-
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.
Swarovision Zeiss SF side by side (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter arran
- Start date
Subzero888
Well-known member
Yesterday I went to Land, Sea and Sky in Houston to check out the SF 8x42 they had. It was sunny and very hot outside and I could only spend 10 minutes with it. The first thing I noticed was the size of that thing. The SF is huge, but it had perfect balance. All the talk about the weight at the back makes sense. It was so easy to hold and look through.
While I was looking the sales manager brought a SV 8.5x42 outside and we compared both for some time. The SF barrels were easier to hold. I had some issues wrapping my fingers around both barrels of the SV. The SV felt heavier, but it was not too bad to hold either.
Optically I liked the SV better. It is flat to the edges and the SF is not. The SV was also brighter and contrasty. The manager who has been selling Binoculars and Telescopes for many years felt the same. He said he uses a SV 10x50 for astronomy and likes the SV better than the SF. For me the SF had some kidney beaning in the center. Too much eye relief I guess. SV also had some kidney beaning, but I could alleviate it by adjusting the IPD. We also tried the SV 10x42 and SV 10x32. The 10's are good, but the slight shake they had made the SV 8.5x42 a better choice. I could't see any benefit in the SV 10's over the 8.5 which is just stunning to look through. I also liked the SV build quality better than the SF.
Zeiss apparently have got the form factor right as SF is a delight to hold and handle. I don't think they have surpassed Swarovski in optics though. IMO, SV is better than the SF. I will have to try the Leica UV+ when it gets here.
About long Eye Relief causing issues - Are they making high end bins only for older people wearing glasses? It's likely because older folks obviously have more money and can afford the $2.5K alphas
I had no such issues with a Monarch 7 8x42.
While I was looking the sales manager brought a SV 8.5x42 outside and we compared both for some time. The SF barrels were easier to hold. I had some issues wrapping my fingers around both barrels of the SV. The SV felt heavier, but it was not too bad to hold either.
Optically I liked the SV better. It is flat to the edges and the SF is not. The SV was also brighter and contrasty. The manager who has been selling Binoculars and Telescopes for many years felt the same. He said he uses a SV 10x50 for astronomy and likes the SV better than the SF. For me the SF had some kidney beaning in the center. Too much eye relief I guess. SV also had some kidney beaning, but I could alleviate it by adjusting the IPD. We also tried the SV 10x42 and SV 10x32. The 10's are good, but the slight shake they had made the SV 8.5x42 a better choice. I could't see any benefit in the SV 10's over the 8.5 which is just stunning to look through. I also liked the SV build quality better than the SF.
Zeiss apparently have got the form factor right as SF is a delight to hold and handle. I don't think they have surpassed Swarovski in optics though. IMO, SV is better than the SF. I will have to try the Leica UV+ when it gets here.
About long Eye Relief causing issues - Are they making high end bins only for older people wearing glasses? It's likely because older folks obviously have more money and can afford the $2.5K alphas
I had no such issues with a Monarch 7 8x42.Another vote for the SV.Yesterday I went to Land, Sea and Sky in Houston to check out the SF 8x42 they had. It was sunny and very hot outside and I could only spend 10 minutes with it. The first thing I noticed was the size of that thing. The SF is huge, but it had perfect balance. All the talk about the weight at the back makes sense. It was so easy to hold and look through.
While I was looking the sales manager brought a SV 8.5x42 outside and we compared both for some time. The SF barrels were easier to hold. I had some issues wrapping my fingers around both barrels of the SV. The SV felt heavier, but it was not too bad to hold either.
Optically I liked the SV better. It is flat to the edges and the SF is not. The SV was also brighter and contrasty. The manager who has been selling Binoculars and Telescopes for many years felt the same. He said he uses a SV 10x50 for astronomy and likes the SV better than the SF. For me the SF had some kidney beaning in the center. Too much eye relief I guess. SV also had some kidney beaning, but I could alleviate it by adjusting the IPD. We also tried the SV 10x42 and SV 10x32. The 10's are good, but the slight shake they had made the SV 8.5x42 a better choice. I could't see any benefit in the SV 10's over the 8.5 which is just stunning to look through. I also liked the SV build quality better than the SF.
