I'd like to check if my brain and eyes are telling me the truth regarding these two binos. So if any of you have experience of both, can you let me know? Here's the thing: I have had EL's for about four years, and am very happy with them. Recently on a caprice, I bought a pair of HGL's, kindly sold to me by a BF member. Comparing both today, I find the HGL's superior in terms of edge-to-edge sharpness, contrast, and resolution. I also find the HGL's give a warmer tone, especially with greens. I didn't do any fancy tests, I'm no expert; I just set them on a tripod and looked at trees through a sunny heat-haze about a kilometre away. I think I could resolve more detail with the HGL's. It's not a big deal, they're both superb binos, and I love the open-bridge design of the EL's for all the obvious reasons. The EL's are also lighter, whereas the HGL's are more "clunky", hang oddly against the chest, and have a slightly narrower FOV. It is indeed a luxury to be able to compare superb binos like these and get all nit-picky about the finer distinctions, but what do you folk reckon, am I right about the "better" optics on the HGL's?
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
8x32's: Swaro EL v. Nikon HGL (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sancho
- Start date
Hmmm. Objective Measurements. That could challenge me to the absolute limits of my capabilities.....couldn't I just take the lazy way out and rely on your opinions?
Sancho the Untechnical
Last edited:
mooreorless
Well-known member
Sancho, One thing you could do is take newsprint or some such and tape on boxes and set it out until you can't read it with one or other of these binoculars. I assume they are both 8x32mm. Small enough print so you don't have to go 500 meters away.
Kindest Regards, Steve
Kindest Regards, Steve
Sancho,
This might give you a bit of help. There has been a comparison done between the 10 x 32 versions of the 2 binoculars by Kimmo Absetz in the 1/2004 issue of "Alula" magazine. It's interesting reading at any rate.
http://www.alula.fi/gb/test_leica10xGB.html
Bob
Whoops! He also did the 8's too, in 2003. See here:
http://www.alula.fi/GB/ Scroll down to the "published review of optics." Click on 4/2003.
This might give you a bit of help. There has been a comparison done between the 10 x 32 versions of the 2 binoculars by Kimmo Absetz in the 1/2004 issue of "Alula" magazine. It's interesting reading at any rate.
http://www.alula.fi/gb/test_leica10xGB.html
Bob
Whoops! He also did the 8's too, in 2003. See here:
http://www.alula.fi/GB/ Scroll down to the "published review of optics." Click on 4/2003.
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
I think Kimmo made a remarkably accurate comparison of the LX with the EL. If anything, the LX L (HG L) is even better.
Elk
Last edited:
etc
Well-known member
Interesting reading that kindles some questions:
- How independent is this source? Is it funded by any company?
- How did they get the instruments tested? Did they buy in shops? Or were they preselected by manufacturers?
- We get a neat table full of numbers. But no hint at ANY protocol to give a clue as to how these values were obtained! Have ISO standards been followed? What was the set-up? "Personal" (self-invented) tests?
- How is "ease of view" measured and standardized?
Until I get answers to these questions, the numbers are meaningless.
Just wanting to trigger a healthy bit of scepticism,
T
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Sancho, have you broken your vow of no new optics purchases in 2008? If so, for shame!
As for me, I've struggled for a long time and almost given in several times to the desire to get the Nikon 8x32 HG/HGL, but thus far have successfully resisted. Optically, I find them perhaps the most pleasing of 8x32 roofs. Like all of Nikon's premium optics, they deliver a beautiful view, very comfortable on the eye. I especially like their generous eye relief and their relative insensitivity to eye placement for an 8x32--I feel like I can look around the view without getting blackouts, much as I can with an 8x42.
The only reason I've been able to resist the 8x32HGL is that I'm resolved to only buy binos that I will use (i.e. likely replace, at least in use, a binocular that I currently have, and I already have quite a fleet of 8x32 models). Every time I am tempted, I have to admit that despite liking its optics, I'd never choose to take the 8x32HGL into the field over what I already use. The optics of the HGL are not superior/different enough from other top 8x32 to tip the balance on their own, and the downsides are many:
-don't hang flat against my body
-weight is high for an 8x32, so may as well carry my Leica 8x42 Ultravid instead
-I don't like the ergonomics very well, certainly not as much as the Swarovski 8x32 EL or Leica 8x32 Ultra/Trinovid BA
-close focus is excellent, but not as good as Zeiss 8x32 FL for butterflies
-minimum interpupillary is 56 mm so I can't share casual views w/wife or kids like I can w/the Zeiss (52 mm minimum).
