-
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.
And now for something completely different: The Habicht 7x42 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Hermann
- Start date
Hermann
Well-known member
That's an old model, long discontinued. It doesn't have the modern coatings the new Habichts have, and that shows in the field.
Hermann
mooreorless
Well-known member
Here is an old list of these from the place I bought my Swarovski 7x30 SLC. It shows price list etc. of the SL series etc. later 1990's I think.
http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=119145&d=1198886074
http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=119145&d=1198886074
brocknroller
porromaniac
Someone who owned one back in the day said the Habicht SLs have a yellow cast, and you'd need a very looong pinky finger to reach that focuser. Even mooreorless would have some difficulty. But at least he wouldn't have to lift his hat to focus in the winter.
I do like the overall shape, they'd probably be comfortable for my big hands, and I like Porros.
Rub some Pepsodent on the lenses to get the yellow out and move the focuser to the front, and I might be interested.
Peposdent Rap Song
<B>
Someone who owned one back in the day said the Habicht SLs have a yellow cast, and you'd need a very looong pinky finger to reach that focuser. Even mooreorless would have some difficulty. But at least he wouldn't have to lift his hat to focus in the winter.
I do like the overall shape, they'd probably be comfortable for my big hands, and I like Porros.
Rub some Pepsodent on the lenses to get the yellow out and move the focuser to the front, and I might be interested.
Peposdent Rap Song
<B>
The yellow isn't the problem anymore for years now. And the Habicht is ergonomically great for big handed people (like me) and thus the focusser is on the right spot for me and you.
:t:
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Gregory,
Sorry mate, just read your post.
Your Habicht is from April 1968.
Jan
brocknroller
porromaniac
I know it isn't on the new Habichts, but according to Henry, the old Habicht SL Porros had a yellow tint.
Not sure about the focuser, I know I didn't like the objective-side focuser on the 8x30 SLC. I think Henry was also the person who commented on the difficulty using the SL Porro's focuser. Henri?
<B>
HighNorth
Well-known member
Don't buy the farm, buy a Zeiss! :-O
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Dear all,
Those of you who are interested in the "History and quality Development of Swarovski Optik" and when the SL and SLC binoculars were made and how and when their properties changed, only have to google this title and you will find a power point with information about SL and SLC binoculars and how the transmitted spectra change (and in what time period the yellow bias disappeared). The focusser of the SL and SLC binoculars was placed between the objective tubes, so a little futher away form the eyes than with present binoculars, see also the photographs.
Gijs
Those of you who are interested in the "History and quality Development of Swarovski Optik" and when the SL and SLC binoculars were made and how and when their properties changed, only have to google this title and you will find a power point with information about SL and SLC binoculars and how the transmitted spectra change (and in what time period the yellow bias disappeared). The focusser of the SL and SLC binoculars was placed between the objective tubes, so a little futher away form the eyes than with present binoculars, see also the photographs.
Gijs
brocknroller
porromaniac
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
My conclusion of this review and comments re. the Swarovski 7x42 Habicht is that what we have here is a very specialized instrument. It simply is too compromised and biased even to be called a good tool for birding. This of course doesn't mean that it can't be used for birding tasks. One can go birding with the Swarovski 7x42 Habicht for sure, but this applies to other specialized instruments like opera glasses, U-boat Ferngläser and catadioptric telescopes as well.
I don't want to discredit the attention given here to the Habicht however. It certainly makes sense to discuss instruments like this on this forum. Just because they don't fit the norm, and represent some extreme in design, we can gain valuable insights from them. At this point please allow me to draw your attention to a quite different but equally specialized binocular, the KOMZ 7x30. This Russian military individual focusing instrument, infamous for its strong yellow colour cast, could very well be just as good on resolution than the Habicht. Here however, we have a truly fine 8.5 deg. (150/1000m) RFoV built in, and great transparancy (others would say sharpness) across the whole (!) viewing circle. So it is possible to have superb resolution, great field of view and a massive sweet spot in a 7x binocular? Yes, but one has to pay for these qualities with gigantic oculars, lots of glass and so, weight.
BTW, I have been birding with this ugly masterpiece several times.
