Bubblevision, optical focus or pure nirvana? (1 Viewer)

One of the most talked about glass in the past two years has to be the swarovision series. Bigfoot uses a 50, mortal men the 42 and comfy folks the 32.

For some they are the greatest thing since sliced bread, for others they require Dramamine. Claims made about the focus wheel elevate the basic function into something more akin to an optical knob than a circular device to make the image seem bigger than life.

The price of admission is more than most folks mortgage, but does the law of diminishing returns prevent reality from rearing it's head?

Pardon me if I seem out of touch here but what does Bubble Vision have to do with "glass?"

Cryptic I agree. Bubble is another word for rolling ball. Swarovision or "bubble vision". Two barrels so how about "double bubble"?

Crunchy focus and bubble aside, amazing glass for sure. Contrast is higher than regular el, color richer, surprising 3d effect, no curved lines and sharp to the edge. May do a more complete review in relation other glass later.

newfie ghost said:

.......... May do a more complete review in relation other glass later.

Click to expand...

Which model did you end up with (8X32, 10X32, EL SV, EL WB, etc?).

With all the recent purchases, I lost track of who bought what (or if they ended up buying anything at all). I need to keep a score card. :eek!:

BruceH said:

Which model did you end up with (8X32, 10X32, EL SV, EL WB, etc?).

With all the recent purchases, I lost track of who bought what (or if they ended up buying anything at all). I need to keep a score card. :eek!:

Click to expand...

You took the words right out of my fingers! The OP read like it was translated by Bubblfish.

Being a bubbleballer, all models would probably have Bubblevision for me, but I want to know if newfie is a bigfoot, mortal man, or a comfy folk.

Also, lampooning a bin made by the hand of wizards, and using degradations such as "crunchy focuser," "Bubblevision," and the "law of diminishing returns" could bring forth the terrible wrath of the Defenders of Absam and their man-eating Alsaqr Almalaki falcons.

I don't intend to stick around for the blood bath.

B.

My wife's original EL got ripped off, and insurance replaced it with a Swarovision for free. Plus, it's really really hers, not mine. So, I don't, like, have a big row to hoe about it.

I think the improvements are overrated. (So does she.) I'm glad the CA is gone now, but rolling ball, hardly a disaster but only an equally niggling annoyance, makes about an even trade. The overall view in the old one was already impressive. If the new one is brighter, or higher in contrast, I don't notice it, not having the old one in hand to compare. And I would call the old one's edge sharpness already way better than necessary.

If you want a Swarovski and can afford it, go ahead and get the new one, why not? Heck, they're great, maybe a little better. But upgrading at considerable expense, nay even at modest expense, would not have been worth it to me. That said, we are pleased with punch with the new one.
Ron

ronh said:

My wife's original EL got ripped off, and insurance replaced it with a Swarovision for free. Plus, it's really really hers, not mine. So, I don't, like, have a big row to hoe about it.

I think the improvements are overrated. (So does she.) I'm glad the CA is gone now, but rolling ball, hardly a disaster but only an equally niggling annoyance, makes about an even trade. The overall view in the old one was already impressive. If the new one is brighter, or higher in contrast, I don't notice it, not having the old one in hand to compare. And I would call the old one's edge sharpness already way better than necessary.

If you want a Swarovski and can afford it, go ahead and get the new one, why not? Heck, they're great, maybe a little better. But upgrading at considerable expense, nay even at modest expense, would not have been worth it to me. That said, we are pleased with punch with the new one.
Ron

Click to expand...

I really quite agree with you. I spent a good bit of time with the 'old' EL (both 8x32 and 10x32) before ordering and getting the 10x32 EL SV. The differences are slight. Slight, but better none the less. I could afford the new ones, so got them. They are wonderful. I'm sending this one back, though, on the outside chance the next one I get will have a little better focus feel.

It's not like the focus feel is bad, it is just not perfect. Maybe I'll get lucky, but more likely it'll be the same, and I'll just accept it for what it is - a nearly perfect binoc.

Glad I got the 10x though, they are bright, easy to hold steady, and provide my old eyes a little extra boost.

John F

Be careful of memory comparisons, do the side by side. I got busted doing this many times.

