10x42SV 10x50SV: yet another thread on these... (1 Viewer)

tenex said:

Your link there (not just its text label) got truncated with "..." and is unusable; the correct link is here.

What's interesting about that graph is that it does not show a "decline in efficiency" with increasing magnification. To the contrary, it shows increasing efficiency, even handheld, up to around 15x where it starts to level off. Only the rate of increase is declining. That seems to agree well with my own experience.

Click to expand...

SeldomPerched said:

Following on from a thread I started recently about 10x Swarovski glass, I wouldn't need to post this if I could try out an EL10x50 SV in the local shop. They now have all the 42 models in stock, so can try out an EL10x42 SV.

I saw an old post by Gijs van Ginkel praising the 50, and have just been reading Roger Vine's very readable reviews of the 42 and then the 50.

42 and 50SVs have been discussed on the forum probably many times before but maybe some of you who have extensively tried all the sizes and models wouldn't mind having a look at this....

Roger looks to have reviewed the 42 a few years back, before the Field Pro version, but am I right the differences don't affect optics or coatings or handling at all? By comparison his review of 50 was possibly more recent (early 2016). I say this because in the 42 review he said if he could only have one pair of binoculars it would probably be the 42; in the 50 review he said something like he would now go for the 50. Also in the 42 review, having said how great it was, he added a teaser that the 50 might be even better.

Now, as said, if I could try both side by side I could arrive at a preference quite easily because handling matters a lot to me -- if I can't hold the thing steady what use are slightly superior optics, etc...

So, here are the questions:
1. As the 50 is very similar in size to the 42 and about (100g) heavier, will it feel a lot lighter and easier to hold steady than my 8x56FL? I get the impression that 56 is where extra weight really comes into play.
2. As the 50 is a 10 power whilst the 56 is an 8 power, are they likely to feel similarly awkward in use i.e. shake will cancel out the slightly lighter weight?
3. Glare and ghosting: negligible in both 42 and 50 or better in 42?
4. Colour rendition: same as in EL8x32 SV i.e. bluish compared to Leica reddish and Zeiss greenish? (I know fans of each will call their marque 'neutral'!)
5. The more comparison you can give between 42 and 50 SV variants the better but hand-holding differences are probably the deal breaker, aside from money.
6. Is the 8.5x42 SV in fact any easier to hold than the 10? I ask this as I'm mainly a 7x user and have got very used to that as an all-round solution, but as mentioned in the other thread I am looking for a 10 as well, once I can find the near-perfect solution.

I should mention I am also weighing up (literally also!) N, L and Z options but as I have them in 7/8x it seemed that Swaro with the glowing reports from Roger Vine and many others, for clear view and also for customer support and product manufacturing excellence, would give me some variety.

Sorry I haven't yet learnt to keep my writing short (and probably never will by now)!

Tom

Click to expand...

John A Roberts said:

Shake verses Useable Image Quality

The effect of shake, specifically with a free-standing hands only hold, seems to be far more complex than what various psychological studies indicate
e.g. as in the graph from Daniel Vukobratovich’s 1989 article ‘Binocular Performance and Design’,

However, as the graph presents aggregated data from a number of individuals - an ‘average of averages’
- it does not necessarily follow that any particular individual will have such a predictable decline in efficiency


And that is my experience - my perceptions/ tolerances/ preferences are seemingly contradictory:

A) I have a very strong preference for 7x over 8x
I can discern as much fine detail at 7x as at 8x, and with greater ease
I’ve found this to be the case in directly comparing a variety of 7x and 8x models, including my Leica UV HD 7x42 and 8x42

B) In contrast I strongly prefer 12x over 10x!
I can see significantly more detail at 12x compared to 10x, without significantly greater difficulty in steadying the image
While I originally thought this was due to the balance and ergonomics of my EL SV 12x50, I’ve since bought a Nikon E 12x40 Porro
And in direct comparison with my Swarovski Habicht 10x40 Porro the situation is the same

Of course both 10x and 12x have significantly more shake than 8x,
but it seems that a point has been reached where the 20% increased magnification of the 12x balances out the extra shake compared to the 10x


