Swarovski 8.5x42 EL Swarovision (1 Viewer)

Mike Penfold said:

...With the eyecups at the first detent, I get a great view; however, when the binocular is scanned a short distance one way or the other, there are relatively smaller blackouts in the dead centre of the field as the binocular is moving. These are the blackouts that interfere with the enjoyment of the ELSV IMO.

With the eyecups at the second detent, the whole field can't be seen.

With the eyecup relief varied in distance between the first and second detent, there is no improvement....

Click to expand...

As for the blackouts occurring during panning, again, it seems like an eye relief issue related to eye movement. When one pans, generally it is the case that one's eyes alternately fix on a spot by rotating and then rapidly move to reset position--kind of a nystagmus-like motion. At this point I'm fresh out of ideas, and I don't understand why an intermediate position between the detents doesn't help. I'll be interested to see if others experience this effect. It took a while before the issue with the SE surfaced in discussions and was understood.

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

At this point I'm fresh out of ideas, and I don't understand why an intermediate position between the detents doesn't help. I'll be interested to see if others experience this effect. It took a while before the issue with the SE surfaced in discussions and was understood.

--AP

Click to expand...

I'm stumped too. I've used a lot of bins and haven't seen anything with an easier view than the SV. It's way easier than the SE, which I still use. When I fuss over 2-3mm of eye relief, I'm fussing. It's a way to absolutely minimize blackouts without sacrificing FOV. But once I've got things dialed in, I can count on years of the best possible view. Micro-adjust eyecups are the way to go, but aside from the original Vortex Razor (which I've never used) I don't think anyone has tried it.

Mike, if you're not wearing glasses (and I now suspect you're not) try a position between the middle and all the way out--the only position you didn't mention trying.

Mark

Gentleman,

I had the opportunity this afternoon to finally get my hands on the Swarovision 8.5x42 at the local Cabelas. I also tried out the 8x42 SLC HD. My experiences with them were extremely limited...about 25 minutes inside the store.

What I was looking for was the edge performance and subsequent "rolling ball" effect in the SVs as well as the centerfield comparison between the SVs and the HDs.

My impressions....

For what it is worth I did not see the rolling ball effect in the SVs while panning around the store. I have seen barrel distortion to a greater degree and am aware of the effect it has while panning. I did not notice it to any great extent in the SVs. Maybe my vision is not particularly susceptible to this type of distortion. So, it would not be detrimental in my purchasing these binoculars.

Now, having said that, I do have to smile a bit at the edge performance of the SVs. That is a bit of a sarcastic smiley. Yes, the image is sharp to the edge but that outer "ring" in the last 5-10% of the field of view is not what I expected to see despite how many times it has been described by countless individuals here on the forum. The image in that outer 5-10% seems greatly "compressed" for lack of a better word. Yes, I am sure that star points would appear perfectly sharp in that area of the image but it doesn't appear "natural" in the sense that I expected. I guess in the technical sense of the phrase "sharp from edge to edge" the SV delivers. From a "spirit of the law" type of perspective I expected the image to be without any type of distortion or aberration all the way out to the edge of the field stop. Still, I can see how this compromise in optical design would appeal to many who crave edge sharpness.

I am left wondering something though....near perfect edge to edge sharpness is possible...I have seen it in the Pentax XW series of eyepieces so why the barrel distortion in the SVs in order to achieve the same effect?

Further, with regard to the comparison between the SLC HD and the SV, I could see practically no difference in the centerfield performance of the two binoculars (yes, the 8.5x vs 8x probably provides slightly better detail though the 8x should, theoretically be a hair brighter) but, for all practical purposes, the two images looked practically identical in the centerfield. In this case I am referring to apparent sharpness, apparent brightness, contrast, color fringing control and color representation. Speaking of the latter, I did note that the image seemed to have the blue-green color representation that I so fondly remember of the Zeiss FLs that I owned. Definitely pleasing to my eyes.

I do plan on returning to the store this week to give them a further examination....and, just to make it interesting....I plan on taking my Zen ED3s along.

Thanks for those impressions, Frank. I haven't tried the SV EL yet, but I do know what you mean about the "compression" at the edges. The full sized HG/L/Premiers show the same thing. It's as if the object is moving away from you because it gets tinier and tinier. Unfortunately, unlike the "mustachioed" SV EL, this effect can be seen, mooreorless, over the entire FOV, though it is much moore noticeable at the edges.

In the center of the field, the HG shows a larger image scale, which shrinks as you move toward the edges until the "Incredible Shrinking Man" becomes very noticeable. In fact, when I put my ear close to the edges, I heard, "Help me, help me!".

http://www.weirdwildrealm.com/filmimages/fly-help-me.jpg

Glad to hear that the pincushion and barrel distortion balance out for you and don't cause birdies to keep "rolin', rolln', rollin', keep those birdies rollin'... Out...side."