I know what you mean newfie, and I haven't done that. But I used to AB the old EL (a 2005 model, and by then there had been improvements in coatings and focusing speed) with my FL, and to my eyes it did not hurt for color, illumination, nor sharpness. The picture window super sweet spot was beautiful. I would probably have picked it over the FL, except for the noticeable CA, against which I was at the time on a crusade. (I have since un-taught myself to see CA. There are just too many great binoculars that show a tad, to get hung up on a little something like that.) I don't mean to knock the Swarovision or try to bring anybody down who owns one. It's as good as it gets, enviable and a good investment. To some sensitive eyes, Swarovision may indeed be a great improvement, and I respect that. But to me it's not like, salvation at last. The original is really good too.
Ron

ronh said:

I know what you mean newfie, and I haven't done that. But I used to AB the old EL (a 2005 model, and by then there had been improvements in coatings and focusing speed) with my FL, and to my eyes it did not hurt for color, illumination, nor sharpness. The picture window super sweet spot was beautiful. I would probably have picked it over the FL, except for the noticeable CA, against which I was at the time on a crusade. (I have since un-taught myself to see CA. There are just too many great binoculars that show a tad, to get hung up on a little something like that.) I don't mean to knock the Swarovision or try to bring anybody down who owns one. It's as good as it gets, enviable and a good investment. To some sensitive eyes, Swarovision may indeed be a great improvement, and I respect that. But to me it's not like, salvation at last. The original is really good too.
Ron

Click to expand...

Ron,

How did you un-teach yourself to see CA? Do you overload your inputs with supersaturated colors and cause inattentional blindness?

‘;’;l (the BF member formerly known as "Brock")

brocknroller said:

Ron,

How did you un-teach myself to see CA? Do you overload your inputs with supersaturated colors and cause inattentional blindness?

‘;’;l (the BF member formerly known as "Brock")

Click to expand...

It's easy; buy a really expensive pair that has poor CA correction. That way you can never admit to yourself that you see the colour fringing, after all the money you spent.

There may be a better way too...

ronh said:

I know what you mean newfie, and I haven't done that. But I used to AB the old EL (a 2005 model, and by then there had been improvements in coatings and focusing speed) with my FL, and to my eyes it did not hurt for color, illumination, nor sharpness. The picture window super sweet spot was beautiful. I would probably have picked it over the FL, except for the noticeable CA, against which I was at the time on a crusade. (I have since un-taught myself to see CA. There are just too many great binoculars that show a tad, to get hung up on a little something like that.) I don't mean to knock the Swarovision or try to bring anybody down who owns one. It's as good as it gets, enviable and a good investment. To some sensitive eyes, Swarovision may indeed be a great improvement, and I respect that. But to me it's not like, salvation at last. The original is really good too.
Ron

Click to expand...

You can see CA in the SV? Do you see it in the FL? Sometimes I did see CA under poor conditions with the Non-SV. Can't see it in the SV, but I am not that sensitive to it. Remember I'm the one who loves the Premier, which is deemed to be a big offender of CA. BTW, even after the SV, I still love the Premier.

Of course I can see CA on most glass at the edges under high contrast conditions (e.g., tree branch into a gray sky). But on ground views under a gray sky, at the center of most glass I can't see it that much. Now put it on a sunny day and on an Egret, I will see it with a non-SV.

Brock, my SV sample turns well in the CCW, but harder and a bit crunchy in the CW direction. Score Brock 1, my sample 0. This is kind of sad given that my $100 Nikon Travellite is smooth as butter.

Despite the loss in score point one, let's look at a bigger fish- the focus speed. I was fortunate to see some wonderful Ceder Waxwings at nearly eye level about 15 feet away. This a sort of rare around here as they are skittish and hang out at the tops of trees. Then I hear this loud nose to my left in the distance I take aim, flick the focus, and miss, flick the focus again, miss. By the third flick I was in focus but the bird was gone. In the end, it was a Green Heron (not super common around here, but a nice view), but the snail slow focus missed my target. I guess I will have to get used to it. Brock 2, my sample 0.

Don't worry SV owners, the worst of the review is almost over. Your turn- redemption- will come soon!

I can indeed see CA in both the FL and the Swarovision. You don't have to go far off axis to see it if you are looking for it. With slightly imperfect eye positioning, it is there in the middle as well. But the FL and Swarovision are a definite improvement in this department, over other binoculars that I have used. With correct eye positioning, I almost never notice color fringing as far from the center as I need to look, in harsh light.
It strikes me, however, that the view under such circumstances is so bad anyhow that the prescence or absence of color fringing is a small effect on an already terrible situation. Like, you can't see the bird, so why not look for color fringing?

But what really happened to complete my desensitization was, I stopped believing that the difference between a modest and near-zero degree of fringing in harsh light had any carry over to the view in normal circumstances. Some of the best views that I have seen, under normal lighting, come from models that show appreciable fringing in bad light. The original 8.5x42 EL, which showed quite a bit of fringing, is a case in point. Others are the big Fujinon 7x50, and Leica Ultravid 10x50 BR. Such binoculars are good enough for me. They may not be good enough for everybody, all the better to lower the prices of used ones! I'm afraid I'm not on the very highest mountaintop.
Ron

PS. I apologize for getting in the way of Newfie's review. Just trying to answer a question. Exit, stage right.

