Is the best roof in the world better optically than the best porro? (10 Viewers)

[james holdsworth]

Just my usual counter to this stuff (somebody has to do it ). The SV edges are great. Here's how it works. Your brain knows the sharpness is there, registers it immediately, likes it. And the SV eyepiece design allows you to look around and use more of it. I do it all the time. It works. It feels incredibly natural.

Switched to my FL a few days ago and the difference was obvious. Seemed like a little bullseye of sharpness by comparison and you have to keep aiming the thing. Let's hope you aren't looking at more than one bird cause only the one in the middle will be focused. Let's hope you aren't scanning branches to find that little yellow warbler of some sort that won't show itself. You'll never see it in the fuzz.

Maybe people don't realize how functional those edges are until they've seen them and used them for a while, then tried to go back. Rather a disappointing experience.

Mark

I'll take a superior 70 - 80% centrefield to better edges everytime. After all, this is where we should be looking almost all the time.

I have always thought of the SV's [8.5 and 10x42] as a bit of a trade-off - better edges but the centrefield wasn't quite so good. I need to try the SV 32's, as they sound like there are no compromises in this area. If so, they would rank right up there with the very best.

Still, the SLC-HD is so good, I see no need for ''sharp-to-the-edge'' and the cost / complexity that entails.

 

[elkcub]

Just my usual counter to this stuff (somebody has to do it ). The SV edges are great. Here's how it works. Your brain knows the sharpness is there, registers it immediately, likes it. And the SV eyepiece design allows you to look around and use more of it. I do it all the time. It works. It feels incredibly natural.

Switched to my FL a few days ago and the difference was obvious. Seemed like a little bullseye of sharpness by comparison and you have to keep aiming the thing. Let's hope you aren't looking at more than one bird cause only the one in the middle will be focused. Let's hope you aren't scanning branches to find that little yellow warbler of some sort that won't show itself. You'll never see it in the fuzz.

Maybe people don't realize how functional those edges are until they've seen them and used them for a while, then tried to go back. Rather a disappointing experience.

Mark

Hi Mark,

I like your characterization of using the SV for birding, although I do more or less the same thing with my SLC 8x42 HD. I attribute this to minimal astigmatism and coma, rather than field flatness. So, I'm curious whether you've been able to compare the birding performance of the SLC to the SV?

Ed

 

[Pileatus]

I'll take a superior 70 - 80% centrefield to better edges everytime. After all, this is where we should be looking almost all the time.

I have always thought of the SV's [8.5 and 10x42] as a bit of a trade-off - better edges but the centrefield wasn't quite so good. I need to try the SV 32's, as they sound like there are no compromises in this area. If so, they would rank right up there with the very best.

Still, the SLC-HD is so good, I see no need for ''sharp-to-the-edge'' and the cost / complexity that entails.

To those who notice and/or appreciate sharp edges the difference between the Swarovision and the SLC/HD is patently obvious. Also, the Swarovisions do not compromise the centerfield to achieve edge sharpness. As Mark said, you have to experience the difference to appreciate it.

Rolling ball is the artifact of concern in the Swarovision line, not centerfield sharpness. The SLC HD will appeal to anyone displeased by the effect but it will not deliver a sharper centerfield. I've compared several and it just isn't so. The SLC, for what it's worth, has very good edges...something Swarovski has always managed to achieve!

 

[[email protected]]

Edges are for astronomers Dennis and for those who seek out new worlds and new civilisations and boldly swivel their eyeballs down unspeakable wormholes.

The rest of sane-minded humanity centre the subject so they don't loose their eyeballs somewhere round the back of the sockets and then have to unscrew and re-install them.

To the average nature observer edges are unimportant.

But I was surprised at how good the EL SV 8x32 is when I tried it at the Bird Fair. As I posted elsewhere, it really is nearly as good as an FL.

Lee

Hehehe!

 

[[email protected]]

Hello Dennis,

How many binoculars have you "unloaded" on ebay?

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :brains:

At least 50.

 

[Kammerdiner]

I'll take a superior 70 - 80% centrefield to better edges everytime. After all, this is where we should be looking almost all the time.

I have always thought of the SV's [8.5 and 10x42] as a bit of a trade-off - better edges but the centrefield wasn't quite so good. I need to try the SV 32's, as they sound like there are no compromises in this area. If so, they would rank right up there with the very best.

Still, the SLC-HD is so good, I see no need for ''sharp-to-the-edge'' and the cost / complexity that entails.

Oh, the FL isn't 70-80% sharp. At least none that I've ever seen. And my 32mm SV is at least as sharp, if not sharper, than my 32mm FL, right down to the center.

The main thing is the "roam around" view. You will use it, a lot. I was reminded of this today while trying to glimpse a bunch of very uncooperative warblers, vireos and orioles at the tops of 100 foot tall Sycamores along a nearby creek. Lousy birding day, but I saw a whole lot of undertail coverts.

Mark

 

[[email protected]]

no, I didn't inspect the edges, as I was focusing on such things as brightness, sharpness, richness of colors.

I did notice that the SV now has the sand color out. I love that sand and black (same as my CL)...very pretty.

Once you get used to the sharp edges you miss them.

