• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

10X50 Swarovision (1 Viewer)

Pileatus

"Experientia Docet”
United States
We recently purchased a 10X50 Swarovision to be used primarily for stargazing. I considered the 12X50 but settled on the lower magnification and larger exit pupil of the 10X50. Due to the weight of the 10X50 (35.2 oz./998 gr.), I had no intention of using it as a birding bin. For astro use, the 10X50 SV is, to my eyes, nearly flawless. What a joy it is on a clear night.

Out-of-the box stats...
Focus: Perfectly smooth (better than my 8.5X42 but not by much)
Diopter: Works at 0 (the 8.5 needs a 1 diopter adjustment)
Eyecups: I keep them down and they stay down.
Eye relief: Wow, the AFOV is truly addictive and the eye relief is as good or slightly better than my 8.5X42. Extremely comfortable view with eyeglasses.
Hinge: Stiff and exactly what I want in a heavy binocular. It stays put!
Collimation: Looks good...effortless on the eyes all day long.
Color: Swarovision
Contrast: Swarovision
Sharpness (or whatever you call it) is totally satisfying. After more than ten years behind my SE I look for fine details and I find every one with the 10X50 SV. Someone asked if the 10X50 SV was as sharp as the 8.5X42. My answer is absolutely. A crisp image is my first, second and third criteria in judging a bin. Pass that test and I might be interested.

Stats are often boring, uninformative and all but worthless in the field. So, I went to Cape May for two weeks of virtually non-stop birding.

I used the same Vero-Vellini Air Cushion Comfort Strap (V35522) with the 10X50 Swarovision that I use on all my bins. Works great. The 10X50 SV balance point is close to the body and the focus wheel is where I want it. I had absolutely no complaints concerning weight. Thankfully, my wife wouldn't use it!

Due to the increase in magnification (my usual 8X to 10X), chasing fast moving raptors not more than 100' distant was a bit more challenging. Then again, I often missed them with my naked eyes. However, the superb FOV/AFOV of the 10X50 SV more than made up for any difference in magnification. Within 15 minutes, I fully adjusted and went on birding. Note: One morning, I counted a river of raptors (> 50) zooming by in less than 10 minutes. That same morning, shortly after sunrise, I counted over 200 raptors staging at various altitudes as they prepared to cross the Delaware bay. There is very little "static" birding when migration is in full swing at Cape May and I initially believed the heavier 10X50 would be a poor choice in that fast-moving environment. Twelve days of constant use convinced me otherwise.

Summary
The 10X50 Swarovision delivers an uncompromising view that I personally find addictive. More than once I heard myself saying, "now that's up close and personal."

A good review...
http://www.audubonmagazine.org/articles/blog/review-swarovski-el-10x50-sv-binocular

PS
I discarded the Swaro tethered objective caps in favor of Vortex tethered objective covers (Eagle Optics BAC-VT-CAP50/62). I cut the tethers off and they work perfectly. Thanks again, Mike!
 
Sound like they did a nice job on those river buzzards. :-O I would love to have a look through them myself. :t: Effortless on the eyes all day long is what I notice with mine also. It adds a relaxing element to their use for sure.
 
Last edited:
I also like the 12x50 SV, I viewed with them also for astronomy great optics, but they came out after I purchased the 10x42 SV.

Mike
 
Thanks for that very nice post. I had a chance to try out the 10x50 a couple of times, and I think it's very nice indeed.

I was particularly intrigued by your summary:

Summary
The 10X50 Swarovision delivers an uncompromising view that I personally find addictive. More than once I heard myself saying, "now that's up close and personal."

Would you say it's clearly "better" (whatever that means ... ;)) than the SV 8x32, which does, after all, share many of the optical properties of the 10x50?

I've been feeling for a long time that, given similar optical quality, binoculars with larger objective lenses are always "nicer" in use. And that's not just because of their larger exit pupil, in broad daylight it doesn't really matter whether you have a 4.2 or 5mm exit pupil.

The only reason I use compact binoculars is their weight, nothing else.

Hermann
 
Thanks for that very nice post. I had a chance to try out the 10x50 a couple of times, and I think it's very nice indeed.

I was particularly intrigued by your summary:



Would you say it's clearly "better" (whatever that means ... ;)) than the SV 8x32, which does, after all, share many of the optical properties of the 10x50?

