10x42 HT vs 10x42 SV (1 Viewer)

Ok. I couldn't take it any more. I've waited 7 months for my HT's to arrive and still haven't received them.
I still haven't even seen, let alone had a look through a pair of HT's.

On Saturday I bit the bullet and took a bus, ferry and then drove 80 miles to a place near Bristol in the UK which had a pair of 8x and 10x HT's.

Phil and Mark at Lakeside Optics, (see image 1), were happy to let me loose with both pairs. I concentrated on the 10x pair which are the ones I want and compared every aspect of their optical and mechanical performance. This is the review:

The first impressions of the HT's when I saw them was wow ! They looked amazing. They actually looked like a pair of bino's that would be in a glass cabinet with a hefty price tag. (See image 2.)
On picking them up I was instantly impressed with the feel and handling. I quickly put them to my eyes and drank in the long awaited image.
First impressions were that these binoculars were bright, full stop.

Ok, to the review.
I'm not a advocate of numerical scoring, however because the binocular were so evenly matched I think it's best in this instance.*

BRIGHTNESS *Z-10 - S- 9. The Zeiss were bright but not overwhelmingly brighter than the Swarovski. However the more I used the Zeiss the increase in brightness over the Swarovski was more obvious. To my eyes I would say they were about 10% brighter. Managed to capture a image of the difference I think. Image 5 is the Zeiss Image, Image 6 iis the Swarovski. Images were taken parfocally using a Canon SX200is 12MP.

CA* Z-10-S-8.5 Chromatic aberration was very, very well controlled in the Zeiss, even better than the old FL's. In-fact I couldn't really find any at all. Zeiss has almost eliminated it.
Amazing.

INTERNAL REFECTION (from bright light source.) Z-10, S-9. No moon around so I used a cabinet light. The Zeiss had no internal reflection of light what so ever. The Zeiss was the clear winner.

SIDE LIGHT REFLECTION (Ie the Sun.) Couldn't even see the Sun on the day, so its unknown.

EDGE OF FIELD CLARITY Z-8.5-S-10. The Zeiss were surprisingly good, better than the FL's. In the horizontal plane the image resolution dropped off at 80% from the centre, however in the Vertical plane the image was sharp to the edge. The Swarovski however, was incredibly sharp across the entire field.

FIELD OF VIEW Z-9-S-10. The Swarovski won this. I looked at a line of fence posts in the distance and could clearly make out more at the edge of field in the SV's. I must mention that the Zeiss barrels when fully opened were at least a inch wider than the SV's. Not sure why, or if it would make any difference.

QUALITY OF FIELD Z-9 - S-10. The Swarovski won this. The whole field of view was visibly sharp and crisp with no deterioration or change in image.

DEPTH OF FIELD. Forgot to test. Sorry.

ROLLING GLOBE. This category is not applicable as I see it, because I have got used to the effect in the Swarovski now. Plus I did notice a lot of bending of
straight lines in the Zeiss where* the trees tops and*bottoms bowed out towards the edge of field significantly, but the centre remained straight. To me this effect would cancel out the rolling globe effect as is was equally annoying to my eyes.

COLOUR. Difficult to make my mind up on this one. The Zeiss image was a lot warmer than the FL image*but not as natural as the Swarovski. I think this was because the image in the Zeiss was so bright. Will have to test again when I get the chance.

CONTRAST. Again this is a difficult one to quantify. As contrast was pretty equal in each but in a different way.

EYE RELIEF. Z-8.5-S-10. Swarovski clear winner. Loads more eye relief.

BUILD QUALITY. Z-9.0-S-10. The build quality of the Zeiss was a 100% improvement over the old FL. There magnesium housing felt solid and very, very well built. However the eyecups of the Zeiss were just that bit too plasticy feeling for me compared to the SV's. The SV's just had that something extra, which won me over.

DESIGN. Z-9.5-S-10 The Zeiss
design was awesome. They looked and felt like a flagship model, However I preferred the open barrel design of the Swarovski, just a little bit more.

WEIGHT. Z-10-S-9.5. The Zeiss were noticeably lighter than the Swarovski. Perhaps the lightest 42mm bino's I've ever held.

FEEL IN HAND. Z-9.0-S-10. The Zeiss felt great to hold, the huge focus wheel was perfectly placed. The Swarovski however could be held in one hand more easily without the worry of dropping them.

COST. Z-10-S-9. The Zeiss are obviously cheaper. I.e. Swarovski RRP £1970. Zeiss RRP £1630.

