My Review of a 8x32 EL; 8x30 SLC NEU and a 8x30 CL (all brand new bino's) (1 Viewer)

[[email protected]]

I had a chance to compare the EL SV and the CL at Birdfair last week. Sorry Dennis, in my opinion, even under very bright conditions the CL is not close to the EL SV on resolution. Something I truly found surprising. In fact I tried another set of CLs and SVs to be sure. The difference was much more than could be accounted for on magnification. Doubting my own eyes, I picked out a target on a permanent hide about 600yds away and checked out some Leica, Zeiss, Nikon and Kowas which were all much closer to the EL on resolution than the CL on the same target. The killer was finding a 6.5x32 Viking on the next stand to Swarovski that still beat the CL. A detail I checked twice with different pairs. I have little doubt that the Swarovski engineers are laughing, just not for the reasons you suppose.

It's still very pretty, nice to use and has an excellent warranty!

David

That's baloney. All those binoculars you mentioned are resolving at the maximum the eye can see anyway. Your seeing something different than resolution. Possibly a difference in contrast or something else but not resolution. For some reason you are just dogging the Cl. Give it up because it isn't working because I have an SV and a CL and I compare them ever day and there isn't much difference in resolution. I still say there isn't a huge difference between these three binoculars that were reviewed outside of the eyepiece design which give the EL and the SLC the larger FOV. It is kind of pointless anyway because the EL and SLC are dead. Bury them. The CL is the new midpriced Swarovski so be happy with it or buy the SV or wait until they come out with a 32mm SV or 30mm SV.

 

[stephen b]

Without doing specialized resolution testing with a USAF chart and a mag. Booster, exact #,s for resolution for different binoculars cannot be quantified.

But........ since image resolution quality refers to the amount of detail in that image, we all can use our eyes looking through the binocular to decifer the amount of detail we see. And even when using binoculars hand held, or on a tripod without a chart or mag. booster, we can note how different binoculars have different image detail. So not all 8x binoculars are created equal in displaying image detail. Sorry, that is just the way it is.

All who have spent much time with their eyes behind binoculars know this. There are a # of factors involved in the design make up of different binoculars to influence the ability for our eyes to see details.

I have spent too enough time in the outdoors looking through different binoculars with the same power from different optic makers to know that they are not all = in picking out detail. And anyone else who has spent that same time knows it too. That is just the way it is.

So, that is what I mean, and I believe others do too, when I say that one binocular has better image resolution than another. Most of us do not walk around in the outdoors with charts and boosters and tripods in our hands. We carry our binoculars and "look at stuff" with our eyes, and some binoculars help us see better detail (and colors and contrast also BTW) in that "stuff". That is just the way it is.

Cheers

 

[[email protected]]

Without doing specialized resolution testing with a USAF chart and a mag. Booster, exact #,s for resolution for different binoculars cannot be quantified.

But........ since image resolution quality refers to the amount of detail in that image, we all can use our eyes looking through the binocular to decifer the amount of detail we see. And even when using binoculars hand held, or on a tripod without a chart or mag. booster, we can note how different binoculars have different image detail. So not all 8x binoculars are created equal in displaying image detail. Sorry, that is just the way it is.

All who have spent much time with their eyes behind binoculars know this. There are a # of factors involved in the design make up of different binoculars to influence the ability for our eyes to see details.

I have spent too enough time in the outdoors looking through different binoculars with the same power from different optic makers to know that they are not all = in picking out detail. And anyone else who has spent that same time knows it too. That is just the way it is.

So, that is what I mean, and I believe others do too, when I say that one binocular has better image resolution than another. Most of us do not walk around in the outdoors with charts and boosters and tripods in our hands. We carry our binoculars and "look at stuff" with our eyes, and some binoculars help us see better detail (and colors and contrast also BTW) in that "stuff". That is just the way it is.

Cheers

I just took my SV's ouside and my CL's and looked at print from about 100 yards away and there is no discernible difference in detail on axis and my eyes are 20/15 so I say you are full of BS unless your eyes are as sharp as an Eagles and I know they are not. There are other things that make the SV better including a larger FOV and the sharp edges but the on axis resolution is no better. I'm telling you you are imagining it! If I had all three Swarovski binoculars lined up and you didn't know which one was which and they were stopped down so there was no difference in FOV I guarantee you wouldn't rank them the same way you did in your review unless you got lucky.

