• 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.

Rolling Ball: what do I do?! (1 Viewer)

The Nikon HG/LX exhibited too much CA (aka Chromy) so I returned it and settled on the Nikon 8X32 SE, a model that clearly exhibits a condition called Blackouts.

Interestingly I *never* experienced blackouts with my 8x32 SE and my 10x42 SE. I had read about it before I got my first SE and tried hard to see it, but I couldn't. I *do* see the globe effect, though. It doesn't bother me too much in many situations, at least not in the later Swarovisions (the one I know best of these is the 8x32), but I find it strange.

Which just goes to prove that not all binoculars are right for everybody.

Now, isn't that a surprise?

Hermann
 
Yes, if you are using distortion free (orthoscopic) eyepieces. The RB has been reported by astronomers as well, and also by 'microscopers' . However, mounted optics are much less used for panning than hand held optics, therefore the RB is less an issue here.

I used a Carl Zeiss Jena Asiola with orthoscopic eyepieces as my main birding scope for quite a few years, and there was rolling ball (even though I didn't know what it was at the time). I found the effect "weird", especially when panning, say, the edge of a wood, but scopes aren't used for panning quite so much, just like you said, so I wasn't really worried about it. Also, the field of view of the orthoscopics is rather narrow (40 degrees), that may also have helped.

Hermann
 
I think there are lots of background issues in what you say. I'm sure there are are lots of people who aren't affected. A few who saw it and didn't buy or sold them on after a short while. Equally I am sure there are a lot of people with the 'well its Swarovski, there's nothing better out there and I'm going to let everyone know that I have it' attitude. I know that I have shown them to a number of my friends and basically, if they had bought them they'd be happy, but having looked through mine they will not be buying! <snip>
But is it a non issue? Maybe if it is only slight as possibly in the 8.5x? Not if it is perhaps more extreme or you are more sensitive. Can you adapt? The jury is still out in my view (pardon the pun)...
However, the 'fuss' is not just stirred up by one person, even if one person happens to be more vocal about it and interested in understanding the technicalities. There are others who have seen it, been affected and moved on to different brands/models (or not) who have said so and now no longer discuss it.

This is the best summary of the current situation I've read here by far. Thanks.

Hermann
 
If you believe their "test results" unseen you'll most likely believe anthing.

Kikkertspesialisten have published quite a few tests over the years that were seriously at odds not only with other tests, but also with the experience of a large number of actual users. This was most obvious in their tests of birding scopes. And they never ever explained anywhere how they arrive at their test results. Which is fine, but they're trying very hard to make their "results" look as though they're arrived at through some "scientific" testing.

Please note I'm not saying the Swarovisions aren't good or anything, just that Kikkertspesialisten is not really a site I'm inclined to take seriously.

Not really.

Hermann
Since there's been nothing new on BF for a very long time I just add humor and/or sarcasm whenever the spirit moves me. I believe my eyes and my eyes alone. Some, much better than myself, can evaluate a binocular without seeing a thing. Now that's amazing!
 
Hello Mark,

Pincushion distortion had been introduced into binocular design, 60 years ago, almost worldwide, and that not because of my webpage, but because there were issues. I have received countless Emails, many of them from Swarovski SV owners, who wanted to know more about that globe effect because these guys had problems with their binoculars. That time, I set up my webpage ("Frequently asked questions ...") because I had to respond frequently to the same questions and I got tired of it. Meanwhile, it has become rather silent, and I guess Swaro has overcome most of their initial problems, or maybe because by now people find sufficient alternative information on the web, inside threads like this one. So this is fine with me :)

Cheers,
Holger

Holger,

Just in case there was any confusion, I was referring to this website not yours when I mentioned the widespread promotion of rolling ball. Since you are a scientist, your website is suitably restrained. ;)

Mark
 
It is quite possible that older versions of e.g. the 8.5x42 SV might have had a different distortion behavior than later versions, so we have to be careful when comparing our experiences even among different samples of one and the same model.

I have seen a clear globe effect through an early 8.5x42 SV
I have seen a very slight globe effect through an early 10x42 SV and through recent 8x32 and 10x32 SV

I have the exact (laboratory) distortion values of the old 8.5x42 (which I am not allowed to publish), I included these numbers into my simulation program and got a nice globe effect. That was about 3 years ago and Swarovski had got the simulation results. They also sent me laboratory values of the BPO which I was allowed to publish
r

Holger,

I'm not sure I get this correctly. Do you mean by 'old' 8.5x42 Swarovision a pre-production sample or prototype one or are you saying Swarovski could have changed the eyepiece formula during recent production?

Steve
 
Last edited:
I spent a lot of time yesterday, and will again today and tomorrow at the Swarovski booth at our Winter Wings Festival.

