Jason Bugay Reyes
Well-known member
Yup agree with James here. The longer I used the bino, the more I know about its strength etc :king:
-
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.
Question on the SV 8x32 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Hermann
- Start date
Yup agree with James here. The longer I used the bino, the more I know about its strength etc :king:
Six Point Five
Well-known member
I just came back inside after comparing the two. We have a lot of moisture and mist in the air, and a thin layer of clouds is diffusing a very bright sun, just about to set behind a hill. I looked at all angles possible in relation to the sun, as close as possible to the sun without burning my eyes. I use binoculars without eyeglasses. The eyecups on the SV are fully extended, the ones on the FL are one stop short from fully extended.
I saw no veiling glare in the FL. With the sun behind me and to my side, i had a small bright spot of reflection in the ocular lens. I quickly blocked that with the base of my thumb or palm.
I saw veiling glare with the SV when looking just under the edge of the bright diffused sun. Literally, the sun's edge was at the edge of my FOV. The glare was exactly as described, very thin crescent shape at the base of the FOV. Very quickly and easily i made that disappear in a second or two, by pushing the eyepieces closer to my eyes, perhaps a little more to one side than the other. I seem to have reacted instantly, because i had to experiment several times to see what is happening and what i am doing. And i did have to shift and turn quit a bit to find the glare again, it was not easy to find and see.
Both binoculars had a perfectly good sharp image with good contrast, even when looking just under the sun. I could see very well small details in places and at angles where most binoculars would have failed.
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Six Point Five,
I'm probably (wrongly?) using "veiling glare" to mean something different. I always thought of it as a slight haze that covers the entire field when looking into the sun. It lowers contrast and you lose detail, especially in dark areas. In this regard the SV is indeed a little better than the FL.
The crescents I'd call just plain glare, but as we know our terminology around here is not too clear.
Anyway, I'll bet we saw essentially the same thing and just described it differently.
Mark
I'm probably (wrongly?) using "veiling glare" to mean something different. I always thought of it as a slight haze that covers the entire field when looking into the sun. It lowers contrast and you lose detail, especially in dark areas. In this regard the SV is indeed a little better than the FL.
The crescents I'd call just plain glare, but as we know our terminology around here is not too clear.
Anyway, I'll bet we saw essentially the same thing and just described it differently.
Mark
Mark
I think it was Canon that described this as 'non-image forming light' which sums it up nicely.
Lee
brocknroller
porromaniac
I think Mark's longer description explains it better than Canon's "Newspeak," which is like calling static on a record "non-music forming sound."
G. Orwell
Six Point Five
Well-known member
Mark, flare, glare, or whatever it is, i never had haze covering the entire field of view. I went outside this afternoon, again. Nope, nada.
To paraphrase M. Twain: the rumors of SV being hazy are vastly exaggerated.
The best i could do this afternoon, the sun was not very low, but we were expecting rain again at sunset, was to look at hawks and vultures as close to the sun as possible, and then just look close to the sun. The best, or worst i ever saw was one slight tin coma of golden light at bottom on left, for 2 seconds.
One red shouldered hawk flew half a field of view bellow the sun and i enjoyed seeing every bit of detail and contrast on his feathers with the sun on the upper edge of my glass. No problem here.
If you folks want to try a hazy glass, try a $100 Brunton roof prism 10x42 from a few years ago. The damn thing has nothing but haze at all times. I think i am going to shoot it to parody that Conquest video.
What's a 'record' ?
William Wordsworth.
PS I have often heard non-music forming sound coming from vinyl and CDs but it had nothing to do with static, just the artists..........
Last edited:
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Well of course I didn't say the SV was hazy. On the contrary I said it was better than the FL, which is no slouch. I don't recall seeing a binocular that showed no glare at all in difficult lighting. I suspect such a beast has yet to be made.
Hermann
Well-known member
I know answering my own post isn't good style, but still ...
I had a long look at the SV 8x32 in the meantime. Spent half an hour with it in front of the shops, and it is for sure a very good bin. The best 8x32 roof I've looked through yet. Very nice optics, good handling, a very useable focuser, not too fast and not too slow. Veiling glare - well, the conditions weren't really right to check for veiling glare. But I think I can understand now why so many people love the SV 8x32. It's nice, very nice actually.