Zeiss apparently have got the form factor right as SF is a delight to hold and handle. I don't think they have surpassed Swarovski in optics though. IMO, SV is better than the SF. I will have to try the Leica UV+ when it gets here.
About long Eye Relief causing issues - Are they making high end bins only for older people wearing glasses? It's likely because older folks obviously have more money and can afford the $2.5K alphas
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
10X42 Zeiss SF and the Swaro SV EL
Dennis and I had a conversation going on in the Nikon Forum that switched to talking about my acquisition of a Zeiss SF 10X42, so I thought it would be best to post about it here rather than go off topic there. He asked the following question after I mentioned comparing the two side by side.
My primary 10X until recently has been the Nikon EDG-II 10X42 so I did not go into this with an already established familiarity with the Zeiss or the Swaro.
The core optical qualities of sharpness, contrast, brightness and color on both are excellent. There are small differences but both are very close and I consider them equivalent. I had no preference. I suspect my opinion on what was better would change depending on what I was looking at and the lighting conditions. It would be a tough call and I consider it a wash.
it was other factors that worked better for me with the Zeiss SF. I can think of only two things at the moment where the SV was a little better. The diopter was a little easier to adjust but it was no problem adjusting the SF. Since this is done so infrequently, it is a non issue. Technically, the total design of the eye cups may be slightly better on the SV, but the differences are so small, that was not much of a factor.
On the other hand, I did pick up a little bit of an overall haze in one view with the SV that I did not see in the Zeiss SF. It was so slight that it was not really a factor. The SV 10X42 handles those lighting issues much better than the SV 8X32. I suspect the Zeiss will handle glare better to a small degree.
One other small difference is that the detail seemed slighty more noticeable with the SF. As an example, I was looking at turkey mount in full flight and the round hump on the back stood out right away, but not so much with the SV. Again, it was not a big deal but the 3D presence just seemed slightly more noticeable with the SF.
I should note that I do not see rolling ball in either but it was unacceptable to me in some 8.5X42 SV EL models that I looked at a couple of years ago. Two other people who are extremely sensitive to rolling ball compared both the SV and the SF 10X42 and found rolling ball in the SV 10X42 unacceptable but also saw some in the SF, but not to the point that it would stop them from buying the binocular.
For everything that I took into account, the new Zeiss SF 10X42 was clearly the better choice for me.
The larger FOV of the SF is noticeable and provides a more satisfactory view of some scenes. An example was the view of the previously mentioned turkey mount. Seeing as you now require a minimum of around a 420 ft FOV from an 8X, I suspect this would be a significant factor for you. The FOV of the Zeiss SF 10X42 is 360 ft at 1,000 yards and 336 ft at a 1,000 yards for the SV EL 10X42.
The Zeiss was better when it came to focusing. That is saying a lot because this particular SV EL had a good focus. The SV had almost no stiction and there was no free play, but there was a difference in spring tension when changing rotation direction. I am able to lock onto a sharp focus with the SF faster than any other binocular I own. I suspect it is a combination of factors consisting of the focus mechanism, the speed ratio, knob size and location.
The most impressive feature is the feel and balance. It is one of those things that is difficult to appreciate when using it in the store for a few minutes. However after using in real world applications, you become aware that you can hold onto a subject longer and it is easier to control the shake of a 10X. I notice that I hold a binocular differently depending on if I am standing, sitting, leaning against a post, etc. The nice long tubes along with the location and size of the focus knob are very accommodating to different grips.
Both are excellent and I would be very happy with either. In the end it was an easy decision. For my preferences, there is really nothing the SV does significantly better than the SF. However there are several things I thought the SF does significantly better than the SV. Those are the feel and balance, the focus operation, and the wide field of view.
Dennis and I had a conversation going on in the Nikon Forum that switched to talking about my acquisition of a Zeiss SF 10X42, so I thought it would be best to post about it here rather than go off topic there. He asked the following question after I mentioned comparing the two side by side.
My primary 10X until recently has been the Nikon EDG-II 10X42 so I did not go into this with an already established familiarity with the Zeiss or the Swaro.
The core optical qualities of sharpness, contrast, brightness and color on both are excellent. There are small differences but both are very close and I consider them equivalent. I had no preference. I suspect my opinion on what was better would change depending on what I was looking at and the lighting conditions. It would be a tough call and I consider it a wash.
it was other factors that worked better for me with the Zeiss SF. I can think of only two things at the moment where the SV was a little better. The diopter was a little easier to adjust but it was no problem adjusting the SF. Since this is done so infrequently, it is a non issue. Technically, the total design of the eye cups may be slightly better on the SV, but the differences are so small, that was not much of a factor.
On the other hand, I did pick up a little bit of an overall haze in one view with the SV that I did not see in the Zeiss SF. It was so slight that it was not really a factor. The SV 10X42 handles those lighting issues much better than the SV 8X32. I suspect the Zeiss will handle glare better to a small degree.
One other small difference is that the detail seemed slighty more noticeable with the SF. As an example, I was looking at turkey mount in full flight and the round hump on the back stood out right away, but not so much with the SV. Again, it was not a big deal but the 3D presence just seemed slightly more noticeable with the SF.
I should note that I do not see rolling ball in either but it was unacceptable to me in some 8.5X42 SV EL models that I looked at a couple of years ago. Two other people who are extremely sensitive to rolling ball compared both the SV and the SF 10X42 and found rolling ball in the SV 10X42 unacceptable but also saw some in the SF, but not to the point that it would stop them from buying the binocular.
For everything that I took into account, the new Zeiss SF 10X42 was clearly the better choice for me.
The larger FOV of the SF is noticeable and provides a more satisfactory view of some scenes. An example was the view of the previously mentioned turkey mount. Seeing as you now require a minimum of around a 420 ft FOV from an 8X, I suspect this would be a significant factor for you. The FOV of the Zeiss SF 10X42 is 360 ft at 1,000 yards and 336 ft at a 1,000 yards for the SV EL 10X42.
The Zeiss was better when it came to focusing. That is saying a lot because this particular SV EL had a good focus. The SV had almost no stiction and there was no free play, but there was a difference in spring tension when changing rotation direction. I am able to lock onto a sharp focus with the SF faster than any other binocular I own. I suspect it is a combination of factors consisting of the focus mechanism, the speed ratio, knob size and location.
The most impressive feature is the feel and balance. It is one of those things that is difficult to appreciate when using it in the store for a few minutes. However after using in real world applications, you become aware that you can hold onto a subject longer and it is easier to control the shake of a 10X. I notice that I hold a binocular differently depending on if I am standing, sitting, leaning against a post, etc. The nice long tubes along with the location and size of the focus knob are very accommodating to different grips.
Both are excellent and I would be very happy with either. In the end it was an easy decision. For my preferences, there is really nothing the SV does significantly better than the SF. However there are several things I thought the SF does significantly better than the SV. Those are the feel and balance, the focus operation, and the wide field of view.
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Bruce:
It is hard to compare binoculars in a store setting, and so your review
now reflects that. I like to spend a week or so with a binocular to
become acquainted.
How do you like the Nikon EDG, in comparison ?
Jerry
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Jerry .... I have access to a Swaro 12X50 SV EL that I have used off and on for the last several years. Although I am not as familiar with it as I am with the EDG, the SV line is not all new to me. Obviously the 12X and 10X SV EL differ considerably in physical aspects and magnification, but the core optical properties are similar. I did do a short outdoor side by side between the SF and the 12X SV a couple of weeks ago to confirm my thoughts about the 10X SV and there were no surprises. Optical qualities of sharpness, brightness, etc. were close and I have no preference in that regard.
It would be great to do an extended field side by side between the 10X SV and SF, but truthfully, I doubt at this point that I would learn anything of significance that I do not already know. I did mention in my original comments about viewing a turkey mount in full flight. Considering there are not a whole lot of turkey mounts out in the field, that should have reflected the comparison was indoors at a store. Think of a store like Cabela's or Bass Pro.
If you browse around old posts, you will find a couple of posts where I said if I could have just one binocular, it would be the Nikon EDG-II 10X42. I still like the Nikon EDG a lot, but I like the new Zeiss SF more! Products evolve over time and my preferences have evolved with the advancements in the products. If I could have only one binocular, now it would be Zeiss SF 10X42.
The Nikon EDG is still an excellent binocular but I prefer the SF for some of the same reasons that I prefer the SF over the SV. The SF has a noticeable wider FOV, it has better balance making it easier to steady a 10X and it is slightly quicker to lock onto a sharp focus.
There is a more noticeable difference between the SF and the EDG color balance than there is between the SF and the SV. The EDG is more toward a warmer transmission. The SF gives the appearance of a brighter image, detail seems to stand out more, and the depth between items is more noticeable.
By the way, most of my comparisons between the EDG and the SF have been done outdoors over many weeks so that may set your mind at ease.
I agree that it takes time to really become one with your binocular. That is way I have waited until recently to start commenting on my experiences with the new SF.
For Dennis - I have had the SF for over a month now and use it every day and have not come across any quality issues.
It would be great to do an extended field side by side between the 10X SV and SF, but truthfully, I doubt at this point that I would learn anything of significance that I do not already know. I did mention in my original comments about viewing a turkey mount in full flight. Considering there are not a whole lot of turkey mounts out in the field, that should have reflected the comparison was indoors at a store. Think of a store like Cabela's or Bass Pro.
If you browse around old posts, you will find a couple of posts where I said if I could have just one binocular, it would be the Nikon EDG-II 10X42. I still like the Nikon EDG a lot, but I like the new Zeiss SF more! Products evolve over time and my preferences have evolved with the advancements in the products. If I could have only one binocular, now it would be Zeiss SF 10X42.
The Nikon EDG is still an excellent binocular but I prefer the SF for some of the same reasons that I prefer the SF over the SV. The SF has a noticeable wider FOV, it has better balance making it easier to steady a 10X and it is slightly quicker to lock onto a sharp focus.
There is a more noticeable difference between the SF and the EDG color balance than there is between the SF and the SV. The EDG is more toward a warmer transmission. The SF gives the appearance of a brighter image, detail seems to stand out more, and the depth between items is more noticeable.
By the way, most of my comparisons between the EDG and the SF have been done outdoors over many weeks so that may set your mind at ease.
I agree that it takes time to really become one with your binocular. That is way I have waited until recently to start commenting on my experiences with the new SF.
For Dennis - I have had the SF for over a month now and use it every day and have not come across any quality issues.
My impression is that the SF 10x42 has clearly less rolling ball than the SF 8x42. In the SF 10x42 I didn't see any.
But then I'm not all that suceptible to rolling ball.
Hermann
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Herman .... You and I had the same experience. I did not see any rolling ball in either the pre-production or retail version of the 10X42 Zeiss SF. I did see a small amount in the pre-production 8X42 SF, but not enough that I think it would be a problem for me.
I did look at a couple of Swarovski 8.5X42 SV EL models a couple of years ago and found the rolling ball to be extreme enough that I would not want to own one. Recently, Kimmo, in post #80 of this thread said ......
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
His experience is just the opposite of mine. As I recall, there was some speculation that Swaro has made some in production changes to the 8.5 to reduce the rolling ball effect. Maybe that is the reason for our different experience. I need to check out a recent production 8.5X to see if it is as I remember it. It would be interesting for someone with an early production 8.5X42 SV EL to compare with a recent production model. Then again, if they bought the 8.5X, there is a good chance they do not see rolling ball.
I did look at a couple of Swarovski 8.5X42 SV EL models a couple of years ago and found the rolling ball to be extreme enough that I would not want to own one. Recently, Kimmo, in post #80 of this thread said ......
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
His experience is just the opposite of mine. As I recall, there was some speculation that Swaro has made some in production changes to the 8.5 to reduce the rolling ball effect. Maybe that is the reason for our different experience. I need to check out a recent production 8.5X to see if it is as I remember it. It would be interesting for someone with an early production 8.5X42 SV EL to compare with a recent production model. Then again, if they bought the 8.5X, there is a good chance they do not see rolling ball.
I also thought the Swarovski 8.5x42 I tried last year, on the same day I looked at the SF, had less rolling ball than the SF 8x42. But like I said, I'm not the best judge of rolling ball, it doesn't really bother me that much. I could get on with the SF 8x42 no problem, I'd need a couple of weeks to get used to it at most.
I don't know the older versions of the Swarovski well enough to comment on them, but I've also heard that Swarovski made some changes. That wouldn't be that surprising, many of the manufacturers make some changes now and then.
Hermann
brocknroller
A professed porromaniac
Jerry,
Where did you find the figure 5%? I never saw a figure quoted for those who experience "rolling ball." Definitely a minority on BF, but I would have thought it was a higher figure than that. It seems from reading posts on bf that many people see it initially, but most adapt to it in minutes, hours or days. Even "Rubber Eyes Steve" (mooreorless) saw RB for a whole 5 seconds before he adapted!
Others have never seen it and only know what it looks like from Holger's simulations. Consider yourself lucky if you've never seen it or did but quickly adapted. It's not a pleasant sight. Some people even get nauseous from it. I don't but I find it distracting.
Fortunately, most people either don't see it or quickly adapt, so you're right about it not being something to worry about for most people. But for those who don't know if they are susceptible, and a bin is known for having angular magnification distortion (AMD), it's best to "try before you buy," or buy from a store with a generous return policy so they don't get stuck with a bin they can't use and might lose money on selling used.
I would never have guessed that I was susceptible until I tried the full sized Nikon LXs. Even the 8x32 model had a bit but not enough to be distracting. I don't think the phrase "rolling ball" had even come into the optics lexicon at the time I saw it in the LX. I reported it on Cloudy Nights, but nobody seemed to know what it was.
Only after Holger saw it and investigated it scientifically did "rolling ball" (or the "globe effect," as he calls it) become more widely known. I'm sure others were seeing it, too, but like me, they had no explanation for what it was.
I'm glad that Zeiss purposely designed its SF series with more pincushion than the 8.5x and 10x42 SV ELs so that those who do see RB and don't like it have an alternative to the SV EL. Of course, you don't need to be susceptible to RB to want an SF, the class-leading FOV, triple bridge ergonomics, and Zeiss quality are reasons enough.
I hope Steve needs some new boots so we can visit Lost Creek and try one. I'll even kick in for gas.
Meanwhile, I have the Terras to enjoy for a while, thanks to you! It really amazes me how far roofs have come in the past 15 years. When I started trying roofs, the best I could buy at the affordable price point was the Japanese-made Nikon Sporter I, which was built well, but didn't have phase coating, so the image was "soft" compared to porros. It was also the first bin I tried with twist-up eyecups, and now they are standard on just about every roof made.
Young birders don't realize how lucky they are to have so many choices today at various price points. They also don't realize what they're missing not having the same choices in porros.
Brock
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Brock:
That figure came from Zeiss in one of the SF threads. The Drs. there carefully studied and had
many observers offer their opinion.
I would not put this out there by myself. Zeiss would only introduce a new flat field binocular
after careful consideration. Just like Nikon and Swarovski, they decided to offer a superior view
in their next binocular.
It is not news, Swarovski has been bettering Zeiss in sales, and the SF is an attempt to gain
in the top end market.
Edit: I am one of the 95% of the population that does not see any globe effect. So I do wonder
why it seems to be a topic in most every binocular consideration.
That is unfortunate, it has been so widely discussed.
Jerry
That figure came from Zeiss in one of the SF threads. The Drs. there carefully studied and had
many observers offer their opinion.
I would not put this out there by myself. Zeiss would only introduce a new flat field binocular
after careful consideration. Just like Nikon and Swarovski, they decided to offer a superior view
in their next binocular.
It is not news, Swarovski has been bettering Zeiss in sales, and the SF is an attempt to gain
in the top end market.
Edit: I am one of the 95% of the population that does not see any globe effect. So I do wonder
why it seems to be a topic in most every binocular consideration.
That is unfortunate, it has been so widely discussed.
Jerry
Last edited:
I can't explain it really........when the SV's first came out I rushed over to the local shop and stared through the 10x42 SV's and saw the dreaded rolling ball monster....didn't even know what it was, but it almost gave me a headache. Nowadays, after my recent acquisition of the same model, I don't see it at all. Haven't a clue why, but glad I don't. The view is phenomenal to my 54 yr old eyes. I wonder how much difference there is between the 8.5 and 10x, optically?
brocknroller
A professed porromaniac
Jerry,
You could ask the same question about why Zeiss would purposely design a flat field binocular with enough pincushion to avoid RB (though apparently not for all people, as we have read) when only 5% are bothered by it! Think of all the R&D just for the 5% minority of "rolling ballers!" Bless their hearts!
I can't answer why others bring up RB in their posts, and they do, even on this thread, but for me, it had been to counteract the deniers, who at every turn when the subject of RB was broached would say it was an "non-issue" and by inference that I was nuts for pointing it out. FINALLY, Holger came out with his study (three studies now), and that should have made them get on board, but they still kept denying it.
I thought those "non-issue" statements were misleading and unfortunate. So I countered by letting members who were inquiring about RB know that while yes, it was likely that they would adapt to it if they saw it, they had better give themselves enough time to adapt since some users have taken as long as two weeks. If not properly informed, they might see RB, not realize that adaption could take time, and they would send the bins back or sell them if there wasn't time to return them. Not all stores have a two-week return period.
Why get stuck with a bin they can't use or lose money on selling it? I think giving them all the relevant information they needed in response to their questions, rather than non-informative denials was the right thing to do, and I stand by that.
I don't agree with the figures of the "Drs" at Zeiss came up with (only in Europe would a Ph.D. be called a "doctor" outside of academic circles). I actually had been keeping score on my computer of how many BF members reported seeing RB, but when my computer died, so too did that data. But I think it was much higher than 5%. Maybe 5% don't adapt, I didn't keep track of that group, so I don't know, but many people do see RB and adapt even if you don't and others don't see it, and the proof is on these forums for anyone who has the time to dig it out.
I think the numbers are probably higher on BF than the "Drs" random group, because we dissect optics to the nth degree here, be it CA, RB, pincushion, brightness, veiling glare (a popular issue of late), focuser speed, focuser tension, eye relief, etc., etc., etc...
Optics gearheads live for this stuff. I don't know what others are doing on this forum if they don't. When some members ask why are we discussing this or that bin or this or that optical property, I have to ask, why not? That's what it's all about (well, that and the hokey pokey).:smoke:
Since Holger did his distortion survey, when people broach the subject, as they did on this thread (without any encouragement from me), one saying that he sees RB in the 10x42 SV EL but not the 10x42 SF, another saying that he sees RB in the 8x42 SF but not in the 10x42 model... I simply point them to Holger's study so I won't incur the wrath of those who are intolerant of things they don't understand. It's all laid out in Holger's three reports on the subject, the last of which includes the SFs. I was about to post a link to that study when I saw your post with the 5% figure and wondered where it came from since I know you wouldn't make it up. Thanks for explaining.
Brock
Last edited:
Bruce,
When we noticed that to our eyes the 8x42 SF had more globe effect than the recent production 8.5x42 SV EL, we also thought we should check a recent against an early production sample to try to see if there might be changes between them.
Luckily, the store still has their original demo sample of the 8.5 (stamped demo on the body), and the sales guy (who is an avid and experienced birder) and I spent a couple of minutes outside of the store swapping back and forth between the early and recent samples. Much to my surprise, we didn't see any immediately apparent difference in their globe effect and panning behavior. This was an informal test, and did not last very long, but we went into it thinking there would be a difference since it has been reported several times on the fora that unannounced changes might have been made to the eyepiece design. We stopped the hand-held testing at the point when we both concluded that the images we saw did not indicate any change in design between the two. I'm not saying definitively that there could not be some change, but if there is, it was too small for two experienced viewers to detect it reliably while expecting it to be there.
By contrast, the difference I saw between the 8x42 SF and the 8.5x42 SV EL was immediately apparent with the SF having more pronounced globe effect especially around the last 10% or so of the field. For me, that was not bothersome since while panning I tend to keep my eyes reasonably centered, but it was quite pronounced if I looked for it.
Like you, I see much less of globe effect in the 10x42 SF, but since that model I have not field-tested yet, I'll refrain from saying more about it save that in in-store tryouts I have been perhaps more impressed by the 10x than by the 8x SF, and generally like both.
Kimmo
henry link
Well-known member
I place very high confidence in Kimmo's observations, but there is a way around the dilemma of choosing between subjective impressions of the globe effect in different binoculars. The distortion that causes it, angular magnification distortion, can be easily photographed in different binoculars and compared. The photos below show a series of small circles (each subtending about 4º of apparent field) spread across the right side of the FOV of two binoculars with approximately 60º apparent fields. The exact center of the field is not included in the photos. It's about 10º of apparent field off the left edge. The right edge field stop is visible on the right side of the photos.
The designers of these two binoculars have chosen virtually opposite distortion profiles. The binocular in the left photo has been designed for nearly zero pincushion distortion, which results in considerable angular magnification distortion. The binocular on the right has been designed for nearly zero angular magnification distortion, which requires the application of a measured amount of pincushion distortion.
If you measure and compare the horizontal and vertical diameters of the shapes on the left side of each photo you'll find that they closely match, the shapes are essentially perfect circles because they are close to the field center, but as you progress toward the right edge the horizontal diameters of the shapes in the left photo progressively shrink, distorting the shapes and turning circles into ovals. This creates the illusion of circles gradually foreshortening as if they were moving around the side of a globe. The bigger the difference between the vertical and horizontal measurements as a circle nears the edge of the field the stronger the "globe effect". I would expect that anyone susceptible to "rolling ball" will see it in the left binocular since the distortion that causes it is certainly there and I would hope the same observers would not see it in the right binocular since the distortion that causes it is not there.
Henry
The designers of these two binoculars have chosen virtually opposite distortion profiles. The binocular in the left photo has been designed for nearly zero pincushion distortion, which results in considerable angular magnification distortion. The binocular on the right has been designed for nearly zero angular magnification distortion, which requires the application of a measured amount of pincushion distortion.
If you measure and compare the horizontal and vertical diameters of the shapes on the left side of each photo you'll find that they closely match, the shapes are essentially perfect circles because they are close to the field center, but as you progress toward the right edge the horizontal diameters of the shapes in the left photo progressively shrink, distorting the shapes and turning circles into ovals. This creates the illusion of circles gradually foreshortening as if they were moving around the side of a globe. The bigger the difference between the vertical and horizontal measurements as a circle nears the edge of the field the stronger the "globe effect". I would expect that anyone susceptible to "rolling ball" will see it in the left binocular since the distortion that causes it is certainly there and I would hope the same observers would not see it in the right binocular since the distortion that causes it is not there.
Henry
Attachments
Last edited:
HighNorth
Well-known member
That's really neat Henry. :t:
Go get yourself a beer. B
Lee
I bet he could see rolling ball in most binoculars after consuming enough beers!
Last edited:
I've not looked at the forum entries on the comparison between the SF and the SV for a while now, but I thought my relatively long term use of both might be interesting for some readers. I bought my SF 10x42 last December and I guess they were amongst the first to arrive in the UK, already owning some SV 10x42 that had been bought last summer. My wife and I use them on an almost daily basis - often twice a day, as we live near a nature reserve with the Humber estuary and sea very close to each other. Now having 6 months continuous experience with the SFs in the field I find it difficult to decide between the two which I'd choose, if I had to choose one pair. I guess I'd go for the slightly extra FOV the SF offers, but otherwise - once you get used to them - I find there's little in the handling etc between the two. This is obviously very subjective and the optics vary slightly in colour saturation, with the SVs being a touch richer in colour, but not much. I thought after this amount of time actively using them that I'd develop a preference, but to my eyes and needs there's little between the two apart from personal choice and needs. At first the aesthetics of the SFs appealed more, but that has waned now and for me, they are just different from each other in their external design. I do have some issues with the eye cups of the SF, in that I always have to ensure that they are fully extended when I use them as putting the covers on can cause them to disengage and retract slightly. Other than that I struggle to decide which I pick up to use. I'm aware I haven't used the level of criticality towards the optics performance that others have, but for me there are no technical issues with either that I've experienced at this point in time.
