Maven B3 8x30 ... (1 Viewer)

ceasar · Mar 9, 2015

There are some people here who must think that Swarovski is being run by the 3 Stooges!3

3

Does anybody really think that Swarovski would deliberately build lack of sharpness into the their 8x30 CL Companion because it might compete with its top of the line 8x32 Swarovision which costs $1500.00 more?

As Alfred E. Neuman said: "Hoo Haw!" :-O

If we are reasonable we must assume that Swarovski's managment is also reasonable and wanted to build a binocular that would attract people who didn't want to pay more than 1000 bucks for a binocular and there are plenty of places you can cut to get into that price range without even considering making the binocular less sharp!

I can see this rumor taking wings.o

"The brains on Bird Forum are saying not to buy Swarovski's 8x30 CL Companion because they didn't make it sharp!"

I have the 8x30 CL, the 8x30 SLC and a Leica 8x42 Ultravid and I can tell you that all three are equally sharp to my eyes. They exhibit some differences when I use them but not in sharpness. And I have no intention of testing them on an Edmunds Chart.

I had my annual eye exam last Tuesday. My eyes are still unchanged. I still have 20/15 vision in my left eye and 20/25 in my right and I do not have astigmatism.

Bob

PS: The 8x30 CL matches the 8x30 SLC in sharpness to my eyes as it should because it doesn't have a clear plate of glass in front of its objectives like the SLC does but this doesn't mean that their focal lengths are different.

The CL is about 1/2 inch shorter because of this. Their objective tubes are the same width and their objective covers are interchangeable. The clear diameter of their oculars are the same but the eye cups are not interchangeable because the CLs eye cups have have a narrower diameter.

ads · Mar 9, 2015

ceasar said:
Does anybody really think that Swarovski would deliberately build lack of sharpness into the their 8x30 CL Companion

All companies manufacturing products must decide how they want to allocate costs in their product. For example, the fancy case that Swarovski includes comes out of a budget that could be devoted towards improved coatings, etc. So that is a deliberate choice.

Going a step further, often limitations are deliberately incorporated into product lines, limitations that are not based on cost, but are designed purely to distinguish product lines and increase sales revenue. Software is the supreme example of this, but it exists in non-software product lines too.

ceasar · Mar 9, 2015

ads said:
All companies manufacturing products must decide how they want to allocate costs in their product. For example, the fancy case that Swarovski includes comes out of a budget that could be devoted towards improved coatings, etc. So that is a deliberate choice.

Going a step further, often limitations are deliberately incorporated into product lines, limitations that are not based on cost, but are designed purely to distinguish product lines and increase sales revenue. Software is the supreme example of this, but it exists in non-software product lines too.

We are talking about the sharpness of binoculars here.

If you can point out one major binocular manufacturer which does not regard the sharpness of the binoculars it manufactures as an issue of the utmost importance in determining sales revenue please advise us.

Thanks,

Bob

denco@comcast.n · Mar 9, 2015

ceasar said:
There are some people here who must think that Swarovski is being run by the 3 Stooges!33

Does anybody really think that Swarovski would deliberately build lack of sharpness into the their 8x30 CL Companion because it might compete with its top of the line 8x32 Swarovision which costs $1500.00 more?

As Alfred E. Neuman said: "Hoo Haw!" :-O

If we are reasonable we must assume that Swarovski's managment is also reasonable and wanted to build a binocular that would attract people who didn't want to pay more than 1000 bucks for a binocular and there are plenty of places you can cut to get into that price range without even considering making the binocular less sharp!

I can see this rumor taking wings.o "The brains on Bird Forum are saying not to buy Swarovski's 8x30 CL Companion because they didn't make it sharp!"

I have the 8x30 CL, the 8x30 SLC and a Leica 8x42 Ultravid and I can tell you that all three are equally sharp to my eyes. They exhibit some differences when I use them but not in sharpness. And I have no intention of testing them on an Edmunds Chart.

I had my annual eye exam last Tuesday. My eyes are still unchanged. I still have 20/15 vision in my left eye and 20/25 in my right and I do not have astigmatism.

Bob

PS: The 8x30 CL matches the 8x30 SLC in sharpness to my eyes as it should because it doesn't have a clear plate of glass in front of its objectives like the SLC does but this doesn't mean that their focal lengths are different.

The CL is about 1/2 inch shorter because of this. Their objective tubes are the same width and their objective covers are interchangeable. The clear diameter of their oculars are the same but the eye cups are not interchangeable because the CLs eye cups have have a narrower diameter.

Yes, it amazing to me how some people say the CL isn't sharp. Swarovski didn't make it sharp so it wouldn't compete with the SLC or SV. That is funny.

denco@comcast.n · Mar 9, 2015

ads said:
All companies manufacturing products must decide how they want to allocate costs in their product. For example, the fancy case that Swarovski includes comes out of a budget that could be devoted towards improved coatings, etc. So that is a deliberate choice.