-from what I've seen, their exterior (rubber armoring, eyecups) doesn't hold up very well over time, whereas Swarovski, Leica and Zeiss have proven themselves superb.
As for Kimmo's reviews in Alula, they are of course subjective, but I value them above all other reviews of optics that I've ever seen (yes, even Steve Ingraham's). Why? (1) Because as far as I can tell, his reviews accord _perfectly_ with my own assessments--maybe we fortuitously have the same eye-brain programming? (2) His reviews are incredibly thorough--he seems to have used the binoculars he reviews for long enough and in varied enough circumstances that he discovers their idiosyncracies, weak points, strengths. (3) His reviews are admirably consistent and level-headed without being dispassionate (Too many reviewers seem to get infatuated with the flavor of the day). (4) Related to point 3, he usually provides some comparative perspective (including revisiting older, previously reviewed models) and shares his judgments as to how useful/important improvements or deficiencies are, practically speaking, for birding. The latter, though only one person's opinion, I find very refreshing, because he seems to maintain a sensible perspective as to the actual magnitudes of differences. Some other reviewers have a tendency to put anything less than their favorite model of the day in the obsolete category, such that they may rave about a model one year and consider it not worth mentioning, mediocre, or trash the next.
--AP
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with skepticsm, I'm sure! As far as your questions, you will have to ask the author.
The reports he makes, however, are the most detailed and technically accessible to the interested layman that I have yet seen. BVD is also an excellent resource; likewise, the Cornell reports. There are other good ones too. But none of them that I have seen are as quite as detailed or precise in their analysis.
Cordially,
Bob
Last edited:
I'm afraid so, Alexis....not sure if I can live with myself
. I'll try Steve's advice with the newsprint, and let you know how it pans out. Obviously my results will be statistically of no value whatsoever, because a) I'm out of my depth and have no idea what I'm doing and b) I have only one sample of each to work with....neither are new. Sancho the Penitent Recidivist
Jason Bugay Reyes
Well-known member
hio sancho what happened to you ?
hehehe but im glad u bought the nikon HGL 8x32 because i've been eyeing this pair as well and it is cheaper here now compared with last time in my place and hope much cheaper when nikon released the new EDG models hahahaha |
|i'll wait for your result from the test :king:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
I've finally "tested" the EL's against the HGL's, and added my EII's into the mix for good measure. None of this is remotely scientific, so apologies in advance. I'll try to be brief.
I taped an A4 page with 12-point Times New Roman text printed onto a placard, set it on a chair at a distance of 15 meters from a tripod. I then rested the bins on top of the 'pod, and found, surprisingly, that I could discern no difference in sharpness between the EL's and the HGL's. Moving the bins further and closer still didn't allow me to distinguish between them in terms of sharpness. I substituted a copy of the "Bray People" newspaper for the page (smaller, fuzzier text), and found exactly the same. Although I had expected the HGL's to be sharper (they appeared so in the field), they actually weren't...try as I might, with the bins on a 'pod, or hand-held, at any distance (I found about 13 meters was as far as a I could manage with the bins hand-held), they were pretty much equals. I also tried both left and right barrels, first with L/R eyes, then with only the right eye to each barrel in turn. Same results. The EL's had a slightly fuzzier edge, but then they've wider FOV anyway. That extra 0.2 degree makes a difference in viewing comfort for me, though. Also the EL's grip is far more comfortable and allows for a more stable image with one or two hands. They are also brighter. And yet....there is something very pleasant about the Nikons that I can't quite define, the image is darker but somehow "richer", more contrasty or "deeper". I can't find words to describe this, please excuse the amateurish-ness. The EL's in comparison seem less warm, but beautiful nonetheless. If they were Post-Impressionist Painters, the EL's would be Georges Seurat, the HGL's would be Henri Rousseau. Both are superb bins, and what separates them is a hair's breadth either way.
And now, surprise surprise, the EII's. In every test that I could devise, they won hands down. Sharper on every score. Yes, much fuzzier at the edges, but again, the huge FOV makes this pretty irrelevant. I could read the newsprint far better, and from further away, with the EII's. And comparing them in the field, they were brighter than either the EL's or the HGL's, especially at twilight while looking for Roding Woodcock in my back garden.
Weight? EII's- 600g; EL's- 690g; HGL's- 740g. (With straps, etc.).
