Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Good to hear. In that case, just enjoy the heck out of them! The focus is a big red herring. They are built to be used, not dissected ex nihilo.
Mark
-
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.
Anyones 8x32 EL Swarovisions Ship Yet? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Slider817
- Start date
Good to hear. In that case, just enjoy the heck out of them! The focus is a big red herring. They are built to be used, not dissected ex nihilo.
Mark
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Yes, no point in panning for warblers. Really, the only panning I ever do is for big distance over water, and sometimes hawks too far away to see with eyes only. In which case bring out the scope. The 8.5 Swaro is indeed great for birding. I am pretty certain I'll never look at another full-sized binocular. That 32mm SV is calling my name, however.
I was along the Susquehanna a few days ago, had to go to Harrisburg. No time to bird, but I saw lots of them from the car. That is one nice river for birds.
Here's a stanza from one of my favorite poets, Theodore Roethke. It's from "The Far Field," a tad morbid I suppose, but in the spirit of the season, and since you mentioned Cerulean Warblers:
I suffered for young birds, for young rabbits caught in the mower,
My grief was not excessive.
For to come upon warblers in early May
Was to forget time and death:
How they filled the oriole's elm, a twittering restless cloud, all one morning,
And I watched and watched till my eyes blurred from the bird shapes, --
Cape May, Blackburnian, Cerulean, --
Moving, elusive as fish, fearless,
Hanging, bunched like young fruit, bending the end branches,
Still for a moment,
Then pitching away in half-flight,
Lighter than finches,
While the wrens bickered and sang in the half-green hedgerows,
And the flicker drummed from his dead tree in the chicken-yard.
Enjoy the season!
Mark
proudpapa56
Where'd you go, stay put!
Well, got my own personal pair of EL 8x32 SVs today (shameless plug - we have 2 left in stock) and these are the ones. I have absolutely no complaints. I'll never need another pair, except maybe a Habicht 8x30, then...
newfie ghost
Well-known member
How do they compare to the Habicht 8x30?
proudpapa56
Where'd you go, stay put!
I haven't compared the two side by side but will do so by end of the holiday weekend.
Hermann
Well-known member
Maybe it is just a red herring. Maybe Swarovski got problem that some of the earlier Swarovisions had with the focusing sorted out.[1] But the focuser is critical in the field. In fact, I think I could live with a binocular that isn't perfect optically, but not with one with a rough and uneven focuser. So discussions about the quality of the focuser are surely warranted. They're as important as discussions of the optical quality.
Hermann
[1] The Swarovisions had a problem with the focusing, at least the early ones, there's no denying that. I haven't got a Swarovision yet, but there were plenty of reports of problems with the focusing on the net, and two of the five early Swarovisions I had a chance to try in the field had an unacceptably rough and uneven focuser. Both were sent back to Austria by the owners and fixed.
Hermann
Well-known member
I'm really looking forward to that. Given the age of the Habicht's optical construction that's going to be a very interesting comparison indeed. I reckon the Swarovision will win in a number of compartments, but I also think the dinosaur won't do too badly.
Hermann
proudpapa56
Where'd you go, stay put!
Habicht 8x30 and EL 8x32 SV
I'd want to start this by saying I really, really like the Habicht 8x30. Our shop looks out onto the town square which is lined with flags for Memorial day. Flags make nice test patterns. This was without glasses. Right off the bat the image is much crisper with the EL but that really was to be expected. By itself the 8x30 is great but side by side the stars just didn't pop on the flags like the Els. They're both 8x but I really thought the images looked bigger with the EL. Why would that be? The Habicht has a much better 3D effect but I was surprised that the EL has better depth of field. For practical purposes there wasn't enough difference in field of view or weight that would be a game changer for me. Trying to stress out the edge to edge I was able to get black spots / images to appear easier with the Habichts. It was bright mid-day, so didn't note difference in low light. I'm not nearly as sensitive as others concerning rolling ball or color aberration and this wasn't an issue. Besides clarity, a game changer for me is how the Els feel in your hand and that ever popular focus knob. The ergonomics of the EL is top notch, feels like the made them just for my hand. I can use these very well with only one hand and have no complaints about the focus wheel, once again, top notch, smooth. I have to use both hands almost all the time with the Habichts to keep it steady using the stiffer focus wheel.
The bottom line is, I think they're both the best for what they are. The Habichts are still a great bang for the buck but the Els still have the "WOW" factor.
I'm not a technical review kind of guy so please cut me some slack and don't whip me to hard.
Have a great Memorial Day and try to take a quick second to remember what it's all about. Gordon, USN RETIRED
I'd want to start this by saying I really, really like the Habicht 8x30. Our shop looks out onto the town square which is lined with flags for Memorial day. Flags make nice test patterns. This was without glasses. Right off the bat the image is much crisper with the EL but that really was to be expected. By itself the 8x30 is great but side by side the stars just didn't pop on the flags like the Els. They're both 8x but I really thought the images looked bigger with the EL. Why would that be? The Habicht has a much better 3D effect but I was surprised that the EL has better depth of field. For practical purposes there wasn't enough difference in field of view or weight that would be a game changer for me. Trying to stress out the edge to edge I was able to get black spots / images to appear easier with the Habichts. It was bright mid-day, so didn't note difference in low light. I'm not nearly as sensitive as others concerning rolling ball or color aberration and this wasn't an issue. Besides clarity, a game changer for me is how the Els feel in your hand and that ever popular focus knob. The ergonomics of the EL is top notch, feels like the made them just for my hand. I can use these very well with only one hand and have no complaints about the focus wheel, once again, top notch, smooth. I have to use both hands almost all the time with the Habichts to keep it steady using the stiffer focus wheel.
The bottom line is, I think they're both the best for what they are. The Habichts are still a great bang for the buck but the Els still have the "WOW" factor.
I'm not a technical review kind of guy so please cut me some slack and don't whip me to hard.
Have a great Memorial Day and try to take a quick second to remember what it's all about. Gordon, USN RETIRED
mooreorless
Well-known member
Hi Gordon, Thanks for your thoughts on the 8x32SV and all the rest. I loved the 8.5x42 SV and the 8x32 EL, I know I would like the small SV.
Last edited:
Images do "look" bigger in roof prisms, especially at closer distances, than they do with equivalent porro prisms. There is an explanation for that but I'll let someone more knowledgeable explain it.
There should not be any difference in depth of field. All 8x binoculars should have the same DOF when compared under the same conditions. This is a hard to test to do in a short period of time. Focusing speed is a factor and precise focusing is critical in locating the center of the depth of focus field. I did not believe this until I spent a lot of time trying to disprove it.
Bob
There should not be any difference in depth of field. All 8x binoculars should have the same DOF when compared under the same conditions. This is a hard to test to do in a short period of time. Focusing speed is a factor and precise focusing is critical in locating the center of the depth of focus field. I did not believe this until I spent a lot of time trying to disprove it.
Bob
Last edited:
proudpapa56
Where'd you go, stay put!
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass but if image size can look different with two different 8x, why can't depth of field?
newfie ghost
Well-known member
Thanks for the review. And thanks for your service.
The sv's are awesome and hard to beat.
I am still interested in the Habicht though. How do the 7x40's look against the 8x30? I assume brighter, little more stable, smaller FOV, little more eye relief?
proudpapa56
Where'd you go, stay put!
All of the above. I got my own 7x42s specifically for more light because one of my retinas decided to act 20 years older than it really is. But my next pair will be an 8x30 Habicht because of their size. A very nice travel, glove compartment size, great for bopping around.
I'm on my 2nd set of 10x32 SV's (Traveler model) - the first had a grittiness spot in the focus knob, from close focus to 50 feet out or so.
The 2nd set (just got them Friday) feels totally smooth. There is still a slight bit more resistance turning in the CCW direction, but that doesn't affect focusing at all, and I have to really think about it to even notice it.
Extrapolating my experience, 1/2 of all SV's have gritty focusing!
John F
The 2nd set (just got them Friday) feels totally smooth. There is still a slight bit more resistance turning in the CCW direction, but that doesn't affect focusing at all, and I have to really think about it to even notice it.
Extrapolating my experience, 1/2 of all SV's have gritty focusing!
John F
Because Depth of Field is solely a property of the power of the binocular. The image size appears larger or smaller because of the designs of the binoculars.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Gordo,
You can be a smart-ass as long as your not an closed minded smart-ass.
As already explained above, depth of field is a "fixed" value, however, "apparent depth" is not.
My classic example, which I really should copy to a shortcut key, so I don't have to keep typing it over again, is the Nikon 8x32 LX vs. the 8x32 SE.
They have the same (or close to the same, as I measured it) DOF, but look WAY, WAY different in apparent depth to my eyes.
The view through the SE looks 3-D. If I look at a landscape with a series of tree lines, the space btwn them is clearly discernible. If I had an arm like Roberto Clemente, I could throw a ball right in between the first two tree lines, because my brain would know how much force for my arm to apply to get the ball to its target.
Take the 8x32 LX and look at the same series of tree lines. Now they look closer together (who closed up the space?). Now I'd need Jack Nicholson to drive a golf ball in btwn the space of the first two tree lines, and even then, the view is so compressed that he may overshoot or undershoot the "green" because the perception of apparent depth is "off".
At medium distance for birding, where I generally do most of my birding when I'm out and about, just a nudge on the LX's focuser and my target is out of focus and the objects either in front or in back are in focus, depending on which way I turn the wheel.
Same circumstance with the SE and my target plus the objects slightly in back or in front of it are also in focus.
Sure looks like the SE has more DOF than the LX, but it's an optical illusion, just like the larger apparent size of the LX's image.
So you're correct about your observation, but you're using the wrong terminology to describe it. DOF is "fixed," apparent depth of field is not.
Btw, if you have a bad eye, it can affect your depth perception. Here's a device that can help improve depth perception for persons having a weak eye.
I don't think you actually need such a device because you can do this yourself, though perhaps not as rapidly.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5452026.html
Have a Happy Memorial Day! 89* in "historic" Boalsburg tomorrow, make sure to drink plenty of water if you're out in the sun.
http://boalsburg.com/
Brock
Last edited:
proudpapa56
Where'd you go, stay put!
Thanks
When you think magnification size itself would be fixed but might not be and then are told depth of field is fixed because of magnification it's hard to wrap your head around. So I have no issues with rolling ball or color aberration but can now have my own hot topic such as "dull depth" or such.
Our optical shop includes the scopes and binos. Frames, Binos, Sun specs and scopes all share the same room. Along with the latest diagnostic equipment. Optometry is an unusual mix of medical and retail. My wife is strictly medical and I'm both. I do the diagnostic stuff, Visual Fields, Retinal Tomography, Fundus Photography (I was an Ophthalmic Technician in the Navy). Then I come out and talk about frames and lenses and do the dispensing and fitting. As in scopes and binos, there are alpha lenses for specs also and it very well could put a damper on your 2K binos if your buying the 2 pair for $50 Acme Vision special. And some of that has to do with some of the same coatings that go on bino glass. I'd like to tell you that the Swarovski stuff takes up a good chunk of my day but that would be fibbing. It's something I really have fun with on the side and am still / always learning more about that branch of optics, much of it from you folks. Sales are probably 20 to 1, online vs in shop. Well, that's to much carrying on. Have a great day.
Gordon
As an edit, because of my funky left (formerly dominant) retina I now see two different size images. It's not to bad and is tolerable until I'm tired and try reading in bed. Trying to read one page with two sizes of print doesn't work for very long.
When you think magnification size itself would be fixed but might not be and then are told depth of field is fixed because of magnification it's hard to wrap your head around. So I have no issues with rolling ball or color aberration but can now have my own hot topic such as "dull depth" or such.
Our optical shop includes the scopes and binos. Frames, Binos, Sun specs and scopes all share the same room. Along with the latest diagnostic equipment. Optometry is an unusual mix of medical and retail. My wife is strictly medical and I'm both. I do the diagnostic stuff, Visual Fields, Retinal Tomography, Fundus Photography (I was an Ophthalmic Technician in the Navy). Then I come out and talk about frames and lenses and do the dispensing and fitting. As in scopes and binos, there are alpha lenses for specs also and it very well could put a damper on your 2K binos if your buying the 2 pair for $50 Acme Vision special. And some of that has to do with some of the same coatings that go on bino glass. I'd like to tell you that the Swarovski stuff takes up a good chunk of my day but that would be fibbing. It's something I really have fun with on the side and am still / always learning more about that branch of optics, much of it from you folks. Sales are probably 20 to 1, online vs in shop. Well, that's to much carrying on. Have a great day.
Gordon
As an edit, because of my funky left (formerly dominant) retina I now see two different size images. It's not to bad and is tolerable until I'm tired and try reading in bed. Trying to read one page with two sizes of print doesn't work for very long.
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
Gordon
The illusion of less magnification (especially up close) in binoculars with widely spaced objectives has been discussed here many times. Try comparing the Habicht to the SV with one eye closed or look at object at infinity, like the moon, so that there's no difference in triangulation. I think you'll see the illusion disappear.
We've also had some long threads on the illusion of greater DOF created by binoculars with slow focusers, substantial field curvature and/or low aberrations.
Henry
The illusion of less magnification (especially up close) in binoculars with widely spaced objectives has been discussed here many times. Try comparing the Habicht to the SV with one eye closed or look at object at infinity, like the moon, so that there's no difference in triangulation. I think you'll see the illusion disappear.
We've also had some long threads on the illusion of greater DOF created by binoculars with slow focusers, substantial field curvature and/or low aberrations.
Henry
Last edited:
Henry,
Just to tease you, but in the above list of "illusions" that create a perception of a greater d.o.f, the last one, lesser aberrations, is not an illusion but rather a fact. Although, with magnifications as low as those used in binoculars, I'm not sure the real effect is big enough to be noticeable.
Gordon,
Despite my fingers being just thick enough that middle, ring and pinkie don't quite fit comfortably enough between the 32mm SV's bridges, I must concur with you. These are the most comfortable binoculars I have ever handled and viewed with. If they weren't so expensive, I would seriously consider getting a pair to see if I would actually start using something other than IS bins again.
Kimmo
Just to tease you, but in the above list of "illusions" that create a perception of a greater d.o.f, the last one, lesser aberrations, is not an illusion but rather a fact. Although, with magnifications as low as those used in binoculars, I'm not sure the real effect is big enough to be noticeable.
Gordon,
Despite my fingers being just thick enough that middle, ring and pinkie don't quite fit comfortably enough between the 32mm SV's bridges, I must concur with you. These are the most comfortable binoculars I have ever handled and viewed with. If they weren't so expensive, I would seriously consider getting a pair to see if I would actually start using something other than IS bins again.
Kimmo
Last edited:
Similar threads
