-
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.
After a year with an 8.5x42 SV FPro. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Torview
- Start date
Jack Speer
Well-known member
I've been looking at this binocular for quite some time. I have several friends at the local birding group who have let me try theirs for entire birding sessions and I've always enjoyed using it. Eagle optics closing was a small blessing in disguise because I was finally able to purchase my own for less than $2000, from an authorized dealer no less. They arrive sometime next week. I am getting antsy.
Jack
Jack
Jack Speer
Well-known member
I also wanted to say that I wrestled with getting the 8.5x42 or the 10x50. I've seen a common opinion that if a bird cannot be identified with an 8x, then it cannot be identified with a 10x. But surely there is a range that is too far for 8x, but not too far for 10x right?
In the end I chose the 8.5x because it seemed like the safer option, especially since I'd already tried it many times and there are no more returns with eagle optics. Maybe I will try a nice 10x someday, but comments that the 8.5x is a good all arounder have quieted the little voices in my head asking for more power (for now).
Jack
In the end I chose the 8.5x because it seemed like the safer option, especially since I'd already tried it many times and there are no more returns with eagle optics. Maybe I will try a nice 10x someday, but comments that the 8.5x is a good all arounder have quieted the little voices in my head asking for more power (for now).
Jack
I have the 8.5X42 and the 10X50 SV's. The 8.5 was the "right" choice for a superb all-purpose bin. The 10X is heavier and produces more handshake but...
There's a group of high flying raptors unseen by naked eye. You scan, find them and the 8.5 tells you they are probably small accipiters (Sharp-shinned) and perhaps one or more American Kestrels mixed in. You can't tell for sure; they are too distant. The 10X50 reveals a handful of sharpies along with two adult male kestrels. The 10X makes a difference but not as often as one would imagine.
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
Agree!
The 8.5X42 SV is a Great multi-purpose bino and the 10X50 SV is a Great specialized higher power instrument that if you are "comfortable hand holding", takes the 8.5 view to a higher level of refined glassing! :t:
One day, my choice will be to own Both!!
Ted
Last edited:
Jack Speer
Well-known member
Thank you for the example, Pileatus. It has helped put things into perspective and made me feel even more at ease with my decision.
Jack
I forgot to mention that the 8.5 has greater depth of field, something I increasingly value as my eyes age.
I just got the 8.5x42SV Field Pro recently to compliment my 10x50SV (my lower power mainstay had been an Ultravid HD+ 7x42). View is incredible in both, but in my normal birding situations, I'm finding the 10x50 isnt giving me much more than the 8.5x42.
I'm thinking about the 12x50SV as a compliment to the 8.5 instead. For the larger bin (my 10x50SV) I'm about 50/50 astronomy vs. terrestrial use, and about half the time for terrestrial use I'm using a finnstick or monopod. I have access to a friend's 12x50SV tomorrow and am going to makes some comparisons with the 10x50SV.
However, back to the original topic, I'm probably going to be selling my Ultravid HD + 7x42 as much as I love it, because the 8.5 Field Pro is getting all my viewing time.
I'm thinking about the 12x50SV as a compliment to the 8.5 instead. For the larger bin (my 10x50SV) I'm about 50/50 astronomy vs. terrestrial use, and about half the time for terrestrial use I'm using a finnstick or monopod. I have access to a friend's 12x50SV tomorrow and am going to makes some comparisons with the 10x50SV.
However, back to the original topic, I'm probably going to be selling my Ultravid HD + 7x42 as much as I love it, because the 8.5 Field Pro is getting all my viewing time.
Last edited:
Torview,
You've abandoned your 7x42 leaving me the only oddball left
Glad you like your 8.5 so much and getting good usage. The SV's are all wonderful. I particularly
like the little 8x32 SV.
I had the original 8.5x42 SV model and sold it on. Replaced it with the Lieca 7x42 Ultravid HD Makes me smile every time I look through it. Love it
Let's us know what you think when you compare the 12X/10X 50mm SV's. When I compared them I just didn't see any advantage at all to the 12X. I was viewing at distances in the 200-1000m range. The 12X50 handles the same as the 10X50 SV but, at some point, I suppose handshake ends the debate...at least for me it did.
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
Of course 10x can help ID birds that are at the limit of 8x, assuming you can hold it still enough. I use 8x more than 10x as I mostly bird in the tropics. As soon as I'm in open country or on the coast though, 10x are certainly superior for me. Occasionally 10x show some value with challenging birds in the canopy but largely you are going to ID by ear and then look for confirming field marks, such that 8x vs 10x magnification isn't as critical as good contrast on backlit birds.
8x or even 7x are generally better for pelagics, it is much harder to use a 10x on a pelagic unless you're on a larger/more stable boat.
Cheers,
Josh
IMO one of the reasons to own a SV 8.5X42 is that it bridges the 8X/10X gap a little.
I actually use the SV 12X50 more now than I did previously. IMO a perfect compliment to a nice 7X/8X. You'd be surprised how often there is something close to lean on or to use for a prop.
I think I'd wait on selling that 7X42 Leica!:eek!:
In response to Torview and Pileatus, I had the chance to compare the 10x50SV vs. it's 12x50 counterpart over the last two days. Spent all day Sunday on Galveston Bay and High Island. Lots of time with birds in flight and long distance views out across the water with both a finnstick and a binocular harness. Spent last night for several hours on the night sky comparing as well.
Chuck makes a great point that the 8.5x42 bridges the gap between 8x/10x very nicely. It's a very slight, but noticeable increase in magnification over an 8x roof. When going back and forth between the 8.5x and 10x, there just was not that much difference. Of course, the 10x is only a 17.6% increase in magnification over the 8.5x. The 12x is a 41% increase over the 8.5x. Very noticeable difference.
Another comparison I made was on the night sky comparing the 12x50SV to what has long been my favorite astronomy bin, my Nikon 12x50SE. The increase in FOV of the 12x SV over the SE was very apparent. Such a great view (although the 10x50SV with its wider FOV is pretty incredible on the night sky as well).
As far as ease of view as well as ease of use, here are my observations. The 10x has an incredible WOW factor (I've seen that stated many times here, and it's true). The 12x is not quite as impressive at first glance, but the 12x is just as sharp, and has essentially the same AFOV.
By themselves, I would probably gravitate more toward the 10x50SV. Having said that however, I didn't notice a great difference in my ability to hold the 10x any more steady than the 12x. For handheld use, I use a Rick Young Outdoors binocular harness, which gives me just enough support to easily use either power for extended views. And for terrestrial use neither one of these will serve as my primary bin. On the night sky I will have it mounted next to my Lafuma zero gravity chair, and I find ALL handheld 10x bins a little difficult to hold steady on stars for any length of time. For quick handheld use at night, the ease of use is equal in both bins.
Another consideration in my decision is the fact that I also own the unbelievable Swaro 10x40 Habicht GA. It's smaller, lighter and in many ways easier to use than the 10x50SV. However, I don't use it much as it is my son's primary bin. But, it is redundant with two great 10x bins. The other kicker for me is that the 12x SV is so much nicer on the night sky than my 12x SE, a bin I thought could never be beat for astronomy.
If my primary bin was a 7x42 (which was the case for me until recently) or a 8x32, it would be a "no brainer" to choose the incredible 10x50SV, but I am leaning heavily on buying the 12x50SV and selling the 10x50SV, for three main reasons:
1.) I feel the 12x is a better compliment to the 8.5x with a greater spread of magnification over 10x/8.5x combo (And yes Chuck, I'm keeping a 7x, however it will be my Zeiss FL over the UV+ due to wider FOV and Abbe Koenig brightness).
2.) For astronomy, 12x SV really impressed me over my long-time favorite 12x SE. Very noticeably wider FOV and even flatter field than the SE, which is great on the night sky.
3.) The 12x SV is the same size and weight as the 10x, and it is just as easy to use. For longer range birds in flight, there is no difference in shake when panning, but the magnification is just enough to make a difference. For times that I use a finnstick or monopod, the problems of higher magnification are negated.
Torview started this thread to highlight his experience after a year with the 8.5x42SV. I share his conclusions. More importantly for me, using the 8.5x42 as my primary bin has shaped how I put together the rest of my collection as well. I don't usually like to have redundant bins (although I can appreciate the characteristics of different, but similar mag optics).
My collection will now be:
7x42 Zeiss FL (Great for low light and sporting events with wide FOV)
8x30 Habicht (Love it for hummingbirds in the backyard and as a travel bin)
8.5x42SV (Primary bin, nothing better AFAIK)
10x40 Habicht (Makes the 12x50 decision easier, and my son loves it!)
12x50SV (Beautiful SV view and compliments the 8.5 perfectly. Great Astro bin)
18x70 Nikon Astroluxe (incredible high power Astro bin)
Last edited:
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
I also can hold my 12X50 SV as steady as my 10X50.......but just not as long!
Agreed, Bruce. I would never use the 12x50 as my primary bin (nor would I use the 10x50 as primary), but used appropriately (for me) it's incredible.
Stephen Mark
Well-known member
Just to chime in. I have handled Swaro's 12X50 several times at shows and also a couple of my friends have them. It sounds unbelievable but they are one of the easiest bins to hold steady I have ever tried.
Steve
Steve
Jack Speer
Well-known member
Out of curiosity for the 50mm models, I went to my local Cabela's last night (or is it Bass Pro now?) and tried both the 10x and 12x. It has been a long while since I tried a 10x. From my 20 minutes of viewing I noted a couple things:
1. Objects seen through the 10x were not much larger than through my 8.5x, though the shakes were surprisingly much higher. Much shakier than I thought it would be from a mere 1.5x difference. Depth of field was also much lower than I would have anticipated.
2. Objects through the 12x were shockingly bigger. If there were some [live] birds around to watch I bet the experience would have been stunning. Going back and forth between the 10x and 12x, I could not detect a difference in the amount of shake, but then again, the longest I held them to my eyes was only 3 or 4 minutes at a time. The 10x would probably be stabler overall in a longer viewing session.
Depth of field in the 12x was shallower of course, but it also seemed easier to get things in focus. Getting things in focus with the 10x seemed more finicky; it wasn't clear what was in focus and what wasn't. With the thinner depth of field of the 12x I could tell easily when something was exactly in focus.
If I had to choose one to complement my 8.5x, it would be the 12x. The amount of power added was impressive. In reality though, I came to the conclusion I came to a few years ago: I like 8x binoculars much more. The extra power is nice, but the shake would really take some enjoyment out of birding. For my style of birding, I would always just grab the 8.5.
1. Objects seen through the 10x were not much larger than through my 8.5x, though the shakes were surprisingly much higher. Much shakier than I thought it would be from a mere 1.5x difference. Depth of field was also much lower than I would have anticipated.
2. Objects through the 12x were shockingly bigger. If there were some [live] birds around to watch I bet the experience would have been stunning. Going back and forth between the 10x and 12x, I could not detect a difference in the amount of shake, but then again, the longest I held them to my eyes was only 3 or 4 minutes at a time. The 10x would probably be stabler overall in a longer viewing session.
Depth of field in the 12x was shallower of course, but it also seemed easier to get things in focus. Getting things in focus with the 10x seemed more finicky; it wasn't clear what was in focus and what wasn't. With the thinner depth of field of the 12x I could tell easily when something was exactly in focus.
If I had to choose one to complement my 8.5x, it would be the 12x. The amount of power added was impressive. In reality though, I came to the conclusion I came to a few years ago: I like 8x binoculars much more. The extra power is nice, but the shake would really take some enjoyment out of birding. For my style of birding, I would always just grab the 8.5.
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
The much more notciable shake may be partly due to the much greater size, weight and forward balance of the 50 mm compared to a 42 mm. The 10X50 mm is a heavy beast and I find it harder to hold steady free hand compared to a 10X42. It is also more front heavy with the 50 mm of glass up front.
It would interesting if you notice the same amount of additional shake comparing your 8.5X42 with a Swaro EL SV 10X42. I suspect you will find some due to the additional magnification but not as much of a difference that you found comparing to the 10X50.
I was out yesterday evening using a recently acquired Opticron 10X42 BGA VHD iMagic. It is relatively light for a 42 mm weighing only 24.6 oz (no strap or caps) and is relatively small in size. The place was an area of large open water reclaim ponds with no place to brace. I found the iMagic to be easier to hold steady than most other 10X binoculars I have used. I attribute a lot of that to the lighter weight and the smaller size putting the balance in the hands. It is a very nice binocular.
One of the Swaro reps uses the 12X50 EL SV as his primary binocular, even for warblers. He said he likes the detail.
I was able to pick up a 12X50 EL SV on close out and shortly there after took it out for a couple of hours at the local riparian. It was a much different viewing experience from even a 10X42 and some of the detail was stunning. However it is not something I would want to do on a regular basis. It takes much more effort and concentration in holding the 12X steady and finding a subject. In other words, using the 12X50 for general viewing is a lot more work.
I have not noticed any difference in my ability to get a subject in focus between using my 10X50 EL SV and the 12X50. I will have to watch for that in the future. Did you find it more difficult to achieve a quick focus with your 8.5X compared to the 12X?
The 10X50 and the 12X50 are more special purpose binoculars for my use. Your 8.5X42 does sound like a great all round general purpose choice. If I wanted just one binocular, then I can see the case for the 8.5X as a compromise for the advantages for both. However in my case, going with both a 8X and 10X, then I would go with an 8X over a 8.5X to get more of the advantages of the lower magnification (less shake, more depth of field, larger exit pupil).
