First day out...SV 8.5X42 Field Pro.... (1 Viewer)

chill6x6 · Feb 28, 2016

So yesterday morning I took a ride down to the wildlife management area. The goal of today was to compare a few binoculars optically in the field and take a few pictures.

I want to say firstly...in no way shape or fashion am I a "fanboy" of any binocular make. There are too many fine optics out there and life is just too short.

The object of my observations were some ring necked ducks, coots, goldeneye ducks, redhead ducks, and northern shovelers. Have you ever seen a northern shoveler? Neat! Picture at at bottom...

Optic observations....
I always try to use what I "think" is the lesser binocular FIRST. So I started with a SV 8X32. I'm always amazed at this binocular. It's crazy good. So after the better part of an hour of glassing I pick up the UV HD 8X42.... You know that first few moments of optic change usually tells the tale....and to MY eyes there is no doubt in my mind that as much as I like the UV HD +, the 8X32 SV view is more vivid, more detailed, and more lifelike than that of the UV HD +.

Moving next to the Zeiss SF 8X42. Basically I could copy and paste the same description as above and it would apply here....maybe not to the same degree. Images are simply breathtaking clear.

Next up and finally is the new 8.5X42 SV. Another copy and paste. There's not much difference between the SF and SV...but I believe there IS a difference. Remember the old Memorex commercial? "Memorex, the next best thing to being there." Well, that commercial kept coming to me as I looked thru the SV 8.5s. Yes....I DO believe this is the best binocular I've owned. I ALSO believe one could be absolutely content with any one of the above binoculars. I could have saved myself a lot of money if I'd just started here, but I have to say, I sure have enjoyed the ride! B

denco@comcast.n · Feb 28, 2016

chill6x6 said:
So yesterday morning I took a ride down to the wildlife management area. The goal of today was to compare a few binoculars optically in the field and take a few pictures.

I want to say firstly...in no way shape or fashion am I a "fanboy" of any binocular make. There are too many fine optics out there and life is just too short.

The object of my observations were some ring necked ducks, coots, goldeneye ducks, redhead ducks, and northern shovelers. Have you ever seen a northern shoveler? Neat! Picture at at bottom...

Optic observations....
I always try to use what I "think" is the lesser binocular FIRST. So I started with a SV 8X32. I'm always amazed at this binocular. It's crazy good. So after the better part of an hour of glassing I pick up the UV HD 8X42.... You know that first few moments of optic change usually tells the tale....and to MY eyes there is no doubt in my mind that as much as I like the UV HD +, the 8X32 SV view is more vivid, more detailed, and more lifelike than that of the UV HD +.

Moving next to the Zeiss SF 8X42. Basically I could copy and paste the same description as above and it would apply here....maybe not to the same degree. Images are simply breathtaking clear.

Next up and finally is the new 8.5X42 SV. Another copy and paste. There's not much difference between the SF and SV...but I believe there IS a difference. Remember the old Memorex commercial? "Memorex, the next best thing to being there." Well, that commercial kept coming to me as I looked thru the SV 8.5s. Yes....I DO believe this is the best binocular I've owned. I ALSO believe one could be absolutely content with any one of the above binoculars. I could have saved myself a lot of money if I'd just started here, but I have to say, I sure have enjoyed the ride! B

Sure a nice collection of binoculars. It is nice to see them lined like that so you can compare the sizes. That looks like a nice to place to see waterfowl. Interesting that you liked the SV 8x32 better than the bigger Leica HD 8x42. I would have thought the bigger aperture would have ruled.

jremmons · Feb 28, 2016

chill6x6 said:
So yesterday morning I took a ride down to the wildlife management area. The goal of today was to compare a few binoculars optically in the field and take a few pictures.

I want to say firstly...in no way shape or fashion am I a "fanboy" of any binocular make. There are too many fine optics out there and life is just too short.

The object of my observations were some ring necked ducks, coots, goldeneye ducks, redhead ducks, and northern shovelers. Have you ever seen a northern shoveler? Neat! Picture at at bottom...

Optic observations....
I always try to use what I "think" is the lesser binocular FIRST. So I started with a SV 8X32. I'm always amazed at this binocular. It's crazy good. So after the better part of an hour of glassing I pick up the UV HD 8X42.... You know that first few moments of optic change usually tells the tale....and to MY eyes there is no doubt in my mind that as much as I like the UV HD +, the 8X32 SV view is more vivid, more detailed, and more lifelike than that of the UV HD +.

