HighNorth
Well-known member
SV 8x32. "King of Kings in Binoculars"
Ever considered a job as a marketing representative for Swarovski? :smoke:
SV 8x32. "King of Kings in Binoculars"
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.
What I would use to bird with in the time being that would even come close though?Send them yours to test and see what they say.o
Try an M7,,,,,What I would use to bird with in the time being that would even come close though?
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.Try an M7,,,,,
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.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 ;-)
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 ;-)
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.
Goodness, a rather poor showing for the price they cost.
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.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."
....... 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.
....... .
" 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."
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.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.