Going a step further, often limitations are deliberately incorporated into product lines, limitations that are not based on cost, but are designed purely to distinguish product lines and increase sales revenue. Software is the supreme example of this, but it exists in non-software product lines too.

I don't think Swarovski cut costs on coatings so they could give you a case on the CL 8x30. The coatings work quite well and the binocular is as bright as many 8x42's. They put 30 coats of coating on each lens surface. Does Maven do that? Maybe that is why I see more detail at dusk with the Swaro's than I do with the Maven's.

HighNorth · Mar 9, 2015

[email protected] said:
Yes, it amazing to me how some people say the CL isn't sharp. Swarovski didn't make it sharp so it wouldn't compete with the SLC or SV. That is funny.

I don't know about the sharpness, but I could easily see why Swarovski would keep the FOV of the CL substandard so it wouldn't compete with the bigger FOV (and much more expensive) 8/10x32 EL SV. Same logic behind making the focus distance longer (and reducing the price) on the SLC vs the EL SV. ...and why was the 8x30 SLC discontinued? Maybe so it wouldn't compete with the CL? :smoke:

This is just speculation though.

typo · Mar 9, 2015

ceasar said:
We are talking about the sharpness of binoculars here.

If you can point out one major binocular manufacturer which does not regard the sharpness of the binoculars it manufactures as an issue of the utmost importance in determining sales revenue please advise us.

Thanks,

Bob

Sorry Bob it's absolutely clear that if you checkout the full binocular range from companies like Vortex, Bushnell, Nikon and Opticron, resolution is very obviously a price differentiator. From what I can see Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica most certainly do as well. I'm surprised you would suggest otherwise.

I've not seen your CL so don't know if it's an exception but 12 from 12 I've tried were in a category I'd call poor. My eyesight may be better than yours but I would still expect you to see the difference in good light.

Apologies for getting a bit technical again. A flawless x42 binocular would have a resolution of 2.8 arcseconds, but the qualifying DIN ISO standard that the big three and most others use is 5.8 arcseconds, and I'm told that the designers typically aim for 4.5" for the top models but there will be variation. I'll skip the explanation for now but users will very good eyesight can definitely spot effective resolution differences amongst binoculars that comply with this standard.

If Swarovski followed the same practice with the CL x30 a flawless binocular would be 3.9 arcseconds and the DIN ISO limit 8 arcseconds. The equivalent design standard would be around 7 arcseconds that alone would be enough for a high proportion of users to see it as soft.

It's clear that Swarovski don't follow this strategy with all their models. I suspect the ELSV 8x32 isn't too far away from flawless. I personally find the CL dreadful by comparison.

I obviously don't know if this poor result was accidental or intentional, but I do note some of the key design personnel had left before it came along. I'm sure they are very happy with the model as it sells well by all accounts. That doesn't make it a good binocular in my books.

Cheers,

David

Gijs van Ginkel · Mar 9, 2015

David, post 67,
I investigated the CL Companion 8x30 CL extensively under a lot of different light and color conditions and I completely disagree with your conclusions that the CL's are not sharp. For your information my eyesight is very good, so there is no limitation there.
In your post you state: " but I do note some of the (Swarovski) key design personel had left before the CL came along" Who are you referring to? Gerold Dobler or Konrad Seill can not be the persons you are referring to, since after they left Swarovski had very capable persons to replace them, so your suggestion that Swarovski went downhill because some persons left is in my opinion a pure speculation which has no grounds in the facts.
Gijs

typo · Mar 9, 2015

Gijs,

I think it's better that I respond by PM.

David

oetzi · Mar 9, 2015

ceasar said:
I can see this rumor taking wings.o "The brains on Bird Forum are saying not to buy Swarovski's 8x30 CL Companion because they didn't make it sharp!"

I cant remember much about the sharpness of my CL, but the whole package was not to my liking.
A very subjective decision, a gut-feeling. My co-reviewer got along with it quite fine.
http://www.outdoor-professionell.de...cl-companion-8x30-fernglas-reise-spitzbergen/

The CL is ok if you want a lightweight, compact 8x30 made by Swarovski.
If you are in the market for a ligtweight, compact 8x30, buy something else.

Howard220 · Mar 9, 2015

I have to chime in here: the one 8x30 CL I tried inspired me to almost buy one, even though it cost twice as much as I would ever want to spend on any binocular. Its sharpness, very large sweet-spot, and its size and weight would have had me buy one during last fall's sale at $900, finally ending my quest for my "perfect" binocular. But the too-small size of the FOV prevented me from doing so. In any case, I was very impressed with its optical performance, and I consider myself a stickler for such.

