Swarovski 10x42: worth upgrading from old EL to Swarovision or not? (1 Viewer)

I have a pair of Swarovski EL 10x42 bins (original version) which I have had for many years and been very happy with. I had compared with the EL 8.5x42 bins and after much thought went with the x10 pair. I have not regretted the decision as I do quite a bit of birding where the x10 mag is useful (eg waders on Morecambe Bay).

I had resisted looking through the new Swarovision 10x42s until this week when I decided to have a look at some SVs "just out of curiosity". I was surprised to find that the new Swarovisions did seem to be noticeably brighter and sharper - albeit based on a very quick comparison.

Having read around on the internet I am, however, conscious of the potential for the "rolling ball effect" which some people find with the new SVs. In my short trial with the SVs I think I may have experienced this effect slightly when panning, but wonder whether it would become a problem (or not) if I was to buy a pair.

My question is:

Is it worth upgrading from old EL 10x42s to Swarovision 10x42s ??
- what is the general consensus?

And what about the rolling ball effect - problem or not?

Nick Leech said:

I have a pair of Swarovski EL 10x42 bins (original version) which I have had for many years and been very happy with. I had compared with the EL 8.5x42 bins and after much thought went with the x10 pair. I have not regretted the decision as I do quite a bit of birding where the x10 mag is useful (eg waders on Morecambe Bay).

I had resisted looking through the new Swarovision 10x42s until this week when I decided to have a look at some SVs "just out of curiosity". I was surprised to find that the new Swarovisions did seem to be noticeably brighter and sharper - albeit based on a very quick comparison.

Having read around on the internet I am, however, conscious of the potential for the "rolling ball effect" which some people find with the new SVs. In my short trial with the SVs I think I may have experienced this effect slightly when panning, but wonder whether it would become a problem (or not) if I was to buy a pair.

My question is:

Is it worth upgrading from old EL 10x42s to Swarovision 10x42s ??
- what is the general consensus?

And what about the rolling ball effect - problem or not?

Click to expand...

Where are the abasmnites when you need them?

Can't answer the first question, I'm sure you'll eventualy get some opinions by those who have either owned or tried both, though more members have the 8.5x42s than 10x42s.

But I can address the RB issue, and I think it was smart of you to ask about it. Means you've done your homework. Some posts about this issue have been too dismissive about its importance simply because those users don't see it.

Interestingly, some who have either bought the 10x42 SV EL or who tried both the 10x42 and 8.5x models, and who see RB, have reported that the effect is less severe in the 10x model. YMMV.

Whether or not you will be sensitive to RB is not somethng someone else can tell you about. It varies from person to person. You might be see it, might not. You might see it, but not be terribly bothered by it. You might see it and quickly adapt, or it might take days or weeks to adapt or you may never adapt to it.

So even if you can try before you buy, make sure the store you buy from has a generous return period, becasue it might take you up to two weeks to adjust to the RB, if you can adjust to it.

Also, part of the answer in terms of if it's worth upgrading depends on how old your EL WB is. You said "many years". Swaro continually upgrades its AR coatings w/out fanfare. Iv'e compared Swaros that were made 10 years apart, and the improvement in apparent brightness and contrast in two Swaros with the newer coatings was quite obvious. For birding, you'd want the newer coatings for that reason, but those improved coatings can be found in the 2009 EL WB, perhaps even earlier, the two Swaros I tried were both 2009 models.

If this isn't your main bin, and you have steady hands, you might also want to check out the new 12x50 SV ELs. Users claim they are as easy to steady as a 10x bin! Could be the extra weight helps and certainly the open bridge ergonomics.

Hope you either don't see the RB or quickly adapt it it, because from the reviews, the SV EL seems worth the upgrade if you can afford it. If you can't, a 2009 EL WB will still give you improved color and contrast over what you have w/out concerns about RB. Faster focuser too.

Brock

Regarding your first question I have found an interesting quote on this forum:

"I was surprised to find that the new Swarovisions did seem to be noticeably brighter and sharper - albeit based on a very quick comparison".

Clearly sharper and brighter, and that being obvious at first glance! If the person reporting this is to be trusted that should answer your question for you

Seriously, when the Swarovision first came out there was a very long discussion about it, with members comparing EL to SV. You can find it if you go back to previous pages on the Swarovski subforum. Just look for the longest thread

If the difference is significant depends on how old your EL is. Old EL compared to SV gives a noticable difference. Last series EL (easy clean coatings) to SV should be much closer.

