• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

New bin, EL10x50SV (3 Viewers)

henry link said:
Theo98,

Were your 10' FOV measurements done with one eye or both eyes?

Henry
Click to expand...

Henry,

Both, of course (stereo view)! My focus was dead center on the tape measure, split evenly between the sliding white tabs of measurement. I replicated the test this morning with the same results (15.1"-Go, 15.25"-No Go). My best half walked in and volunteered to compare, testing either my eyesight validity or the function of the 10x50's. Well, started with 13.8" (345ft specs)...No Problem. Increased the distance by .25" at a time. She lost sight of both tabs in her peripheral vision at 15.25", but was able to clearly detect them again at 15.1" (interpolated 377ft@ 1000yds)...same results, different set of eyes!

Your questioning Henry seems to infer a possible flaw in technique? Enlightenment would be greatly appreciated!

Ted
 
Ted,

The problem with using two eyes is that it introduces parallax equal to the baseline between the objective centers. At 1000 yards that difference of a few inches is negligible as a percentage of a 345' field width, the right and left fields are essentially coincident, but at 10' the same objective baseline causes a much larger percentage difference in the positions of the right and left fields on a horizontal ruler. You should use one eye at 10' to simulate the coincident fields at 1000 yards.

Henry
 
Last edited:
Chosun Juan said:
Steve,

377ft? Is that fair dinkum?
Chosun :gh:
Click to expand...

:eek!: Sometimes you (well maybe not you, but I can ;)) do dumb things. Good catch, I'm really glad that got no further than it did. What I did was to have my measurement of distance off. I was too far away from the tape on the counter. The fov which I rechecked just now (double and triple rechecked) makes the fov of this binocular 350'. This is an angular fov of 6.67*, much closer in line with the 345 listed fov. For those metrically inclined folk that makes this binocular 117 m @ 1,000 m.

Sorry about that. Ted. I guess you are now a lone voice in the wilderness. I also see where Henry gave you the necessary advice about one or two eyes. That parallax error really is exacerbated at 10 ft with both eyes.
B :)
 
Last edited:
henry link said:
Ted,

The problem with using two eyes is that it introduces parallax equal to the baseline between the objective centers. At 1000 yards that difference of a few inches is negligible as a percentage of a 345' field width, the right and left fields are essentially coincident, but at 10' the same objective baseline causes a much larger percentage difference in the positions of the right and left fields on a horizontal ruler. You should use one eye at 10' to simulate the coincident fields at 1000 yards.

Henry
Click to expand...

Steve C said:
Sorry about that. Ted. I guess you are now a lone voice in the wilderness. I also see where Henry gave you the necessary advice about one or two eyes. That parallax error really is exacerbated at 10 ft with both eyes.
B :)
Click to expand...

Oh Man, just when I thought we'd identified a family with Super Human Eyesight!!? :-C 3:)

Henry,

Thanks for the clarification of "why" I should just use "1" eye...makes sense! I'd imagine parallax error will be much less significant at 100 yards or 100 meters distance measurements (easily doable), thus I can use "both eyes" again huh! :eek!:!

Steve,

No problem...after 40 years together, my best half and I Both had a good laugh...Live, Learn, Love! :king:

Ted
 
Theo98 said:
Henry,

Thanks for the clarification of "why" I should just use "1" eye...makes sense! I'd imagine parallax error will be much less significant at 100 yards or 100 meters distance measurements (easily doable), thus I can use "both eyes" again huh! :eek!:!
Click to expand...

I would use one eye at 100 yards. At that distance two eyes will still introduce the equivalent of a 3' error in FOV at 1000 yards.
 
Last edited:
Steve C said:
The fov which I rechecked just now (double and triple rechecked) makes the fov of this binocular 350'. This is an angular fov of 6.67*, much closer in line with the 345 listed fov.
Click to expand...

Took big parallax error out by using "1" eye as HL suggested. My re-re-test, again at just 10ft distance (14" clear fov with either eye), Also came out exactly as yours Steve, an equivalent 350ft! Nobody is going to be able to see fov differences of "5" feet at 1000yds, .5ft at 100 yds, or just .1ft at 20 yds., it really is a mute point, but has been a good learning exercise. I'll just call the established Swaro "345ft" as "Confirmed"! ;)

Thanks for everyone's assistance,

Ted
 
Can somebody say something about the new SV 10x50 fieldpro, what about its WOW factor and also the fact that you forgot that you hold this instrument in your hand? What about the 3d effect and the fact that you are closer to object that you see with sv 10x50? Can somebody explain his opinion and interesting experience with this bino? I am very interested to hear something because I want to buy it sooner. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
bockos said:
Can somebody say something about the new SV 10x50 fieldpro, what about its WOW factor and also the fact that you forgot that you hold this instrument in your hand? What about the 3d effect and the fact that you are closer to object that you see with sv 10x50? Can somebody explain his opinion and interesting experience with this bino? I am very interested to hear something because I want to buy it sooner. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Bockos,

These "fieldpro" updated SV binos are Just Out on the world retail market...may take more time for birders\hunters to get hands-on experience behind these, and then you'll start to see post and reports about their ergonomic handling improvements. Not sure where you are from, but SONA (Swarovski Optik North America) states optics are the same, just the noted strap\body and objective\ocular cover attachments have been revamped.

So far, none of the "fieldpro" SV's have made it to the US, but are set to soon arrive (Nov-2015). As far as the WOW factor, 3-d effects and other attributes of the 10x50SV, just read this and other threads...it's all already covered and should be equal to the "fieldpro" new-kid-on the-block glassing experience! :t:

Ted
 
I had a little time with my new 10X50SVs yesterday, I tried to induce RB with vigorous panning and was able to see absolutely none. I have readily seen it before in the Leupold McKinley, but zero in these. The view is big, easy, and highly resolved, with maybe slightly less vividly saturated colors than the 10X42 SV. If I had to nitpick, the CA is a little too pronounced for a $2500 binocular, but overall probably as state of the art as it gets in 2015. I need more time with better conditions, I cherry picked alot of perfect days when I had the 42s.
 
SuperDuty said:
I had a little time with my new 10X50SVs yesterday, I tried to induce RB with vigorous panning and was able to see absolutely none. I have readily seen it before in the Leupold McKinley, but zero in these. The view is big, easy, and highly resolved, with maybe slightly less vividly saturated colors than the 10X42 SV. If I had to nitpick, the CA is a little too pronounced for a $2500 binocular, but overall probably as state of the art as it gets in 2015. I need more time with better conditions, I cherry picked alot of perfect days when I had the 42s.
Click to expand...


How big is the difference you found in color saturation between 50 and 42mm. It will be great if you can make detailed side by side comparison.

Sanjay
 
I would like to do that, but Ebay offered me a totally free sell, so In order to save $200 the 42s were sold. I did compare them side by side outside at Cabelas and the difference that day didn't seem very pronounced. Going by memory is probably close to useless, and the air was far from pristine yesterday.
 
Sanjay Naithani said:
How big is the difference you found in color saturation between 50 and 42mm. It will be great if you can make detailed side by side comparison.

Sanjay
Click to expand...
I own the 10X50 and 8.5X42 SV's. Color and contrast are all but identical, though the extra magnification and slightly larger AFOV in the 10X50 can fool the eye. CA, something I cannot and will not tolerate, is extremely minimal in both models and non-intrusive. I never see it in a normal birding day.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

laurencejackson
Comparing 10x32 NL with 8x42 NL, some (not ground breaking) thoughts...
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
William Lewis
W
J
A strange 8x32 choice.
2 3
Replies
47
Views
5K
Julian61
J
Sequoia Kid
Difference in View Size: 8.5x42 and 8x30
Replies
10
Views
779
Sequoia Kid
Sequoia Kid
W
SLC 8x42: Keep or Sell?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
5K
w.travis
W
R
8x20 in possession. Which one to add?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
3K
Rg548
R

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top