Moving next to the Zeiss SF 8X42. Basically I could copy and paste the same description as above and it would apply here....maybe not to the same degree. Images are simply breathtaking clear.

Next up and finally is the new 8.5X42 SV. Another copy and paste. There's not much difference between the SF and SV...but I believe there IS a difference. Remember the old Memorex commercial? "Memorex, the next best thing to being there." Well, that commercial kept coming to me as I looked thru the SV 8.5s. Yes....I DO believe this is the best binocular I've owned. I ALSO believe one could be absolutely content with any one of the above binoculars. I could have saved myself a lot of money if I'd just started here, but I have to say, I sure have enjoyed the ride! B

Man, you weren't kidding when you said you had a huge selection of optics.

Glad you get the time to enjoy them all and have found some that you really like.

Justin

denco@comcast.n · Feb 28, 2016

mfunnell said:
Dennis, on this one I'm going to have to say you're absolutely full of ..it. There are many things I can afford but choose not to buy. For example, I could buy a really, really, absolutely terrific top-of-the-wazza sports car, none better. Without going into debt. By selling my house. I could, but I choose not to. The back seat of that car (if it even has one!) doesn't seem especially attractive for sleeping or cooking or inviting friends around.

Coming back down closer to earth and, more importantly, closer to topic, I can afford an "alpha" binocular. And have, just recently. However, I was not prepared to buy and sell (at considerable loss) multiple sets of "alphas" until I found one which suited me. Instead I explored various things at a much lower price-point until I figured out what did and did not work, for me. Exploring (a) what suits me best; (b) just how much better that kind of "alpha" might be than lower-priced options; and (c) whether I was prepared to pay the difference in pricing for the levels of optical and ergonomic improvement on offer.

My end result was buying something most would rate as an "alpha" binocular and which certainly cost "alpha" pricing (and which is the most boring binocular I own: what do you say about something with no major flaws and very few minor ones?). Equally, though, I might not have.

I don't think you get to decide whether I made the right or wrong decision, nor do you get to decide that I really was wrong just because I didn't buy a 10x50 SV. Yet you seem hell-bent, in many of these threads, on saying that anyone who didn't make your decision made the wrong decision. That gets tiresome.

...Mike

I don't get where your coming from saying I am "Full Of it" when it looks like you have arrived at the same conclusion. I guess you are "Full of it" also. The sports car and selling your house really doesn't compare to buying a $2K binocular. Were talking a LOT less money and not a huge lifestyle change to acquire an alpha binocular. You tried multiple less expensive binoculars before you bought an alpha and that is exactly what I did. I don't think perfection in a binocular is boring. Maybe a person but not a binocular. I didn't say you were wrong for not buying a 10x50 SV or an 8x32 SV either. Whatever binocular you buy is your decision. My point is is this. There is nothing wrong with trying less expensive binoculars to see if they work for you. For some people a $200 binocular like the Sightron might fulfill their needs and that may be all you want to spend or can afford. But in my case after having alpha level binoculars the less expensive binoculars let me down and led to frustration because they were never and WILL NEVER be as good as a $2K binocular. I don't mess around with them anymore.B

mfunnell · Feb 28, 2016

[email protected] said:
I don't get where your coming from saying I am "Full Of it" when it looks like you have arrived at the same conclusion.

Dennis, I was saying you were "full of it" for implying that if someone can afford something then they should afford it. There are many things I can afford that I choose not to and I'm sure that applies to most people.

[email protected] said:
I guess you are "Full of it" also.

Quite likely.

[email protected] said:
The sports car and selling your house really doesn't compare to buying a $2K binocular. Were talking a LOT less money and not a huge lifestyle change to acquire an alpha binocular.

But surely if I can afford it then I should? No? Perhaps trading off one potential use for funds against others isn't such a bad idea after all.

[email protected] said:
You tried multiple less expensive binoculars before you bought an alpha and that is exactly what I did.

Quite so. But I'm disinclined to critisise those who made a different choice.

[email protected] said:
I don't think perfection in a binocular is boring.

