Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Better Image In the SV

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 07:35   #1
SuperDuty
Registered User
 
SuperDuty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 888
Better Image In the SV

What would it take to optically improve the SV to any significant degree ? I'm assuming if there were a cost effective way to do so we would have seen it in the new Field Pro.
SuperDuty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 08:59   #2
sako
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 100
Get rid of the flat field design which I find makes the image less 3D like - at least to my eyes.
sako is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 13:07   #3
cgr1971
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 18
I also wish they would make a EL model without the field flatteners. I know that I could get a 1st gen EL, but I love the ergo's and the new improvements of the Field Pro.
cgr1971 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 13:20   #4
jremmons
Wildlife Biologist

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,205
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 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 13:36   #5
Hermann
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDuty View Post
What would it take to optically improve the SV to any significant degree ? I'm assuming if there were a cost effective way to do so we would have seen it in the new Field Pro.
The Field Pro isn't really an update at all. In fact, to me the new way to attach the strap looks more like a downgrade than anything else.

I also doubt there's any way one of the tops binoculars (from one of the three or four big manufacturers) can be optically improved "to a significant degree" anymore. Larger fields of view - perhaps, but that would mean higher weight as well. Slightly less CA - but that would mean quite significant changes as the internal focussing seems to be one of the problems causing an increase in CA. Better control of stray light - but then the Zeiss and the Leicas are pretty good already, as are some of the Swarovski models, albeit not all of them.

Hermann
Hermann is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 13:49   #6
SuperDuty
Registered User
 
SuperDuty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 888
Which SV did you see ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jremmons View Post
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...
SuperDuty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 16:39   #7
jremmons
Wildlife Biologist

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDuty View Post
Which SV did you see ?
The last time I looked through them was at a birding festival, in 2014 now that I think about it. I looked at 10x42, 8x32, and 8.5x42 SV ELs. The optical quality of the field pro should be identical.
jremmons is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 18:56   #8
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgr1971 View Post
I also wish they would make a EL model without the field flatteners. I know that I could get a 1st gen EL, but I love the ergo's and the new improvements of the Field Pro.
SLC is exactly that.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 20:54   #9
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 2,100
Without field flatteners it would not be Swarovision.

SO just put some vaseline on the front lenses
if you don't like the sharp edges.

But seriously, sharp edges are pretty useful
finding birds is easier,
and less active panning is needed,
best way to detect movement is holding your bins still.

Any RB I haven't noticed in SV:s.

But glare handling could be better.

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Saturday 27th February 2016 at 21:05.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 20:54   #10
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
SLC is exactly that.
I fully agree with you, Sako, and others. Personally, I think Swarovski was nuts to 'simplify' and eliminate the 8x42 and 10x42 SLC-HDs, as they could have been retained as a birder/hunter's option and still marketed the current SLC line at a lower price. I hope they wake up and reissue them in the future. They provide images of equal quality to the SVs and don't mess up 3-D depth perception cues like the SVs. For me, the edges are as sharp as needs be for finding birds, the weight & balance is ideal, and the focusing range is enormously useful.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Saturday 27th February 2016 at 21:12.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 21:09   #11
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post

But seriously, sharp edges are pretty useful
finding birds is easier,
and less active panning is needed,
best way to detect movement is holding your bins still.

Your method of birding is the complete opposite of mine - I pan all the time. Sure, holding your bins steady is the best way to detect moment - but close in that will be just a few tiny degrees of your real FOV....panning is done along shores, ridges, flats, skylines to vis-mig and scan for raptors. I wouldn't see much of anything if I stopped panning.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 21:23   #12
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 2,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
Your method of birding is the complete opposite of mine - I pan all the time. Sure, holding your bins steady is the best way to detect moment - but close in that will be just a few tiny degrees of your real FOV....panning is done along shores, ridges, flats, skylines to vis-mig and scan for raptors. I wouldn't see much of anything if I stopped panning.
I pan, but avoid panning continuously,
hold still, look around, move the bins, hold still, look around, move bins...etc.
IF I have my SV:s that is, with my FL:s I have to pan all the time,
due to the fuzzy edges.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 21:36   #13
Pileatus
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by sako View Post
Get rid of the flat field design which I find makes the image less 3D like - at least to my eyes.
I find sharp edges enhance the 3D effect since more of the image is in sharp focus. At a certain point, I find soft edges very distracting, creating more image confusion than I want to tolerate. Over the long haul I find the SV image to be extremely relaxing, an attribute with few if any data points.
Pileatus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 22:00   #14
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,391
Perceptions are subtle things. As with CA, try not to find what others report lest you won't be able to suppress them afterwards. Unfortunately for me, "flat-field" optics produce perceptions similar to viewing cardboard stereograms, although not as extreme. Once seen, not forgotten.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 22:07   #15
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pileatus View Post
I find sharp edges enhance the 3D effect since more of the image is in sharp focus. At a certain point, I find soft edges very distracting, creating more image confusion than I want to tolerate. Over the long haul I find the SV image to be extremely relaxing, an attribute with few if any data points.
What does "an attribute with few if any data points" mean? Something that may be an idiosyncrasy? Just curious.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Saturday 27th February 2016 at 22:11.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 22:15   #16
jremmons
Wildlife Biologist

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
Your method of birding is the complete opposite of mine - I pan all the time. Sure, holding your bins steady is the best way to detect moment - but close in that will be just a few tiny degrees of your real FOV....panning is done along shores, ridges, flats, skylines to vis-mig and scan for raptors. I wouldn't see much of anything if I stopped panning.
Agreed on this one. I can't think of a time where I'm not constantly panning, if just slightly. Different styles for differenr people of course.
jremmons is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 22:26   #17
Pileatus
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
What does "an attribute with few if any data points" mean? Something that may be an idiosyncrasy? Just curious.

Ed
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.
Pileatus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 22:34   #18
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 2,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pileatus View Post
I find sharp edges enhance the 3D effect since more of the image is in sharp focus. At a certain point, I find soft edges very distracting, creating more image confusion than I want to tolerate. Over the long haul I find the SV image to be extremely relaxing, an attribute with few if any data points.
yep, soft edges are like warm beer.

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Saturday 27th February 2016 at 22:41.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 22:34   #19
stephen b
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: mckenzie valley, oregon
Posts: 659
Yes to SLC's. Either of the current versions are good. Current version is just fine if you do not need super close focus- for which I am just fine without. I can use another smaller bin for close focus viewing.

I personally like the SLC better than the SV- but that is me and my eyes. If they make a SLC upgrade model in a 8x32- then I will probably not be able to avoid getting one of those also. Really wish they would do that. Instead of of this lug nut upgrade business. I bet they would sell a bunch of the 30/32 mm size SLC HD's. As they would compete well with every 8x32 made- including the SV. But that is why they probably will not do it. So now we just have the over priced inferior CL model.
stephen b is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 22:48   #20
[email protected]
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post
yep, soft edges are like warm beer.
I will take the sharp edges of the Swarovision and the Zeiss SF over soft edges 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.

Last edited by [email protected] : Saturday 27th February 2016 at 23:44.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 27th February 2016, 23:56   #21
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
I will take the sharp edges of the Swarovision and the Zeiss SF over soft edges 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.
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.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 28th February 2016, 01:21   #22
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pileatus View Post
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
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 28th February 2016, 02:05   #23
stephen b
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: mckenzie valley, oregon
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
..... 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.
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.
stephen b is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 28th February 2016, 02:29   #24
SuperDuty
Registered User
 
SuperDuty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 888
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jremmons View Post
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...
SuperDuty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 28th February 2016, 02:55   #25
jremmons
Wildlife Biologist

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,205
By different models are you referring to magnification and size of objective lens?
jremmons is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Selecting only part of an image and saving as a new image brains Photoshop, Paintshop and Printing 6 Sunday 4th April 2010 22:42
Reducing image size & retaining image quality?? davem Photoshop, Paintshop and Printing 1 Thursday 16th April 2009 10:36
Same image but which is best! The Raptor Photo Critique 10 Monday 30th March 2009 20:45
Which is the better image AJDH Photo Critique 5 Friday 21st December 2007 17:47
Digiscoped image vs DSLR image Neil Digiscoping cameras 12 Saturday 13th January 2007 09:33

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.29236507 seconds with 37 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:32.