SE 8x32's beat both Swarovski 8x32 and 8x42 EL's IMO (1 Viewer)

CSG said:

I'm the OP. I thought I made my opinion quite clear. My decision a few years ago was the Nikon SE and this thread was to point out that they still are better optically than the non-SV Swaros. As I haven't looked at the SV Swaros I can't comment there other than there's no way in hell I'd spend over four times the price for bins that might be as good that add being waterproof and maybe the ability to allow your eyes to wander some. However, the oft reported rolling ball, which I saw in the previous generation too, is enough that they would not be in the running were I looking to replace the SE's. My choice would be Zeiss 8x32 FL's.

Click to expand...

In that case, get out your checkbook or plastic, because Doug at Cameraland is selling some overstocked 8x32 FL demos for $1299.99 while supplies last. That's just $199.99 over twice the price of your SEs.

I missed out on the even steeper discount when he was selling the non-Loutec version for $799. Hey, for $799, I might learn to live with the astigmatism at the edges if they gave me as good a view in the central 2/3 of the field as my 8x30 EII and if I could hold them as steady.

But at the 8x32 FL's regular price of $1849.99, I'd rather buy a high end scope or maybe put a down payment on Mark's 12-year-old Porsche Boxster.

Brock

P.S. No cell phone either, and I just moved from dial up to DSL last year after lightening fried my dial up modem. My TV is so old (at least 20 years) that when my cable company went digital, I had to use two remotes, because my old TV is not compatible with some of the functions on the new digital remote control. My car was a 1986 Olds Cutless Sierra, but I sold it to buy a 10x35 EII. I guess that trumps Mark's frugality!

CSG said:

I'm the OP. I thought I made my opinion quite clear. My decision a few years ago was the Nikon SE and this thread was to point out that they still are better optically than the non-SV Swaros. As I haven't looked at the SV Swaros I can't comment there other than there's no way in hell I'd spend over four times the price for bins that might be as good that add being waterproof and maybe the ability to allow your eyes to wander some. However, the oft reported rolling ball, which I saw in the previous generation too, is enough that they would not be in the running were I looking to replace the SE's. My choice would be Zeiss 8x32 FL's.

Click to expand...

Bad mistake! The SV's are quite a bit better than the Zeiss 8x32 FL's. Rolling ball is a non issue. I sold my Zeiss 8x32 FL's after I bought the SV's. If you haven't looked at them don't make a decision like that. Just look at E-bay and see what binocular is selling the fastest! The SV's. All those people aren't fools. The SV's are better than the Zeiss. Go compare them in the store. You will be shocked.

brocknroller said:

In that case, get out your checkbook or plastic, because Doug at Cameraland is selling some overstocked 8x32 FL demos for $1299.99 while supplies last. That's just $199.99 over twice the price of your SEs.

But at the 8x32 FL's regular price of $1849.99, I'd rather buy a high end scope or maybe put a down payment on Mark's 12-year-old Porsche Boxster.

Brock

P.S. No cell phone either, and I just moved from dial up to DSL last year after lightening fried my dial up modem. My TV is so old (at least 20 years) that when my cable company went digital, I had to use two remotes, because my old TV is not compatible with some of the functions on the new digital remote control. My car was a 1986 Olds Cutless Sierra, but I sold it to buy a 10x35 EII. I guess that trumps Mark's frugality!

Click to expand...

1986 Cutless?!? I think my mom had one of those once (really). I'm frugal--only owned three cars and a truck since I got my license in 1977--but I ain't drivin' no Cutless. The Boxster/Cayman will be my downfall. I'm still driving a 1987 944.

My wife got the DSL. I was just sponging off the network at work till then.

Now to business: $1299 for a Fl 8x32. Snap it up because that's pretty good. That's my #1 travel bin.

Yes, the SE's are better, but you find yourself not wanting to fiddle with them for travel. Yes the SV's are better, but also bigger, bulkier, heavier.

Mark

Dennis, your rep precedes you. ;o)

I'm not in the market at all. And yes, the rolling ball is an issue, a big one.

Kammerdiner said:

1986 Cutless?!? I think my mom had one of those once (really). I'm frugal--only owned three cars and a truck since I got my license in 1977--but I ain't drivin' no Cutless. The Boxster/Cayman will be my downfall. I'm still driving a 1987 944.

My wife got the DSL. I was just sponging off the network at work till then.

Now to business: $1299 for a Fl 8x32. Snap it up because that's pretty good. That's my #1 travel bin.

Yes, the SE's are better, but you find yourself not wanting to fiddle with them for travel. Yes the SV's are better, but also bigger, bulkier, heavier.

Mark

Click to expand...

Agree totally with you Mark. Our eyes must be similar. The Zeiss 8x32 FL is my favorite travel binocular. Waterproof and you don't have to mess with it. But I am down to only one so it's the SV. It's a little better but not as light. And yes that is a good price on a Zeiss 8x32 FL especially for Lotutec. You will not beat it.

CSG said:

Dennis, your rep precedes you. ;o)

I'm not in the market at all. And yes, the rolling ball is an issue, a big one.

Click to expand...

I simply don't notice the rolling ball issue. I would try them first though before you decide when you get in the market. It may not be an issue for you. The transparency of the SV's is something to behold.

[email protected] said:

I simply don't notice the rolling ball issue.

Click to expand...

Not so long ago you wrote here you didn't notice the stabilization artifacts of the Canon IS binoculars and they didn't exist.

A couple of weeks later you told everyone you got rid of the Canon IS because the stabilization artifacts got to you.

It's all a bit strange, don't you think?

Hermann

Hermann,

I don't think anyone will accuse Dennis of being too consistent. Here he is just two months ago on his "King of Beasts" thread.

"I managed to compare the Zeiss 8x56 FL in the store to a Swarovision 8.5x42 all under the artificial light inside the store. The big Zeiss is definitely sharper on-axis than the Swarovision and had better contrast to my eyes.The Zeiss was more transparent in the center of the field giving more of the feeling that there was no lens between you and the object you are viewing.The only advantage I could see with the Swarovision was the edge sharpness which was superior to the Zeiss and almost anything else. The big Zeiss's on-axis sharpness is uncanny being like Henry said a high quality APO scope like a Takahashi. I feel it is the best view I have seen through any binocular including the Swarovision. I personally much preferred the view through the big Zeiss and I feel it would be superior in other ways once outside like glare control because of the big 7mm exit pupil. I felt there was just more abberations in the Swarovision because of the Zeiss's aperture and focal length advantage and you notice it in the on-axis view. Surprised me. It is interesting what an advantage focal length and aperture can be in a binocular.
Some other observations about the two binoculars. The focus is really similar on both being about the same feel and tension. I really don't know what all the hoopla about the new Swarovision is the only big difference I noticed was the off-axis sharpness which has improved. The Swarovision looks about the same as the old Swarovski's. The Swarovision is very bright for a 42mm binocular but the on-axis view reminded you more than the Zeiss that you were looking through a binocular. The Zeiss seems like there is no lens in front of your eyes but rather you are just closer to the object you are looking at with less aberations. What I really noticed is how much steadier I could hold the big Zeiss because I have never directly compared two different binoculars of different weight. The Swarovision shook all over the place even at 8x. Not to detract from the Swarovision it is an excellent 42mm binocular but it hard to compete with a 56mm in the optics arena."

Oddly enough, I made a similar comparison between those two binoculars yesterday and reached similar conclusions. Maybe the "King" was dumped a little too quickly.

Henry

I don't understand the comments about the SE not being a good travel bin because you'd have to somehow mess with them?!?!?

Mine have traveled with me in my rig for 4-5 years and all I remember is putting them in the case and tossing them in the Land Cruiser or my Traverse camping van. No messing required.

I also take my Zeiss 10x25 Victorys for hiking. Don't mess with them either.

Dennis, while I appreciate your enthusiasm and ever changing best-binocular-of-the-week choices, you're a little like the boy who cried wolf. However, the point of this thread was to give my opinion that with the somewhat limited side by side comparisons of the Swaros I did compare to, I felt the Nikon SE's were superior optically and by an amount that surprised me.

Enjoy your current bins.

And yes, there are focusing artifacts with the Canon IS 10x30's I own, always have been, but the trade-off is worthwhile. They're just a little fiddly so not my primary bins. But they are, all in all, amazing.

henry link said:

.... "The big Zeiss's on-axis sharpness is uncanny being like Henry said a high quality APO scope like a Takahashi. I feel it is the best view I have seen through any binocular including the Swarovision....."


Oddly enough, I made a similar comparison between those two binoculars yesterday and reached similar conclusions. Maybe the "King" was dumped a little too quickly.

Henry

Click to expand...

Oh the horror! You're a cruel one Henry!o

RJM said:

Oh the horror! You're a cruel one Henry!o

Click to expand...

I think Dennis should send Henry his chiropractor bills as compensation for being duped into buying that heavy monstrosity!

Okay, now ante up $10, we're starting a pool to see how long it takes Dennis to make an about face on the SV EL and return it to buy the next "latest and greatest" ONE BIN. I'm going with 32 days.

I doubt anyone would call me inconsistent, if anything I'm a broken record, but I did get G.A.S. (Great Alpha Syndrome) momentarily after trying an older model 8.5x EL.

I think I posted that it was the best roof I've ever tried or some such superlative. After using it for awhile, my opinion changed. I think I was more in love with the idea of owning an EL than actually using one.

After all, as a big handed birder, whose hands are a bit too shaky to hold 10x, 8.5x seemed to hit the sweet spot in magnification like my 804 Audubon, and like the Audubon, the old EL was big, bulky, and heavy. Plenty of weight to dampen bad vibes. However, a few days of carrying it around my neck and I was starting to develop Dowager's hump.

The view didn't seem as "easy" as my Audubons, and the image had a slight yellow-green bias like my nearly two decades older Audubons. The resolution wasn't any better (though I tested only by eyeball), and the focuser was very hard to turn in one direction, it took two fingers to turn. It also lacked the 3-D perspective of my Audubon. On the plus side, the eyecups were very comfortable, but so are the 804's.

I also found that I had to reset the diopter much more often than the Audubon's, which is pretty much "set and forget". The EL was more like 10x bins, where I need to reset the diopter at various distances. And each time I had to pop out the focuser knob, reset the diopter, and pop it back in (by which time, the bird was usually gone).

I had an 8x30 SLCneu on loan at the same time, and I found myself using that a lot more when I was out and about than the heavier EL. I had to reset the diopter on the SLC too, because of the fast focuser (the old EL's was very slow) and more compressed view, but with the push in and turn diopter adjustment, it was a lot easier.

Optics wise, the SLC wasn't quite as sharp as the EL, but the overall image quality was better and it even seemed brighter during the daytime due to the updated lens and prism coatings and more neutral color. The edge sharpness was also better in the SLC. The only bugger was the ring finger focuser, which was a bit unwieldy for me.

By the time I sent the EL back, I had a different opinion of it than I first had and wished I had waited longer before posting any comments (at least until after it was sold .

So I guess I can sympathize with Dennis' alpha fever deliriums, but being a poor porromaniac makes me less prone to G.A.S.

Brock

CSG said:

I'm the OP. I thought I made my opinion quite clear. My decision a few years ago was the Nikon SE and this thread was to point out that they still are better optically than the non-SV Swaros.

Click to expand...

My apologies, CSG, no offence intended. I got mixed up between threads, thinking that this was one by a poster asking for opinions of SV v. SE. I ommited to scroll to the beginning of this one to re-read you original post. I do agree that the SE are optically better than the original EL's (and I owned the 8x, 8.5x and 10x at various times).

Sorry, if my comment sounded a bit shrill as it wasn't meant to be and no offense was taken.

CSG said:

Sorry, if my comment sounded a bit shrill as it wasn't meant to be and no offense was taken.

Click to expand...

Phew!:t:

karmantra said:

Hasn't this issue been beaten up enough already without bringing it up again?

Click to expand...

No, we haven't even brought the 8x30 EII into this discussion yet.

Because we aren't talking about the EII's?

CSG said:

I don't understand the comments about the SE not being a good travel bin because you'd have to somehow mess with them?!?!?

Click to expand...

My wife wears contacts, I wear glasses, but I can't get her to carry her own bins, not even the tiny 8x20 Ultravids (she's not a confirmed birder, but always wants a look). So when we travel, the SE's with those stupid rubber eyecups stay home. Who wants to mess with them? Even with glasses I have to roll them just halfway down to avoid blackouts. Least user-friendly eyepieces in history. Useless for sharing. But when she spotted a Wrentit before I did a few months ago (a first for both of us) I'm glad we could share the little FL without delay. Wrentits won't wait for you to play with your binoculars.

Okay, it's not the apocalypse, but I just don't travel with the fussy SE's.

PS: and indeed my earlier comment would have been clearer had I explained it better.

Ah, I see where that can be an issue.

While I wear glasses too, I generally push them up when using bins. But I do agree that rubber eyecups are a bit of a nuisance and much prefer twist up/down eyecups. With my Zeiss Victory 10x25's I almost always use them when outdoors with the cups down so I don't have to fuss with my sunglasses. I also have found myself not hiking with the SE's but that's more of a weight thing as the Zeiss are just over a third the weight of the SE's.

Part of the reason I was looking at the EL's was because it would be nice to have Nikon SE quality imaging with full waterproofing and twist eyecups. The problem was that the EL image was too far removed from the SE relative to the price for the EL's to even consider them. Too bad there's not an aftermarket solution for the rubber SE eyecups.

JanPB said:

No, we haven't even brought the 8x30 EII into this discussion yet.

Click to expand...

I have!

Sancho said:

(Mind you, I prefer EII's to SE's.)

Click to expand...

Do I win a prize?

CSG said:

Dennis, your rep precedes you. ;o)

I'm not in the market at all. And yes, the rolling ball is an issue, a big one.

Click to expand...

It was an issue for me too, therefore the SV's took a back seat to the SLC HD for me, in which I paid $1470 shipped. When a guy shells out $2300 for glass he's going to proclaim their greatness no matter what.