So...the "Deal-breaker" element is entirely up to the individual, I reckon. For me, it's still the ergonomics of the EL's. I can hold them steadier, and so get a better image of the bird in the field. The HGL view is wonderful and "rich", and the chunky rubberised feel is comforting in a Trinovid-esque kind of way. They hang a bit strangely, but it's not a big deal, especially with a field-jacket of any thickness on. And if you open them out to max IPD, they hang flat (the lugs twisting outwards almost to the sides). The EII's aren't really "one-hand" bins for scanning while walking with tripod on shoulder, but I'll use them seawatching or in woods, where FOV for me becomes paramount.
SUMMARY: I have far more 8x bins than I need or know what to do with. I also live on a practically birdless island and consequently have too much time for faffing about with bins instead of going looking at birds. None of the fine distinctions between the above superb bins make the slightest bit of difference in the field. And given that only one sample of each was involved, two of them being 3-year old units, the whole affair carries no validity whatsoever. Lots of fun though. Thanks for your replies!
I taped an A4 page with 12-point Times New Roman text printed onto a placard, set it on a chair at a distance of 15 meters from a tripod. I then rested the bins on top of the 'pod, and found, surprisingly, that I could discern no difference in sharpness between the EL's and the HGL's. Moving the bins further and closer still didn't allow me to distinguish between them in terms of sharpness. I substituted a copy of the "Bray People" newspaper for the page (smaller, fuzzier text), and found exactly the same. Although I had expected the HGL's to be sharper (they appeared so in the field), they actually weren't...try as I might, with the bins on a 'pod, or hand-held, at any distance (I found about 13 meters was as far as a I could manage with the bins hand-held), they were pretty much equals. I also tried both left and right barrels, first with L/R eyes, then with only the right eye to each barrel in turn. Same results. The EL's had a slightly fuzzier edge, but then they've wider FOV anyway. That extra 0.2 degree makes a difference in viewing comfort for me, though. Also the EL's grip is far more comfortable and allows for a more stable image with one or two hands. They are also brighter. And yet....there is something very pleasant about the Nikons that I can't quite define, the image is darker but somehow "richer", more contrasty or "deeper". I can't find words to describe this, please excuse the amateurish-ness. The EL's in comparison seem less warm, but beautiful nonetheless. If they were Post-Impressionist Painters, the EL's would be Georges Seurat, the HGL's would be Henri Rousseau. Both are superb bins, and what separates them is a hair's breadth either way.
And now, surprise surprise, the EII's. In every test that I could devise, they won hands down. Sharper on every score. Yes, much fuzzier at the edges, but again, the huge FOV makes this pretty irrelevant. I could read the newsprint far better, and from further away, with the EII's. And comparing them in the field, they were brighter than either the EL's or the HGL's, especially at twilight while looking for Roding Woodcock in my back garden.
Weight? EII's- 600g; EL's- 690g; HGL's- 740g. (With straps, etc.).
So...the "Deal-breaker" element is entirely up to the individual, I reckon. For me, it's still the ergonomics of the EL's. I can hold them steadier, and so get a better image of the bird in the field. The HGL view is wonderful and "rich", and the chunky rubberised feel is comforting in a Trinovid-esque kind of way. They hang a bit strangely, but it's not a big deal, especially with a field-jacket of any thickness on. And if you open them out to max IPD, they hang flat (the lugs twisting outwards almost to the sides). The EII's aren't really "one-hand" bins for scanning while walking with tripod on shoulder, but I'll use them seawatching or in woods, where FOV for me becomes paramount.
SUMMARY: I have far more 8x bins than I need or know what to do with. I also live on a practically birdless island and consequently have too much time for faffing about with bins instead of going looking at birds. None of the fine distinctions between the above superb bins make the slightest bit of difference in the field. And given that only one sample of each was involved, two of them being 3-year old units, the whole affair carries no validity whatsoever. Lots of fun though. Thanks for your replies!
mooreorless
Well-known member
Sancho, Thank you so much for your very nice review comparing these three binoculars. I found it quite interesting. Do you want to sell the EIIs?
Regards,Steve
Regards,Steve
To the contrary!
(noble understatement?)
why surprisingly?
Both 8x32s ?
Same format (8x30)?
I suppose you're the only person on the planet suffering from this strange "disease"
. Interesting bottom-line.
Suitable to make one think ....
Keep up the good, scientific work.
T
Similar threads
