New bin, EL10x50SV (1 Viewer)

[Lord Muck]

"Lord Muck ..... You may also want to consider the new Leica Ultravid Plus 10X50. Just as some members who preferred the Swaro 10X50 EL SV compared to the Swaro 10X42 EL SV, here is a review from a member that compared the new Leica to the 10X42 Swaro and likewise, indicated that he preferred the 10X50 Leica.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=310510"

I read Globetrotter's thread on the Leica 10x50 UVD Plus compared to the Swaro 10x42 Swarovision and I don't see where he said he preferred the Leica over the Swaro. In fact he said the Swaro's controlled CA better and had better transparency than the Leica's. To conclude he quoted not at all saying he preferred the Leica.

"Who is the best ?????
For me a direct competition among the Zeiss, leicas and Swaros has no sense at all because they have different designs.
Leica is Leica is you like it take it if not leave it. Leica view microcontrast and ultra Sharp view with a studied distortion to make the view alive.
Zeiss……all about light transmission…..to bright for me during daytime..amazing in low light or cloudy days
Swaro SV the best balanced one with flat field Sharp to the edge and neutral view maybe a Little bit flat view due to the lack of field cuvature….just a perfect view in front of you."

Anyway, you can't compare a 10x50 to a 10x42. The 10x50 is going to have a big advantage in aperture. The 10x50 SV is a totally different animal than it's smaller brother the 10x42 SV. The better detail Globetrotter noticed on the wall could be attributed to the bigger aperture of the Leica also

Denco:...

Many thanks again for your detailed analysis of the Alpha's you have mentioned above.
I will be checking them all out over the next few weeks and months, then i will come to a decision on what i will be spending some serious $$$ on :eat:
And thanks to all of you for sharing your opinions on Alpha binoculars.

Neil

 

[NDhunter]

Jerry,

In your humble opinion, what differences did you find when looking through the conquest 10x42 and the Swarovision 10x50 - between say 500 and 1,000 meters..?

Neil

Neil:

I am not of any help there, I have only tried the SV in a store setting.

Jerry

 

[Lord Muck]

Neil:

I am not of any help there, I have only tried the SV in a store setting.

Jerry

Ok Jerry, its cool.
I guess as others have mentioned in these forums,... we all have different opinions with different binoculars, so its best to go and explore the different brands myself,..then i will make a decision on the best ones for me.

Neil

 

[[email protected]]

There is another way to hold a binocular up to one's eyes other than putting it into ones eye sockets for an on axis view.

That is by bracing the eye cups up against the brow ridge just under ones eye brows. Slight adjustments on the point where it is braced will affect the eye relief. This is why comfortable eye cups are good to have on a binocular. Slight movements of the binocular up and down, on and off axis, can also clear up some types of veiling glare which can crop up when looking at a portion of the sky in the general direction of the sun.

Bob

I use that technique from time to time and it does give you a bigger FOV but you can get a lot of black outs too. If you completely turn the eye cups all the way in then just rest your eyebrows on the top of ocular lenses and tilt the binoculars so you see the full FOV you can get a huge FOV but it is kind of a pain to constantly adjust the tilt to the full FOV. I do know people that use their binoculars like that. The FOV will seem enormous.

 

[SuperDuty]

Hi Neil

I currently have the 8.5X42 SV and 10X50 SV in house and just recently had the 10X42 SF here to compare to my 10X50, I also owned the 10X42 SV for several months. I won't try to tell you which one you should buy as they are all fantastic in their own way, but I would recommend that you have a look at the 8.5 as well as the 10's. If my advice is not to your liking, please don't come to the USA and lay a vicious thrashing on me.3

Robert

 

[Troubador]

I would describe the SF 10x42 as sharp to the edge but its true that it isn't as sharp there as in the centre field. The compensation is that the edges are usefully further apart than most 10x bins.

Lee

 

[Theo98]

I would describe the SF 10x42 as sharp to the edge but its true that it isn't as sharp there as in the centre field. The compensation is that the edges are usefully further apart than most 10x bins.

Lee

Agreed Lee...I found the 10x42SF had a wonderful and easy on the eyes view for a 10X, but also found the excellent edge sharpness of the 10x50 SV contributed to the FOV comparison being Much Closer to my eyes in the field than the [email protected] spec differences. Now, a possible "future 10x50 SF" could be a totally different outcome! :t:

A Blessed and Prosperous New Year To ALL! B

Ted

 

[Lord Muck]

Hi Neil

I currently have the 8.5X42 SV and 10X50 SV in house and just recently had the 10X42 SF here to compare to my 10X50, I also owned the 10X42 SV for several months. I won't try to tell you which one you should buy as they are all fantastic in their own way, but I would recommend that you have a look at the 8.5 as well as the 10's. If my advice is not to your liking, please don't come to the USA and lay a vicious thrashing on me.3

Robert

Robert,..
Thanks for your advice on those great binoculars you have mentioned above,
But as i said earlier,..i need to go to a store and spend some time looking at these top end binoculars.

