10x42SV 10x50SV: yet another thread on these... (1 Viewer)

Following on from a thread I started recently about 10x Swarovski glass, I wouldn't need to post this if I could try out an EL10x50 SV in the local shop. They now have all the 42 models in stock, so can try out an EL10x42 SV.

I saw an old post by Gijs van Ginkel praising the 50, and have just been reading Roger Vine's very readable reviews of the 42 and then the 50.

42 and 50SVs have been discussed on the forum probably many times before but maybe some of you who have extensively tried all the sizes and models wouldn't mind having a look at this....

Roger looks to have reviewed the 42 a few years back, before the Field Pro version, but am I right the differences don't affect optics or coatings or handling at all? By comparison his review of 50 was possibly more recent (early 2016). I say this because in the 42 review he said if he could only have one pair of binoculars it would probably be the 42; in the 50 review he said something like he would now go for the 50. Also in the 42 review, having said how great it was, he added a teaser that the 50 might be even better.

Now, as said, if I could try both side by side I could arrive at a preference quite easily because handling matters a lot to me -- if I can't hold the thing steady what use are slightly superior optics, etc...

So, here are the questions:
1. As the 50 is very similar in size to the 42 and about (100g) heavier, will it feel a lot lighter and easier to hold steady than my 8x56FL? I get the impression that 56 is where extra weight really comes into play.
2. As the 50 is a 10 power whilst the 56 is an 8 power, are they likely to feel similarly awkward in use i.e. shake will cancel out the slightly lighter weight?
3. Glare and ghosting: negligible in both 42 and 50 or better in 42?
4. Colour rendition: same as in EL8x32 SV i.e. bluish compared to Leica reddish and Zeiss greenish? (I know fans of each will call their marque 'neutral'!)
5. The more comparison you can give between 42 and 50 SV variants the better but hand-holding differences are probably the deal breaker, aside from money.
6. Is the 8.5x42 SV in fact any easier to hold than the 10? I ask this as I'm mainly a 7x user and have got very used to that as an all-round solution, but as mentioned in the other thread I am looking for a 10 as well, once I can find the near-perfect solution.

I should mention I am also weighing up (literally also!) N, L and Z options but as I have them in 7/8x it seemed that Swaro with the glowing reports from Roger Vine and many others, for clear view and also for customer support and product manufacturing excellence, would give me some variety.

Sorry I haven't yet learnt to keep my writing short (and probably never will by now)!

Tom

Tom,

I think the 10X50 SV is my preference since I am used to it, and for my viewing under low light and for astro, otherwise I would go with the lower weight 10X42 if I predominately viewed during the daylight hours. If you can try both, (if he is getting the 10X42SV, perhaps he will get the 10X50 also).
Spend some time with the 10X42 if you can first, then decide. There are many here who have one, I have only used it in the field for a short day.

There are other 10X42s that are very good also, it is a crowded field.

Andy W.

1) The 50mm SV is WAY lighter than the 8x56 FL or any 56mm for that matter.

2)No

3) In the SV line as you move up in aperture glare and ghosting improves. The 50mm is better than the 42mm.

4)All the SV's are a bluish to neutral color rendition which I prefer over the Leica reddish and Zeiss greenish.

5)The 10x50 SV handles as well as the 10x42 SV but of course it is going to be slightly heavier so if you are
hiking a lot that is a consideration.

6) The 8.5x42 SV is lighter than the 10x50 SV so it depends on if you prefer a lighter or slightly heavier
binocular. The only difference in handling is going to be the weight.

Overall I agree with Roger Vine in his feeling that the 10x50 SV is one of the best all around binoculars made. Any binocular of equal quality is going to be better with a bigger aperture. A 10x50 SV is better than the 10x42 SV optically. You have to decide if you want to carry the extra weight for that extra performance. A 10x42 SV will be fine in almost every birding situation but the 10x50 SV will always be a little better. I have had every SV model and the one that WOWS me the most is the one I have now the 12x50 SV. Usually when you get to the higher magnifications you start losing sharpness and clarity. Not so with the 12x50 SV. The optics and the glass and coatings are so good that don't lose ANYTHING at 12x. The 12x50 SV has very little glare unlike the smaller apertures SV's. That is what WOWS me about the 12x50 SV. The 10x50 SV is a fabulous binocular but the 12x50 SV goes beyond it. The 12x50 SV is just a flagship binocular for Swarovski and is a shining example of what they can do with optics. It is an awesome binocular

dries1 said:

Tom,

I think the 10X50 SV is my preference since I am used to it, and for my viewing under low light and for astro, otherwise I would go with the lower weight 10X42 if I predominately viewed during the daylight hours. If you can try both, (if he is getting the 10X42SV, perhaps he will get the 10X50 also).
Spend some time with the 10X42 if you can first, then decide. There are many here who have one, I have only used it in the field for a short day.

