-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
New Swarovski binoculars soon (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter dogfish
- Start date
No, there was a more recent one.
It used to be #97 or 99 but was deleted in less than one hour!
As it was a perfectly sensible statement it must have been a technical error.
Tom
PYRTLE
Old Berkshire Boy
Fortunately was able to try these today, overall first impression, very very good and surprisingly for me ( a dedicated x 7 or x 8 user) the 10 magnification was the first I've really enjoyed looking through in terms of sharpness/depth of field - comfortable to use throughout the distance range. More glass internally I'm told, less material and tapered barrels....redesigned binocular not revamped EL imo.
Still keeping my Zeiss 8 x 32 FLs though Mr Hackett!
Still keeping my Zeiss 8 x 32 FLs though Mr Hackett!
Last edited:
Hi Sancho!
You're not "going soft", are you?!
officially they have not been released - how can there be a comparison
tickled, but not excited (as long as the 32s are not around ...)
Trooper Tom
I suppose the virus is active again. But if the 32's aren't due for release for a year, I could give up laughing-gargle and foie gras, and wear sackloth and ashes for a year, in the hope of saving the requisite moolah.Hi Sancho!
You're not "going soft", are you?!
officially they have not been released - how can there be a comparison
tickled, but not excited (as long as the 32s are not around ...)
Trooper Tom
Sancho!
That sounds like a severe case. We are really in need of a vaccine, aren't we?
But I'm probably in the boat. If they are really as spectacular as the hype is suggesting!
And who says it will be another year? It's hearsay. I have not seen a single solid, trustworthy, OFFICIAL line on this matter. Maybe they are already polishing the lenses and they'll be in the shops for X-mas (now guess what that would mean!).
The big question to me seems to be: Will it be worth to wait for The Ultimate or should I rather look for a bargain offer of yesterday's "pinnacle of high tech (r)evolution" ?
Polishing my own crystal ball,
The Man who can tell the past
Best by written confirmatory report of a specialist physician (i.e. psychiatrist), head of University medical school, if possible. It must say explicitly that it is part of the onging therapy, and hint at the fact that treatments for all chronic diseases is expensive.
Perhaps it should also point out that your disease is incurable but not fatal.
The Doctor who knows what you need
Henry: Just received my Swarovski August newsletter online & they introduce the new ELs--shows a diagram of the internal workings on the new ELs--I don't quite understand how the 'field flattener' works, but they do show its placement in the binos.
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
OK, so we finally have the full advert release for the new EL.
http://el.swarovskioptik.com/index.php?l=en
It shows cut-aways etc. What's up with that apparently paper-thin front element??????
--AP
http://el.swarovskioptik.com/index.php?l=en
It shows cut-aways etc. What's up with that apparently paper-thin front element??????
--AP
henry link
Well-known member
The cutview is very interesting. My hat's off to Swarovski for providing such revealing and detailed information. Even with all this, however, some things are not completely clear.
Starting with the objective, the "paper thin" element is clearly a neutral flat designed to protect the first objective element, which for reasons I don't understand, appears to have been placed outside the rubber o-ring seal. It's not completely clear whether the next two elements are cemented or have a narrow air space.
The focusing element appears to be a conventional singlet.
The field flattener doublet comes before the objective focal plane, making it optically part of the objective, which all adds up to six elements, not including the flat. It's not completely clear whether the flattener is cemented or air-spaced, but I suspect air spaced. The front element looks like it could be cemented to the back of the prism cluster.
The eyepiece looks basically like a 4 element Koenig; singlet field and eye lenses with a cemented doublet in between. This is different from the current 4-element EL eyepiece which is a 2-1-1 arrangement.
Altogether a very interesting and very complex design; a big departure from the current EL, not just a refinement. There are certainly at least 18 glass to air surfaces, but more likely 20 or 22, possibly even 24. The current EL has 14. Hard to see how light transmission can reach 90% in such a design, even with improved coatings. Most odd to me is the placement of the first objective element. Why was it placed outside the o-ring?