Ok here is the last quibble about the SV and probably the most famous- rolling ball or bubble effect. If you don't see it GREAT. Stop reading about it. For those who do, here is a comparison of the "offenders" in my collection. First up the nikon EDG, not bad at all, I can see it in some cases but it should be fine for most people. Next is the nikon Premier 8x20lxl, again the issue is minor but a bit more than the EDG. Next is the premier 8x42 which in my opinion is fine, but it has slightly more than the rest. Last but not least, the 8.5x42 SV, the one I bought for my wife. It has the most by a long shot. To me it is very noticeable, especially if you look near the outer 1/3. Score Brock 3, my sample 0. That sums up all the quibbles. Next will come the praise. Is it all hype, too much money?

newfie ghost said:

Ok here is the last quibble about the SV and probably the most famous- rolling ball or bubble effect. If you don't see it GREAT. Stop reading about it. For those who do, here is a comparison of the "offenders" in my collection. First up the nikon EDG, not bad at all, I can see it in some cases but it should be fine for most people. Next is the nikon Premier 8x20lxl, again the issue is minor but a bit more than the EDG. Next is the premier 8x42 which in my opinion is fine, but it has slightly more than the rest. Last but not least, the 8.5x42 SV, the one I bought for my wife. It has the most by a long shot. To me it is very noticeable, especially if you look near the outer 1/3. Score Brock 3, my sample 0. That sums up all the quibbles. Next will come the praise. Is it all hype, too much money?

Click to expand...

3 to 0, sounds like a hockey score!

I'd still like to try an SV EL before making my final pronouncement of it as an RB+ (positive) bin, but you're the second person who found its RB more offending than the LXL, and I know how bad the RB looks to me in the LXL, so I'd be astonished if the SV EL didn't "roll the bird down".....

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2440159&posted=1#post2440159

Ok Brock, I'll stop keeping score. Back to the review. Fit and feel- the 42 is a fairly big piece of glass about the same length as a 42fl. The fl is long because of the special prisms. I assume the SV is long because of the eye pieces needed to get long eye relief and big field of view? Any thoughts? Unlike the fl, the SV is easier to hold for me, better balanced over all. Not a perfect balance but nice. My 42 fl always always felt awkward in my hands, front heavy.

Perceived quality. The ultravid hd and the fl seem somewhat mundane in terms of feel. They don't look or feel expensive to me. The EDG is somewhat better, but the SV does feel like a quality instrument. Solid, heavy feeling. It weights as much as the 42 lxl or hgl but feels much heavier, very weird. I am sure this SV is no Steiner in terms of toughness, but it does feel very sturdy. The rubber is firm and the body feels a bit cool to the touch.

Eye relief is long, I pull out the eyecups slightly with glasses on. The lxl and SV are the king of eye relief. If you have deep set eyes, the SV is great.

The objective lens covers stay on the binocular! This is great since, they are useless on the 8x32el because they fall off so easy. In the case of the 32 I take them off in the field.

Ok color, I was never impressed with the 8x32el color. Very accurate, mind you, but flat to my eyes. I like the fl color better than non SV, but always preferred nikon and leica in the color department. The SV color is improved, very accurate and very pleasing.

Field flatteners. This is what the SV was made for. Lines don't bend, but maybe a hint of bubble on the extreme edges. The bend does seem less than the EDG.

Sharpness to the edge, again a strong point of the SV. Sharp well out to the edge. Not 100%, but pretty far out. I think it is a bit shaper to the edge than the EDG.

Center sharpness. From what I was told, you can't have edge sharpness and high center sharpness in the same binocular. There is supposed to be a trade off. In this case, there is both. I am killing my eyes to see which is sharper, so I have to quit for now.

No, no, by all means keep score, I was just disappointed it was so low.

Interesting that apparent weight = better quality. By that measure, the Pentax PIF bins should be at the top of the heap!

But I know what you mean. The feeling of a bin being "solid" makes you confident that it's built well.

A while back I looked up the tensile strength of polycarbonate, and it was six times lower than aluminum, which is used in many binoculars.

So the FL wouldn't stand a chance in one of those, hey, Rufus, let's run over our binoculars with the truck and see what happens tests.

However, tensile strength isn't everything. "Polycarbonate is a tough, dimensionally stable, transparent thermoplastic that has many applications which demand high performance properties."

Those properties are outlined here:
http://www.sdplastics.com/polycarb.html

Even though it might feel "cheap," the polycarbonate fiber reinforced body of the FL could be a superior material for making binoculars. But how many complaints have I read about its "plasticy feel"?

