[James Bean]

Do I detect Freudian slips in these eulogies (or maybe ducking and weaving)?
Ingle 1970:"...it has the smoothest I have ever come across in any Swarovski".
Dennis:"I don't think the Swaro's as smooth as the Nikon's... but it feels more precise".
Would anyone care to offer a third opinion (especially on less smooth = more precise)?

[RJM]

Originally Posted by James Bean

Do I detect Freudian slips in these eulogies (or maybe ducking and weaving)?
Ingle 1970:"...it has the smoothest I have ever come across in any Swarovski".
Dennis:"I don't think the Swaro's as smooth as the Nikon's... but it feels more precise".
Would anyone care to offer a third opinion (especially on less smooth = more precise)?

The focuser knob on the Swarovisions I looked at the otherday felt plastic-like. On the 10x sample, there was also a very noticeable "bumpity bump" feeling when turning focusing the knob clockwise but not counterclockwise. Did not feel this in the 8.5x sample but the rolling ball effect was easy to see in that sample but was MIA in the 10x.

[Kammerdiner]

Originally Posted by James Bean

Do I detect Freudian slips in these eulogies (or maybe ducking and weaving)?
Ingle 1970:"...it has the smoothest I have ever come across in any Swarovski".
Dennis:"I don't think the Swaro's as smooth as the Nikon's... but it feels more precise".
Would anyone care to offer a third opinion (especially on less smooth = more precise)?

First let me apologise to Brock and all for any lack of civility on my part. It was unintentional but also uncalled for. Birdforum is a classy joint, for the most part. I meant no disrespect.

Now for the SV focus. It's not as smooth as it could be, but I suspect Swaro did it on purpose. As Dennis said, the sharpness is impressive and getting both barrels to focus equally requires close tolerances. Close tolerance means tight focus, at least initially. I have a number of bins that focus better in one direction than the other, including the Zeiss FL. The Zeiss is smoother, but I've got to focus from the same direction every time if I want the absolute best view. I think it has to do with having, a) top notch optics, and b) two separate focus trains. You've got to keep them synchronized, especially for old fogeys like me whose accomodation appears to be about zilch (my optometrist loves me because I can nail the exam in ten seconds flat). The SV focuses the same in either direction and in the field that's a nice feature.

It's like cars in a way, whose piston rings and bearings are designed to "break in" during the first thousand miles or so. I've only had the SV for three months but it appears to be getting smoother already.

Mark

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by Kammerdiner

First let me apologise to Brock and all for any lack of civility on my part. It was unintentional but also uncalled for. Birdforum is a classy joint, for the most part. I meant no disrespect.

Now for the SV focus. It's not as smooth as it could be, but I suspect Swaro did it on purpose. As Dennis said, the sharpness is impressive and getting both barrels to focus equally requires close tolerances. Close tolerance means tight focus, at least initially. I have a number of bins that focus better in one direction than the other, including the Zeiss FL. The Zeiss is smoother, but I've got to focus from the same direction every time if I want the absolute best view. I think it has to do with having, a) top notch optics, and b) two separate focus trains. You've got to keep them synchronized, especially for old fogeys like me whose accomodation appears to be about zilch (my optometrist loves me because I can nail the exam in ten seconds flat). The SV focuses the same in either direction and in the field that's a nice feature.

It's like cars in a way, whose piston rings and bearings are designed to "break in" during the first thousand miles or so. I've only had the SV for three months but it appears to be getting smoother already.

Mark

That pretty says what I was trying to say. The initial tightness is so when it does break in it will not have too much slop. I still prefer it over the Nikon because there is a little feedback coming from the focus wheel and it lets me know precisely how much I moved it. It is more precise like a micrometer than the Nikon. I tend to hit the correct focus quicker with the Swarovision, whereas, with the Nikon I will often times pass prime focus and have to back up. The focus you desribe as plasticky is actually made of two materials so it has good feel for glove use while still being strong and durable. The Swarovision's are not perfect but they are the best binoculars you can buy right now.

[RJM]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

.. It is more precise like a micrometer than the Nikon. I tend to hit the correct focus quicker with the Swarovision, whereas, with the Nikon I will often times pass prime focus and have to back up.

Many optical experts will say passing thru focus and the backing up is the correct method to focus a binocular.

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by Kammerdiner

First let me apologise to Brock and all for any lack of civility on my part. It was unintentional but also uncalled for. Birdforum is a classy joint, for the most part. I meant no disrespect.

