Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Friday 11th March 2005, 02:23   #1
karmantra
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 317
Question Swaro 8x20 pocket bino-close focus 8' 0r 13'?

Thinking of purchase of 8x20 Swaro pocket binos, but getting different reads on its close focus range--Swaro's customer service says 13 feet, while Eagle Optics says 8 feet. Has Swarovski updated the bino to 8 feet? If so, when? Anyone out there with 8x20s with the eight foot focus? Thanks, Karmantra


karmantra is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 11th March 2005, 03:08   #2
nyatt
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: California
Posts: 84
My pair is about 4 years old, and I took out a tape measure to check. 8 feet, it is.
nyatt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 11th March 2005, 03:27   #3
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,686
My wife's 8x20 SLC is about 5 yrs. old and focuses to 8 ft.

Elkcub
PS. My own 10x25 is 13 yrs. old and focuses to 13 ft.
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2010 2011 2012 2013
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Friday 11th March 2005, 10:19   #4
Swissboy
Registered User
 
Swissboy's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sempach, Switzerland
Posts: 2,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub
My wife's 8x20 SLC is about 5 yrs. old and focuses to 8 ft.

Elkcub
PS. My own 10x25 is 13 yrs. old and focuses to 13 ft.
I recently tried a brand new one, and its minimum focus was awful, so it must have been the 10x25, I assume. ( I tried so many different ones that I had to quickly eliminate those that did not interest me any further that I do not recall it more precisely.) Just not up to todays standards. But I think Swarovski were the first truly waterproof ones, long before the others caught up. Though, when I bought my Leica 8x20s some 6 or so years ago, I erroneously believed they were waterproof. Of course, Leica did not want buyers to believe otherwise. And at the time, it was much harder to gather the info which we now easily find on BF.
__________________
Robert
--PS: That's a Sooty Falcon on the avatar, photo taken near Sharm el Sheik, Egypt. My highest priority raptor at the time.
What's your species on the avatar? I often have no clue
!

Last edited by Swissboy : Friday 11th March 2005 at 10:24.
Swissboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Friday 11th March 2005, 21:06   #5
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swissboy
I recently tried a brand new one, and its minimum focus was awful, so it must have been the 10x25, I assume. ( I tried so many different ones that I had to quickly eliminate those that did not interest me any further that I do not recall it more precisely.) Just not up to todays standards. But I think Swarovski were the first truly waterproof ones, long before the others caught up. Though, when I bought my Leica 8x20s some 6 or so years ago, I erroneously believed they were waterproof. Of course, Leica did not want buyers to believe otherwise. And at the time, it was much harder to gather the info which we now easily find on BF.
Hi Robert,

Back in 1994 when I bought my 10x25 SLCs the Swaro catalog said close focus was 16.5 ft (5m) and the 8x20s were 13.2 ft. (4m). At the same time the Eagle Optics catalog said the 10x focused to 10 ft and the 8x to 8 ft. In practice I found the 10x to be somewhere between the two ads, and the 8x closer to Eagle's ad., i.e., 13 ft. vs. 8 ft. Today's Swaro catalog maintains the original short focus specs. I don't know why since since they are both better performers.

My preference is the 10x, which is much easier for me to hold steady. The 8x is just too small for my hand. Its only shortcoming IMO is the focus distance, but the optics are superb and it works well for shore birding and rain forests believe it or not.

Leica and Zeiss have both been somewhat unclear about waterproofness in the past, but it was also a well-known secret. Enjoy those Leica's. Great glass.

-elk

Last edited by elkcub : Friday 11th March 2005 at 21:11.
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2010 2011 2012 2013
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Saturday 12th March 2005, 18:15   #6
Swissboy
Registered User
 
Swissboy's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sempach, Switzerland
Posts: 2,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub
My preference is the 10x, which is much easier for me to hold steady. The 8x is just too small for my hand. Its only shortcoming IMO is the focus distance, but the optics are superb and it works well for shore birding and rain forests believe it or not.

Leica and Zeiss have both been somewhat unclear about waterproofness in the past, but it was also a well-known secret. Enjoy those Leica's. Great glass.

-elk
Elk,

Following the test mentioned in my first post, I got myself a Leica 10x25. I also felt that I could hold them much better than the shorter 8x. And you are certainly correct with respect to shore birding.

I wonder, however, about your statement concerning rain forest birding. My main binoculars are Leica 8x32BAs. When I had a chance to use them extensively in the Peruvian rain forest five years ago, I had two complaints. One, being the inadequate close focus for those close but elusive antbirds (and your Swaro 10x25 should do worse in this respect). Two, the inadequate brightness under early morning forest floor conditions. Here, too, I'd expect all compacts to be even less suited. These experiences make me search for something in the x42 range; and that was the actual purpose for my testing. But instead of coming up with a decision there, I fell in love with those 10x25 Ultravids.
__________________
Robert
--PS: That's a Sooty Falcon on the avatar, photo taken near Sharm el Sheik, Egypt. My highest priority raptor at the time.
What's your species on the avatar? I often have no clue
!
Swissboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Saturday 12th March 2005, 19:25   #7
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swissboy
Elk,

Following the test mentioned in my first post, I got myself a Leica 10x25. I also felt that I could hold them much better than the shorter 8x. And you are certainly correct with respect to shore birding.

I wonder, however, about your statement concerning rain forest birding. My main binoculars are Leica 8x32BAs. When I had a chance to use them extensively in the Peruvian rain forest five years ago, I had two complaints. One, being the inadequate close focus for those close but elusive antbirds (and your Swaro 10x25 should do worse in this respect). Two, the inadequate brightness under early morning forest floor conditions. Here, too, I'd expect all compacts to be even less suited. These experiences make me search for something in the x42 range; and that was the actual purpose for my testing. But instead of coming up with a decision there, I fell in love with those 10x25 Ultravids.
Hi Robert,

For some reason there seems to be an avoidance of 10x25 pocket binocs. I'm not quite sure why, but so it is. Personally, I think they're great.

For two days my wife and I found ourselves with only Swaro pocket binocs in Cost Rica some years ago. That was before the baggage arrived with my 8x30s. It was unbelievable rain, but the 10x25s (and to a lesser extent the 8x20s) did fine — even in dull, damp light. We added several new lifers, and I was surprised at how useful they were. But, of course, the 8x30s were a relief, and my current 10x42 would even have been better. IMO, quality waterproof pocket binocs are a lot better than one might imagine — and superior to el-cheapo stuff of any size (the guide had one). I agree with you that modern close-focusing binocs would be even more useful, but so far I've not found anything I'm willing to sacrifice my SLCs to get.

Part of this, I admit, is unabashed bonding. Last year I sold those 8x30 Mk IIs and then went through such a period of remorse that I purchased a replacement on eBay last week.

-elk

Last edited by elkcub : Saturday 12th March 2005 at 21:02.
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2010 2011 2012 2013
Click here to Support BirdForum
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Swaro 8.5 ELs now with improved focus? Blincodave Swarovski 31 Wednesday 17th November 2004 04:05
help!Zeiss 8x20 B Design Selection Pocket Binoculars blacktulip Zeiss 1 Saturday 4th September 2004 02:18
Poor Photographs mickporter The Birdforum Digiscoping Forum 30 Tuesday 9th March 2004 10:53
Optolyth close focus? Tori Others 12 Saturday 13th September 2003 21:32

{googleads}
Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Search the net with ask.com
Help support BirdForum
Ask.com and get

Page generated in 0.14660192 seconds with 16 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:22.