• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Simple question... (1 Viewer)

Try an M7,,,,,
HaHa! M7's didn't get one vote. A lot of Swarovski's though. I compared the M7 8x30 to my SV 8x32. Let's just say the M7 was quickly returned. I will say for $300 the M7 is a pretty good little binocular but it is not even close to the alpha's in any way. You get what you pay for.
 
The preferences may say much more about the members than the binoculars:

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/Page.aspx?pid=2674#topPicks

Granted, the Cornell testing was on x42s, but given the incredibly thin differences
and the strong showing of M5s and M7s, sometimes beating Alphas,
"not even close to the alpha's in any way" reads a bit ... histrionic.
There are probably many who would say their Alphas are better, but "not even close in any way"??
That's a wildly different claim.

Or....is the 8x30 M7 out of line in its line?
Once bindfolded, it is interesting how the wine experts vary in their assessments.

The article seems to suggest:
A) if you really want the best of the best,go large
B) differences are tiny
C) there can be no sweeping generalizations made about make and quality
D) interestingly enough, those that are detectably much better are over $2000

Meanwhile....back at the yacht club ;-)
 
Last edited:
The preferences may say much more about the members than the binoculars:

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/Page.aspx?pid=2674#topPicks

Granted, the Cornell testing was on x42s, but given the incredibly thin differences
and the strong showing of M5s and M7s, sometimes beating Alphas,
"not even close to the alpha's in any way" reads a bit ... histrionic.
There are probably many who would say their Alphas are better, but "not even close in any way"??
That's a wildly different claim.

Or....is the 8x30 M7 out of line in its line?
Once bindfolded, it is interesting how the wine experts vary in their assessments.

The article seems to suggest:
A) if you really want the best of the best,go large
B) differences are tiny
C) there can be no sweeping generalizations made about make and quality
D) interestingly enough, those that are detectably much better are over $2000

Meanwhile....back at the yacht club ;-)
I compared the M7's 8x30 head to head with the Sv 8x32. They are not even close to the SV's. Take my word for it. The differences are more than tiny. HaHa. Here is a cut away of the SV. Do you think the M7 looks like that on the inside? I don't think so. You are comparing a $300 binocular and a $2200 binocular. If you think there is a tiny difference you are wrong. Comparing the M7 8x30 to the SV 8x32 is like comparing a Mogen David Concord wine to a David Arthur Old Vine. There is a LOT of difference but the uninformed or those with an untrained pallet probably would think the Mogen David better. Same way with binoculars it takes a good trained eye to appreciate a really fine alpha level binocular. For a lot of people the Mogen David is fine as is the M7. For others only an alpha will satisfy.
 

Attachments

  • Doorsnede Swar SV nr 1 boven en Swar SV 2 onder doc size.jpg
    Doorsnede Swar SV nr 1 boven en Swar SV 2 onder doc size.jpg
    115.4 KB · Views: 33
Last edited:
"
If you think there is a tiny difference you are wrong. Comparing the M7 8x30 to the SV 8x32 is like comparing a Mogen David Concord wine to a David Arthur Old Vine."

That truly exceeded my expectations for hyperbole. Now it has been an amusing day.
Don't worry about me..... you have counted all the Cornell testers as "Mogen David" people.

After Mogen David, I feel like I have to come up with something fun.
How about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Princess_and_the_Pea
The Princess And The Pea

Technically speaking, and ratings-wise, it's the closest analogy.
Some are especially perceptive. I'm on the move, following raptors,
drones, woodpeckers, nebulae, and coyotes. I don't have time
to see the last iota, and I know you cannot attain that iota over 100yds
without a haze filter and tripod. There is no "Alpha Air",no "Alpha Arms".
 
Last edited:
The preferences may say much more about the members than the binoculars:

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/Page.aspx?pid=2674#topPicks

Granted, the Cornell testing was on x42s, but given the incredibly thin differences
and the strong showing of M5s and M7s, sometimes beating Alphas,
"not even close to the alpha's in any way" reads a bit ... histrionic.
There are probably many who would say their Alphas are better, but "not even close in any way"??
That's a wildly different claim.

Or....is the 8x30 M7 out of line in its line?
Once bindfolded, it is interesting how the wine experts vary in their assessments.

The article seems to suggest:
A) if you really want the best of the best,go large
B) differences are tiny
C) there can be no sweeping generalizations made about make and quality
D) interestingly enough, those that are detectably much better are over $2000

Meanwhile....back at the yacht club ;-)

I agree completely
 
If likers of Monarch-7s are "Mogen David lovers",
I wonder what those who like Yosemite 6x30s in a pinch are ... eek.
Someday, I'll split a bottle of Muscatel with ya at the reservoir, Perterra. Cheers!

To moderate the defense, I will say the 8x42 M7s I tried were not my favorites.
They didn't carry out all 8 degrees crisply, likely due to simultaneously trying to be short
and wide-field. Then again,I was miffed at the assymetry of the fade-out on the
Swaro 8x30 CLs the other day. Bad assembly day? Dropped? Whatever,for $1000
I would expect something better,even dropped.
I am into edge-to-edge sharp these days, and any maker pushing length,fov, and weight
will pay at the edge. The Monarch 3s or the Prostaff 7s achieve more modest FOV
with extra length and have great fields. And....they aren't super, but they are nowhere
near trash. Now,hand me the Night Train bottle.
 
Last edited:
Allbinos tried to get an SV 8x32 for testing but they were all sold. If they found one it would easily beat the EDG and FL 8x32. I have had all three of them and I know which one is best.

Allbinos couldn't find one because they had all been bought by Dennis, trying to find one without a defective focuser.

Hermann
 
And the last handful of posts show that...
people's preferences actually do vary!

Today's favorites, for me, are the Swift Neptune 7x35s.
They had to have the focuser clamp upgraded a bit.
They are also 8 degrees, but their task is less difficult
than the M7s so the roll-off is smooth. The Meopta 6.5x32 MeoPros
take 8-deg all the way to the edge....but that's what 6.5x buys you.
The Meoptas are my go-to under 120ft.
All these fields and powers are consistent.
Most now prefer 8x to 6 or 7x. Many want 8 degrees.
M7 8x30sare 8.3. You get situational awareness.
They are for seeking things.
A little vignetting isn't very noticeable
if you are actually looking through the center,
and M7s are tough and smooth
and super-sharp where the eyes are sharp.

The OP was for owning just one, so 8 degrees is handy.
And a price under $500 could save your life in the third world.
 
Last edited:
I notice your reference to the Swift Neptune 7x35s. I have a Mark II, and it is a superb binocular, optically.
The bridge lacks rigidity when focusing, but with care full use, it is fine. It has quick detachable eye cups which when removed reveals a flat surface allowing eye glass wearers almost a full view of its 402 ft FOV. It is one of the old porros which demonstrate just how good the Japanese were in making porros 50 years ago. It also came with a beautiful leather case. I can understand why is is one of your favorites.
 
Based on all of the binoculars I have ever tried my choice would be Swarovski Swarovision 8x32.
That makes 6 votes for the SV 8x32. I think if more people could afford the SV and experience their truly astonishing optics for awhile it would be hard for them to go back to an M7. The SV really has amazing sharpness across the entire FOV which the less expensive binoculars can't duplicate. It seems even in the SV comparison to the new Zeiss SF's the SV's are getting the majority of votes especially in the optics department and the build quality. Here are some recent quotes from that thread.

" I find SV to be the winner of image quality(the image sharpness over the entire FOV is just amazing)"

"Swarovision 8x32 is probably the best candidate for a "if I could have only one binocular" I have ever experienced."
 
Last edited:
That makes 6 votes for the SV 8x32. I think if more people could afford the SV and experience their truly astonishing optics for awhile it would be hard for them to go back to an M7. The SV really has amazing sharpness across the entire FOV which the less expensive binoculars can't duplicate. It seems even in the SV comparison to the new Zeiss SF's the SV's are getting the majority of votes especially in the optics department and the build quality. Here are some recent quotes from that thread.

" I find SV to be the winner of image quality(the image sharpness over the entire FOV is just amazing)"

"Swarovision 8x32 is probably the best candidate for a "if I could have only one binocular" I have ever experienced."

Dennis,

Must be cherry picking time in Colorado again.

....... It seems even in the SV comparison to the new Zeiss SF's the SV's are getting the majority of votes especially in the optics department and the build quality.

You pulled that conclusion out of the air. If not, then what are the numbers and how did you go about compiling them? I've been reading the same posts and have not seen a trend where a majority of people who have compared are preferring the SV over the SF. You try to back it with examples that you cherry picked and stated out of context to skew what was said. Let's look at your examples as an example!


....... .
" I find SV to be the winner of image quality(the image sharpness over the entire FOV is just amazing)"

This quote to back up your conclusion that the SV is preferred over the SF was taken from a post by Swedpat after comparing a Zeiss SF 8X42 with a Swaro SV EL 8.5X42.

Here is the post ...

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3240504&postcount=125

You only quoted part of the sentence to overstate what was really being said in order to "pump" up your current brand. (Bolding of text added by me.)

Here is the complete sentence: " I find SV to be the winner of image quality(the image sharpness over the entire FOV is just amazing), but SF the binocular I likely had brought with me more often if I had both." The note then goes on to explain why.

To put it in more context and show the significance (or insignificance), there is a statement made earlier in the post saying the SV is the clear winner in edge sharpness but SF is not bad in that respect. There are trade-offs in optical design. You might have mentioned that little extra edge sharpness may be carrying a price. Swedpat did say "The wider AFOV of SF is noticeable". Umm, maybe that little bit of edge sharpness did not buy that much after all.


...............
"Swarovision 8x32 is probably the best candidate for a "if I could have only one binocular" I have ever experienced."

This is another quote from Swedpat but from a totally differerent thread. Here Swedpat was comparing the Swaro 8X32, 8.5X42 and the 10X42 with each other. The Zeiss SF was not ever mentioned, yet you decided to use this quote as an example of why the SV was better than the SF. That is misleading. There are actually two relevant posts.

Here is the first one .....
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3240542&postcount=9

Here is the second one with the quote ....
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3240625&postcount=11

Here is what was said about the edges of the SV 8X32 EL SV, the Swaro model you are pumping, especially the edge quality.

"8,5 and 10x42 both have an amazing image sharpness over the entire FOV. 8x32 is not as good at the edges."

How about presenting the issues in their proper perspective.
 
Last edited:
Dennis,

Must be cherry picking time in Colorado again.



You pulled that conclusion out of the air. If not, then what are the numbers and how did you go about compiling them? I've been reading the same posts and have not seen a trend where a majority of people who have compared are preferring the SV over the SF. You try to back it with examples that you cherry picked and stated out of context to skew what was said. Let's look at your examples as an example!




This quote to back up your conclusion that the SV is preferred over the SF was taken from a post by Swedpat after comparing a Zeiss SF 8X42 with a Swaro SV EL 8.5X42.

Here is the post ...

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3240504&postcount=125

You only quoted part of the sentence to overstate what was really being said in order to "pump" up your current brand. (Bold text added by me.)

Here is the complete sentence: " I find SV to be the winner of image quality(the image sharpness over the entire FOV is just amazing), but SF the binocular I likely had brought with me more often if I had both." The note then goes on to explain why.

To put it in more context and show the significance (or insignificance), there is a statement made earlier in the post saying the SV is the clear winner in edge sharpness but SF is not bad in that respect. There are trade-offs in optical design. You might have mentioned that little extra edge sharpness may be carrying a price. Swedpat did say "The wider AFOV of SF is noticeable". Umm, maybe that little bit of edge sharpness did not buy that much after all.




This is another quote from Swedpat but from a totally differerent thread. Here Swedpat was comparing the Swaro 8X32, 8.5X42 and the 10X42 with each other. The Zeiss SF was not ever mentioned, yet you decided to use this quote as an example of why the SV was better than the SF. That is misleading. There are actually two relevant posts.

Here is the first one .....
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3240542&postcount=9

Here is the second one with the quote ....
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3240625&postcount=11

Here is what was said about the edges of the SV 8X32 EL SV, the Swaro model you are pumping, especially the edge quality.

"8,5 and 10x42 both have an amazing image sharpness over the entire FOV. 8x32 is not as good at the edges."

How about presenting the issues in their proper perspective.
A lot of work to argue a losing battle. It looks like the SV 8x32 has received the most votes for the binocular most people would have if they could have only one binocular and price wasn't a criteria. The popular vote has spoken and I think that really means something when so many experts on Bird Forum would choose it. I was just pointing that out. I am not sure why you argue so vehemently against that point.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top