swarovision EL (1 Viewer)

[Ardy]

Two places I've found, hobby shops and mill supply. They usually carry silicon o-rings which should have a longer life than rubber.You can check out the different properties here:http://www.sisweb.com/vacuum/o-rings/oring.htm#compare

 

[ticl2184]

Got the new 10x42 Swarovski EL last Monday and have spent the last fews days comparing them to the my Zeiss 10x42 FL.
This is my review.
I have rated different aspects of the binoculars performance out of 10 and divided these areas into two sections, Optical Performance and External Functional Use.
Optical Performance

Zeiss Swarovski

Brightness 9.5, 9.25

(I was surprised how bright the Swarovski's are but I felt the Zeiss were just ever so slightly brighter useing them in complete darkness.)

Colour Fringing 9.5, 9

(Zeiss have nailed CA but I'm not sure if the colder image helps reduce the effect even further.)

Reflection 7, 9
(against bright lit
daylight source)

Internal Reflection 9.5, 9
viewing the Moon

Edge of Field Clarity 9, 10

Field of View 9, 9

Depth of Field 8.5, 8.5

Sharpness 9, 10

Rolling Globe Effect 9.5, 7

Colour 7, 9

Contrast 7, 9

Exit Pupil 9, 9.5

Clarity when viewing 8.5, 9.75
bright star point,
I.e. Jupiter

External Functional Use

Zeiss Swarovksi

Build Quality 8, 10

Design 8, 10

Weight 9.5, 9

Feel in Hands 8, 9.5

Length 8.5, 8.5

Smoothness 8, 9
Of Focus

Balance 7, 9.5

General Aesthetic 7, 9
Appeal

Cost 9.5, 7

Total

185.5 199.5
220 220

Conclusions.
In my opinion the Swarovski is the clear winner, however the Zeiss does excel in areas of Brightness, (just slightly) colour fringing and internal reflection from a bright light source like the moon. This is important to me as a Astronomer because any halo's of light produced by a full or bright moon can be very distracting. Additionally the Zeiss are noticeably lighter and at a much more reasonable price.
The edge of field clarity in the Swarovski is outstanding. It is quite amazing. Used them last night to observe star fields. Have never seen anything like it. Everything is tack sharp. Viewing Mars and the Orion nebula was something completly new.
Could not decide which had a greater filed of view, both were practically the same even though the Swarovski is supposed to have 112m compared to the 110m of the Zeiss. Depth of field was very similar to. Sharpness had to goto the Swarovski.
Rolling Globe effect ? I stated in a post back in December that the effect was huge for me, however you do get used to it the more you use them. But then if you go back to the Zeiss then the Swarovski you notice it again. I have noticed that the effect is less when viewing distant objects or when viewing a star field, when it is practically unnoticeable. Viewing in extreme close up also reduces the effect. It is only when you view objects at mid focus that it becomes noticeable.
Have never been a fan of the colour and contarst of the Zeiss. Is more natural in the Swarovski.
Build quality and design of the Swarovski is awesome. Weight is noticeably increased when useing the Swarovski in the field for long periods, however its excellent balance and general feel in the hands reduces its presence. Both the Zeiss and Swarovski are practically the same length. Focus is significantly smoother and less variable in the Swarovski and for pure aesthetic quality the Swarovski can't be beaten. They really do look like the Rolls Royce of binoculars in my opinion. Cost ? Well they are expensive but I think they are worth it.
Only have one main criticism of the Swarovski. I have noticed that left monocular view is ever so slightly higher than the right. To check I levelled the binoculars statically useing a spirit level and observed a stationary horizontally levelled object. I also observed the horizon which is pretty level. Sure enough there is a slight anomaly. I.e. You can see slighlty more of a scene at the top of the left monocular FOV and slightly less of the scene at the bottom of the left monocular compared to the right monocular. Strangely however, the binoculars are in perfect horizontal and vertical collimation. Have contacted Swarovski UK and am waiting for a reply. Additionally I observed this anomaly with a pair I tested at the end of 2008 plus the pair I looked at at the end of November last year. I also observed the same thing when I tested another pair in the shop before I bouught my pair. This would lead me to conclude that this is just the way they are. Would be interesting to see if any one else has noticed this.

