perterra
Well-known member
Mostly because you are so damn annoying I suspect.
-
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.
Simple question... (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter cnick6
- Start date
Mostly because you are so damn annoying I suspect.
(corr: 420ft)
Wish you lived next door ... I could fix your bridge.
That was the one weak spot. It shimmers after that.
A lovely compact size,too. I have the same..Mark II
So clever,the simple eyecup pull. The V-mote so you
get a quiet surround even with glasses.
Attention to detail.
The clamping was under-torqued and drilled too shallow...
Careful use of removable Loctite gives it the yardarms of a featherweight.
A top washer cuts the seesaw.
And the combination of coatings...just right,Takumar/SMCtype and UVC.
Prime contractor,JB 56 Hiyoshi Kogaku Co. Ltd.,
but Swift farmed out pieces to the best plants.
Manifique.
I can see there is "better",
but the oldones are often more friendly and comfortable on the eyes.
They push too hard these days and punish your eye placement with blackout for the final glory,
stuff the field with haze and edge glare for a final few percent transmission.
Numbers fetish can actually eclipse resolution in air. (with a few current exceptions)
Last edited:
Hahah....yeah,that. Point is,almost everyone else with Alphas isn't
on some extreme jihad of denegration, and many do use lesser ones because
they are handy, and less precious to lose. So....they drink the Chateau
Rothschild and the Woodbridge,too. You can call them "apostates" if
you want. ;-)
It's phrases like 'not remotely close in any way' I take exception.
The Cornell ratings are brandished to show...that's a matter of you, not the binoculars.
Last edited:
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
If your point is the Swaro 8X32 SV got the most mentions and/or the Swaro 8X32 SV is an excellent binocular, then you need to go back and read my post again. I never mentioned (argued against) either of those topics.
What you did here was to change the subject. Nice try.
What battle? You need to go back and read the following posts:
#63 - Ceaser: "When did this become a contest?"
#68- Herman: "Who cares?"
#70 Perterra: "I'm pretty sure it's important to him."
Hint: It is less work doing a copy and paste of the complete sentence than it is maneuvering the mouse around to cherry pick parts of sentence! :t:
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Maybe that, and .........
There are lot more people then just us members coming to this Forum to find out information before making a decision on what may be a big dollar purchase. Many come straight into a thread from a Google search. They deserve the whole story rather than cherry picked details that sometimes misrepresent the true situation. Secondly, there are a lot of good hardworking people in the industry that have put in a lot of effort and personal sacrifice to provide us these wonderful products that we are fortunate to enjoy. It does not seem right to let someone malign their products (and efforts) unfairly.
Last edited:
I think another reason that a lot of SV's are chosen is the fact that until last year, it had no competition of other flat fielders until the arrival of the Zeiss SF.
The comparison between the M7 and 32SV is useless IMO. The SV is 6x more expensive, and maybe 20% better.
Although I own a SV32, it sure has it's flaws. For such an expensive bin, I think for instance, the glare control is below par.
I'm sure when a Zeiss SF 8x32 would coexist next to the 32SV, and it would have been around just as long as the SV, the outcome might have been different.
What's the use of arguing about which one is best? There is no "best". Everybody has a different taste, so there is nothing to argue about.
Gijs
The comparison between the M7 and 32SV is useless IMO. The SV is 6x more expensive, and maybe 20% better.
Although I own a SV32, it sure has it's flaws. For such an expensive bin, I think for instance, the glare control is below par.
I'm sure when a Zeiss SF 8x32 would coexist next to the 32SV, and it would have been around just as long as the SV, the outcome might have been different.
What's the use of arguing about which one is best? There is no "best". Everybody has a different taste, so there is nothing to argue about.
Gijs
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Going along with the comments from Uhu74, comparing unit counts of the SV 8X32 to the Zeiss SF is ridiculous on its face. The SV 8X32 EL has been in production over 3 years and the first SF units started to show up only about 8 months ago. Additionally, initial production and acceptance of the SV was faster since it already had an established history to a large degree based on the previously released SV models.
This is also true for some of the others on the list. The Monarch 7 30mm has been out about two years.
Uhu74 is right, there is no "best". We all use binoculars differently. The binocular is just a tool. The best tool depends on the job and the job varies for each of us.
This is also true for some of the others on the list. The Monarch 7 30mm has been out about two years.
Uhu74 is right, there is no "best". We all use binoculars differently. The binocular is just a tool. The best tool depends on the job and the job varies for each of us.
It is just when someone says the M7 is almost as good as the SV 8x32 I have to disagree. After comparing them optically the Swarovski in my opinion is way superior. It makes me think some people are not very discriminating in what distinguishes a really superior binocular from a good binocular. There is a big difference between the two to my eyes and the Swarovski is easily worth the difference in price. If you think the M7 is close or the SV is not worth the difference in cost I guess that is to your advantage because you are getting by a lot cheaper but even saying the SV is only 20% better than the M7 is misleading to a lot of people buying these binoculars. They might find the opposite like me.
HighNorth
Well-known member
As an owner of both an M7 8x42 and a Swarovski 8x32 SV, I would agree that the SV is about 20% better. Maybe I could stretch it to 25% better, but definitely no more than 30 % The SV has a bit more light transmission and less CA, but a lot more glare than the M7, which has virtually none. Edge sharpness wise, I actually think the M7 stands up quite well to the SV!
As for the SF vs the SV, they are different animals really, with different strenghts. Different colour balance, different FOV, different handling etc. For me, they fullfill each other. :smoke:
HN
Dennis- give it a rest. This was suppose to be a thread that had a simple basic question- read the OP. Is was only asking what binocular you would have to carry around with you for the rest of your life. That was it. It was not a what is best thread; a contest; vote; relative value; or a reason to argue thread. But as usual, you made it about YOU; and YOUR favorite binocular. It is always the same beating drum with you. I bet I am not the only one ( know I am not) that gets sick of you dominating these threads with the beating of your endless drum.
I too ( even though I no longer own one) said I would choose the 8x32 SV- but so what; I was not voting for that or telling anyone else that it was the best for everyone. As soon as I saw others mention that one, I knew it would not be long before you jumped in. What you could ( and should ) have done in this thread was simply post your 8x32 SV with a SIMPLE post and leave it at that. But of course that is not your style- so now it goes into your endless, same old news boring narrative on what ever your favorite bino is. Don't you ever exhaust yourself with this behavior- because I am sure it is exhausting to others.
I too ( even though I no longer own one) said I would choose the 8x32 SV- but so what; I was not voting for that or telling anyone else that it was the best for everyone. As soon as I saw others mention that one, I knew it would not be long before you jumped in. What you could ( and should ) have done in this thread was simply post your 8x32 SV with a SIMPLE post and leave it at that. But of course that is not your style- so now it goes into your endless, same old news boring narrative on what ever your favorite bino is. Don't you ever exhaust yourself with this behavior- because I am sure it is exhausting to others.
Last edited:
I agree there is no best but the alpha binoculars are in general quite a bit better in most ways than a binocular like the M7. I agree that the M7 should not even be compared to the SV but yet people do. Saying the M7 is close to the SV is a misconception. They are two totally different classes of binoculars.
I agree there is no best but the SV should not be compared to the M7. Two totally different classes of binoculars and their is a HUGE difference in the view and quality of the binocular.
You must be getting different angles of the sun at your latitude saying the SV has more glare than the M7. That is totally different from what I observed. I disagree with that statement totally. Regarding the SF versus SV there does still to seem to be a lot people that still prefer the optics on the SV after reading the various threads completely. If you go through and read them I think you will agree with that. It is an important point. The SF is supposed to be the new standard of optics in a birding binocular but to a lot of people the SV is still preferred. It makes a difference to me because if EVERYBODY said the SF's optics just blew the SV away I would have already bought one because I love great optics. Seriously I don't care how much they cost.As an owner of both an M7 8x42 and a Swarovski 8x32 SV, I would agree that the SV is about 20% better. Maybe I could stretch it to 25% better, but definitely no more than 30 % The SV has a bit more light transmission and less CA, but a lot more glare than the M7, which has virtually none. Edge sharpness wise, I actually think the M7 stands up quite well to the SV!
As for the SF vs the SV, they are different animals really, with different strenghts. Different colour balance, different FOV, different handling etc. For me, they fullfill each other. :smoke:
HN
Last edited:
I am not beating a drum. I am making an observation. It is interesting that the majority of people responding to the thread said the SV 8x32 would be their choice if they could only have one binocular. This is coming from a lot of respected Bird Forum members so it means a lot. It doesn't seem like it is boring to other members because we are getting a lot of responses on the subject. That may not have been the exact focus of the thread but none the less it is an interesting observation. If it is boring to you you don't have to read it. It is important to other people reading the thread that may be shopping for an alpha level binocular and they see that 6 people chose one type of binocular as the one they would have if they could only have one binocular it is going to help in their decision. They might go and try that brand of binocular to see if they like it. Sure you don't care because you know which binoculars you like having tried so many. Look at it from the other less experienced members perspective. I am not brand loyal and I don't care what binocular other people buy. That is their decision. What I don't like is when they say the M7 for example is close to the SV when in reality there is a lot of difference. Those statements are motivated by the fact that the M7 is $300 and the SV is $2200.
Last edited:
