• 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.

7 year old 8.5x42 el’s ????? Just as good???? (1 Viewer)

Been lurking for years, getting ready to buy a 2010 el 8.5x42 swarovision. I love the field pros, but can’t justify the extra dough. I know about the focuser issues on the older models, but was wondering about other diffrences. Besides the obvious, some have mentioned increased rolling ball. This may be a problem, considering i do notice it in the newest pro model. Wish i could compare a new vs. old pair. So thats why i thought i’d ask u all. Should i b concerned. My gut tells me they are optically the same. At least i hope. Just for reference, ive owned 10x42 slc, zeiss victory 10x42 t fl, leica trinovid 8x42 and nikon monarch 8x42. Oh and the first pair was tasco world class 8x42. Thats my 20year binocular progression. I’ve decided the swaro 8.5’s are gonna b the bino to end all binos. Haha!
 

elkcub

Silicon Valley, California
United States
Been lurking for years, getting ready to buy a 2010 el 8.5x42 swarovision. I love the field pros, but can’t justify the extra dough. I know about the focuser issues on the older models, but was wondering about other diffrences. Besides the obvious, some have mentioned increased rolling ball. This may be a problem, considering i do notice it in the newest pro model. Wish i could compare a new vs. old pair. So thats why i thought i’d ask u all. Should i b concerned. My gut tells me they are optically the same. At least i hope. Just for reference, ive owned 10x42 slc, zeiss victory 10x42 t fl, leica trinovid 8x42 and nikon monarch 8x42. Oh and the first pair was tasco world class 8x42. Thats my 20year binocular progression. I’ve decided the swaro 8.5’s are gonna b the bino to end all binos. Haha!

The newest Swaro 10x42 SLC HD is a big improvement over the older model (although I personally prefer the 8x42 SLC-HD). Both models have sufficient distortion to avoid the rolling ball illusion and might be something to consider.
Easier on the pocketbook too.

Good luck.
Ed
 
Has the rolling ball issue lessened from 2010 swarovision to current. Swarovski says it hasn't changed. Some here seem to suggest it has?
 

Torview

Registered User
Supporter
Hi Henry, in my humble opinion you can`t really claim that RB exists in the binocular but is more a function of the binocular viewer interface, some will see RB and others not in the same binocular, a bit like CA.

The whole focusser issue is overblown, they function perfectly its just the spring Swarovski put in to prevent diopter creep can cause a difference in tension between directions and some coarseness, but IMHO they have totally sorted it now with the FP.

Personally if I could get a good deal on any good condition EL I`d buy it happily.
 

Alexis Powell

Natural history enthusiast
United States
If you search the forum archive, you will find threads discussing changes in the 8.5x42 Swarovision, including substantial changes to the optical formula (lens design) with potential consequences for sharpness and distortion across the field, and for rolling ball. I didn't test the model over most of its life enough to be able to comment myself. I'm not a fan of some aspects of the FieldPro version, so I bought a pre-FP manufactured just before the switch to the current design. For me, that one is the perfect bin for birding, and it serves for butterflies in a pinch (close focus adjustment is too slow to be really good for that--c'mon Swarovski, when will we see variable-ratio focus implemented?).

--AP
 
Last edited:
So are we saying more rolling ball for an early 2010 model, or less? I guess thats my root question. Swaro says no difference.
 

chill6x6

Well-known member
Been lurking for years, getting ready to buy a 2010 el 8.5x42 swarovision. I love the field pros, but can’t justify the extra dough. I know about the focuser issues on the older models, but was wondering about other diffrences. Besides the obvious, some have mentioned increased rolling ball. This may be a problem, considering i do notice it in the newest pro model. Wish i could compare a new vs. old pair. So thats why i thought i’d ask u all. Should i b concerned. My gut tells me they are optically the same. At least i hope. Just for reference, ive owned 10x42 slc, zeiss victory 10x42 t fl, leica trinovid 8x42 and nikon monarch 8x42. Oh and the first pair was tasco world class 8x42. Thats my 20year binocular progression. I’ve decided the swaro 8.5’s are gonna b the bino to end all binos. Haha!

Hi Henry,
You answered your own question. I'd say if you see it in the new models you'll see it in the older ones.

Try a Nikon EDG II. ;)
 

Kammerdiner

Well-known member
I don't think the question has ever really been settled. I do recall a member here who directly compared an early to a later SV (maybe it was Kimmo??) and saw no optical changes, but that was already a few years ago.

I doubt Swaro changed the optics but it appears the glass might have been updated and the coatings as well. Remember that RB was the pet project of a member who never actually looked through an SV but sure had a lot to say about it. Without that input the issue has all but died out.

My 8.5 SV will turn seven in a month or two and I like it every bit as much as the day I got it. Still my favorite, although I often prefer the 8x32 SV for its lighter weight.

I hope to see the new CL in a month or two when they arrive. I'll take both SV's with me and see if I can spot any changes with the Fieldpro models. I've been curious about that myself.
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
Are you guys saying that rolling ball is in the eye of the beholder, and is not a matter of the optics? (ground in, if you will)
 

NDhunter

Experienced observer
United States
Are you guys saying that rolling ball is in the eye of the beholder, and is not a matter of the optics? (ground in, if you will)

That is correct, rolling ball only affects around 2% of the population,
that may be sensitive to it. It is one of the most overblown issues on
optics that you may find. That is a shame, if it dissuades from someone
buying a great binocular.