George

I had a mid 2008 8.5 EL and upgraded to a 8.5 Swarovision.
It is worth the upgrade IMO, the SV is brighter and sharper and much better in low light. Sharp edges too if you want that.

Nick,

I have neither used nor owned either the Swarovski EL 10x42 , or the upgraded Swarovski EL 10x42 SV, so will refreshingly refrain from offering a comprehensive armchair opinion, although I'm sure someone will be along presently to postulate about Nikon this, or Nikon that!

Everyone that I talk to raves about the SV's resolution sharpness, except maybe for ronh, who rates the Zeiss FL in front, and is no doubt salivating over the prospect of the HT!

This is what albino's has to say about old the Swarovski EL 10x42 WB http://www.allbinos.com/144-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_10x42_WB.html, and the new Swarovski EL 10x42 SV http://www.allbinos.com/223-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_10x42_Swarovision.html

By all accounts, a step-up, and gets going, when the going gets tough .....


As for "rolling ball" - it's just a 'phenomena' (and ! some would say ....).

There have been reams of bunkum written on the topic, by every man and his dog - from the layman wannabe trying to be quasi-technical; bespectacled public bookkeepers hidden away in dimly lit rooms diligently scribing amatuer meta-analyses; well meaning father types offering advice - both sage, and /or spurious; the helpful, the hopeful, the terminally confused; god-forbid! actual users just reporting what they see!; monty python spoofers; those that deal in facts, and those who'd never let the facts get in the way of a good story!; to those wonderful propeller-heads trying to nut it out for the greater good, and everything in between! Mostly with good humour, if not always accuracy.

The upshot of all this, is that it seems to have snowballed into 'the sum of all fears (or should that be distortions?|;|), with both the new chum, and hardened binoholic, anxiously approaching a new (or even old flame bin) with tremulous apprehension like a dog sh*t*n' razor blades!

The 'phenomena' is just that - a, . p - h - e - n - o - m -e - n - a . and is merely the result of 'barrel distortion' in human vision .....

Depending on the magnitude of this vision distortion, and whether the optical design prescription of the binoculars satisfies:
the 'tangent condition' (no distortion to correct angular magnification distortion, k=1), or
the 'circle condition' (enough pincushion distortion to correct angular magnification distortion, k=0.5), or
the 'angle condition' (excess of pincushion distortion to correct angular magnification distortion, k=0), or
some other value in between, like the Swaro's* k=0.74 AFAIK, which would be the ~'semi-circle condition' say,
along with a whole host of other physical, physiological, and optio-neurological factors, determines the net effect perceived.

The sum of this vision distortion + any pincushion distortion in the optical design, results in either perfect cancellation (harmony); or a negligible effect; or a large residual, one way or the other, which results in the 'rolling ball' effect, or the 'rolling bowl' effect, depending on the sign. The ideal I suppose, would be to have a poofteenth more pincushion in the optical design to cancel out your barrel distorted vision, if you want to negate the rolling ball effect phenomena.

The amount of barrel distortion is different for every single person, and so no-one will be able to tell you what you'll see except for you.

Further, that whole host of factors, such as object situation, panning speed in relation to nauseous natural frequencies, conditioning by current bins, consistency of optical formulas in your bin collection, etc, etc, etc (I'm sure even the coriolis effect could squeeze in an appearance there somewhere!), palpably modify the perceived image. Why introduce additional vectors into the equation, by rolling your eyes right to the very edge of the FOV, when doing so is going to degrade the image with increased CA anyway? Do youself a favour and just stick to the centre view with the one distortion formula, lest ya fry ya brain by swapping between twixt and twain .....

Of all the neural coinage's, I like the "neurally constipated" one the best ..... "you see the rb effects - but just don't give a cr*p!"

Dr. Holger Meriltz has a helmholtz checkerboard test to determine your distortion levels ..... http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/test_distortion.html

I'm sure he'd appreciate as many test results as possible - c'mon everybody - give it a crack - tis good craic to be sure .....

I'm more myopic than "Mr. Magoo!", which means I'm meant to have greater than normal barrel distortion in my vision, and yet, I test somewhere around 0.7 ~0.8 or more.
Of the 56 records on the site, the average is ~0.76. (although fully over 75% of respondents have distortion in the low range of k=0.7 - k=1) i.e works perfectly with a Swaro! well whaddya know, they're not idjuts after all!