Now for the SV focus. It's not as smooth as it could be, but I suspect Swaro did it on purpose. As Dennis said, the sharpness is impressive and getting both barrels to focus equally requires close tolerances. Close tolerance means tight focus, at least initially. I have a number of bins that focus better in one direction than the other, including the Zeiss FL. The Zeiss is smoother, but I've got to focus from the same direction every time if I want the absolute best view. I think it has to do with having, a) top notch optics, and b) two separate focus trains. You've got to keep them synchronized, especially for old fogeys like me whose accomodation appears to be about zilch (my optometrist loves me because I can nail the exam in ten seconds flat). The SV focuses the same in either direction and in the field that's a nice feature.

It's like cars in a way, whose piston rings and bearings are designed to "break in" during the first thousand miles or so. I've only had the SV for three months but it appears to be getting smoother already.

Mark

Apology accepted. Let's agree to disagree some more - civilly!

Glad to hear your SV focuses the same in both directions if by that you mean smoothly, because I wouldn't count on a "breaking-in period" for it to become smoother. I tried a 2001 EL last year, which should have had plenty of time to "break in" but it still focused significantly more stiffly in one direction than the other. Same with a 2009 8x30 SLCNeu I tried, though not as stiffly ("I don't have any problem with my 8x30 SLC's focuser" - just beating Steve to the punch :-).

After spending two weeks with both bins, my index finger was "plum wore out" (to borrow a Texan phrase), mostly from the EL since it has an EP-end focuser. My ring fingers were also worn out from the 8x30's objective end focuser, because I'm not used to turning motion with my ring fingers, just tapping on the keyboard.

I use my index fingers for typing and "mousing" all day long, and my index fingers' tendons are tight as a result ("trigger finger"). I do a lot of close-in birding, which requires a lot of focusing, so a front-end focuser that turns smoothly in both directions is a "must".

I've read numerous posts and some reviews about Swaro focusers focusing harder in one direction than the other (and posted links to some of those on another thread when someone challenged me on that), and I recently corresponded with the owner of a 2009 10x42 SLCNeu, who said the same thing about his bin turning harder in one direction. He's a hunter and doesn't focus close or change focus as often as most birders do, so the extra stiffness in one direction doesn't bother him.

Somebody gave an explanation or perhaps a speculation about the cause of this difference in focusing tension on a BF thread a while back, I think it had something to do with pushing the air inside the tubes with the internal focus lens. But Nikons have internal focusers too, so I'm not sure how that explains the difference in focusing tension in one direction.

A similar problem applies to Dennis' explanation, which implies that the EDG focuses with less precision than the SV EL. Having tried an EDG, I can say assuredly that the focuser turned "smooth as butter" in both directions to pinpoint sharpness" (literally on stars).

If you can turn the focuser a bit more on the SV EL and get an already sharp image even sharper, that only shows that the binoculars have good depth of field and/or have a focuser that isn't overly fast. You can't do that with the 8x32 HG, and it's not because the image isn't sharp or that the barrel tolerances are inferior. The 8x32 HG focuses from cf to infinity in less than 1/2 turn. Just a tiny nudge of the focuser and the object in front or back of your target is in focus or out of focus, depending on the direction you turn the focuser.

In any case, it's a "mute" point for me (to borrow another "Ringoism" from Steve). I had an interest in the 7x42 SLCneu, so the focuser was a concern at one point, but now that the lighter weight, open bridge 7x42 EDG I is selling for the same price as the heavier, non-ED glass 7x42 Swaro, my interest in this issue is more academic than practical.

Brock

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by brocknroller

Apology accepted. Let's agree to disagree some more - civilly!

Glad to hear your SV focuses the same in both directions if by that you mean smoothly, because I wouldn't count on a "breaking-in period" for it to become smoother. I tried a 2001 EL last year, which should have had plenty of time to "break in" but it still focused significantly more stiffly in one direction than the other. Same with a 2009 8x30 SLCNeu I tried, though not as stiffly ("I don't have any problem with my 8x30 SLC's focuser" - just beating Steve to the punch :-).

After spending two weeks with both bins, my index finger was "plum wore out" (to borrow a Texan phrase), mostly from the EL since it has an EP-end focuser. My ring fingers were also worn out from the 8x30's objective end focuser, because I'm not used to turning motion with my ring fingers, just tapping on the keyboard.

I use my index fingers for typing and "mousing" all day long, and my index fingers' tendons are tight as a result ("trigger finger"). I do a lot of close-in birding, which requires a lot of focusing, so a front-end focuser that turns smoothly in both directions is a "must".

