[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by newfie ghost

Funny, people who own SV don't complain. I guess you have to say something bad about it because it costs so much.

Doh! That's because the people who see RB either returned their SV or didn't buy it! Or in dennis' case, didn't see it, then later flip flopped, and then sold it.

As to Sancho's comment, as I wrote earlier it "sounded" as if Pier was saying he saw it, or at least that's the way my interpretation of Google, perhaps Sancho is well versed in Italian and read the original version.

But from Google Translate, it was hard to tell what Pier saw, because he never came right out and said it directly, he just talked about RB in the SVs and posted Swaro's response to him about the AMD. Why he would bother going through all that if he didn't see it himself in the 8x32 he was reviewing, I don't know.

I was hoping his post above would clear that up, but surprisingly, it didn't. So it remains a mystery until he tries the 8x32 SV again, apparently, and then we'll (hopefully) know what he saw or didn't see.

We're also waiting for Henry to take his A/B photographs of the 8x42 and 8x32 models.

In the meantime, Swaro's response to Pier about the 8x32 SV suggests that the optical design is the same or at least similar.

The fact that two members who see RB in the full sized model and not in the midsized suggests that the midsized model might have more pincushion added to accommodate the wider FOV, which would contradict Swaro's response to Pier.

However, the fact that two people don't see RB in a bin that Swaro says "eliminates angular distortion" doesn't mean that it has enough pincushion for everybody's eyes.

For example, one BF member reported getting "nauseated" after panning with an 8x32 LX. Although I do see a bit of "roll" in that model, to my eyes, it's nowhere near as strong as the full sized models, and others concur, but that member saw things differently. He must have even less pincushion in his eyes than I do.

My point stands that when you know there's a bin that designed with low distortion, and you know you are sensitive to RB or you don't know, you need to make sure to either try before you buy or have an ample return period so you have time to adjust to the RB if you at first see it.

From what I've experienced first hand with RB and read from others experiences, I don't think that warning is at all ill-advised just because I haven't looked through the bin. To those who think that, go back and read Swaro's response to Pier again because you apparently missed something the first time.

<B>

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by ceasar

Baloney!!! Prove it!! Mathematically!

Just compare the two and you will see it for yourself.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by mooreorless

" I don't think 4% magnification anyway would make that much difference because I have tried the test with a 10x roof and the SE still outresolves it at twenty feet."

Dennis my quote of your post might be what Henry is talking about, credibility issue that is.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.ph...8&postcount=40

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.ph...1&postcount=46

i am not sure what you are talking about. The SE has shown in the old Need Tests to out resolve alpha roofs in a test like this and that is what I am observing. Even the extra magnification of the 10x doesn't help the roof. The SE is still sharper.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by ceasar

Baloney!!! Prove it!! Mathematically!

Just try the test yourself. It is very simple. If you don't believe me prove it for your self.

[Torview]

Dennis, on May 7th 2012 at 03.07 you posted this:-

I don't think that was "superfluous utterance" To some people it is pretty important that their binocular is waterproof and durable and that the focus wheel will turn when it gets cold outside because of how they use it. These things can be just as important as the optics. My point is if you can only have one binocular the EDG is a much better choice than the SE if you can afford it. It is easy to understand why roofs have taken over the market. They are more versatile for most people. The SE is for somebody that wants to experience champagne optics on a beer budget but to do so you have to put with some of it's shortcomings. It is kind of like comparing a Camaro Z28 to a Ferrari. The 0 to 60 times might be close but a Camaro is still not a Ferrari.

When you did not own an SE you condemned it as inferior to the EDG, (don`t give me that I`m allowed to change my mind crap), you must admit your words were baseless then, when you now instruct people to replicate your 10` test for themselves using both binoculars !!!!!!!

I find it impossible now to take any opinion you post credibly, too much of the time its conjecture.

[mooreorless]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

i am not sure what you are talking about. The SE has shown in the old Need Tests to out resolve alpha roofs in a test like this and that is what I am observing. Even the extra magnification of the 10x doesn't help the roof. The SE is still sharper.

Bad sample of a ten, simple as that! BTW I do have a Nikon 8x32SE and it is an excellent binocular esp. for the price. I can almost read a neighbors license plate with it, but have no trouble with a ten I have.

[newfie ghost]

Brock, I'd be happy to test in person, no more guessing.

Check the reviews on the retail sites, most are 5 stars.

Originally Posted by brocknroller

Doh! That's because the people who see RB either returned their SV or didn't buy it! Or in dennis' case, didn't see it, then later flip flopped, and then sold it.

As to Sancho's comment, as I wrote earlier it "sounded" as if Pier was saying he saw it, or at least that's the way my interpretation of Google, perhaps Sancho is well versed in Italian and read the original version.

But from Google Translate, it was hard to tell what Pier saw, because he never came right out and said it directly, he just talked about RB in the SVs and posted Swaro's response to him about the AMD. Why he would bother going through all that if he didn't see it himself in the 8x32 he was reviewing, I don't know.

I was hoping his post above would clear that up, but surprisingly, it didn't. So it remains a mystery until he tries the 8x32 SV again, apparently, and then we'll (hopefully) know what he saw or didn't see.

We're also waiting for Henry to take his A/B photographs of the 8x42 and 8x32 models.

In the meantime, Swaro's response to Pier about the 8x32 SV suggests that the optical design is the same or at least similar.

The fact that two members who see RB in the full sized model and not in the midsized suggests that the midsized model might have more pincushion added to accommodate the wider FOV, which would contradict Swaro's response to Pier.

However, the fact that two people don't see RB in a bin that Swaro says "eliminates angular distortion" doesn't mean that it has enough pincushion for everybody's eyes.

For example, one BF member reported getting "nauseated" after panning with an 8x32 LX. Although I do see a bit of "roll" in that model, to my eyes, it's nowhere near as strong as the full sized models, and others concur, but that member saw things differently. He must have even less pincushion in his eyes than I do.

My point stands that when you know there's a bin that designed with low distortion, and you know you are sensitive to RB or you don't know, you need to make sure to either try before you buy or have an ample return period so you have time to adjust to the RB if you at first see it.

From what I've experienced first hand with RB and read from others experiences, I don't think that warning is at all ill-advised just because I haven't looked through the bin. To those who think that, go back and read Swaro's response to Pier again because you apparently missed something the first time.

<B>

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by Torview

Dennis, on May 7th 2012 at 03.07 you posted this:-

I don't think that was "superfluous utterance" To some people it is pretty important that their binocular is waterproof and durable and that the focus wheel will turn when it gets cold outside because of how they use it. These things can be just as important as the optics. My point is if you can only have one binocular the EDG is a much better choice than the SE if you can afford it. It is easy to understand why roofs have taken over the market. They are more versatile for most people. The SE is for somebody that wants to experience champagne optics on a beer budget but to do so you have to put with some of it's shortcomings. It is kind of like comparing a Camaro Z28 to a Ferrari. The 0 to 60 times might be close but a Camaro is still not a Ferrari.

When you did not own an SE you condemned it as inferior to the EDG, (don`t give me that I`m allowed to change my mind crap), you must admit your words were baseless then, when you now instruct people to replicate your 10` test for themselves using both binoculars !!!!!!!

I find it impossible now to take any opinion you post credibly, too much of the time its conjecture.

I am entitled to change my opinion. Also, the newer coatings in the SE to me makes a huge difference in the performance of the SE especially in contrast. I see things I never saw in the older SE especially in detail and resolution. With the 20 foot test I now no for certain that the SE is sharper than my EDG. Everybody can blow all they want but I know what MY eyes see and that's what I believe. My eyes are what I believe. Henry can come up with as many bogus theories as he wants to I but I know what I see. Don't believe me try the test yourself.

[JabaliHunter]

Originally Posted by newfie ghost

Funny, people who own SV don't complain. I guess you have to say something bad about it because it costs so much.

Originally Posted by brocknroller

Doh! That's because the people who see RB either returned their SV or didn't buy it! [...] My point stands that when you know there's a bin that designed with low distortion, and you know you are sensitive to RB or you don't know, you need to make sure to either try before you buy or have an ample return period so you have time to adjust to the RB if you at first see it. <B>

Not everyone! From the comments I read here, anyone would get the impression that 'rolling ball' is such a problem that the moment you see it you should automatically avoid it like the plague and sell or return that binocular ASAP. I think that is misguided, but anyone who wants to spend that amount of money should be allowed to field test the binocular outside in a variety of settings. Lots of dealers organise field days and most will also match internet prices on something like a Swarovski.

