[Pileatus]

The 50 mm Swarovisions are optically excellent binoculars on par with the 8.5X42 and 10X42 Swarovisions. However, after a lengthy comparison, I concluded the following:

There is definitely more handshake in the 10X50 and 12X50 models than in the 8.5X42. It's not even debatable. Weight and magnification matter, regardless of what you read on the Internet.
All other aspects (color, edge sharpness, etc.) were virtually identical among the models.
The 50mm Swarovisions are superb binoculars but they do not defy the laws of physics.

[pimpelmees]

Originally Posted by Pileatus

There is definitely more handshake in the 10X50 and 12X50 models than in the 8.5X42. It's not even debatable. Weight and magnification matter, regardless of what you read on the Internet.
The 50mm Swarovisions are superb binoculars but they do not defy the laws of physics.

off course there will be shake , when you hear the testing panel, they say wow, you can hold this without any trouble and shake, but the weight of my leica 10x50 HD is only 5 grams more (so no differents ) , so for a great part its all a marketing thing to me !

[awhitehead2011]

Originally Posted by Pileatus

The 50 mm Swarovisions are optically excellent binoculars on par with the 8.5X42 and 10X42 Swarovisions. However, after a lengthy comparison, I concluded the following:

There is definitely more handshake in the 10X50 and 12X50 models than in the 8.5X42. It's not even debatable. Weight and magnification matter, regardless of what you read on the Internet.
All other aspects (color, edge sharpness, etc.) were virtually identical among the models.
The 50mm Swarovisions are superb binoculars but they do not defy the laws of physics.

Absolutely. Best part of a KILOGRAM around your neck!!!

[ingle1970]

Originally Posted by awhitehead2011

Absolutely. Best part of a KILOGRAM around your neck!!!

True, only when you haven't got them glued to your eyeballs and since i got mine they have taken up all my 'optic time', been so impressed i decided to get shut of my other alphas, which is quite a few.
And as far as i am concerned they can all go, every damn one of them!!!.

Never thought i would part with them, some true classics, but this 12x50EL, i am amazed every single time i look through them, dont worry about the weight, its so well balanced it just doesn't feel heavy, maybe my arms and shoulders are so used to it now i dont notice, not that i was bothered by the weight when i first got them anyway, and even if they did feel heavy it would not make a scrap of differance i would still keep them.

Its really done a job on my other bins, i cant wait to get shut of them now and put this baby up on its alter where it belongs.
Cost me £1675 and worth every single penny..........

[Robert Wallace]

How will a 12x perform in woodland/forest with a narrow FOV?
For younger birders weight isn't the issue. I started with CZJ 10x50s but with a very decent FOV 128m @1000m and scaled Lake District peaks with them.
I later found 10x40 roof prisms less than satisfactory in woodland/forests so I bought the then "definitive" 7x42 as my second birding binocular.
When I started birding in the 1970s I was advised that the best all round binocular for birding was the 8x40 even in the days when telescopes were the exception. That advice is probably as true today as it was then. Having said that if I had a bottomless purse I might just be tempted by the 12x50 as an additional special purpose binocular but not as my general birding binocular.

[etudiant]

A narrow field of view is not a killer if your binoculars are comfortable for you.
A good glass points itself just where you were looking and 6 degrees is ample for even small birds in the canopy.
One could as easily argue that the smaller field improves the focus on the bird.
I was very happy with a Docter 12x50 porro for several years. While there is a wonderful 'picture window' quality to the lower power wide angle optics such as the old Zeiss 7x42, it is not an essential for birding, at least imho.

[ceasar]

I think that the short depth of field of a 12X would not be friendly when looking into the canopy, especially from shorter distances. Never the less, I have long thought about getting a Canon 12 x 36 IS, but not for backyard birding other than the feeders.

Bob

[ronh]

I just want to comment on the 12x50 issue. I wish I had a Swarovision of course, but I do have a decent 12x50 Trinovid BN. Lately, it has become my go to birding binocular. This amazes me. I have expressed on this forum a suspicion of anything over 8x, criticized the obvious difficulties of high powers, and determined from my own experiment reading fine print that the gain of even 8x over 6x is already deep into the territory of diminishing return, and inferred that 10x might well be the absolute useful limit.

What can I say to defend this turnaroud? A field mark on a bird is not a line of writing. Perfect ergonomics and high weight smooth the path. When I view at 12x, the detail is so startling, I forget about criticizing optics and deal only with what is being seen. A 5.7degree field is not that bad for quick finding and following. At 12x, the optics is being pushed a bit, so some of the low power appearance of "vast wealth of unresolved detail" is traded for the high power appearance of "vast wealth of RESOLVED detail"! Seems fair. Somehow, I just zipped right through the jittery image annoyance phase. I just relax and enjoy the view.

The obvious challenges must not be minimized. Scenes that I am accustomed to finding fully focused, like a distant tree, suffer from the poor depth of field, and I find myself somewhere inside the tree, focusing through the foliage. Focusing, itself, becomes painstaking, is probably the main limiter of view quality, and cannot be accomplished very precisely in a hurry. 12x50 really isn't the thing for close warblers, nope. It is a challenge, but one that I enjoy. If I start to wonder why I'm carrying 40 ounces, the very next 12x view will answer that question. Wow!

Practice makes perfect. If you use binoculars all the time, you have developed some skills at using them. You may be ready to enjoy high power, and not realize it. I find 12x50 fun and voomy.
Ron

[James Bean]

So do I, ronh. I first discovered 12x was practical, hand held, with a Nikon Monarch III, 12x42 with dielectrics. It's compact, short, lightweight and no trouble to hold steady in the hands. I was surprised. It's a pity the very fast focus isn't a little more forgiving: the slightest touch and you're out. However, when IN focus it's SHARP at the centre. I expect the dielectric coatings are responsible for this, or more likely the 'biting' contrast.
I now have what I really wanted, a Nikon 12x50SE, which isn't as easy to hold steady as the Monarch, but it can be done once you find the point of balance. I was in a rifle club many years ago, and the ATC, where I obtained a marksman's badge shooting an old Enfield .303 (WW2 vintage). The target was the size of an old penny, about 4cm or 1.5" across, and you had to hit it "5 out of 5" at 50 yards, using unaided only the rifle's own sights (no spotting scope). I got 4 solid hits and a 'nick', which was enough. Could I do it now? I doubt it, but it taught me how to relax yet brace myself and breathe properly for utmost stability. Anyway, enough of this nostalgia, the point is it IS possible to keep still with a 12x50, enough to obtain a steady view for a little while...

Ingle: So now you're "doing a Dennis" on us, are you? Swaro-euphoria has cast its divine light upon thee, and thou shalt covet no other. Well, let me cast the first stone (if only a pebble) by saying my used Nikon 12x50SE cost one tenth of your new Swaro yet I bet there's very little difference to justify paying over £1,500 more for the privilege. The 12x won't cover all situations, so you'll need a wider view. My 12x50SE is supplemented by a Nikon 8x32SE and 10x42SE, which together cost about £500 and allow me to 'cover all the angles'. Not that I'm gloating, you understand (well, not much) but I'm acting on the instructions of Janice from Bromley, whom I gather you have unsettled somewhat...
Buona Sera!

[ingle1970]

Originally Posted by James Bean

Ingle: So now you're "doing a Dennis" on us, are you? Swaro-euphoria has cast its divine light upon thee, and thou shalt covet no other. Well, let me cast the first stone (if only a pebble) by saying my used Nikon 12x50SE cost one tenth of your new Swaro yet I bet there's very little difference to justify paying over £1,500 more for the privilege. The 12x won't cover all situations, so you'll need a wider view. My 12x50SE is supplemented by a Nikon 8x32SE and 10x42SE, which together cost about £500 and allow me to 'cover all the angles'. Not that I'm gloating, you understand (well, not much) but I'm acting on the instructions of Janice from Bromley, whom I gather you have unsettled somewhat...
Buona Sera!

James you will have to explain to me what "doing a Dennis" is ?.
The 12x will cover all the situations that i shall require, wide field of view?, you can keep it, i just dont care, if i never look through an 8x30EII or even my 8x30Habicht porro again, it wouldn't bother me, harsh but true.

I may at a pinch keep the SLC-HD, i am not sure yet, but even that hasn't seen sunlight since my 12x came along, so who knows....

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by ingle1970

James you will have to explain to me what "doing a Dennis" is ?.
The 12x will cover all the situations that i shall require, wide field of view?, you can keep it, i just dont care, if i never look through an 8x30EII or even my 8x30Habicht porro again, it wouldn't bother me, harsh but true.

I may at a pinch keep the SLC-HD, i am not sure yet, but even that hasn't seen sunlight since my 12x came along, so who knows...

And whom is this Janice from Bromley?......

Leave him alone. He has seen the light!

[Robert Wallace]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating and Ron, James and Ingle seem very satisfied.
50mm objective lenses (usually porro prism binoculars, typically Swift and CZJ) were very popular in the 1970s superceded by the 40mm roof prisms, principly by Leica and Zeiss.
40mm and later 42mm became the "norm" however there was always a core of birders who prefered the smaller 30mm (32mm) models.
I guess if you have the stamina and wealth there is absolutely nothing wrong with the latest 50mms.

[Hermann]

Originally Posted by ceasar

I think that the short depth of field of a 12X would not be friendly when looking into the canopy, especially from shorter distances.

That's the most important point, I think - depth of field. Even 10x is often a bit much in dense forest, 12x is definitely over the top. It's not the field of view that counts, it the depth. You see something moving in the canopy, get your binoculars on the bird but it's so much out of focus you can't be sure you're on the bird, you try to adjust - and the bird is gone. Even with lots of practice and a fast focuser you're bound to be a lot slower than with an 8x30 or an 8x40. Even a 7x42 with a small field of view like the Habicht 7x42 works a lot better in such circumstances.

Hermann

[James Bean]

Who is Janice from Bromley? Go to YouTube UK, search "Buona sera, Janice" and watch a creepy Birds Eye ad which has Ingle's polar bear stalking a nice young lady from Kent while in a restaurant on holiday. This bear normally hides in Janice's freezer at home (I told you it was creepy) and offers her gratuitous 'advice' on what she should be eating. In the latest ad the polar bear is 'recommending' emperor king prawns. Weird or what? Birds Eye now seem keen to 'lighten up' this too spine-chilling white teddy...
As to a 12x binocular, it's wonderful to have such magnification at your fingertips, but as a 'general purpose' optic it has too many limitations, like lack of breadth and depth. But each to his own. You do what suits you and never mind what others do. What do they know? Only what suits THEM.

[ingle1970]

Originally Posted by James Bean

You do what suits you and never mind what others do. What do they know?.

Amen to that James.....

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by ronh

Practice makes perfect. If you use binoculars all the time, you have developed some skills at using them. You may be ready to enjoy high power, and not realize it. I find 12x50 fun and voomy.
Ron

"voomy"? Is that Western slang or short for va-va-va-voooom!?

I couldn't hold the 12x50 SEs steady even when braced, partly because the balance point was on the seam btwn the prism housings and barrels unlike the 10x and 8x SEs, which has the balance point on the housings. Also too much CA for hawk/vulture/eagle watching (we beat Seattle for the cloudiest city in the nation about 15 years ago, and we're still not far behind).

OTOH, the Nikon 8-16x40 LX Zoom was more compact and so well balanced that I could hold 15x fairly steady (most of the time, not for stargazing). Surprisingly, less CA at 15x than the SE at 12x. 4* vs. 5* FOV, same AFOV.

The 6x30 FMTR-SX had a amazing optics, but with all prism housing and only vestigial barrels, and no flat platform underneath for my thumbs, I found it harder to hold steady than the 8x32 SE.

Ergonomics and balance are Über important for steady images, but since people's hand sizes, fingers, arms, and ability to hold bins steady differ, one model/magnification does not fit all.

You need a good match btwn the bin and human factors regardless of magnification, but obviously the higher you go, the less numbers of hombres can hold that power steady, regardless of ergonomics.

No doubt for distant birding in an open terrain, being able to handhold a good quality 12x50 with ED glass would be an awesome experience.

Brock

[mooreorless]

I didn't have any trouble holding the 12SE steady, BT I can take pictures WO being jittery handheld.

[John Cantelo]

Just as bins vary in their characteristics, so do people. I find that the shake I experience with 10X outweighs the greater image size enjoyed unless firmly butressed by a convenient tree/wall. As I dislike carrying round heavier bins with me, still less a convenient tree/wall, I find 8X suit me fine. In fact I rather regret getting 42mm bins rather than 32mm. Others will come to a different view as they're more able to handle hand tremor and/or weight issues. The only way to find out is to try out the models yourself,