New bin, EL10x50SV (1 Viewer)

[Theo98]

Guys I have purchased EL 10*50 SV today through my friend in Hamburg. He will be back in Delhi day after and then I will have chance to take the possession. It costed me 2100 Euros. Sanjay

Congratulations Sanjay! :t: With the usage I recall you stating a few months ago, I'm sure you will be elated with your final choice in optics!

My US model did come with the snap shot adapter (you could obtain from Swarovski). I use a simple optics pen (brush and cleaning disk all in one). Get a good bino harness and get ready for some Amazing Glassing Sessions...Enjoy!!

Ted

 

[Swedpat]

I understand the great optical performance of SV 10x50 makes people more forgiving about the weight. Actually it's almost 1kg, which is noticeably heavier in the hand than 800g. The weight of SLC 7x42 New(950g) was a drawback and Conquest HD 8x42 is easier to hold in the long run. And when I compare Conquest HD 8x42 to Vortex Viper 6x32 the 8x42 is significantly heavier in the hand than 6x32. Resulting in that I more often bring with me the 6x32 out in the field.

Some people say that SV 10x50 is very easy to hold despite the size and weight. I still doubt that it would be easier than the SLC 7x42. If you want a binocular which feels light weight and comfortable the choice is a smaller binocular like SV 8x32(Probably the best I ever tried in this respect) OR Zeiss SFs(they felt light weight and easy to hold compared to SV 42mm models).

I would say: if I am stationary it's no problem with a large binocular. But for walking around a 32mm model is much easier than 42mm, and even easier than a ~1kg 50mm model. When I compared SV 8x32 to 8,5x42 I realized that if I had both of them the 8x32 had been the choice 9 of 10 times.
Therefore I highly doubt that I would like to walk long distances in the wilderness with SV 10x50 around the neck. I don't doubt about that it's a supreme binocular, but is it so good that the size and weight hardly is an issue at all? I get that impression...

Some numbers: based on the exit pupil size a 10x50 is ~2,4% brighter than a 8,5x42. This is hardly noticeable at all. The sharpness over the entire FOV of 8,5x42 is likely the best I have ever seen in a binocular. I am very sure that the sharpness of the 8,5x42 is not possible to surpass for a person with average eyesight. According to the specs the entire Swarovision series uses the same coating and same prism design so we should not expect more than a minimal difference in light transmission between them.
If I realize that the 8x32 would be more used than 8,5x42 in the most cases due to the size and weight, it definitely should be even more the choice compared to 10x50.

 

[Sanjay Naithani]

Sanjay

Many congratulations!! I wish you years of very happy use. As you know, I hugely enjoy my pair of EL 10X50 and I am certain that the same will apply to you.

Why not see if the distributor in Hamburg will throw in the SV cleaning kit and the SV harness for free? As part of the 2100 Euros? That was the deal that i struck. If they will only do one, I would go for the harness.

Best wishes
Rolstone

Thanks. 2100 euro was the best we could negotiate.

Sanjay

 

[Sanjay Naithani]

I understand the great optical performance of SV 10x50 makes people more forgiving about the weight. Actually it's almost 1kg, which is noticeably heavier in the hand than 800g. The weight of SLC 7x42 New(950g) was a drawback and Conquest HD 8x42 is easier to hold in the long run. And when I compare Conquest HD 8x42 to Vortex Viper 6x32 the 8x42 is significantly heavier in the hand than 6x32. Resulting in that I more often bring with me the 6x32 out in the field.

Some people say that SV 10x50 is very easy to hold despite the size and weight. I still doubt that it would be easier than the SLC 7x42. If you want a binocular which feels light weight and comfortable the choice is a smaller binocular like SV 8x32(Probably the best I ever tried in this respect) OR Zeiss SFs(they felt light weight and easy to hold compared to SV 42mm models).

I would say: if I am stationary it's no problem with a large binocular. But for walking around a 32mm model is much easier than 42mm, and even easier than a ~1kg 50mm model. When I compared SV 8x32 to 8,5x42 I realized that if I had both of them the 8x32 had been the choice 9 of 10 times.
Therefore I highly doubt that I would like to walk long distances in the wilderness with SV 10x50 around the neck. I don't doubt about that it's a supreme binocular, but is it so good that the size and weight hardly is an issue at all? I get that impression...