Some may find it odd at first glance. Some may find that they prefer something else. Some may ignore it perfectly well. Some may find that they cannot accommodate the effect and cannot use it at all. You can't know until you test it.

I didn't see a globe effect in the 8.5x42 just having a quick look through a friend's binocular in a large field. I didn't see it in the 10x50 SV when I was in the shop. As soon as I tested one outside at a nature reserve with woodland I saw the globe effect. It felt odd! I wondered about it, read about it, worried about it, looked at other 50mm and 56mm options, worried about it some more, decided that I would never really know what the SV was really like until I gave it a long term fair shake and finally broke down and bought my own (thanks Ingle1970 ). I'll let you know how I get on!

[Torview]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

I am entitled to change my opinion. Also, the newer coatings in the SE to me makes a huge difference in the performance of the SE especially in contrast. I see things I never saw in the older SE especially in detail and resolution. With the 20 foot test I now no for certain that the SE is sharper than my EDG. Everybody can blow all they want but I know what MY eyes see and that's what I believe. My eyes are what I believe. Henry can come up with as many bogus theories as he wants to I but I know what I see. Don't believe me try the test yourself.

Dennis on may 6th I posted this:-

The only eye`s to trust is one`s own, and if they show an SE to be as good as an EDG it IS, whether Holger, Dennis or anyone else thinks differently.

To which you responded:-

It doesn't mean it IS as an absolute. It just means it IS to YOU.

So which is it ? Are you saying only your eyes are absolute ?

[brocknroller]

Edz measured the close focus magnification of a few binoculars, and they all showed increased magnification at close focus. However, the magnification only increased btwn .5x to .8x. The exception was the 6.5x Papilio, which jumped to 8x at 2 ft.

Here's the thread. Edz's post is #10:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=118028

As Henry pointed out, the barrel overlap is quite noticeable at 10 ft. in the 8x32 SE. I can fit most birds in the "cat eye" but the view is certainly not as comfortable as the round circle view of the 8x32 LX at 6 ft or even my 8x30 EII at 7 ft. I'm surprised the EII doesn't show a similar level of barrel overlap as the SE, but it doesn't, at least not to my eyes. Quite comfortable at close focus.

I do, however, prefer roofs for butterflying and DVD case spotting. :-)

"Sharpness" is subjective and is affected by your eye's acuity, contrast, color balance, lighting, and hand shake.

Boosted resolution measurement is a much more reliable method of comparison although the quality of the optics in the booster can vary from brand to brand and unit to unit. So even there, some variation could exist, which might explain why not all boosted measurements agree 100%, but they are usually much closer than subjective tests of "sharpness," which can vary wildly.

In any case, it's not the boosted magnification that we see in the field but the 8x or 10x magnification of the binoculars, and if one bin appears "sharper" to one person than another, given the variables, it's not surprising.

Regardless if the 8x32 SE "edges" out the 8x32 EDG or vice versa or the 8x32 SV EL or whatever other midsized alpha you want to compare it to, it's at least very close, and most importantly, the SE costs a fraction of the price of an alpha roof.

No, you don't get all the bells and whistles, and for some WP is a "must," but I, for one, am glad that Nikon is making the SE and improving the coatings, and still selling them in the U.S. It will be a mournful day for porro fans and birders on a budget when the SE disappears from the landscape.

Get one before you have to fly to China to view an SE in Fan Tao's Binocular Museum. :-)

<B>

[henry link]

Originally Posted by brocknroller

As Henry pointed out, the barrel overlap is quite noticeable at 10 ft. in the 8x32 SE. I can fit most birds in the "cat eye" but the view is certainly not as comfortable as the round circle view of the 8x32 LX at 6 ft or even my 8x30 EII at 7 ft. I'm surprised the EII doesn't show a similar level of barrel overlap as the SE, but it doesn't, at least not to my eyes. Quite comfortable at close focus.

Brock,

The EII shows better overlap than the SE because the apparent field is larger. The centers of the field circles are about equally far apart in both binoculars at the same distance, but the EII circles are larger, so they overlap more.

The LX has particularly good overlap, even by roof standards, because the objective spacing is unusually narrow. The centers of the objectives are a little closer together than the centers of the eyepieces.

Henry

[ronh]

Another thing, besides geometry, that contributes to the closest focus performance is the manner of field correction. If the edge blur is dominated by field curvature, which can be focused away, the near view can be made very sharp. If off axis astigmatism is strong however, there will be some blurring and loss of detail.
Ron

[Sancho]

Holy FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster). Does every thread on BF binoforum these days have to turn into an SE fight? Don't get me wrong, I've owned two 8x32 SE's and liked them both (505 & 550), but for various reasons I prefer, atm, other binoculars. This thread started as a binomania review of the SV 8x32. For the pugnacious, there's always Religion, Social Economy or Sports if you really want to get into Donnybrooks. Some people like one binocular. Other folks prefer another. No biggie. Are there any other SV 8x32 owners (or testers) out there who'd like to share their views? Meanwhile, if any of us want to hear the virtues of the SE extolled, believe me, we know where to go!

[newfie ghost]

Originally Posted by Sancho

Holy FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster). Does every thread on BF binoforum these days have to turn into an SE fight? Don't get me wrong, I've owned two 8x32 SE's and liked them both (505 & 550), but for various reasons I prefer, atm, other binoculars. This thread started as a binomania review of the SV 8x32. For the pulcrictudinous, there's always Religion, Social Economy or Sports if you really want to get into Donnybrooks. Some people like one binocular. Other folks prefer another. No biggie. Are there any other SV 8x32 owners (or testers) out there who'd like to share their views? Meanwhile, if any of us want to hear the virtues of the SE extolled, believe me, we know where to go!

Amen. Everyone loves the SE as almost every thread turns into an SE fest.

But when the SV is mentioned the teeth and claws come out. Is it worth $2400? No. Is it awesome? No doubt. My SV focus is now smooth and I'll take the rolling ball for the "holy crap" view. Take the crap test, just bring fresh underwear.

[newfie ghost]

Originally Posted by JabaliHunter

Not everyone! From the comments I read here, anyone would get the impression that 'rolling ball' is such a problem that the moment you see it you should automatically avoid it like the plague and sell or return that binocular ASAP. I think that is misguided, but anyone who wants to spend that amount of money should be allowed to field test the binocular outside in a variety of settings. Lots of dealers organise field days and most will also match internet prices on something like a Swarovski.

Some may find it odd at first glance. Some may find that they prefer something else. Some may ignore it perfectly well. Some may find that they cannot accommodate the effect and cannot use it at all. You can't know until you test it.

I didn't see a globe effect in the 8.5x42 just having a quick look through a friend's binocular in a large field. I didn't see it in the 10x50 SV when I was in the shop. As soon as I tested one outside at a nature reserve with woodland I saw the globe effect. It felt odd! I wondered about it, read about it, worried about it, looked at other 50mm and 56mm options, worried about it some more, decided that I would never really know what the SV was really like until I gave it a long term fair shake and finally broke down and bought my own (thanks Ingle1970 ). I'll let you know how I get on!

Excellent, which one did you buy? I am sure you won't die of rolling ball. Warning, You might get shocked by the beauty though

[newfie ghost]

Originally Posted by Torview

Dennis on may 6th I posted this:-

The only eye`s to trust is one`s own, and if they show an SE to be as good as an EDG it IS, whether Holger, Dennis or anyone else thinks differently.

To which you responded:-

It doesn't mean it IS as an absolute. It just means it IS to YOU.

So which is it ? Are you saying only your eyes are absolute ?

Torview, I agree, the best view is the one you think is best. As long as you actually look through it.

http://leisure.swarovskioptik.com/en...see-the-unseen

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by brocknroller

Edz measured the close focus magnification of a few binoculars, and they all showed increased magnification at close focus. However, the magnification only increased btwn .5x to .8x. The exception was the 6.5x Papilio, which jumped to 8x at 2 ft.