Did I buy it? No, I didn't, even though I liked the optics quite a lot. But in the end I felt it wasn't all that much better optically than my 8x32 SE, and I also think I'd trust my old Leica 8x32 BA in *really* tough conditions more than the SV that felt just a bit fragile in my hands. But that was just a gut feeling, nothing else.
So in the end I decided not to spend the money. I think I'll wait some more. Maybe I really should get used to the idea of using a harness and get a full-size 8x42. Or wait until someone finally makes a stabilized alpha that doesn't look (and handle) like a brick.
Hermann
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
I don't like heavy bins on my neck, and I don't like harnesses either, but my favorite and most frequent type of birding involves walking ~6 miles in a morning (and in past fieldwork I walked ~12 miles a day for many days in a row), and I prefer to use full-size bins. My solution? Neoprene "neck" straps of the proper design (soft and slightly stretchy, not webbing backed). I put _neck_ in quotation marks because when properly sized and positioned (often accomplished through interaction with the collar of my favorite light-weight jacket; other folks may do same with a cargo vest), the weight is born by my back and shoulders (i.e. torso), not my neck. Switching the bin to bandolier position (or carrying bins in a hip pack or holster) when "in transit" walking quickly from one place to another does the same. When actively viewing or searching, the bins are in my hands, so again, the weight is off my neck, and the strap serves only to prevent drops. Using these approaches, I can't imagine how the weight of the bin would aggravate any back or neck problems, since even full-sized bins are an insignificant percentage of the body mass already borne by one's back. If I find myself complaining that my bins or my bicycle are too heavy, I take it as a sign that I need to lose a few pounds of body weight. Losing weight, whether it is 5 pounds or 50, is dramatically more effective than trading a 30 oz bin for a 16 oz bin.
--AP
Six Point Five
Well-known member
I wear the large Zzeiss FL 7x42 on shoulder and across chest, like a messenger bag. I use a neoprene strap slightly elastic, as you describe, slightly longer, made for cameras. I don't like harnesses either, especially in summer.
For a full size bin, I feel the Swarovski 8x42 SLC HD balances very well in the hand, and makes it feel lighter than it is.
For carry on the body for full and mid sized bins, I have used good neck straps; harnesses; and also carried bandolier style. My favorites are either a Rick Young harness, or good neck strap carried bandolier style. I also like plain paracord and then carry a bin in the bandolier style.
For carry on the body for full and mid sized bins, I have used good neck straps; harnesses; and also carried bandolier style. My favorites are either a Rick Young harness, or good neck strap carried bandolier style. I also like plain paracord and then carry a bin in the bandolier style.
HighNorth
Well-known member
More effective still would be to start pumping some serious iron to reinforce those back, shoulder and neck muscles! :smoke:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Since it's always cold in the Capt. Kirkenes, High North rarely takes off his shirt, but Google Earth did manage to capture this photo of him shirtless on an exceptionally warm day (40*F):
We want to pump you up
Hans and Franz
We want to pump you up
Hans and Franz
Tobias Mennle
Well-known member
I know answering my own post isn't good style, but still ...
But in the end I felt it wasn't all that much better optically than my 8x32 SE
Hermann
That was exactly my conclusion, too, after one year of using them both.
I totally love the SV 8.5x42 but feel the SV 8x32 is not quite in this league due to flare/ghosting and RB. About the brightness, the flat transmission curve helps (which is very evident comparing the bigger SV to the SLC and the Ultravid HD Plus) but residual veiling glare would brighten up the image, too.
I directly asked Swarovski about a recent change in design of the 8x32 with respect to RB but only got a somewhat cryptic answer ("We think that...it´s the user´s..." instead of a "no").
I´d expect them to improve on the 8x32, but I´m not sure they´d ever publish anything about these improvements. Which in my opinion is totally false. Nobody expects perfection, but we do expect serious efforts in making good products even better.
Tobias Mennle
Well-known member
Replaced with a new pair? Interesting. If your observation is right, there must have been some serious changes, otherwise they could have just upgraded your sample.