Zeiss FLs had a perceptual problem, which Zeiss might have overcome by touting the virtues of polycarbonate and by giving the FL a synthetic covering that felt more like rubber than plastic. Even so, its "plasticy feel" didn't seem to hurt sales.

The LXL and SV EL both can't be "king" of ER. There is only one king. Perhaps one could be a prince?

Who told you that you can't have edge sharpness and high center sharpness in the same binocular?

You probably heard me repeat that, but with the caveat that it was Zeiss' design philosophy, not that it was necessary so.

I first learned about this from Stephen Ingraham when he had a Website called zbirding and he was answering questions on the forum about why the edges on the FL were "fuzzy".

"To optimize the sharpness in the center" was his answer.

Although there is certainly a propaganda element to his answer, if you check out Edz's technical reports on Cloudy Nights, you'll see that, indeed, resolution does fall off as you move to the edge, even in binoculars with field flatteners.

However, he's measuring that fall off in thousandths of an arc second and using splitting double stars as a test.

So for daytime use, you might not see any difference in sharpness between the centerfield and edges in a bin with field flatteners.

Similarly, Henry performed an "artificial star" test on the 8x32 SE and photographed it. It showed an increasing amount of vignetting as he moved the star toward edges of the the SE, which I don't notice in daytime until I get to the extreme edge where I see the view is darkened.

In a recent 8x32 comparison test, measurements showed that the three alpha 8x32s had a resolution of better than 3.5" and 8x32 "achieved" 3.5" (not that I believe it, mind you . In actual use in the field that difference is going to amount to a hill of beans. A larger difference, however, would be noticeable.

So when it comes to comparing one top banana against another, it comes to down to personal preferences and sample variation.

What perturbed me about the tests of 8x32s is that the tester measured resolution in both barrels, and more often than I expected found differences, sometimes significant.

As Henry mentioned recently on the allbinos thread, a bin isn't even worth testing if it is too far below par.

I haven't done double sided tests with all the binoculars in my present stable. In fact, I've only had two of them longer than three years. In my optics testing days, I thoroughly tested every bin I purchased or borrowed. The two surviving from those days are "cherry" samples. The lesser performing samples of the same bins are gone.

Now I only do cursory tests, but I think I can tell which ones are good, better and best samples. Mainly because I keep buying the same bins over and over again so I know what to look for!

Being pretty pleased with them, I'm not sure I want to know if one side has some defect that I can only see at boosted power. It might trick my mind into seeing that defect, and I might start obsessing over it.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

Brock

Newfie: Great review ....... now only if I knew what specific models you were testing! |=)|

My guesses:

8.5X42 Swarovski EL Swarovision - I recall comments that your wife has one.

8X32 Nikon EDG I - I'm not sure if you previously mentioned the EDG I or II or 8X vs 10X.

No guesses on the Lica, Zeiss and possibly other Swarovski models.

BruceH said:

Newfie: Great review ....... now only if I knew what specific models you were testing! |=)|

My guesses:

8.5X42 Swarovski EL Swarovision - I recall comments that your wife has one.

8X32 Nikon EDG I - I'm not sure if you previously mentioned the EDG I or II or 8X vs 10X.

No guesses on the Lica, Zeiss and possibly other Swarovski models.

Click to expand...

Lol, sorry. I am testing the 8.5x42sv, 8x42lxl, lecia ultravid hd 7x42, 8x32 el ( non SV), 8x20lxl and EDG I 8x32. The zeiss reference is the 10x42fl. In many cases apples to oranges, but at least they are direct comparisons. To be honest, as Brock just said, it really is splitting hairs. Wife says SV wins and maybe she is right, but ultravid is pretty strong too. Can't go wrong with either really. I think my collection is complete.

Didn't compare the 8x30 willdlife pro but it is not really fair. All the same the center sharpness is really impressive if you get the diopter set right. Get it wrong and things get ugly.

Of the bunch the 8x20 lxl is the best value for the dollar. The sharpness is amazing considering the price. Easiest to look through is the ultravid, bright and massive depth of field. Premier 8x42 is one of my favorites, again value is very high for the performance, fits well in the hand, butter focus and robust. 8x32 el's strength is center sharpness and feel in the hand. EDG 8x32 is robust great color nice flat field and sharp edges. It doesnt hurt I paid 699 for it. Yes that is no lie, best deal I ever got! Sharpness of the 8x25 travellite makes me laugh, butter focus and impressive sharpness for 100 bucks. Have an action extreme 16x50, eye placement is tricky, but looks good on the moon minus the ca. I had some others and gave them away.