 

[stephen b]

Stephen,

I was wondering if when you compared the 3 binoculars whether you noticed any difference in the diameters of their ocular lenses? I would think it unusual if they shared oculars like the Nikon SE's and EII's do.

Bob

Hi Bob,

I measure the ocular diameters as follows:

8x30 SLC NEU- just over 19mm

8x32 EL- 22.5mm

8x30 CL 18.5mm

-Stephen

 

[stephen b]

I just took my SV's ouside and my CL's and looked at print from about 100 yards away and there is no discernible difference in detail on axis and my eyes are 20/15 so I say you are full of BS unless your eyes are as sharp as an Eagles and I know they are not. There are other things that make the SV better including a larger FOV and the sharp edges but the on axis resolution is no better. I'm telling you you are imagining it! If I had all three Swarovski binoculars lined up and you didn't know which one was which and they were stopped down so there was no difference in FOV I guarantee you wouldn't rank them the same way you did in your review unless you got lucky.

Dennis,

I have patiently watched you respond to this thread on a review that I did and I have also gently sparred with you with some posts back and forth. Now you have gone way too far!

Not only are you being very rude to me, and to others BTW, - you are also putting a what could and should have been a very nice informative and healthy discussion thread- into one that could be closed.

How is it so uncanny before I posted this review that I just knew which BF member would take a personal offense to it and would start swinging at me and others when I posted it. No, I do not have any special psychic ability, as I am sure there are plenty of others who could see the writing on the wall before hand also.

So it has gone from your first post in this thread being things such as:

That is the best review I have ever read on Bird Forum! Nice. That is just the type of review I like.........
Great review though.

And now on to calling me out as being "full of BS";...."you are imagining it";....and "unless you got lucky"

And even after posting this comment to me below- you later question my eyesight (which are good anyways and are also a corrected 20-15 BTW) tell me I am "full of BS" and "you are imagining it!"

Good idea! That would be a great way to compare them. The Cl's are so bright for their aperture it makes me wonder if Swarovski didn't improve the coatings on the CL over the EL and SLC knowing they were aperture handicapped.
I would think the optics design would be similar but probably the big difference would be the eyepiece design. You seem to have good eyes. Could you compare an EL to and SV and see what you differences you notice.

Well I am tired of your passive aggressive type comments and combative, defensive behavior.

But this is not my first rodeo with you. Ironically we went around in another thread less than 2 years ago- where you were putting down Swarovski and people that use them and I was defending them: (here is what you said at the time):

"That's because Swarovski advertises more and people think they are a status symbol! Hunters for some reason think Swarovski is the ultimate and I don't think they even know Zeiss makes binoculars. That's all you here come out of hunters mouths when it comes to optics. Swarovski, Swarovski, Swarovski. They advertise alot in those hunters magazines."

__________________
Dennis

And later in same thread you went on to say:

"Alot of the hunters I have hunted with seem to really prefer Swarovski EL's and the salesman at Sportmans Warehouse said they sell more Swarovski's in the high end category than anything. Alot of the people buying them do so with a preconceived notion that they are the best and I really think they perceive them as a status symbol ......I think advertising has alot to do with it. The salesmen at Eagles Optics probably get Swarovski for cost that's why they use them. I hate Swarovski's because they monopolize the crystal industry and those are way overpriced too. I might look at the new Swarovision when it comes out. It will be along time though before you will get any discount on those babies."
__________________
Dennis


****BTW- you know what the really funny and ironic thing is- when I went back to look at these posts above to copy them here- here is what I found under those same exact posts where you were mocking Swarovski customers and saying how you hated Swarovski- Guess what was posted underneath your name for your Signature?........wait for it......-and there it was- 2 Swarovski binoculars right under those same posts:

__________________
Dennis

Binoculars: Swarovision 8.5x42
Swarovski 8x30 CL

### It was precious!! I almost fell out of my seat laughing. Just like someone changes their Avatar,- same goes for their signature here:... it goes back and puts the same Avatar and signature on all the posts they have ever had here. It was priceless! Guess you have to be careful about what you say- it can come back to bite you.

Dennis- You sure can be quite an enigma to watch and see how you switch teams so often and then defend your new favorites till the bitter end; until.... you drop them like a hot potato. It is can be quite comical at times.

But,.... when you make some of the statements like you did to me above- well, then- you have gone too far and you are just annoying!

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis,

I have patiently watched you respond to this thread on a review that I did and I have also gently sparred with you with some posts back and forth. Now you have gone way too far!

Not only are you being very rude to me, and to others BTW, - you are also putting a what could and should have been a very nice informative and healthy discussion thread- into one that could be closed.

How is it so uncanny before I posted this review that I just knew which BF member would take a personal offense to it and would start swinging at me and others when I posted it. No, I do not have any special psychic ability, as I am sure there are plenty of others who could see the writing on the wall before hand also.

So it has gone from your first post in this thread being things such as:



And now on to calling me out as being "full of BS";...."you are imagining it";....and "unless you got lucky"

And even after posting this comment to me below- you later question my eyesight (which are good anyways and are also a corrected 20-15 BTW) tell me I am "full of BS" and "you are imagining it!"



Well I am tired of your passive aggressive type comments and combative, defensive behavior.

But this is not my first rodeo with you. Ironically we went around in another thread less than 2 years ago- where you were putting down Swarovski and people that use them and I was defending them: (here is what you said at the time):

"That's because Swarovski advertises more and people think they are a status symbol! Hunters for some reason think Swarovski is the ultimate and I don't think they even know Zeiss makes binoculars. That's all you here come out of hunters mouths when it comes to optics. Swarovski, Swarovski, Swarovski. They advertise alot in those hunters magazines."

__________________
Dennis

And later in same thread you went on to say:

"Alot of the hunters I have hunted with seem to really prefer Swarovski EL's and the salesman at Sportmans Warehouse said they sell more Swarovski's in the high end category than anything. Alot of the people buying them do so with a preconceived notion that they are the best and I really think they perceive them as a status symbol ......I think advertising has alot to do with it. The salesmen at Eagles Optics probably get Swarovski for cost that's why they use them. I hate Swarovski's because they monopolize the crystal industry and those are way overpriced too. I might look at the new Swarovision when it comes out. It will be along time though before you will get any discount on those babies."
__________________
Dennis


****BTW- you know what the really funny and ironic thing is- when I went back to look at these posts above to copy them here- here is what I found under those same exact posts where you were mocking Swarovski customers and saying how you hated Swarovski- Guess what was posted underneath your name for your Signature?........wait for it......-and there it was- 2 Swarovski binoculars right under those same posts:

__________________
Dennis

Binoculars: Swarovision 8.5x42
Swarovski 8x30 CL

### It was precious!! I almost fell out of my seat laughing. Just like someone changes their Avatar,- same goes for their signature here:... it goes back and puts the same Avatar and signature on all the posts they have ever had here. It was priceless! Guess you have to be careful about what you say- it can come back to bite you.

Dennis- You sure can be quite an enigma to watch and see how you switch teams so often and then defend your new favorites till the bitter end; until.... you drop them like a hot potato. It is can be quite comical at times.

But,.... when you make some of the statements like you did to me above- well, then- you have gone too far and you are just annoying!

Sorry but this thread is important because the Swarovski CL 8x30 is a new binocular from one of the biggest manufacturers of birding binoculars and is a very important binocular to birders because it is targeted directly at them and I don't feel your review is accurate at all. I have a right to change my opinion over time as manufacturers come out with new binoculars. Saying that you can definitely tell the difference between these three binoculars in resolution, contrast, and color makes me laugh and should be taken by anybody reading it as the fabrication that it is. As the CL is on the market longer I am sure it well prove to be a good birding binocular and other more objective reviews will disprove your subjective ramblings. Your review is critical right now because there are not many objective reviews around to dispel your incorrect findings. Alot of people will read your review while searching the internet for information on the CL and either not buy the CL or buy something else because of it and I don't think that is fair.

 

[FrankD]

Ya know...after this discussion...I am probably going to have to go out and sample a CL. Maybe take an SE 8x32 with me to use as a reference standard....

 

[karmantra]

Dennis has managed to disparage both Henry Link & Stephen b on their comprehensive personal evaluations of the Swaro 8x30 CLs--Stephen, I would take Henry's lead from the other thread regarding the 8x30 CLs and "create an Ignore list of one".

 

[ceasar]

Ya know...after this discussion...I am probably going to have to go out and sample a CL. Maybe take an SE 8x32 with me to use as a reference standard....

Don't forget to take along your common sense when you do, Frank.

Would Swarovski be selling the EL for 800 bucks more than the CL if it wasn't a higher quality, better constructed and optically superior binocular than the CL? Don't worry about the Swarovski technicians on their lunch hour laughing at Stephen!:-O

Better yet, someone should compare the CL to Zeiss's 8 x 30 B T* and see if it is $400.00 dollars better. Their specs are remarkably similar so it would be a good comparison.

Bob

 

[stephen b]

To others reading this thread, I have to say I am sorry about the direction it has taken. Can not really say I am that surprised though. I am not unhappy about posting my findings in this thread, but I am not happy with this direction now. The term "one bad apple can spoil......" comes to mind.

To Dennis:

After your last few posts to me (and to others here), I have to say I have had it with you and I am done. ( Thanks for the non-apology BTW) I am going to not only put you on my ignore list- your the first and only- I am also going to not directly comment back to you in any threads.

I think you have/ are a problem. You have been rude and insulted / taken shots back at anyone who disagrees with you on these CL's. But..... that is your general MO. I should have never got caught up in the exchange. Your debate points are not compelling, nor are they persuasive. In fact I find it to be quite juvenile and childish how you take shots at anyone who does not see what you see with- "that's only ones opinion" (as if yours is not) and "that's baloney"; "you are full of BS"; your seeing things" (yes we are BTW) "makes me laugh"; "the fabrication that it is" etc, etc. ad nauseam.

You say above in end of your last post - "I don't that is fair". Well Dennis I do not fell it is fair either about the way you treat people that do not agree with you in a rude and insulting manner.

So I for one am done with you. I mentioned in a post here in a playful manner that "I still love you". Well I have realized that I really don't anymore, in fact I am not sure that I really like you anymore. So I am breaking up with you.

Adios

 

[james holdsworth]

Sorry but this thread is important because the Swarovski CL 8x30 is a new binocular from one of the biggest manufacturers of birding binoculars and is a very important binocular to birders because it is targeted directly at them and I don't feel your review is accurate at all. I have a right to change my opinion over time as manufacturers come out with new binoculars. Saying that you can definitely tell the difference between these three binoculars in resolution, contrast, and color makes me laugh and should be taken by anybody reading it as the fabrication that it is. As the CL is on the market longer I am sure it well prove to be a good birding binocular and other more objective reviews will disprove your subjective ramblings. Your review is critical right now because there are not many objective reviews around to dispel your incorrect findings. Alot of people will read your review while searching the internet for information on the CL and either not buy the CL or buy something else because of it and I don't think that is fair.

Calling several posters liars and ''full of BS'', yet your sole goal is to pimp bins for higher resale.

Frankly I'm amazed that either of your behaviours / actions is still tolerated here.

 

[black kite 1964]

Lots of money for average performance. Not much more for 8x32 fls which are the best in class. Nice label though!!

 

[Jonathan B.]

To others reading this thread, I have to say I am sorry about the direction it has taken. Can not really say I am that surprised though. I am not unhappy about posting my findings in this thread, but I am not happy with this direction now. The term "one bad apple can spoil......" comes to mind.

Stephen:

Dennis's subjective opinions about bins, as well as accompanying insults about others' subjective opinions and even objective tests, go way back before the SV (best binocular of all time) unseated the Zeiss 8x56 FL (best binocular of all time), which unseated the Nikon 8x30 EII (best binocular of all time), which unseated the Zeiss 8x32 FL (best binocular of all time), etc. Here are a few relevant quotes:

29 September 2005: I have had Nikon Superior E's...and I can't see how people can say they are better optically than the top line roofs....I think people rationalize keeping their Superior E's because they don't want to spend the money to get top line roofs. Saying they are better optically is crap. They are not....

30 September 2005: I have 20/20 uncorrected vision and I find it incredible that so many people like the view through the Nikon Superior E's better than top line roofs like Swarovski's, Zeiss or Nikons own roofs....I think you have some vision problems if you think Nikon Superior E's are better than roofs. Or there must be something about the view you prefer but they certainly aren't optically superior. You just don't want to spend the money to get a good pair of roofs. Crack that wallet open and get rid of those antique Porro's! It's only money!

1 October 2005: The review you are talking about is about five years old isn't it? I think the technology of the new roofs has improved since then to give them the edge over the Nikon Superior E. The roofs will keep getting better but I think the Nikon Superior E is stagnant as far as improvements in coatings and such. There is just not as many people buying them as roofs.

5 January 2009: I received the Nikon 8x32 SE's I ordered from Adorama and man are those things impressive! I can't believe how sharp and bright they are. No wonder they have such a following in the birding world. Once I got the IPD adjusted correctly I get no blackouts and what a view. The view is absolutely beautiful....The 3D view is awesome...if you want the best optics you can't go wrong these. It's obvious porro prisms have many inherent advantages when you look through these.

9 January 2009: ...the view [through Nikon SE 8x32] is the best I have seen yet through any binoculars I have tried. I am thrilled that this level of optical quality can be had for so little money compared to the top roofs. My eyes are not lying and I am not jumping to any conclusions about the optical quality of these binoculars. In my opinion these are the best binoculars I have ever seen optically and certainly the best value for your money.

 

[ivan86]

Better yet, someone should compare the CL to Zeiss's 8 x 30 B T* and see if it is $400.00 dollars better.

I agree with you, i will do this comparison, maybe also with a Meopta 10x33.

There are at least 2 topics about the new CL and i have not read yet something that i did not know before.

I find interesting to know how far the performance of the CL are from the alphas but everything i read in these topics lacks of objective comments or quantitative elements.

I'm not blaming anyone but for me is too soon to have a conclusion, while i see people get angry for nothing.

In the next weeks me and Piergiovanni (binomania.it) will do a comparison, as connoisseur of physics and optics i think that i will do a good job, at least is my goal.

greets,
Ivan

 

[Alexis Powell]

Sorry but this thread is important because the Swarovski CL 8x30 is a new binocular from one of the biggest manufacturers of birding binoculars and is a very important binocular to birders because it is targeted directly at them and I don't feel your review is accurate at all. I have a right to change my opinion over time as manufacturers come out with new binoculars. Saying that you can definitely tell the difference between these three binoculars in resolution, contrast, and color makes me laugh and should be taken by anybody reading it as the fabrication that it is. As the CL is on the market longer I am sure it well prove to be a good birding binocular and other more objective reviews will disprove your subjective ramblings. Your review is critical right now because there are not many objective reviews around to dispel your incorrect findings. Alot of people will read your review while searching the internet for information on the CL and either not buy the CL or buy something else because of it and I don't think that is fair.

Dennis,

I guess I've got thicker skin, or else I enjoy extreme on-line personalities more than most, so I've not been bothered by any of your posts--they're all fairly tame in the grand scheme of things--but I can't understand what ground you think you're arguing from in this thread as of late. Sure, it's true that in the center of the field that any properly assembled 8x bin has higher resolution than the eye, but you also know that perceived sharpness varies tremendously, especially away from the center, and in earnest discussion you would acknowledge that even if you wanted to first make the educational point about resolution. How can you say that it is impossible for three different models of bin to have different contrast and color just because they are from the same manufacturer? We all know that differences in optical formulas etc affect these qualities, which is why it is the case that you, and I, and all of us, have always been able to see differences in these qualities among models and brands. It applies to bins, camera lenses etc. The CL, EL and SLC are not the same binocular. Do you deny that these qualities have been a part of your past assessments of bins? What are we to make of your concern that less than crazy-enthusiastic reviews of the CL might temper a potential buyer's enthusiasm when so many of what were then, and still are, awesome models have been dismissed by you with your "get the best, forget the rest" claims. I guess the difference is that you are the god of bins so you were right in saying that whereas everyone else is now wrong. OK, I don't really believe that you believe that, but I still don't understand where you think you are coming from. Even more disturbing, is that I happen to subscribe to the "get the best, forget the rest" philosophy myself, and I've always admired your true-believer walk-the-talk adherence to that principle. But you seem to have lost your way. First, you recently fell for the Leica 8x32 BN, a great one in its day and still superb, but not a bin that could hope to claim the title of best against the latest models. Now, you've settled for the CL, a bin with substandard FOV and close-focus, and lacking special glass or field flatteners, and which is only very marginally smaller or lighter than the Zeiss FL or Leica HD. No way is it the best. OK, it's cheaper, but that never used to be part of the equation. You used to be about no-compromise optics in a birding-worthy package. What's your new philosophy?

--AP

 

[[email protected]]

To others reading this thread, I have to say I am sorry about the direction it has taken. Can not really say I am that surprised though. I am not unhappy about posting my findings in this thread, but I am not happy with this direction now. The term "one bad apple can spoil......" comes to mind.