Renze
I don't want to discredit the attention given here to the Habicht however. It certainly makes sense to discuss instruments like this on this forum. Just because they don't fit the norm, and represent some extreme in design, we can gain valuable insights from them. At this point please allow me to draw your attention to a quite different but equally specialized binocular, the KOMZ 7x30. This Russian military individual focusing instrument, infamous for its strong yellow colour cast, could very well be just as good on resolution than the Habicht. Here however, we have a truly fine 8.5 deg. (150/1000m) RFoV built in, and great transparancy (others would say sharpness) across the whole (!) viewing circle. So it is possible to have superb resolution, great field of view and a massive sweet spot in a 7x binocular? Yes, but one has to pay for these qualities with gigantic oculars, lots of glass and so, weight.
BTW, I have been birding with this ugly masterpiece several times.
Renze
Attachments
Last edited:
Hermann
Well-known member
Well well. I've got the KOMZ as well, and as a birding binocular it's IMO far more compromised than the Habicht - the colour cast is just too strong when it comes to birding and it has individual eyepiece focusing. It's also nowhere near as bright as the Habicht, with lower contrast, and suffers from glare. Not as badly as some other binoculars well-liked on this forum, but it's surely not really very good in that department, whereas the Habicht is quite excellent.
It's still a fun binocular, though.
Hermann
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Hermann,
It's all about conditions. Ever gone birding in a snowy landscape, stark white, with clear skies and the sun pulling out all stops? You'll love the yellow view my friend.
Renze
It's all about conditions. Ever gone birding in a snowy landscape, stark white, with clear skies and the sun pulling out all stops? You'll love the yellow view my friend.
Renze
Last edited:
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Oh no, it's not in the mind, it's in the instrument. Which doesn't mean you can't get used to it of course (as you undoubtedly know, the human race is able to adapt to the most terrible things).
Renze
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
There you said it. And you're probably right: it's a military instrument, very specialized as such, optimized for a certain type of use. Why would one make a pair of binoculars with above average optical qualities (high resolution, absence of flare etc.) in tandem with a quite hilarious field of view? Because the last thing one needs when climbing the Alps is weight. And as we know, weight is synonymous with glass. So I suspect Swarovski brought down the amount of glass to a minimum - you'll probably find a pair of smallish prisms inside - only to arrive at a poor field of view, which they than cut off. And did the soldiers care? Probably not (not counting the birders among them of course).
PS. I think there's a lesson to be learned here: if one wants a good instrument for birding, one shouldn't be too obsessed with weight. Not only because one needs a healthy dose of mass to conquer shake, and get more detail from the bird, but also because the field of view will become seriously compromised. Don't make low weight your priority, adapt to it (it's easy).
Renze
brocknroller
porromaniac
You make a good point. I find this particularly true with 10x bins. I tried a 10x42 SLC-HD and was surprised at how steady I could hold it. Although the ergonomics and balance had something to do with that, the main factor, I think, was the weight, which was nearly 28 oz.
My 10x42 SE was only 24 oz., a bit less than the 8x32 LX/HG I had owned. I experienced a lot of shakes with the 10x SE. The ergonomics were great, in fact, I prefer the shape and feel of the SE to the SLC-HD, and the optics were superb, and better 3-D effect, of course, but unless I had something to lean on, detail was lost because of vibrations.
If the SLC-HD didn't cost $1,000 more than the SE, I'd be using one now.
Brock
This is indeed a really fine piece of optics, analogous to the Zeiss Jena DF7x40, which is however another 20% heavier at 1300 gram versus 1050 gram for the KOMZ. Super comfortable viewing but IF is a killer for birding.
Hi Renze,
I have considered to get these russian tanks. Yes, I know that the image is yellowish and they are heavy. But according to what I read the sharpness is rivalling every binocular independent of price.
The eyepieces are huge and with long eye relief. But I wonder: at the pictures I have seen it looks like the eye lenses are pretty much recessed even with eye cups down folded. So will these provide a clear image with eyeglasses, have you tried?
Regards, Patric
Have to get the right version, the Soviet era design had screw down eye cups that could be extended over a centimeter, but when retracted worked very well with glasses.
The post Soviet production was much lower cost, so a tall rubber fold down eye cup was substituted instead. I've seen claims the optics were not changed, but worry that cost cutting is unlikely to stop with the eye cups.
Similar threads
