• 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.

The 10X42 HT compared to the SF and SV (1 Viewer)

SuperDuty

Well-known member
United States
From what I saw in my initial viewing session, I REALLY like these, my favorite in comparison to the 10X42 SF, 10X42 and 50 SV, and 8.5 X42 SV. The things I liked were superb CA correction-significantly better than the SVs and noticeably better than the SF, noticeably brighter while maintaining beautiful color and contrast, lightweight and super easy to get a steady hold, excellent focus knob action, very (sharp) or at least very sharp appearing. The things they didn't do as well,( less FOV compared to the SF, more pincusion than the SF and SV, fuzzier edges than the SF and SV), we're far outweighed for my taste by the positives. Another thing of note, as the sun became low in the horizon behind me, I saw none of the yellow hazy effect that I noticed in the SF. These observations are based on one session during almost perfect conditions, I'll see what I think after a little more use.

Robert
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7124.jpg
    IMG_7124.jpg
    302.5 KB · Views: 215
Thanks Mike

Seems odd that they give the FL a 9.5 on CA and the HT a 7.6, the HT I'm looking at seems to compare very well to the Kowa Genesis that I saw, maybe on another day I will see more CA.

My HT to my FL shows less lateral CA, noticeable when viewing strongly back-lit objects. My FL always looks a bit orange when looking at something like a line of trees with a pale background. None of this with the HT, only a perfectly clean view. I suppose the 10 might be worse than the 8, with the increased mag.
 
I don't own a 10x sf but did buy an 8x earlier year. IMHO it's lovely binocular as it should be for the price. I don't see many others sharing this view - maybe the ones who are happy are too busy using theirs. I did try an 8x ht and liked it but for me the balance of the sf as well as the fov (I watch butterflies a lot so this is useful) make it more suited to my own needs. Optically, I've never seen through anything better but then my eyesight in my mid-fifties is probably not as discriminating as it was. This morning, in poor light and heavy rain I watched a white-winged tern with wonderfully sharp, bright image. Is there anyone out there to share their good experiences of either sf?
Julian
 
I think one could make a case for preferring either of those three. I prefer the SV way of doing things, but I sure can't blame someone for liking one of the other two better.
 

Attachments

  • DSC00565.jpg
    DSC00565.jpg
    69.4 KB · Views: 250
Today while panning around with the HT I passed by the corner of my pole barn from 30 yrds away and noticed the severely distorted vertical edge, with the SV it appeared perfectly straight.. I wish I could create a Frankenstein Alpha with the best properties of the SV, SF, HT and FL combined in one unit.:-O

I think one could make a case for preferring either of those three. I prefer the SV way of doing things, but I sure can't blame someone for liking one of the other two better.
 
Is there anyone out there to share their good experiences of either sf?
Julian

Am currently on North Uist in the Western Isles of Scotland and have had stunning views through SF 10x42s of Arctic Terns, Little Terns, Great Skua (5 of them from 25 metres!!!) and Otter. The balance of SFs make it easy to hold steady for long periods of viewing Otters and seals.

Lee
 
Today while panning around with the HT I passed by the corner of my pole barn from 30 yrds away and noticed the severely distorted vertical edge, with the SV it appeared perfectly straight.. I wish I could create a Frankenstein Alpha with the best properties of the SV, SF, HT and FL combined in one unit.:-O


Indeed! The Frankenstein Alpha 10x42 STFU should be the last word on Binoculars!:-O

Bob
 
I think one could make a case for preferring either of those three. I prefer the SV way of doing things, but I sure can't blame someone for liking one of the other two better.

The more time I spend comparing alphas and sub-alphas, the harder it is for me to come up with an individual model I like best. The 7x42 FL was amazing and probably had the most 'pleasant' viewing experience, but the 8x32 EDG and 8x32 Swarovision had their merits. Similarly, the Kowa Genesis, Vortex Razor, Meostar/Euro HD, and SLC all provide great images at (relatively) more reasonable prices.
 
Today while panning around with the HT I passed by the corner of my pole barn from 30 yrds away and noticed the severely distorted vertical edge, with the SV it appeared perfectly straight.. I wish I could create a Frankenstein Alpha with the best properties of the SV, SF, HT and FL combined in one unit.:-O

SuperDuty,

You can't eliminate distortion, only shift from one kind to another. Your SV trades low pincushion distortion for high angular magnification distortion.