It seems like my mind may be processing the visual data in two different ways
- or more likely, it's accepting that significantly different degrees of accomodation are necessary, to form the perceived image at the higher magnifications

A) With 7x vs 8x
There is a clear balance of a smaller calmer image of a subject verses a slightly larger image with more jitter
When I visually and mentally ‘bore down’ to see the limit of what can be resolved, I find that the 8x’s larger twitches between clear images, prevent greater effective resolution
i.e. the clear image does not persist long enough to allow the perception of greater detail (in contrast, when mounted on a tripod the 8x Leica is of course superior to the 7x one)

B) With 12x vs 10x
At this level of magnification, neither image is calm compared to 8x. There is significantly more shake, and presumedly significantly more active mental engagement in processing the images
However, it seems that by 10x a threshold has been reached, and the extra effort required at 12x is not obviously significant


. . . and of course in such matters we should expect that other’s perceptions will vary greatly from mine (as is indicated in various posts prior to this one regarding 10x verses 12x)

However, I find it interesting that my perceptions contradict the seemingly reassuring predictability of the published data
and in particular based on my experience with 7x to 10x binoculars, I would have never anticipated my experience at 12x

I'd be interested to know if others have a similar experience


John

Click to expand...

mwhogue said:

Hand held, both my EDG and HD+ 7x42 show more detail than my SV 8x32 presumably because both 7x images are less shaky optically based largely on magnification rather than ergonomics. While subjective and imprecise, it seems because of the ergonomics I am able to hold the SV 8x32 physically steadier than either 7x.

Click to expand...

mwhogue said:

But as in your experience, hand held, my SV 12x50 shows more detail than my HD+ 10x50 even though there is slightly more shake in the 12x image insofar as I am able to hold them.

Click to expand...

SeldomPerched said:

So, here are the questions:
1. As the 50 is very similar in size to the 42 and about (100g) heavier, will it feel a lot lighter and easier to hold steady than my 8x56FL? I get the impression that 56 is where extra weight really comes into play.
2. As the 50 is a 10 power whilst the 56 is an 8 power, are they likely to feel similarly awkward in use i.e. shake will cancel out the slightly lighter weight?
3. Glare and ghosting: negligible in both 42 and 50 or better in 42?
4. Colour rendition: same as in EL8x32 SV i.e. bluish compared to Leica reddish and Zeiss greenish? (I know fans of each will call their marque 'neutral'!)
5. The more comparison you can give between 42 and 50 SV variants the better but hand-holding differences are probably the deal breaker, aside from money.
6. Is the 8.5x42 SV in fact any easier to hold than the 10? I ask this as I'm mainly a 7x user and have got very used to that as an all-round solution, but as mentioned in the other thread I am looking for a 10 as well, once I can find the near-perfect solution.

Click to expand...

[email protected] said:

If you want WOW try the 12x50 SV.

Click to expand...

John A Roberts said:

Alternative Ways to Increase Stability

If you don’t have an IS binocular and want to maximise performance - using anything other than a free-standing hands only hold - is preferable
e.g. see the steep increase in performance in Vukobratovich’s graph when comparing Supported Efficency to Hand-Held Efficiency
- any significant move towards the former will pay big dividends

Being of essentially pre-digital origin, I have a strong preference for durable optical and mechanical solutions verses dependence on electronics and batteries
And where practicable, non-hardware solutions such as good technique are especially satisfying

In terms of applied technique, what will be useful will depend on the totality of the circumstances, including:
- the terrain and topography, climate and weather, season and time of day
- where the birds are in relation to you, and their activity
- local practices and your individual preferences
- your physical adaptability, and
- your personal inventiveness

What follows is a brief introduction to braced and rested positions, to help get more from your binoculars


Braced Positions
While there are a variety of braced positions, sitting is likely to be the most stable and adaptable
Particularly useful is the open leg version, with the addition of the back against a rest (such as a tree, boulder, fence or wall),
and depending on the needed elevation, the elbows should be either in front of the knees or on the thighs (but not wobbling on top of the knees)


Rested Positions
Rested positions are likely to be superior to braced ones, since use is made of additional environmental support
And they can be broadly divided between vertical and horizontal versions

- Vertical Rests
e.g. against a tree trunk, a pole or post, an end or opening to a fence or wall
Typically both the side of the binocular and the hand holding it is placed against the support
And if possible it helps to both rest the forearm against the support, and to slouch the hip and thigh against the support

While less secure than a horizontal rest, vertical rests have the dual advantages of typically being more numerous and more accomodating in terms of useable height

- - - -
- Combinations
Using either a vertical rest, or the modified squeegee I’ve previously described (a sort on ‘Mini Finn Stick’ see: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=369280 ),
makes a significant difference to steadiness even with my EL SV 12x50
Used together, the degree of steadiness is combined. With moderate power binoculars around 8x, the effect approaches that of a solid horizontal rest
- - - -

- Horizontal Rests
These are likely to provide the greatest effect, since the binocular can be placed on a stable object
e.g. on a tree limb, a fence rail, the top of a fence or wall, the roof of an automobile
Some padding (such as an item of folded clothing) may be needed to ensure that the binocular is both firmly positioned and at the appropriate angle of elevation

The main problem is that for a horizontal rest to be comfortable to use, it typically needs to be within narrow limits at the standing user's eye level
Though it may also be useable if it’s an appropriate height for use while sitting
e.g. in addition to some of the possibilities mentioned above, a binocular can be rested on the top of a full size back pack


Finally, you can bring your own rest with you - a tripod and head
But that typically involves: anticipation; a suitable carrier; carrying the tripod with you; unpacking, setting up and adjusting; shifting it if needed; taking down and repacking,
and; carrying it out - along with any other gear that you have with you
And in doing so, you should also avoid inconveniencing others
(also in the usual way, when selecting both a tripod and a head, there is the inevitable triangular trade-off between expense, stability and weight)

If you only need to travel a brief distance from your transport to a viewing site, a tripod carried over a shoulder may be the way to go
However, if you’re inclined to roam more freely, or don’t wish to be encumbered with extra gear, the more creative options may appeal


John

Click to expand...

John A Roberts said:

Alternative Ways to Increase Stability

If you don’t have an IS binocular and want to maximise performance - using anything other than a free-standing hands only hold - is preferable
e.g. see the steep increase in performance in Vukobratovich’s graph when comparing Supported Efficency to Hand-Held Efficiency
- any significant move towards the former will pay big dividends

Being of essentially pre-digital origin, I have a strong preference for durable optical and mechanical solutions verses dependence on electronics and batteries
And where practicable, non-hardware solutions such as good technique are especially satisfying

In terms of applied technique, what will be useful will depend on the totality of the circumstances, including:
- the terrain and topography, climate and weather, season and time of day
- where the birds are in relation to you, and their activity
- local practices and your individual preferences
- your physical adaptability, and
- your personal inventiveness

What follows is a brief introduction to braced and rested positions, to help get more from your binoculars


Braced Positions
While there are a variety of braced positions, sitting is likely to be the most stable and adaptable
Particularly useful is the open leg version, with the addition of the back against a rest (such as a tree, boulder, fence or wall),
and depending on the needed elevation, the elbows should be either in front of the knees or on the thighs (but not wobbling on top of the knees)


Rested Positions
Rested positions are likely to be superior to braced ones, since use is made of additional environmental support
And they can be broadly divided between vertical and horizontal versions

- Vertical Rests
e.g. against a tree trunk, a pole or post, an end or opening to a fence or wall
Typically both the side of the binocular and the hand holding it is placed against the support
And if possible it helps to both rest the forearm against the support, and to slouch the hip and thigh against the support

While less secure than a horizontal rest, vertical rests have the dual advantages of typically being more numerous and more accomodating in terms of useable height

- - - -
- Combinations
Using either a vertical rest, or the modified squeegee I’ve previously described (a sort on ‘Mini Finn Stick’ see: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=369280 ),
makes a significant difference to steadiness even with my EL SV 12x50
Used together, the degree of steadiness is combined. With moderate power binoculars around 8x, the effect approaches that of a solid horizontal rest
- - - -

