Similar quality to 10X42 Swaro.? (1 Viewer)

Hello,
I have occasionally been able to use some 8X32 or 8X42 but, truly, I have always felt that I was missing some magnification, for this very reason I am looking for some binocular 10x42, I usually observe in open lands not in forests or densely vegetated sites .. .yo yengo a binocular 10x50 but this is very heavy, porro prism, I was behind a 10x42 Swaroski secondhand ... but this one disappeared ... some fellow friend told me about the quality of other binoculars, such as the Canon 10X42 L IS or the Zeiss Victory FL 10X42 ..., and I have even read in this forum about a model like the 10X40 Habicht ... but in your opinion or experience these models have the same quality and solidity as the Swaroski 10X42 model? ?
thanks for your comments
Pluto.

Swarovski's Habicht porro line is every bit as solid and and as quality as their SV roof line. I highly recommend the Habicht 10x40 W because it is one of my favorite binoculars. It will be just as bright as the Swarovski SV 10x42 because it has higher transmission, it will be much lighter at 23 oz. compared to 29 oz. for the SV and it will give you a more realistic 3D view and on-axis it is just as good as anything plus at $700.00 it is a third the price of the SV. The SV will be sharper at the edge and have a flatter field and the focuser will be easier to move. The Habicht has less eye relief than the SV so it usually doesn't work as good if you wear glasses. I have three SV's(8.5x42, 8x32 and 10x32) and I usually grab a Habicht. I have the 8x30 W, 7x42 and 10x40 W Habicht.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Swarovski-...162567?hash=item4b66bc4887:g:ND0AAOSw-ZBdFfUP

If a bigger field of view is important to you then you may want to try out Zeiss's SF 10x42 which has an area of view at 1,000 metres 14.8% times bigger than the Swaro EL and 23.5% bigger than the Habicht. This gives you more for your money each time you look through your binos.

The SF is not as sharp as the Swaro EL at the edge of the field, although it is not unsharp, but is its equal in the centre, and has IMHO a better balance making it easier to hold steady.

If you can, you should try them all to find out which suits you best.

Lee

[email protected] said:

Swarovski's Habicht porro line is every bit as solid and and as quality as their SV roof line. I highly recommend the Habicht 10x40 W because it is one of my favorite binoculars. It will be just as bright as the Swarovski SV 10x42 because it has higher transmission, it will be much lighter at 23 oz. compared to 29 oz. for the SV and it will give you a more realistic 3D view and on-axis it is just as good as anything plus at $700.00 it is a third the price of the SV. The SV will be sharper at the edge and have a flatter field and the focuser will be easier to move. The Habicht has less eye relief than the SV so it usually doesn't work as good if you wear glasses. I have three SV's(8.5x42, 8x32 and 10x32) and I usually grab a Habicht.

Click to expand...

Your observations nicely summarized the minute improvements in binocular performance achieved over the past 30 years. Binocular design has reached its apex.

Omid said:

Your observations nicely summarized the minute improvements in binocular performance achieved over the past 30 years. Binocular design has reached its apex.

Click to expand...

Attributed to Max Planck in 1924

"When I began my physical studies [in Munich in 1874] and sought advice from my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly...he portrayed to me physics as a highly developed, almost fully matured science...Possibly in one or another nook there would perhaps be a dust particle or a small bubble to be examined and classified, but the system as a whole stood there fairly secured, and theoretical physics approached visibly that degree of perfection which, for example, geometry has had already for centuries."

Maljunulo said:

Attributed to Max Planck in 1924

"When I began my physical studies [in Munich in 1874] and sought advice from my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly...he portrayed to me physics as a highly developed, almost fully matured science...Possibly in one or another nook there would perhaps be a dust particle or a small bubble to be examined and classified, but the system as a whole stood there fairly secured, and theoretical physics approached visibly that degree of perfection which, for example, geometry has had already for centuries."

Click to expand...

Of course. There is no limit to physics. The problem with improving "image quality" of binoculars is not related to quantum physics, it is related to elementary mathematics: the minimum value of a positive quantity is zero. Binocular designers have been focused on minimizing aberrations and as we have seen in the past 20 to 30 years, there is not much room left there.

This is not say that there is no way to meaningfully improve binoculars. Progress with image stabilization is an an example of where "user experience" with binoculars has been and can be improved. To your point actually, there are also areas with classical (not-electronic) binocular design that we might be able to improve the user experience: match the binoculars with the stereoscopic visual characteristics of the human eye. That's the area I am exploring myself.

Omid said:

To your point actually, there are also areas with classical (not-electronic) binocular design that we might be able to improve the user experience: match the binoculars with the stereoscopic visual characteristics of the human eye. That's the area I am exploring myself.

Click to expand...

Interesting.

Swarovski Vs Zeiss, who will win in total sales after-all, I always say follow the money.

Andy W.

Maljunulo said:

Interesting.

Click to expand...

Yes. It is interesting indeed. Here is one example of a disconnect:

Imagine you are looking at a distant scene. What's the field of view if you use one of your eyes? How much FOV do you gain if you use both eyes?

Now imaging doing same using binoculars. What's the field of view of if you look through one binocular barrel? How much FOV do you gain if you look through both barrels?

Hi,

to the o.p. - if money is not an object the already mentioned Zeiss SF is probably the best package at the moment - very wide field for a 10x42, large sweet spot, ok ER for most glasses (18mm) and waterproof.

If you want sth not quite as nice but a bit cheaper, a used Nikon SE, a Nikon E2 or the already mentioned Habicht 10x40 might also be interesting. Very quickly:

Habicht waterproof, super sharp on axis and very hight transmission, narrowish 6.2 deg field and no flattening, ER is very short, certainly unusable with glasses non-armoured version is quite light
SE not waterproof, sharp on axis, good field flattening, narrowish 6.0 deg fov, quite light, good ER for use with glasses
E2 not waterproof, sharp on axis and a good sweet spot, very wide fov - a tad more than the SF, ER short, will not work for most glasses, light.

PS: the Canon 10x42 IS is a special case... the optics is pretty good, although maybe not quite up to current alphas... but unless you are superman or use a tripod, you will see more detail with them than with any other 10x pair. But they're not light and of course electronic, so plenty of things to go wrong and remain unrepairable when spare parts get rare... so far they're still in production...

Joachim, who likes his pair of SE 10x42...

jring said:

Hi,

to the o.p. - if money is not an object the already mentioned Zeiss SF is probably the best package at the moment - very wide field for a 10x42, large sweet spot, ok ER for most glasses (18mm) and waterproof.

If you want sth not quite as nice but a bit cheaper, a used Nikon SE, a Nikon E2 or the already mentioned Habicht 10x40 might also be interesting. Very quickly:

Habicht waterproof, super sharp on axis and very hight transmission, narrowish 6.2 deg field and no flattening, ER is very short, certainly unusable with glasses non-armoured version is quite light
SE not waterproof, sharp on axis, good field flattening, narrowish 6.0 deg fov, quite light, good ER for use with glasses
E2 not waterproof, sharp on axis and a good sweet spot, very wide fov - a tad more than the SF, ER short, will not work for most glasses, light.

PS: the Canon 10x42 IS is a special case... the optics is pretty good, although maybe not quite up to current alphas... but unless you are superman or use a tripod, you will see more detail with them than with any other 10x pair. But they're not light and of course electronic, so plenty of things to go wrong and remain unrepairable when spare parts get rare... so far they're still in production...

Joachim, who likes his pair of SE 10x42...

Click to expand...

Don't forget the Habicht 10x40 W porro is much lighter, has higher transmission and a much better 3D stereoscopic view making it more realistic than the Zeiss 10x42 SF. This made a big difference picking animals out of the woods in Yellowstone National Park and the view is more realistic than an SF or SV. Don't discount this advantage. It makes a big difference.

Thank you all for your opinions and advice ..
On the one hand the stabilized image of the Canon powerfully calls me my interest but I am scared of possible repairs, possibly expensive!
On the model Nikon SE I read that it has a tendency to blackout, something that scares me even more ..., the Nikon E2 has 8X, right?
Maybe the Zeiss SF or some FL t * or the cheaper Habicht 10X40 could be good candidates ..
Pluto

pluton said:

Thank you all for your opinions and advice ..
On the one hand the stabilized image of the Canon powerfully calls me my interest but I am scared of possible repairs, possibly expensive!
On the model Nikon SE I read that it has a tendency to blackout, something that scares me even more ..., the Nikon E2 has 8X, right?
Maybe the Zeiss SF or some FL t * or the cheaper Habicht 10X40 could be good candidates ..
Pluto

Click to expand...

Hi,

the SE does indeed blackout for some without glasses - for me it's just fine. There is a 10x35 variant of the E2.

As for the weight mentioned by Dennis - the non-armoured Habicht is indeed quite light - just as the SE. The E2 is even lighter...

I'm personally not a big fan of the Habicht series - they have their strong points like transmission and center sharpness but also quite a lot of flaws, like super stiff and slow focus, haze and flare problems in the 8x30 and a super narrow fov due to undersize prisms and non-wide angle EPs in the 7x42... so the 10x40 would be my choice if I had to choose one of them, as it is the least flawed... and be it to compare with the SE ;-)

Joachim

"I'm personally not a big fan of the Habicht series - they have their strong points like transmission and center sharpness but also quite a lot of flaws, like super stiff and slow focus, haze and flare problems in the 8x30 and a super narrow fov due to undersize prisms and non-wide angle EPs in the 7x42... so the 10x40 would be my choice if I had to choose one of them, as it is the least flawed... and be it to compare with the SE."

Since I have been using the Habicht's extensively I have become an advocate of them whereas in the past I have criticized them for the problems you are mentioning. What I have personally found is a lot of these problems are blown out of proportion by people that have really never tried to use the Habicht's in the field like I have. The slow stiff focus is really just a matter of adjusting to it after being used to the sometimes over easy spongy focusers on many roof prism binoculars. After having some MIC roofs and even the Nikon EDG which had too much gear lash or play in the focuser the nice tight direct focuser on the Habicht that doesn't move after you set your focus is a welcome change. One reason the Habicht 8x30 shows more glare than some other binoculars is the objective lens is so close to the end of the objective tube so by putting some sun shades on it or do what I do and simply be aware of where the sun is and you can greatly reduce the glare. There is hardly any binocular that you can look very near the sun without getting some glare. The 7x42 Habicht does not have undersize prisms it has a narrower FOV due to the fact Swarovski chose to use a simple Kellner Eyepiece with less optical surfaces to increase transmission and decrease the overall weight of the binocular. The narrower FOV is the price you pay for 96% transmission and a 22 oz. 42mm binocular. It was probably designed as a lightweight, low light simple to use and carry hunting binocular. It may have a narrower FOV but man is it bright and sharp and like most 7x42's it has really easy eye placement due to the large exit pupil! I sometimes I get it out at dusk just too look at stuff I can't see with my other binoculars. If you are so turned off by the flaws everbody talks about with the Habicht's you are missing out on some excellent optics. I don't think you will find a brighter, lighter, sharper on-axis binocular with a fantastic 3D view for a 1/3 the price of the alpha's. As far as comparing the Habicht to the EII or SE there is none. The Habicht is much brighter than either and has a sparkle that neither Nikon has. The EII or SE seem lackluster in comparison even though they are fine binoculars. The Habicht has better glass and coatings than either the EII or SE that is why the transmission is so high. HT glass and high end coatings equal high transmission. The Habicht has Swarovski's best glass and EL coatings so you know it has to be good.

Problem is Dennis, you sing the praises of your current binos as "being the best ever", no matter what you have at the time. When you recycle those on Ebay, whatever you wind up with is the new "best ever". Glad you like your equipment, but you need to give it a rest. The SLC HD's are fabulous binos, period.

[email protected] said:

"As far as comparing the Habicht to the EII or SE there is none. The Habicht is much brighter than either and has a sparkle that neither Nikon has. The EII or SE seem lackluster in comparison even though they are fine binoculars. The Habicht has better glass and coatings than either the EII or SE that is why the transmission is so high. HT glass and high end coatings equal high transmission. The Habicht has Swarovski's best glass and EL coatings so you know it has to be good.

Click to expand...

Hi Dennis,

it's ok that you like your Habichts at the moment (although you have liked quite a few other bins over the years ;-)

I have compared my E2 8x30 and a pair of current Habicht 8x30 side by side a few years ago and I noticed the flaring and how much better the E2 handled the situation. Plus I could barely focus the damn thing - this probably will get better after a thousand or so full focus travels... but if you have a new pair, no fun.

The idea that Swaro did use Kellner EPs in the 7x42 on purpose for better transmission might have been true in the 50s when these models were designed. But modern examples deliver 94% transmission regardless of eyepiece design - see Gijs' reviews with transmission data for the 8x30 with wide angle EPs and the sad 7x42 with Kellners.

https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-c...kers-van-Swarovski-en-Zeiss-def-FEBR-2016.pdf
https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/test..._Swarovski_en_Zeiss_kijkers_november_2011.pdf

As for the weight - the weight difference between a Kellner and an Erfle EP in the sizes needed for 8x30 or 7x42 bins is not really a big deal (unlike for astro EPs where one example can get heavier than your average pair of binoculars).

I'd say that Swaro used the same prisms and prism housings for the whole series and that worked well with the 4mm exit pupils of the 8x30 and 10x40 pairs.
The 7x42 with 6mm had a wider light cone and in order to not have nasty vigneting, they used a Kellner with a small field stop to fix that.

Joachim, who does not want a super bright view in bright daylight - this often means lots of stray light or too large an exit pupil for the situation. Contrast is important!

Hi, the Canon IS is a no brainer for wide open spaces. That's what I have and they are amazing. There's no comparison with IS and non IS at long distances. I've used the old 15x IS for about 8 years and didn't have any issues. The new 14 IS are much better and lighter. The 12x is on sale by Adorama on eBay for $600 (I think). The link is in the Binocular Bargain thread. If you don't like them, then return them. This forum has a lot of super knowledgeable guys. I don't understand 90% what they talk about when they go deep. But, if you are able to enjoy the amazing view and not worry about all the other stuff then I think you will agree.

I'm not trying to knock the guys who go deep. I guess I'm just too stoopid and that helps me keep it simple.
Good luck.
Dave

I tried the New Canon 12x32 and 14x32 IS and I absolutely hated them. The eye relief was way too long for the eye cups for me. I kind of feel that is why they cut the price by 1/2. Just saying.

jgraider said:

Problem is Dennis, you sing the praises of your current binos as "being the best ever", no matter what you have at the time. When you recycle those on Ebay, whatever you wind up with is the new "best ever". Glad you like your equipment, but you need to give it a rest. The SLC HD's are fabulous binos, period.

Click to expand...

It's kind of getting out of hand isn't it? Again.....

Yea Dennis, I agree that Canon could have done a lot better with the eyecups. But, it's the view that can't be beat for long distance viewing by hand. I've accepted that the eyecups suck and they don't bother me one bit. (I take my glasses off and roll down the eyecups. They need to be rolled down to get the full view. A little work but it's worth it.)
It's kind of like going bald. When it started falling out I tried the Rogaine until I realized that was snake oil (and growing hair on my palms). Once I accepted being bald it quit bothering me and now wouldn't go back to hair.