Here's the thread. Edz's post is #10:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=118028

As Henry pointed out, the barrel overlap is quite noticeable at 10 ft. in the 8x32 SE. I can fit most birds in the "cat eye" but the view is certainly not as comfortable as the round circle view of the 8x32 LX at 6 ft or even my 8x30 EII at 7 ft. I'm surprised the EII doesn't show a similar level of barrel overlap as the SE, but it doesn't, at least not to my eyes. Quite comfortable at close focus.

I do, however, prefer roofs for butterflying and DVD case spotting. :-)

"Sharpness" is subjective and is affected by your eye's acuity, contrast, color balance, lighting, and hand shake.

Boosted resolution measurement is a much more reliable method of comparison although the quality of the optics in the booster can vary from brand to brand and unit to unit. So even there, some variation could exist, which might explain why not all boosted measurements agree 100%, but they are usually much closer than subjective tests of "sharpness," which can vary wildly.

In any case, it's not the boosted magnification that we see in the field but the 8x or 10x magnification of the binoculars, and if one bin appears "sharper" to one person than another, given the variables, it's not surprising.

Regardless if the 8x32 SE "edges" out the 8x32 EDG or vice versa or the 8x32 SV EL or whatever other midsized alpha you want to compare it to, it's at least very close, and most importantly, the SE costs a fraction of the price of an alpha roof.

No, you don't get all the bells and whistles, and for some WP is a "must," but I, for one, am glad that Nikon is making the SE and improving the coatings, and still selling them in the U.S. It will be a mournful day for porro fans and birders on a budget when the SE disappears from the landscape.

Get one before you have to fly to China to view an SE in Fan Tao's Binocular Museum. :-)

<B>

Looks to me like all the binoculars Edz measured had an increase in magnification at 10 feet including the roofs. What makes Henry think the EDG would have a decrease in magnification? Even if there is a small difference in magnification that is not what is increasing the apparent resolution I see. I asked Nikon about variation of magnification at different distances with the EDG and SE and they said the magnification was consistent at all distances which contradicts Edz testing.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by ronh

Another thing, besides geometry, that contributes to the closest focus performance is the manner of field correction. If the edge blur is dominated by field curvature, which can be focused away, the near view can be made very sharp. If off axis astigmatism is strong however, there will be some blurring and loss of detail.
Ron

I think that is a better explanation of what I am seeing than the "Increasing Magnification Theory". What I am seeing is resolution not bigger images.

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by henry link

Brock,

The EII shows better overlap than the SE because the apparent field is larger. The centers of the field circles are about equally far apart in both binoculars at the same distance, but the EII circles are larger, so they overlap more.

The LX has particularly good overlap, even by roof standards, because the objective spacing is unusually narrow. The centers of the objectives are a little closer together than the centers of the eyepieces.

Henry

Henry,

Thanks for that explanation about the 8x30 EII.

<B>

[lilcrazy2]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

I asked Nikon about variation of magnification at different distances with the EDG and SE and they said the magnification was consistent at all distances which contradicts Edz testing.

Of all the dubious verbage I have heard spill from your lips lately, this surely is a Moby Dick moment to me.

I'll believe it as soon as I finish eating this watermelon in my back pocket.

Tom

[james holdsworth]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

Looks to me like all the binoculars Edz measured had an increase in magnification at 10 feet including the roofs. What makes Henry think the EDG would have a decrease in magnification? Even if there is a small difference in magnification that is not what is increasing the apparent resolution I see. I asked Nikon about variation of magnification at different distances with the EDG and SE and they said the magnification was consistent at all distances which contradicts Edz testing.

When I asked my secret Nikon contact the same thing, they told me not to listen to Dennis as his contact was the janitor.

[Torview]

So if I`m understanding this, a porro, with external focus moves the eyepiece further from the objective at its minimum focus thus increasing the focal length and correspondingly the magnification, however, a roof uses a floating internal lens to focus the image keeping the focal length unchanged.

Makes sense to me.

[FrankD]

Originally Posted by james holdsworth

When I asked my secret Nikon contact the same thing, they told me not to listen to Dennis as his contact was the janitor.

Custodial engineer?

He did say he spoke to an engineer at Nikon.

[james holdsworth]

Originally Posted by FrankD

Custodial engineer?

He did say he spoke to an engineer at Nikon.

.....sanitary engineer........