FOCUS. Z-10-S-9. The Zeiss won this. The focus was as smooth as butter with no variation and just*one and three quarter turns from close to infinity focus. The enormous focus wheel was slightly less tricky to use.

BALANCE. Z-10-S-10. A draw. The balance of both binoculars were awesome. They were both as good as one another.

GENERAL AESTHETIC QULAITY. Z-10-S-9.5. To my eyes the black colouring of the Zeiss looked just slightly better than the green SV's. If the SV's were black they would have won.

Total. * * * * ** Zeiss =* 142.5 ***************** Swarovski =* 143.5

The result of my review in numerical terms is basically a draw.
Both these binoculars are at the very top end of the price range and come out almost equal in the review.
The impression I got was that these binoculars are made for two different markets. The Zeiss are obviously aimed at resolving images in poorly lit conditions and for ease of use in the field with a fast and handy focus wheel. The Swarovski concentrate on the image quality and comfort of use.

When it comes down to it, It really is down to personal preference.

These binoculars were very equally matched. However I didn't come to any conclusions over colour, contrast, depth of field and side lit internal reflection. When I eventually receive my own pair of HT's I'll be able to say more.
If I ever receive them ?

Thanks again to Phil and Mark at Lakeside optics.

Cheers Tim

Wow, nice review.

The edge sharpness sure is intriguing. If this bin has all the attributes of the FL, wrapped up in a gorgeous package, and with a big sweet spot, I may have to step up.........

BTW - male Tufted Duck in pic 5?

Nice review Tim, i can`t comment on the comparison, not tried the 10x42SV, did love the HT though, worth upgrading from FL ?, I`ll have to take my time on that one.

Great review Tim, nicely considered and expressed. Hope you get yours soon.

Lee

Tim,

Thanks for your trial report, and thoughtful attempt to quantify.

A couple of questions arise for me when looking at the images through each bin that you posted:
1. The SV looks noticeably sharper (even in the centre). Is that the experience in real life, or is the HT photo slightly lacking in focus?
2. The colour saturation of the HT seems quite rich (reminds me a bit of the Zen-Ray Prime HD oddly enough). In this instance though, my initial impression is that I prefer the SV view as seeming more lifelike (colourwise anyway).
3. Do you wear glasses when viewing? How would you detail the "Loads more eye relief"?
4. Would like to hear much more of your thoughts on dof .......

Finally, any initial thoughts on whether your likely to stay with the HT, or jump ship to the SV? Thanks,


Chosun :gh:

Tim

How did you keep both bins and camera steady to avoid image shake?

Lee

ticl2184 said:

....... Image 5 is the Zeiss Image, Image 6 iis the Swarovski........CONTRAST. Again this is a difficult one to quantify. As contrast was pretty equal in each but in a different way.

........Tim

Click to expand...

Thanks Tim,

Great review! Since I only see five images, I presume 4 is Zeiss and 5 is Swaro? Looks to me that #5 is a bit more contrasty. Somewhat similar effect I have with my old Leica Trinovids. The image is darker but that seems to lead to a bit more contrast.

Of course, regarding your point system, there are some rather subjective ones among them.

Thanks for all your comments.

To answer Juan's question. The Swarovski is sharper than the Zeiss in the centre but only very, very, very slightly. Colour wise the Swarovski is more natural but the Zeiss is very bright, so if the light transmission was the same in both I'm not sure which would be more natural. I don't wear glasses, well not yet ! The eye relief in the Swarovski is awesome, you can casually place your eye where you want. In the Zeiss you have to be more precise. I own the 10x42 SV's and am waiting to receive my HT's. There both brilliant binoculars so I going to have both.

Troubador the camera I used has image stabilisation built in plus I placed the bin's on a rock solid tripod.

Swissboy, yes your right, only five images but for some strange reason, birdforum allocated 5 and 6 for images 4 and 5.

Cheers Tim

Hello,

I wrote more than a month ago that after trying both at Barcelona, in the ORYX birdwatchers shop (Balmes street), for two days in a row, I concluded THE Sv SAMPLE I saw was a little better than THE HT SAMPLE I compare with. A clearly more relaxed view with the S SV, without ANY single flaw I could see or feel. Changing quickly from one to the other that was my impression. Period. But I had in my hands perhaps the two best binoculars I looked througt and would be happy with any of them! As I am with my FL 10x42 and my 10x40 Swarovski Habicht (last version) W BGA.
Anyway, also tried a S SV in 10x50. A little heavy (not much more than my Leica BA I owned and used a lot before the FL) but, for me, the closest thing to a perfect optics in Binoculars!!!!!