 

[elkcub]

To those who notice and/or appreciate sharp edges the difference between the Swarovision and the SLC/HD is patently obvious. Also, the Swarovisions do not compromise the centerfield to achieve edge sharpness. As Mark said, you have to experience the difference to appreciate it.

Rolling ball is the artifact of concern in the Swarovision line, not centerfield sharpness. The SLC HD will appeal to anyone displeased by the effect but it will not deliver a sharper centerfield. I've compared several and it just isn't so. The SLC, for what it's worth, has very good edges...something Swarovski has always managed to achieve!

There is another aspect that should be considered. Some people, like myself, find a flat field to be disorienting due its influence on depth perception or something related. I never could adapt to it with my 8x32 SE and the SV essentially offers the same problem. So I found the SLC to be ideal and thank Swarovski for recognizing the need for a choice

Ed

 

[Kammerdiner]

Hi Mark,

I like your characterization of using the SV for birding, although I do more or less the same thing with my SLC 8x42 HD. I attribute this to minimal astigmatism and coma, rather than field flatness. So, I'm curious whether you've been able to compare the birding performance of the SLC to the SV?

Ed

Ed, I never got the SLC outside of a store so I can't say. That would indeed be interesting to compare. I think you may be right about the astigmatism though, because the well-known FL astigmatism/coma, it seems to me, is not something your brain is ever gonna like too much. At least mine doesn't. It feels somehow "nervous" if that makes a lick of sense.

Mark

 

[Torview]

Maybe the SV being 8.5 will always give the impression of being sharper than an 8 in direct comparison.

 

[ceasar]

Maybe the SV being 8.5 will always give the impression of being sharper than an 8 in direct comparison.

It should!

 

[Alexis Powell]

...The main thing is the "roam around" view. You will use it, a lot...

I agree as that's certainly true for me. My first good bins were the Nikon 8x40 Classic Eagle, which have a field flattener. I really missed those sharp edges when I later switched to the alpha European bins (to gain the advantage of phase coatings--at the time only available from Zeiss and Leica).

--AP

 

[[email protected]]

Oh, the FL isn't 70-80% sharp. At least none that I've ever seen. And my 32mm SV is at least as sharp, if not sharper, than my 32mm FL, right down to the center.

The main thing is the "roam around" view. You will use it, a lot. I was reminded of this today while trying to glimpse a bunch of very uncooperative warblers, vireos and orioles at the tops of 100 foot tall Sycamores along a nearby creek. Lousy birding day, but I saw a whole lot of undertail coverts.

Mark

I agree. Once you learn to utilize the sharp edges you miss not having them. You have to learn how to use them though if you haven't had them.

 

[[email protected]]

Maybe the SV being 8.5 will always give the impression of being sharper than an 8 in direct comparison.

That extra .5x will show a LITTLE more detail.

 

[[email protected]]

I'll take a superior 70 - 80% centrefield to better edges everytime. After all, this is where we should be looking almost all the time.

I have always thought of the SV's [8.5 and 10x42] as a bit of a trade-off - better edges but the centrefield wasn't quite so good. I need to try the SV 32's, as they sound like there are no compromises in this area. If so, they would rank right up there with the very best.

Still, the SLC-HD is so good, I see no need for ''sharp-to-the-edge'' and the cost / complexity that entails.

The SV's centerfield is as sharp as anything out there.

 

[james holdsworth]

To those who notice and/or appreciate sharp edges the difference between the Swarovision and the SLC/HD is patently obvious. Also, the Swarovisions do not compromise the centerfield to achieve edge sharpness. As Mark said, you have to experience the difference to appreciate it.

Rolling ball is the artifact of concern in the Swarovision line, not centerfield sharpness. The SLC HD will appeal to anyone displeased by the effect but it will not deliver a sharper centerfield. I've compared several and it just isn't so. The SLC, for what it's worth, has very good edges...something Swarovski has always managed to achieve!

A case of different eyes seeing different things. I fully expect every person to look through an HT and proclaim ''my god, it's full of stars...'' or some other superlative - but not everyone does. Somehow they don't see what I see and vice-versa.

I'm cool with that.

 

[ceasar]

Once you get used to the sharp edges you miss them.

Only if you are more interested in the binocular than in what you are looking at!

 

[ceasar]

That extra .5x will show a LITTLE more detail.

Of course it will!

A 10x Swarovison will show a lot more too!

So what?

 

[Pileatus]

Only if you are more interested in the binocular than in what you are looking at!

The instrument should not diminish or intrude on the experience. Hopefully, it becomes transparent. Many users, as Swarovski engineers know well, find soft edges distracting. Others don't. Hence the SV and SLC.

Dennis is absolutely correct. Some people, once they experience sharp edges, will never go back. I know we won't.

 

[ceasar]

The instrument should not diminish or intrude on the experience. Hopefully, it becomes transparent. Many users, as Swarovski engineers know well, find soft edges distracting. Others don't. Hence the SV and SLC.

Dennis is absolutely correct. Some people, once they experience sharp edges, will never go back. I know we won't.

We know you mean that does not make you better than us. But Dennis does not mean that! And that is the problem he creates here.