- Horizontal Rests
These are likely to provide the greatest effect, since the binocular can be placed on a stable object
e.g. on a tree limb, a fence rail, the top of a fence or wall, the roof of an automobile
Some padding (such as an item of folded clothing) may be needed to ensure that the binocular is both firmly positioned and at the appropriate angle of elevation

The main problem is that for a horizontal rest to be comfortable to use, it typically needs to be within narrow limits at the standing user's eye level
Though it may also be useable if it’s an appropriate height for use while sitting
e.g. in addition to some of the possibilities mentioned above, a binocular can be rested on the top of a full size back pack


Finally, you can bring your own rest with you - a tripod and head
But that typically involves: anticipation; a suitable carrier; carrying the tripod with you; unpacking, setting up and adjusting; shifting it if needed; taking down and repacking,
and; carrying it out - along with any other gear that you have with you
And in doing so, you should also avoid inconveniencing others
(also in the usual way, when selecting both a tripod and a head, there is the inevitable triangular trade-off between expense, stability and weight)

If you only need to travel a brief distance from your transport to a viewing site, a tripod carried over a shoulder may be the way to go
However, if you’re inclined to roam more freely, or don’t wish to be encumbered with extra gear, the more creative options may appeal


John

Click to expand...

Hermann said:

John:

Thank you, that's a very nice summary. Just a couple of additional points:

1. A Finnstick can be very useful to improve the handheld efficiency at magnifications between 7x and 12x because it reduces fatigue quite a lot. It doesn't work quite so well at higher magnfications. Especially for extended observations it helps a lot to keep the binoculars (relatively) steady.

2. When talking about stabilizers, don't forget the Zeiss 20x60S. I've got the 20x60S Mono (long out of production), and that works pretty well handheld. No batteries, no electronics at all.

3. The first study into the efficiency of different binoculars I know of is actually 75 years old: Brunnckow, K., E. Reeger & H.Siedentopf: Über die Leistung von Feldstechern im Tagessehen. Zeitschrift f. Instumentenkunde 64, 1944, p. 86-89. Well worth reading, even today.

Hermann

Click to expand...

Patudo said:

I've had a fair trial of a 10x50 SV at Birdfair twice, though have only glanced through the 10x42 SV (but own a 10x40 and have tested other 10x42s quite a bit). With the proviso this is all totally subjective on my part...



1. I find the 10x50 SV easier to handle than the 10x56 SLC - but most of the time when using that class of binoculars I can prop my elbows on something to steady the view, which greatly mitigates weight and bulk. If observing freehand the 10x50 would be distinctly easier to handle than the 10x56, and 10x42 even more so.

2. I find 10x is always a little more wobbly than 8x due to the higher magnification, but within my range of tolerance unless conditions are particularly difficult. The awkwardness of a x56 is not only in weight but bulk (big barrels!). This may be somewhat less of an issue if you're a big guy with large hands.

3. Don't have enough field experience with those binoculars in that situation to comment.

4. I've never looked through a 8x32 SV but the colour rendition of the 8.5x42, 10x42 and 10x50 all seem very similar. All are somewhat cooler than a Noctivid, but at the same time very clean and clear.

5. Hand holding is such an individual process that you'll need to decide on the hand holdability of the 10x42 vs the 10x50 yourself. I use a 10x40 for more general observation, at shorter distances (for me this means about 1.2km and closer) and if any kind of a trek is required, but prefer a 10x50 for more demanding viewing. When doing the latter, being able to brace my elbows and not having to move about much makes the weight/bulk of larger binoculars less of an issue, and greatly plays to their strengths in easier eye placement (which helps in making an image steadier), brightness, superior optical quality.

6. Yes - I find the 8.5x42 remarkably steady to hold. The long barrels allow a good grip and the easy eye placement, which I think derives from the combination of the 5mm exit pupil, 8.5x magnification and great edge sharpness working beautifully in concert, makes for a very steady view. It handles very much like a slightly larger 7x42 Dialyt and in all aspects feels worthy of inheriting the mantle of the great classics of the past.

Click to expand...