I've been feeling for a long time that, given similar optical quality, binoculars with larger objective lenses are always "nicer" in use. And that's not just because of their larger exit pupil, in broad daylight it doesn't really matter whether you have a 4.2 or 5mm exit pupil.

The only reason I use compact binoculars is their weight, nothing else.

Hermann
My wife has the 8X32 SV and I have 8.5X42 and 10X50 SV's. The 8X32's are so good I believe a large percentage of birders could happily bird with them for a lifetime. In fact, many would be wasting money and arm fatigue by not choosing the 8X32.

At dusk and very early dawn the 8.5X42 shows more than the 8X32; the 10X50, obviously, reveals more than the 8.5X42. I'm out early and late and in all my years of low-light birding I've only met a tiny percentage of the number of birders I encounter in normal daylight hours. That's the basis for my conclusion that "most" birders could be content with a top-notch 8X32. Back to the 10X50.

The 10X50 is "easier" on my eyes than the 8.5X42 and very close to the 8X32. I think the AFOV has a lot to do with it coupled with the amount of eye relief I get with each model. I also use an 8X32 SE and I'm fully aware of the adaptation problems many encounter with it. Fumbling around with a fussy exit pupil seriously degrades the visual experience and it's an adaptation I must repeat each time I use the SE. Thankfully, I learned how to do it in a few minutes or, like many others, I would have abandoned the model. Out of the box, the 10X50 SV was visually effortless. Starfields (the reason I bought it) are gorgeous. As they say, aperture rules.

The 10X50 SV, for me, is a Gestalt experience. I'm sure the 50mm objective plays a big role but I cannot quantify it. Henry likes 56mm bins so maybe he has an intelligent answer. Knowing what I know today I would have selected the 10X50 years ago and waited for old age to force me into a lighter, smaller model. And I used to be a die-hard 7X fan!
 
At dusk and very early dawn the 8.5X42 shows more than the 8X32; the 10X50, obviously, reveals more than the 8.5X42. I'm out early and late and in all my years of low-light birding I've only met a tiny percentage of the number of birders I encounter in normal daylight hours. That's the basis for my conclusion that "most" birders could be content with a top-notch 8X32.

I agree - but I still think a binocular with larger objectives is "nicer", in a way I find hard to describe. The image, at least to me, just "feels" nicer.

The 10X50 is "easier" on my eyes than the 8.5X42 and very close to the 8X32. I think the AFOV has a lot to do with it coupled with the amount of eye relief I get with each model. I also use an 8X32 SE and I'm fully aware of the adaptation problems many encounter with it. Fumbling around with a fussy exit pupil seriously degrades the visual experience and it's an adaptation I must repeat each time I use the SE.

I never had any problem whatsoever with the 8x32 SE. It worked fine for me from the minute I first put it to my eyes.

The 10X50 SV, for me, is a Gestalt experience. I'm sure the 50mm objective plays a big role but I cannot quantify it. Henry likes 56mm bins so maybe he has an intelligent answer. Knowing what I know today I would have selected the 10X50 years ago and waited for old age to force me into a lighter, smaller model. And I used to be a die-hard 7X fan!

I've been using 8x32s as my main birding binoculars for a good many years, and I'm now seriously looking at bigger binoculars once again. Interestingly I've seen quite a few people using 10x50's again lately, mainly Swarovisions, but also a few Leicas (both BNs and Ultravids). I'd opt for something below 10x though, because I nearly always carry a scope.

Hermann
 
Although I use the 8x32 sv as my main binocular the 10x50 sv that I owned for a short time was the finest
binocular that I have been privileged with using.

It is difficult to put a finger on just why?

I just know it afforded an absolute bright, sharp, relaxed view that was very pleasing,
maybe that sums it up?

I just felt for the money, and for everyday the smaller sibling was better all around for my use.

I will say what little short comings the 8x32 has the 10x50 makes up for it in spades.

Bryce...
 
Last edited:
We recently purchased a 10X50 Swarovision to be used primarily for stargazing. I considered the 12X50 but settled on the lower magnification and larger exit pupil of the 10X50. Due to the weight of the 10X50 (35.2 oz./998 gr.), I had no intention of using it as a birding bin. For astro use, the 10X50 SV is, to my eyes, nearly flawless. What a joy it is on a clear night.

Out-of-the box stats...
Focus: Perfectly smooth (better than my 8.5X42 but not by much)
Diopter: Works at 0 (the 8.5 needs a 1 diopter adjustment)
Eyecups: I keep them down and they stay down.
Eye relief: Wow, the AFOV is truly addictive and the eye relief is as good or slightly better than my 8.5X42. Extremely comfortable view with eyeglasses.
Hinge: Stiff and exactly what I want in a heavy binocular. It stays put!
Collimation: Looks good...effortless on the eyes all day long.
Color: Swarovision
Contrast: Swarovision
Sharpness (or whatever you call it) is totally satisfying. After more than ten years behind my SE I look for fine details and I find every one with the 10X50 SV. Someone asked if the 10X50 SV was as sharp as the 8.5X42. My answer is absolutely. A crisp image is my first, second and third criteria in judging a bin. Pass that test and I might be interested.

Stats are often boring, uninformative and all but worthless in the field. So, I went to Cape May for two weeks of virtually non-stop birding.

I used the same Vero-Vellini Air Cushion Comfort Strap (V35522) with the 10X50 Swarovision that I use on all my bins. Works great. The 10X50 SV balance point is close to the body and the focus wheel is where I want it. I had absolutely no complaints concerning weight. Thankfully, my wife wouldn't use it!

Due to the increase in magnification (my usual 8X to 10X), chasing fast moving raptors not more than 100' distant was a bit more challenging. Then again, I often missed them with my naked eyes. However, the superb FOV/AFOV of the 10X50 SV more than made up for any difference in magnification. Within 15 minutes, I fully adjusted and went on birding. Note: One morning, I counted a river of raptors (> 50) zooming by in less than 10 minutes. That same morning, shortly after sunrise, I counted over 200 raptors staging at various altitudes as they prepared to cross the Delaware bay. There is very little "static" birding when migration is in full swing at Cape May and I initially believed the heavier 10X50 would be a poor choice in that fast-moving environment. Twelve days of constant use convinced me otherwise.

Summary
The 10X50 Swarovision delivers an uncompromising view that I personally find addictive. More than once I heard myself saying, "now that's up close and personal."

A good review...
http://www.audubonmagazine.org/articles/blog/review-swarovski-el-10x50-sv-binocular

PS
I discarded the Swaro tethered objective caps in favor of Vortex tethered objective covers (Eagle Optics BAC-VT-CAP50/62). I cut the tethers off and they work perfectly. Thanks again, Mike!

My wife has the 8X32 SV and I have 8.5X42 and 10X50 SV's. The 8X32's are so good I believe a large percentage of birders could happily bird with them for a lifetime. In fact, many would be wasting money and arm fatigue by not choosing the 8X32.

At dusk and very early dawn the 8.5X42 shows more than the 8X32; the 10X50, obviously, reveals more than the 8.5X42. I'm out early and late and in all my years of low-light birding I've only met a tiny percentage of the number of birders I encounter in normal daylight hours. That's the basis for my conclusion that "most" birders could be content with a top-notch 8X32. Back to the 10X50.

The 10X50 is "easier" on my eyes than the 8.5X42 and very close to the 8X32. I think the AFOV has a lot to do with it coupled with the amount of eye relief I get with each model. I also use an 8X32 SE and I'm fully aware of the adaptation problems many encounter with it. Fumbling around with a fussy exit pupil seriously degrades the visual experience and it's an adaptation I must repeat each time I use the SE. Thankfully, I learned how to do it in a few minutes or, like many others, I would have abandoned the model. Out of the box, the 10X50 SV was visually effortless. Starfields (the reason I bought it) are gorgeous. As they say, aperture rules.

The 10X50 SV, for me, is a Gestalt experience. I'm sure the 50mm objective plays a big role but I cannot quantify it. Henry likes 56mm bins so maybe he has an intelligent answer. Knowing what I know today I would have selected the 10X50 years ago and waited for old age to force me into a lighter, smaller model. And I used to be a die-hard 7X fan!

Pileatus, I can well understand your new affair :loveme:

I think the 10x50 is the pick of the SV's.