People often trot out the nonsense that Swaro SV's are zero distortion models - and they're not, although the mustachio optical formula complicates that somewhat.

Hopefully Holger will be along soon to confirm this Swaro k value is still current, and update any further test result data.

My advice - get the 10x42 SV's, forget all this guff - just go and look at stuff .....
If you find yourself somehow throwing up everywhere and violently convulsing - send 'em back! Otherwise, sit back and enjoy :t:


Chosun :gh:


* The k=0.74 figure was supplied to Dr. Merlitz by Swaro (reference here on a BF thread somewhere)

Further reading - good stuff! Thanks Holger!
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/distortion.html
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/curv/pin_curvature.html
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/distortion_final.pdf

Besides sharper and brighter,swarovision has much less CA compared with old EL.
Another option is Zeiss HT,which will be on sale very soon.I am eager to know whether HT can exceed SV,wait and see.

I ended up going with the 10x42 EL Swarovision and have not looked back. I have never had the so called "rolling ball effect" affect me. I would highly recommend them. When buying I compared them to the top of the line Zeiss and Leica's, and to me the Swarovisions were best hands down. Good luck on your decision.

Has anyone compared the new Zeiss HTs with the Swarovisions?

Should I upgrade from 10x42 Swaro EL to 10x42 Swaro SV; or

Should I go for 10x42 Zeiss HT?

Nick Leech said:

Has anyone compared the new Zeiss HTs with the Swarovisions?

Should I upgrade from 10x42 Swaro EL to 10x42 Swaro SV; or

Should I go for 10x42 Zeiss HT?

Click to expand...

Check out the Zeiss HT thread. There's been one comparison so far. I guess that reviewer preferred the SV.

Personally, I'd wait to see the HT since I guess it's finally arriving. Who knows, you might like it better, and here in the states it's something like $200 cheaper than the SV.

Mark

Nick Leech said:

Has anyone compared the new Zeiss HTs with the Swarovisions?

Should I upgrade from 10x42 Swaro EL to 10x42 Swaro SV; or

Should I go for 10x42 Zeiss HT?

Click to expand...

Nick,

It's too early to call it given how few votes have come in at this point for the HT. However, IF the latest "polls" can be believed, then you might be asking the the $2,400 question. That is, if Eddy the Eagle's assessment of the HT is spot on, then Zeiss not only added HT glass and a more ergonomic design, but it redesigned the EPs like Swaro did with the SV EL, making it competitive with the SV EL rather than a repackaged, slightly brighter FL. Lee also said that the FL looks "dull and lifeless" in comparison to the HT.

See Eddy's post #614
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2585264#post2585264

As to the SV EL, see Chosun Juan's amusing but informative tome above, which covers the highly controversial topic of RB, from tangent conditions to "neurally constipated". Rest assured that even if you see RB, chances are good that you will adjust to it within 2 seconds, 2 minutes, 2 days or 2 weeks. If not, then you can join the Rolling Ballers Minority Club. We have lots of fun by looking through our cupped hands and inducing rolling ball to demonstrate to neural plastics the Fun(house) mirrors they're missing. We also eat Root Beer Barrel candies and sing "Roll Out the Barrel" in the round.

I'm actually getting excited about the HT. Being a poor porromaniac, I rarely get excited about any alpha, and I'm hoping it's not as Übermensch as Eddy described, because it's hard to resist a bin that was styled after Superman, my childhood hero (played on TV in the 1950s by the late George Reeves). I didn't see the series until the mid 1960s when it was broadcast in color, as I sat in front of the TV eating my Maypo.

The question of which is better, the SV EL or HT will no doubtl be probed, prodded, and dissected by expert and amateur alike as more HTs become available and get into people's hands and up to their eyes. But at this point, it's too early to make that call despite encouraging early returns.

So hold on to your credit card until all the "hanging chads" have been counted and then cast your wallet for either the SV EL or the HT. May the best bin win!

<B>

brocknroller said:

The question of which is better, the SV EL or HT will no doubtl be probed, prodded, and dissected by expert and amateur alike as more HTs become available and get into people's hands and up to their eyes. But at this point, it's too early to make that call despite encouraging early returns.

So hold on to your credit card until all the "hanging chads" have been counted and then cast your wallet for either the SV EL or the HT. May the best bin win!

<B>

Click to expand...

Or better yet- do not depend on others opinions! Cast your own "vote" as Brock calls it above.

If you know you for sure want one of them- either go to a place that has both in stock and thoroughly check them out to see which ones yours eyes and hands like the best.