With your small hands, you should be thinking about the CL. The edges don't shrink and neither will your wallet, well, at least, not as much.

Brock

FrankD said:

Gentleman,


Now, having said that, I do have to smile a bit at the edge performance of the SVs. That is a bit of a sarcastic smiley. Yes, the image is sharp to the edge but that outer "ring" in the last 5-10% of the field of view is not what I expected to see despite how many times it has been described by countless individuals here on the forum. The image in that outer 5-10% seems greatly "compressed" for lack of a better word.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's exactly how I described the SV's. As I recall I described it as radial compression at the edges. It's not a rolling ball at all but it is a little different. Get them out in the field and you'll see what they do. They are a boatload better than the Zen's once you actually use them. I still have both--have had the Zen for a year and a half, the SV for six months. I'll take the SV any day.

The edge performance of the SV's is limited by your own eyes/glasses. If it's not perfect, it's probably you.

That's the way it is with my astigmatic eyeballs. The SV's are actually better than I am. I realized that pretty quickly. But even so, the view is better than the Zens. Not a big contest overall.

Mark

Hi Frank,

you gave a very good and accurate description of your first impressions which do agree with mine: no rolling ball but I could also see the compression towards the edge. Now there's something I still don't understand. It is said that pincushion distorsion is the result of increased magnification towards the edge of FOV. The SVs do have pincushion distorsion, although to a lower degree compared for example with the SLC HD or Leica and Zeiss binoculars. So if they still have pincushion, how come that the magnification seems to shrink (compress) at the edges? Does anybody have an idea?

Steve

Frank, Mark, Steve,

The SV's have a compound distortion. The inner 60% or so of the field shows a "normal" progression of mild pincushion distortion, which then reverses toward the outside of the field so that the last 10% has almost no pincushion at all. The lack of pincushion toward the edge results in angular magnification distortion which radially compresses objects (circles change to ovals). "Rolling ball" is just the effect that results when that angular magnification distortion is set in motion by panning. The compression of objects near the edge resembles the foreshortening of objects as they disappear around a rotating globe.

I made photos of all this in these threads. In the first thread I wasn't aware of the anomalous distortion in the SV.

http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=159141

http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=175077

Henry

Have used 8.5x42 ELSVs for just under a year, and probably 90% of the time the view is effortless and stunning, like tracking a Virginia's Warbler in a Cuauhmochitl (Pithecellobium Dulce) tree in the northeast corner of the Ethnobotanical Gardens in Oaxaca de Juarez last month.

Perhaps wearing eyeglasses makes the difference, as eye placement is more critical than other binoculars I've used, in order to avoid centre field blackouts.

Mike

Mike Penfold said:

Have used 8.5x42 ELSVs for just under a year, and probably 90% of the time the view is effortless and stunning, like tracking a Virginia's Warbler in a Cuauhmochitl (Pithecellobium Dulce) tree in the northeast corner of the Ethnobotanical Gardens in Oaxaca de Juarez last month.

Perhaps wearing eyeglasses makes the difference, as eye placement is more critical than other binoculars I've used, in order to avoid centre field blackouts.

Mike

Click to expand...

Back 'em out with o-rings. Problem solved. See above.

Mark

Kammerdiner said:

Back 'em out with o-rings. Problem solved. See above.

Mark

Click to expand...

Thanks Mark; I tried your excellent idea, varying eye relief over several settings, over many trials.

However, as mentioned in an earlier posting, this made no difference in the centre field blackouts as described. After exacting adjustment of IPD, the only remaining apparent variable was eye placement.

For straight-on viewing, these blackouts hardly ever happen now. The exception is quickly looking well above a horizontal view, when I often need to re-position the ELSVs to clear a blackout.

Mike

Hi all,
I am accessorising my 8.5x42 EL's so sorry for the hijacking the thread ever so slightly but can anyone confirm or deny the swarovski winged eye cup set (not including the covers) is compatible with the swarovski bino guard at all.
I mean does it still give complete protection to the ocular end with the winged cups at all?
My accessories list includes the SV harness, SV bino guard, SV winged eye cup set and cleaning kit but need to know if the guard will sit ok on the wings?
Thanks in advance
Noseeum

noseeum said:

Hi all,
I am accessorising my 8.5x42 EL's so sorry for the hijacking the thread ever so slightly but can anyone confirm or deny the swarovski winged eye cup set (not including the covers) is compatible with the swarovski bino guard at all.
I mean does it still give complete protection to the ocular end with the winged cups at all?
My accessories list includes the SV harness, SV bino guard, SV winged eye cup set and cleaning kit but need to know if the guard will sit ok on the wings?
Thanks in advance
Noseeum

Click to expand...

