• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Review Swarovski Swarovision EL 8x32 WB (1 Viewer)

newfie ghost said:
Thanks again, more praise for the SV.

They are nice on the stars indeed, even the WB version is impressive.


You compared the ca with the SE and SV, but how about center sharpness? How do the SE and SV compare on center sharpness?
Click to expand...

Hi, SV is better than Se also for contrast in the center of the Fov. minimal but advertible.. Obviously the difference of price is high. The SE has a great value for money
 
Thank you for the review!

Maybe i did not found it or did not understand it correctly, but can you tell something about how bright the SV EL is? Can you also use it in the evening hours (not night).

And the 8x32 El has no rolling ball?
 
Odradek said:
Thank you for the review!

Maybe i did not found it or did not understand it correctly, but can you tell something about how bright the SV EL is? Can you also use it in the evening hours (not night).

And the 8x32 El has no rolling ball?
Click to expand...

While Pier doesn't come right out and say it, he implied that he does see RB in the 8x32 version when he wrote:

"I respect their ideas, to get a pair of binoculars with image "static" perfect, the designers have completely eliminated the angular distortion. This generates, in part, and subjectively, what is called 'rolling ball effect'."

He then goes on to post his correspondence with Swarovski about this issue.

Curiously, two BF members who do see RB in the full sized SV do not see it in the midsized. It may be that in order to accommodate the wider FOV, Swaro added a bit more pincushion to the midsized models, and that these two members are not as sensitive to RB as Pier.

Henry said he is going to take photos through the full sized vs. the mid-sized SV ELs, which will tell us if the compound distortion is different btwn the two models.

Even if this is the case, with some people reporting seeing RB in the 8x32 and some not, it's best to try before you buy if you are sensitive to RB or make sure you have an ample return period so you can give yourself time to adjust to the RB since for some people the perception eventually vanishes.

<B>
 
brocknroller said:
While Pier doesn't come right out and say it, he implied that he does see RB in the 8x32 version when he wrote:

"I respect their ideas, to get a pair of binoculars with image "static" perfect, the designers have completely eliminated the angular distortion. This generates, in part, and subjectively, what is called 'rolling ball effect'."............

Curiously, two BF members who do see RB in the full sized SV do not see it in the midsized. It may be that in order to accommodate the wider FOV, Swaro added a bit more pincushion to the midsized models..............

Even if this is the case, with some people reporting seeing RB in the 8x32 and some not, it's best to try before you buy...................
<B>
Click to expand...

Brock, I grant that the Binomania review you've quoted is a Google translation of the original and open to interpretation, but surely you're misquoting Piers? Isn't he saying exactly the opposite of what you suggest? I interpret his review as reporting that the designers have "completely eliminated" angular distortions.
Two BF members (including me) have reported that Swaro have indeed added a little pincushion, so there is no hypothesis involved.
Who has actually reported seeing RB in the 8x32? Obviously before spending this kind of money one should, where possible, try before buying, but you really ought to follow your own advice and try them before warning of RB.
No offence intended, they're only binoculars and therefore pretty irrelevant, but I've read so much about "RB" in the last two years to last me a lifetime, and I don't think it's fair to misinterpret Piers, in order to alert others to an imagined issue with a bino you haven't tried.
 
Last edited:
Hi to Everybody. My problem is, and I often write into the reviews, that I'm addicted to the rolling ball effect.;) I use an exemplar of Swarovision 8.5x42, every day, for over a year.
An enthusiast can use it for 5 minutes and see if he can be annoying. However I have seen that after some hours of use, this problem is perceived less.
In my humble opinion there is an "addiction" to the Rolling ball effect and it is very very subjective. I have compared quickly the Swaro 8x32 vs. Nikon Se.
Tuesday me and my friend who owns a copy we will make a comparison.

I hope that you have understood my poor english.
Have a nice week-end!
Piergiovanni
 
When I tried the 8x32 swarovisions I could not find any rolling ball. No matter which background or whichever way I panned the bin I could not see the effect. I could see it on the 8.5 swarovisions but I didnt find it bothersome.

Try before you buy is very apt.

Ger.
 
binomania said:
.....I have compared quickly the Swaro 8x32 vs. Nikon Se.
.....
Have a nice week-end!
Piergiovanni
Click to expand...

Thanks, Piergiovanni! That will be really interesting. For a time, two years ago, I had SV 8.5x42 and SE 8x32, and thought that the latter was so close optically to the bigger SV (to my eyes) that optically at least it made little difference. I can't quite remember the exact comparison, though.
I now find the SV 8.5x42 to be clearly optically superior to the SV 8x32, so it will be nice to see how the SE compares. I wouldn't dare to hazard a guess because I haven't seen SE's now for so long.
 
Sancho said:
Thanks, Piergiovanni! That will be really interesting. For a time, two years ago, I had SV 8.5x42 and SE 8x32, and thought that the latter was so close optically to the bigger SV (to my eyes) that optically at least it made little difference. I can't quite remember the exact comparison, though.
I now find the SV 8.5x42 to be clearly optically superior to the SV 8x32, so it will be nice to see how the SE compares. I wouldn't dare to hazard a guess because I haven't seen SE's now for so long.
Click to expand...
Your killing me Sancho!!! :) You find the 8.5's to be clearly superior to the 32 sv's???!!! Bryce...
 
stereotruckdriver said:
Your killing me Sancho!!! :) You find the 8.5's to be clearly superior to the 32 sv's???!!! Bryce...
Click to expand...