Or if you are not close by a place that has both, you can wait till a online retailer has both in stock; and if your card can handle it, order the two models that you have narrowed it down to. Make sure it is a retailer that has a good return policy- ex. Eagle Optics is good. You can even tell them in advance that you are ordering both and are only going to keep one- they will be fine with that.

This way you can pick the one you like the best, and not depend on as Brock put it - other people's "hanging chads"; whatever that means. I know what the reference is- just do not see the real relavence.

Just be your own reviewer and pick the winner for your self.

stephen b said:

Or better yet- do not depend on others opinions! Cast your own "vote" as Brock calls it above.

If you know you for sure want one of them- either go to a place that has both in stock and thoroughly check them out to see which ones yours eyes and hands like the best.

Or if you are not close by a place that has both, you can wait till a online retailer has both in stock; and if your card can handle it, order the two models that you have narrowed it down to. Make sure it is a retailer that has a good return policy- ex. Eagle Optics is good. You can even tell them in advance that you are ordering both and are only going to keep one- they will be fine with that.

This way you can pick the one you like the best, and not depend on as Brock put it - other people's "hanging chads"; whatever that means. I know what the reference is- just do not see the real relavence.

Just be your own reviewer and pick the winner for your self.

Click to expand...

Stephen, metaphors and cultural references. Today, it seems, if you are not literal, people can't grok you. I blame it on Al Gore for inventing the Internet.

The reference is topical since last I checked they are still counting votes in Florida! So too is the "race" btwn the SV EL and HT too close to call until all the votes are counted (i.e, more people weigh in).

"Try before you buy" is always the best policy, but what if you live in the boonies a hundred miles round trip from the nearest alpha dealer and your credit line doesn't extend $4,800 so you can't purchase both and send the one you don't want back? Such comparisons are for Platinum Card members only.

For those reasons, I prefer to let people with deeper pockets be the guinea pigs and buy the "latest and greatest" and then wait for either a consensus to emerge or a "fatal flaw" to be revealed before deciding whether or not the new bins might be "sponge worthy" enough to fill up the old, rusty F-150 and make the Fantastic Voyage to do my own A/B.

But the point still stands,it's too early to answer his question.

<B>

is it worth upgrading?

for me the answer is no

I have the older 8.5x42 and have rejected the upgrade
-my binos are very good
-I accept that the new one are better
-if starting from scratch I would go with the SVs
but now I am happy with what I have

this is a practical money decision-the improvement is not worth the cost

edj

My wife had a late model old style EL, with fast focus and very good coatings. It showed an annoying amount of color fringing on harshly defined edges, but otherwise the image quality was very strong: bright, colorful, well corrected and comfortable to view.

That binocular was stolen, and insurance upgraded her replacement to SV. The color fringing is mostly gone now, replaced by rolling ball which is about equally annoying to me, which is, not very. The super sharp edge is wasted on me I'm afraid. Other differences are trivial to my eyes and hands.

She loves her SV, but no more than the old one. Either one is a big heavy brute of a 42mm, with which you feel like you are ready for anything.

Ron

ronh said:

... Either one is a big heavy brute of a 42mm, with which you feel like you are ready for anything ...

Click to expand...

But birdwatching? Astronomy? (Deflecting Philippine Eagles or Earth-destroying asteroids doesn't count.)

Deflecting incoming 42 mm Zeiss FLs, at least!

Also look out for Nikons (porro and roof, old and new). You know the direction.

ronh said:

My wife had a late model old style EL ...... She loves her SV, but no more than the old one. Either one is a big heavy brute of a 42mm, with which you feel like you are ready for anything.

Click to expand...

pompadour said:

But birdwatching? Astronomy? (Deflecting Philippine Eagles or Earth-destroying asteroids doesn't count.)

Click to expand...

ronh said:

Deflecting incoming 42 mm Zeiss FLs, at least!

Click to expand...

Wonder which one the SV would fear more - the PE or the new Zeiss HT ?!! :eek!:



Chosun :gh:

Well, having been very impressed with the Zeiss Conquest, I'd guess that the new HT should compete very strongly with the EL SV.

I would say, probably not. Unless you got a spare 400 quid laying around.
You get some extra sharpness, slightly better brightness and perhaps colours and better ergonomics. Ask yourself whether it's worth extra money. I sold my old EL and bought SV because I really liked SVs and the rolling ball effect wasn't a problem. Try them out alongside and then decide.