• 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.

A few thoughts on the EL10X50SV and EL8.5X42SV (1 Viewer)

SuperDuty

Well-known member
United States
Your good ole binocular buddy SD here with some more musings, ramblings, just some more plain ole fun.3:) Since I've had a look at all of the 10X Swarovision models, I decided to give the 8.5 a try, I'll keep it short since both of these have been covered extensively in these forums, and you can't really go wrong with any one of the lineup. My main objective was to eliminate the slightly bothersome ( to my eyes, not necessarily anyone else's ) CA that I find in the 10X50, while retaining the ease of view and overall stellar image quality of that model. The 8.5 view is not quite the slap it up to the eyeballs and (bang, there it is) effect of the 10X50, but without direct comparison I would find absolutely no fault in that regard. Most of the differences between these two are naturally related to the 1.5X less magnification of the 8.5, basically if you want to see more fine detail go with the 10X. To my eyes the 8.5 has ease of view second only to the 10X50SV, it has obviously slightly less detail retrieval than the 10X50 but looks more crisp, sharp, and has better contrast. Of most importance to me, I can have the SV experience without seeing a level of CA that brothers me. Less intense CA coupled with a 54 ft larger FOV make it much easier to avoid the florescent purple and greenish yellow fringes I see in the 10X50 (just) out of the center FOV. This is what I see, and I understand that most people don't have the CA problem I have. Overall, to my eyes, the EL8.5X42SV is the finest optic I have yet seen, they don't match the 10X50 in some ways that will be more important to others, but they tick most of the boxes that are of most importance to me. Here's one for Brock, my 10X50 has a near perfect focus knob action, my 10X42 and this example of the 8.5 are acceptable but nothing special, the 10x32 I used a few days back, absolutely horrific. They were totally unacceptable, as is this level of inconsistency in a line of binoculars costing between two and three thousand dollars retail. Maybe owners of the new series won't have to worry about this issue. I would enjoy hearing what anyone else has to say.

Robert
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6863.jpg
    IMG_6863.jpg
    136.7 KB · Views: 384
SuperDuty,

You are not alone. My brand new 10x50 EL are uber fantastic in a jillion ways. But....the CA you speak of is definitely there. It can be dang near totally eliminated in the true center but still shows up quite a bit in an image that large.

I probably don't see it quite as badly as you do because while a little disappointing I can live with it (for now) just centering whatever is throwing the color, adjusting eyes, and squeezing the IPD way down.

As far as being an optic and showing me stuff closer......they are simply the best I have ever had. Period.

My focuser is tighter counter-clockwise than clockwise. It initally had a slight hitch in it but it was gone in an hour. Not a real life problem for me.

I can really notice a little AMD for the first time in these but it is low enough that nothing rolls or bothers me. I don't really notice the flat field up close but when on a hillside looking across the river and a valley of farmland, yeah it is really nice.

I know I am not able to focus on more than one tiny detail at a time but having more in focus helps somehow. Must speed up the mental processing somehow. Kind of like an action film with a faster frame rate.

I will compare mine to a 8.5 while I am still in the return period but would be surprised if i felt the need to make the switch.
 
Last edited:
One thing that became very apparent to me this morning in a couple of instances is how much more 3D the 10X50 view is. The 8.5 view as much as I like it, is compressed and flat appearing in comparison to the pronounced Porro like view the 10X50 has in certain circumstances. Trying to pick an overall winner between these two is a hell of a task.
 
One thing that became very apparent to me this morning in a couple of instances is how much more 3D the 10X50 view is. The 8.5 view as much as I like it, is compressed and flat appearing in comparison to the pronounced Porro like view the 10X50 has in certain circumstances. Trying to pick an overall winner between these two is a hell of a task.
The 10x50 SV just has more wow factor. It just seems more real. The 8x and the 8.5x are superb but the 10x is just a little better. What is different about the 10x SV is that most 10x's have more aberrations than the lower magnifications. In other words you are closer to the bird but there is a price you have to pay in clarity or sharpness. Not with the 10x50 SV. It just moves you closer and gives you more detail than the 8x or 8.5x.
 
One thing that became very apparent to me this morning in a couple of instances is how much more 3D the 10X50 view is. The 8.5 view as much as I like it, is compressed and flat appearing in comparison to the pronounced Porro like view the 10X50 has in certain circumstances. Trying to pick an overall winner between these two is a hell of a task.

Agreed Robert,

In all my direct glassing experiences between the EL-SV's over the past 6 months (8x32, 8.5x42, 10x42, 10x50, 12x50), the 10x50 SV's Clearly demonstrated a DOF stereopsis that to my eyes, is deeper, more relaxing and easier on my eyes than other EL's, as if you simply just stepped into the scene! They are very close to the best porros I've looked through (includes my Habicht 8x30 W's and 10x40 W GA's)! :eek!:

Actually, I found the 10x42 SV's closes to that 3D like effect, but again, the 10x50 is in a different league altogether. Not all members agree, but that's okay...as we've discovered, we all see things differently. I'm just tickled that as many members have stated before, I've also become adjusted to RBE and now do not see it in any of the EL series! ;)

Your choices are dealing with some of the Best Glass in the optics marketplace...whatever You Decide is still going to be Great for a long time to come...Enjoy the View! :t:

Merry Christmas,

Ted
 
Last edited:
Agreed Robert,

In all my direct glassing experiences between the EL-SV's over the past 6 months (8x32, 8.5x42, 10x42, 10x50, 12x50), the 10x50 SV's Clearly demonstrated a DOF stereopsis that to my eyes, is deeper, more relaxing and easier on my eyes than other EL's, as if you simply just stepped into the scene! They are very close to the best porros I've looked through (includes my Habicht 8x30 W's and 10x40 W GA's)! :eek!:

Actually, I found the 10x42 SV's closes to that 3D like effect, but again, the 10x50 is in a different league altogether. Not all members agree, but that's okay...as we've discovered, we all see things differently. I'm just tickled that as many members have stated before, I've also have become adjusted to RBE and now do not see it in any of the EL series! ;)

Your choices are dealing with some of the Best Glass in the optics marketplace...whatever You Decide is still going to be Great for a long time to come...Enjoy the View! :t:

Merry Christmas,

Ted
I agree with you Theo. The 3D effect in the 10x50 SV is stunning and better than the other SV's. I am not sure why. It just is. The 10x50 SV's are the only binocular I have looked through that beat the Canon 10x42 IS-L. I compared them for a long time and finally sold the Canon. Until the SV 10x50 the Canon was the best 10x I had ever used.
 
One thing that became very apparent to me this morning in a couple of instances is how much more 3D the 10X50 view is. The 8.5 view as much as I like it, is compressed and flat appearing in comparison ..........k.

Normally when I swap between a lower power and a higher power (8X vs 10X), especially in the same model line (brand/model and mm size), the lower power has more depth and the higher power view appears more compressed. I wonder why it is the opposite for the 8.5X42 SV vs the 10-x50 SV? Does the larger objective come into play?
 
Hi Bruce

I was able to compare the two this afternoon in the first clear bright air we've had since receiving the 8.5X, the difference in 3D between the two in pristine conditions seemed much less. The 8.5 is unquestionably sharper appearing and resolves considerably better than the 10X50 while standing 20 yards away with both scanning small details on a tree trunk. The advantage for the 10X should have been considerable since I didn't go closer with the 8.5 to compensate for the lower mag, these are by a wide margin the sharpest binoculars I have seen. DOF is also somewhat better on the 8.5.



Normally when I swap between a lower power and a higher power (8X vs 10X), especially in the same model line (brand/model and mm size), the lower power has more depth and the higher power view appears more compressed. I wonder why it is the opposite for the 8.5X42 SV vs the 10-x50 SV? Does the larger objective come into play?
 
Last edited:
Normally when I swap between a lower power and a higher power (8X vs 10X), especially in the same model line (brand/model and mm size), the lower power has more depth and the higher power view appears more compressed. I wonder why it is the opposite for the 8.5X42 SV vs the 10-x50 SV? Does the larger objective come into play?

some say it can be due to differences in collimation,
stereopsis is a bit like "rolling ball" some see it, some don't.
 
Hi Bruce

I was able to compare the two this afternoon in the first clear bright air we've had since receiving the 8.5X, the difference in 3D between the two in pristine conditions seemed much less. The 8.5 is unquestionably sharper appearing and resolves considerably better than the 10X50 while standing 20 yards away with both scanning small details on a tree trunk. The advantage for the 10X should have been considerable since I didn't go closer with the 8.5 to compensate for the lower mag, these are by a wide margin the sharpest binoculars I have seen. DOF is also somewhat better on the 8.5.

did you compare them on a tripod?

seems a bit strange that a 8.5x would resolve more than a 10x,

maybe you have a bad sample of the 10x50?
 
did you compare them on a tripod?

seems a bit strange that a 8.5x would resolve more than a 10x,

maybe you have a bad sample of the 10x50?
I know what he means. The 8.5x LOOKS sharper because the images are smaller or crisper. It actually doesn't resolve better though. If you try to read or look at detail you will see the 10x performs better.
 
Hi Bruce

I was able to compare the two this afternoon in the first clear bright air we've had since receiving the 8.5X, the difference in 3D between the two in pristine conditions seemed much less. The 8.5 is unquestionably sharper appearing and resolves considerably better than the 10X50 while standing 20 yards away with both scanning small details on a tree trunk. The advantage for the 10X should have been considerable since I didn't go closer with the 8.5 to compensate for the lower mag, these are by a wide margin the sharpest binoculars I have seen. DOF is also somewhat better on the 8.5.
Diopter, IPD and handshake all come to mind.

I have one question. Do you have each bin setup so that the image "snaps" into focus with absolutely no questions asked? Both the 8.5X42 and 10X50 SV's should easily "snap into focus" without any rocking back and forth. If one or both fails this test then any comparison is pretty much a waste of time.

PS
I have both bins and I can easily replicate your experience with minor diopter adjustments. When both bins are properly tuned to my eyes they produce highly detailed images on par with one another. I tested this an hour ago and, to my surprise, I saw what you saw. A few days ago, my 10X50 was adjusted for my sunglass prescription which didn't quite work my regular eyeglasses. A small diopter change solved the problem. Thanks for the reminder!
 
I'm not talking about the appearance of sharpness at long distance due to less magnification, I was at 20 yards looking at a maple tree trunk, the infinite fine details were far more defined with the 8.5, and I was putting the 8.5 at a disadvantage by not moving forward to compensate. If I were using a tripod and reading charts or text as well as moving closer the appropriate amount, it wouldn't be close. Do I have a exceptional 8.5 and a dud 10X50, I don't know.
 
I'm not talking about the appearance of sharpness at long distance due to less magnification, I was at 20 yards looking at a maple tree trunk, the infinite fine details were far more defined with the 8.5, and I was putting the 8.5 at a disadvantage by not moving forward to compensate. If I were using a tripod and reading charts or text as well as moving closer the appropriate amount, it wouldn't be close. Do I have a exceptional 8.5 and a dud 10X50, I don't know.

Do they both snap into focus?
 
I'm not talking about the appearance of sharpness at long distance due to less magnification, I was at 20 yards looking at a maple tree trunk, the infinite fine details were far more defined with the 8.5, and I was putting the 8.5 at a disadvantage by not moving forward to compensate. If I were using a tripod and reading charts or text as well as moving closer the appropriate amount, it wouldn't be close. Do I have a exceptional 8.5 and a dud 10X50, I don't know.




There is lots of contrast on tree trunks. It is easy to confuse it with sharpness. That is why focus is critical.

Check them both against A.F. charts or even dollar bills like Steve Ingraham did on "Better View Desired."
 
Last edited:
They are as optimised in diopter and IPD setting as I know how to get them, I've just about put myself in the looney bin comparing these damn things.:eek!:3:) Maybe I didn't get the best 10X50, or maybe the 8.5X42 is exceptional ? The 10x50 is a brand new 2014 model, the 8.5 is a 2010 demo that is indistinguishable from new. The 10X50 was sharper than the 10X42 SF I looked at, but was no sharper than a Japanese IF Porro I have that has always been my sharpness reference, the 8.5 is comfortably sharper than the any of the three. I don't have any answers other than what I see, the 10X50 will still allow you to see more with raw horsepower, they are fabulous and if I could talk myself into it I would keep them both.


Do they both snap into focus?
 
I'm not talking about the appearance of sharpness at long distance due to less magnification, I was at 20 yards looking at a maple tree trunk, the infinite fine details were far more defined with the 8.5, and I was putting the 8.5 at a disadvantage by not moving forward to compensate. If I were using a tripod and reading charts or text as well as moving closer the appropriate amount, it wouldn't be close. Do I have a exceptional 8.5 and a dud 10X50, I don't know.
It sounds like the 10x50 SV is a dud. You should easily see more detail with it than the 8.5x42 SV. Like Ceasar says try to read a license plate or Air Force Charts. Any 10x should KILL an 8.5x in detail and resolution.
 
Last edited:
The 1.5 X reduction in magnification doesn't make the glass of less quality or resolving power, it just has less optical horsepower. In reality I gave the 10 an enormous advantage by looking at the tree trunk from the same 20 yd distance and not moving closer with the 8.5, the difference is marked enough that efforts to quantify it further would be a waste of time. My 10X50 is not as sharp as the 8.5 I'm looking at, if I were using your 10X50, or any number of other 10X50 SVs, the results could very well be different. The weather here is rain for two days, my trial period on the 8.5 ends soon, and my free time is going to be less, so I will have to decide. I had just about decided to keep the 10 since I already own them, but that brief period of good conditions yesterday has me leaning towards the 8.5. With decent conditions, the view is pretty darned magical to these eyes. One area where the 8.5 is inferior to the 10X50 for sure is ease of view, there is only .1 mm difference in exit pupil size and both have 20mm eye relief, but the 10X50 is just a little less demanding about eye placement.



It sounds like the 10x50 SV is a dud. You should easily see more detail with it than the 8.5x42 SV. Like Ceasar says try to read a license plate or Air Force Charts. Any 10x should KILL an 8.5x in detail and resolution.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 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