Tim

 

[Fireform]

I had planned a more comprehensive review of this bin, and a comparison with the 10x42 edg and 8x SE in my possession, but an untimely collision and resultant broken collarbone has rearranged my priorities somewhat. So, whilst the painkillers are circulating at a pleasantly high concentration, I shall divulge my impressions, listed in order of increasing quality for each category:

1) brightness: 10x42EDG, 8x32SE, 8.5 SV, 7x Zen
2) contrast: I could rank them, but really it's a dead heat to my eyes. These are all very high contrast bins.
3) resolution (hand-held): 7x Zen, 8x32SE, 10x42EDG, 8.5 SV. That's right, the 8.5x bin came out on top by a distinct margin (a full line on the USAF chart, for instance).
4) visible chromatic aberration: 8x32SE, 7x Zen, 10x42EDG, 8.5 SV. The top 2 show some ca only at the far fringe of the FOV.

I have to say, I am very impressed by the Swarovisions, to the extent that some serious rearrangement is being made in my bino collection. They are more compact than the earlier EL, to the point that they aren't much bigger than the Zens, and their apparent resolution is jaw-dropping. I do note some rolling ball, but it's not objectionable to me. Focusing, feel and general aesthetics are top notch. Although they are in fact very slightly heavier than the 10x EDGs, they feel and handle as if they were lighter--I had to weigh them twice before I believed what I was seeing. The only aspect of their performance I can find fault with is that there aren't enough intermediate click stops in the eyecup adjustment.

So, my collection is about to be pared to the 8.5SVs, 8x and 12x SEs, and maybe a pair of 7x42 FLs if I can get a really good deal on them. Whew!

 

[Ingle1970]

I had planned a more comprehensive review of this bin, and a comparison with the 10x42 edg and 8x SE in my possession, but an untimely collision and resultant broken collarbone has rearranged my priorities somewhat. So, whilst the painkillers are circulating at a pleasantly high concentration, I shall divulge my impressions, listed in order of increasing quality for each category:

1) brightness: 10x42EDG, 8x32SE, 8.5 SV, 7x Zen
2) contrast: I could rank them, but really it's a dead heat to my eyes. These are all very high contrast bins.
3) resolution (hand-held): 7x Zen, 8x32SE, 10x42EDG, 8.5 SV. That's right, the 8.5x bin came out on top by a distinct margin (a full line on the USAF chart, for instance).
4) visible chromatic aberration: 8x32SE, 7x Zen, 10x42EDG, 8.5 SV. The top 2 show some ca only at the far fringe of the FOV.

I have to say, I am very impressed by the Swarovisions, to the extent that some serious rearrangement is being made in my bino collection. They are more compact than the earlier EL, to the point that they aren't much bigger than the Zens, and their apparent resolution is jaw-dropping. I do note some rolling ball, but it's not objectionable to me. Focusing, feel and general aesthetics are top notch. Although they are in fact very slightly heavier than the 10x EDGs, they feel and handle as if they were lighter--I had to weigh them twice before I believed what I was seeing. The only aspect of their performance I can find fault with is that there aren't enough intermediate click stops in the eyecup adjustment.

So, my collection is about to be pared to the 8.5SVs, 8x and 12x SEs, and maybe a pair of 7x42 FLs if I can get a really good deal on them. Whew!

sorry to hear about your accident fireform , get well soon .
your summary makes interesting reading, food for thought indeed ...

 

[Sancho]

....So, whilst the painkillers are circulating at a pleasantly high concentration, I shall divulge my impressions....

LOL! I hope your impressions don´t change when the painkillers wear off, Fireform...and sorry to hear about your collarbone, I wish you a speedy recovery.

Very interesting and digestible summary. I think the bino-cupboard rankings will change anywhere a SV is introduced.

Edit: I was out today in woodland and can now "get" rolling-ball quite easily if I look for it, even with relatively slow panning across a very small area. It doesn´t bother me at all, although maybe this is because I´m used to stranger effects with Canon IS binos. IMHO, if rolling-ball is a necessary side-effect of the superbly flat Swarovision field, it´s a small price to pay.

 

[henry link]

Tim,

Excellent review (even though I don't normally like numerical ratings). I've noticed vertically misaligned eyepiece fieldstops in quite a few binoculars. Vertical is really the only direction that a misaligned fieldstop would be noticed. If eccentric eyepieces are used for collimation, as in the Swarovski, one of the eyepieces might require enough vertical decentering in the process of collimation to cause this or one eyepiece could be slightly tilted.

Sorry to hear about your accident, Fireform.