Starting with the objective, the "paper thin" element is clearly a neutral flat designed to protect the first objective element, which for reasons I don't understand, appears to have been placed outside the rubber o-ring seal. It's not completely clear whether the next two elements are cemented or have a narrow air space.
The focusing element appears to be a conventional singlet.
The field flattener doublet comes before the objective focal plane, making it optically part of the objective, which all adds up to six elements, not including the flat. It's not completely clear whether the flattener is cemented or air-spaced, but I suspect air spaced. The front element looks like it could be cemented to the back of the prism cluster.
The eyepiece looks basically like a 4 element Koenig; singlet field and eye lenses with a cemented doublet in between. This is different from the current 4-element EL eyepiece which is a 2-1-1 arrangement.
Altogether a very interesting and very complex design; a big departure from the current EL, not just a refinement. There are certainly at least 18 glass to air surfaces, but more likely 20 or 22, possibly even 24. The current EL has 14. Hard to see how light transmission can reach 90% in such a design, even with improved coatings. Most odd to me is the placement of the first objective element. Why was it placed outside the o-ring?
Last edited:
Patriot222
Well-known member
It looks like 22 glass to air surfaces to me and I'm completely boggled by that first thin objective element. I don't get it. I hope they didn't do that solely to make damaged lens replacement less expensive.
SUPPRESSOR
Well-known member
Henry, you are so clever.
fiddler
fiddler
stabor
Well-known member
Too bad the English version contains misprints and other language errors, like the rest of their website. (There are three typos in the one complete sentence on their homepage alone.) They really should get a competent native speaker to vet these things.
Last edited:
Henry,
I may be completely off the mark here, but concerning the objective element that looks like it is outside of an o-ring, could it be that that the o-ring is a method for having simple and "infinitely" adjustable spacing between that element and the doublet after it? It is conceivable that the design requires very precise spacing that could not be obtained by a reasonable set of machined spacers.
Please do set me right if you think this makes no sense.
As for other general impressions, I quite like what I see and read here. I have been rather fond of the original EL, especially in the 8.5x version, and the few gripes I have had with it have nearly all been addressed. Aside the obvious - the fluoride glass elements and promise of reduced CA - the increase in focus past infinity and diopter correction range will be welcome, as will be flatter field and better sharpness throughout the field. Also, the new thumb recesses look a lot like those on the 32mm EL's, which I find much more comfortable than the original design. Likewise, rubber armoring inside the barrels will add comfort in cold weather. The only shortcomings I see in the specs and images (without having ever seen or handled the binocular) are the omission of a tripod adapter thread for us who almost always use finnsticks, and, of course, the lack of image stabilization.
Kimmo
I may be completely off the mark here, but concerning the objective element that looks like it is outside of an o-ring, could it be that that the o-ring is a method for having simple and "infinitely" adjustable spacing between that element and the doublet after it? It is conceivable that the design requires very precise spacing that could not be obtained by a reasonable set of machined spacers.
Please do set me right if you think this makes no sense.
As for other general impressions, I quite like what I see and read here. I have been rather fond of the original EL, especially in the 8.5x version, and the few gripes I have had with it have nearly all been addressed. Aside the obvious - the fluoride glass elements and promise of reduced CA - the increase in focus past infinity and diopter correction range will be welcome, as will be flatter field and better sharpness throughout the field. Also, the new thumb recesses look a lot like those on the 32mm EL's, which I find much more comfortable than the original design. Likewise, rubber armoring inside the barrels will add comfort in cold weather. The only shortcomings I see in the specs and images (without having ever seen or handled the binocular) are the omission of a tripod adapter thread for us who almost always use finnsticks, and, of course, the lack of image stabilization.
Kimmo
As the water-proofing is one element further in, one would expect the potential for fogging between the front element and that first true lens. Also, that thin front element does not look like it could withstand any mechanical impact, possibly not even a somewhat rough touch with the fingers. Very strange indeed.