I just checked the Utube video of the bino-guard, and some pictures,
and it looks like the bino-guard is simply a large flap that would go over
the top. Then you would not need the ocular covers, and it looks like
it should easily work with your winged eyecups.
I hope it works well for you. Let us know how you like it.

Jerry

Thanks for the speedy reply jerry!

I too checked out the utube vids and it seems to look ok on film.

Just need that reassurance before splashing the cash so to speak as I use these in some real bad weather and the ocular caps will be a PITA opposed to the flipping off the guard..if that makes sense?

Thanks again
NSM

Figured out the centre field blackouts on the Swarovski 8.5x42 SV.

While recently looking at 8x32, 10x32, and 10x42 SV's, still experiencing blackouts, it suggested that these were user-induced in some way. Perhaps from a comment on BirdForum, I tried varying the IPD from my usual pattern of adjustment.

On the 8.5x42 SV, if I adjust the IPD slightly closer, the center field blackouts disappear.

Mike

Mike Penfold said:

Figured out the centre field blackouts on the Swarovski 8.5x42 SV.

While recently looking at 8x32, 10x32, and 10x42 SV's, still experiencing blackouts, it suggested that these were user-induced in some way. Perhaps from a comment on BirdForum, I tried varying the IPD from my usual pattern of adjustment.

On the 8.5x42 SV, if I adjust the IPD slightly closer, the center field blackouts disappear.

Mike

Click to expand...

Mike,

Now if you can just find out what the trick is with the 8x32 and 10s, the world will be your oyster.

As an SE owner (still have the 505xxx 8x32 SE?), you might have experienced some blackouts. The SE requires very precise IPD settings to avoid them. What I do to avoid the image blackouts with the SE is keep the IPD setting slightly wider than my actual IPD (68*) regardless if I'm focusing close or far. I do get some barrel overlap at closer distance due to this, but not having to fuss with resetting the IPD to avoid the blackouts is worth it. II do this because my one eye is a few mm farther from center than the other. More on that below.

Since you don't have to readjust the IPD for near and far with roofs, it should be "set and forget" once you've found the magic number.

I had blackout issues with the 8x32 EL WB and the 8x30 SLCneu, and both of those had only 15mm ER, so it wasn't due to long ER. Not sure what's going on between those EPs and my eyes, but I found eye placement was tricky with both of them. Setting the IPD slightly wider might help there too, though I discovered that technique after I tried the Swaros.

There are some factors that are usually not talked about, but that I have found play an important role in image blackouts. One is differences in the depth between your two eyes, and the other is having eyes that are not equidistant from your nose.

ER in both EPs is the same and the distance from the center post to the center of the EP is the same, so there's an assumption that the user has perfect features.

If eye placement is critical in a particular bin like it was with the Vixen 7x50 Foresta (which had the worst blackouts of any bin I've tried), it could be due to one eye being deeper than the other. One eye is at the proper distance to avoid blackouts, but the other is a few mm closer or farther and that causes a problem. I only experienced the blackouts in one eye with the Vixen, the one that was slightly closer to the EPs. Changing the eyecups on the Foresta fixed that problem.

With the SE, the blackouts arise from SAEP, but it's the fact that my eyes are not equidistant from my nose that makes that problematic for me.. One eye is a few mm farther from the bridge of my nose than the other and that puts that eye slightly off-axis. With EP that have SAEP, there's little wiggle room, you have to be right on-axis or you lose the image. Or at least in theory, you should. Some SE users "have no problem with blackouts" until they reach 5 or 6 Gs.

Brock

Brock,

Wanted to like the 8x32 SE's, which I tried once at Pelee Wings in Leamington, ON, but wasn't sold on them. Also, we seem to be birding in rain not infrequently.

Mike

Mike Penfold said:

Figured out the centre field blackouts on the Swarovski 8.5x42 SV.

While recently looking at 8x32, 10x32, and 10x42 SV's, still experiencing blackouts, it suggested that these were user-induced in some way. Perhaps from a comment on BirdForum, I tried varying the IPD from my usual pattern of adjustment.

On the 8.5x42 SV, if I adjust the IPD slightly closer, the center field blackouts disappear.

Mike

Click to expand...

Same happened to me Mike with the 8x32 SV. Closer IPD, the blackout gone but if I moved the bino a bit to the left or right, blackout appeared...

I also experienced the centre field black-outs, mostly in the 8.5, but also, to a lesser degree, in the 8x32 SV. For me it was too much eye-relief. The black-outs completely disappeared after I put the eyecups on the first indent (I wear glasses).

George