I could have phrased that better. I was trying to say that there's not much to discuss about binoculars with no major faults and few minor ones. Leaving discussion on a discussion board a little sparse.

[email protected] said:
I didn't say you were wrong for not buying a 10x50 SV or an 8x32 SV either. Whatever binocular you buy is your decision. My point is is this. There is nothing wrong with trying less expensive binoculars to see if they work for you. For some people a $200 binocular like the Sightron might fulfill their needs and that may be all you want to spend or can afford. But in my case after having alpha level binoculars the less expensive binoculars let me down and led to frustration because they were never and WILL NEVER be as good as a $2K binocular. I don't mess around with them anymore.B

That's fine and I can agree with much of that. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but way too much of the time you seem to be saying something quite different.

...Mike

chill6x6 · Feb 29, 2016

Here's another pic I had taken on Thursday...

Here's a pic of the 8X42 SF next to the SV.....

EXCEPT the SV is a 12X50:eek!:

SuperDuty · Mar 4, 2016

What specifically about the image makes the 8.5X42 SV the best you've seen.

chill6x6 said:
Next up and finally is the new 8.5X42 SV. Another copy and paste. There's not much difference between the SF and SV...but I believe there IS a difference. Remember the old Memorex commercial? "Memorex, the next best thing to being there." Well, that commercial kept coming to me as I looked thru the SV 8.5s. Yes....I DO believe this is the best binocular I've owned.

AlbertoJ · Mar 4, 2016

chill6x6 said:
So yesterday morning I took a ride down to the wildlife management area. The goal of today was to compare a few binoculars optically in the field and take a few pictures.

I want to say firstly...in no way shape or fashion am I a "fanboy" of any binocular make. There are too many fine optics out there and life is just too short.

The object of my observations were some ring necked ducks, coots, goldeneye ducks, redhead ducks, and northern shovelers. Have you ever seen a northern shoveler? Neat! Picture at at bottom...

Optic observations....
I always try to use what I "think" is the lesser binocular FIRST. So I started with a SV 8X32. I'm always amazed at this binocular. It's crazy good. So after the better part of an hour of glassing I pick up the UV HD 8X42.... You know that first few moments of optic change usually tells the tale....and to MY eyes there is no doubt in my mind that as much as I like the UV HD +, the 8X32 SV view is more vivid, more detailed, and more lifelike than that of the UV HD +.

Moving next to the Zeiss SF 8X42. Basically I could copy and paste the same description as above and it would apply here....maybe not to the same degree. Images are simply breathtaking clear.

Next up and finally is the new 8.5X42 SV. Another copy and paste. There's not much difference between the SF and SV...but I believe there IS a difference. Remember the old Memorex commercial? "Memorex, the next best thing to being there." Well, that commercial kept coming to me as I looked thru the SV 8.5s. Yes....I DO believe this is the best binocular I've owned. I ALSO believe one could be absolutely content with any one of the above binoculars. I could have saved myself a lot of money if I'd just started here, but I have to say, I sure have enjoyed the ride! B

Hello chill6x6, how does SV 8x32 compare with HD+, SF and SV 8.5x42 about glare, flare control?

Theo98 · Mar 4, 2016

chill6x6 said:
Here's another pic I had taken on Thursday...

Here's a pic of the 8X42 SF next to the SV.....

EXCEPT the SV is a 12X50:eek!:

Very interesting physical comparison Chuck! :eek!: Guess the wide-FOV design needs that extra length to meet Zeiss SF optic goals!

Ted

SivaL · Mar 4, 2016

chill6x6 said:
Here's another pic I had taken on Thursday...

Here's a pic of the 8X42 SF next to the SV.....

EXCEPT the SV is a 12X50:eek!:

Hi chill6x6, The SV 12x50 looks great. Have you compared it with the SV 10x50 and which would you pick as the better between the two. Does the 12x higher magnification cause more shakes than the 10x50? I see from other pictures that the 12x50 has the objective lens closer to the rim. Does that cause more glare or flares? Thanks

Julian61 · Mar 4, 2016

So, I'll be going to buy some new bins in a few weeks time and am veering towards 8x sfs owing to big fov, lovely ergonomics and, of course, great optics. The only other contender is the sv 8.5 which I have to take very seriously from what everyone says. I tried some the other day and I loved sharpness, resolution, substantial feel - but not the focusing which felt heavier in than out and significantly inferior to the SF which was so smooth. Was this just a dodgy unit? What else could put sv above sf? I really haven't entirely decided yet but would be grateful for positive sv feedback in the areas I've mentioned.

BruceH · Mar 4, 2016

Subzero888 said:
.... The SV 12x50 looks great. Have you compared it with the SV 10x50 and which would you pick as the better between the two. Does the 12x higher magnification cause more shakes than the 10x50? ...... Thanks

Basically, I have found them to be just about identical other than differences that come about from the different magnifications. Color balance, relative sharpness, contrast, seems the same to me.

The magnification differences impact depth of field and field of view along with the size of the image. Swaro lists a slightly larger apparent fov of 63 degrees for the 12X50 compared to 62 degrees for the 10X50. The difference is not significant. Actually, the 10X gives the impression of having a slightly larger afov I think due to the larger true fov. My 10X weighs .2 (note the "point") of an ounce more.

The size, feel, and balance along with the mechanics are the same between the two. The 10X has a slightly smoother focus mechanism, but that is the luck of the draw. I am unable to tell them apart by feel (other than the focus). They are big heavy binoculars with noticeable forward weight balance.

There is no getting around the laws of physics when using them unbraced. The 12X does have more shake so it does take a little more effort and concentration to hold it steady. I can hold the 12X, but for shorter periods of time as compared to the 10X. The extra effort to control the 12X is more fatiguing over a long day. What is considered acceptable is dependent on the individual, but there is a difference. I did about a 2 1/2 hour bird walk last month at the local riparian with the 12X and it was an interesting experience with many fantasic views. However I was thinking at the end that it would be nice to have the 10X. I will do it again, but definitely not on a regular basis!

I consider the 10X to be more along the lines of a general purpose binocular (but not like a 10X42) and the 12X to be more of a special purpose binocular. Unless the user has a special need or desire for that extra 2X of magnification, the 10X is a more practical way to go. The FOV is larger, it is easier to hold steady, and the depth of field is deeper requiring less refocusing when moving about the view. In truth, the 10X50 is a special purpose binocular for me. I have it primarily for the larger exit pupil for early morning and late evening game spotting. My most used and general purpose binocular is a 10X42 Zeiss SF. The primary role of the 12X for me is long range (4,000 or more yards) game spotting from the truck during the day where I can usually brace the binocular.

Subzero888 said:
....... I see from other pictures that the 12x50 has the objective lens closer to the rim. Does that cause more glare or flares? Thanks

The objectives seem to be set about the same distance from the housing rim on both. See the attached picture. Glare handling seems the same. Both will sometimes display a very slight hazed look under certain lighting conditions, but it is very minor and I do not consider it a significant problem. Most would have to consciously look for it and then might not see it. I think many would only notice it during a side by side with a binocular like the Zeiss SF or HT to pick it up. The Zeiss SF does handle these lighting conditions slightly better. I am not sure why. It may be the difference in color balance. Also, the Zeiss SF objectives are set deeper in the housing.

Hope that helps until Chilli gets back on.

In the attached photo, the 10X is on top of the 12X.

SivaL · Mar 5, 2016

Your comparison is very helpful Bruce. It makes sense to me when you write that your SV 10x50 is a special purpose bin and your general purpose bin is the SF 10x42. I have an UVHD 10x42 which I think has perfect fit and form. It is sharp, beautifully built and quite compact. I tried the SV 10x50 at a store and was hesitant to purchase it as a general purpose bin due to the weight. But then when you read glorious reviews about the EL50's you get to feel a hankering for them that is hard to shake and you involuntarily start to look for good deals online. So, it is great to have reviewers like you making things clear.

I was mistaken about the 12x50 objectives closer to the rim. Thanks for the picture.

chill6x6 · Mar 5, 2016

SuperDuty said:
What specifically about the image makes the 8.5X42 SV the best you've seen.

It's hard to say. I can say in comparing the four binocular models in question, the SV 8.5X42 gave me the best image. Kinda like going to the optometrist and them saying, "which is better, one or two" while flipping lenses. I thought the SV to offer more detailed, lifelike images. I've often wondered if the 0.5X increase in magnification gives it a little advantage over the 8X models.

chill6x6 · Mar 5, 2016

AlbertoJ said:
Hello chill6x6, how does SV 8x32 compare with HD+, SF and SV 8.5x42 about glare, flare control?

