guyharrison
Member
Hello everyone at BirdForum. I have read these postings for quite some time and learned a great deal. This is the tale of I made my choice for “Ultimate” once in a lifetime binos. I hope it is useful for those going through this process, and amusing for you veterans!
After several years of on-and-off looking for an “ultimate” binocular, my wife gave me the surprise of a lifetime this Christmas :clap: by giving me my choice of any binocular sold at our local Audubon sanctuary store (at Corkscrew Swamp). The store stocks the top-line Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski bins, and gives you the chance to take all of them out into the field for basically hours of practical testing (if you are buying one of the top models). Although Nikon was not a stock item at the store, I felt confident that the three top German/Austrian makes would do for a range of choices!
This is to be a lifetime purchase for me (I can’t afford to be returning/swapping bins even if newer models are to come in the future), so I chose very carefully. I have no “vested interest” in one brand over another even though I own Zeiss camera lenses and Leica 10x25 binoculars.
By way of background, I am 48 years old, tall with average hand size, in average physical condition and with good eyesight. I am a serious amateur/semi-pro landscape photographer who shoots with Canon “L” (35mm) but, mainly, Carl Zeiss (medium format) film cameras. I am used to ultimate image quality as seen through high-power loupes, and view the Zeiss camera optics as absolutely the finest in the world (along with Leica). As for binoculars, I have been using, for over 15 years, Leica 10x25s. I love the image quality, and am fully aware of the low-light limitations. My new “ultimate” pair” would be chosen from a blank slate, with no preconditions.
My first choice: 8 or 10 power? This was the first, most important decision on a practical level, as magnification drives most of the viewing experience in my opinion. 8x gives wide fields, 10x gives more detail. For all my life, I have been used to 10x. The Corkscrew was a great place to re-visit this preconception. Here you can be in deep forest searching for warblers, and, literally, just turn around to look across large fields for hawks and soaring birds. Wading birds in deep cover, and large storks nesting high in trees are right next to one another. Bright sun, deep shade, close-up small birds and reptiles, and long-distance raptors are all mixed together.
I started in the store with the 8x models. There was a line of high-quality color photos of birds across one side, in relatively dim light. The wide field of the 8s was very evident (especially Swaro and Zeiss), as was their brightness. I could see more of the cards with the 8x. However, it was not nearly as easy to read the print with the 8x, or see the detail of the photos.
In the field, these impressions continued. With the 8x bins, it was amazingly easy to spot forest warblers and soaring distance birds (two areas where my 10x25 Leicas always gave problems). Once spotted and centered, however, I did not see that “every feather” image that the 10x bins provided. I did notice that the newer 10x models also had large fields of view, and that the warbler and soaring bird spotting was really pretty easy with these newer 10x bins as well. Getting a 10x close-up of a yellow warbler at 12 feet was incredible! For longer distances, raptors, etc, the 10x also was the clear choice. The SLIGHT advantage in “getting on the bird” of the 8x models did not become a driving factor for me, considering that the 10s were very close, and gave a much more pleasurable view of the bird and easier ID due to the greater visible detail.
For me, the extra sharpness, extra detail, easier identification of the 10x carried the day. As for handholding, the ergonomics of the newer bins allowed very steady handholding, with the 8x having some, but not any truly decisive, advantage here (more on this below). The 10x preference may be more typical of U.S. birding (definitely of Florida) where wide variations in lighting and terrain are very common. If most of my birding was in forest terrain, 8x would be a serious consideration, but, at Corkscrew, it was no contest–10x won hands down.
Next Choice: 32 or 42 mm lenses? This was a purely practical choice driven by weight and turned out to be easy. With the modern bins, I really did not see any impediment in the weight of the larger objectives. In most cases, the weight difference was about 8oz, roughly between 20 oz for 32s and 28 oz for the larger lenses. This did not translate into any serious physical burden sufficient to compromise on image quality, especially if you use a bino harness or waist bag instead of a neck strap. It took only a few minutes of handling at the counter to decide this point. This was more than borne out in the field at nightfall, and in the deep swamp, where the 42s were stunning in detail by comparison to 32s. I don’t know how some people can say they see little or no difference–it was very decisive to me.
So, I have decided on 10x42s–now for the nitty gritty! The Austro-German Shootout.! To cut to the chase (for those losing patience), I walked out with Swaro EL s. This was a surprise to me and how I got there might be useful for others considering a similar bankruptcy-inducing purchase.
Zeiss 10 x 42 FL. As you might expect, Zeiss was my pre-conceived favorite, given my years of experience with Zeiss lenses. I will say up front, the FL s are an absolutely superior piece of gear, well worthy of top ranking along with Swaro (to my regret, as a Leica owner, I did not think the Ultravid image measured quite up to these two, although still extremely good). As for their optics, my comments are “eye testing” only. I am not concerned with theoretical advantages or optical formulas (although I know them well), only the view. The Zeiss were extremely bright, with excellent contrast, no noticeable color fringing, and very sharp at the center. Colors were vibrant and very neutral (the quality of the ambient light had much more influence over color than the glass itself). In fact, in the center of the image, in normal light, I would say that the Zeiss view probably has a slight edge over Swaro.
What can I say that is negative? One thing only, this unique issue of “edge softness” that people keep speaking of. It is there and there is no question about it, about 25% of the outer view is soft. This is not to say “out of focus” as you can clearly see a bird and some detail, but very soft nonetheless. On both of the other bins I tried, you can “clean up” the edge by re-focusing, to bring the edge into excellent, almost-center-quality sharpness (while going a little soft in the center). This is typical spherical aberration. On the Zeiss, though, you can improve the edges somewhat, but not to the point of critical sharpness, by re-focusing. There is some other type of distortion present. There was one other thing I noticed. In extreme back-lighting, the brightness of the optics seemed accompanied by a slight veiling flare. This was very slight (backlighting is never a good way to view anything, anyway). My hunch is that this flare is due to internal lack of light suppression as opposed to flare on the lenses themselves, which was not evident in any significant degree.
Now to ergonomics. This is not an insubstantial issue, but often is not given due discussion. One of the grand virtues of this forum is its extreme focus on optical quality, but bins are also focused, carried, held for long periods, shared and otherwise handled. Ergonomics are important for a lifetime purchase. The ergonomics of the Zeiss were very good to excellent. The fat, but tapering tubes were very easy to grasp and hold, with the rubber and ribs giving a very solid grip. Focusing was excellent–very smooth with the image “popping” into focus. There was one flaw, the way the focus wheel is positioned sometimes makes the diopter wheel “pull out” when focusing. This, I must say, was extremely irritating even though it did only happen once (after finally spotting that flighty warbler!) The eyecups were excellent. Build quality seemed very solid, the strap lugs did not interfere with grip. For my hands and my size, the “feel” was very good indeed.
Leica 10x42 Ultravid. Right away, in the store, it seemed that the Leica’s view was not as bright as that of the Zeiss or Swaro. The store’s dim lighting brought this out, as did viewing in deep forest and at dusk. In addition, the field of view was not as wide as the Zeiss or Swaro. Given the price point, these differences disqualified the Leicas pretty promptly (they were the ones we reached for least in the field). Sharpness and contrast were superb, with the image really “snapping” into focus. Colors were vibrant and neutral, and flare was very well controlled. I did not notice objectionable color fringing (maybe just a hair more that the Zeiss and Swaro with crows against white clouds with the sun directly behind).
Ergonomically, the Leicas were more compact that the others, with a very good feel in the hand. Build quality seemed absolutely perfect–with Leica’s “tanklike” quality evident. Eyecups were excellent. Focus was superb-smooth, good speed. No problems with the diopter adjustment. Great rubber coating. They might be even better for people with slightly smaller hands, but also felt good in mine.
Swarovski 10x42 EL WB. The “surprise” winner. I had thought that the “older” optical design might not measure up to the newer models. I was wrong. I do not know if Swaro does “stealth” improvements or not, but the view was every bit as pleasurable as that of the Zeiss. Their fields of view were identical–very wide and open. Brightness was the same, despite Zeiss’ theoretical advantage. The brightness held all the way down to darkfall–it was amazing seeing more detail than my eye could show. Zeiss and Swaro equal here. There was a difference in contrast, because, in the Swaro, the brightness was not accompanied by veiling glare in any circumstance that I could throw at this glass. Flare was virtually non-existent at all angles. Of course, some “spot” flare could be produced on the lenses, when the view was virtually into the sun, but this did not translate to an overall veiling glare that substantially reduced image quality. This was an advantage over the Zeiss but only in severe backlight. In normal light, both had superior contrast and image “snap.” Swaro sharpness was outstanding, with “every feather” detail present all throughout the image. Sharpness extended well out towards the edges, more than the Zeiss, and edge softness could be rectified to critical sharpness by re-focusing as mentioned above. Although Zeiss dead-center sharpness was slightly better than Swaro, edge-to-edge sharpness was better with the Swaro. I preferred the latter, and, on the center sharpness, the difference is not much at all.
