• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

(4) Quality 8x32 Binoculars- Swarovski EL, SV and Nikon EDG II, SE~ My Impressions (1 Viewer)

Torview

Registered User
Supporter
Even though some here may think I have settled on an "inferior" bin. 8-P

I`d say you`ve made the best choice, eventually any unsealed binocular will get compromised inside, even if its not readily apparent, and like yourself those of us who use binoculars in unpredictable environments want them to carry on regardless.
 

jaymoynihan

Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher
So.... I guess for now the 8x32 SV's will have to make do as my go to 8x32 bin's. Even though some here may think I have settled on an "inferior" bin. 8-P

sounds good. I have never owned a swaro bino. My yester-years-alpha-roofs are Leica and Zeiss. But i have on occasion tried out at stores that 8.5x42 SV which would be my pick if I would buy a modern "alpha". So I imagine the 32 is pretty sweet.
 

barshnik

John F
I think the 8x32 SV has the same optics as the 8.5 SV because I compared them side by side.

What in the world does this mean? It has the same optics? What? The same objective lenses? No. The same oculars? No. The same prisms? No. The same design? Similar maybe, but not the same - different FOV, close focus, eye relief, eyecup design, etc.

But, if you compared them side by side and say so, then they must have the same 'optics'.

Please consider my questions as rhetorical.

In my eyes they both have rolling ball with the 8x showing it a little less.

What you mean is that you prefer binoculars with more field distortion of a nature which masks what you interpret as 'rolling ball'.

Congratulations on hijacking yet another thread.

John F
LV NV
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
What in the world does this mean? It has the same optics? What? The same objective lenses? No. The same oculars? No. The same prisms? No. The same design? Similar maybe, but not the same - different FOV, close focus, eye relief, eyecup design, etc.

But, if you compared them side by side and say so, then they must have the same 'optics'.

Please consider my questions as rhetorical.



What you mean is that you prefer binoculars with more field distortion of a nature which masks what you interpret as 'rolling ball'.

Congratulations on hijacking yet another thread.

John F
LV NV
I didn't hijack anything. What I mean is I feel the 8x32 and 8.5x42 SV have the same optical formula creating a similar view with a slight bit of rolling ball. I don't feel Swarovski signifigantly changed the design of the 8x32. I think the view through the 8.5 x42 is a little superior to the 8x32 SV.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I was seriously thinking of doing just that. In an ideal and perfect world I would have ( and in one where $$ is no object). And I almost did right up until the last minute when time was running out for me to make a decision in regards to the time frame for returning the SE's to the optics dealer.

But... for me, I live in a place where for 3/4 of the year (or more) the weather is not ideal for non H2O proof bin's. And I just decided I could not justify the cost of more than $600 for binoculars that would in all practical purposes be relegated to house bins and fair weather bins. I use my binoculars most of the time in some pretty rough and unpredictable weather conditions, and I did not want to have to have a set that I would have to babysit that much. Maybe someday when I have $600 that I do not know what to do with- I may get another pair of 8x32 SE's. But for now- what I have will work well for me.

Plus- there was the very real recent financial costs of spending quite a bit more than what the SE's cost for the short notice airfare and car rental to attend my Mothers service last month. And this was after the SE's and the others were ordered and in transit.

For me- ending up keeping the the Swaro SV's was certainly a bit of a stretch, and keeping the SE's on top of those was going to stretch me too much.

So.... I guess for now the 8x32 SV's will have to make do as my go to 8x32 bin's. Even though some here may think I have settled on an "inferior" bin. 8-P
If I had to keep only ONE binocular and I had the SE and the SV it would be the SV. The SE is a luxury optical binocular not good for wet weather.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
If I had to keep only ONE binocular and I had the SE and the SV it would be the SV. The SE is a luxury optical binocular not good for wet weather.
Here is a good article on the Nikon 10x42 SE. This is the point I have been trying to make with my DVD test.