My impression is that there is SOMETHING different about their current 8.5 SV and the ones they had two years ago. The RB in the originals was overwhelming, There is no RB in the current one, for me. There is a weird almost "stationary RB" effect that gives the impression the image wants to take off and go all on its own. There is, aside from that, SOMETHING very different about the images of the two. Since I only can look at the newer one, I have to put that down to memory. I'm going to leave it with the observation that there is something about me and the 8.5 SV that are not going to ever match.

However the x50 Swarovisions are a completely different animal. They will kick the butt of an x42 SV every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Those (10x50 and 12x50) are simply the best I have EVER seen, particularly the 12x50, and neither show me even the first hint of RB.. They are bigger than the x42, but not much and there is something about the balance geometry there that makes the weight vanish when you hold them to your eye. The 12x50 is every bit as easy to hand hold as is the 8x SLC -HD. The extra magnification is enough of an increase that there is SIGNIFICANT increase in detail. They have an old fashioned afov of 68*, so they look very wide. The Swarovski man says they are outselling the 10x50 by at least 2:1.

So if I had an SV I had RB issues with, I'd sure look at one of the x50 SV's to replace it with.
 
Last edited:
I spent a lot of time yesterday, and will again today and tomorrow at the Swarovski booth at our Winter Wings Festival.

My impression is that there is SOMETHING different about their current 8.5 SV and the ones they had two years ago. The RB in the originals was overwhelming, There is no RB in the current one, for me. There is a weird almost "stationary RB" effect that gives the impression the image wants to take off and go all on its own. There is, aside from that, SOMETHING very different about the images of the two. Since I only can look at the newer one, I have to put that down to memory. I'm going to leave it with the observation that there is something about me and the 8.5 SV that are not going to ever match.

However the x50 Swarovisions are a completely different animal. They will kick the butt of an x42 SV every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Those (10x50 and 12x50) are simply the best I have EVER seen, particularly the 12x50, and neither show me even the first hint of RB.. They are bigger than the x42, but not much and there is something about the balance geometry there that makes the weight vanish when you hold them to your eye. The 12x50 is every bit as easy to hand hold as is the 8x SLC -HD. The extra magnification is enough of an increase that there is SIGNIFICANT increase in detail. They have an old fashioned afov of 68*, so they look very wide. The Swarovski man says they are outselling the 10x50 by at least 2:1.

So if I had an SV I had RB issues with, I'd sure look at one of the x50 SV's to replace it with.
Well that completes the trashing of the 8.5X42. Nice job...static rolling ball with a twist of fantasy movement thrown in for good measure.
 
Well, I'll be keeping mine.... I think the view is amazing.

Maybe because I think the view is amazing, it is.
 
Last edited:
Holger,

I'm not sure I get this correctly. Do you mean by 'old' 8.5x42 Swarovision a pre-production sample or prototype one or are you saying Swarovski could have changed the eyepiece formula during recent production?

Steve

Hi Steve,

I had a regular early production 8.5x42 through which I experienced the rather strong globe effect which those days was discussed on my webpage. What I want to say: Possibly, the 8.5x42 may have changed since then, the later models may have got a modified distortion formula. Some user reports seem to support that suspicion. I want to point out once again that I have no confirmation on that, the Swaro guys just won't respond clearly to my Emails. Also, I haven't seen any of these binoculars from recent production runs. Obviously, if they had in fact silently improved the 8.5x42, they might fear some early buyers being upset and asking for a replacement. Maybe I am wrong and the 8.5x42 is unchanged, and it is just the later 32 and 50mm models that have got the improved distortion formula (the 8x32 and 10x32 which I have seen are definitely much better in that matter, though not yet perfect).

Cheers,
Holger
 
Hi Steve,

I had a regular early production 8.5x42 through which I experienced the rather strong globe effect which those days was discussed on my webpage. What I want to say: Possibly, the 8.5x42 may have changed since then, the later models may have got a modified distortion formula.
Cheers,
Holger

If memory serves, Swaro used to highlight their committment to producing the best possible glass by introducing upgraded coatings when available, rather than waiting for new models. It does not seem unreasonable that they could have refined their eyepieces similarly, but that is surely no reason for a recall.
Practically, given that Swaro is famous for restoring/upgrading binoculars sent in for service to sometimes better than new condition, I would expect sensitive customers could get their older 8.5x42s upgraded pretty easily. Just send them in for service when needed.
 
I spent a lot of time yesterday, and will again today and tomorrow at the Swarovski booth at our Winter Wings Festival.

My impression is that there is SOMETHING different about their current 8.5 SV and the ones they had two years ago. The RB in the originals was overwhelming, There is no RB in the current one, for me. There is a weird almost "stationary RB" effect that gives the impression the image wants to take off and go all on its own. There is, aside from that, SOMETHING very different about the images of the two. Since I only can look at the newer one, I have to put that down to memory. I'm going to leave it with the observation that there is something about me and the 8.5 SV that are not going to ever match.

However the x50 Swarovisions are a completely different animal. They will kick the butt of an x42 SV every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Those (10x50 and 12x50) are simply the best I have EVER seen, particularly the 12x50, and neither show me even the first hint of RB.. They are bigger than the x42, but not much and there is something about the balance geometry there that makes the weight vanish when you hold them to your eye. The 12x50 is every bit as easy to hand hold as is the 8x SLC -HD. The extra magnification is enough of an increase that there is SIGNIFICANT increase in detail. They have an old fashioned afov of 68*, so they look very wide. The Swarovski man says they are outselling the 10x50 by at least 2:1.

So if I had an SV I had RB issues with, I'd sure look at one of the x50 SV's to replace it with.

I agree with Steve--I had a long look through those 12x50 Swarovisions and I agree they are the ultimate in viewing! Only drawback is the somewhat narrow FOV, but once you're on the bird, the detail is striking! Oh, of course, the other drawback is the obscene cost of $2,759! If Swarovski is having trouble keeping up with demand, then maybe it's underpriced!
 
If memory serves, Swaro used to highlight their committment to producing the best possible glass by introducing upgraded coatings when available, rather than waiting for new models. It does not seem unreasonable that they could have refined their eyepieces similarly, but that is surely no reason for a recall.
Practically, given that Swaro is famous for restoring/upgrading binoculars sent in for service to sometimes better than new condition, I would expect sensitive customers could get their older 8.5x42s upgraded pretty easily. Just send them in for service when needed.

Swaro once revealed the exact serial number when they changed over from the slower focus ELs to the faster focus ELs. And some users have returned their older, slower focus ELs for an upgrade to the faster focuser. Not sure if this was done for free or if there was a fee involved.

I've also read posts from SLC owners with who got their older non-WP optics upgraded to WP. So what you said is generally true about Swaro's willingness to upgrade older bins; however, from Holger's post, it seems they want to keep "mum" on the question of whether or not they changed their distortion pattern in the SV EL.

I realize this is rather speculative, and I'm sure that point will be hammered on if it already hasn't, however, as more reports come in from those susceptible to RB not seeing it in the 8x32 and 10x32 models, I have to wonder if there's a change afoot.

Perhaps Tim, who recently posted on the Zeiss subforum (8x32 SV EL vs. 8x42 HT), that he saw more RB in the 8x32 SV EL model than he did the 10x42 was looking at an earlier version of the 8x32 before Swaro "shaved its mustache".

Even if a change was made, there would still be "old new stock" out there with the original distortion pattern along with the clean shaven "new new stock" just as there are repeats of "Jeopardy" with Alex Trebek with a mustache and new shows with him w/out his mustache. ;)

I think the only way we're going to close this "x-file" is if the same user gets hold of two SV EL samples and reports seeing RB in one but not in the other, and for the still skeptical takes photos through the bins to show the difference.

Or maybe like they did with the serial number of the changeover from slow to faster focusing ELs, Swaro will eventually tell us when they changed the distortion. They could be holding off announcing that until the old SV EL stock has been exhausted the way Zeiss is denying they have plans to make an 8x32 HT until dealers sell off most of the 8x32 FLs.

As my old friend Fox used to say, "The truth is out there."

<B>
 
Last edited:
I agree with Steve--I had a long look through those 12x50 Swarovisions and I agree they are the ultimate in viewing! Only drawback is the somewhat narrow FOV, but once you're on the bird, the detail is striking! Oh, of course, the other drawback is the obscene cost of $2,759! If Swarovski is having trouble keeping up with demand, then maybe it's underpriced!

Remember that Bus Trip through the mountains of Extra Madura in Spain a while back that Swarovski sponsored to promote the new Swarovisons? I recall that many of the lucky passengers were sporting the 12 x 50 Swarovisions. There is a thread on it here somewhere.

Bob
 
This page in Swaro.'s website includes a video of that trip. http://www.swarovskioptik.us/en_us/press-releases/pr-us_el-50-swarovision.

Again my nagging - and maybe unrealistic - wish for statistics (very approx. will do!): wonder what % of adults, say, till their mid-sixties, can hand-hold a 15x or 16x steady enough for the maginficn. to be useful, and for what % the best 12xs are the ultimate (when hand held) for seeing detail.
 
Last edited:
This page in Swaro.'s website includes a video of that trip. http://www.swarovskioptik.us/en_us/press-releases/pr-us_el-50-swarovision.

Again my nagging - and maybe unrealistic - wish for statistics (very approx. will do!): wonder what % of adults, say, till their mid-sixties, can hand-hold a 15x or 16x steady enough for the maginficn. to be useful, and for what % the best 12xs are the ultimate (when hand held) for seeing detail.

Tests have delivered results according to which the ability of the average user to see details through hand held binoculars increases with the magnification, at least until 18x. Seeing details, that is, exclusively. Another question is how long the average user could possibly concentrate to really make use of such a power. Then, exit pupils are turning small at such high magnifications, making such a glass usable for daylight use only. Other problems are the small field of view and tiny depth of field at high powers.

I think it is most reasonable to restrict all hand held binocular use to no more than 12x, with very few exceptions.

Cheers,
Holger
 
Pomp,

No statistics I'm afraid but I can hold some 12x steady. It seems to mostly depend on the balance, though a bit of extra weight helps. With a fairly brief try I did not find the Swaro 12x50 steady. I didn't spend the time to see if I could get a better balance with a different hold. Excellent as the Swaro undoubtedly was, I consider I get more detailed information from my cheap, heavy porro. Not found a 15x yet.

David
 
I've spent more than a few hours with the 8X32, 8.5X42, 10X42, 10X50 and 12X50 Swarovisions. Here's a birder's view...

The 8X32, 8.5X42 and 10X42 are going to appeal to 98.5% of the birding population. I prefer the 8.5X42 for a few simple reasons.

8.5X42 (28 ounces)
It's bright and light enough to enjoy all day. Low CA, nice color, etc. apply to all the Swarovisions. The 8.5 seems to be the best all-around choice for my type of all day birding.

The 8X32 is my next choice...
8X32 (20 ounces)
This has more view for the ounce than any bin I've evaluated. In most situations it will deliver everything its bigger brother (the 8.5) will.

10X42 Swarovision (28 ounces)
This didn't seem to offer much advantage over 8X, especially at long distances. The 8.5X42 image was a bit smaller but somewhat easier on the eyes. It's an excellent choice for those who like/want 10X and do a lot of close up birding. Handshake (as always with 10X) is a definite consideration for some birders.

The big kids in town...

10X50 Swarovision (35 ounces)
The best 10X50 I've ever used. Easy on the eyes but it's heavy. The view is so addictive I think people initially ignore the 35 ounce weight factor. Yes, it fits the hand, yes the view is phenomenal but it's also 35 ounces of dead weight. There are times I'd like one in my hands but, after very close inspection, I still prefer the 8.5X42. Subtract a few years off my age and I may change my mind!

12X50 Swarovision (35 ounces)
Same weight as the 10X50 with the same challenge. In addition, the extra magnification exacerbates handshake while the 4.1mm exit pupil is far less forgiving than the 5mm exit pupil of the 10X50. Pick one up and you'll wet yourself in excitement. Use one for a few hours and you may change your mind. Personally, I'm not tempted to own this model.

First impressions with any Swarovision are usually pretty exciting. If you're a hit and run birder who never lingers, searching for subtle details or interesting behaviors, then any model will do. If, however, you plan on holding the binocular still for extended periods of time I suggest you try exactly that when you evaluate a bin. Pick the bin up, find a target and see just how long you can stare at one thing...enjoyably...without arm fatigue...absent annoying handshake. You may look funny in the store or at the bird fair among friends but if that's how you look at birds then that's how you should evaluate the optic. Remember, we mount scopes on tripods and binoculars on bipods.

The notion that Swarovski somehow failed with the 8.5X42 Swarovision is utter nonsense. I don't know if they changed the optical formula in response to the BF RB clamor but I'm quite sure they continue to deliver one of the finest views possible in a hand-held instrument. I quickly adapted to the globe effect and it's never once intruded on my birding. When I get my hands on a freshly produced 8.5X42 I'll make a comparison. Until then...

Happy birding!
 
Last edited:
I don't know whether there has been some tweaking of the distortion in the SV models since the very first ones. I can only re-offer some photographic evidence that there was no basic change in the type of distortion or large change in the amount between models made in 2010 and 2012. The three grid photos below first appeared in these threads:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=175077

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=237219

They were made through the objective end of the binoculars so the distortion is reversed from the way it appears in normal viewing. Barrel in the photos would appear as pincushion at the eyepiece. The one on the left is a 2010 8.5x42. The other two are 2012 8.5x42 and 8x32. I'm afraid I'm not sure which is which, but they're so similar I don't think it matters. I hope it's evident, within the limits of this kind of in-store testing, that they all show the same type of compound or "anomalous" distortion in amounts that are very similar.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_1187-1.JPG
    DSC_1187-1.JPG
    93.1 KB · Views: 63
  • DSC_2668-1.JPG
    DSC_2668-1.JPG
    112.1 KB · Views: 59
  • DSC_2669-2.JPG
    DSC_2669-2.JPG
    113.6 KB · Views: 65
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 11 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top