Some numbers: based on the exit pupil size a 10x50 is ~2,4% brighter than a 8,5x42. This is hardly noticeable at all. The sharpness over the entire FOV of 8,5x42 is likely the best I have ever seen in a binocular. I am very sure that the sharpness of the 8,5x42 is not possible to surpass for a person with average eyesight. According to the specs the entire Swarovision series uses the same coating and same prism design so we should not expect more than a minimal difference in light transmission between them.
If I realize that the 8x32 would be more used than 8,5x42 in the most cases due to the size and weight, it definitely should be even more the choice compared to 10x50.

8.5 was never an option for me. I always wanted to buy 10. I was all prepared to buy SV 10*42 but finally gone in favour of 10*50 SV. Now for me time for deliberation is over and it's time to make best use of what I have bought.

Sanjay

 

[Uhu74]

I understand the great optical performance of SV 10x50 makes people more forgiving about the weight. Actually it's almost 1kg, which is noticeably heavier in the hand than 800g. The weight of SLC 7x42 New(950g) was a drawback and Conquest HD 8x42 is easier to hold in the long run. And when I compare Conquest HD 8x42 to Vortex Viper 6x32 the 8x42 is significantly heavier in the hand than 6x32. Resulting in that I more often bring with me the 6x32 out in the field.

Some people say that SV 10x50 is very easy to hold despite the size and weight. I still doubt that it would be easier than the SLC 7x42. If you want a binocular which feels light weight and comfortable the choice is a smaller binocular like SV 8x32(Probably the best I ever tried in this respect) OR Zeiss SFs(they felt light weight and easy to hold compared to SV 42mm models).

I would say: if I am stationary it's no problem with a large binocular. But for walking around a 32mm model is much easier than 42mm, and even easier than a ~1kg 50mm model. When I compared SV 8x32 to 8,5x42 I realized that if I had both of them the 8x32 had been the choice 9 of 10 times.
Therefore I highly doubt that I would like to walk long distances in the wilderness with SV 10x50 around the neck. I don't doubt about that it's a supreme binocular, but is it so good that the size and weight hardly is an issue at all? I get that impression...

Some numbers: based on the exit pupil size a 10x50 is ~2,4% brighter than a 8,5x42. This is hardly noticeable at all. The sharpness over the entire FOV of 8,5x42 is likely the best I have ever seen in a binocular. I am very sure that the sharpness of the 8,5x42 is not possible to surpass for a person with average eyesight. According to the specs the entire Swarovision series uses the same coating and same prism design so we should not expect more than a minimal difference in light transmission between them.
If I realize that the 8x32 would be more used than 8,5x42 in the most cases due to the size and weight, it definitely should be even more the choice compared to 10x50.

I barely use the 32 anymore since I have the 50. The only thing what I like more in the 32 is it's wide FOV. of the 8x mag. I can't speak for others, but 1kg is not a restriction for me to carry it all day long. As a side note, I think with binos >42mm/800g, a harness becomes almost mandatory. Pity we're so far apart, otherwise you could try it for a day.
Agree with the comment about the 8.5x42, when I would have chosen to get another 8 (.5)x bin, I'd go 42mm and not bigger. 5mm EP is comfortable enough for me.
But that many people are raving about the SV50 sure does mean somethingo

 

[Swedpat]

I barely use the 32 anymore since I have the 50. The only thing what I like more in the 32 is it's wide FOV. of the 8x mag. I can't speak for others, but 1kg is not a restriction for me to carry it all day long. As a side note, I think with binos >42mm/800g, a harness becomes almost mandatory. Pity we're so far apart, otherwise you could try it for a day.
Agree with the comment about the 8.5x42, when I would have chosen to get another 8 (.5)x bin, I'd go 42mm and not bigger. 5mm EP is comfortable enough for me.
But that many people are raving about the SV50 sure does mean somethingo

Yeah, it has to be something special with the SV 10x50, though I don't really understand what it is. On the paper it's just a slightly larger version of SV 8,5x42. Very close to the same brightness and AFOV. Just a difference in magnification and TFOV. Theoretically it should be practically identical to observe an object at 10m with the 10x50 as observing an object at 8,5m with the 8,5x42. With other word: nothing spectacular.

But I am not going to argue anymore before I have tried the 10x50!

 

[[email protected]]

Yeah, it has to be something special with the SV 10x50, though I don't really understand what it is. On the paper it's just a slightly larger version of SV 8,5x42. Very close to the same brightness and AFOV. Just a difference in magnification and TFOV. Theoretically it should be practically identical to observe an object at 10m with the 10x50 as observing an object at 8,5m with the 8,5x42. With other word: nothing spectacular.

But I am not going to argue anymore before I have tried the 10x50!

There are other advantages to the bigger aperture besides brightness and comfort because of the bigger exit pupil. There are less optical aberrations with the bigger aperture also. You will see more detail with the 10x also. The birds are BIG like they are right there!

 

[Uhu74]

There are other advantages to the bigger aperture besides brightness and comfort because of the bigger exit pupil. There are less optical aberrations with the bigger aperture also. You will see more detail with the 10x also. The birds are BIG like they are right there!

SP is talking 8.5x42 vs 10x50|=)|
But I agree, a big EP rules. Now I know what I have been missing in the 32.
But still, the SV32 is one of the nicest 32mm's around. too bad it's not really compact, and the glare is sometimes bothersome. I've had moments with it that is was useless. That's a bit of a disappointment when you take the price into consideration. I think the Victory FL 8x32 is it's closest competitor.

 

[Swedpat]

Well; I don't think anyone will see a difference between 4,94 and 5mm exit pupil, neither when it comes brightness or eye placement comfort. Compared to 4mm exit pupil I think there is a noticeable difference, however. But 6x32 has 5,33mm exit pupil and I think it's one reason I like this format so much. The stable and bright image is very nice. Still there are occasions when I want higher magnification and the SV 10x50 is indeed very interesting! Without a lottery win I am not going to get it this year, though...

 

[stephen b]

Most of this is laws of physics and it just makes sense that the resolution and ease of view is better in a 10x50 and a 8x32 in the same maker and model. Different binoculars for different applications. I do think there is a reason that most people do not want to carry around a 10x50 all day, for a every time application. But there are those that do, and certainly applications where the 10x50 is best tool for the job. I have a few binos in different sizes that I like to use. And a 10x and 12x really shine when on a support. I can even hand hold a 12x for brief period of time.

Concerning exit pupil size and size of objective- and I was thinking of this thread the other night when I was on my back deck observing birds, and some wildlife. I was in the last 1/2 hour of light ( after official sunset), and had a Swarovski 7x42 SLC NEU, and a Meopta made 12x50 HD ( Cabelas 12x50 Euro HD- which BTW is a very nice binocular). Obviously the 7x42 SLC NEU has the much larger exit pupil (6) vs the 4.166 of the 12x50, but.... I was really surprised at how much light and how bright the 50 mm Meopta was. And of course the 12 x does help with twilight factor. I was looking into the shadows of a maple tree about 200 yards away watching a small Merlin sitting on one of the branches. With the 7x I could see it, and with the 12x I could obviously see it better. But what surprised me was how bright the 12x50 was with regards to seeing into the shadows and lighting up the trunk of the tree.

I at first was just picking up the 12x50 to get a better view of the Merlin, but when I did so, I could not believe how bright the trunk was compared to the 7x42. I was struck by that, so then while looking at same tree and bird I began to go back and forth between the two binos. I had always thought of the 7x42 as such a great low light performer, and I was quite surprised at how much brighter that 12x50 was in that situation. Now I want to do some comparison testing in low light between this 12x50 Meopta and a pretty nice older 7x50 porro that I have. I know the 7x50 porro is a bit brighter in low light than the 7x42 SLC.

Anyways, I found my observations to be illuminating to me.

 

[Swedpat]

Stephen b,

I understand what you mean. And I have some similar experience. The twilight factor means that a higher magnification wins over a lower brightness as long the brightness is adequate to reveal details. Once, I compared my Conquest HD 8x42 to my Pentax 65mm spotting scope at 30x. I aimed against a dimmed area, and when I barely could identify a bicycle with the 8x42 I could clearly do it with 30x65, and also see details. Yes, the image of 8x42 was brighter but the brightness with 30x65 was adequate to, with the help of the much higher magnification, see the bike much better.
However; IF the low light conditions had been much worse than that, it had reached that level when I had not been able to see anything at all with 30x65, while I still had the chance to see something with 8x42. Of course it's an extreme difference to compare 8x to 30x.

Another way I have expressed this in another thread: if you compare a 6x30 to a 10x50(same exit pupil) in low light in the wilderness: as long as you are able to see anything in the 6x30 you will see it better in the 10x50. But if it's too dark to see anything in the 6x30, you will not see anything in the 10x50 either. Magnified darkness=darkness.

Still there are more factors to take in consider here: in some cases, a higher magnification(because of the narrower TFOV) helps to avoid light sources when observing an object in a low light area. If so, 12x50 even more can be better than 7x50. But if we are observing an even illuminated object which covers the entire FOV(example: a wall or sky background), the brightness will be proportional to the area of the exit pupil if light transmission is of same level. And that undependent of magnification/aperture.
BUT: it's well known that we don't perceive brightness difference linearly, but in some way logarithmic. Twice brighter image usually doesn't look really twice as bright, and therefore we may not perceive a 7x50 as almost three times brighter than a 12x50, though that's the difference of the exit pupil area. This contributes to that we don't gain as much as we could expect by lowering the magnification in the intention to see better in low light.

Excuse my somewhat not perfect english...

Patric

 

[jgraider]

I understand the great optical performance of SV 10x50 makes people more forgiving about the weight. Actually it's almost 1kg, which is noticeably heavier in the hand than 800g. The weight of SLC 7x42 New(950g) was a drawback and Conquest HD 8x42 is easier to hold in the long run. And when I compare Conquest HD 8x42 to Vortex Viper 6x32 the 8x42 is significantly heavier in the hand than 6x32. Resulting in that I more often bring with me the 6x32 out in the field.

Some people say that SV 10x50 is very easy to hold despite the size and weight. I still doubt that it would be easier than the SLC 7x42. If you want a binocular which feels light weight and comfortable the choice is a smaller binocular like SV 8x32(Probably the best I ever tried in this respect) OR Zeiss SFs(they felt light weight and easy to hold compared to SV 42mm models).

I would say: if I am stationary it's no problem with a large binocular. But for walking around a 32mm model is much easier than 42mm, and even easier than a ~1kg 50mm model. When I compared SV 8x32 to 8,5x42 I realized that if I had both of them the 8x32 had been the choice 9 of 10 times.
Therefore I highly doubt that I would like to walk long distances in the wilderness with SV 10x50 around the neck. I don't doubt about that it's a supreme binocular, but is it so good that the size and weight hardly is an issue at all? I get that impression...

Some numbers: based on the exit pupil size a 10x50 is ~2,4% brighter than a 8,5x42. This is hardly noticeable at all. The sharpness over the entire FOV of 8,5x42 is likely the best I have ever seen in a binocular. I am very sure that the sharpness of the 8,5x42 is not possible to surpass for a person with average eyesight. According to the specs the entire Swarovision series uses the same coating and same prism design so we should not expect more than a minimal difference in light transmission between them.
If I realize that the 8x32 would be more used than 8,5x42 in the most cases due to the size and weight, it definitely should be even more the choice compared to 10x50.

The difference in what you posted, and what actual users have to say about the , comparisons, is that all you have done is guess and make presumptions without having actually used the 10x50.

 

[Theo98]

But I am not going to argue anymore before I have tried the 10x50!

Good reasoning Patric. Then, let us know what Your Experience is! :t:

Ted

 

[Swedpat]

The difference in what you posted, and what actual users have to say about the , comparisons, is that all you have done is guess and make presumptions without having actually used the 10x50.

I can't oppose to what you are saying. I just base my thoughts from my knowledge of the optical laws and my own experience of the difference between many binoculars. I will not argue anymore about the SV 10x50 before I have tried it! :t:

 

[Maljunulo]

I can't oppose to what you are saying. I just base my thoughts from my knowledge of the optical laws and my own experience of the difference between many binoculars. I will not argue anymore about the SV 10x50 before I have tried it! :t:

A wise decision, indeed.

 

[[email protected]]

SP is talking 8.5x42 vs 10x50|=)|
But I agree, a big EP rules. Now I know what I have been missing in the 32.
But still, the SV32 is one of the nicest 32mm's around. too bad it's not really compact, and the glare is sometimes bothersome. I've had moments with it that is was useless. That's a bit of a disappointment when you take the price into consideration. I think the Victory FL 8x32 is it's closest competitor.

I would place them SV 8x32 first, Nikon 8x32 EDG II 2nd and Zeiss 8x32 FL third. I had all three at once and I went back and forth for days between them and finally sold the Nikon EDG and the Zeiss FL.

 

[[email protected]]

Well; I don't think anyone will see a difference between 4,94 and 5mm exit pupil, neither when it comes brightness or eye placement comfort. Compared to 4mm exit pupil I think there is a noticeable difference, however. But 6x32 has 5,33mm exit pupil and I think it's one reason I like this format so much. The stable and bright image is very nice. Still there are occasions when I want higher magnification and the SV 10x50 is indeed very interesting! Without a lottery win I am not going to get it this year, though...

i know where you are coming from,as far as, the lottery win. $2300.00 dollars is a lot of money to spend on a binocular. 6x is just to weak for me. You can see more DETAIL and the bird is BIG at 10x.

 

[Pileatus]

Stephen b,

I understand what you mean. And I have some similar experience. The twilight factor means that a higher magnification wins over a lower brightness as long the brightness is adequate to reveal details. Once, I compared my Conquest HD 8x42 to my Pentax 65mm spotting scope at 30x. I aimed against a dimmed area, and when I barely could identify a bicycle with the 8x42 I could clearly do it with 30x65, and also see details. Yes, the image of 8x42 was brighter but the brightness with 30x65 was adequate to, with the help of the much higher magnification, see the bike much better.
However; IF the low light conditions had been much worse than that, it had reached that level when I had not been able to see anything at all with 30x65, while I still had the chance to see something with 8x42. Of course it's an extreme difference to compare 8x to 30x.

Another way I have expressed this in another thread: if you compare a 6x30 to a 10x50(same exit pupil) in low light in the wilderness: as long as you are able to see anything in the 6x30 you will see it better in the 10x50. But if it's too dark to see anything in the 6x30, you will not see anything in the 10x50 either. Magnified darkness=darkness.

Still there are more factors to take in consider here: in some cases, a higher magnification(because of the narrower TFOV) helps to avoid light sources when observing an object in a low light area. If so, 12x50 even more can be better than 7x50. But if we are observing an even illuminated object which covers the entire FOV(example: a wall or sky background), the brightness will be proportional to the area of the exit pupil if light transmission is of same level. And that undependent of magnification/aperture.
BUT: it's well known that we don't perceive brightness difference linearly, but in some way logarithmic. Twice brighter image usually doesn't look really twice as bright, and therefore we may not perceive a 7x50 as almost three times brighter than a 12x50, though that's the difference of the exit pupil area. This contributes to that we don't gain as much as we could expect by lowering the magnification in the intention to see better in low light.

Excuse my somewhat not perfect english...

Patric

You need to consider the area(s) of your objectives before comparing what they do or don't do. That 65mm scope delivers more photons at 30X (2.16mm exit) than the 42mm does at 8X (5mm exit).

Area 65 mm = 3318
Area 42 mm = 1385

 

[Sanjay Naithani]

I got my 10*50 SV just one hour ago. I didn't have real chance to look through them as it is already 10 pm and absolutely dark here. I did feel them in my hand and I was surprised to see that it didn't feel heavy, this is just the first impression of it. I think I should be able to manage its weight without any problem. I will update here once I look through them

Sanjay

 

[Maljunulo]

Sanjay;

We are delighted that you have finally made a purchase, and that your painful time of vacillating is over.

I, for one, hope that you enjoy your new purchase as much as I think you will, and whatever you do, don't fall into the trap of looking for defects, deficiencies, or things to criticise.

Enjoy them as the superb instrument that all Swarovski glass is.

Richard