There are other 10X42s that are very good also, it is a crowded field.

Andy W.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice, Andy. I'm also still keeping in mind the features & view from L, N, and Z which appeal to me. Over here - and probably with you? - the autumn/fall colours/colors are already showing. Almost every year on Sep 1st +/- a couple of days you can go out in the morning and just feel it in the air and see it in the light -- 'ah, today's the first day'. So I've been looking at those colours and they look really good through L, N and close runner up Z. I'm going to admit I love the S sharpness and the colours are fine but if I compare straightaway the others appeal more colourwise .

I suppose we'll never manage to combine the best features of all, and that's both the charm and the neurosis!

All the best,

Tom

[email protected] said:

1) The 50mm SV is WAY lighter than the 8x56 FL or any 56mm for that matter.

2)No

3) In the SV line as you move up in aperture glare and ghosting improves. The 50mm is better than the 42mm.

4)All the SV's are a bluish to neutral color rendition which I prefer over the Leica reddish and Zeiss greenish.

5)The 10x50 SV handles as well as the 10x42 SV but of course it is going to be slightly heavier so if you are
hiking a lot that is a consideration.

6) The 8.5x42 SV is lighter than the 10x50 SV so it depends on if you prefer a lighter or slightly heavier
binocular. The only difference in handling is going to be the weight.

Overall I agree with Roger Vine in his feeling that the 10x50 SV is one of the best all around binoculars made. Any binocular of equal quality is going to be better with a bigger aperture. A 10x50 SV is better than the 10x42 SV optically. You have to decide if you want to carry the extra weight for that extra performance. A 10x42 SV will be fine in almost every birding situation but the 10x50 SV will always be a little better. I have had every SV model and the one that WOWS me the most is the one I have now the 12x50 SV. Usually when you get to the higher magnifications you start losing sharpness and clarity. Not so with the 12x50 SV. The optics and the glass and coatings are so good that don't lose ANYTHING at 12x. The 12x50 SV has very little glare unlike the smaller apertures SV's. That is what WOWS me about the 12x50 SV. The 10x50 SV is a fabulous binocular but the 12x50 SV goes beyond it. The 12x50 SV is just a flagship binocular for Swarovski and is a shining example of what they can do with optics. It is an awesome binocular

Click to expand...

Dennis,

Thanks for this relevant, detailed, and full answer. A-grade script! I'm going to try and find a dealer where the kit can be tried out in the proper environment, somewhere like the London Wetlands Centre. As I mentioned in my reply to Andy I'm not fully sold on Sw colour but that is really only when comparing directly, swapping between makes at the same time; using one of the top marques regularly I'm happy with their rendition. Am interested to try these 10x50. Will draw the line at that size, especially as originally I was looking for something much smaller. But as always trying the things out is the last word.

All the points made much appreciated.

Tom

One more thing... ;-)

For those who notice rolling ball does that become less of a problem as you go up the apertures, along with the ghosts and glare?

Tom

I think you're just searching for permission to get the 10x50 SV ........ granted ! o




Chosun :gh:

SeldomPerched said:

For those who notice rolling ball does that become less of a problem as you go up the apertures, along with the ghosts and glare?

Click to expand...

Tom,

I don't think that rolling ball is related to aperture but nevertheless, the 10x50 EL will be somewhat less susceptible to it than the 10x42: http://holgermerlitz.de/newk/images/newk.jpg

On another thread, Hermann quoted König and Köhler from their book stating that a 4 mm exit pupil was the ideal compromise for binoculars and that magnifications above 10x made no sense for handheld use. He and I would agree on that. I know it's not a consideration for you, but I recently had an opportunity to try out my dealer's personal 12x50 EL. It seems absurd but my impression was that I was twice as unsteady as with my own 10x42 EL SV. Perhaps the brain learns to compensate for a certain amount of unsteadiness and then capitulates at higher magnifications.

A birder I know was looking to get his first premium binocular and I suggested he consider a 10x 50 EL. He's a burly 120 kg, also carries a camera with a long lens and said that weight was not an issue for him. He tried one out at a dealer's, was gobsmacked and bought it. I'm guessing that Swarovski's multicoatings today are 7-layer and that on my 10x42 of 2011 vintage they were 5-layer. The 10x50 was incrementally better than my 10x42 in almost every respect and I don't think I'd raise a shitstorm if I stated that it is optically the best birding binocular ever made. However, despite having large hands, I prefer the handling and lighter weight of the 10x42 and, if I had to replace mine, I would go that route again.

John

"Hermann quoted König and Köhler from their book stating that a 4 mm exit pupil was the ideal compromise for binoculars and that magnifications above 10x made no sense for handheld use."

A study is one thing and experience is another. Out in the field using the binoculars handheld I can see more detail with my 12x50 SV than I can with my 10x42 HG and the 12x50's are better in low light especially spotting animals and birds from a distance. A 4mm exit pupil is a good compromise when you factor in weight but if you the best performance 5mm is where it is at. If you don't mind carrying a 50mm you will not beat a good 10x50 or 12x50. Try the 10x50 SV and the 12x50 SV and see which one you can hold steadier. If you can't hold the 12x50 get the 10x50 but you will see more detail with the 12x. IMO the 12x is not much harder to hold than the 10x.

[email protected] said:

A 4mm exit pupil is a good compromise when you factor in weight but if you the best performance 5mm is where it is at. If you don't mind carrying a 50mm you will not beat a good 10x50 or 12x50. Try the 10x50 SV and the 12x50 SV and see which one you can hold steadier. If you can't hold the 12x50 get the 10x50 but you will see more detail with the 12x. IMO the 12x is not much harder to hold than the 10x.

Click to expand...

That's a bit too simplistic:

a) Bigger exit pupils are *always* better. So a 10x60 will beat a 10x50 of comparable optical quality no problem. And a 10x50 will beat a 10x42 of comparable optical quality. That's trivial.

b) Weight is a factor you can't ignore. If you use your binoculars on long hikes, lighter binoculars are always better. Always. For one thing you won't tire so quickly if you use lighter binoculars. And for long observations lighter binoculars are much easier to keep steady, at least as long as you don't go below a minimum weight, say something like 500 gr.

c) There are plenty of studies proving conclusively that almost no observers get any more detail with binoculars over about ~10x magnification. You need a tripod or at least a monopod to get any real benefit from magnfications above ~10x.

d) One factor many people ignore is that high magnifications work best in open spaces. In dense woodland 10x and especially 12x binoculars can be at a distinct disadvantage compared to binoculars with lower magnfications, simply because the depth of field decreases quite dramatically with an increase in magnification.

Hermann

I agree with everything you said but I still think you can see more detail at 12x IF you can hold the binocular fairly steady. In Colorado and Wyoming most of the country is very open so there are a lot of 10x and 12x advocates. Here are some interesting articles about the advantages of 12x. A lot of hunter's use 12x out here replacing a 10x42 and a tripod mounted 15x56 but it applies to birding also.

https://westernhunter.net/gear-revi...e-case-for-the-versatility-of-12x-binoculars/
https://www.gohunt.com/read/skills/are-twelve-power-binoculars-the-ultimate-glassing-setup#gs.30p8s9

Rolling Ball Effect?

Hi Tom/ SeldomPerched (post #6),

Image distortion isn't a function of objective size but rather a consequence of considerations/ compromises made by optical designers

In post #8, John/ Tringa45 linked to a graph by Holger Merlitz on degrees of barrel verses rolling ball distortion (aka globe effect)
Holger's full article can be found here: http://www.holgermerlitz.de/newk/newk.html

As can be seen from Holger's graph:
- there is a wide variety of difference between the various Swarovski EL SV models, as there is with the various SLC HD models

- with either line, the objective size isn't the determining factor (nor is magnification), and

- specifically with the EL SV's, there's less rolling ball effect with the 10x50 than the 10x42, and either has less than the 8.5x42


n.b. side-to-side barrel vs rolling ball distortion, is distinct from front-to-rear field curvature vs flatness on the optical axis
(though by design, the EL SV line separately combines various degrees of rolling ball effect together with significant field flatness)


John


p.s. and picking up on point 1) in your first post, the weight difference between the x42 and x50 EL SV's is 200 g / 7 oz (as per the specification sheet), so an increase of 25% is significant when hand held

SeldomPerched said:

So I've been looking at those colours and they look really good through L, N and close runner up Z. I'm going to admit I love the S sharpness and the colours are fine but if I compare straightaway the others appeal more colourwise.

Click to expand...

I've long preferred Leica colors myself in any direct comparison, but have Swaro glass too now and enjoy it thoroughly. Just a somewhat different character, with a slightly brighter impression that's also quite nice. I think I've seen so much overuse of Photoshop by now that I've become less sensitive to minor variations in color than I used to be.

Tringa45 said:

I know it's not a consideration for you, but I recently had an opportunity to try out my dealer's personal 12x50 EL. It seems absurd but my impression was that I was twice as unsteady as with my own 10x42 EL SV. Perhaps the brain learns to compensate for a certain amount of unsteadiness and then capitulates at higher magnifications.

Click to expand...

Since there's unsteadiness at any magnification, even 7 or 8x, I do think the brain has to play a major role in compensating for that, and there must be a learning curve. I'd be curous how you'd get on with 12x after a month of regular use. I have the impression that people too quickly reject higher power binos after a single or brief experience like this, blame their hands, and don't give their brain a chance. (How that impression rates against "studies" I don't know. I've never tested my own ability to discern tiny details precisely, and am not sure that's what always matters most.)

Hermann said:

One factor many people ignore is that high magnifications work best in open spaces. In dense woodland 10x and especially 12x binoculars can be at a distinct disadvantage compared to binoculars with lower magnfications, simply because the depth of field decreases quite dramatically with an increase in magnification.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's really a matter of circumstances. If I did more forest birding (like trying to follow pygmy nuthatches recently) I'd definitely be looking for an 8x glass. My longstanding preference for 10 (or more) is due to living and playing in wide open country, and general nature viewing (including astronomy) besides birding.

Tringa45 said:

..... I know it's not a consideration for you, but I recently had an opportunity to try out my dealer's personal 12x50 EL. It seems absurd but my impression was that I was twice as unsteady as with my own 10x42 EL SV. Perhaps the brain learns to compensate for a certain amount of unsteadiness and then capitulates at higher magnifications....

John

Click to expand...

tenex said:

.....Since there's unsteadiness at any magnification, even 7 or 8x, I do think the brain has to play a major role in compensating for that, and there must be a learning curve. I'd be curous how you'd get on with 12x after a month of regular use. I have the impression that people too quickly reject higher power binos after a single or brief experience like this, blame their hands, and don't give their brain a chance. (How that impression rates against "studies" I don't know. I've never tested my own ability to discern tiny details precisely, and am not sure that's what always matters most.)....

Click to expand...

Strangely (sorry Dennis! :cat: this is exactly my experience with the 10x50 SV and the 12x50 SV. I really rate the ergo's of the x50 Swaros, and my ability to hold them steady. I really like the fat barrels. I reckon that after my Zens, that the x50 SV's are my next favourite ergos and steadiest hold on a par with the x42 Nikon MHG's ...... it's a big gap back to the equal third place getters (the Zeiss SF - although it's contrived hands forward position feels really unnatural and loads up my shoulders, the Swaro x32 SV's which are a great lightweight relatively compact bin - though I feel with that small size I am just hands and fingers criss-crossed everywhere and it's like I'm a Praying Mantis trying to skin a grain of rice ! :-O , and also there is the Steiner x44 Peregrines/XP which have a bit bigger barrel size than other 42mm's though they are heavier than I would want at that size). ........ it's then quite a gap back to most other bins.

I can hold the 10x50 SV's rock solid (surprisingly so - it really happily struck me the first time I picked them up and looked through them). However, I find the 12x50 SV's a different kettle of fish - very jittery ! Annoyingly so. They are hard work, whereas the 10x50's are easy and natural. With the 10x50 voices in my head say "pick them up" every time I put them down, whereas with the 12x50 the opposite is true - the little voice inside my head says "put them down" every time I pick them up. If I try and persevere with the 12x in order to sort the view out, that little voice gets rather sterner with me and says "look we told you to put them down - now bl**dywell put them down before we all throw up !" :eek!:

Perhaps it is the slightest of difference with the physical length of the 12x versus the 10x, and the ultra small weight distribution difference in combination with the 12x magnification factor. Whatever it is, it seems the 12x is a bridge too far for me ...... and yes I'd rate it as over twice as shaky too. That's really strange, because I'd say I can hold the Canon 15x50 steadier than the 12x Swaro - and that's before even engaging the IS. Go figure :cat::cat:





Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan said:

Strangely (sorry Dennis! :cat: this is exactly my experience with the 10x50 SV and the 12x50 SV. I really rate the ergo's of the x50 Swaros, and my ability to hold them steady. I really like the fat barrels. I reckon that after my Zens, that the x50 SV's are my next favourite ergos and steadiest hold on a par with the x42 Nikon MHG's ...... it's a big gap back to the equal third place getters (the Zeiss SF - although it's contrived hands forward position feels really unnatural and loads up my shoulders, the Swaro x32 SV's which are a great lightweight relatively compact bin - though I feel with that small size I am just hands and fingers criss-crossed everywhere and it's like I'm a Praying Mantis trying to skin a grain of rice ! :-O , and also there is the Steiner x44 Peregrines/XP which have a bit bigger barrel size than other 42mm's though they are heavier than I would want at that size). ........ it's then quite a gap back to most other bins.

I can hold the 10x50 SV's rock solid (surprisingly so - it really happily struck me the first time I picked them up and looked through them). However, I find the 12x50 SV's a different kettle of fish - very jittery ! Annoyingly so. They are hard work, whereas the 10x50's are easy and natural. With the 10x50 voices in my head say "pick them up" every time I put them down, whereas with the 12x50 the opposite is true - the little voice inside my head says "put them down" every time I pick them up. If I try and persevere with the 12x in order to sort the view out, that little voice gets rather sterner with me and says "look we told you to put them down - now bl**dywell put them down before we all throw up !" :eek!:

Perhaps it is the slightest of difference with the physical length of the 12x versus the 10x, and the ultra small weight distribution difference in combination with the 12x magnification factor. Whatever it is, it seems the 12x is a bridge too far for me ...... and yes I'd rate it as over twice as shaky too. That's really strange, because I'd say I can hold the Canon 15x50 steadier than the 12x Swaro - and that's before even engaging the IS. Go figure :cat::cat:





Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

Chosun, you make me laugh, and that's meant as a top compliment! The 12x is a bridge too far: very good.

Interesting, you and Dennis and others are almost all saying how handholdable the 10x50 SV is. I can't wait to try them out (after telling the dealer there was absolutely no hurry because there's a lot else going on). As mentioned elsewhere, I have tried now the 10x42 SV: first impressions were good but not wow. But as we read here, it can take a while to fall in love.

Thanks for the tips.

Tom

tenex said:

I've long preferred Leica colors myself in any direct comparison, but have Swaro glass too now and enjoy it thoroughly. Just a somewhat different character, with a slightly brighter impression that's also quite nice. I think I've seen so much overuse of Photoshop by now that I've become less sensitive to minor variations in color than I used to be.

Click to expand...

That information will help a lot. It's easy to get caught up in some chase for what comes up as absolute best, but as we know there is no such thing as each make optimizes different aspects. If the Sw 10x42 or 50 SVs are unusually good to handhold - and I haven't forgotten the SF either with its tactical balance design - the different approach to colour will not be a problem; it would be dull to have only instruments that gave the same pictorial effect. Just as I have learnt here that it can take time to get the hang of a particular model or make, so I think it will needs a period of adjustment to different pictorial effects.

Thank you,

Tom

Shake verses Useable Image Quality

The effect of shake, specifically with a free-standing hands only hold, seems to be far more complex than what various psychological studies indicate
e.g. as in the graph from Daniel Vukobratovich’s 1989 article ‘Binocular Performance and Design’, which shows a progressive loss of efficiency in increased resolution as magnification increases
see: https://wp.optics.arizona.edu/optome...ovich-1989.pdf

However, as the graph presents aggregated data from a number of individuals - an ‘average of averages’
- it does not necessarily follow that any particular individual will have such a predictable decline in efficiency


And that is my experience - my perceptions/ tolerances/ preferences are seemingly contradictory:

A) I have a very strong preference for 7x over 8x
I can discern as much fine detail at 7x as at 8x, and with greater ease
I’ve found this to be the case in directly comparing a variety of 7x and 8x models, including my Leica UV HD 7x42 and 8x42

B) In contrast I strongly prefer 12x over 10x!
I can see significantly more detail at 12x compared to 10x, without significantly greater difficulty in steadying the image
While I originally thought this was due to the balance and ergonomics of my EL SV 12x50, I’ve since bought a Nikon E 12x40 Porro
And in direct comparison with my Swarovski Habicht 10x40 Porro the situation is the same

Of course both 10x and 12x have significantly more shake than 8x,
but it seems that a point has been reached where the 20% increased magnification of the 12x balances out the extra shake compared to the 10x


It seems like my mind may be processing the visual data in two different ways
- or more likely, it's accepting that significantly different degrees of accomodation are necessary, to form the perceived image at the higher magnifications

A) With 7x vs 8x
There is a clear balance of a smaller calmer image of a subject verses a slightly larger image with more jitter
When I visually and mentally ‘bore down’ to see the limit of what can be resolved, I find that the 8x’s larger twitches between clear images, prevent greater effective resolution
i.e. the clear image does not persist long enough to allow the perception of greater detail (in contrast, when mounted on a tripod the 8x Leica is of course superior to the 7x one)

B) With 12x vs 10x
At this level of magnification, neither image is calm compared to 8x. There is significantly more shake, and presumedly significantly more active mental engagement in processing the images
However, it seems that by 10x a threshold has been reached, and the extra effort required at 12x is not obviously significant


. . . and of course in such matters we should expect that other’s perceptions will vary greatly from mine (as is indicated in various posts prior to this one regarding 10x verses 12x)

However, I find it interesting that my perceptions contradict the seemingly reassuring predictability of the published data
and in particular based on my experience with 7x to 10x binoculars, I would have never anticipated my experience at 12x

I'd be interested to know if others have a similar experience


John


And from left to right: Swarovski EL SV 12x50 (35 oz); Nikon E 12x40 (23 oz); Swarovski Habicht 10x40 (23 oz); Leica UV HD x42 (26 oz)

SeldomPerched said:

Chosun, you make me laugh, and that's meant as a top compliment! The 12x is a bridge too far: very good.

Interesting, you and Dennis and others are almost all saying how handholdable the 10x50 SV is. I can't wait to try them out (after telling the dealer there was absolutely no hurry because there's a lot else going on). As mentioned elsewhere, I have tried now the 10x42 SV: first impressions were good but not wow. But as we read here, it can take a while to fall in love.

Thanks for the tips.

Tom

Click to expand...

If you want WOW try the 12x50 SV.

To me the Leica 10X50 HD+ is the most comfortable 10X from an ergonomic point of view, it is like handling a 10X42. Additionally magnification is the primary reason for the jitters to many who go from 10X to 12X. If you have trouble with 10X you will have the same or more difficulty with 12X.

Andy W.

Andy W.

John A Roberts said:

The effect of shake, specifically with a free-standing hands only hold, seems to be far more complex than what various psychological studies indicate e.g. as in the graph from Daniel Vukobratovich’s 1989 article ‘Binocular Performance and Design’, which shows a progressive loss of efficiency in increased resolution as magnification increases
see: https://wp.optics.arizona.edu/optome...ovich-1989.pdf
However, as the graph presents aggregated data from a number of individuals - an ‘average of averages’
- it does not necessarily follow that any particular individual will have such a predictable decline in efficiency.

Click to expand...

Your link there (not just its text label) got truncated with "..." and is unusable; the correct link is here.

What's interesting about that graph is that it does not show a "decline in efficiency" with increasing magnification. To the contrary, it shows increasing efficiency, even handheld, up to around 15x where it starts to level off. Only the rate of increase is declining. That seems to agree well with my own experience.