Glare....
I have both the 8X32 and 10X32 SV. The 8X32 is WAY better in this regard...EASY to see the difference.

8X32 vs the other three... It's not quite as good but I feel it acquits itself quite nicely in this aspect. Would never be a real issue for me.

chill6x6 · Mar 5, 2016

Julian61 said:
So, I'll be going to buy some new bins in a few weeks time and am veering towards 8x sfs owing to big fov, lovely ergonomics and, of course, great optics. The only other contender is the sv 8.5 which I have to take very seriously from what everyone says. I tried some the other day and I loved sharpness, resolution, substantial feel - but not the focusing which felt heavier in than out and significantly inferior to the SF which was so smooth. Was this just a dodgy unit? What else could put sv above sf? I really haven't entirely decided yet but would be grateful for positive sv feedback in the areas I've mentioned.

Focus adjustment... I have a 1997 SLC 10X42 WB. I can't say enough good things about this binocular in the years I've owned and used it. The focus by todays standards is a little rough but I have never thought it to be a "problem," ever. I really never knew there WAS a "problem" with Swarovski focus adjustment until I read about it on BF. SAYING THAT...the focus adjustment on the SF AND HT....the best. Going back and forth between the UV HD + and SV one realizes how nice it really is. But that's no different than saying how wonderful the diopter adjustment and eyecups are on the Leica's, the best.

If someone came to me and said "here's $2500, buy me a 8X binocular." It's more important for me to recommend to SOMEONE ELSE than it would be for me to purchase something for myself, so I would take it very seriously. I also am not one that would have any problem going against the flow in an effort to find the best product. And I'm always one to "try" the best "new" thing, hence the 8X42 SF. But in this case, it would be pretty easy. I would go pick up a 8X32 and an 8.5X42 SV and simply ask which size suited them. I know that would be most likely the best one could do. This based on all parameters of binocular ownership: optics, build quality, customer service, idiosyncrasies. YMMV.

chill6x6 · Mar 5, 2016

BruceH said:
Basically, I have found them to be just about identical other than differences that come about from the different magnifications. Color balance, relative sharpness, contrast, seems the same to me.

The magnification differences impact depth of field and field of view along with the size of the image. Swaro lists a slightly larger apparent fov of 63 degrees for the 12X50 compared to 62 degrees for the 10X50. The difference is not significant. Actually, the 10X gives the impression of having a slightly larger afov I think due to the larger true fov. My 10X weighs .2 (note the "point") of an ounce more.

The size, feel, and balance along with the mechanics are the same between the two. The 10X has a slightly smoother focus mechanism, but that is the luck of the draw. I am unable to tell them apart by feel (other than the focus). They are big heavy binoculars with noticeable forward weight balance.

There is no getting around the laws of physics when using them unbraced. The 12X does have more shake so it does take a little more effort and concentration to hold it steady. I can hold the 12X, but for shorter periods of time as compared to the 10X. The extra effort to control the 12X is more fatiguing over a long day. What is considered acceptable is dependent on the individual, but there is a difference. I did about a 2 1/2 hour bird walk last month at the local riparian with the 12X and it was an interesting experience with many fantasic views. However I was thinking at the end that it would be nice to have the 10X. I will do it again, but definitely not on a regular basis!

I consider the 10X to be more along the lines of a general purpose binocular (but not like a 10X42) and the 12X to be more of a special purpose binocular. Unless the user has a special need or desire for that extra 2X of magnification, the 10X is a more practical way to go. The FOV is larger, it is easier to hold steady, and the depth of field is deeper requiring less refocusing when moving about the view. In truth, the 10X50 is a special purpose binocular for me. I have it primarily for the larger exit pupil for early morning and late evening game spotting. My most used and general purpose binocular is a 10X42 Zeiss SF. The primary role of the 12X for me is long range (4,000 or more yards) game spotting from the truck during the day where I can usually brace the binocular.