To Dennis:

After your last few posts to me (and to others here), I have to say I have had it with you and I am done. ( Thanks for the non-apology BTW) I am going to not only put you on my ignore list- your the first and only- I am also going to not directly comment back to you in any threads.

I think you have/ are a problem. You have been rude and insulted / taken shots back at anyone who disagrees with you on these CL's. But..... that is your general MO. I should have never got caught up in the exchange. Your debate points are not compelling, nor are they persuasive. In fact I find it to be quite juvenile and childish how you take shots at anyone who does not see what you see with- "that's only ones opinion" (as if yours is not) and "that's baloney"; "you are full of BS"; your seeing things" (yes we are BTW) "makes me laugh"; "the fabrication that it is" etc, etc. ad nauseam.

You say above in end of your last post - "I don't that is fair". Well Dennis I do not fell it is fair either about the way you treat people that do not agree with you in a rude and insulting manner.

So I for one am done with you. I mentioned in a post here in a playful manner that "I still love you". Well I have realized that I really don't anymore, in fact I am not sure that I really like you anymore. So I am breaking up with you.

Adios

Do I get the house? Sorry, but the more I think about it these one person subjective reviews on Bird Forum are worrisome to me. They are all over the internet and people read them and sometimes make a purchase decision based on one person's opinion. I called nobody a liar you reported what you thought you saw. I simply want people to realize that these kind of reviews are basically just ONE person's opinion and in alot of cases just an amateur observer voicing his opinion and that is all they are. I am looking forward to some objective reviews on the CL to see if everybody agrees that they are as poor of a binocular as some reviewers think they are. I think they are getting a bad wrap right from the start and they don't deserve it. Once again I say try them yourself and don't trust all these bad reviews.

 

[[email protected]]

Don't forget to take along your common sense when you do, Frank.

Would Swarovski be selling the EL for 800 bucks more than the CL if it wasn't a higher quality, better constructed and optically superior binocular than the CL? Don't worry about the Swarovski technicians on their lunch hour laughing at Stephen!:-O

Better yet, someone should compare the CL to Zeiss's 8 x 30 B T* and see if it is $400.00 dollars better. Their specs are remarkably similar so it would be a good comparison.

Bob

What you have to remember is that technology in binocular development has come a long way and as the Chinese have shown it is possible to build better binoculars for less money now. Don't always let price persuade you into thinking one binocular has to be better than another because it is more expensive. It just ain't so even with Swarovski anymore.

 

[mooreorless]

Dennis you are like the Energizer Bunny, you just keep going and going on.

 

[ceasar]

What you have to remember is that technology in binocular development has come a long way and as the Chinese have shown it is possible to build better binoculars for less money now. Don't always let price persuade you into thinking one binocular has to be better than another because it is more expensive. It just ain't so even with Swarovski anymore.

Dennis,
You are badmouthing Swarovski here by implying that their EL is not worth the money they are charging for it. You accused Stephen of doing this with the CL. Maybe you should mull your ideas over before you post them?

And if you know of a Chinese made 8 x 30 Roof Prism that you think should be tested along with the Swarovski 8 x 30 and the Zeiss 8 x 30 then advise Ivan to throw it into the mix. I'm sure he will be happy to test it.

Bob

 

[FrankD]

.....And if you know of a Chinese made 8 x 30 Roof Prism that you think should be tested along with the Swarovski 8 x 30 and the Zeiss 8 x 30 then advise Ivan to throw it into the mix. I'm sure he will be happy to test it.

Bob

Bob,

It is funny you should mention that. I want to compare the little Dakota Elite 8x32 to the Swaro CL. Yeah, you read that right. I want to compare an inexpensive Chinese bin to a high-performance European model. Do I expect it to compete? No, certainly not....at least not in all areas. I do expect it to compete in handling, size and centerfield performance.

Why am I even considering it? Well, I recently showed the little Dakota Elite, the Pro Optic 8x42 and the Zen Ray ED3 to a birder and optics aficionado whose opinion on optics I trust. His first comment was something along the lines of "Geez, the centerfield performance on these little Elites is as good as the other two..." Judging by Henry's comments on quality control, a cherry unit of the little Elites might actually compete a bit with some of the higher priced models assuming that the quality control level was good and assuming internal baffling issues were not prominently displayed.

It should prove fun. I can't wait.