As for color, the Swaro had the same vibrant but neutral color tone as the Zeiss. Colors were true, but fully realized and intense. Some people speak of “warm” or “cold” color “tone” from binoculars, but I found that changing ambient light had more influence over the color of the view. I felt that the “tone” of both the Swaro and Zeiss were very similar, and either neutral or very slightly “warm” but I can’t really make a definitive judgment on that. Also, surprisingly, I found the Swaro to have very little color fringing in strong backlight, none that interfered with the view of the bird (given that the view is always terrible in backlight anyway). I could still see some color (minimal) and detail (better) in extreme backlight, which is all anyone can hope for. The Zeiss was not overtly better in these conditions. The Zeiss had no color fringe at all that I could see, but its slightly greater veiling flare made the view in backlight a little less desirable than the Swaro.
By the way, I am picking nits here. We are talking about two absolutely superb optical instruments, and only 3 hours of store/field viewing. Nonetheless, my conclusions were as follows as to optical quality, with the categories listed in order of importance to me:
Center Sharpness: Advantage Zeiss
Edge-to-Edge: Advantage Swaro (not insignificant)
Brightness: Deuce
Contrast: Advantage Swaro in strong backlight (not insignificant).
Color Fringing: Advantage Zeiss in strong backlight only.
Color Fidelity: Deuce
Field of View: Deuce
Overall, my preference was for the Swaro due to the sharpness/flare aspects discussed above, but the preference was slight. It is a preference that might even change on a day-to-day basis as the views are so close.
Ergonomics: This, however, was where the “rubber met the road” for me. There was just no comparison between the Swaro and Zeiss ergonomics. The Swaro “double barrel” design is a true breakthrough that no one has yet equaled. It has decisive advantages in several areas. First, carrying! I wrap my last three fingers around the barrel (it is totally ambidextrous and so does not matter which hand), and my forefinger falls perfectly on the focus wheel and my thumb falls exactly into the indent. I securely carry them in my hand at my side this way for hours in perfect comfort (and can switch hands if I want)–no need for any neckstrap, harness or waist bag at all! (Porro owners–you also enjoy a similar feel) They are “instantly ready” to immediately lift to my eyes and focus, or, if I want to share, to hand off instantly. There is just nothing like it in terms of getting on the bird! Next, viewing. Both hands wrap completely around the barrels for unmatched stability (even if you don’t use the thumb indents), way more that any “bridge” design gave me. Holding 10x was no problem even for long periods, and, with elbows close in on my chest, was stable even at extreme close-up views. It might not be image stabilization, but it is the next best thing. And yes, one-handed operation is very possible and natural if you need to do so.
The rest of the ergonomics are just as good. The barrels are wide (“fat?”) and therefore easy to grip. The rubber coating is just right with great adhesion but no “stickiness”. The focus is 1.5 turns from 8' to infinity, which I found ideal both in terms of speed and precision (I found the Zeiss to be a little too fast, just a personal preference). The focus wheel is smooth with no play and the diopter stays put! The eyecup operation in particular is very smooth and well damped, no “plastic” feel to it (although the detents are so soft as to be almost undetectable–but I don’t care for multiple detents anyway). Quality is evident–I have no rattles or squeaks or noises at all. In sum, not only is the Swaro image absolutely top-notch, its design for “real world” use is second to none.
Finally, a note about close focus. The Zeiss focus to 6.6 ft and the Swaro to 8 feet. I could discern absolutely no advantage in the field to Zeiss from this difference, even for butterfly/dragonfly observation, which I did have the chance to do in my test, as a slight move of your head makes up the difference. I did notice, however, in all binos striving for extreme close focus–(Zeiss FL, Brunton Epoch (really poor image, ugh, and even more expensive!) and Stokes Vortex (a top contender in that price range but not the equal of the big 3))–that the close focus ability came at the expense of requiring very fast focusing speed, making focusing imprecise and more difficult. All in all, I found extreme close focus (closer than 8 feet) a distinct disadvantage in “real world” birding, and I say this as a devout butterfly watcher.
Instead, I bought a pair of $120 Pentax Papillios (a best buy if I ever saw one!), which focus to 18 INCHES, for insect observation.
I hope this helps people looking to make a lifetime purchase.
For my part, I plunked down my $$$$$$$$$. After three more days of intense field use (8 hour days and OVER 50 SPECIES), I must join the ranks of satisfied and contented Swaro owners–these things just get better and better! It’s like HDTV for your eyes! :t:
Guy Harrison
Florida, USA
After several years of on-and-off looking for an “ultimate” binocular, my wife gave me the surprise of a lifetime this Christmas :clap: by giving me my choice of any binocular sold at our local Audubon sanctuary store (at Corkscrew Swamp). The store stocks the top-line Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski bins, and gives you the chance to take all of them out into the field for basically hours of practical testing (if you are buying one of the top models). Although Nikon was not a stock item at the store, I felt confident that the three top German/Austrian makes would do for a range of choices!
This is to be a lifetime purchase for me (I can’t afford to be returning/swapping bins even if newer models are to come in the future), so I chose very carefully. I have no “vested interest” in one brand over another even though I own Zeiss camera lenses and Leica 10x25 binoculars.
By way of background, I am 48 years old, tall with average hand size, in average physical condition and with good eyesight. I am a serious amateur/semi-pro landscape photographer who shoots with Canon “L” (35mm) but, mainly, Carl Zeiss (medium format) film cameras. I am used to ultimate image quality as seen through high-power loupes, and view the Zeiss camera optics as absolutely the finest in the world (along with Leica). As for binoculars, I have been using, for over 15 years, Leica 10x25s. I love the image quality, and am fully aware of the low-light limitations. My new “ultimate” pair” would be chosen from a blank slate, with no preconditions.
My first choice: 8 or 10 power? This was the first, most important decision on a practical level, as magnification drives most of the viewing experience in my opinion. 8x gives wide fields, 10x gives more detail. For all my life, I have been used to 10x. The Corkscrew was a great place to re-visit this preconception. Here you can be in deep forest searching for warblers, and, literally, just turn around to look across large fields for hawks and soaring birds. Wading birds in deep cover, and large storks nesting high in trees are right next to one another. Bright sun, deep shade, close-up small birds and reptiles, and long-distance raptors are all mixed together.
I started in the store with the 8x models. There was a line of high-quality color photos of birds across one side, in relatively dim light. The wide field of the 8s was very evident (especially Swaro and Zeiss), as was their brightness. I could see more of the cards with the 8x. However, it was not nearly as easy to read the print with the 8x, or see the detail of the photos.
In the field, these impressions continued. With the 8x bins, it was amazingly easy to spot forest warblers and soaring distance birds (two areas where my 10x25 Leicas always gave problems). Once spotted and centered, however, I did not see that “every feather” image that the 10x bins provided. I did notice that the newer 10x models also had large fields of view, and that the warbler and soaring bird spotting was really pretty easy with these newer 10x bins as well. Getting a 10x close-up of a yellow warbler at 12 feet was incredible! For longer distances, raptors, etc, the 10x also was the clear choice. The SLIGHT advantage in “getting on the bird” of the 8x models did not become a driving factor for me, considering that the 10s were very close, and gave a much more pleasurable view of the bird and easier ID due to the greater visible detail.
For me, the extra sharpness, extra detail, easier identification of the 10x carried the day. As for handholding, the ergonomics of the newer bins allowed very steady handholding, with the 8x having some, but not any truly decisive, advantage here (more on this below). The 10x preference may be more typical of U.S. birding (definitely of Florida) where wide variations in lighting and terrain are very common. If most of my birding was in forest terrain, 8x would be a serious consideration, but, at Corkscrew, it was no contest–10x won hands down.
Next Choice: 32 or 42 mm lenses? This was a purely practical choice driven by weight and turned out to be easy. With the modern bins, I really did not see any impediment in the weight of the larger objectives. In most cases, the weight difference was about 8oz, roughly between 20 oz for 32s and 28 oz for the larger lenses. This did not translate into any serious physical burden sufficient to compromise on image quality, especially if you use a bino harness or waist bag instead of a neck strap. It took only a few minutes of handling at the counter to decide this point. This was more than borne out in the field at nightfall, and in the deep swamp, where the 42s were stunning in detail by comparison to 32s. I don’t know how some people can say they see little or no difference–it was very decisive to me.
So, I have decided on 10x42s–now for the nitty gritty! The Austro-German Shootout.! To cut to the chase (for those losing patience), I walked out with Swaro EL s. This was a surprise to me and how I got there might be useful for others considering a similar bankruptcy-inducing purchase.
Zeiss 10 x 42 FL. As you might expect, Zeiss was my pre-conceived favorite, given my years of experience with Zeiss lenses. I will say up front, the FL s are an absolutely superior piece of gear, well worthy of top ranking along with Swaro (to my regret, as a Leica owner, I did not think the Ultravid image measured quite up to these two, although still extremely good). As for their optics, my comments are “eye testing” only. I am not concerned with theoretical advantages or optical formulas (although I know them well), only the view. The Zeiss were extremely bright, with excellent contrast, no noticeable color fringing, and very sharp at the center. Colors were vibrant and very neutral (the quality of the ambient light had much more influence over color than the glass itself). In fact, in the center of the image, in normal light, I would say that the Zeiss view probably has a slight edge over Swaro.
What can I say that is negative? One thing only, this unique issue of “edge softness” that people keep speaking of. It is there and there is no question about it, about 25% of the outer view is soft. This is not to say “out of focus” as you can clearly see a bird and some detail, but very soft nonetheless. On both of the other bins I tried, you can “clean up” the edge by re-focusing, to bring the edge into excellent, almost-center-quality sharpness (while going a little soft in the center). This is typical spherical aberration. On the Zeiss, though, you can improve the edges somewhat, but not to the point of critical sharpness, by re-focusing. There is some other type of distortion present. There was one other thing I noticed. In extreme back-lighting, the brightness of the optics seemed accompanied by a slight veiling flare. This was very slight (backlighting is never a good way to view anything, anyway). My hunch is that this flare is due to internal lack of light suppression as opposed to flare on the lenses themselves, which was not evident in any significant degree.
Now to ergonomics. This is not an insubstantial issue, but often is not given due discussion. One of the grand virtues of this forum is its extreme focus on optical quality, but bins are also focused, carried, held for long periods, shared and otherwise handled. Ergonomics are important for a lifetime purchase. The ergonomics of the Zeiss were very good to excellent. The fat, but tapering tubes were very easy to grasp and hold, with the rubber and ribs giving a very solid grip. Focusing was excellent–very smooth with the image “popping” into focus. There was one flaw, the way the focus wheel is positioned sometimes makes the diopter wheel “pull out” when focusing. This, I must say, was extremely irritating even though it did only happen once (after finally spotting that flighty warbler!) The eyecups were excellent. Build quality seemed very solid, the strap lugs did not interfere with grip. For my hands and my size, the “feel” was very good indeed.
Leica 10x42 Ultravid. Right away, in the store, it seemed that the Leica’s view was not as bright as that of the Zeiss or Swaro. The store’s dim lighting brought this out, as did viewing in deep forest and at dusk. In addition, the field of view was not as wide as the Zeiss or Swaro. Given the price point, these differences disqualified the Leicas pretty promptly (they were the ones we reached for least in the field). Sharpness and contrast were superb, with the image really “snapping” into focus. Colors were vibrant and neutral, and flare was very well controlled. I did not notice objectionable color fringing (maybe just a hair more that the Zeiss and Swaro with crows against white clouds with the sun directly behind).
Ergonomically, the Leicas were more compact that the others, with a very good feel in the hand. Build quality seemed absolutely perfect–with Leica’s “tanklike” quality evident. Eyecups were excellent. Focus was superb-smooth, good speed. No problems with the diopter adjustment. Great rubber coating. They might be even better for people with slightly smaller hands, but also felt good in mine.
Swarovski 10x42 EL WB. The “surprise” winner. I had thought that the “older” optical design might not measure up to the newer models. I was wrong. I do not know if Swaro does “stealth” improvements or not, but the view was every bit as pleasurable as that of the Zeiss. Their fields of view were identical–very wide and open. Brightness was the same, despite Zeiss’ theoretical advantage. The brightness held all the way down to darkfall–it was amazing seeing more detail than my eye could show. Zeiss and Swaro equal here. There was a difference in contrast, because, in the Swaro, the brightness was not accompanied by veiling glare in any circumstance that I could throw at this glass. Flare was virtually non-existent at all angles. Of course, some “spot” flare could be produced on the lenses, when the view was virtually into the sun, but this did not translate to an overall veiling glare that substantially reduced image quality. This was an advantage over the Zeiss but only in severe backlight. In normal light, both had superior contrast and image “snap.” Swaro sharpness was outstanding, with “every feather” detail present all throughout the image. Sharpness extended well out towards the edges, more than the Zeiss, and edge softness could be rectified to critical sharpness by re-focusing as mentioned above. Although Zeiss dead-center sharpness was slightly better than Swaro, edge-to-edge sharpness was better with the Swaro. I preferred the latter, and, on the center sharpness, the difference is not much at all.
As for color, the Swaro had the same vibrant but neutral color tone as the Zeiss. Colors were true, but fully realized and intense. Some people speak of “warm” or “cold” color “tone” from binoculars, but I found that changing ambient light had more influence over the color of the view. I felt that the “tone” of both the Swaro and Zeiss were very similar, and either neutral or very slightly “warm” but I can’t really make a definitive judgment on that. Also, surprisingly, I found the Swaro to have very little color fringing in strong backlight, none that interfered with the view of the bird (given that the view is always terrible in backlight anyway). I could still see some color (minimal) and detail (better) in extreme backlight, which is all anyone can hope for. The Zeiss was not overtly better in these conditions. The Zeiss had no color fringe at all that I could see, but its slightly greater veiling flare made the view in backlight a little less desirable than the Swaro.
By the way, I am picking nits here. We are talking about two absolutely superb optical instruments, and only 3 hours of store/field viewing. Nonetheless, my conclusions were as follows as to optical quality, with the categories listed in order of importance to me:
Center Sharpness: Advantage Zeiss
Edge-to-Edge: Advantage Swaro (not insignificant)
Brightness: Deuce
Contrast: Advantage Swaro in strong backlight (not insignificant).
Color Fringing: Advantage Zeiss in strong backlight only.
Color Fidelity: Deuce
Field of View: Deuce
Overall, my preference was for the Swaro due to the sharpness/flare aspects discussed above, but the preference was slight. It is a preference that might even change on a day-to-day basis as the views are so close.
Ergonomics: This, however, was where the “rubber met the road” for me. There was just no comparison between the Swaro and Zeiss ergonomics. The Swaro “double barrel” design is a true breakthrough that no one has yet equaled. It has decisive advantages in several areas. First, carrying! I wrap my last three fingers around the barrel (it is totally ambidextrous and so does not matter which hand), and my forefinger falls perfectly on the focus wheel and my thumb falls exactly into the indent. I securely carry them in my hand at my side this way for hours in perfect comfort (and can switch hands if I want)–no need for any neckstrap, harness or waist bag at all! (Porro owners–you also enjoy a similar feel) They are “instantly ready” to immediately lift to my eyes and focus, or, if I want to share, to hand off instantly. There is just nothing like it in terms of getting on the bird! Next, viewing. Both hands wrap completely around the barrels for unmatched stability (even if you don’t use the thumb indents), way more that any “bridge” design gave me. Holding 10x was no problem even for long periods, and, with elbows close in on my chest, was stable even at extreme close-up views. It might not be image stabilization, but it is the next best thing. And yes, one-handed operation is very possible and natural if you need to do so.
The rest of the ergonomics are just as good. The barrels are wide (“fat?”) and therefore easy to grip. The rubber coating is just right with great adhesion but no “stickiness”. The focus is 1.5 turns from 8' to infinity, which I found ideal both in terms of speed and precision (I found the Zeiss to be a little too fast, just a personal preference). The focus wheel is smooth with no play and the diopter stays put! The eyecup operation in particular is very smooth and well damped, no “plastic” feel to it (although the detents are so soft as to be almost undetectable–but I don’t care for multiple detents anyway). Quality is evident–I have no rattles or squeaks or noises at all. In sum, not only is the Swaro image absolutely top-notch, its design for “real world” use is second to none.
Finally, a note about close focus. The Zeiss focus to 6.6 ft and the Swaro to 8 feet. I could discern absolutely no advantage in the field to Zeiss from this difference, even for butterfly/dragonfly observation, which I did have the chance to do in my test, as a slight move of your head makes up the difference. I did notice, however, in all binos striving for extreme close focus–(Zeiss FL, Brunton Epoch (really poor image, ugh, and even more expensive!) and Stokes Vortex (a top contender in that price range but not the equal of the big 3))–that the close focus ability came at the expense of requiring very fast focusing speed, making focusing imprecise and more difficult. All in all, I found extreme close focus (closer than 8 feet) a distinct disadvantage in “real world” birding, and I say this as a devout butterfly watcher.
Instead, I bought a pair of $120 Pentax Papillios (a best buy if I ever saw one!), which focus to 18 INCHES, for insect observation.
I hope this helps people looking to make a lifetime purchase.
For my part, I plunked down my $$$$$$$$$. After three more days of intense field use (8 hour days and OVER 50 SPECIES), I must join the ranks of satisfied and contented Swaro owners–these things just get better and better! It’s like HDTV for your eyes! :t:
Guy Harrison
Florida, USA