mooreorless
Well-known member
I got that feeling with the Swarovski 8.5x42 SV, never tried the smaller 8x32SV.
-
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 Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Chosun Juan
- Start date
I got that feeling with the Swarovski 8.5x42 SV, never tried the smaller 8x32SV.
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Steve, I didn't find it in the 8.5 either. None of the Swaro roofs had it. The 10x50 came closest. Curiously, even the A-K prism 8x, and 10x56 SLC's I tried didn't have it - and that defies the odds (and the theory) somewhat. :cat: :h?: :brains:
Chosun :gh:
[off-topic] Habicht
Except for the narrow field of view the Habicht 7x42 is better than the 8x30. Basically no problems with ghosts or glare in any light.
Hermann
Except for the narrow field of view the Habicht 7x42 is better than the 8x30. Basically no problems with ghosts or glare in any light.
Hermann
I had the 7x42 Habicht and could not put with the narrow FOV. Anything less 400 feet is a deal killer for me. Why not have it all and that includes a wide FOV when a lot of 7x42's do. Get a Nikon EDG 7x42 or Zeiss 7x42. The Habicht's tight focus on both the 8x30 and 7x42 for me also was a deal killer. I don't get it how people put up with that tight of a focus when they don't have to.
Last edited:
ARTIFACTS! Gimme a break. The Canon IS's have ARTIFACTS. The SV has no artifacts. It is one of the most transparent binoculars I have looked through. Part of that is due to fact that it tack sharp right to the edge and that is what makes it transparent. You don't see any fuzzy edges so the whole FOV appears sharp, natural and transparent. "Toy Like and Dinky" Now that is funny. Do you like big huge heavy binoculars?Dennis, the 8x32SV is a fine optic (if a little dinky and toy like!though IMNSHO I wouldn't say it has that 'transparent' quality ..... it seems to have those artifacts to the view, because of, and in common with most dielectric S-P prism roofs :cat:
Here's hoping the SF is better, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's not in that respect. :brains:
Chosun :gh:
The transparency is as good in the bigger Swaro as the smaller 8x32. Transparency stems from the fact that the optics are perfect. You are not seeing any aberrations in the optical path. Alphas are going to be more transparent than less expensive binoculars.
Last edited:
I think chosen one is referring to the fact SP prisms need a mirror surface applied and PC coating also, Porro`s with their total internal reflection feel transparent to some of us in a way no SP ever will. Its not about fuzzy or sharp edges its about what`s added, impurity`s if you like.
That`s my feeling, maybe Chosun feels differently.
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Yes, that's precisely it.
Dielectric mirrors are somewhere over 99% and less than 100% efficient. It's that loss (or impurity if you like) combined with the PC coating that appears to give rise to what I called artifacts - not to be confused with the real 'Artifacts' from using IS systems. :brains:
Not every Porro will have 'transparency' due to things like color rendition biases, distortions and other aberrations, glare etc, etc, but they do seem to have a head start in the transparency stakes. (o)<
Although the top of the top S-P roofs such as the SV (and hopefully new SF) do have very nice views, they don't really have that 'transparent' quality. I think the 10×50SV is the pick of the litter - and it gets close - but not quite. It's not about an immersive clear to the edge view - but that last 1%. Curiously :cat: the Steiner ×44 Peregrine/Discovery XP gets very very close, but is let down by a yellowish brown tint and maybe that last p**fteenth of brightness.
Others (particularly those with dogs in the fight /or on fleabay!
may see things differently. Of course though, they are wrong.Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
Anyone who thinks a Swaro 8.5x42 SV is aberration free is lacking observation skills. Internal focussing binoculars have additional aberrations from the focus lens. Some are rather short, meaning faster objectives with more aberrations. 8x32 roof prism bins have even more aberrations, due to the shorter focal length objectives (they have a smaller F ratio for a given effective aperture) and possible additional effects from the eyepieces required. There may also be some differences in dispersion from the prisms, given that the angle of incidence is not normal to the prism face, except on axis. If that is observable it would be worse for an 8x32 instrument. I have never seen a quantitative analysis of the contribution of prisms to aberrations in binoculars. Basically there is no such thing as a without compromise binocular.
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
Not to jump on Dennis's bandwagon but I do know what he is trying to refer as far as image quality, speaking of the 8x32 sv.
Also I might add the 10x50 is even better!
Swarovski has done an excellent job at controlling abberations in the swarovisions, they have the least of any binocular I have tried yet.
And I say yet because I haven't tried the Zeiss sf yet.
Still if one spends as much time as I do behind the sv, I find little to fault.
Really exceptional optics.
Bryce...
Also I might add the 10x50 is even better!
Swarovski has done an excellent job at controlling abberations in the swarovisions, they have the least of any binocular I have tried yet.
And I say yet because I haven't tried the Zeiss sf yet.
Still if one spends as much time as I do behind the sv, I find little to fault.
Really exceptional optics.
Bryce...
bh46118
Well-known member
ALERT! ALERT! SV praising taking place. CEASE and DESIST ! FORBIDDEN ACTIVITY ! :C
bh46118
Well-known member
SF vs HT Layout and Grip
Chosun
A few moons ago you wondered whether the SF grip position might not suit you as you couldn't quickly acclimatise to HT.
Take a look at the attached drawing and you will see that the SF grip is actually not quite so pushed forward as HT, so it may suit you better.
Lee
Chosun
A few moons ago you wondered whether the SF grip position might not suit you as you couldn't quickly acclimatise to HT.
Take a look at the attached drawing and you will see that the SF grip is actually not quite so pushed forward as HT, so it may suit you better.
Lee
Attachments
Last edited:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Thanks Lee! A handy graphic.
A slight improvement ..... o
It still doesn't compare that well with the SV ergo's though (there's a photo of those two on this thread somewhere - where is Pompadour when you need him?!, and tbh - they - don't trump the :king: of ergo's --- the Zen-Ray ED3 ! :eek!:
Let's hope the SF 'feels' better in the hand - actually, let's just hope we get some soon! :cat:
Chosun :gh:
A slight improvement ..... o
It still doesn't compare that well with the SV ergo's though (there's a photo of those two on this thread somewhere - where is Pompadour when you need him?!
, and tbh - they - don't trump the :king: of ergo's --- the Zen-Ray ED3 ! :eek!:Let's hope the SF 'feels' better in the hand - actually, let's just hope we get some soon! :cat:
Chosun :gh:
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Lee:
Thanks for showing how these 2 compare. I also found the HT focuser
a bit too forward, more forward than any other binoculars I have tried.
My question led to asking what finger do you focus with, index or
second finger. The SF looks more conventional in its placement.
Jerry
Thanks Lee! A handy graphic.
A slight improvement ..... o
It still doesn't compare that well with the SV ergo's though (there's a photo of those two on this thread somewhere - where is Pompadour when you need him?!
Let's hope the SF 'feels' better in the hand - actually, let's just hope we get some soon! :cat:
Chosun :gh:
CJ
Well, this is a very personal thing of course, but I think SF knocks SVs ergos out of the park. And while you might think I would say that, I am not just letting my Zeiss preferences rule my head.
For me the SF position really does feel more natural than EL SV and there is more room for your fingers too.
For example I have a fairly narrow IPD and when I close an SV down to my size I have to get my fingers out of the way or they get trapped painfully between the tubes. With SF this does not happen. And this means, for me at least, a better grip when viewing. There is also more room along the barrels than on an EL SV, so those with five fingers or just 4 large ones have a better chance of getting fingers in there.
Lee
HI Jerry
I always used to focus with my second finger, I have no idea why and it was a bad habit. I modified my grip to suit HT and straightaway found that my first finger always lands right on the focuser, and it this position the tubes feel so nice with the smooth armour and those little 'corners'.
Some would say that you shouldn't have to change your grip to accomodate to a pair of bins, but I have since looked at how I used to hold FLs and Dialyts with my old grip and you only have to see how contorted my right hand was and how inefficient the grip really was to know that just because I had done it for decades it didn't make it right.
Lee