What this has to do with the Maven binocular, I don't know....

denco@comcast.n · Mar 9, 2015

typo said:
Sorry Bob it's absolutely clear that if you checkout the full binocular range from companies like Vortex, Bushnell, Nikon and Opticron, resolution is very obviously a price differentiator. From what I can see Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica most certainly do as well. I'm surprised you would suggest otherwise.

I've not seen your CL so don't know if it's an exception but 12 from 12 I've tried were in a category I'd call poor. My eyesight may be better than yours but I would still expect you to see the difference in good light.

Apologies for getting a bit technical again. A flawless x42 binocular would have a resolution of 2.8 arcseconds, but the qualifying DIN ISO standard that the big three and most others use is 5.8 arcseconds, and I'm told that the designers typically aim for 4.5" for the top models but there will be variation. I'll skip the explanation for now but users will very good eyesight can definitely spot effective resolution differences amongst binoculars that comply with this standard.

If Swarovski followed the same practice with the CL x30 a flawless binocular would be 3.9 arcseconds and the DIN ISO limit 8 arcseconds. The equivalent design standard would be around 7 arcseconds that alone would be enough for a high proportion of users to see it as soft.

It's clear that Swarovski don't follow this strategy with all their models. I suspect the ELSV 8x32 isn't too far away from flawless. I personally find the CL dreadful by comparison.

I obviously don't know if this poor result was accidental or intentional, but I do note some of the key design personnel had left before it came along. I'm sure they are very happy with the model as it sells well by all accounts. That doesn't make it a good binocular in my books.

Cheers,

David

Maybe the 12 samples you tried were bad. How would you acquire that many samples to test?

denco@comcast.n · Mar 9, 2015

Howard220 said:
I have to chime in here: the one 8x30 CL I tried inspired me to almost buy one, even though it cost twice as much as I would ever want to spend on any binocular. Its sharpness, very large sweet-spot, and its size and weight would have had me buy one during last fall's sale at $900, finally ending my quest for my "perfect" binocular. But the too-small size of the FOV prevented me from doing so. In any case, I was very impressed with its optical performance, and I consider myself a stickler for such.

What this has to do with the Maven binocular, I don't know....

Read my review on the Maven 8x30 versus the Swarovski 8x30 CL.

HighNorth · Mar 9, 2015

[email protected] said:
Read my review on the Maven 8x30 versus the Swarovski 8x30 CL.

Yeah, and then you can buy Dennis' CL!

denco@comcast.n · Mar 9, 2015

HighNorth said:
Yeah, and then you can buy Dennis' CL!

Did you get your Zeiss SF back yet from Germany?

Gijs van Ginkel · Mar 9, 2015

Oetzi, post 60.
You wrote "the CL is dark, dull, uninspiring and lacks FOV"
The CL can be bought in 3 different colors and if you refer to the CL in black or the CL Safari, which is brown then you are sort of right. However you can also buy the green colored one, which is certainly not dark. Afterall we all enjoy the green of the trees and grass covered fields and what a joy it can provide.
The CL dull? That depends on your taste and yours is obviously diffferent from mine. It is a handy compact tool with limitations one can live with certainly as a traveller.
Uninspiring?? Matter of taste and what turns you on.
Lacks FOV? For generations one could live very well with an FOV of 124m/1000 m of which 89% (determined by measurements) is perfectly sharp as judged with my eyes.
Gijs

pete_gamby · Mar 9, 2015

When he says "dark" I think that he means that in his opinion it lacks brightness, not that the colour of the rubber armour is less than white

perterra · Mar 9, 2015

pete_gamby said:
When he says "dark" I think that he means that in his opinion it lacks brightness, not that the colour of the rubber armour is less than white

Thats the way I read it

Gijs van Ginkel · Mar 9, 2015

Gentlemen in posts 77 and 78,
Of course I know that Oetzi did not mean the color of the instrument, but I can not take seriously that an 8x30 binocular, whatever brand it may be, with a fairly flat transmission spectrum and light transmissions over a broad wavelength range of over 90% yields an image that is described as dark.
Gijs

NDhunter · Mar 9, 2015

Gijs van Ginkel said:
Gentlemen in posts 77 and 78,
Of course I know that Oetzi did not mean the color of the instrument, but I can not take seriously that an 8x30 binocular, whatever brand it may be, with a fairly flat transmission spectrum and light transmissions over a broad wavelength range of over 90% yields an image that is described as dark.
Gijs

Gijs:

Of course you are right. Seems odd a competitive representative of
another optics company, (pete) should feel compelled to offer a negative
at the CL. |=@| I suppose having a hard time competing may be the reason.

The CL does its job well, and is very compact, and only at 17 oz. is
a great traveler binocular.

I find it offers up a very nice, bright view in a very compact package.

No imagine here, I own and use this binocular.

Jerry

Maven B3 8x30 ... (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Birds? What Birds?!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread