brocknroller
porromaniac
I wouldn't go for the mustache effect SV optics.
Brock, you really need to try the 8x32 sv if you then see the anomaly then make the determination.
I can't count the number of people that have peered through them and not one individual had any negative input on distortion.
You owe it to yourself and other readers as well.
You can't make a claim for a certain optic with out trying it first hand, just because you see it in binocular A doesn't mean its also in binocular B.
Something to think about,
Bryce...
If you've never bothered by "rolling ball," then you are also talking "out of school." I have and I can tell you, it ain't pretty! Just listen to some the testimonies of those who are bothered by it and their reactions, from "distracting" to "intolerable" to "nauseous." It is really one of those things you have to experience yourself to know what it's like.
Holger describes it in his technical report, and I took his distortion test, and unless the new 8x32 SV EL samples have more distortion than the one he has plotted in his distortion chart, I probably wouldn't tolerate the AMD in it or any of the SV ELs, because they all fall below my threshold.
However, given some evidence that Swaro has been tweaking the pincushion, it's possible that a recent production 8x32 SV EL would be tolerable, if so, then you're right, I would have to try it, but if it's distortion was below k=0.7, that would very likely make it unusable to me.
Besides, I was fine with the optics in original 8x32 EL, at least the late models, the one I tried was made in 2009. I didn't see any CA with it, but it was a perfect day with no high contrast backgrounds when I used it. Under extreme conditions, I probably would see CA, since I'm not immune to it, so that's why I wanted the ED glass added.
I can say with a good deal of confidence even sight unseen, that it is highly unlikely I could I tolerate the level of AMD in the original production 8.5x SV EL. Just look at his chart, it's near the bottom of the "barrel."
Holger's distortion chart
In addition, Arek from allbinos rated the distortion level in the 8,5x model as: The distance of the first curved line from the field centre compared to the field of view radius: 91% +\- 3%!!! Which is to say that there's practically no pincushion, which is why some BF members who can't tolerate this model because of the RB can tolerate the 8x32. These folks I call "semi-neural plastics," a term I coined from one of Ed's posts about "neural plasticity," which has now become all the rage thanks to Lumosity.com.
In addition to Holger's k value test and his distortion chart, further evidence lies in the fact that Arek rated the distortion in the 10x42 LXL (which I owned, and also the 10x42 Venturer LX) as: The distance of the first curved line from the field centre compared to the field of view radius : 61% +\- 3% and 69% for the 8x42 model.
So if I experienced severe RB with a bin whose distortion is rated at 61%, I can be assured that I will see it with a bin who distortion is rated at 91%.
However, some people, who are either incapable of extrapolation or don't do so based on a belief that it's unscientific, think that if you haven't tried a bin, you shouldn't comment on it. I think I made a good case for why this is untrue when it comes to extrapolating RB.
Granted, even Holger admits that his distortion results are preliminary since companies don't release distortion numbers and he's working with the data they've provided, but as a scientist I don't think he would have made the distortion chart and distortion test w/out some solid science behind it. So like Arek's reviews, there's a certain +/- error built into his results.
Fortunately, Swarovski also created the SLC-HD (now just "SLC") that has a distortion level more suited for my eyes/brain, and the image in the 10x model, at least, is almost sharp to the edge, so I don't even see the need for field flatteners.
But herein lies the reason for my comment about no "mustache distortion" in the 8x32 SV EL. As much as I like the full sized model SLC-HD, I do wish Swaro had made a midsized 8x30/32 model with the same ergonomics and similar distortion level as the full sized models, with at least a 7.8* FOV like the former SLCneu (no "pinky focuser" please!@), but preferably 8.2* like the Nikon 8x30 M7. At 7*, the CL just doesn't cut it for me, at least not for my main birding bin.
With a "bum" shoulder, 28 oz. can be a bit much during an entire day in the field; 20-22 oz. would be more to my liking for my main birding bin, and a midsized SLC-HD would fit the bill in ergos, distortion and weight.
Brock
Last edited: