MandoBear
Well-known member
Nothing like stretching a point until it breaks, is there Dennis?
-
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.
Do I want an EII 8x30? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter sillyak
- Start date
"Contrast describes tones, specifically the relationship between the darkest and brightest parts of an image. If the difference between darkest and lightest portions of an image is vast - for example, if the shadows are very dark and the highlights are very bright - an image is said to have high contrast."
brocknroller
porromaniac
Will,
Nice line-up! Looks like you have the best of both worlds (porros and roofs). What strikes me looking at your top down photos of the three bins is how much larger the EL SV's eyecups are even compared to the E2's, which are wide. I have to squeeze them into my eye sockets to see the entire FOV. The pre-SV eyecups were very narrow by comparison and tended to fall into my eye sockets, sometimes creating blackouts when I panned with the bins.
When I bought the Nikon 8x42 EDG and saw how wide the eyecups were, I wondered if they'd fit my face, but they have slim rubber rims like the EL SV and fit comfortably outside my eye sockets. The 5-click stops allow me to adjust the height of the cups so I can see the maximum FOV w/out blackouts. It could be the same with the SV, but the "mustache" AMD distortion would likely cause "rolling ball" for me like the low distortion 42mm Nikon LXs did, so I passed on a couple of very nicely priced 8x32 SVs last year and bought the EDG instead. If the sellers had taken returns, I would have tried the SVs to see for myself, but from taking Holger Merlitz's pincushion/AMD test, I don't think they'd work for me.
I had been looking for the 8x32 EDG, but they are rare as a 4-leaf clover these days, and when I do see one for sale, it's usually priced over $2k. I have no regrets buying the 42 EDG, I'm very pleased with it. I brought it with me on a walk yesterday, and even though I surprisingly didn't see one bird, whatever I looked at was stunning through the EDG. It's only about 4 oz. heavier than the 32 model, and it's relatively compact for a full sized alpha roof. I'll post some comparison photos of the EDG, E2 and SE.
Tobias Mennle would disagree with you about not being able to tell the difference in sharpness or resolution (not equivalent terms) between the Habicht, EL and 8x30 E2 (even my 100th Anniversary edition). For him the Habichts beats the E2 and SV due to its "mindblowing sharpness." Here's his review of the Habichts.
In general, I'm not a fan of Swaro greaseless focusers since they turn smooth in one direction and unevenly in the other direction, some worse than others. The focuser on 2010 8x32 EL I bought but returned after three weeks had almost no stiction while turning it to the left, and too much stiction and sticky spots turning it to the right. The focuser was also very small and made entirely of plastic. I'm guessing that Swarovski doesn't want to use grease in their focusers so they don't stiffen up in cold weather, but I'd rather that than a "herky jerky" greaseless focuser.
How's is the focuser on your SV EL?
A good 8x30 E2 sample (they do vary) has a huge sweet spot for such a wide FOV (8.8*) and gradual fall off at the edges. The 100th Anniversary Edition has better contrast and brightness than my black body version, which was manufactured just two years earlier. The E2 AE has coatings with a flatter light curve similar to the EDG. Tobias had the same two versions I do and noted the difference in his review of the 100th Anniversary Edition E2:
So if people disagree over the contrast in the E2, it could be because they have different versions. Newer E2s will have better contrast and brightness than earlier ones due to improved coatings. Unlike the Big Three, Nikon doesn't announce when it adds new coatings to its bins and doesn't give them propriety names. The coatings on the AE E2 are so low intensity, it's hard to see any reflections off the objectives, which means that more light is being transmitted. The improved coatings also reduce flaring.
Speaking of which... flaring was also a problem with the pre-SV 8x32 EL, and it wasn't easy to put sunshades on those stubby barrels because of the double bridge. The SV EL is also susceptible to flaring, according to Allbinos and other reviewers, but not everyone is bothered by it.
Do you find the 8x32 SV EL is prone to flaring when the sun is in front of you?
tenex
reality-based
Whether the EII is "high contrast" is what seems to be opinion or preference here, and yours differs from most people's. My point was simply that your habits of citing dictionary definitions of "contrast" (which others are not unaware of), or posting clumsily manipulated images that are supposed to illustrate "contrast", do not help in justifying your opinion and could be dispensed with.
I've wondered about this at times, having tried SEs but never EIIs. I disliked the color rendition of the SEs (cool reddish); are EIIs similar in that respect?
willisoften
Well-known member
@brocknroller
I was looking at various bits and pieces at the bottom of the garden handholding some 8x binoculars and seeing what I could read off old plant-food tubs 20-30 meters away. Checking the contrast range and brightness. Under those circumstances theres not a hell of a lot difference to see.
The habicht produces a nice nice sharp image but mind blowingly, amazingly sharp, dogs-bollocky sharp with extra hyperbole? Nah.
Is it brighter ? Yes a bit. Probably almost a 20th part brighter than another binocular- amazing!
Has it a tacky logo printed garishly on top . With a silver sparrow tastelessly embellishing the leather effect plastic covering? Absolutely!
I do actually like my Habicht, but it didn't live up to the racing stripes painted on it by a Edit (well just say "a number of reviewers") Nor is the glare or vieling glare all that bad. I live in a Northern Ireland and low strong winter sunshine is a fact of life. Think looking obliquely through double glazing when the sun fills the room - the contrast is gone but you can still see stuff. The E2 is a little better but not much.
The EL was the best performer all round if you want to read tomato-feeding instructions at the bottom of the garden.
Would I pick the Habicht rather than the E2? Possibly. It is water resistant and nitrogen filled and a quality animal. The focusing kills it and the blue cast probably reduces the ability to perceive contrast. (Don't tell Denco!) By the way thats a physiological part of being human not a physical fact of binoculars.
Edit: The focuser on the EL is fine - smooth in both directions and easy but easier clockwise. The Habicht is Ok usable clockwise and hard to start anti-clockwise and once you've started : still stiff. The only other focusing mechanism I have which exhibits these tendencies is a Zeiss OberKochen 8x30b which was dropped. Probably 30 years ago during an eposide of 30Sometings on a neighbours TV
I was looking at various bits and pieces at the bottom of the garden handholding some 8x binoculars and seeing what I could read off old plant-food tubs 20-30 meters away. Checking the contrast range and brightness. Under those circumstances theres not a hell of a lot difference to see.
The habicht produces a nice nice sharp image but mind blowingly, amazingly sharp, dogs-bollocky sharp with extra hyperbole? Nah.
Is it brighter ? Yes a bit. Probably almost a 20th part brighter than another binocular- amazing!
Has it a tacky logo printed garishly on top . With a silver sparrow tastelessly embellishing the leather effect plastic covering? Absolutely!
I do actually like my Habicht, but it didn't live up to the racing stripes painted on it by a Edit (well just say "a number of reviewers") Nor is the glare or vieling glare all that bad. I live in a Northern Ireland and low strong winter sunshine is a fact of life. Think looking obliquely through double glazing when the sun fills the room - the contrast is gone but you can still see stuff. The E2 is a little better but not much.
The EL was the best performer all round if you want to read tomato-feeding instructions at the bottom of the garden.
Would I pick the Habicht rather than the E2? Possibly. It is water resistant and nitrogen filled and a quality animal. The focusing kills it and the blue cast probably reduces the ability to perceive contrast. (Don't tell Denco!) By the way thats a physiological part of being human not a physical fact of binoculars.
Edit: The focuser on the EL is fine - smooth in both directions and easy but easier clockwise. The Habicht is Ok usable clockwise and hard to start anti-clockwise and once you've started : still stiff. The only other focusing mechanism I have which exhibits these tendencies is a Zeiss OberKochen 8x30b which was dropped. Probably 30 years ago during an eposide of 30Sometings on a neighbours TV
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
I am always happy to hear reports about smooth and even turning Swaro focusers. What is Sawro doing different now than it had before to achieve this long awaited improvement? I thought perhaps the Wizards of Absam finally discovered the secret sauce for making smooth focusers--grease. But I haven't read anything about a major focuser redesign, and when Swaro makes innovations, it markets the heck out of them.
So, I wonder if it's just sample variation I'm hearing about, or if there has been an across-the-board improvement in Swaro focusers since the last ones I tried (EL and SLC HD, both made in 2010)?
One way to document the change, if there was one, is to ask users who have EL focusers that turn smoothly and evenly in both directions what year their EL was made. If you find a pattern such that focusers made during and after a particular year are better than those made before that year, then you will have established that there may be more going on than sample variation. I would think that Swaro would announce such improvements, but perhaps they don't want to discourage people from buying new old stock by having buyers call dealers and ask what year the binoculars were made. With most other binoculars, you wouldn't be able to date their manufacture but with Swaro, you add 30 to the first two numbers in the serial number to find out the year it was made. So if the EL's serial number started with 85, it was made in 2015.
I wouldn't undertake such a project unless the EL SV were binoculars I was interested in buying, but the pincushion/AMD "mustache distortion" would keep me away, unless they changed that too There were rumors to that effect a few years ago, but I haven't seen any of the experts who test distortion verify that. Changing the distortion in a binoculars' lenses is a major change and would add cost to the EL, and why do that if they can make more money by introducing special models (field pro).
OTOH, designing a smooth and even turning focuser is R&D that will be recouped since I've lost count of how many Swaro owners have sent their binoculars in for repairs under warranty due to focuser issues That adds up to a lot of labor costs, which could be saved by a redesign. We shall see...
So, I wonder if it's just sample variation I'm hearing about, or if there has been an across-the-board improvement in Swaro focusers since the last ones I tried (EL and SLC HD, both made in 2010)?
One way to document the change, if there was one, is to ask users who have EL focusers that turn smoothly and evenly in both directions what year their EL was made. If you find a pattern such that focusers made during and after a particular year are better than those made before that year, then you will have established that there may be more going on than sample variation. I would think that Swaro would announce such improvements, but perhaps they don't want to discourage people from buying new old stock by having buyers call dealers and ask what year the binoculars were made. With most other binoculars, you wouldn't be able to date their manufacture but with Swaro, you add 30 to the first two numbers in the serial number to find out the year it was made. So if the EL's serial number started with 85, it was made in 2015.
I wouldn't undertake such a project unless the EL SV were binoculars I was interested in buying, but the pincushion/AMD "mustache distortion" would keep me away, unless they changed that too There were rumors to that effect a few years ago, but I haven't seen any of the experts who test distortion verify that. Changing the distortion in a binoculars' lenses is a major change and would add cost to the EL, and why do that if they can make more money by introducing special models (field pro).
OTOH, designing a smooth and even turning focuser is R&D that will be recouped since I've lost count of how many Swaro owners have sent their binoculars in for repairs under warranty due to focuser issues That adds up to a lot of labor costs, which could be saved by a redesign. We shall see...
Last edited:
Yup. Most Nikon's are reddish. That is their trademark.
Once again you did not answer my question. How did you measure contrast?
By looking through the binocular. Contrast is subjective like brightness. I am not sure how you would objectively measure it. Turn up the contrast on your TV and you can see the difference. Lack of contrast has a washed out appearance compared to something with higher contrast. There is a greater difference in the brightest and darkest parts of an image with a high contrast binocular. With a lower contrast binocular like the EII there is not as much of a difference. A higher contrast binocular has more "pop" or "punch" to the image. An alpha roof has more contrast than the EII, and it should at almost 4 times the price.
I had the 8x32 SE and the 10x42 SE . Both were wonderful bins but I found them both fussy with eye placement , easy to get blackouts (kidney beaning,etc.). I sold both the SE's and bought the 8x30 E2 and the 10x35 E2. I had a good relationship with the E2's until I found out I had astigmatism and needed glasses . The E2's are gone and have been replaced with a more eyeglass friendly bin . I guess I would have had better luck using glasses with the SE's if I had known .
I found the E2's to be as good as the SE's with a few added benefits , wider fov and lovely retro look .
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Albie,
I too found the 8x32 SE fussy and prone to blackouts. Although the 8x30 EII was friendlier, and had a wider FOV, its eye relief was just adequate. I replaced the EII with a roof prism binocular which was more robust, easy to use and had more eye relief. The tradeoff was a narrower FOV but still wider than the 8x32 SE.
Stay safe,
Arthur
I too found the 8x32 SE fussy and prone to blackouts. Although the 8x30 EII was friendlier, and had a wider FOV, its eye relief was just adequate. I replaced the EII with a roof prism binocular which was more robust, easy to use and had more eye relief. The tradeoff was a narrower FOV but still wider than the 8x32 SE.
Stay safe,
Arthur
I'm quite a fan of shingle beaches (or anywhere else there is shingle/gravel) for practical but unscientific checks of contrast and resolution. Beaches are great because of the range of distances you can use, but just focusing down on one area, looking for detail, checking for the 'borders' between pieces of different hues etc. While there is perhaps no unit-measurement you can take away from such a test, you can certainly tell if the bins will be good enough for your usage.
Main difficulty is explaining yourself to passing dog walkers - staring at the ground through binoculars, mumbling.....the police have yet to be involved however.
Main difficulty is explaining yourself to passing dog walkers - staring at the ground through binoculars, mumbling.....the police have yet to be involved however.
I love 8x30 porros, but for locking on to birds in that kind of environment the modern fast focusing 8x32 or 8x42 roof is the better birding tool. If you regard binoculars as a piece of birding equipment any good 8x32 or 8x42 (Meostar if you like your 10x42, or there are plenty of new and secondhand choices) should serve you well, and have the advantage of being more weatherproof. Fields of view of modern 8x30/32 are excellent - 145m/1000m for the 8x30 Monarch HG and 140m/1000m for the 8x32 FL. There'll be very little difference in the field especially at short distance. 7x42 is also an option but although I never had an issue identifying birds with mine, if your birds are high up in tall trees you may want the extra reach of an 8x.
If you're interested in binoculars for their own sake then by all means get the 8x30 EII. It didn't work for me, but has a great many admirers (as you can see) and is a modern day classic. It and the Habicht are the last of the great 8x30 porros, with the multi-coatings that most of the old classics (Zeiss West, Leitz etc) don't.
MandoBear
Well-known member
I use my EII with glasses all the time, and therefore keep the eyecups rolled back permanently. I really don't find it a problem, and, with the glasses I wear which are the rimless variety, I find the eye relief to be adequate, though not generous. One advantage of having the eyecups rolled back is that this makes the rain-guard fit much more snugly over the oculars - to the extent that it is reasonably secure, but not overly so. A quick push with my thumbs as I raise the binoculars to my eyes has it out of the way and hanging from the strap.
Here is good thread on Cloudy Nights talking about why the EII has low contrast.
Comparative contrast in Zeiss, Fuji and Nikon binos - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights
Page 1 of 2 - Comparative contrast in Zeiss, Fuji and Nikon binos - posted in Binoculars: Recently, in bright daylight, I carefully compared what I consider my three finest quality binos: Nikon 8x30 EII (2010), Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX2 and Zeiss Dialyt 7x42B T*P (1993). The object of the...www.cloudynights.com
If CN is going to be the ultimate authority... from the same thread:
10x50 Fujinon, fantastic night binocular but almost useless during the day because of a mix of cromatic aberration and poor contrast in the view.
At night the view of the moon with the Fujinon is good but not at the level of other 10x (Canon 10x42, Swarovision 10x50, 10x56 FL, but not even my old 10x50 Jenoptem....). For night astronomy Fujinon is anycase a very powerfull instrument (wide flat field and fine well defined stars). Unfortunatelly this very good results are reversed in daylight. Compared to the other 10x the Fujinon flat field lack of sparkling resolution and fine details are more hard to see. The cromatic aberration is evident in the whole fied of view (of course worst at the edge) and also the image tone seems dull.
M&P805
Member
Although this is off topic, I thought I would offer my opinion to the above post. I find the IF very difficult to focus. It seems to change very little until you reach an extreme in one direction or the other. I set the FMT-SX 10x50 at “0” (infinity), both right and left, and never attempt to focus during night sky viewing. My vision is about 20/40 in both eyes. The image is sharp across the FOV. The instrument is less useful for terrestrial daylight viewing than a good roof 10x42 or 10x32, IMO. I look forward to comparing to the Nikon E2 10x35.
George
George
Last edited:
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Hey Brock, good to "see" you back on BirdForum!
As far as I can tell, Swarovski has been doing something different with the focus of the EL (to make it reliably smooth) since just before the switch to the FP versions.
--AP
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
I’ve been told, more times than I can remember, that there never was any real problem with swaro focusers...so they would have had no reason to change anything.