• 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.
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

Swarovision EL 10x50 vs. Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX Sharpness/Resolution ? (1 Viewer)

tlb

Well-known member
All,

Looking for information relating to sharpness/resolution of these two binoculars especially at center of FOV.

I will be using for aircraft ID at typical distances of six to ten miles.

Any first-hand experience, insights or pointers to relevant reviews or testing results would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks!
 

kabsetz

Well-known member
Unless you plan to use the binoculars on a tripod, you would be much better off with a Canon 10x42 IS L. It will allow you to ID the aircraft at 20-30% longer distance and much more quickly.

If you use a tripod, both of the binoculars you are thinking of will do fine. The 10x Fujinon I haven't tried, but the 10x50 SV is among the best there is.

Kimmo
 

ronh

Well-known member
tlb,

Kimmos well reasoned comment points up the fact that it is sort of dumb to use a non image stabilized binocular freehand, especially above 8x. What's true for airplanes goes for birds as well. Yep, time we faced facts. In fact if I REALLY wanted to see airplanes I'd go for the Canon 15x50. Lots of nostalgic crazies here however! I owned that Fujinon for some time, mostly for astronomical viewing. My wife uses an 8.5x42 Swarovision which I have used a lot, but have only briefly tried the 10x50 SV and found it very similar. So, my experience...

The Fujinon has a wide field whose edge sharpness is about as good as the Swarovision and very good central sharpness too, and comparable transmission, which make it a great choice for astronomy, but it is not so hot for daytime use in my experience. Considerable color fringing is present, a little more than in the best non-ED binoculars, as well as vulnerability to scattered light from bright off axis sources, both of which I imagine would be noticeable looking at airplanes. The Swarovision is better in both areas.

My big 10 is a 10x56 Zeiss FL, hard to beat optically but a real whopper at 44 ounces.

Ron
 

edwincjones

Well-known member
for sharpness, probably not much difference
SW CF much better for general use
Fuji less cost better for pocket book
for tripod use, I would go up to 15-20x binoculars but FOV may be an issue here
 

gulf1263

Well-known member
The Fuji's are very heavy, individual focus and quite large.
The Swaro's are much lighter and center focus.
The Docter Optik 10x50's are large, a little heavy and center focus.
The Docter 15x60's are quite good on a tripod, again, heavy and center focus.
Art
 

tlb

Well-known member
Decision Made - Thanks

Thanks for the responses everyone.

From your input, considerable research and the chance to evaluate the Swarovski 10x50 and Canon's (15x50 & 10x42), I elected to go with the Canon 10x42. I have them now and, even with their ergonomic eccentricities, they are beyond remarkable.

While I've zero doubt that the Canons were the right solution for my aircraft spotting application, the Swarovski's made a powerful impression. Based on an afternoon with them, my feeling was that they provided me the best overall view from a binocular ever. (It may take some work to rationalize their purchase but I'm confident that I'm up to the task.)

Thanks again for your help,


Tony
 

kabsetz

Well-known member
Tony,

I'm happy you got a chance to try out both the Swarovski and the Canons. Now you know, beyond any certainty you would have achieved by just reading and getting advice from us, what these instruments are capable of doing. You can also rest assured that there is no other conventional (non-stabilized) binocular that would be notably (if any) better than the Swaro 10x50.

For the Canon you have now, I recommend using lithium batteries, as the stabilizer possibly works a bit better still when it gets juice from a high-voltage high-current-delivery source. Besides, lithiums are very lightweight. Another recommendation is getting a simple lightweight monopod. I presently use a cheap Cullmann two-part monopod that weighs all of 160 grammes. I screw it directly into the tripod thread of the Canon, without the mini ball head that came with the monopod, and extend it enough so it is possible to keep hands down at waist level, leaning against my torso. This takes almost all the strain off from holding the binoculars, and allows you to scan the skies literally for hours.

Enjoy your beyond remarkable binoculars.

Kimmo
 

OPTIC_NUT

Well-known member
Unless you plan to use the binoculars on a tripod, you would be much better off with a Canon 10x42 IS L. It will allow you to ID the aircraft at 20-30% longer distance and much more quickly.

If you use a tripod, both of the binoculars you are thinking of will do fine. The 10x Fujinon I haven't tried, but the 10x50 SV is among the best there is.

Kimmo

Whatever you look at, both those will exceed your own acuity
at center field.
So....you will need a little monocular to see the true difference,
(for what that's worth)...
Without that it won't even be possible to focus appropriately.
 

bh46118

Well-known member
Why can I see clear differences in resolution when looking through several binoculars, 'SE, SV, Genesis, BD BP', that in theory are all better than my eyes ? If I'm not seeing greater detail, then what am I seeing ?