This is from what Zeiss has researched, and reported. Lots on info. on other threads on the site.

Jerry
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
That is correct, rolling ball only affects around 2% of the population,
that may be sensitive to it. It is one of the most overblown issues on
optics that you may find. That is a shame, if it dissuades from someone
buying a great binocular.

This is from what Zeiss has researched, and reported. Lots on info. on other threads on the site.

Jerry

Thank you.

I guess I never extracted that particular nugget from all the discussion, and there surely was a great deal of discussion.

It seems to me that it would be in the brain, rather than the eye, as I think about it more.
 

chill6x6

Well-known member
Kinda. I thought it can be worse in some models?

With the SLC models it has not been reported AFAIK. It has been "reported" that later EL SV models it is less pronounced.

That is correct, rolling ball only affects around 2% of the population,
that may be sensitive to it. It is one of the most overblown issues on
optics that you may find. That is a shame, if it dissuades from someone
buying a great binocular.

This is from what Zeiss has researched, and reported. Lots on info. on other threads on the site.

Jerry

Agreed.

For the small percentage that DO see it...is it debilitating? Can you live with it? It's a strange phenomenon that I've never experienced or seen so it's hard for be to get a grip on it.
 

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
With the SLC models it has not been reported AFAIK. It has been "reported" that later EL SV models it is less pronounced.



Agreed.

For the small percentage that DO see it...is it debilitating? Can you live with it? It's a strange phenomenon that I've never experienced or seen so it's hard for be to get a grip on it.

Chuck
I haven't seen this in binos yet either but I did brush up against it with Meopta's brilliant S2 scope, although not in the normal use of that scope. Let me explain. A friend had mentioned that he experienced mild RB with the S2 so I looked out for it when I was reviewing this model and had nearly finished field work with the unit without seeing any RB during panning when, I was about to leave the lake I was visiting, a flight of ducks landed way over to one side of my view. I couldn't resist panning the scope around to see what the ducks were and since the scope had been focused on subjects much closer, the image was a medium grey out-of-focus low contrast mush as I panned it around and boy did the ball roll. It was really obvious but since no real image was visible it wasn't at all disturbing, just startling. I focussed on the ducks and they were nothing special, panned from side to side, slow then quick and guess what? No RB. That was the only time I have seen it apart from on a recent tv show where the camera panned and purported to show the view through some binos and the obviously digitally created bino-image had stinking RB as the camera panned. It was gone in about 2-3 seconds on the screen and i was bouncing up and down saying to Troubadoris: Look, thats what rolling ball is like, but it was gone before she looked up.

Lee
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
I have seen it, and have chosen to ignore it. It has pretty much gone away, or I have ceased to be aware of it.

If you have a habit of looking for such phenomena ......... they will drive you crazy. (if you aren't already there)
 

Vespobuteo

Well-known member
I don't think the question has ever really been settled. I do recall a member here who directly compared an early to a later SV (maybe it was Kimmo??) and saw no optical changes, but that was already a few years ago.

I doubt Swaro changed the optics but it appears the glass might have been updated and the coatings as well. Remember that RB was the pet project of a member who never actually looked through an SV but sure had a lot to say about it. Without that input the issue has all but died out.

It seems we are still waiting for hard proof for any possible optical changes made over the years.

Sharpness of the SV would be more about getting a perfect sample than the actual age I think.
 

Gijs van Ginkel

Well-known member
Lee, post 14,
I think that you did forget to mention all experimental conditions during your research. Was that not the time that you swallowed just before the actual optical experiment a small glass of yellowish coloured liquid, causing a rolling sensation in your eyes and your brain??????
Gijs van Ginkel
 
We’ll it sounds like if I love the newer pros, I’m gonna love a 2010 model. While saving quite a few bucks. Thanks everybody who chimed in.
 

chill6x6

Well-known member
Chuck
I haven't seen this in binos yet either but I did brush up against it with Meopta's brilliant S2 scope, although not in the normal use of that scope. Let me explain. A friend had mentioned that he experienced mild RB with the S2 so I looked out for it when I was reviewing this model and had nearly finished field work with the unit without seeing any RB during panning when, I was about to leave the lake I was visiting, a flight of ducks landed way over to one side of my view. I couldn't resist panning the scope around to see what the ducks were and since the scope had been focused on subjects much closer, the image was a medium grey out-of-focus low contrast mush as I panned it around and boy did the ball roll. It was really obvious but since no real image was visible it wasn't at all disturbing, just startling. I focussed on the ducks and they were nothing special, panned from side to side, slow then quick and guess what? No RB. That was the only time I have seen it apart from on a recent tv show where the camera panned and purported to show the view through some binos and the obviously digitally created bino-image had stinking RB as the camera panned. It was gone in about 2-3 seconds on the screen and i was bouncing up and down saying to Troubadoris: Look, thats what rolling ball is like, but it was gone before she looked up.

Lee

I have seen it, and have chosen to ignore it. It has pretty much gone away, or I have ceased to be aware of it.

If you have a habit of looking for such phenomena ......... they will drive you crazy. (if you aren't already there)

Thanks for y'alls input on this! I will continue in my quest to see it! ;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top