And as for coming to the U.S to give you a damn good thrashing like my butler got the other day, its not going to happen, as my butler is the only i have to get the cane out to. I remember coming back from the states last year to find him in the green house, and knee deep in the chamber maid. I would'nt mind, but they had flattened all the sun flowers, that were the duchess's pride and joy. He got a good thrashing for that as well.

 

[SuperDuty]

:-O A good sense of humor, I like that.:t:

Robert,..
Thanks for your advice on those great binoculars you have mentioned above,
But as i said earlier,..i need to go to a store and spend some time looking at these top end binoculars.

And as for coming to the U.S to give you a damn good thrashing like my butler got the other day, its not going to happen, as my butler is the only i have to get the cane out to. I remember coming back from the states last year to find him in the green house, and knee deep in the chamber maid. I would'nt mind, but they had flattened all the sun flowers, that were the duchess's pride and joy. He got a good thrashing for that as well.

 

[Lord Muck]

Mametz Wood WW1 Memorial

:-O A good sense of humor, I like that.:t:

Robert,..
Its good to know a U.K sense of humour travels over to the states 3

Now here's something to give you guys something to look at on New Years eve,..
( regarding my Zeiss Conquest 10x42 HD's,...and a bit of history as well.

I went on a coach trip for 5 days last September, to visit the battlefields and war memorials of WW1 - it was a beautiful trip, and very moving to say the least. ( Highly Recommended )
During the first world war there was an infamous battle called "The Battle of the Somme" - and in one of the woods that the Germans were holding, ( Mametz Wood ) thousands of Welsh men and German soldiers ended up losing their lives. (A shocking tragedy, when you see how peaceful it all looks now)

In the first photo at the Memetz Wood Memorial, I looked through the binoculars at the tractor and trees, and the view was absolutely pin sharp, (they were about 100 and 150 meters from where i stood )

In the second photo, when i scanned to the right, you can make out the tractor, which was now about 300 meters away from where i stood. When i looked beyond the tractor to focus in on the cemetery, (approximately 600+ meters - below the brown trees) the view became hazy, and i could'nt get a really good close up of the cemetery. But as you can see in both photos,.. the sky was clear and it was a beautiful sunny day.

So here's the question guys.
Do you think with the Swarovision 10x50 binoculars, I would of been able to bring that cemetery a lot closer, and get a pin sharp view..? (allowing for any heat haze, etc ) or with the Leica 10x50 or Zeiss SF 10x42's..?

PS,...Im going back next September for the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme.


I might add, that such was the ferocity of the battle over Mametz Wood, during WW1, with thousands of artillery shells and hand grenades being thrown around, that the wood its self, (with its large lush trees you see now), was reduced to match wood, and looked like a moonscape. It is said that hundreds of bodies are still lying in the woods, besides live shells and hand grenades, making it far too dangerous to think about walking in.

Hope you all have a great New Year in 2016

Neil M

 

[Theo98]

So here's the question guys.
Do you think with the Swarovision 10x50 binoculars, I would of been able to bring that cemetery a lot closer, and get a pin sharp view..? (allowing for any heat haze, etc ) or with the Leica 10x50 or Zeiss SF 10x42's..?

Hope you all have a great New Year in 2016

Neil M

LM,

Either of these top alphas should provide a razor sharp view with higher resolution at any range, from close focus to infinity. However, since we're talking about equal 10X power (10X closer view), they'll all be equal in "closeness"! You'll either have to get higher power (12X to 15X) to get the view you want (tough to impossible to get handheld sharpness without tripod stability) :eek!: or, trek that extra 300 to 400 meters for the "closer" look! :-C

An alternative solution would be a good spotting scope, but those optics are much more specialized for constant long range activities!

Hope this helps...Happy New Year!

Ted

 

[[email protected]]

Robert,..
Its good to know a U.K sense of humour travels over to the states 3

Now here's something to give you guys something to look at on New Years eve,.. ( regarding my Zeiss Conquest 10x42 HD's,...and a bit of history as well.

I went on a coach trip for 5 days last September, to visit the battlefields and war memorials of WW1 - it was a beautiful trip, and very moving to say the least. ( Highly Recommended )
During the first world war there was an infamous battle called "The Battle of the Somme" - and in one of the woods that the Germans were holding, ( Mametz Wood ) thousands of Welsh men and German soldiers ended up losing their lives. (A shocking tragedy, when you see how peaceful it all looks now)

In the first photo at the Memetz Wood Memorial, I looked through the binoculars at the tractor and trees, and the view was absolutely pin sharp, (they were about 100 and 150 meters from where i stood )

In the second photo, when i scanned to the right, you can make out the tractor, which was now about 300 meters away from where i stood. When i looked beyond the tractor to focus in on the cemetery, (approximately 600+ meters - below the brown trees) the view became hazy, and i could'nt get a really good close up of the cemetery. But as you can see in both photos,.. the sky was clear and it was a beautiful sunny day.

So here's the question guys.
Do you think with the Swarovision 10x50 binoculars, I would of been able to bring that cemetery a lot closer, and get a pin sharp view..? (allowing for any heat haze, etc ) or with the Leica 10x50 or Zeiss SF 10x42's..?

PS,...Im going back next September for the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme.

Hope you all have a great New Year in 2016

Neil M

"So here's the question guys.
Do you think with the Swarovision 10x50 binoculars, I would of been able to bring that cemetery a lot closer, and get a pin sharp view..?"

With the Swarovski 10x50 SV's you would have been able to read epitaphs on the tombstones.

 

[Lord Muck]

"So here's the question guys.
Do you think with the Swarovision 10x50 binoculars, I would of been able to bring that cemetery a lot closer, and get a pin sharp view..?"

With the Swarovski 10x50 SV's you would have been able to read epitaphs on the tombstones.

lolololol, nice to see that Denco also has a good sense of humour 3

 

[Lord Muck]

The first photo is the immaculate WW1 "Battle of the Somme" U.S Military cemetery.
It was a very moving experience to walk around, and made us all reflect on mans inhumanity to his fellow man.
I took my Conquest 10x42's - and from where i took this photo, the trees behind "Old Glory" were very sharp.
The second photo is what a WW1 artillery shell crater looks like.

 

[Lord Muck]

LM,

Either of these top alphas should provide a razor sharp view with higher resolution at any range, from close focus to infinity. However, since we're talking about equal 10X power (10X closer view), they'll all be equal in "closeness"! You'll either have to get higher power (12X to 15X) to get the view you want (tough to impossible to get handheld sharpness without tripod stability) :eek!: or, trek that extra 300 to 400 meters for the "closer" look! :-C

An alternative solution would be a good spotting scope, but those optics are much more specialized for constant long range activities!

Hope this helps...Happy New Year!

Ted

Hey Ted,
Thanks for your thoughts.
I have a Celestron Regal M2 - 80ED Spotting Scope, and i know it would of given me a far closer view of that cemetery.
Im actually selling it on Ebay right now, and looking to buy the Kowa TSN 883 Spotting scope in the New Year.

Neil

 

[Troubador]

Agreed Lee...I found the 10x42SF had a wonderful and easy on the eyes view for a 10X, but also found the excellent edge sharpness of the 10x50 SV contributed to the FOV comparison being Much Closer to my eyes in the field than the [email protected] spec differences. Now, a possible "future 10x50 SF" could be a totally different outcome! :t:

A Blessed and Prosperous New Year To ALL! B

Ted

Hi Ted

I actually haven't tried out a 10x50 SV as I would never consider a 50 mm model on weight grounds, but I will make sure I try one at this year's Bird Fair in August. These big models do have wonderful views and I particularly remember the view through the FL 8x56 (prompted by Henry's patronage of the model) being beautiful. I am sure the 10x50 SV is super too.

On the question of FOV its worthwhile remembering that although manufacturers express it as linear measurement at 1,000 yards or metres, through the bins it is a disc of a view with any FOV advantage actually being expressed all the way around it. So in this instance the SF FOV advantage in area is slightly less than 9% over the SV. This can be useful when scanning big skies eg for hawks or big waters for waterfowl or whales/dolphins. Whether this is a useful advantage is very much a personal choice.

Zeiss only offered the FL in 32/42/56 formats and HT in 42/54, so it will be interesting to see if an SF 50 is launched. It would make sense but I expect a 32 will come first.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

R

So here's the question guys.
Do you think with the Swarovision 10x50 binoculars, I would of been able to bring that cemetery a lot closer, and get a pin sharp view..? (allowing for any heat haze, etc ) or with the Leica 10x50 or Zeiss SF 10x42's..?