Good luck and have a Happy New Year!!

PHA

Does the FL --> HT step compare at all to the EL --> SV step (up)?

John F

Sorry for the delayed reply John F.

For me the Zeiss HT build quality was a bigger step up over the EL to SV upgrade. However I felt the optical step up from EL to SV was greater than the Zeiss FL to HT. Hope that helps.

Still haven't got my HT's yet.

Cheers Tim

ticl2184 said:

Sorry for the delayed reply John F.

For me the Zeiss HT build quality was a bigger step up over the EL to SV upgrade. However I felt the optical step up from EL to SV was greater than the Zeiss FL to HT. Hope that helps.

Still haven't got my HT's yet.

Cheers Tim

Click to expand...

Of course you need bigger improvements in your optical system when you have fallen so far behind

Lee

@ Troubadour: Exactly my thinking.
People were raving about the EL, but optically they was just that little more to improve than with the FL. Not to say that the difference was big at any given moment, and with the Swarovision, finally something really, really good came out and Swaro could with right and reason say that they had the top bino (optics, ergonomy and price).
So now I wonder more and more if Zeiss does it again, i.e. making a binocular with the best optics, good enough ergonomy (hard to beat open bridge), and, naturally, they have always been cheaper than Swaro.

For those interested in colour, contrast and brightness, Here are four more photos I took on the review day.

Image 8 is the HT, 9 is the SV. 10 is the SV and 11 is the HT.

Tim

ticl2184 said:

For those interested in colour, contrast and brightness, Here are four more photos I took on the review day.

Image 8 is the HT, 9 is the SV. 10 is the SV and 11 is the HT.

Tim

Click to expand...

All I could get from these is that the foreground greens and red have more pop with the HT, couldn't say if this is faithful to life though.

Ticl2184,
Question: did you make the pictures with a camera using your camera lens?
Gijs

James and Gijs

The images were taken with a image stabilised camera attached over the eyepiece of the binoculars.
They are not altered or manipulated in any way.
Everyone's eyes are different, but I would like to think these images are pretty objective.

Cheers Tim

I would love to have Brock's interpretation of these photo's, as it may just be the missing piece of the puzzle that will help me decide if the HT is worth buying.

I don't need to try the HT out when we have expert bench testers, on all sides, that can make that decision for me. And this expert opinion will trump those of Lee, Tim, Joe and Hermann et al., even though they have used the HT - as there really is no way to believe that they have actually seen what they say they have seen - or maybe they have just made the whole thing up........

Tim, thanks for the pics and other comparisons above. But have the bins been focussed equally? When enlarged (by clicking) in pic 9 the foreground grass, and possibly the slabs/planks at right are sharper, in pic 8 everything or nearly everything beyond that distance is sharper.

PS. Your pic of the bin also confirms what I, with a bias for the small and light, felt since I saw its first pics a year ago, that the HT is like the Guns of Navarone! Maybe we can make a thriller movie of Jan's alleged mission to destroy it! |;|

Tim,

Thanks for the further images, and discussion.

Firstly though, in your post#14, is the naming of the last two photos *rs* about? ie. should it be 10 is the HT, and 11 is the SV ?? (going by the vignetting colouration, and Fov - to be consistent with the previous 4 photos) .....

In your (from post#1) first two comparison photos (4-HT & 5-SV), I am not entirely sure whether it's soley sharpness and /or dof (hence all the questions you've been getting about focus - though camera AND bins), but (to my eyes) the SV visibly trumps the HT for sharpness AND dof.

In your next series of photos (post#14), I'd give the close-up to photo8 (the HT right?) over photo9 (the SV?). At the longer distances I'm inclined to go with photo10 ??!! (whichever one that really is - HT, I think ....) for sharpness and dof, although the colour representation looks more natural in (what I think, is the SV - photo11 ..... I'll be happier when you confirm - one way or the other!).

This brings up an interesting point - despite Brock's continual befuddlement!

Since Zeiss actually DID release (let slip?) 1/2 a transmission graph (early in the piece though it may be ...... well ~ Sept 2012 anyway). This clearly shows that the SV still maintains a tr% advantage in the early red, though by the late red - it's all HT again, as the SV takes that calculated swan dive off the tabletop cliff. (we don't really know how the HT panned out, in real life, in the blue, as that's still very hush, hush) |:x|

Puzzling it is then that the HT exhibits a sort of 'super colour saturation' that leaves the SV looking more natural ????? Curious indeed ....... :cat:

Perhaps raw tr% at any given wavelength is not the entirety of the colour reproduction picture?


Chosun :gh: