Mike Penfold
Well-known member
Jason,
Check "Here are the new Victorys: Victory HT" page 20, post #497. (This is probably the other post referred to above.)
Mike
Last edited:
-
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.
"Swarovski 8.5x42 SV" or "Zeiss 8x42 HT" ? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter spiralcoil
- Start date
Jason,
Check "Here are the new Victorys: Victory HT" page 20, post #497. (This is probably the other post referred to above.)
Mike
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
I think, in general terms, the HT will have less glare, less CA and be brighter than a SV and have a more typical distortion pattern.
The SV will have sharper edges and more neutral colour.
The SV will have sharper edges and more neutral colour.
Hello James,
This hasn`t been my experience trying a single unit of both, some 6 month ago, as I said, in the ORYX shop at Barcelona, Spain.
I compare both, HT and SV in 10x42 for about 4 hours two aftenoons. My prejudice was the HT would be better in all you said: CA, glare and brightness. After my "test" my conclusions were: CA= even. Brightness= even. Glare= much better control of stray lights in the SV. And a rather difficult to measure point= much more relaxed view in the SV. And I liked more the colours and general view with the SV. These differences in favor of the SV were very clear for me.
Regards!
PHA
This hasn`t been my experience trying a single unit of both, some 6 month ago, as I said, in the ORYX shop at Barcelona, Spain.
I compare both, HT and SV in 10x42 for about 4 hours two aftenoons. My prejudice was the HT would be better in all you said: CA, glare and brightness. After my "test" my conclusions were: CA= even. Brightness= even. Glare= much better control of stray lights in the SV. And a rather difficult to measure point= much more relaxed view in the SV. And I liked more the colours and general view with the SV. These differences in favor of the SV were very clear for me.
Regards!
PHA
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
After your test, most everyone else said the HT is near perfect for glare and stray light - look through the comparisons. Yours was the only review to say the opposite.
Here is what ticl2184 said -
''INTERNAL REFLECTION FROM SIDE LITE SOURCE. Ie The Sun !
On my previous review I couldn't test for milky fogging because of the weather. On this occasion the Sun was low and bright, perfect for testing reflections.
The result was astonishing.
There was literally no internal reflections or milky fogging caused by the Sun that I could find. I almost had to get the Sun in the field of view before any reflections were seen.
In my opinion a 100% improvement over the old FL's and significantly better than the SV's.
INTERNAL REFLECTIONS FROM BRIGHT SOURCE. Ie The moon or streetlights.
The old FL's were very good in this department but incredibly the HT's were even better. Brilliant.
The SV's were much improved in this area over the old EL's but not as good as the Zeiss.''
I think you got a pair before Zeiss ''fixed'' them, by extending the shrouding. I think you need to take this up with the other owner / users, as I am just going on what they have written. There was a review from a Japanese optician on the HT, though, that clearly showed the improved glare control on the HT's, with photos.
Last edited:
Mike Penfold
Well-known member
PHA qualifies his statements as opinions.
Some user experiences with the Zeiss FL referred to issues with flare.
Perhaps someone has already provided an operational definition of flare, and offered objective means to test for it.
ITMT, if you're looking at the Swarovski SV and the Zeiss HT, you wouldn't buy one without comparing them side by side, and the list of variables is pretty clear.
I was interested that PHA stuck with his 10x42 FLs.
Mike
Some user experiences with the Zeiss FL referred to issues with flare.
Perhaps someone has already provided an operational definition of flare, and offered objective means to test for it.
ITMT, if you're looking at the Swarovski SV and the Zeiss HT, you wouldn't buy one without comparing them side by side, and the list of variables is pretty clear.
I was interested that PHA stuck with his 10x42 FLs.
Mike
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Umm, maybe. I thought the 8x32 SV had issues with glare until I darn near put my eyes out yesterday while watching a Cooper's Hawk coasting towards the sun. I pulled the bins away, barely a clue how close it was, and literally said, "S***, that was close!"
"Let's be careful out there," as Sargeant Esterhaus used to say on "Hill Street Blues." Lots of great bins around.
Mark
Seems among the best bins many "flaws" reported in reviews are evoked by pursuing and seeking them, i.e. "torture testing". The converse is also true, that, in some bin, glare, say, which is not much of a problem during a short test may be a bother in regular use. There's nothing like a report over the long term after actually watching birds in varied conditions, either of a single bin or of a comparison of several. We see so few reviews of that kind!
Last edited:
Hello,
I always said my "test" was made between only two samples of HT and SV 10x42. And was made in October last year. I must tell I am "playng" with binoculars since many, many years ago, useing them almost every day in the field, watching birds, mammals and landscape. I am an agricultural engenier working in Range Management in Patagonia. I am, also, a big game hunter, of course! And I know for sure what to look in the binocular what is good FOR ME. Period. I am not making any technical test on them.......
I went to the ORYX shop with the intention to buy, if available, the new HT!! It was (and is, I belive), some 400 U$ cheaper than the SV. Great!! And I am a user of both Swarovski and Zeiss binoculars and riflescopes. After trying hard two afternoons, I concluded I can not justify to sell my FL to buy the HT. Of course I like more the all metalic construction of the HT and the, for me, improved design of the HT. But the view throught the SV 10x42 (and later, in other shop, a 10x50 SV...) made me think this would be my next, if this happens, binocular!!! Until then, I will stay with my FL 10x42, my Swarovski Habicht (the last samples) WGA 10x40 and my Meopta Meostar 8x32!!!
Anyway, said that, if I would be after a first Top Binocular, I would be entirely happy with either the HT or SV, of course!!! We are talking very small differences between the two best binoculars right now!!!!
PHA
I always said my "test" was made between only two samples of HT and SV 10x42. And was made in October last year. I must tell I am "playng" with binoculars since many, many years ago, useing them almost every day in the field, watching birds, mammals and landscape. I am an agricultural engenier working in Range Management in Patagonia. I am, also, a big game hunter, of course! And I know for sure what to look in the binocular what is good FOR ME. Period. I am not making any technical test on them.......
I went to the ORYX shop with the intention to buy, if available, the new HT!! It was (and is, I belive), some 400 U$ cheaper than the SV. Great!! And I am a user of both Swarovski and Zeiss binoculars and riflescopes. After trying hard two afternoons, I concluded I can not justify to sell my FL to buy the HT. Of course I like more the all metalic construction of the HT and the, for me, improved design of the HT. But the view throught the SV 10x42 (and later, in other shop, a 10x50 SV...) made me think this would be my next, if this happens, binocular!!! Until then, I will stay with my FL 10x42, my Swarovski Habicht (the last samples) WGA 10x40 and my Meopta Meostar 8x32!!!
Anyway, said that, if I would be after a first Top Binocular, I would be entirely happy with either the HT or SV, of course!!! We are talking very small differences between the two best binoculars right now!!!!
PHA
absolut_beethoven
Well-known member
I haven't had a chance to compare the 10x42 SV with the HT, but I have noted that a few people seem to think that the 10x42 SLC HD offers the same optical quality as the 10x42 SV minus the distortion that obviously bothers some people, including me.
I am not one of them. In my brief comparison (5 to 10 minutes) inside Bass Pro it was immediately obvious to me that the SV has less CA, is sharper and offers better clarity and seems slightly brighter due to its better rendition of contrast. Almost like comparing a regular TV versus its HD counterpart.
Keeping in mind that I haven't had a chance to check out the Zeiss HT, the 10x42 SV offers the best view that I have ever seen through any bino. Sadly, they don't work for me because as spectacular as the static view is, the distortion doesn't play well with my brain/eye combination.
Your mileage may vary.
I am not one of them. In my brief comparison (5 to 10 minutes) inside Bass Pro it was immediately obvious to me that the SV has less CA, is sharper and offers better clarity and seems slightly brighter due to its better rendition of contrast. Almost like comparing a regular TV versus its HD counterpart.
Keeping in mind that I haven't had a chance to check out the Zeiss HT, the 10x42 SV offers the best view that I have ever seen through any bino. Sadly, they don't work for me because as spectacular as the static view is, the distortion doesn't play well with my brain/eye combination.
Your mileage may vary.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
I think you got a bad SLC-HD sample. The one I was able to use for several hours was super sharp, contrasty, bright and colour perfect. All this compared to my much loved 10x42 FL which, to my eye, was a tad less ''perfect.''
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
That's what I suspect: a bad specimen! I've made a side-by-side comparison of the two 10x models (outdoors), and to my eye the SLC-HD is somewhat brighter and has about the same lateral CA. My only problem with the 10x SLC is eye relief, which gratefully is substantial on the 8x42 model. After buying that one, no more binoculars needed.
Ed
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Dear all,
I recently finished my investigations of the Victory HT 8x42 compared with the SLC-HD 8x42, the Victory FL 7x42 and 8x42 and the Leica Ultravid HD 8x42. It is published on the WEB-site www.houseofoutdoor.com/verrekijkers/testrapporten . The last four reports are the most recent ones (March-April 2013) and one of them is of the HT mentioned.
Since the HT aims at hunters I did not include the Swarovski SV.
Gijs
I recently finished my investigations of the Victory HT 8x42 compared with the SLC-HD 8x42, the Victory FL 7x42 and 8x42 and the Leica Ultravid HD 8x42. It is published on the WEB-site www.houseofoutdoor.com/verrekijkers/testrapporten . The last four reports are the most recent ones (March-April 2013) and one of them is of the HT mentioned.
Since the HT aims at hunters I did not include the Swarovski SV.
Gijs
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Gijs:
I would like to read your review, and am wondering if you or someone else
could post it with an English translation.
Too bad, you did not include the Swarovision, as many hunters use the EL
and have for many years. It would be good to include the best offering
of these top brands.
Jerry
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
If I understand this statement correctly, 16mm is certainly not "more than enough" eye relief for those who must wear glasses. The extra 2.5mm afforded by the Swaro 8x42 HD makes a world of difference, and for me it's a critical factor when comparing products.
Just my opinion, of course.
Ed
FrankD
Well-known member
Ed,
I only read your post above before commenting so keep that in mind when reading my response below.
I seem to have recollection of Zeiss listing all of their FLs, for example, as having the same eye relief level despite the fact that it varied from configuration to configuration. Also, the difference between listed eye relief and usable eye relief should also be mentioned. Just the first two things that popped into my head when reading your post. 16 mm of usable eye relief should, theoretically, be good for almost all eyeglass wearers. On the other hand, if it has a listed 16 mm of eye relief but only 12 or 13 mm of usable eye relief then that is a different story.
I only read your post above before commenting so keep that in mind when reading my response below.
I seem to have recollection of Zeiss listing all of their FLs, for example, as having the same eye relief level despite the fact that it varied from configuration to configuration. Also, the difference between listed eye relief and usable eye relief should also be mentioned. Just the first two things that popped into my head when reading your post. 16 mm of usable eye relief should, theoretically, be good for almost all eyeglass wearers. On the other hand, if it has a listed 16 mm of eye relief but only 12 or 13 mm of usable eye relief then that is a different story.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Zeiss measure eye relief from the top of the ocular ring, not the eyepiece glass surface, like Swaro.
I have a friend that wears glasses, has both the FL and SLC and says the eye relief is the same for both.
I have used FL 32s and 42s and my HT 8x42s in combination with a variety of spectacles (different frames, different lenses) and never had any problems at all .
Lee
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Inaddition to my post 73:
NDhunter, post 74 and Stephenb,post 75: the English translation by Google translate of my Victory HT test removes the transmission spectra and these are in my opinion essential to understand the diferences in brightness between for example the Victory FL 7x42 and the Victory HT 8x42.
NDhunter: I deliberately did not include the SV 8,5x42 in the test, since the SLC-HD 8X42 is in my opinion for hunters the most suited binocular to compare with the Victory HT. I belive you of course if you see a lot of hunters with the SV in the field, but I think that the SLC-HD is better suited for rough use than the SV and in The Netherlands a lot of hunters are not handling their binoculars as jewels.
Gijs
NDhunter, post 74 and Stephenb,post 75: the English translation by Google translate of my Victory HT test removes the transmission spectra and these are in my opinion essential to understand the diferences in brightness between for example the Victory FL 7x42 and the Victory HT 8x42.
NDhunter: I deliberately did not include the SV 8,5x42 in the test, since the SLC-HD 8X42 is in my opinion for hunters the most suited binocular to compare with the Victory HT. I belive you of course if you see a lot of hunters with the SV in the field, but I think that the SLC-HD is better suited for rough use than the SV and in The Netherlands a lot of hunters are not handling their binoculars as jewels.
Gijs
Similar threads
