Swarovision Zeiss SF side by side (1 Viewer)

[Troubador]

Lee, post 57,
When you and the other BF particpants are finished to remove the diamont dust from their focussers (the application of this dust is a perfect method to let focussers turn very smooth in all directions, even upside down) I have another puzzle to study: a picture of cutaways of two SV 42's which differ only in age: one is produced a couple of years before the other.
Gijs

Hi Gijs

Naughty!
The one on the right:
Does not have field flattener
Has no focusing lens
Has only one prism, which will not transmit light to the eyepiece in its position.
Therefore it is one of the bins that Jan said was cut open with a water-jet and it sent lenses flying in all directions!! :king:

Lee :-O

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Lee, post 61,
No, I did not try to pull your leg with the two cutaways in post 57. The top one is a picture of an SV which is cut incomplete, so the focussing lens and the flat field lens are still in their unharmed metal containers. The cutting of the prism is also incomplete which may be confusing at first sight. No lenses are blown away in the cutting process of the item shown. The top image shows, as I mentioned, an early production of a 42 mm Swar. SV and what is striking in comparison with the later production in the picture below is the difference in the objective construction.
The objective lenses in the latest SV production are deeper into the binocular body, which helps as a sun shade.
Gijs

 

[Troubador]

Lee, post 57,
When you and the other BF particpants are finished to remove the diamont dust from their focussers (the application of this dust is a perfect method to let focussers turn very smooth in all directions, even upside down) I have another puzzle to study: a picture of cutaways of two SV 42's which differ only in age: one is produced a couple of years before the other.
Gijs

OK Gijs
I see it now. Thats a nice example of an improvement being put into production immediately and not saved up for the next 'new' model. Well done Swaro.

Lee

 

[pimpelmees]

Lee, post 57,
When you and the other BF particpants are finished to remove the diamont dust from their focussers (the application of this dust is a perfect method to let focussers turn very smooth in all directions, even upside down) I have another puzzle to study: a picture of cutaways of two SV 42's which differ only in age: one is produced a couple of years before the other.
Gijs

I think these foto's shows a older EL and a swarovision , not 2 swarovsion's

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Pimpelmees, post 65,
No the picture I showed in post 58 is a picture of two Swarovisions, the top one was a very early model I was told.
Gijs

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Henry, post 46.
I am sorry that I forgot to answer your question regarding the differences between the picture of the SF cutaway and the schematic drawing of the SF given by Zeiss. Since Zeiss did not mention the SF type (8x or 10x) in the publication with the schematic cutaway I can not answer your question. My photograph is from the cutaway of the SF 8x42.
Gijs

 

[pimpelmees]

Pimpelmees, post 65,
No the picture I showed in post 58 is a picture of two Swarovisions, the top one was a very early model I was told.
Gijs

To me it seems that in the top picture the diameter of the oculair is smaller than in the lower picture !! i reckon they did not change the diameter of the ocular lens in the swarovision at some time ....

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Pimpelmees, post 57,
As I wrote before, the cutting process of the top SV was not done well, so the cutting plan is not exactly through the middle of the binocular tube, is not flat but is a sort of wave, so you can easily make a mistake by looking at the picture. If you look carefully you can see the SV construction well.
Gijs

 

[Troubador]

Lee

It wouldn't surprise me if some Cricket Pitchers worked out with the rice bucket too.

Bob

Hi Bob

You are probably right since the Indian Cricket Team almost certainly did this years ago and word soon gets round to the dressing room of the opposing teams....

But Bob, please, in cricket the guy with the ball is called a bowler, because he bowls the ball using and hand, wrist and arm action that is tightly specified. :smoke:

The only pitchers are the jugs carrying refreshment at drinks time.

Cricket is full of mystique: when you take your place 'at the crease' (there is no crease only a line) to commence batting, you are said to be 'in', but of course you have to go 'out' (onto the pitch) to get there. And if you are caught or bowled and are declared 'out' by the umpire its time for you to come 'in' (off the pitch). So when you are in you are out and when you are out you are in. :-O

I could go on but I feel dizzy.... and oh lord, here comes Kammerdiner with more remarks about mad dogs and Englishmen.....

Lee

 

[ceasar]

Hi Bob

You are probably right since the Indian Cricket Team almost certainly did this years ago and word soon gets round to the dressing room of the opposing teams....

But Bob, please, in cricket the guy with the ball is called a bowler, because he bowls the ball using and hand, wrist and arm action that is tightly specified. :smoke:

The only pitchers are the jugs carrying refreshment at drinks time.

Cricket is full of mystique: when you take your place 'at the crease' (there is no crease only a line) to commence batting, you are said to be 'in', but of course you have to go 'out' (onto the pitch) to get there. And if you are caught or bowled and are declared 'out' by the umpire its time for you to come 'in' (off the pitch). So when you are in you are out and when you are out you are in. :-O

I could go on but I feel dizzy.... and oh lord, here comes Kammerdiner with more remarks about mad dogs and Englishmen.....

Lee

Thanks Lee,

I wondered about that. Thanks for clearing it up. I thought it was because at one time they were required to wear Bowler hats.

http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urba...e=&network=g&gclid=CPK1y6KV0MQCFbTm7Aodml8Atw

Bob

 

[bobboobles]

Has anyone else been able to compare the 10x42 SF and Swarovision binoculars? Trying to make up my mind between the two without having either to look through! Thoughts on handling would be appreciated as well.

I'm working my way through the other huge threads, but it's slow going!

 

[Uhu74]

Has anyone else been able to compare the 10x42 SF and Swarovision binoculars? Trying to make up my mind between the two without having either to look through! Thoughts on handling would be appreciated as well.

I'm working my way through the other huge threads, but it's slow going!

Some kind advice, don't buy before you have compared them both in real life, it all comes down to personal preferences.
I've handled the SF's and SV's, and I like the SV's better. The SF felt too "toyish" for my liking, and the SV's appeared to be sharper.
I also compared the HT to the SF, and the HT also looked sharper to me.
I compared the HT and SF side by side at the Zeiss stand at IWA Nürnberg, and the SF and SV side by side at my favorite optics store.
So my choice would be the SV, but that's each to his own to decide:t:

 

[bobboobles]

Thanks Uhu74. I've got a friend who got the SFs last week so I'm going to get a chance to look through them this weekend. I'll have to find a shop with the Swarovskis.

 

[Mark Linf]

Some kind advice, don't buy before you have compared them both in real life, it all comes down to personal preferences.
I've handled the SF's and SV's, and I like the SV's better. The SF felt too "toyish" for my liking, and the SV's appeared to be sharper.
I also compared the HT to the SF, and the HT also looked sharper to me.
I compared the HT and SF side by side at the Zeiss stand at IWA Nürnberg, and the SF and SV side by side at my favorite optics store.
So my choice would be the SV, but that's each to his own to decide:t:

Hi Bobboobles. Good advice to try before you buy from Uhu. I know what Uhu mean about the Swaro SV’s feeling more solid than the Zeiss SFs, I agree, although personally I prefer the weight and balance of the SFs which allow me to hold the bins steadier for longer and the focus wheel falls perfectly to hand so they are super-comfortable in actual use. I wanted to respond to Uhu's comment about sharpness though; the SFs present the image in a different way to the SVs that’s for sure. The SVs have a very punchy high contrast image with very sharp-looking edges so the image is instantly impressive. But it’s important not to confuse sharpness with resolution. Sharpness is the combination of resolution and contrast - the SFs have slightly lower contrast than the SVs but not lower resolution (actually they seem more resolving in low light). The slightly lower contrast of the SFs helps you see further in to the shadows compared to the SVs and also gives a slightly more natural presentation which I find very easy on the eye. The SFs also have less chromatic aberration on high contrast edges than the SVs which the main reason I got them as CA really niggles me. The SFs are also exceptionally bright and the FOV is noticeably wider. So I agree that the SVs feel more solid and the image does looks very punchy but I prefer the SFs! As Uhu says it depends what characteristics are most important to you in a pair of bins but I encourage you to look beyond the instant impression of sharpness - especially if you plan to spend a lot of time looking through them.

 

[[email protected]]

Hi Bobboobles. Good advice to try before you buy from Uhu. I know what Uhu mean about the Swaro SV’s feeling more solid than the Zeiss SFs, I agree, although personally I prefer the weight and balance of the SFs which allow me to hold the bins steadier for longer and the focus wheel falls perfectly to hand so they are super-comfortable in actual use. I wanted to respond to Uhu's comment about sharpness though; the SFs present the image in a different way to the SVs that’s for sure. The SVs have a very punchy high contrast image with very sharp-looking edges so the image is instantly impressive. But it’s important not to confuse sharpness with resolution. Sharpness is the combination of resolution and contrast - the SFs have slightly lower contrast than the SVs but not lower resolution (actually they seem more resolving in low light). The slightly lower contrast of the SFs helps you see further in to the shadows compared to the SVs and also gives a slightly more natural presentation which I find very easy on the eye. The SFs also have less chromatic aberration on high contrast edges than the SVs which the main reason I got them as CA really niggles me. The SFs are also exceptionally bright and the FOV is noticeably wider. So I agree that the SVs feel more solid and the image does looks very punchy but I prefer the SFs! As Uhu says it depends what characteristics are most important to you in a pair of bins but I encourage you to look beyond the instant impression of sharpness - especially if you plan to spend a lot of time looking through them.

It is pretty hard to look beyond the instant impression of sharpness.

 

[GLOBETROTTER]

Hi Bobboobles. Good advice to try before you buy from Uhu. I know what Uhu mean about the Swaro SV’s feeling more solid than the Zeiss SFs, I agree, although personally I prefer the weight and balance of the SFs which allow me to hold the bins steadier for longer and the focus wheel falls perfectly to hand so they are super-comfortable in actual use. I wanted to respond to Uhu's comment about sharpness though; the SFs present the image in a different way to the SVs that’s for sure. The SVs have a very punchy high contrast image with very sharp-looking edges so the image is instantly impressive. But it’s important not to confuse sharpness with resolution. Sharpness is the combination of resolution and contrast - the SFs have slightly lower contrast than the SVs but not lower resolution (actually they seem more resolving in low light). The slightly lower contrast of the SFs helps you see further in to the shadows compared to the SVs and also gives a slightly more natural presentation which I find very easy on the eye. The SFs also have less chromatic aberration on high contrast edges than the SVs which the main reason I got them as CA really niggles me. The SFs are also exceptionally bright and the FOV is noticeably wider. So I agree that the SVs feel more solid and the image does looks very punchy but I prefer the SFs! As Uhu says it depends what characteristics are most important to you in a pair of bins but I encourage you to look beyond the instant impression of sharpness - especially if you plan to spend a lot of time looking through them.

Very SHARP LOOKING EDGES when comparing SV against SF I am completely agree.

The same happens when i compare my ultravid vs SF.........

Resolutions are almost equal just 2 different kinds of view, better try before buy.....ultrasharp Leica and swarovision view or more natural less contrasty view of SF

 

[Sanjay Naithani]

Sv Vs Sf

Dear all,
I hope this will go well, if it does you can find some cutaways from the SF and an SV. It took me about three Swiss army knives to cut them, but here they are. In case somebody wants to draw far reaching conclusions about differences in focussing mechanism, that is not possible with these pictures, you need another type of open construction to show that.
Gijs

What is your opinion on Swarovski EL SV, are they better than Zeiss SF. It will be good to know if you have done side by side comparison on both. Is Rolling Ball effect is too Troubling and if yes, why do you think Swarovski has not found any solution to this.

sanjay

 

[HighNorth]

What is your opinion on Swarovski EL SV, are they better than Zeiss SF. It will be good to know if you have done side by side comparison on both. Is Rolling Ball effect is too Troubling and if yes, why do you think Swarovski has not found any solution to this.

sanjay

I recommend that you try out the two binoculars side-by-side. That would be much more useful than asking other people how they compare!

HN

 

[NDhunter]

What is your opinion on Swarovski EL SV, are they better than Zeiss SF. It will be good to know if you have done side by side comparison on both. Is Rolling Ball effect is too Troubling and if yes, why do you think Swarovski has not found any solution to this.

sanjay

I have owned the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL SV for several years, and it
is a very good binocular. The flat field view to the edge is very appealing
and I really prefer this type of design.
I have not tried the Zeiss yet.

As far as rolling ball, it only affects around 5% of the population,
so is not something to worry about. There are other binoculars made
by several makers that have a flat field view to the edge, and so
can bother some users. It is also called the globe effect.

It is always good to try before you buy, and purchase from a merchant that offers a return option. Good luck with your search.

Jerry

 

[kabsetz]

To my eyes, and those of a couple of experienced bino users who checked them side-by-side with me, the SF 8x42 had more rolling ball than the EL SV 8.5x42. The RB is mostly at the very edge, though, and the field is wide, so for me it was not too distracting.

Kimmo