I've read numerous posts and some reviews about Swaro focusers focusing harder in one direction than the other (and posted links to some of those on another thread when someone challenged me on that), and I recently corresponded with the owner of a 2009 10x42 SLCNeu, who said the same thing about his bin turning harder in one direction. He's a hunter and doesn't focus close or change focus as often as most birders do, so the extra stiffness in one direction doesn't bother him.

Somebody gave an explanation or perhaps a speculation about the cause of this difference in focusing tension on a BF thread a while back, I think it had something to do with pushing the air inside the tubes with the internal focus lens. But Nikons have internal focusers too, so I'm not sure how that explains the difference in focusing tension in one direction.

A similar problem applies to Dennis' explanation, which implies that the EDG focuses with less precision than the SV EL. Having tried an EDG, I can say assuredly that the focuser turned "smooth as butter" in both directions to pinpoint sharpness" (literally on stars).

If you can turn the focuser a bit more on the SV EL and get an already sharp image even sharper, that only shows that the binoculars have good depth of field and/or have a focuser that isn't overly fast. You can't do that with the 8x32 HG, and it's not because the image isn't sharp or that the barrel tolerances are inferior. The 8x32 HG focuses from cf to infinity in less than 1/2 turn. Just a tiny nudge of the focuser and the object in front or back of your target is in focus or out of focus, depending on the direction you turn the focuser.

In any case, it's a "mute" point for me (to borrow another "Ringoism" from Steve). I had an interest in the 7x42 SLCneu, so the focuser was a concern at one point, but now that the lighter weight, open bridge 7x42 EDG I is selling for the same price as the heavier, non-ED glass 7x42 Swaro, my interest in this issue is more academic than practical.

Brock

My feelings are I still prefer the Swarovision focus over the Nikon EDG's and especially the diopter setting is really nice on the Swarovision. It just feels like the Swarovision focus wheel is higher quality when you turn it and for my uses I prefer the focus speed. The whole Swarovision binocular also looks and feels higher quality that the Nikon EDG. Just the materials used and build quality make it appear so. To me the Nikon EDG doesn't look like the $1800.00 binocular it is. It's also things like how the objective covers and rain covers look and work. Just superior in the Swarovision. It is like they are custom fit and work perfectly. Just my feelings.

[ingle1970]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

My feelings are I still prefer the Swarovision focus over the Nikon EDG's and especially the diopter setting is really nice on the Swarovision. It just feels like the Swarovision focus wheel is higher quality when you turn it and for my uses I prefer the focus speed. The whole Swarovision binocular also looks and feels higher quality that the Nikon EDG. Just the materials used and build quality make it appear so. To me the Nikon EDG doesn't look like the $1800.00 binocular it is. It's also things like how the objective covers and rain covers look and work. Just superior in the Swarovision. It is like they are custom fit and work perfectly. Just my feelings.

Dennis

Get yourself the new winged eye-cup and rainguard, they're good, very good

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by ingle1970

Dennis

Get yourself the new winged eye-cup and rainguard, they're good, very good

Do they really help? Where did you get them from?

[ingle1970]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

Do they really help? Where did you get them from?

They are very comfortable, just ordered them from my dealer, about £19 i think.

[ceasar]

Is this it? They look like they stretch to fit all eyecup sizes. Not much info given on them but they are a better buy than the screw in eye cups.

http://www.eagleoptics.com/binocular...slc-binoculars


The horned eye cups of the EDG's fit over the eyecups of the binocular and come as a standard accessory with the binocular and they are excellent. They are rather heavy rubber and are very comfortable and they have small ocular covers which fit inside them to protect the glass.

Bob

[brocknroller]

I didn't mention that the other reason my index finger "plum wore out" with the EL was that it had the old "slow poke" focuser, which went from cf to infinity about as fast as a Geo Metro goes from 0-60 mph.

Swaro corrected that issue before the SV EL. The EDG I focuser I tried was precise but a bit too fast for me, particularly in the 10x models where you have less DOF. Maybe on the 7x42 model it would work fine.

However, I didn't have to overshoot and come back to achieve best focus with the EDG like i did with the 8x32 HG, which I didn't realize that many optical experts say is the best method for focusing, according to Rick. I personally found that focusing method cumbersome; plus, what's the point of having a fast focuser if you can get to your target quickly but then have to back track and refocus?

A focuser with a bit more tension than the EDG but that turned smoothly and evenly in both directions would be my preference.

