Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

SE 8x32's beat both Swarovski 8x32 and 8x42 EL's IMO

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 5 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Wednesday 25th May 2011, 23:05   #1
CSG
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 537
SE 8x32's beat both Swarovski 8x32 and 8x42 EL's IMO

I stopped by a local shop today with the idea of picking up some waterproof roofs and figured I'd work top down comparing the images to my SE's. The short of it was that I felt the SE's out performed not only the 8x32 EL's but the larger 8x42's as well. I was checking for image clarity, edge sharpness, resolution, and overall ease of operation.

The store clerk, a guy who owns some 8x32 EL's stated that he thought the edge sharpness was superior on the EL's and suggested focusing on the edge and then moving the bin to center and check the focus. The EL's weren't even close in that regard. They also were dimmer and didn't snap as easily as the SE's. The clerk pointed me towards a dark upstairs hall where he said the Swaros would show me much more detail on some stacked boxes. I didn't think either of them showed a brighter image than the SE's and saw more detail with the SE's too on the darkend box labels.

I'd always figured the SE's were good based on what others have said but I was surprised at how much better I felt they were to the Swaros. I also noted significant rolling on a pair of 10x42 (non-Swarovision) when panning. You can alleviate it some by rotating the eye cups in a bit but all in all, I was re-impressed with just how amazing the SE's are.

Have I missed something in this comparo that maybe others of you have made?
CSG is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2011, 00:27   #2
brocknroller
Registered User
 
brocknroller's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central PA
Posts: 5,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSG View Post
I stopped by a local shop today with the idea of picking up some waterproof roofs and figured I'd work top down comparing the images to my SE's. The short of it was that I felt the SE's out performed not only the 8x32 EL's but the larger 8x42's as well. I was checking for image clarity, edge sharpness, resolution, and overall ease of operation.

The store clerk, a guy who owns some 8x32 EL's stated that he thought the edge sharpness was superior on the EL's and suggested focusing on the edge and then moving the bin to center and check the focus. The EL's weren't even close in that regard. They also were dimmer and didn't snap as easily as the SE's. The clerk pointed me towards a dark upstairs hall where he said the Swaros would show me much more detail on some stacked boxes. I didn't think either of them showed a brighter image than the SE's and saw more detail with the SE's too on the darkend box labels.

I'd always figured the SE's were good based on what others have said but I was surprised at how much better I felt they were to the Swaros. I also noted significant rolling on a pair of 10x42 (non-Swarovision) when panning. You can alleviate it some by rotating the eye cups in a bit but all in all, I was re-impressed with just how amazing the SE's are.

Have I missed something in this comparo that maybe others of you have made?
Thank you for that eye opening comparison. I was rooting for the ELs on the darkened label boxes (full size, anyway), but no go.

Well, after people paid an arm and a leg and several toes for their SV ELs (is that what you were comparing in the 8.5xs, or was that also a pre-SV?) expect a number of naysayers to follow (maybe before I even finish this post and I was the first to reply when I started this post five minutes ago, but got interrupted by squirrels wanting some peanuts).

Never saw this level of fervor with the pre-SV EL, but the SV EL is developing a devotee cult following similar to Leica Trinnie owners.

Next will come the 64x booster and the resolution charts and the light curves for the second round of more rational denials. Yes, I've seen all this before when someone had the audacity to propose that an "old" porrosuarus was just as good (or, catch me before I faint, even better) than the Y2K? alpha numerics.

I sat down to do some ciphering and gosundas and figured out that to get the performance of my 8x30 EII or 8x32 SE in a roof, I would need to need to pay more than double the cost of both!

I confess that there were times that I almost got caught up the Great Alpha Syndrome, aka G.A.S., where you max your credit card to buy the "latest and greatest" or "do the Dennis" and sell almost all your bins to purchase the Binocular of the Month.

In fact, this recently happened with an offer to buy an EDG I at a relatively nice price - only only three SE's worth of pig's feet jars (I'm still waiting to hear from the store owner if the focuser stays down or gets stuck in the spin cycle).

Today was the first sunny day in two weeks, so despite it being "crunch time" at work, I went out at lunch for about 20 minutes and took the SE to see if I was ready to say goodbye. I scrunched the eyecups in real close at close distance just to make it uncomfortable, but I must have hit a couple flat spots on the eyecups where they were not flared so my nose wasn't pinched.

I took them into the nearby woods so I could be dissatisfied over how dim they seemed in the forest, but they weren't. Saw a female cardinal and the detail was fine.

I also purposely induced blackouts by not keeping a perfect circle, and managed to do so, but as soon as I changed distances the blackouts disappeared since the circle was perfect again.

I probably should have taken along the 8x30 EII with me, which would have made me miss the wide FOV and brighter colors in the SE. But the nice thing about the more muted colors in the SE is that on sunny days, you are not "blinded by the light" (dressed up like a dude, another wanderer in the night, or another "douche in the night" if you're Manfred Mann :-). See Holger's comment about this in the Meopta 8x32 vs. 8x30 EII review.

So I think, for now at least, my bout of G.A.S has passed like a partially digested Bloomin' Onion.

I'll believe you about the image clarity, edge sharpness, and resolution, but for overall ease of operation, the SE has its issues, as I've pointed out above.

But so does the 8x32 EL - blackouts and CA, and pre-SV 8.5x EL - hard to turn focuser in one direction on some samples and having to pop up and push down the focuser cap, which I find uneasy. And while both have a better than average 3-D effect (something you didn't mention), the SE still beat them.

However, I suggest that you don't make any more superlative statements about the 8x32 SE, because last time this happened on BF, the price shot up from $499 to $725 on Amazon!

Brock Ignatius

Last edited by brocknroller : Thursday 26th May 2011 at 03:17.
brocknroller is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2011, 00:55   #3
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pileatus View Post
A good 8X32 SE is sharper than either the 8X32 or 8.5X42 Swarovskis. I've logged countless hours on my 8X32 SE and compared it to more than one Swarovski. The Swarovision 8.5X42, however, is as good as the SE. The SV reveals less CA and is easier on the eye than the SE but I still think the SE is its equal in the field. I bought the SV as a backup to my SE, not a replacement. Both receive a lot of use.
Agree with what you say but the flat field and absolutely sharp edges of the Swarovsion to me make it superior to the SE. Plus as you say the SV is easier on the eyes, whereas, the SE can be fussy and the SV is waterproof and fogproof and dustproof. Big advantage. The SV is the best binoculars I have seen yet.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2011, 02:23   #4
karmantra
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 407
Hasn't this issue been beaten up enough already without bringing it up again?
karmantra is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2011, 02:29   #5
CSG
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 537
The comparison was to non-SV Swaros. While the newest, latest, greatest 8.5x42 SV Swaro might be better, that's not what I was comparing these to. Considering the SV's run well north of $2000 wouldn't one *hope* they were better?

As for me, I've realized, finally, that the Nikon SE 8x32's are *my* dream birding binoculars after all. Unlike some here, I'm not interested in chasing rainbows and I'm not into birding enough to spend four times the price to get something that *might* be as good because it's waterproof. FWIW, there is NO "rolling ball" effect with the SE's like the SV's are reported to have by most of the reviews and discussion I've read. As I said, I saw it with the 10x42 EL's which were non-SV.

However, there is no question, none, that the SE's are significantly better optically than the three EL's I tested them against. It really wasn't close which surprised me. Matter of fact, I looked through the Vortex Razor 10x42's and I couldn't detect that the Swaro 10x42's were any better for about twice the price. The Razors would probably be my choice in a 10x42.

YMMV.
CSG is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2011, 02:30   #6
CSG
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmantra View Post
Hasn't this issue been beaten up enough already without bringing it up again?
Not to me, thanks. This is new stuff for me but you can feel free to skip topics that don't interest you rather than make a rather pointless comment.
CSG is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2011, 02:50   #7
John Dracon
John Dracon

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: White Sulphur Springs, Montana
Posts: 908
CSG - What you experienced is what happens when most people first look through an SE.
John
John Dracon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2011, 02:56   #8
CSG
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 537
John, I'd bought these online 4-5 years ago based on the reports I'd read. A couple of times I'd compared them the the Big Three alphas over at Sportsman's Warehouse and they seemed to hold their own but today we did a closer comparison and it just really surprised me that they are that good. Previously, I used bins primarily for astronomy but now, with a few years of birding under my belt, I feel better equipped to draw these sorts of conclusions. I can tell you all about telescopes but bins were always 7x50 or 10x50's for casual Milky Way sweeping. Birding is a whole other deal!
CSG is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2011, 03:20   #9
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmantra View Post
Hasn't this issue been beaten up enough already without bringing it up again?
Yes, most certainly, but the nature of the optics obsession is that the same comparisons get made over and over and over again. SE owners seem particularly in need of reassurance but no one's completely immune.

Last edited by fugl : Thursday 26th May 2011 at 13:54.
fugl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 26th May 2011, 11:47   #10
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSG View Post
The comparison was to non-SV Swaros. While the newest, latest, greatest 8.5x42 SV Swaro might be better, that's not what I was comparing these to. Considering the SV's run well north of $2000 wouldn't one *hope* they were better?

As for me, I've realized, finally, that the Nikon SE 8x32's are *my* dream birding binoculars after all. Unlike some here, I'm not interested in chasing rainbows and I'm not into birding enough to spend four times the price to get something that *might* be as good because it's waterproof. FWIW, there is NO "rolling ball" effect with the SE's like the SV's are reported to have by most of the reviews and discussion I've read. As I said, I saw it with the 10x42 EL's which were non-SV.

However, there is no question, none, that the SE's are significantly better optically than the three EL's I tested them against. It really wasn't close which surprised me. Matter of fact, I looked through the Vortex Razor 10x42's and I couldn't detect that the Swaro 10x42's were any better for about twice the price. The Razors would probably be my choice in a 10x42.

YMMV.
If you get a chance try the SV's. I think you will be surprised how much better they are than the old Swarovski's and the Nikon SE's. They are quite a bit better than the old SE's or the EII's. The biggest advantage is the totally sharp edges and the totally easy view. You can roll your eyes around in the FOV looking at birds at the edge without moving the binoculars. Big advantage on Warblers in trees. Also, I have been able to find small birds in heavy underbrush areas easier than I could with my SE's. They just seem to pop out at you and I am not sure how they do it. Like magic. They truly improved my birding.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2011, 13:29   #11
Kammerdiner
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 1,779
This is getting a bit silly. The two main SE proponents have evidently never looked through an SV, much less had both on hand for a comparison. And the main SV proponent sold his SE months ago and can't do an actual comparison either. In the absence of a direct comparison there's not much to say in my opinion--they are just too close to arrive at any worthwhile judgment.

I've had both on hand for months now. So here's my scorecard so far, bearing in mind that with few exceptions these are very fine distinctions:

Sharpness: tie, taking into account the difference in mag. You can see a bit more detail with the SV, but the SE doesn't seem any less "sharp" for that.

Edges: SV, but not a big deal.

CA: SV, and it's significant, if it's significant to you, and it is to me.

Ease of View: SV, and this may be the biggest difference. That "roam around" ability is addictive. The SE feels less open, narrower, even though the FOV is basically the same. Roam around an SE and you're cruisin' for blackouts. The SV has taken the "transparent binocular" to new heights.

Brightness: SV, but the SE is obviously no slouch.

Color: tie, they're a little different but not enough to care about.

Contrast: tough to tell. In backlit situations I'll give the SV the nod, otherwise call it a tie for now.

Flare/glare: jury's still out.

Handling: for whatever reason/s, I can hold the SV steadier. They both feel great in hand.

Focus: SV I guess, because it's quicker, but not a big deal to me. They both focus.

Diopter: picking nits here. The SE can wander, the SV locks.

Waterproof: too easy.

Close focus: too easy again. The SV wins by at least five feet and for the most part you don't have to keep fiddling with IPD like you do with the SE.

Price:

Have I missed anything?

So overall, I like the SV better. It's my new first choice. Haven't decided whether to sell the SE or not. It'll get less use now, I know that much.

So that's my take on the whole brouhaha,
Mark
Kammerdiner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2011, 14:54   #12
CSG
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 537
Having not seen the SV version of the EL's I can't comment. This comparison was against non-SV EL's. The thing is, I paid $550 for the SE's and the SV's are what, $2200-2300? Wouldn't you hope they were better all around? Of course, I would have hoped the same for the non-SV EL's.
CSG is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2011, 15:42   #13
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LY+DG counties, Kansas, USA
Posts: 3,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSG View Post
... Wouldn't you hope they were better all around?...
That is the salient question when it comes to birding binoculars.

The SE is unquestionably an optically superb bin, and depending on the sort of birding one does, might be the obvious choice. But when birding in the cold its focuser gets stiff, and its focus ratio is such that it is on the slow side regardless, and it doesn't hug the body well when you do a lot of rough and tumble brush-busting, and it is kind of bulky for an 8x32, so, for me, something like even the 8x32 EL, especially with the rain-shedding lens coatings, ends up being the better all-around birding binocular because I enjoy chasing groups of wood warblers and sparrows through dense foliage in forests and brushy areas, sometimes during light spring and fall rains. What I'm trying to point out is that it is a mistake to think that the popularity and desirability of the alpha roofs is because of their optical superiority. They are among the best, but not necessarily overwhelmingly the best, in that respect.

--AP
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2011, 15:48   #14
Sancho
Registered User
 
Sancho's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 8,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kammerdiner View Post
So overall, I like the SV better. It's my new first choice. Haven't decided whether to sell the SE or not. It'll get less use now, I know that much.

So that's my take on the whole brouhaha,
Mark
Agree 99% with Mark. Had SV and SE together for a few months and was able to make comparisons. The 1% where I'm not sure, is flare. There were evening bright winter sun situations where the SE exhibited practically no flare at all, but the SV's showed minor amounts. CA in the SE's was greater, but really not an issue.

An extra consideration is service. I don't know about the States, but in Europe, Nikon service isn't great, and it's expensive to get an assessment. Swarovski service is unbeatable. (Like Opticron's.)

We'll be comparing these two fine binos for years, which is a credit to both of them. Whether you own SE's or SV's, you have some of the finest optical instruments available to mere mortals. No point in us arguing over which is "best", they're both superb but different; you makes yer choice and you pays yer money, they're only tubes with glass in for seeing faraway stuff.

(Mind you, I prefer EII's to SE's. When I compared the SE to SV, the SV won on sharpness, by a whisker or two. But comparing EII to SV, looking at the centre of the FOV, I'm finding it really hard to see a difference in sharpness. Maybe that's just me, though.)

Last edited by Sancho : Thursday 26th May 2011 at 16:01.
Sancho is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 26th May 2011, 16:31   #15
brocknroller
Registered User
 
brocknroller's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central PA
Posts: 5,581
Kammerdiner wrote: "In the absence of a direct comparison there's not much to say in my opinion--they are just too close to arrive at any worthwhile judgment...

I've had both on hand for months now. So here's my scorecard so far, bearing in mind that with few exceptions these are very fine distinctions..."

Mark, I think that says a mouthful and no less from the "horse's mouth"! Thank you for that blow by blow comparison. It relieved some more G.A.S. :-)

Again, I do not have to see the SV EL to know that it has better features than the SE. The ED glass/lower CA, close focus, WP/FP, etc. are all noted in the specs/description. The biggest difference, as you have stated yourself, is what's not on the spec sheet, and that's the better ease of view. That rings a bell for me.

"That "roam around" ability is addictive. The SE feels less open, narrower, even though the FOV is basically the same."

I find that's also true in comparing the 8x32 SE with the 8x32 HG and 8x30 SLC, both of which have around the same TFOV. It's partly a roof thang, the apparent FOV seems larger to me in roofs just as the apparent image size does, and partly due to the SE's blackout issues, which doesn't allow you look at the edges (at least not while turning your eyes, you can move the edges over to the center of your eyes). That's a liability with the SE. What's the point in having great edge sharpness if you dart your eyes to the edges to see a bird and get image blackouts? To get closer to the ease of view of view of the roofs, I have to use the 8x30 EII. But even there, if I dart my eyes to the horizontal edges, I experience image blackouts.

CSG wrote: "The thing is, I paid $550 for the SE's and the SV's are what, $2200-2300? Wouldn't you hope they were better all around? Of course, I would have hoped the same for the non-SV EL's."

BINGO! You hit the nail on the proverbial head! My point all along. For those with deep pockets, it's a "mute" point not worth talking about.

But for birders on a budget who still want the best possible view for their hard earned, inflated dollars, those "fine distinctions" in performance come at too steep a premium. Even if you had held the SV EL, rather than the pre-SV EL, up to their eyes, weren't bothered by the "waving mustache effect," and were wowed by the view, if you are like me, you'd have to scrimp and save to buy one and probably make some sacrifices in the process

"Hamburger Helper again, honey?"
"Well, you're the one who wanted to buy $2,400 binoculars, I had to cut back on something."

Yeah, maybe a Stepford wife. :-)

Anyway, I feel like a Datsun 240 Z owner on a sports car forum that's dominated by Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Porsche Carrera GT owners.

Wish they had a forum for porro owners/fans.

Brock

Last edited by brocknroller : Thursday 26th May 2011 at 17:15.
brocknroller is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2011, 18:12   #16
CSG
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 537
Alexis brings up some salient points. If I birded similarly, I think I'd make a trade off for high end waterproof roofs even if I thought the optics of the SE were better. The best optics are *not* the be all and end all of how one chooses bins. But I'm a casual, fair weather birder that does 70% or better of my birding in my own backyard (three acres of trees and pasture in the high desert). We're a sanctuary by default. I don't travel to go birding but I bird when I travel. Many times, I'm completely satisfied with the Zeiss 10x25 Victorys because of their small size, light weight (I keep them around my neck resting in my shirt pocket), and weatherproof nature. They don't compare to the SE's optically, of course, but they offer other features that make them my most used bins when out and about.

If you bird in the rain or other harsh conditions I suspect the SE line is *not* the best overall choice and would opt for one of the Big Three's alphas even if their optics are no better or a bit worse than the SE's. And if you didn't have the funds for those I think most birders would not hate their lives using Monarchs, Vortexes, EO Rangers, etc. They all seem to have very acceptable optics for their price; maybe what, 85-90% of the alphas? And, of course, offer solid construction and weather proofing.

But damn, those SE's are sweet!
CSG is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2011, 20:22   #17
Kammerdiner
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 1,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by brocknroller View Post
Mark, I think that says a mouthful and no less from the "horse's mouth"! Thank you for that blow by blow comparison. It relieved some more G.A.S. :-)


"Hamburger Helper again, honey?"
"Well, you're the one who wanted to buy $2,400 binoculars, I had to cut back on something."


Wish they had a forum for porro owners/fans.

Brock
I thought this WAS a forum for porro fans, and I count myself among them.

Glad you can rest easy now, Brock. You knew you could anyway.

So in the end, the main difference for me is that big, easy, ultra-clean view of the SV. As I said, it's addictive, and useful.

As for the cost, you might be surprised how cheap I am in other areas of life like electronic technology, new vehicles, etc. I don't even own a cell phone. Expanded cable interests me not a jot (what's the difference between a dozen stations of dumb and 500? 488 stations of dumb). My TV, honestly, dates to 1989--there's a date of manufacture sticker on the back that says so. I buy used cars and let someone else take the hit. The way I figure it, I've got my priorities straight and everyone else is going broke paying for the dumb stuff.

Mark
Kammerdiner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2011, 21:55   #18
Sancho
Registered User
 
Sancho's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 8,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kammerdiner View Post
.....you might be surprised how cheap I am in other areas of life like electronic technology, new vehicles, etc. I don't even own a cell phone.......My TV, honestly, dates to 1989--there's a date of manufacture sticker on the back that says so. I buy used cars and let someone else take the hit. The way I figure it, I've got my priorities straight and everyone else is going broke paying for the dumb stuff.

Mark
Wow! Major Respect to you, Mark! I was proud of my 12-year old car, but a 22-year old TV and no mobile phone! Brilliant, you're living proof that the cell-phone is not a life-support machine!

Anyways. I hope the OP let's us know his ultimate decision, and after-purchase opinion. Have a good weekend folks!
Sancho is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 27th May 2011, 00:50   #19
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
Wow! Major Respect to you, Mark! I was proud of my 12-year old car, but a 22-year old TV and no mobile phone! Brilliant, you're living proof that the cell-phone is not a life-support machine!

Anyways. I hope the OP let's us know his ultimate decision, and after-purchase opinion. Have a good weekend folks!
Let me summarize this whole thread. If you have the money the SV is the best all around binocular especially if you use your binoculars in the rain or near water. If you don't bird in the rain very much and you can't afford to spend $2300.00 on binoculars then your next best option are the Nikon 8x32SE or EII's. The SV's have slightly better optics than the SE or EII and they are waterproof so if you can afford them it's a no brainer that they are the best all around binocular. If you can't afford them you buy the Nikon SE and don't get them soaking wet. It's as easy as that!
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 27th May 2011, 01:59   #20
CSG
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
Anyways. I hope the OP let's us know his ultimate decision, and after-purchase opinion. Have a good weekend folks!
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.
CSG is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 27th May 2011, 02:41   #21
brocknroller
Registered User
 
brocknroller's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central PA
Posts: 5,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSG View Post
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.
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! :-)

Last edited by brocknroller : Friday 27th May 2011 at 02:55.
brocknroller is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 27th May 2011, 03:11   #22
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSG View Post
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.
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.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 27th May 2011, 04:38   #23
Kammerdiner
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 1,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by brocknroller View Post
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! :-)
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
Kammerdiner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 27th May 2011, 05:10   #24
CSG
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 537
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.
CSG is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 27th May 2011, 11:27   #25
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kammerdiner View Post
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
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.

Last edited by [email protected] : Friday 27th May 2011 at 11:32.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Swarovski 8x32 EL's vs Leica 8x42 Ultravid. nature elvis Swarovski 5 Saturday 19th March 2011 16:12
Swarovski EL's NDhunter Swarovski 1 Friday 19th February 2010 04:29
Swarovski EL 8x32 versus Zeiss FL 8x42 [email protected] Swarovski 4 Tuesday 19th July 2005 00:08
New Swarovski 32 EL's william j clive Swarovski 5 Thursday 21st October 2004 14:08

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.31413794 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:35.