Whatever you look at, both those will exceed your own acuity
at center field.
So....you will need a little monocular to see the true difference,
(for what that's worth)...
Without that it won't even be possible to focus appropriately.
 

brocknroller

A professed porromaniac
United States
Why can I see clear differences in resolution when looking through several binoculars, 'SE, SV, Genesis, BD BP', that in theory are all better than my eyes ? If I'm not seeing greater detail, then what am I seeing ?

Well, from that hat, I'd have to say static electricity.

N. Roller
 

ronh

Well-known member
That post was a paragon of pithy brevity. :clap:

Brock, good to hear from you. We could imagine you slammed in the hospital for chemotherapy, in jail, or gone off the deep end and incarcerated. Seriously, hope you've been okay.

Ron
 
Last edited:

brocknroller

A professed porromaniac
United States
could be , but it has very bad eyecups !

Glad to hear somebody comment on that since I've always suspected with my deep-set eyes, those flat, wide, and deep oversized eyecups on the 10x42 IS L would probably not suit my facial features. Made by Japanese for Japanese faces like the 820 Audubon.
 

ceasar

Well-known member
Glad to hear somebody comment on that since I've always suspected with my deep-set eyes, those flat, wide, and deep oversized eyecups on the 10x42 IS L would probably not suit my facial features. Made by Japanese for Japanese faces like the 820 Audubon.

Nah!

I have deep-set eyes, high cheekbones, and a thin prominent roman type nose and I love over-sized eye cups because I can brace them easily up against my brow ridge.
 

kabsetz

Well-known member
Yes, for me the best way to use the Canon oversized twist-out eyecups on the 10x42 IS L is to not use them. That is, I usually have them fully in, and like Ceasar, brace them against my brow. It is worth trying them before condemning them, but, for sure they will not suit everybody.

Kimmo
 

brocknroller

A professed porromaniac
United States
Not to be condemning for everyone, but bins that require using MOLCET do not work well for me. They fatigue my arms quickly, and having deep-set eyes, I can't see the full FOV with the edge of the eyecup resting on my Simian brow, nor can I hold the bins snug and secure against my face if I stick the tilted eyecup under my brow -- it increases image shake (that would be less of a problem with IS bins, though it may cause "swimming").

OTOH, I put up with the uncomfortable eyecups of the SE because the image is impossible to beat with a roof unless I could afford to pay 3x-4x more. So if I found the image as stunning in the 10x42 IS L as I do the SE, perhaps I could learn to live with the pain (literally) of the oversized eyecups. However, given my druthers and a pocketful of hundred dollar bills, I'd rather buy a 10x42 SLC-HD, whose eyecups fit perfectly and whose ergonomics balance nicely in my hands (almost 9 oz. less weight than the IS, too).

I owned a 10x30 IS, so I know that I'd lose resolution w/out the IS feature, but the heft and balance of the SLC-HD are such that I found I could hold it very steady, steady enough not to find microvibrations annoying or distracting like I did with the 10x42 SE. If I ever hit the PowerBall, I'll buy both the IS L and SLC-HD and keep the one I like better.

Until then, I might settle on another 10x35 EII, which also steadies nicely in the hand for me and has a extra wide 70* AFOV.

Brock
 
Last edited:

ceasar

Well-known member
Yes, for me the best way to use the Canon oversized twist-out eyecups on the 10x42 IS L is to not use them. That is, I usually have them fully in, and like Ceasar, brace them against my brow. It is worth trying them before condemning them, but, for sure they will not suit everybody.

Kimmo

Kimmo,

In my case I still had to extend the eye pieces on the one I used to get the correct eye relief.

I was at the Cape May Lighthouse on the deck and the only reason I had a chance to try it is because the gentleman standing near me who was using it said his wife was unable to use it satisfactorily. I noticed that he was wearing glasses and the eye cups were not extended. His wife did not wear glasses. Neither of them knew that the eye cups needed to be extended for her to use it properly. After that was resolved she was very happy with it. I was using my Nikon 10x32 EDG I and we spent some time comparing the two. We concluded that we got much more relaxed, comfortable and sharper views over all with the Canon. Especially looking across the water at photographers on the far bank, even with elbows braced on the bannisters.

Incidentally, this gentleman was a physician!

Bob
 
Last edited:

etudiant

Registered User
Supporter
Why can I see clear differences in resolution when looking through several binoculars, 'SE, SV, Genesis, BD BP', that in theory are all better than my eyes ? If I'm not seeing greater detail, then what am I seeing ?

Does not the magnification of the glass also factor in?
I'd expect to see materially greater detail in a 12x50 than in a 6x50, irrespective of my own VA and would hope for a sharper image in a 12x50 alpha than a 12x50 ruby coated. So the various glasses you mention might well have a performance gradient that your eyes can discern.
 
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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

Top