Henry

 

[ticl2184]

Thanks Henry

Is this anomaly easy to remedy, or am I going to end up with another problem if a tilted or vertical decentered eyepiece is the cause.
I don't really want to have to send them back as they are only a week old. Additionally the other 10x new EL's I've looked through, had the same optical discrepancy.
However I don't really want to live with it when the edge of field clarity is so perfect.
How can something like this pass quality control from one of the main alpha manufacturers ? Acceptable in a pair of bins costing £100 but not £1815

Tim

 

[Fireform]

I neglected to mention it, but I've handled now 4 different models of the EDG, and they all show very little glare or stray internal light. The EDG is even better than the SV on that score.

 

[Fireform]

Ironically, my backyard is entirely enclosed by a 7' high wooden board fence--panning against this background is probably the best conceivable way of amplifying the rolling ball effect. So, there is no question that I see this effect with the Swarovisions. However, most of the time I find that I don't notice it much, and if I do it doesn't make me queasy. Fortunately much of my birding (and all of my hunting!) takes place outside the graphically delimited borders of my backyard.

 

[jgraider]

Fireform, nice review. Is it safe to say you're impressed with the EDG also? What's your opinion of this glass? Thanks.

 

[Fireform]

I have been impressed with the EDG binoculars I've owned and handled, but it must be noted that I have had four of them in different configurations (each of the 42mm models and the 8x32) and haven't kept any of them. They are wonderful instruments optically with very low CA, high contrast and high resolution, and they are beautifully and ruggedly made. I felt that the 8x42 and 7x42 models could have been brighter in low light (though they are already much brighter than the LXL models, and the 7x42 does give a wonderful relaxed view one would demand in that format), and somehow they feel heavier than they should. To me, the Swarovision feels like a benchmark product that raises the bar in its class, while the EDG is more of an incremental improvement.

My opinion of the EDG is also colored by the perception that Nikon isn't committed to the product and it languishes in a kind of half-born state. It's not clear to me that new stock continues to be made, and the diopter lockdown problem has not been addressed as conclusively as it should have been if this is really Nikon's binocular of the future. To be blunt, it's hard for me to feel comfortable spending that kind of money on a product that may have been a trial balloon and already slated for the boneyard.

 

[jgraider]

I understand. Thanks again for the info.

 

[NDhunter]

I have been impressed with the EDG binoculars I've owned and handled, but it must be noted that I have had four of them in different configurations (each of the 42mm models and the 8x32) and haven't kept any of them. They are wonderful instruments optically with very low CA, high contrast and high resolution, and they are beautifully and ruggedly made. I felt that the 8x42 and 7x42 models could have been brighter in low light (though they are already much brighter than the LXL models, and the 7x42 does give a wonderful relaxed view one would demand in that format), and somehow they feel heavier than they should. To me, the Swarovision feels like a benchmark product that raises the bar in its class, while the EDG is more of an incremental improvement.

My opinion of the EDG is also colored by the perception that Nikon isn't committed to the product and it languishes in a kind of half-born state. It's not clear to me that new stock continues to be made, and the diopter lockdown problem has not been addressed as conclusively as it should have been if this is really Nikon's binocular of the future. To be blunt, it's hard for me to feel comfortable spending that kind of money on a product that may have been a trial balloon and already slated for the boneyard.

Fireform:

I hope you are feeling better after your accident.
This post has drifted off but I feel compelled to offer my opinion on the EDG,
as I had one of the earlier ones, and was treated very well with an exchange
to the new one with the improved diopter, and I am a very satisfied current owner. The diopter has been fixed quite well thankyou, and I think the EDG is a very good new optic.

Your opinions on the EDG are like mine, an excellent binocular, but I think
your gloom and doom here about Nikon is greatly exaggerated!! :eat:

 

[Fireform]

I hope you are right! I've been a Nikon fan forever, since I started out in film photography with an FE and built a collection of fine Nikkor lenses 30 years ago, I use Nikon scopes and other sport optics and I will never part with my SEs. I agree that the EDG is a very fine glass and ends any debate about whether Nikon belongs among the alphas. It improves upon the existing order there in some ways.

I just feel that the rollout of the EDG has happened oddly--why are they not even being marketed anywhere outside North America after all this time if they are the company's flagship product? I hope very much you are right and that this will be forgotten as stocks swell and the product advances, but I have to admit that I don't see the signs I hope to see yet.

 

[opticoholic]

I agree this thread has "drifted." Let me try to get it back on track. I was #6 on the list of people who pre-ordered the 8.5X42 Swarovison from Eagle Optics. I used them about 2 or 3 times in the field and a few times from my deck and ultimately ended up returning them because the sharpness of the field was not even. Let me describe this carefully.

I had to really look for the issue and I didn't even see it until the second or third time I used them. The center field sharpness was amazing. But that was expected. What really attracted me to the new Swarovision EL's was the "flat field" or edge-to-edge sharpness. So I was really paying attention to this, and I compared carefully to 2 other binoculars I own with very large sweet spots (see next paragraph). I would dial in a subject in super-sharp focus dead center, then shift the field of view from side to side and see how the sharpness held up as the object moved nearer to the edge. Looking very carefully "off axis," I was able to see that there was clearly a very slight drop in the sharpness/contrast on the right side of the field compared to the left (and I'm not talking about the extreme edge). I even turned the binoculars upside down (with the focus knob on the bottom) and the effect was reversed (sharpness was very slightly less on the left). This convinced me that it wasn't my eyes. So even though I didn't think this was something I would notice when actually birding or using the binoculars, this was the reason I ultimately decided to return them. After Eagle Optics received them back, they said they could pretty easily see the issue I described (within the 30 day return period). I haven't heard anyone else report this, so I think it was probably an uncommon defect due to "sample variation." Assuming that I could receive a different sample without this issue, I needed to decide, apart from this issue, "do I like these well enough to keep them?"

I am fortunate to own a lot of really fine optics. In fact I decided to rename myself "opticoholic" on this forum ("...MY NAME IS BIFF AND I'M AN OPTICOHOLIC..." I'm hopeless, but at least on this forum I know I'm not alone). I compared the Swarovision EL's to my Nikon 8X32 SE's and my Swarovski 7X42 SLC 'new'. Both of these are models highly regarded for large sweet spots. The new Swarovision beat them both easily for edge sharpness. But the Swarovision still has a sweet spot: even though the sharpness off center is incredible, it still doesn't match the unbelievable sharpness center field. But I'm beginning to feel that I've been too obsessed with edge sharpness. I don't think my brain notices the very edges of the field being a little soft, and even if the edges were perfectly sharp, I wonder how much it would enhance the view that I experience. As I continue to seek that perfect binocular for myself, I'm starting to pay more attention to the total 'gestalt' and simple "effortless comfort when viewing."

The rolling ball effect was not an issue for me. I had to really work to even notice it.

The overall image quality and "vivid detail" in the Swarovision image was stunning, as good or better than both the SLC and the Nikon SE. I'm not sure my eyes can always tell the difference, but if I had to pick one, the Swarovision would win (as it should). Focusing was not perfectly smooth, but acceptable. I think it would have smoothed out more with use. The focus was plenty fast for me. I actually like the slightly stiff but very smooth and slower focusing of the old Nikon SE best (the extra slowness takes a tad longer to lock in, but it feels like I can really dial the focus in more precisely).

I wear glasses and the eye relief was adequate for me, though I want to say, not by much. The SLC which is supposed to have 19 mm eye relief seemed to have more than the Swarovisions with a quoted "20 mm." I think the 20mm might be measured from the surface of the lens and maybe ~2 mm of eye relief is lost from the generous soft rubber ring that you actually rest against your glasses. Anyway, it was still a comfortable and full circle view with glasses.

I'm not able to hold a 10x binocular without being distracted by the shakiness. And the better the binocular and the more incredibly sharp the view is, the more I tend to notice the shake when trying to see small details clearly. I'm not distracted by shake most of the time with my 8x Nikon SE's, but they fit in my hands wonderfully and are super comfortable to hold. My interpupilary distance is pretty tight, so even though the Swarovisions have an "open bridge" the barrels are pretty close together for me and the whole binocular is pretty long and slender. So I needed to offset my hands slightly when holding the new EL, with my right hand closer to my head controlling the focus knob and my left hand slightly further out, but for the most part my hands cradling the whole binocular rather than each barrel. This was comfortable and I was getting used to it. Although I did notice that I needed to work harder to hold the binoculars steady (compared to the 7X SLC's and the 8X SE's), overall I was feeling that the greater magnification would compensate and the trade off compared to 8X would be a net plus, especially when trying to pull in details on distant birds. But getting back to what I said above, for "effortless comfort viewing," the Swarovisions leave a little to be desired for me personally. I still really like the steady view and huge exit pupil of 7x when holding binoculars for extended periods, and the Swarovisions don't feel as great in my hands as the SE's, though as I said, I think I was getting used to them.