As far as the SV EL's focuser being "classier" than the EDG's, I couldn't say but obviously there's a difference of opinions about that with one member thinking it is "custom fit and work perfectly" and another saying it "felt plastic-like" and went ""bumpity bump" in one direction.

Not sure if these different observations of the same series of bins is due to sample variation or differences in the posters' perceptions. Some people (like me) sweat the small stuff, some focus on the big picture and ignore the niggling details. Others become infatuated with their new love and idealize their objet du désir.

In any case, price-wise, the EDG I can't be beat for premium class optics even though I'm not a fan of the pop-out focuser on any brand, I like the SCLNeu's push and turn set up the best. No fuss, no muss.

Brock

[Bob A (SD)]

Originally Posted by ceasar

Is this it? They look like they stretch to fit all eyecup sizes. Not much info given on them but they are a better buy than the screw in eye cups.

Bob,

I have had the screw in style winged eyecups on my SLC since 2007. SONA provided me with a 363-479A rainguard as the one supplied with the bins wouldn't work with winged eyecups. Recently the strap loop on that guard broke and SONO sent me this new kit. First the rainguard is top notch. Fits very well securely on top of the winged eyecups and has large heavy duty guides for straps that should stand the test of time. The stretch to fit winged eyecups are another matter. Yeah they fit and work okay. But they're a bit more difficult to adjust alignment than the more expensive screw ons. And there is no advantage say when using the snap shot adapter.... still have to remove 'em just like the screw ons. I rather think the stretching will fatigue them in time too. Why SONO doesn't market the rainguard and stretch fit wings individually is beyond me. Those of us who have/prefer the old style screw on have to buy the kit to get the guard. And if my prediction is true that the guard will outlast the stretch fit wings, that means folks have to buy the whole kit just to replace the wings. Duh????

I'll stay with the #44019 643-0294 winged eyecups and 663-952A improved rainguard (over the old discontinued 363-479A) from the #44016 kit for my 7x42 SLC Bs

As an aside the Nikon EDG horned eyecup approach seems to be very well designed.

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by Bob A (SD)

Bob,

I have had the screw in style winged eyecups on my SLC since 2007. SONA provided me with a 363-479A rainguard as the one supplied with the bins wouldn't work with winged eyecups. Recently the strap loop on that guard broke and SONO sent me this new kit. First the rainguard is top notch. Fits very well securely on top of the winged eyecups and has large heavy duty guides for straps that should stand the test of time. The stretch to fit winged eyecups are another matter. Yeah the fit and work okay. But they're a bit more difficult to adjust alignment than the more expensive screw ons. And there is no advantage say when using the snap shot adapter.... still have to remove 'em just like the screw ons. I rather think the stretching will fatigue them in time too. Why SONO doesn't market the rainguard and stretch fit wings individually is beyond me. Those of us who have/prefer the old style screw on have to buy the kit to get the guard. And if my prediction is true that the guard will outlast the stretch fit wings, that means folks have to buy the whole kit just to replace the wings. Duh????

I'll stay with the #44019 643-0294 winged eyecups and 663-952A improved rainguard (over the old discontinued 363-479A) from the #44016 kit for my 7x42 SLC Bs

Thanks Bob,
I've never owned a Swarovski and now that the 8 x 30 SLC's are being discounted I decided to get one. I also got with them $20.00 off of a one time purchase of an accessory and I decided to buy the winged eye cups. I called SONA and asked if I could purchase the new stretch model with the rainguard and was told that they weren't included in the offer. So I got the screw on wing cups and saved $20.00 on them. I like them OK but I have no rainguard for them. They aren't quite as efficient or comfortable as the Horned Eye Cups on my 10 x 32 EDG but I'm not complaining.

I don't think the 8 x 30 SLC is quite as good optically as my old Nikon 8 x 32 LX L; there is a bit of veiling glare that the Nikon controls better, the eye relief is about 2mm shorter and the outer edges on the Nikon are better but I like it nevertheless. It's colors are true; it's contrast is excellent as is it's sharpness and it is very comfortable in the hand and easy to use once you get used to the front location of the focus knob. I purposely have not mentioned CA because I am not susceptible to it but there seems to be a bit more on the SLC when I look for it on horizontal and vertical edges and along mountain ridges, especially when it is off axis, and it has more pincushion distortion than the Nikon. (I really should say "pincushioning" because there is no distortion to be seen at all in the views of either binocular.)

You don't often find Swarovski's offered at discount prices and if anyone has ever wanted an excellent lightweight 8 x 30 for under $900.00 they are now available in many places.