The image below shows AMD in four binoculars: top to bottom - Swaro 8x32 SV, Swaro 8x30 Habicht, Nikon 8x32 SE and Zeiss 8x56 FL. The Zeiss 8x56 FL and the 8x42 HT have similar amounts of pincushion, about enough to correct AMD and keep the circle shape a circle all the way to the field edge on the right, but the price is the curving straight lines you saw toward the field edge of your HT. The Swaro SV has the lowest pincushion in this group, but the price is the highest angular magnification distortion, which causes shapes (in this case a circle) to compress at the field edge. That's the kind of distortion that cases the Globe Effect. For my eyes the Habicht and the Nikon SE get it about right with a moderate amount of each distortion, just enough of each to make the other unobtrusive.
 

Attachments

  • Slide1.jpg
    Slide1.jpg
    60.5 KB · Views: 265
Last edited:
Thanks Henry

I don't know what anyone else thinks, but I believe the HT may have the most true to life colors I've seen in a binocular.
 
Thanks Henry

I don't know what anyone else thinks, but I believe the HT may have the most true to life colors I've seen in a binocular.

When I tried the HT a while back at the UK launch, indeed, the colour rendition appeared rather more neutral/natural than the FL. I don't know if there was an intentional change or not but now the colours appear much more FL like with a distinct yellowish tinge and subdued reds as the Allbinos transmission plot clearly shows. I think this might actually offer some practical advantages in certain light condition, but now to my eyes it's currently it's further removed from 'true to life' than the other alphas and many more bescides.

David
 
Last edited:
I think this might actually offer some practical advantages in certain light condition, but now to my eyes it's currently it's further removed from 'true to life' than the other alphas and many more bescides.

David

Yes, a well know effect used in photography; anti-haze, UV, skylight filters.

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/filter/filter-UV.html

Try a Kowa scope and compare it with a Swaro scope,
the effect will be even more obvious when switching between them.

I guess you can't have both worlds (if not mounting an external skylight filter) so you have to decide what is the most value. It's just different approaches to the problem.

Personally I don't think a slightly warmer image affects color discrimination much in practice since the eye/brain adapt rather quickly. It might be more about taste.

But I wonder how Zeiss thought when they didn't put HT glass in the SF.
Consider that the HT:s (or SF:s) still don't not have a very flat transmission curve compared to the SV:s.
 
Hi,

To me, the FL 10x42 (the first run bought in 2004) I had, and my present HTs as well, plus the Habicht WGA 10x40 of the last version, are the binoculars with the truest and more natural colours I have had or seen.
My Meopta Meostar has a slight warm, or something like that, colour cast.

PHA
 
Hi,

To me, the FL 10x42 (the first run bought in 2004) I had, and my present HTs as well, plus the Habicht WGA 10x40 of the last version, are the binoculars with the truest and more natural colours I have had or seen.
My Meopta Meostar has a slight warm, or something like that, colour cast.

PHA

I can confirm that my pre-lotutec 7x42 FL (2004) look quite neutral.
But they are slightly warmer than my SV 8.5x42 in direct comparison. Hard to tell if not looking at a half lit white wall though.
Under normal use I can't notice any bias whatsoever. Compared to a SF reds/brown seemed a bit more subdued though.

It seems that later FL-models might have a different coating/color balance. The coatings on the external lenses of later ones also seem to have another color than the earlier ones (pre-Lotutec perhaps). Later ones have more orange/gold reflections, earlier ones (like mine) look more purple.
But I haven't done any direct comparisons between early and later FL:s.
 
Last edited:
When I tried the HT a while back at the UK launch, indeed, the colour rendition appeared rather more neutral/natural than the FL. I don't know if there was an intentional change or not but now the colours appear much more FL like with a distinct yellowish tinge and subdued reds as the Allbinos transmission plot clearly shows. I think this might actually offer some practical advantages in certain light condition, but now to my eyes it's currently it's further removed from 'true to life' than the other alphas and many more bescides.

David


I think you're the 1st person to ever mention a ''yellow tinge'' with the HT. All I can say is, of the few that I have tried, all absolutely do not have any yellow tinge and presented the whitest whites of any bin I have used - and this has been echoed by many dozens of other users.

How many HT's have you tried that looked yellowish?
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 8 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