I really like the solid build quality of Swarovski binoculars. Like my SLC's, the EL's felt like they would last forever, but much lighter weight (and with more than twice the close focus, which is not hugely important to me, but a good thing). I agree with others that the eyecups should have more intermediate stopping points. Fully extended without my glasses on, the eyecups feel almost too far out for me to see the whole circle. But the 1 intermediate stopping point is good, and for me since I would always use them all the way down with glasses, it's a non issue. The ocular lenses on the Swarovisions really are HUGE; personally I think that is pretty cool, but I'm a binocular nut. Like many others, I do NOT like the hard plastic rain guard. On the other hand, the tethered objective covers are superb, nice soft thick rubber that feels like it will never break or damage the objectives. The case that comes with the EL's is pretty cheap. These things deserve a better case with some substantial thick padding (or a hard case).

So, did I ask them to send me a replacement? Almost... Here's the really crazy ending to my story, and proof that I really am a hopeless idiot. While waiting for the binoculars to be shipped back to Eagle Optics, I started looking hard at the Swarovski ATS 80HD spotting scopes on sale, and I decided to spend my money on one of those instead, because I was able to get the old sale price, $923 less than the newer model ATM scope with the same optics & coatings. I've often admired these scopes, and it just felt like the right time to buy, with the sale price on the scope and a new state of the art 25-50X eyepiece now available. So I started out buying insanely expensive binoculars and now, with the expensive eyepiece, I'm spending a little more on a spotting scope. I'll just have to suffer with the SE's and the SLC's a while longer... Jeeze somebody help me!

 

[Fireform]

So you returned by far the best binoculars you've ever had because you could detect an imperfection? That's an impressive dedication to an ideal!

The off axis sharpness of my SVs is better than the center field sharpness of a lot of bins I've seen. I'll settle for that.

 

[henry link]

opticoholic,

Did you notice the asymmetrical edge sharpness in one barrel or both?

Henry

 

[opticoholic]

I returned them because at this price, the "unevenness" of the sweet spot would have always bothered me a little, even though I have to look hard to see it. I really think this must have been a defect in this one sample. I decided against getting a likely more perfect replacement in part because the overall feel of the binocular for me personally was not quite as "relaxing" as I hoped. Plus I felt like the scope was more of a bargain and I won't let myself buy both at the same time. My insanity has limits.

Henry, it never occurred to me to look through the barrels separately, which certainly would have been revealing. I can try to ask the Eagle Optics folks to do that.

 

[brocknroller]

opticoholic,

Your experience shows that at any price point, there is sample variation, though hopefully far fewer with premium bins than their Chinese clones.

If the rep at EO could "easily see the difference," it begs the question why didn't they see this before they shipped? Don't they test their bins when they receive them?

This also happened with two samples of Fuji 10x50s from EO, both of which had poor off-axis performance. A good sample should be sharp to around 90% of the field, but with the sample I tested, stars started to "spike" not far off axis, with the aberrations being worse in one EP than the other, but neither EP achieving optimal sharpness.

EO's 30-day return period is great, but if they did a better job of testing their bins before they shipped, they would have less returns. Perhaps their sales volume has gotten so large like NYC camera dealers that they no longer have the time to check each sample.

As far as the sharpness on either side not being as sharp as the centerfield, I don't think it's possible to get the edges as sharp, i.e., the same resolution, as the centerfield in any bin. I let the experts comment on that.

But certainly your sample was not up to par.

If you read Edz's technical reports on binoculars on Cloudy Days, you'll see that he measures the fall off in sharpness from the center in thousands of arc seconds, and in every case, the bins are sharper at the center, though some bins such as the 12x50 SE hold up very well at the edges.

However, the 12x SE only has a 5* FOV. The larger the FOV, the harder it is to keep the edges sharp.

It doesn't sound like the SV ELs would have filled an important void in your collection, but the new scope will give you views not possible in handheld bins, and best of all, you won't have to worry about one "barrel" being different from the other!

Good Luck! with the scope. I've had my eyes on that scope and EP myself, but my eyes are bigger than my wallet.

As you can tell from this picture :
http://blog.media-freaks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/free-virtual-worlds9.jpg

AstroBoy

 

[opticoholic]

Brock, you crack me up.

Although the Eagle Optics guy said he saw the defect right away, it was not "easy" to see. I don't blame Eagle Optics at all. They're a top notch outfit. Competitive prices, good personal service, good return policy. Nor does this one very slightly defective sample shake my confidence in Swarovski. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.