Bob,

[mooreorless]

Bob I did the same as you, used the $20 off and bought the winged eyecups for my Swaro 8x30SLC and liked them better than the original. Like you my rainguard doesn't work with the winged eyecups. Try the one handed focusing with this binocular. I am not going to say what I thought of the differences between the Swaro and the 8x32LX.

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by mooreorless

Bob I did the same as you, used the $20 off and bought the winged eyecups for my Swaro 8x30SLC and liked them better than the original. Like you my rainguard doesn't work with the winged eyecups. Try the one handed focusing with this binocular. I am not going to say what I thought of the differences between the Swaro and the 8x32LX.

Say it anyway, I'm not going to argue with you about it. If it weren't for the veiling glare they would probably be tied. I think part of that is due to the shorter ER and the fact that it really requires for me a proper placement of the binocular with our MOLCET technique. Mooreso than with the Nikon.

Bob

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by mooreorless

Bob I did the same as you, used the $20 off and bought the winged eyecups for my Swaro 8x30SLC and liked them better than the original. Like you my rainguard doesn't work with the winged eyecups. Try the one handed focusing with this binocular. I am not going to say what I thought of the differences between the Swaro and the 8x32LX.

I have no problems saying what I thought of the differences between the Swaro and the 8x32LX because I didn't recently sell my LX to another BF member. :-) Also, because I know that personal preferences will determine which bin is better for a potential buyer, more than any serious gap in quality of one over the other.

However, I have a mouthful of Chex Mix so let me get a soft drink from the snack bar, and I'll be right back.....

Intermission:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXK2yyjerro

Okay, we're back. Is my mic on?

Here's my non-technical take on the differences, using only my amazing 20/10 eagle eyeballs as references (with two pairs of eyeglasses).

Ergos: I always like to start with ergonomics, because if you can't hold an 8x bin steady, it's not worth holding, and if you have to mount an 8x midsized bin, it's not worth keeping. Ergos are always subjective, because all hands were not created equal, despite what the US Constitution says about the whole person.

8x32 LX: The small handed will probably get on well with the 8x32 LX. Thumb indents would have helped make the LX/HG/Premier more useful for a variety of hand sizes. For this Big Handed Birder, the 8x32 LX ergos gets two thumbs down (underneath the barrels). The full sized LX/LXL bins have better ergos for larger hands, but also have no thumb indents.

8x30 SLCNeu: While I preferred the deep thumb contours on the Alt body, I found the Neu body comfortable to hold. The armoring on the Neu version has a nice, tactile feel. The LX also scores well in this regard, better than the LXL, which has rubber that is too soft and scuffs easily. Although I liked the SLC's ergos for a closed bridge roof, because the focuser is in the wrong place for my hands, I only give the SLC's ergonomics one thumb up.

NB: I couldn't hold the SLCs steady with one hand even when I had to take a wicked leak. I would assert that such an amazing feat of balance with an closed bridge roof requires either rock steady hands or an uncanny ability to ignore the shakes.

Optics:

Contrast: LX
Color saturation: LX
CA control: SLC
Lower astigmatism: SLC
Apparent Brightness: SLC (slightly)
Depth Perception: SLC
Edge sharpness: LX on horizontal edges, SLC overall
Overall sharpness (I did say this was non-technical, so I'm not using the "R" word): LX

Focusers:

Speed: LX
Smoothness: LX
Ease of reach: LX
Precision: LX
Comfort: LX

NB: The 8x30 SLCNeu has an objective end focuser, which has to be turned by the ring finger or pinky finger. Not everyone's cup 'o tea, but this arrangement allows one to focus w/out lifting one's cap (or so I've read) and also hold the bin with one hand for at least one person (see comments below). The focuser turns smoothly in one direction, though not as fast as the LX, but harder in the other direction, an arrangement I did not find appealing, particularly while having to use my ring fingers to focus!

NBB: Nikon 8x32 LX focusers are not all the same. My first sample's focuser was too loose, making it hard to hit the target w/out overshooting. The second sample was pretty much perfect. Turned fast but precisely. Unfortunately, fast focusers can create a perception of shallow depth of field, so there is a trade-off.

Diopter adjustment: Tough call here. Depends on what you like. For on the focuser adjustment, the SLCneu has the best set up I've tried. Push and turn. For a right EP diopter setting, the LX is very well done, with a pop up ring that doesn't have click stops but turns smoothly and you push down to lock . I liked both diopter adjustments, but given my poor focus accommodation, and the shallow depth perception of midsized roofs, I prefer the SLC's on the focuser diopter since it can be adjusted quickly without taking your hands off the bins.

Eyecups

Comfort: SLC
Durability: SLC
Stays put in between down and up: Tie

ER: LX

Less Image Blackout: LX

FOV: Tie goes to the SLC for being easier to see the entire FOV with the eyecups all the way up (for my eyes).

Smoothness while panning: SLC (LX has slight "rolling ball")

Close Focus: LX (no contest)

The LX focuses down to 6.5" for my eyes, not surprising since Nikon's close focus numbers are usually conservative. I used the LX's to view butterflies and bugs. I found the SLC's close focus longer than the specified 13'. Closer to 15' for my eyes. Butterflying? Only if it's Mothra.

Conclusion: Considering that the alphas are charging $2k or more these days for midsized bins, the 8x30 SLCNeu and 8x32 LX/LXL both represent a very good value, particularly if you can find a dealer who still has the $899 anniversary price on the SLC. LX refurbs can be had for $699. Some well known reviewer said that the 8x32 LX(L) is the best bargain in quality 8x32s. Unless you can find an 8x32 EDG for $999, I'd have to agree.

The biggest differences to note btwn the two bins are the speed, smoothness, and location of the focusers and the close focus distances. Beyond that, it's a toss up. Both have very good image quality. The LX has a slight edge in image contrast and color saturation but the SLC's not far behind and has other attributes that might make it a better choice for some people such as being able to focus w/out tilting your hat back to expose your bald head.

Hope this helped somebody. Now back to our regularly scheduled program - "The Billion Dollar Binoculars".

Brock

[mooreorless]

Bob, I "train" myself not to see pincushion, I don't look for it. And as you said there is not much anyway. The rolling ball that Brocknrolling talks about I have no problem with that. I thought the edges are better in my sample Swaro SLC neu compared to the 8x32 LX I had, not by much. I did notice about 200 yds. from my place a Hawk on the telephone wire looked better in the LX. CA is well controlled in the SLcompact compared to the 8x32LX. To my eyes the Swaro was brighter. The deal breaker for me is the focuser located where it should be in the Swaro and the lighter wt. even compared to the LXL

"because I didn't recently sell my LX to another BF member. :-)"

Brock why would you say I sold the LX to another BF member when you know I traded the LX for the 8SE? Paul seems happy with the Nikon 8x32LX. My opinion on the LX compared to the Swaro SLC neu is that the Swaro is better.


I can't wait to go to the Lost Creek Shoe Shop to try out the new Swarovision.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by Sancho

That's why it's really a question of how much one is prepared to spend for incremental improvements, or how much "RB" trade-off one is prepared to accept for flatter field. It's all highly-dependent on personal taste, and unfortunately leads to disagreements between fine gentlemen. Check them in a store if you can to decide if they're for you. Ultimately they're only binoculars, and yes, you can see as much with far cheaper models. Whether you can see as sharply or as comfortably is another matter. My bottom line is that if the Binocular Fairy appeared and told me that because of past misdemeanours, I had to surrender all my binoculars but one, with which I would have to make do for the rest of the time allotted to me, I'd beg to keep the Swarovision 8.5x42.

2nd that Sancho. No other binocular and I have had ALOT of them have impressed as much as the Swarovision. I think some people are trying to talk themselves out of buying them because they are so expensive. They are without a doubt to my eyes the best binoculars available right now. I thought the Zeiss FL were good but every time I use them I use the Swarovision's they amaze me. I got rid of all my binoculars except for the Swarovisions 8.5x42's except for a pair of Nikon Prostaff 8x25's which are my favorite compacts for concerts and short trips. Why waste time with all the other binoculars. To all those sitting on the fence go try them and compare them to your present binoculars. The Swarovison's will knock your socks off. They are the only roof prism that I can say is BETTER than the Nikon SE and EII and that is saying alot because those two are awesome binoculars. To make a roof prism that is better than the two best porro's in the world is a great achievement.

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

2nd that Sancho. No other binocular and I have had ALOT of them have impressed as much as the Swarovision. I think some people are trying to talk themselves out of buying them because they are so expensive. They are without a doubt to my eyes the best binoculars available right now. I thought the Zeiss FL were good but every time I use them I use the Swarovision's they amaze me. I got rid of all my binoculars except for the Swarovisions 8.5x42's except for a pair of Nikon Prostaff 8x25's which are my favorite compacts for concerts and short trips. Why waste time with all the other binoculars. To all those sitting on the fence go try them and compare them to your present binoculars. The Swarovison's will knock your socks off. They are the only roof prism that I can say is BETTER than the Nikon SE and EII and that is saying alot because those two are awesome binoculars. To make a roof prism that is better than the two best porro's in the world is a great achievement.

Dennis,

I think you got the it the wrong way around. The real great achievement was Nikon being able to make porros a dozen years ago that are as good (or nearly as good) as roof prism binoculars being made today. To take over a decade to design roof prism binoculars as good as porros and charge FIVE TIMES THE COST FOR THEM is by comparison a lesser achievement, IMO. I think it shows that we've been taken to the cleaners.

Also, mark your words: "They are without a doubt to my eyes the best binoculars available right now.". Let's see what the Binocular of the Month Club comes up with in six months or in a year or two from now.

If the Teutonic Optics Wizards can't top their latest act, then perhaps we will see a cladogenesis branching into new digital optics and continued incremental changes for higher prices glass optics.

Brock

[James Bean]

I think the fundamental point for most sensible people is the quality/cost consideration. I have never spent more than £425 on a binocular in my life (Zeiss 10x40BGAT years ago). My used Nikon 8x42HG was a bargain at £249, as was my Nikon 8x32HG for £311, and Zeiss 10x25 dielectric Victory for £275. The prospect of a single binocular costing me £1,000+ is, quite frankly, unreasonable. I could afford it, but I couldn't justify it (my wife wouldn't be impressed either). I'd rather have a collection of binoculars, acquired over a period of time, each with its own personality and charm, in the same way my four old cars, to me, are more interesting and less costly to buy than one new bling-mobile, with the added advantage of variety being the spice of life: now, which one this time...? And if an exceptional porro like the Nikon SE, with just about all the qualities of a new alpha roof model (and maybe more) can be bought at a fraction of the price, you'd be daft not to buy it, and keep it. That's why I still have, for example, a Zeiss 8x50BGA Octarem, made in the mid 1980s, because it's so good and I enjoy using it. Of course, if you want just one binocular and can afford to pay $2,000 for it, that's fine by me too...

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by James Bean

I think the fundamental point for most sensible people is the quality/cost consideration. I have never spent more than £425 on a binocular in my life (Zeiss 10x40BGAT years ago). My used Nikon 8x42HG was a bargain at £249, as was my Nikon 8x32HG for £311, and Zeiss 10x25 dielectric Victory for £275. The prospect of a single binocular costing me £1,000+ is, quite frankly, unreasonable. I could afford it, but I couldn't justify it (my wife wouldn't be impressed either). I'd rather have a collection of binoculars, acquired over a period of time, each with its own personality and charm, in the same way my four old cars, to me, are more interesting and less costly to buy than one new bling-mobile, with the added advantage of variety being the spice of life: now, which one this time...? And if an exceptional porro like the Nikon SE, with just about all the qualities of a new alpha roof model (and maybe more) can be bought at a fraction of the price, you'd be daft not to buy it, and keep it. That's why I still have, for example, a Zeiss 8x50BGA Octarem, made in the mid 1980s, because it's so good and I enjoy using it. Of course, if you want just one binocular and can afford to pay $2,000 for it, that's fine by me too...

Yes, but for birding the objective is the best view of the bird isn't it? The Swarovision gives me that. The best view of the bird I have ever had. If you could sell all your binoculars and pop for the Swarovision and get a more beautiful view of the bird you are looking at you would have to be a fool not to. Let me tell you the Swarovision is better than the SE. That bird will look better through them and that is what is important.

[Kammerdiner]

Dennis has a point there. I'm less interested in an interesting collection of stuff than I am in looking at birds. The SV is the first binocular I've owned that I can't really find any fault with. Well, OK, I'm not a fan of the rainguard, but an FL guard is a perfect substitute.

In a way, it's a little sad because I now have no interest in looking at other binoculars, at least not full-size. Why bother? There's nothing out there as good, and probably nothing will come along that will ever be appeciably better. As a lifetime investment I consider it a bargain. Sounds pretty sensible to me.

The 8x32 SE is, of course, still a stunner, but the SV does best it in some ways. The CA is reduced, the view is less finicky and you can let your eyes roam across it without blackouts, they're brighter, waterproof, have better eyecups, etc. Interestingly, I can't see much difference in the 3D quality--they look the same to me. I can hold the SV steadier than the SE, despite the extra magnification. The extra mag makes more of a difference than I would have thought by the way. I like it. Overall, the SV has the most relaxed view I've come across. I suppose exit pupil plays a role, but the SV is just splendid--no fuss at all and when you're chasing warblers around as I have been doing that really helps.

