Chosun,
This interested me as only yesterday I was again looking through my 8x42 SLC and marvelling at the view. My own impression -- I am early sixties and do not wear glasses for binocular use -- was practically identical to Ed's (elkcub), and this before seeing your post or remembering about it. To me the view till so close to the edge that you are to all intents and purposes already there gives very good definition. I find the SLC image very high contrast and with excellent blacks. My perception is that the image is warmer where I find the 8.5 x 42 EL FP a little cold and uninspiring. I.e. the two bins bracket either side of neutral to me. The SLC view feels more luxuriant, to use another SLC user's term. I'm deliberately not using technical language but subjective impression, and of course tastes are different. Your term 'muddy' makes me think of underexposed photographs. I certainly don't find that; in fact to me the SLC view really sings.
I also know what Ed means about the field curvature; the SLC to me feels 3D and immersive without sacrificing outer field sharpness. Also it has a very nice out of focus background. I'd agree the EL has slightly higher definition (but I'd say not deal-breaker obvious at all) whereas the SLC view appeals to me more. It was when I saw how the SLC rendered the blacks and browns in blackbirds and thrushes and the blacks and blue-black sheen in jackdaws that I absolutely fell in love with them as I always think that to show the detail in a deep black object is a real test of a lens or binocular.
Hope this helps in some way.
Tom
I should mention that I do have 8 and 10x42 SLC WB (i.e. most recent non-close focus, new in 2020) and 8.5 and 10x50 EL WB Field Pro (most recent, new in 2019) so have had enough experience to form a comparison view in like for like conditions. Findings are much the same between the 10s.
Tom, thanks for reporting your experience and impressions. In the world of field preferences and colour rendition preferences, there really are no wrong answers - only different ones. We each have our own level of distortions in our eyes, and glasses too. Performing Holger Merlitz's Distortion Tests can be a very informative exercise for an individual - relative to their field perceptions and preferences.
I agree that it's the subtleties in the blacks and darker colours that can help separate the great from the good. One bird that very subtley does this for me under varied lighting conditions is our Dollarbird. Besides that they are just a joy to watch and listen to.
I would not classify my use of the term 'muddy' (to convey my perceptions) the way you have - as underexposed. To me underexposed would be like in the photographic sense - a general darkening, and loss of colour 'lustre' - reduction or inability to capture the dynamic range of a scene.
To my way of thinking, my term 'muddy' would be looking at a perfectly neutral yet vibrant and clear colour reproduction print of a scene, with any 3-D present in the scene if that helps - but it is the colour aspect that is most important - and then spilling your weakly brewed straight tea all over the print. Providing the whole scene as a weakly warm tint of reality and seemingly the impression of some loss of detail. As I've said before, I also found the colours at the extremities of the spectrum a little 'muted' in comparison to the SV. This makes them appear a bit more 'natural' you could say, whereas the SV's colours are really vibrant - particularly so on the 10x50 SV.
This (SV) to me seems a little bit more realistic, in that if you could transport your eyeball 10x closer in distance to the actual subject you would indeed see those vibrant colours. Having said that though, I feel I can always detect some S-P dielectric mirror coating shenanigans. I know you're not supposed to be able to tell the difference between 100% totally internally reflected, and the 98-99% over the spectrum of a dielectric mirror, but I reckon I can, it's almost intangible, but real to me nevertheless. There you go. BB duly stacked. I am indeed a wonder of nature !
I find that an A-K, or Porro I, II, etc, 100% internally reflecting prism does away with this 1-2% funky town aspect of the view, and neutral coatings allowing, provides that wonderful quality to the view that I like to call 'clarity', others may term it transparency, and that's fine too. The x56mm SLC's have this 'clarity' quality, and a pretty neutral (though muted) colour rendition. They are my several latest experiences of the x56's. Oddly enough, as I mentioned, my first ever experience of the big SLC's (a 10x56) had that weak tea tint. Not 'muddy' tea tint like the 42's, but like the kind that my Nan used to make - where she would take 1 used tea bag and brew a big pot to be drunk by 8 people !
One other thing I have to say about the way the SV's strike me, and that is that the two formats that really Wow me are the 8x32 SV - which is truly remarkable for what it can do with a 4mm exit pupil, and the 10x50 SV which gives the most 3-D view of any S-P roof I have ever seen. The rest of the range I'm a bit 'meh' about (8.5x42 SV gets an honorable mention I suppose). Interesting too, that I can hold the hand filling 10x50 SV absolutely rock steady - one of the best ever. Yet with the 12x50 SV I was like a dog sh*tt*n razor blades - very nervous and uncomfortable ! Perhaps the 10x is just my limit, or the several hours I spent with the Zeiss SF beforehand with their contrived hands forward positioning totally r**ted my dodgy shoulder ..... ?
On that view of the 10x50 SV, I'd like to ask you, and Ed, in particular, and anyone else with the relevant comparison experience, how do you find the 3-D effect, and the field characteristics of the 10x50 SV in comparison to that of the latest 8x42 SLC in particular, and/or the 10x42 SLC ......... ??? :cat:
Chosun :gh:
