Better Image In the SV (1 Viewer)

james holdsworth · Feb 27, 2016

[email protected] said:
I will take the sharp edges of the Swarovision and the Zeiss SF over soft edges:C anytime. Why wouldn't you want the whole FOV to be sharp? If I want blur I will just defocus my binoculars or get a Tasco.8-P

AMD, rolling ball, queasy panning, poor 3D. There are no free lunches in optics, just trade-offs.

Sharp edges would be great if there wasn't a host of trade-offs to consider, many of which would be worse than the soft edges you are trying to correct. I have yet to use a flat-field design that appeared as sharp or contrasty as my reference standard binoculars. All IMO.

elkcub · Feb 28, 2016

Pileatus said:
The attribute was "relaxing" and I have yet to find a single measurable data point to express it.

PS
After reading countless BF posts I have come to one and only one conclusion. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder.

Ah ha. Many perceptions result from one or more combination of variables, no one of which being responsible for it. Beauty is like that, indeed.

Ed

stephen b · Feb 28, 2016

[email protected] said:
..... Why wouldn't you want the whole FOV to be sharp? If I want blur I will just defocus my binoculars or get a Tasco.8-P

How about just slightly moving the binoculars to bring everything into view. I agree with the sharp edges being nice- but they come with a cost compromise. Compromises with all binoculars.

What on earth did we do before these flat field binoculars. I do not focus on the edge of the view- it's there, but I do not spend much time focusing on it. The newer SLC's ( actually the older NEU ones were not bad- esp the 7x42) have a large FOV that has a huge sweet spot. The focus field tapers off ever so slightly at the outer edge of view. There is not a big "blur" ring at all. It is actually quite pleasing. And BTW- I have had a few SV's, so I do know what they are about.

But please- energizer bunny, keep beating your drum. :egghead:

SuperDuty · Feb 28, 2016

I would like to poll everyone on how they rate the different SV models for CA control in comparison to the best you've seen, mention the model your rating if you will please.

jremmons said:
The newest model SV I tried, circa 2013, had less rolling ball (though still present, which is expected in flat-field binoculars), but still presented notably more CA than the pristine, CA free (or nearly so) image presented by either the Victory FL*T or Kowa Genesis. Until they correct that flaw, I would never own a pair.

I personally preferred the SLC WB/HD, but even that still showed more CA than I'd prefer seeing...

jremmons · Feb 28, 2016

By different models are you referring to magnification and size of objective lens?

SuperDuty · Feb 28, 2016

Yes

jremmons said:
By different models are you referring to magnification and size of objective lens?

Alexis Powell · Feb 28, 2016

SuperDuty said:
I would like to poll everyone on how they rate the different SV models for CA control in comparison to the best you've seen, mention the model your rating if you will please.

The best I've seen are some mid and full porros and some pocket roof models.

Among mid to full sized roofs, I've had much opportunity to compare the 8.5x42 SV to the Zeiss 8x32 FL. The CA of the 8.5x42 SV is more (esp. off-axis and with imperfect pupil alignment) than that of the Zeiss 8x32 EL. Even with imperfect pupil alignment, the Zeiss 8x32 FL has very low CA, but in that case it has strong astigmatism over much of the field. I prefer the view through the SV. I tolerate CA better than I do lack of resolution due to astigmatism.

--AP

SuperDuty · Feb 28, 2016

Is the difference in CA control between the 8.5X42 SV and 8X32 EL large ?

Alexis Powell said:
The best I've seen are some mid and full porros and some pocket roof models.

Among mid to full sized roofs, I've had much opportunity to compare the 8.5x42 SV to the Zeiss 8x32 FL. The CA of the 8.5x42 SV is more (esp. off-axis and with imperfect pupil alignment) than that of the Zeiss 8x32 EL. Even with imperfect pupil alignment, the Zeiss 8x32 FL has very low CA, but in that case it has strong astigmatism over much of the field. I prefer the view through the SV. I tolerate CA better than I do lack of resolution due to astigmatism.

--AP

Vespobuteo · Feb 28, 2016

SuperDuty said:
I would like to poll everyone on how they rate the different SV models for CA control in comparison to the best you've seen, mention the model your rating if you will please.

Don't see much difference in CA levels between my 7x42 FL and 8.5x42 SV.
Both are very good. Correct IPD and eye alignment are important though, for optimal results.

Kammerdiner · Feb 28, 2016

james holdsworth said:
AMD, rolling ball, queasy panning, poor 3D. There are no free lunches in optics, just trade-offs.

Sharp edges would be great if there wasn't a host of trade-offs to consider, many of which would be worse than the soft edges you are trying to correct. I have yet to use a flat-field design that appeared as sharp or contrasty as my reference standard binoculars. All IMO.

After 8 1/2 years combined use of two SV's I have experienced none of those trade-offs. I guess it's a lifetime of free lunches for me. :t:

I use 3 binos with flat fields (and another that's darn close--8x25 CL) and one scope with a true flat field. I'm not going back. Use flat fields for a while and, as Pileatus mentions, you'll find soft edges distracting. I know I do.

But take your pick, find what works, rest easy.

As for CA, the SV's are about as low as any. Certainly my 8x32 FL and 8x32 SV are not appreciably different. Other qualities, however, mean that the FL sees little if any use.

Mark

jremmons · Feb 28, 2016

I personally find the difference in CA exceptionally noticeable, but of course everyone's eyes are different. I've directly compared the 7x42 FL, 8x32 FL, 8.5x42 SV, 8x32 SV, and 10x42 SV at various points in time. Only the Kowa Genesis compares favorably to the FL in terms of CA suppression. I easily notice CA, though. The SV bested the Ultravid HD in this regard, though.

Justin

Alexis Powell · Feb 29, 2016

SuperDuty said:
Is the difference in CA control between the 8.5X42 SV and 8X32 EL large ?

HUGE. The old 8x32 EL has a lot of CA (much more than the old 8.5x42 EL), whereas the 8.5x42 Swarovison has low CA compared to non-ED roofs (including the old 8.5x42 EL).

--AP

SuperDuty · Feb 29, 2016

I just realized that I asked about the 8X32 EL instead of the 8X32 FL. My question should have been, Is the difference in CA control between the 8.5X42 SV and 8X32 FL large ?

SuperDuty said:
Is the difference in CA control between the 8.5X42 SV and 8X32 EL large ?

Kammerdiner · Feb 29, 2016

SuperDuty said:
I just realized that I asked about the 8X32 EL instead of the 8X32 FL. My question should have been, Is the difference in CA control between the 8.5X42 SV and 8X32 FL large ?

I can see no significant difference between them. I just checked using bare branches against a bright cloudy sky. If the FL is better off axis (and I don't think it is) you'd have a hard time telling because the CA will hide in the blurred edges.

The main thing that stuck out in this comparison, under these conditions, and aside from the edges, was the color. The FL gave the bright white/gray sky a slightly tobacco-stained look. I remember seeing this years ago, and I was surprised because I always thought the FL had great, neutral color. But there it is, once again. At the time I called it just a bit "dingy," in comparison with the SV's. I have no idea if this is the same "green" color cast that some see in the SF.

The Sightron (I checked that too) was a bit beyond the Zeiss in the direction of yellow. Many have commented on that. It was a bit behind in the CA department, too, but really not bad at all. Many have sad that, too. It's a great, little all-rounder.

Hope this helps, but ultimately it'll be up to your eyes to make the call.

Mark

Troubador · Feb 29, 2016

Kammerdiner said:
The FL gave the bright white/gray sky a slightly tobacco-stained look. I remember seeing this years ago,

Mark

For Pete's sake Mark will you stop smoking those huge Cuban cigars when you are comparing binoculars?

And it would help to clean the FLs once in a while. You keep saying how they just sit in a drawer unused for months/years so they probably want sand-blasting and rotary buffing by now.

Lee

Kammerdiner · Feb 29, 2016

Troubador said:
For Pete's sake Mark will you stop smoking those huge Cuban cigars when you are comparing binoculars?

And it would help to clean the FLs once in a while. You keep saying how they just sit in a drawer unused for months/years so they probably want sand-blasting and rotary buffing by now.

Lee

:-O Actually, the FL's are probably the cleanest of the bunch right now. The ones that get used a lot are a little dusty.

Getting the FL out for comparison is interesting. They really are a cool, little bulldog of a bino.

Hmm, time for walkies.

Mark

Gijs van Ginkel · Feb 29, 2016

Mark, post 34,
The Zeiss Victory FL 8x32 does not have a perfect color reproduction, the reason is that the transmission spectrum shows a big bump in the wavelength region 550-625 nm which levels of quickly towards the blue and red spectral region, so you can go on smoking Cuban cigars when using the FL, since it will not affect its performance.
Gijs van Ginkel

SuperDuty · Mar 1, 2016

Wow, thanks for taking the time to check that out.

Kammerdiner said:
I can see no significant difference between them. I just checked using bare branches against a bright cloudy sky. If the FL is better off axis (and I don't think it is) you'd have a hard time telling because the CA will hide in the blurred edges.

The main thing that stuck out in this comparison, under these conditions, and aside from the edges, was the color. The FL gave the bright white/gray sky a slightly tobacco-stained look. I remember seeing this years ago, and I was surprised because I always thought the FL had great, neutral color. But there it is, once again. At the time I called it just a bit "dingy," in comparison with the SV's. I have no idea if this is the same "green" color cast that some see in the SF.

The Sightron (I checked that too) was a bit beyond the Zeiss in the direction of yellow. Many have commented on that. It was a bit behind in the CA department, too, but really not bad at all. Many have sad that, too. It's a great, little all-rounder.

Hope this helps, but ultimately it'll be up to your eyes to make the call.

Mark

Kammerdiner · Mar 2, 2016

Gijs van Ginkel said:
Mark, post 34,
The Zeiss Victory FL 8x32 does not have a perfect color reproduction, the reason is that the transmission spectrum shows a big bump in the wavelength region 550-625 nm which levels of quickly towards the blue and red spectral region, so you can go on smoking Cuban cigars when using the FL, since it will not affect its performance.
Gijs van Ginkel

Thanks, Gijs, that makes sense. Add some extra yellow-green to a white-gray sky and that would explain what I see. The Allbinos spectrograph of the 8x32 FL confirms it. I wouldn't presume to comment without direct comparison with an SV, but it's there.

Mark

Kammerdiner · Mar 2, 2016

SuperDuty said:
Wow, thanks for taking the time to check that out.

You're welcome SD. If you like the CA in the 8.5 SV, try the 8x32 SV. I can't imagine you'd see much difference, but again it's your eyes that make the call.

8x32 FL? It's seen its better days. I'd wait to see the 8x32 SF.

Mark

Better Image In the SV (1 Viewer)

Consulting Biologist

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Well-known member

Wildlife Biologist

Well-known member

Natural history enthusiast

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Wildlife Biologist

Natural history enthusiast

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread