Swarovski EL 10x42 vs 10x50 (1 Viewer)

One of these days I will get an Alpha roof - still a long way from that day but of course I'm going to be thinking about it a lot while I save up the money. I'll be shooting for an EL, and I believe the 10x will work the best for me, but now I need to decide between the 42mm or 50mm objective

I'll try not to over-think this because I suspect it all comes down to simple preferences, but I just want to check to make sure there is not something I am missing...

Is it really just a matter of a little more light gathering ability in the 50mm vs a slightly lighter and smaller form factor in the 42mm? The 50mm seems to have a slight edge in field of view, but only marginally.

Or is there something more different in practice that people have noticed about the 50mm ELs that sets them apart from the 42mm ELs? It's hard to pass up the extra aperture of the 50mm - I suspect that the extra light gathering will make more a difference to my eyes that the extra weight will make for my hands.

If the weight and cost are not concerns everything else is nearly equal here, so I would go with the 10x50 because of its larger exit pupil. Not because of its brightness but because it gives your own pupils more room to maneuver inside the 5mm when they are small. This can be a good thing in difficult light conditions. And it might help you pick up the bird you are looking at quicker.

Bob

Echoing Bob, that 5 mm exit pupil should make looking through the bin luxuriously comfortable. The old 10x50 SLC had a small but dedicated following amongst birders for that reason. One disadvantage of that model was close focus, but the EL goes under 10 feet, so it should be awesome for all types of birding so long as you don't mind the weight and pack size.

--AP

Thanks for the guidance. Makes perfect sense. I forgot to mention - I intend on using the binoculars for stargazing too - which would pretty much make the 10x50 the winner. The extra 8mm aperture provides too much of a benefit to pass up.

This was also my indirect way of approaching the question of the Zeiss Victory 10x42 SF vs the Swarovski EL 10x50. Given my intended purposes, the extra aperture might provide an advantage in optical performance that would probably overwhelm any difference that results solely from a Brand A vs Brand B issue (setting aside ergonomics).

Saturninus said:

Thanks for the guidance. Makes perfect sense. I forgot to mention - I intend on using the binoculars for stargazing too - which would pretty much make the 10x50 the winner. The extra 8mm aperture provides too much of a benefit to pass up.

This was also my indirect way of approaching the question of the Zeiss Victory 10x42 SF vs the Swarovski EL 10x50. Given my intended purposes, the extra aperture might provide an advantage in optical performance that would probably overwhelm any difference that results solely from a Brand A vs Brand B issue (setting aside ergonomics).

Click to expand...

Personally, I find non-stabilised 10x bins too shaky to stargaze with (I own a 10x50 Nikon Action EX which I bought for the purpose, but hardly use), but the EL 10x50 is supposed to have a great view, at least I read something to that effect in another thread! :t:

Saturninus,

For once, Bob and I are in agreement. Break out the champagne. B

I should quit while I'm ahead, because whatever else I say, he will probably disagree with!

Larger aperture bins require longer focal lengths, which reduces aberrations, and you might see this jumping from a 42mm to a 56mm, not sure if a mere 8mm is going to make a noticeable difference.

For me, as a part-time stargazer, the 10x50 would be preferable since it could serve a dual purpose, and when you spend that kind of money, you want to get as much use out of a bin as possible. With its sharp edges, comfortable ergonomics, and wider than average FOV, the 10x50 SV EL would be desirable for stargazing. From your user name, I'm guessing you are also a stargazer, either that, or you are the ghost of the Bishop of Toulouse.

It sounds like you aren't going to buy one anytime soon, and my own ETA for buying an alpha is around 2020, and by then, there will be a new "latest and greatest" to replace the SV EL (which might not be useable to me, anyway, due to RB), so this a "what if..." thread for me, too.

In the meantime, if flat fields views are your preference, and you have strong arms, and close focus isn't a must, and you are using 10x50s for general wildlife observation instead of chasing warblers and perhaps some casual stargazing, consider the much more affordable Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX for $599 (hernia belt not included).

I always wanted one of these for long distance wildlife observation and stargazing, but I'm allergic to Oxalic Acid, so I can't eats me spinach to build up my arms to handle these big boys. But if your name is Arnold rather than Lucius Appuleius Saturninus, you can get the Better View Desired without selling the farm to pay for it.

Plutonius (restored to my rightful place among the "wanderers")

Wow, you got the Roman Tribune reference! And the Bishop of Toulouse for bonus points! (I had to wikipedia that one). Good job, Dudley Do-Right.

I did own a Fujinon FMT 10x50 for about a week or so. I returned it because the collimation was slightly off (a rare occurrence for a quality bino like that). I really wanted to like that bino, but yeah I felt like it would eventually give me a hernia. Instead I sprung for a Canon 15x50 IS, which despite being an ergonomic abomination is actually lighter than the Fuji, and it also gives me freedom from a tripod. The Canon is my dedicated astronomy binocular.

For daytime use, I've got my mind set on an 8x30 Habicht, which I will acquire one way or another. That will be my lightweight daytime binocular for hiking, sightseeing, looking at scenery, etc.

So then between the 8x30 scenery binocular and the 15x50 astro binocular, I need an all-arounder in the middle for wildlife, birding, whale-watching - and preferably something with at least 5mm exit pupil since the other two are less than 4.

That's why the 10x50 seems to fit the bill. See - I am already starting the process of convincing myself that I have always needed something that I didn't even know existed 2 years ago...

Saturninus said:

Wow, you got the Roman Tribune reference! And the Bishop of Toulouse for bonus points! (I had to wikipedia that one). Good job, Dudley Do-Right.

I did own a Fujinon FMT 10x50 for about a week or so. I returned it because the collimation was slightly off (a rare occurrence for a quality bino like that). I really wanted to like that bino, but yeah I felt like it would eventually give me a hernia. Instead I sprung for a Canon 15x50 IS, which despite being an ergonomic abomination is actually lighter than the Fuji, and it also gives me freedom from a tripod. The Canon is my dedicated astronomy binocular.

For daytime use, I've got my mind set on an 8x30 Habicht, which I will acquire one way or another. That will be my lightweight daytime binocular for hiking, sightseeing, looking at scenery, etc.

So then between the 8x30 scenery binocular and the 15x50 astro binocular, I need an all-arounder in the middle for wildlife, birding, whale-watching - and preferably something with at least 5mm exit pupil since the other two are less than 4.

That's why the 10x50 seems to fit the bill. See - I am already starting the process of convincing myself that I have always needed something that I didn't even know existed 2 years ago...

Click to expand...

Thanks, I did have three years of Latin, but I can't take all the credit, you know how much Nell always wanted to see the world, well, she finally left The Great White North and became a tour guide with Perillo, working in Italy and France, and when she flies back home in the winter, she tells me about the historical places she's seen and the historical people who lived there. I'm not so big on travel, once a Canuck, always a Canuck, eh?

I once considered buying the 15x50 IS, and was wary because of it being an "ergonomic abomination," but then a post on Cloudy Nights by someone who bought one and had to pay $800 to get it repaired once the electronics fizzled after the short warranty period, I took it off my Wish List. I also considered the lighter weight 10x42 IS L even though it was another "ergonomic abomination," but I'd have to get my eye sockets rotor rootered to fit those chunky monkey eyecups in them.

So I'm taking Bob Hoffman's Hi-Proteen Powder (Bob was fit as a fiddle but a terrible speller) and doing some curls in preparation for buying a Fuji 10x50 once my cats get well and my ship comes in (I thought I saw its mast the other day coming over the horizon, but it was a a line of seagulls).

I haven't tried the 8x30 Habicht, they have a reputation for being super sharp and bright, but they are also notorious for their short ER and stiff focuser. As long as you can see the entire FOV and the eyecups don't feel like cookie cutters, they should make excellent scenery binoculars since scenery doesn't move fast like a warbler.

For an all arounder, you might check out the Maven B2 9x45. (the magnification is actually 8.7x, according to Steve C., who gave the bins two thumbs up and bought a pair). I can hold 8.5x steady, provided the ergonomics are good, so 8.7x is probably doable. You can customize the color scheme for free with the standard colors -gray, black and white - or go nuts and add red, orange, blue, pink, etc. for added cost. At $1,000, you won't have to wait as long to own a premium pair of binoculars. Btw, please mention my name so I get my commission.

http://mavenbuilt.com/

Hi Saturninus,
If you can, you should also try out the Canon 10x42ISL, it is a superior solution for stargazing in my admittedly biased opinion.
Stabilization makes a big difference for the enjoyment of the stars and planets, sort of like having a tripod without the bother.
The glass is a porro, so a lot of the roof prism issues are bypassed entirely, the oculars are very well designed and the whole product uses Canon's best optics know how.
All this for half the cost of the admittedly much more elegant Swaro 10x50.

There is more which differentiates these two bins.
FOV: 115 vs. 133m
Weight: 998 vs. 835gr

Field-use and stargazing are two very differrents field of use, too.

Oetzi,

The 10x42 SV FOV is not 133m but 112m

Kimmo

Ouch, my fault
thanks for clarifying