Leif said:
Swissboy: Thanks for the link. I used an online machne translator. The article mentions that Swarovski can supply a rocket booster for the ELs. Nice idea! Mars next stop. Or perhaps the translator is not so good?
However, I did learn that the author considers the Swaro 8x32 EL and Leica 8x32 BN to be very close optically. This is interesting given the price difference. I have not tested the Swaro so cannot comment. He also seems to say that the Swaro 8.5x42 is no sharper than the Leica 8x32 BN which I know to be nonsense. The Swaro resolves quite a bit more detail. He also seems to say that the Swaro and Leica show similar colour correction. To my eyes the Leica 8x32 BN always shows rather a lot of false colour, and side by side with the Swaro, quite a bit more. (I have seen one other report agreeing that the Leica has poor colour correction.) Of course the macine translation I have is not so good so maybe I have mis-read the results?
The oddities in the Norwegian reports are the Zeiss 8x30 BGAT and the Zeiss scopes. They concluded that optically the Zeiss 8x30 is poor (relatively speaking) which is not true. It is roughly equal to the Leica 8x32 BN. (Better in some respects, not as good in others.) In fairness they did state that they did the test some years ago and the bins are likely to have been improved since, but still, could they really have improved so much? Does a model improve that much? Regarding the Zeiss scopes, they rate them poorly, which goes against the opinions of numerous other testers. (I have not tried them.)
Yes Leif, machine translations do create very funny results at times. We used to play around with that some time ago. But that booster in Dutch is pretty much what you call it in English. And the machine probably tries the most common usage. Overall, enhancer (of whatever) would probably fit, in this case enhancer of magnification.
As for the comparisons, I don't know sufficient Dutch to try to read all the text, so I use the tables primarily. And there, the sharpness etc is given by a point scale only. So both Swarovski 8.5x42 and Leica 8x32 have the maximum number of 5. But it is well known that larger objectives allow for higher resolution, and maybe they simply took that into account?
The price differences between Swarovski and Leica may in part result from a difference in company philosophy. Leica is known to be stingy when it comes to repairs under warranty, whereas Swarovski handles things more on a "no questions asked" basis. But they need their money as well. So it may simply be paid for at an earlier date, i.e. already when you buy their product. Thus, more expensive (at the time of purchase) does not have to mean better.
Concerning color corrections, we enter a thorny field. It is here where a lot of subjectivity comes into the game. I own a Leica 8x32BA and I have always been extremely pleased by the way colors are shown. The same holds for the Leica Apo Televid 77. My brother now has a new Swarovski ED80. We recently looked at the same distant object (a group of lapwings getting ready for the night, with a golden plover among them) in dull evening light. We both had our wide angle eyepiece on (30x for the Swarovski, 32x for the Leica). For one thing, that 2x difference was quite noticeable in the field. But as for the color rendition, the Swarovski picture was much bluer and therefore colder in appearance. (I had noticed this before under better conditions.) It also seemed darker. Personally, I prefer the Leica, but my brother does not mind. I think it is to a considerable degree a question of what you are used to. At least once we discuss things at this high a level. By the way, both scopes gave us the same limitations of what could still be discerned!
As for the Zeiss scopes, I think BVD did not give them as good a ranking as the Swarovski, again allowing for only subtle overall differences. (That was before Ingraham joined Zeiss, so it was presumably still a trustworthy test.)