"It seems to be, however, the overall image quality of the Nikons that really sets them apart. It may be the sum of a lot of little things done right...or it may be due some one particular design feature (the eyepiece is an exceptionally complex and well corrected design, for instance), but for whatever reason the Superior Es simply deliver the clearest, brightest, most detailed view, close in or far out, that I have yet to see in binoculars. This translates to the best dollar bill test step 2 distance I have yet measured (see the December 1995 issue)‹23 feet, as compared to 22.5 feet for the Swarovski 10x42s (in capsule form, the step 2 distance means that I can see the same amount of detail on a dollar bill at 23 feet with the Nikons as I can at 12 to 15 inches with my naked eye). An improvement of six inches might not seem like much, a matter of 2%, but when you stretch the distance out to 100 yards and beyond, even 2% becomes quite significant...it is like being 6 feet closer to the bird."

http://betterviewdesired.com/Nikon-10X42-Superior-Es.php
 
Last edited:

14Goudvink

Well-known member
For a couple of days I had the 8x32 SV and SE side by side. I returned the SE, because I coudn't answer the question I asked above for myself: Why would someone who ownes a 8x32 SV want a 8x32 SE for?

Don't get me wrong, I loved the little SE, but the SV equals (or betters?) it regarding apparent sharpness (yes this roof is just as sharp as the best porro), contrast, CA, colour rendition and has a wider field of view, closer focus, bigger image scale, easier eye placement and is water and shockproof.

Why should Sunday strolls be less enjoyable than hunting? ;-)

George
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
So one person sees one thing, and another person sees the opposite, SE:SV, SV:SE, C'est la vie, each opinion equally valid (as surely .TRUE. as the conditions tested differ) - pointless internet repetition of opinion is no validation, being of no truck in swaying these immutable facts.

Heck Sancho ;) even clouds the issue further by flip-flopping like a weather vane in a willy-willy! (last seen interminably weighing up an SV in one hand, an EII in the other, incoherently muttering something about ~ "I used to be confused - but now, I'm not so sure! .....") :h?: :-O
And that is perfectly valid also. :smoke:

It means we have two fine bins which have been carefully eye-balled and scrutinised in actual testing. Bravo Stephen :clap: Ole'! Sancho :t:
(dennis too - hope you get to do a more detailed testing with the EDG, SE, and SV, outside in normal use conditions, and start a thread to report your findings - I think we'd all be interested in that ..... ) :brains:

So as Stephen, and George, enunciate, with such line-ball optical performance, many other factors come in to play, in the final purchase decision.

I was pondering one of these minor (fringe) factors, namely the much vaunted 3D effect of porros, and conducted a little experiment (admittedly with far too many variables such as magnification etc.) by looking at a distant telegraph pole against a background of bush (forest) with porros and roofs.
I concluded no major difference that I could see, with the magnification dependent dof having far more bearing (as I said, an imperfect test).
Then (and so to the point of this little story) an Eagle popped in to view, and the thought occurred to me (o)< "if this 3D caper is such a ballyhoo, then why the bejaysus don't we see bops with eyes out on stalks, hammerhead style??!!" :eek!:
You would think such a serious matter as 3D binocular vision dependent survival would have sorted such an evolution out by now ..... then again, maybe not!


Chosun :gh:
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
"I was pondering one of these minor (fringe) factors, namely the much vaunted 3D effect of porros, and conducted a little experiment (admittedly with far too many variables such as magnification etc.) by looking at a distant telegraph pole against a background of bush (forest) with porros and roofs.
I concluded no major difference that I could see, with the magnification dependent dof having far more bearing (as I said, an imperfect test)."

Strange! For most people the 3D advantage of porro's is easily seen. Try looking at trees at different distances. Or try looking at a bird in a tree. The porro will "pop" it out easier. With their wide barrel seperation this is one advantage of the porro that is easily seen!
 
Last edited:

stephen b

Well-known member
For a couple of days I had the 8x32 SV and SE side by side. I returned the SE, because I coudn't answer the question I asked above for myself: Why would someone who ownes a 8x32 SV want a 8x32 SE for?

