ZRS HD (5.5" x 4.8").

Big "babies" for an 8x32 compared to midsized FLs and particularly the Ultravids. Somewhere there's a photo of the three midsized alpha in a line up, and the EL really stands out.

In fact, when I saw a woman from the birding club wearing the 8x32 EL around her neck, at first glance, I thought it was the full sized EL.

The 8x32 EL consistently gets high points for ergonomics so I think that's going to be less of an issue than what changes they make optically and mechanically.

Will Swaro adopt the same "compound distortion" characteristic in the EPs as in the full sized models?

Nikon designed the HG/L series differently in the full sized and midsized versions, with the midsized having some pincushion to compensate for "rolling ball".

So it can be done, but will they do it? Has Swaro been hearing us "rollingballers" balling (or read the shocking story of betrayal in Dennis' love affair with the SV EL over "rolling ball"? . Will they ignore the minority and keep on rolling the ball with the 8x32 SV EL?

If you look at allbinos ratings, the 8x32 EL is way down in the number 7 slot. Why? For one thing, too much pincushion.

I only tried the 8x32 EL for about 10 minutes under sunny skies, and did little panning with them, so I can't comment on the pincushion, but I do find too much pincushion to be very distracting.

So for me, how Swaro handles the level of distortion and whether or not they adopt the "compound distortion" approach is high on my watch list.

The other issues that allbinos pointed out were internal reflections and significant levels of CA at the edge of the field.

The ED glass will reduce the CA, but reducing the internal reflections requires a redesign. I saw this issue with the CZJ 8x50 Octarem's "devils dancing in the EPs".

It only occurred under certain lighting conditions, and I didn't notice this problem in my brief encounter with the 8x32 EL, but if it's significant as allbinos says, I probably would noticed it if I had used the baby EL over a month's time under different lighting conditions like I did the big EL.

Finally, are they going to adopt the dual-speed focusing system with the baby EL? Since midsized bins are often used for butterflying, I'd be surprised if they didn't. However, the slow focusing at close range has gotten some negative user reviews.

Has there been enough negative feedback for Swaro to take notice? Even if they have, a redesign of the redesign might be too costly at this point. They don't want the 8x32 SV EL to be priced higher than the 8.5x SV EL. Before the discounting, the 32's price was already too close to the 42's.

After redesigning the fullsized ELs and expanding the configurations they offer, I don't expect incremental changes to the 8x32 model. Most likely, the technology they developed for the fullsized ELs will "trickle down" to the baby EL.

Brock

I have the non SV 8.5x42EL and am not interested in an upgrade to the SV model,
just happy with what I have.
I also have the zeiss 8x32 fl, an very happy with the size/weight;
but might, just might, consider the SV 8x32
"if the improvement is worth $2000+"
but probably will just keep what I have, and be happy.

edj

brocknroller said:

...Finally, are they going to adopt the dual-speed focusing system with the baby EL? Since midsized bins are often used for butterflying, I'd be surprised if they didn't. However, the slow focusing at close range has gotten some negative user reviews.

Has there been enough negative feedback for Swaro to take notice? Even if they have, a redesign of the redesign might be too costly at this point. They don't want the 8x32 SV EL to be priced higher than the 8.5x SV EL. Before the discounting, the 32's price was already too close to the 42's...

Click to expand...

Don't you mean to ask if they are going to adopt _a_ dual speed focusing system? No Swarovski presently has one. Likewise, I don't follow your use of "however". As a historical note, when the original 8x32 EL was released it cost slightly more than the going rate for the 8.5x42 EL at that time, _and_ it introduced the faster focus update. Shortly thereafter the focus ratio of the full-sized EL was changed and a bit later, its price was increased. But why should 8x32 bins cost less than 8.5x42 bins anyway? Do they cost less to manufacture (I say no)? I think it is just a matter of buyer's expectation and tradition--8x should cost less than 10x, full size should cost more than 2/3 size because they are lesser bins.