The objectives seem to be set about the same distance from the housing rim on both. See the attached picture. Glare handling seems the same. Both will sometimes display a very slight hazed look under certain lighting conditions, but it is very minor and I do not consider it a significant problem. Most would have to consciously look for it and then might not see it. I think many would only notice it during a side by side with a binocular like the Zeiss SF or HT to pick it up. The Zeiss SF does handle these lighting conditions slightly better. I am not sure why. It may be the difference in color balance. Also, the Zeiss SF objectives are set deeper in the housing.

Hope that helps until Chilli gets back on.

In the attached photo, the 10X is on top of the 12X.

Better than I could have done! :t:

Julian61 · Mar 5, 2016

Thanks Chilli

chill6x6 said:
Focus adjustment... I have a 1997 SLC 10X42 WB. I can't say enough good things about this binocular in the years I've owned and used it. The focus by todays standards is a little rough but I have never thought it to be a "problem," ever. I really never knew there WAS a "problem" with Swarovski focus adjustment until I read about it on BF. SAYING THAT...the focus adjustment on the SF AND HT....the best. Going back and forth between the UV HD + and SV one realizes how nice it really is. But that's no different than saying how wonderful the diopter adjustment and eyecups are on the Leica's, the best.

If someone came to me and said "here's $2500, buy me a 8X binocular." It's more important for me to recommend to SOMEONE ELSE than it would be for me to purchase something for myself, so I would take it very seriously. I also am not one that would have any problem going against the flow in an effort to find the best product. And I'm always one to "try" the best "new" thing, hence the 8X42 SF. But in this case, it would be pretty easy. I would go pick up a 8X32 and an 8.5X42 SV and simply ask which size suited them. I know that would be most likely the best one could do. This based on all parameters of binocular ownership: optics, build quality, customer service, idiosyncrasies. YMMV.

This is helpful. I've had some outstanding feedback on the 8x sf and been able to try them out alongside some ht s. I really wanted some feedback from Swaro owners to balance my eventual decision. I should have thanked you for your previous comments on this thread, all of which has been enlightening. I recognise that nothing is going to beat Swaro optics, particularly in this latest range. Have Zeiss countered this excellence with their own great quality glass with interesting new departures in fov and ergonomics? Does Swaro build quality and second to none after sales service counteract these factors? Ultimately it will Bo me a d my eyes that will be the decider though others experiences count as a guide. This will be my probable departure from Leica whose UVHD+ are great but not up to the others in the areas I've mentioned,not for me anyway. This purchase will be my last big purchase for a long while...I need to get it right. Thank you again.

SuperDuty · Mar 5, 2016

It's obvious that your eye-brain interface is in an optimal state of tune.:-O

chill6x6 said:
It's hard to say. I can say in comparing the four binocular models in question, the SV 8.5X42 gave me the best image. Kinda like going to the optometrist and them saying, "which is better, one or two" while flipping lenses. I thought the SV to offer more detailed, lifelike images.

chill6x6 · Mar 7, 2016

Julian61 said:
This is helpful. I've had some outstanding feedback on the 8x sf and been able to try them out alongside some ht s. I really wanted some feedback from Swaro owners to balance my eventual decision. I should have thanked you for your previous comments on this thread, all of which has been enlightening. I recognise that nothing is going to beat Swaro optics, particularly in this latest range. Have Zeiss countered this excellence with their own great quality glass with interesting new departures in fov and ergonomics? Does Swaro build quality and second to none after sales service counteract these factors? Ultimately it will Bo me a d my eyes that will be the decider though others experiences count as a guide. This will be my probable departure from Leica whose UVHD+ are great but not up to the others in the areas I've mentioned,not for me anyway. This purchase will be my last big purchase for a long while...I need to get it right. Thank you again.

You're most welcome! The good thing is....all the binoculars you are considering are really fine binoculars. All of them. I can see how any user could pick any of those to suite their needs/qualifications and be perfectly happy with their choice. Right now, I'm on the fence about selling my SF. But that doesn't mean I don't like it....I do! But one can only use so many binoculars at one time! :smoke:

Good luck with your search!

First day out...SV 8.5X42 Field Pro.... (1 Viewer)

Registered User

Attachments

Well-known member

Wildlife Biologist

Well-known member

Registered Confuser

Registered User

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Eurasian Goldfinch

Well-known member

Well-known member

Avatar: Harris Hawk

Attachments

Well-known member

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered User

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread