• 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.

Is the best roof in the world better optically than the best porro? (1 Viewer)

When are you going to post a review of the little 8 x 32 Swaro comparing it to the 8 x 32 SE, the Leica and the Zeiss?
You know, a detailed test comparing them and their "quality of view overall."
I would have to go by memory and I don't think that would be fair.

There is a disconnect here somewhere.:h?:
Captain!! We have reached maximum irony levels!!!
Dammit Jim !


It's Dennis, Jim, but not as we know him, not as we know him, Captain!
 
Last edited:
All of Dennis's threads should be immediately hijacked and then taken far of topic.

I bought a three pack of 20"X25"X1" furnace filters last night at Walmart for less than three dollars.
 
All I want to try is a 7x42SV.............I know, I know I`m the only one.......or am I ?
 
Last edited:
Dennis nailed it. The 8X32 Swarovision will probably outsell the 8X32 FL/Ultravid's in short order.
Birders love it...read the 5/15 and 5/29 reviews.
http://www.eagleoptics.com/binocula...sion-8x32-binocular?tab=customer_reviews#tabs

Reminder here that this is off topic concerning my question to Dennis. Issue was not which ones would outsell the others. That has been largely settled by now.

My original question asked when Dennis was going to do a comparative review of these binoculars along with the SE and the Ultravid.

Bob
 
All I want to try is a 7x42SV.............I know, I know I`m the only one.......or am I ?

Don't hold your breath. Swarovski dropped 7 x 42s because they don't sell sell. That has been stated many times by the Swarovski rep here.

Besides they would run into tough competition from the Nikon 7 x 42 EDG.

It just occurred to me that one of the reasons Swarovski has an 8.5 x 42 might be because none of the other 3 alpha manufacturers make one? Anybody ever think of that?

Bob
 
Yesterday I went back up to the nature store to finally spend some time trying the Victory FL 8x32. This was the first time I took a good long look. Well the little FL has something to say about this notion of the SV being superior to all. What a bright, rich beautiful image the FL achieves. I couldn't tell which was better (SV/FL). The Ultravid falls behind both mainly b/c it's not as bright yet it still has a very nice image. If I were to purchase today I'd go for the Ultravid, as it's a nice blend of what I desire; nice image, compact and light. It also is built well and feels tough and durable (not to say that the others aren't built well). The CA is not controlled in the UV as well as in the FL and SV, but it wasn't bothersome to me.
 
Last edited:
Reminder here that this is off topic concerning my question to Dennis. Issue was not which ones would outsell the others. That has been largely settled by now.

My original question asked when Dennis was going to do a comparative review of these binoculars along with the SE and the Ultravid.

Bob
There's no need...it's been done by more than one interested party.
 
Charming red binocular

Hello Annabeth,

I thought that I might give you a glimpse of my Leica BN. My 8x32 FL has superseded it as my "goto" binocular. I let you decide if it has any charm.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
 

Attachments

  • Leica.jpg
    Leica.jpg
    80.6 KB · Views: 45
All of Dennis's threads should be immediately hijacked and then taken far of topic.

I bought a three pack of 20"X25"X1" furnace filters last night at Walmart for less than three dollars.

That's hard to believe! What number are they rated at? Too bad I don't shop at Walmart. Oh, and be careful, those cheap filters might have friable asbestos as their filtering medium. You know how Chinese industry loves to "re-purpose" their toxic waste!

How 'bout those Mets?
 
Don't hold your breath. Swarovski dropped 7 x 42s because they don't sell sell.

Bob

No doubt, however I was talking this very point over with my local Swaro outlet today, (very nice chap named Roger), and pointed out that Swaro still do a 12x50 and 15x56, he`s never sold or even been asked for one, but a 7x42 ? oh yeah, he gets asked about them quite often.

Go figure !
 
Yesterday I went back up to the nature store to finally spend some time trying the Victory FL 8x32. This was the first time I took a good long look. Well the little FL has something to say about this notion of the SV being superior to all. What a bright, rich beautiful image the FL achieves. I couldn't tell which was better (SV/FL). The Ultravid falls behind both mainly b/c it's not as bright yet it still has a very nice image. If I were to purchase today I'd go for the Ultravid, as it's a nice blend of what I desire; nice image, compact and light. It also is built well and feels tough and durable (not to say that the others aren't built well). The CA is not controlled in the UV as well as in the FL and SV, but it wasn't bothersome to me.


Annabeth, as a previous owner of an 8x32FL I concur, its still a cracking binocular and one of the most complete performers around, it follows a different path to Swaro, but Amen to that.

Its all about choice, right ?

John.
 
Damn, I could be doomed.:gn:

That's hard to believe! What number are they rated at? Too bad I don't shop at Walmart. Oh, and be careful, those cheap filters might have friable asbestos as their filtering medium. You know how Chinese industry loves to "re-purpose" their toxic waste!

How 'bout those Mets?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 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