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

Don't you mean to ask if they are going to adopt _a_ dual speed focusing system? No Swarovski presently has one. Likewise, I don't follow your use of "however". As a historical note, when the original 8x32 EL was released it cost slightly more than the going rate for the 8.5x42 EL at that time, _and_ it introduced the faster focus update. Shortly thereafter the focus ratio of the full-sized EL was changed and a bit later, its price was increased. But why should 8x32 bins cost less than 8.5x42 bins anyway? Do they cost less to manufacture (I say no)? I think it is just a matter of buyer's expectation and tradition--8x should cost less than 10x, full size should cost more than 2/3 size because they are lesser bins.

--AP

Click to expand...

Whatever_you_want_to_call_it, you know what I mean. Some people don't like the slow focus at close range, but it seems likely to be a feature on the 8x32 SV EL.

Yes, I think there is an expectation of a midsized model, or at least a non-alpha midsized model, costing less than a full sized one. That's because companies price traditionally their midsized models lower.

Even at the "second tier," an 8x32 Meostar costs about $725, the 8x42 costs $879 (HOT TIP: EO has them priced within $50 of each other for the holidays!).

Do midsized models cost less to make? They have less glass, less metal, less rubber, so the materials cost should be less, and god_only_knows what the markup is on alphas! If stores can afford to discount 8x32 ELs to $1,399 from $1,999, you've to wonder.

I can understand a short-term price bump when a new midsized model is introduced that has more advanced features than its bigger brother, but if the 8x32 SV EL was to be priced $100 or more than the 8.5x SV EL, that would seem like a gaff.

Brock

brocknroller said:

Whatever_you_want_to_call_it, you know what I mean. Some people don't like the slow focus at close range, but it seems likely to be a feature on the 8x32 SV EL.

Click to expand...

Not to be stuck on this, but no, I'm genuinely confused as to whether you are predicting that the EL will likely have an enhanced design focus (i.e. dual ratio), or be conventional in design (i.e. potentially painfully slow at close range). My best guess is that you are joking that the conventional design will be marketed as a "feature" since it allows very precise focus at close distances where DOF is shallow (Which is all true enough, except that it isn't the problem that we confront in actual use). My confusion comes from being braced for confusion on this topic based on past experience. For example, Brunton's marketing people have an exactly backwards understanding of what their innovative variable ratio focus accomplishes. The newest wording about it is a little less descriptive, more ambiguous, but it is still wrong in implication. See for example http://store.bruntonoutdoor.com/optics/binoculars/epoch/epoch-reg-full-size-8.5x43/ . For a more explicitly wrong account, closer to what the Brunton marketing pitch used to say, read the 4th paragraph of this "review" http://www.optics4birding.com/RevBruntonEpoch.aspx . I found a Brunton rep at an ornithology meeting a few years back describing the bins like it reads in the optics4birding review despite having used the bins himself! When I showed him, using his demo pair, that he was describing their design completely backwards, it caused him such cognitive dissonance that he couldn't seem to understand what I was showing him. Magazine reviews likewise got it wrong. I wrote very carefully written e-mails to Brunton (even bothered to call the company to find out who they should be addressed to) and Optics4Birding to point out their errors, but got no responses in reply. They must think I'm crazy, and they obviously don't care to get it right because they haven't corrected their websites or product literature in the many years these have been out now. The only properly written account of the Brunton Epoch's focus I've seen is Steve Ingraham's http://betterviewdesired.com/Brunton-Epochs.php . I sure would like to see variable ratio focus and same 3ft close focus limit applied to a full or midsized bin with better optics than the Epoch. Interestingly, Pentax has avoided all this confusion by not even mentioning the dual ratio focus of the Papilio despite its critical importance for that model's functionality. Weird not to trumpet innovation, but maybe they decided that it would just confuse potential buyers and make them think that the Papilio were too complicated to operate or something. Instead, they market the converging objectives even though it is mostly a design gimmick as far as I can tell, and not actually very relevant to what that bin does.

Moral of story: (please) let's not confuse discussion of this topic with jokes etc more than it already is.
--AP