henry link
Well-known member
Congratulations Dennis. You've succeeded in removing the last vestige of credibility you might have had about this.
-
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.
Review Swarovski Swarovision EL 8x32 WB (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter binomania
- Start date
Dennis, does magnification make a difference or not?
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
So if the 8x32 SE is 7.96x at infinity (Allbinos figure, which they calculate by measuring the exit pupil, but I'm only assuming they measure it focused at infinity) then at 10 feet it should be 8.27x. Sound right? I doubt that would be a very noticable difference. But maybe enough to give it the edge over the EDG?
True and no doubt quite important if you are trying to distinguish the field marks of one DVD from another at 10 feet but not if you are looking at migrating hawks 500 hundred or more feet distant. There the comparison becomes moot.
Bob
I think it's the reverse Henry. You succeeded in proving to everybody you are full of baloney which I have known all along. Your theory about variability of magnification is nonsense. You can't prove that the magnification of the SE is greater at 10 feet than the EDG unless you measure it. Let me see your measurements. Your saying the SE is an 8.27x at 10 feet but at infinity it is an 8x and the EDG has less magnification at 10 feet. I say prove it! In my comparison between the SE and EDG it is not IMAGE size that is making the difference in my ability to see the letters more clearly in the SE. It is easy to see the SE is resolving the detail better than the EDG. Instead of coming up with stupid theories to try and disprove me why don't you try the test yourself. Maybe you could take pictures thru the binoculars to show the difference. You know your famous A/B pictures. HaHa!
Last edited:
A true .5x difference in magnification would certainly make a difference in image size and ability to see detail as in the 8x Swarovision versus the 8.5x Swarovision. Henry would have to prove it to me that an SE has that much of a variation in magnification at different distances and the EDG doesn't.Dennis, does magnification make a difference or not?
Last edited:
The close up resolution test proves why the SE shows field marks and detail on birds at longer distances also.
Baloney!!! Prove it!! Mathematically!
David Swain
Well-known member
Perhaps Dennis has been using this CD cover as his "resolution test?" Or maybe "Dark Side of the Moon" ...
Attachments
mooreorless
Well-known member
" I don't think 4% magnification anyway would make that much difference because I have tried the test with a 10x roof and the SE still outresolves it at twenty feet."
Dennis my quote of your post might be what Henry is talking about, credibility issue that is.:smoke:
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2496578&postcount=40:smoke:
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2497111&postcount=46:smoke:
Dennis my quote of your post might be what Henry is talking about, credibility issue that is.:smoke:
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2496578&postcount=40:smoke:
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2497111&postcount=46:smoke:
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Doh! That's because the people who see RB either returned their SV or didn't buy it! Or in dennis' case, didn't see it, then later flip flopped, and then sold it.
As to Sancho's comment, as I wrote earlier it "sounded" as if Pier was saying he saw it, or at least that's the way my interpretation of Google, perhaps Sancho is well versed in Italian and read the original version.
But from Google Translate, it was hard to tell what Pier saw, because he never came right out and said it directly, he just talked about RB in the SVs and posted Swaro's response to him about the AMD. Why he would bother going through all that if he didn't see it himself in the 8x32 he was reviewing, I don't know.
I was hoping his post above would clear that up, but surprisingly, it didn't. So it remains a mystery until he tries the 8x32 SV again, apparently, and then we'll (hopefully) know what he saw or didn't see.
We're also waiting for Henry to take his A/B photographs of the 8x42 and 8x32 models.
In the meantime, Swaro's response to Pier about the 8x32 SV suggests that the optical design is the same or at least similar.
The fact that two members who see RB in the full sized model and not in the midsized suggests that the midsized model might have more pincushion added to accommodate the wider FOV, which would contradict Swaro's response to Pier.
However, the fact that two people don't see RB in a bin that Swaro says "eliminates angular distortion" doesn't mean that it has enough pincushion for everybody's eyes.
For example, one BF member reported getting "nauseated" after panning with an 8x32 LX. Although I do see a bit of "roll" in that model, to my eyes, it's nowhere near as strong as the full sized models, and others concur, but that member saw things differently. He must have even less pincushion in his eyes than I do.
My point stands that when you know there's a bin that designed with low distortion, and you know you are sensitive to RB or you don't know, you need to make sure to either try before you buy or have an ample return period so you have time to adjust to the RB if you at first see it.
From what I've experienced first hand with RB and read from others experiences, I don't think that warning is at all ill-advised just because I haven't looked through the bin. To those who think that, go back and read Swaro's response to Pier again because you apparently missed something the first time.
<B>
Last edited:
Just compare the two and you will see it for yourself.
i am not sure what you are talking about. The SE has shown in the old Need Tests to out resolve alpha roofs in a test like this and that is what I am observing. Even the extra magnification of the 10x doesn't help the roof. The SE is still sharper.
Just try the test yourself. It is very simple. If you don't believe me prove it for your self.
Torview
Well-known member
Dennis, on May 7th 2012 at 03.07 you posted this:-
I don't think that was "superfluous utterance" To some people it is pretty important that their binocular is waterproof and durable and that the focus wheel will turn when it gets cold outside because of how they use it. These things can be just as important as the optics. My point is if you can only have one binocular the EDG is a much better choice than the SE if you can afford it. It is easy to understand why roofs have taken over the market. They are more versatile for most people. The SE is for somebody that wants to experience champagne optics on a beer budget but to do so you have to put with some of it's shortcomings. It is kind of like comparing a Camaro Z28 to a Ferrari. The 0 to 60 times might be close but a Camaro is still not a Ferrari.
When you did not own an SE you condemned it as inferior to the EDG, (don`t give me that I`m allowed to change my mind crap), you must admit your words were baseless then, when you now instruct people to replicate your 10` test for themselves using both binoculars !!!!!!!
I find it impossible now to take any opinion you post credibly, too much of the time its conjecture.
I don't think that was "superfluous utterance" To some people it is pretty important that their binocular is waterproof and durable and that the focus wheel will turn when it gets cold outside because of how they use it. These things can be just as important as the optics. My point is if you can only have one binocular the EDG is a much better choice than the SE if you can afford it. It is easy to understand why roofs have taken over the market. They are more versatile for most people. The SE is for somebody that wants to experience champagne optics on a beer budget but to do so you have to put with some of it's shortcomings. It is kind of like comparing a Camaro Z28 to a Ferrari. The 0 to 60 times might be close but a Camaro is still not a Ferrari.
When you did not own an SE you condemned it as inferior to the EDG, (don`t give me that I`m allowed to change my mind crap), you must admit your words were baseless then, when you now instruct people to replicate your 10` test for themselves using both binoculars !!!!!!!
I find it impossible now to take any opinion you post credibly, too much of the time its conjecture.
mooreorless
Well-known member
Bad sample of a ten, simple as that! BTW I do have a Nikon 8x32SE and it is an excellent binocular esp. for the price. I can almost read a neighbors license plate with it, but have no trouble with a ten I have.
Last edited:
newfie ghost
Well-known member
Brock, I'd be happy to test in person, no more guessing.
Check the reviews on the retail sites, most are 5 stars.
Check the reviews on the retail sites, most are 5 stars.
Last edited:
I am entitled to change my opinion. Also, the newer coatings in the SE to me makes a huge difference in the performance of the SE especially in contrast. I see things I never saw in the older SE especially in detail and resolution. With the 20 foot test I now no for certain that the SE is sharper than my EDG. Everybody can blow all they want but I know what MY eyes see and that's what I believe. My eyes are what I believe. Henry can come up with as many bogus theories as he wants to I but I know what I see. Don't believe me try the test yourself.
JabaliHunter
Well-known member
Not everyone! From the comments I read here, anyone would get the impression that 'rolling ball' is such a problem that the moment you see it you should automatically avoid it like the plague and sell or return that binocular ASAP. I think that is misguided, but anyone who wants to spend that amount of money should be allowed to field test the binocular outside in a variety of settings. Lots of dealers organise field days and most will also match internet prices on something like a Swarovski.
Some may find it odd at first glance. Some may find that they prefer something else. Some may ignore it perfectly well. Some may find that they cannot accommodate the effect and cannot use it at all. You can't know until you test it.
I didn't see a globe effect in the 8.5x42 just having a quick look through a friend's binocular in a large field. I didn't see it in the 10x50 SV when I was in the shop. As soon as I tested one outside at a nature reserve with woodland I saw the globe effect. It felt odd! I wondered about it, read about it, worried about it, looked at other 50mm and 56mm options, worried about it some more, decided that I would never really know what the SV was really like until I gave it a long term fair shake and finally broke down and bought my own (thanks Ingle1970 :t: ). I'll let you know how I get on!
Torview
Well-known member
Dennis on may 6th I posted this:-
The only eye`s to trust is one`s own, and if they show an SE to be as good as an EDG it IS, whether Holger, Dennis or anyone else thinks differently.
To which you responded:-
It doesn't mean it IS as an absolute. It just means it IS to YOU.
So which is it ? Are you saying only your eyes are absolute ?
Similar threads