Well, maybe "clearly" is extreme. It's unsurprising that a 42mm bino should be sharper/brighter than a 32mm of the same model/type. But there's also the extra half-degree of mag to factor in. I think the 8.5x42 are a bit better optically, in terms of brightness, and I can resolve a little more with them. It's a bit of a toss-up, really. With the bins on a tripod, I can resolve more at greater distances with the 8.5x42. However, with the bins in the hand, I can actually see more with the 8x32 because they're smaller, lighter and easier to hold steady (being 32mm). All of this is to my eyes only, and I make no claims to possessing the Universal Best Binocular of All Time;).
 
binomania said:
Hi to Everybody. My problem is, and I often write into the reviews, that I'm addicted to the rolling ball effect.;) I use an exemplar of Swarovision 8.5x42, every day, for over a year.
An enthusiast can use it for 5 minutes and see if he can be annoying. However I have seen that after some hours of use, this problem is perceived less.
In my humble opinion there is an "addiction" to the Rolling ball effect and it is very very subjective. I have compared quickly the Swaro 8x32 vs. Nikon Se.
Tuesday me and my friend who owns a copy we will make a comparison.

I hope that you have understood my poor english.
Have a nice week-end!
Piergiovanni
Click to expand...
When you compare the SE to the SV look at a DVD movie case from about 10 feet away inside. You will see the fine print is sharper with the SE. HaHa! A $600.00 porro will outresolve a $2400.00 roof. The SE is sharper than my Nikon 8x32 EDG and it will beat the SV too I guarantee you. Porro's rule!
 
Last edited:
Sancho said:
Well, maybe "clearly" is extreme. It's unsurprising that a 42mm bino should be sharper/brighter than a 32mm of the same model/type. But there's also the extra half-degree of mag to factor in. I think the 8.5x42 are a bit better optically, in terms of brightness, and I can resolve a little more with them. It's a bit of a toss-up, really. With the bins on a tripod, I can resolve more at greater distances with the 8.5x42. However, with the bins in the hand, I can actually see more with the 8x32 because they're smaller, lighter and easier to hold steady (being 32mm). All of this is to my eyes only, and I make no claims to possessing the Universal Best Binocular of All Time;).
Click to expand...
The .5X magnification is what makes the difference between the two. Brigthness should be the same if you are over forty years old. You are seeing more detail with the 8.5X.
 
[email protected] said:
The .5X magnification is what makes the difference between the two. Brigthness should be the same if you are over forty years old. You are seeing more detail with the 8.5X.
Click to expand...

I'm fifty and my pupils still dilate to over 7mm (okay maybe that's an exaggeration). I've no idea what you are seeing, but I know brightness when I see it, if I compare an 8x32 to an 8x42 in another model.
 
Last edited:
Sancho said:
Well, maybe "clearly" is extreme. It's unsurprising that a 42mm bino should be sharper/brighter than a 32mm of the same model/type. But there's also the extra half-degree of mag to factor in. I think the 8.5x42 are a bit better optically, in terms of brightness, and I can resolve a little more with them. It's a bit of a toss-up, really. With the bins on a tripod, I can resolve more at greater distances with the 8.5x42. However, with the bins in the hand, I can actually see more with the 8x32 because they're smaller, lighter and easier to hold steady (being 32mm). All of this is to my eyes only, and I make no claims to possessing the Universal Best Binocular of All Time;).
Click to expand...

As I understand it, increasing magnification and aperture together will always show more detail, provided the binoculars are rigidly mounted and the optical quality is the same. So I would expect to see more through a tripod-mounted 8.5x42 SV than through a tripod-mounted 8x32 SV. The question is: which has the larger effect, magnification or aperture?

I read somewhere (probably here) that, all other things being equal, magnification has a much larger effect on resolution than aperture - at least at magnifications and apertures typical of binoculars. But in a handheld binocular this advantage is, of course, negated by increased image shake.

We can debate this indefinitely, but in the end the choice of magnification, aperture, ergonomics, etc, comes down to personal preference and the intended use (coastal birding, woodland birding, urban birding, and so on).

As I've said in other posts, the 8x30-32 format works best for me - and for many others - but each birder will have his or her own, equally valid, opinion.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

J
Brief comparison between Swarovski AX Visio 10x32 vs EL 10x32 Swarovision
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
tehri
tehri
S
Swarovski EL vs Zeiss Victory SF
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
norway
norway
bittern
Problem with green coating of EL SV 8x32
27 28 29
Replies
573
Views
39K
chill6x6
chill6x6
S
Enjoying the EL’s in their natural environment…
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Maljunulo
M
etc
A quick review of Swarovski 12x50 EL versus Zeiss 10x54 HT
Replies
11
Views
2K
Scott98
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top