Neil M

As Ted has pointed out all of these models are 10x so they will all bring the scene to the same point of 'closeness'. And although the scene might have looked clear to the naked eye and to the camera, when magnified by 10x you will usually see some degree of heat haze/shimmer no matter which bins you use. Separating out differences in perceived sharpness becomes futile in such conditions. Some folks perceive the Zeiss view as being slightly yellowish or yellowish/greenish and I have read that this can cut through haze a little better than a neutral view (if there really is such a thing).

Lee

 

[Lord Muck]

As Ted has pointed out all of these models are 10x so they will all bring the scene to the same point of 'closeness'. And although the scene might have looked clear to the naked eye and to the camera, when magnified by 10x you will usually see some degree of heat haze/shimmer no matter which bins you use. Separating out differences in perceived sharpness becomes futile in such conditions. Some folks perceive the Zeiss view as being slightly yellowish or yellowish/greenish and I have read that this can cut through haze a little better than a neutral view (if there really is such a thing).

Lee

Many thanks Lee, you make some very good points.

Im learning something new every time i come in here :eat:

In hindsight, it would of been interesting to look through a Swarovski 95mm or Kowa TSN 88mm Spotting Scope,
from where i was stood, (800 meters) to see how much closer and sharper the view would of been of the Mametz Wood cemetery.

Neil

 

[[email protected]]

Hi Ted

I actually haven't tried out a 10x50 SV as I would never consider a 50 mm model on weight grounds, but I will make sure I try one at this year's Bird Fair in August. These big models do have wonderful views and I particularly remember the view through the FL 8x56 (prompted by Henry's patronage of the model) being beautiful. I am sure the 10x50 SV is super too.

On the question of FOV its worthwhile remembering that although manufacturers express it as linear measurement at 1,000 yards or metres, through the bins it is a disc of a view with any FOV advantage actually being expressed all the way around it. So in this instance the SF FOV advantage in area is slightly less than 9% over the SV. This can be useful when scanning big skies eg for hawks or big waters for waterfowl or whales/dolphins. Whether this is a useful advantage is very much a personal choice.

Zeiss only offered the FL in 32/42/56 formats and HT in 42/54, so it will be interesting to see if an SF 50 is launched. It would make sense but I expect a 32 will come first.

Lee

"On the question of FOV its worthwhile remembering that although manufacturers express it as linear measurement at 1,000 yards or metres, through the bins it is a disc of a view with any FOV advantage actually being expressed all the way around it. So in this instance the SF FOV advantage in area is slightly less than 9% over the SV. This can be useful when scanning big skies eg for hawks or big waters for waterfowl or whales/dolphins. Whether this is a useful advantage is very much a personal choice."

But as Theo98 pointed out the 10x50 SV is 100% sharp to the edge and the Zeiss SF is only 75% sharp to the edge so the actual size of the FOV that is sharp is bigger in the SV. That is what makes the SV outstanding.

"From Tobias's review of the Zeiss 8x42 SF:
- Big surprise: Compared to the Swarovision, the SF 8x42 is not a real flat field design at all (although technically it does have field flattener lenses). It´s sharp only across about 75% of the field. Given that the Swarovision is basically 100% sharp across the field, and that this is the really unique property at the heart of its success, this seems strange and disappointing."

 

[Troubador]

"On the question of FOV its worthwhile remembering that although manufacturers express it as linear measurement at 1,000 yards or metres, through the bins it is a disc of a view with any FOV advantage actually being expressed all the way around it. So in this instance the SF FOV advantage in area is slightly less than 9% over the SV. This can be useful when scanning big skies eg for hawks or big waters for waterfowl or whales/dolphins. Whether this is a useful advantage is very much a personal choice."

But as Theo98 pointed out the 10x50 SV is 100% sharp to the edge and the Zeiss SF is only 75% sharp to the edge so the actual size of the FOV that is sharp is bigger in the SV. That is what makes the SV outstanding.

"From Tobias's review of the Zeiss 8x42 SF:
- Big surprise: Compared to the Swarovision, the SF 8x42 is not a real flat field design at all (although technically it does have field flattener lenses). It´s sharp only across about 75% of the field. Given that the Swarovision is basically 100% sharp across the field, and that this is the really unique property at the heart of its success, this seems strange and disappointing."

I haven't seen this for myself Dennis but from all the reports I am sure it is true and its an outstanding feature of the big SV.

However, while the SF may be sharpest over an area of about 75 - 80% of the area of the FOV it would be a mistake to think that the remaining area around the edge of the FOV is uselessly unsharp.

In fact I would say that the entire field of view is sharp, certainly sharp enough for me to make out fine plumage details on ducks for example. So, yes, while it is true that SF is not as sharp at the field edge as in the centre, it is certainly also true that its big FOV is very useful.

Of course large FOVs don't get everyone excited.

Lee