Of all the ones that I have tried, this just seems to be the sharpest. :cat:

Yes, it is a little heavy, but every time before using, pick up a x56SLC first, and it seems positively light and well balanced by comparison! ;)

The Swaro focusers are a little slow for my liking, but it is one helluva bin.

Enjoy :t:


Chosun :gh:
 
Although I use the 8x32 sv as my main binocular the 10x50 sv that I owned for a short time was the finest
binocular that I have been privileged with using.

It is difficult to put a finger on just why?

I just know it afforded an absolute bright, sharp, relaxed view that was very pleasing,
maybe that sums it up?

I just felt for the money, and for everyday the smaller sibling was better all around for my use.

I will say what little short comings the 8x32 has the 10x50 makes up for it in spades.

Bryce...


I think the larger exit pupil is a major factor - it simply makes observations more relaxing with its tolerance toward eye-pupil positioning. Even though it has become fashionable in recent years to choose the 8x32 format for daytime applications, the larger exit pupils simply offer more in terms of comfort. I guess the objective size is not of the essence here - although necessarily correlated with the exit pupil. But there are additional factors: The 8.5x42 SV seems to show a somewhat nervous response, while the elder EL has been more pleasant in that matter. It must be a combination of exit pupil size, eye relief, eye-cup design, field of view and pupil aberrations which eventually decides whether or not the view appears relaxed.

Cheers,
Holger
 
Hi Holger

I think that's the thing I find so enjoyable about the El 10X42 SV. Among all of the other nice things I see through them, a full "locked in" view, without any kind of blackouts, with my eyeglasses on is noteworthy . I don't work to get it, it's just there. It makes a viewing session very relaxing and enjoyable. Is this all just a happy accident, or did Swarovski actually " fine tune" all of these parameters to achieve an easier view with less user fatigue?

It must be a combination of exit pupil size, eye relief, eye-cup design, field of view and pupil aberrations which eventually decides whether or not the view appears relaxed.
Cheers,
Holger
 
Hi Holger

I think that's the thing I find so enjoyable about the El 10X42 SV. Among all of the other nice things I see through them, a full "locked in" view, without any kind of blackouts, with my eyeglasses on is noteworthy . I don't work to get it, it's just there. It makes a viewing session very relaxing and enjoyable. Is this all just a happy accident, or did Swarovski actually " fine tune" all of these parameters to achieve an easier view with less user fatigue?



I am not sure, but I guess they do know something about how to generate an easier view. But they don't know everything yet, otherwise all newly constructed binoculars should offer such a feature. Some factors still seem to be a hit or miss, so that we have to select those binoculars which feel best. Possibly, individual differences are relevant, too, and in this case that particular binocular with a perfectly relaxed view cannot be made.

Cheers,
Holger
 
I think a binocular with larger objectives is "nicer", in a way I find hard to describe. The image, at least to me, just "feels" nicer.

Hermann

Herman

Yes I find this too. Out of curiosity about Henry's love for his FL 8x56s I tried them at the 2013 bird fair and found them hard to put down but I would be struggling to explain exactly why.

Lee
 
Thanks Holger

I like things that are stress free, and a fidgety binocular is a stressor. I believe the easy fatigue free view is an often overlooked but very important design element.

I am not sure, but I guess they do know something about how to generate an easier view. But they don't know everything yet, otherwise all newly constructed binoculars should offer such a feature. Some factors still seem to be a hit or miss, so that we have to select those binoculars which feel best. Possibly, individual differences are relevant, too, and in this case that particular binocular with a perfectly relaxed view cannot be made.

Cheers,
Holger
 
I think the larger exit pupil is a major factor - it simply makes observations more relaxing with its tolerance toward eye-pupil positioning. Even though it has become fashionable in recent years to choose the 8x32 format for daytime applications, the larger exit pupils simply offer more in terms of comfort. I guess the objective size is not of the essence here - although necessarily correlated with the exit pupil. But there are additional factors: The 8.5x42 SV seems to show a somewhat nervous response, while the elder EL has been more pleasant in that matter. It must be a combination of exit pupil size, eye relief, eye-cup design, field of view and pupil aberrations which eventually decides whether or not the view appears relaxed.

Cheers,
Holger

I tend to agree Holger.

Your assessment seems spot on.

Bryce...
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top