But so far I can't bring myself to sell the SE's either, although how much use they'll get is a question. They are really a remarkably close second to the SV if you don't mind the foibles.

Mark

[brocknroller]

James and Mark have nicely outlined the "billion dollar binoculars" debate. Two different philosophies. Spice of Life vs. Optical Nirvana. Becoming is Superior to Being vs. Being is Superior to Becoming.

I used to be in the Spice of Life camp, and at one point owned a dozen bins including 10 top bananas: 8x32 SE, 12x50 SE, 8x30 EII, 10x35 EII, 8-16x40 XL Zoom, CZJ 8x50 Octarem, Fuji 6x30 FMTR-SX, two 804 HR Audubons (MC, FMC), and a partridge in a pair tree (8x32 LX).

If the SV EL had been around when I was "bin rich," I could have sold them all and bought an SV EL (if the "rolling ball" didn't bother me). But being a spice of life kinda guy like James, I probably wouldn't have.

But now I grow weary of the chase and want to settle down (I guess this eventually happens to all men, just took me longer than most). However, during the past 5 years, a stark divergence has occurred. My income has gone down while the price of top bananas has skyrocketed.

So the only way I can achieve optical nirvana (IF the SV EL works for me and IF I feel about it as others do) is to take a loan out from the Native Americans at Western Sky Financial (APR on the $2600 loan is 139.34%!) since my credit score is too low for a bank loan, thanks to Bernie Madoff and the brokers, bankers, and insurers who robbed us blind legally. Naturally, I wouldn't do that.

I'm also beginning to wonder if being is actually superior to becoming. Notice that Mark now feels "sad" that his journey has come to an end. That's understandable. After dreaming of something for a long, long time, and to finally have it realized in your hands is bound to produce postpartum depression. You could take some anti-depressants, but then Tom Cruise would get in your face. :-)

Reminds me of the Kink's lyrics from the song "Shangri-la"

Now that you've found your paradise
This is your Kingdom to command
You can go outside and polish your car
Or sit by the fire in your Shangri-la
Here is your reward for working so hard
Gone are the lavatories in the backyard
Gone are the days when you dreamed of that car
You just want to sit in your Shangri-la


Thanks Mark for that well balanced commentary. Interesting point about the 3-D effect. I didn't find the 2001 EL had as good 3-D effect as the 8x32 SE, nor was it as good optically. It was also too big and heavy.

But the SV ELs optics and body have been redesigned. That's a major consideration in justifying a price hike unlike other alphas, which are charging more for incremental changes (except for the SLC-HD, which is also a ground-up redesign).

However, being a white collar worker with a blue collar (non-union) income, my POV remains unchanged. $2,400 is too much for me to pay for optical nirvana even amortized over two lifetimes.

To begin with, I'm not a diehard birder, so Dennis' argument of getting the best view of the bird doesn't hold sway with me. Plus, the 8x30 EII gets me 90% there already. Add an ED element, and that's my optical nirvana.

I also use my bins for casual stargazing (when weather/skyglow conditions permit, which isn't often enough), for observing wildlife, and for general use. So it's not just about the best view of the bird for me.

I could buy one of the best 85mm fluorite scopes made (the Televue 85 APO) with the complete package, case, mounting ring, 2" Everbright diagonal, and a Radian EP for $2K. Use it as a spotting scope or for stargazing. That I can at least imagine in my dreams, but carrying around a $2,400 pair of binoculars is simply beyond my renter mentality. I get "sticker shock" when I hear a bin costs $2,400. It's a mad, mad, mad world.

However, I do believe when people say the SV EL is better than the SE. It has ED glass and more comfortable twist-up eyecups, and the ability to focus closer and w/out overlapping barrel shadows -- those improvements alone would make it better. But is it $1,900 better?

Well, as someone said, that's between you and your wallet and my wallet's got a hole in it.

Interesting reading, though.

Brock

[ceasar]

Just a reminder. The change from the LX L to the EDG was not incremental. The EDG is a brand new binocular; redesigned in all respects and Japanese made. I don't know anything about industrial engineering or what ever the technology is called that is needed to make a new binocular from the ground up but there must be costs for new tooling involved that have to be factored into the price. Although it is probable that some were farmed out to other Japanese firms.

Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss made major changes a while back and added incremental improvements over time to their binoculars.

It also looks like Nikon is using the same new style change on the EDG 2 on some new less expensive models which may be made in China.

Bob