Don't get me wrong, I loved the little SE, but the SV equals (or betters?) it regarding apparent sharpness (yes this roof is just as sharp as the best porro), contrast, CA, colour rendition and has a wider field of view, closer focus, bigger image scale, easier eye placement and is water and shockproof.

Why should Sunday strolls be less enjoyable than hunting? ;-)

George

Spot on George! Great name BTW- (that is my Great Grandfathers name and my Father's middle name)

As I ranked them in my review, I too had the SV ahead of the SE in all the categories you listed above. Plus as you point out above the SV is H20 proof and shockproof, and does have an easier eye placement. The SE is certainly a great binocular- it just does not quite "check off all the boxes" so to speak in regards to being the total package the SV is.
 
Last edited:

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Strange! For most people the 3D advantage of porro's is easily seen.....
Dennis when I said distant it was ~300m (~1000ft). At that range, the extra 30mm barrel spacing per side, equates to ~6 thousandths of a degree (~20 arcseconds) - or about the same as looking at a ping-pong ball at the end of a 1/4 mile .... my eyes are good, 2+2=4, but that's stretching things a bit!

Of course I see the 3D effect, and it's much more noticeable at close in distances, but what I meant was that it's no biggie at those ranges - not enough to trump the other factors (WP, wider FOV, better CA control etc, etc) that Stephen (and others) have decided the SV better fits the bill.

FWIW I still haven't seen any "hammerhead" bops either! |:p|

....So.... I guess for now the 8x32 SV's will have to make do as my go to 8x32 bin's.....

Oh no! you poor thing - "have to make do" - that's terrible! ..... :eek!:

Lucky b&$%@#! :-O


Chosun :gh:
 

stephen b

Well-known member
....So.... I guess for now the 8x32 SV's will have to make do as my go to 8x32 bin's.....


Oh no! you poor thing - "have to make do" - that's terrible! ..... :eek!:

Lucky b&$%@#! :-O


Chosun :gh:

Chosun-

I hope you know ( and I am fairly certain that you do) that my tongue was planted very firmly in my cheek when I made the above statement. ;)

It was really only intended towards a certain individual who implied that the SV was inferior in his eyes to the exalted bino of his that he touts everywhere and to everyone as the best end all bin.

Cheers B :)
 

Odradek

Well-known member
A sharper view , increased 3D effect, no rolling ball, better glare control, and a smoother focus.

Hi denco,

i am looking around in this forum for a while and it seems that you prefer the Se over the SV (both 8x32). Now, i have the Nikon Se in my focus and i eventually want to buy them. Therefore i was looking for older threads here and i found something interesting.

Please keep in mind, my english is not the best and i dont say the fallowing with the intention to blame you. I am only interested in the WHY (supposed that i understand you correctly!!). During the threads in 2011 it seems you clearly prefered the SV over the Se. What happend after this time?

Just to give you a few examples ....

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=201421

I found another thread where you said that the birds "pop out" with the SV, which was better than your experience with the Se. Unfortunally i dont have the link anymore.

I wasn´t looking for posty made by you. I was looking for threads about the Se in generall. But i found these change in your position remarkable. It seemed that you almost fight for the Se in the last few posts. Now is my question, have you made any bad experiences with the SV after this time?
 

Kammerdiner

Well-known member
Only 15 posts and you figured out Dennis was an unreliable flip-flopper. Good Job!

Seriously, Dennis' opinions aren't worth too much. He does, to his credit, gravitate toward the high-end stuff, but beyond that he's as fickle as they come. He rarely has more than 2 bins on hand so he relies on "misty water-colored memories," of the bins that were, more than direct comparison. That and DVD cases while he's sittin' on the couch.

No thanks.
 

FrankD

Well-known member
...and, in his defense, if you actually go back to 2004-2005 he does promote the SE as being the best 8x32 available.

Don't ask why I was looking at posts from way back then. It had nothing to do with the current discussion.

;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top