Just to add to my above post, for those maybe anticipating or desiring more detail. I do have a PhD, so I'm experienced with relatively lengthy data collection and levels of analysis but my comments were based purely on practical usage in the field for birding and nature observation, and therefore grounded in my personal needs and findings.
-
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
Sanjay Naithani
Well-known member
So as per you both are equally good. SF has better FOV and SV has richer color. Which one of them brings wow factor when you look through them.
Sanjay
For me, in day-to-day use the FOV and slightly richer colour differences are marginal and therefore open to the choice of the individual user. For wow factor, if anyone were to pick either pair up and not be used to this level of optics they would be well and truly wowed!
I guess what I'm trying to say is that overall for regular use there's little difference between them and choice may be based on individual needs, brand loyalty, perhaps an impulse purchase or if in a shop with both to choose from whichever appealed the most on the day.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that overall for regular use there's little difference between them and choice may be based on individual needs, brand loyalty, perhaps an impulse purchase or if in a shop with both to choose from whichever appealed the most on the day.
Andy
Thanks for your assessment and I congratulate you for basing it on normal everyday nature observation and viewing. For me this is the best primary line of assessment although for sure special investigative measures may be necessary to define any problems revealed by normal viewing.
Lee
Thanks Lee
Optically, I've not experienced any issues with either the SF or SV in 10x42 and therefore I thought for anyone wishing to buy either of these but were unsure of which to choose from this longer term feedback from daily use might be useful. I think, in the end, the SF offers a genuine alternative to the SV.
alan kennedy
Well-known member
Very useful Andy, thanks. I'm planning to buy one of these models later this year, most likely at the BF in August. The difference in price may well be the deciding factor.
Alan
P.S. SV would be a departure since I have 8x42 HT and 8x32 FL.
Alan
P.S. SV would be a departure since I have 8x42 HT and 8x32 FL.
Sagittarius
Well-known member
Said it before and will say it again.
How can Schott be better than Schott ?
Except for the coatings and the alignment of the Schott lens in each brand, there should be very little to almost no difference in the view of an HD Schott lens in an SV vs the HD Schott lens in an SF.
Whenever I read or hear of an owner of either brand claiming a definite superior view of one over the other, all I can think is "FANBOY" !!! |>|
I believe, Andy's findings prove there is actually little to no significant difference in the view of one over the other.
Thanks for posting your experience with both, Andy. :t:
How can Schott be better than Schott ?
Except for the coatings and the alignment of the Schott lens in each brand, there should be very little to almost no difference in the view of an HD Schott lens in an SV vs the HD Schott lens in an SF.
Whenever I read or hear of an owner of either brand claiming a definite superior view of one over the other, all I can think is "FANBOY" !!! |>|
I believe, Andy's findings prove there is actually little to no significant difference in the view of one over the other.
Thanks for posting your experience with both, Andy. :t:
I've had my EL SV 10X42 since last August, and they still blow my mind every time I look through them. (I previously used Nikon Venturer LX, the predecessor to the EDG)
I would think that almost ten months would be long enough to become "used to this level of optics".
Dale Forbes
SWAROVSKI OPTIK Austria
Glass is a raw material and having high quality materials is incredibly important in an optical system but waaay more important is what one does with that material.
I could take as much high quality aluminium and titanium as I like and I still would not be able to build a half-way decent space rocket. Z & S are both experts in "rocket creation", but this is not based on their ability or willingness to purchase or use a particular raw material "brand X". Even if that were the case, top glass manufacturers have a mind-numbingly large product range with even "HD Schott lenses" being available in a huge scale of quality levels.
For those interested in optical glass, Schott put together a normal-people-friendly catalogue with chapter 2 being particularly interesting http://www.schott.com/advanced_opti...cal-glass-pocket-catalog-january-2014-row.pdf)
Happy birding,
Dale
Saggi
Dale has put his finger right on it. There is more to a lens or prism, and more importantly, there is more to a binocular's optical system than just the raw material. And don't dismiss the importance of coatings, Zeiss has a guy whose job it is to continuously improve the T* coatings and almost certainly Swaro has an equivalent person.
On the individual lens and prism side there is the question of the shape and physical dimension accuracy and surface finish. These have to be decided on by the manufacturer and then they have to have the personnel, equipment and quality assurance system necessary to maintain them. And then there is the optical system in its entirety and if you saw the pictures of the cutaways posted on BF you will know that SF and EL SV have very different systems.
And don't forget Schott do dozens of variations of each glass type and Z and S might choose the same glass type but a different variation.
And then there is the fact that folks report what they perceive they see through bins and since everyone's eyes and brains are different, there will be genuine differences about the view through any individual binocular.
Finally, yes some people will be influenced by their fan-dom of a particular brand or be influenced by what other people have already reported.
Z and S are at the top of their game these days and Andy's comments certainly show that the differences between SF and EL SV aren't important to him, but other folks may have a different opinion, especially about the extra wide FOV of SF.
Back to where we started, IMHO first class raw materials like Schott glass are a starting point and a very important one, but thats all.
Lee
Sanjay Naithani
Well-known member
Did you get time to find out why these two 42 SV differ. Is there any change Swarovski has made as a part of continuous improvement. Please share if you know of any.
Sanjay
The bottom one is the newer one?
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Maljuno, post112,
Yes, the bottom one is the present version.
Gijs
Yes, the bottom one is the present version.
Gijs
Sanjay Naithani
Well-known member
Thanks Gijs,
What this change would have brought improvement from previous ELSV version.
Sanjay
Sagittarius
Well-known member
Good post, Lee. (110)
I get what you're saying but I'm very cynical and skeptical when it comes to SV vs Zeiss comparisons on this Zeiss forum from certain SV fans.
You're one of the very few members I do trust.
But I don't trust the majority.
No way their eyes are as good as some of them claim, not a chance!
I've looked through samples of all the big 3 and doubt, seriously, that, if all three brands were disguised to be unrecognizable in, say a 10x42 model, very few members here could look through them and name, with certainty, which brand they were without a lucky guess.
That said, it may surprise you to hear that I'm, most likely, returning to big green for my next binocular. |=)|
Not because I believe they're better than Zeiss or Leica though.
I get what you're saying but I'm very cynical and skeptical when it comes to SV vs Zeiss comparisons on this Zeiss forum from certain SV fans.
You're one of the very few members I do trust.
But I don't trust the majority.
No way their eyes are as good as some of them claim, not a chance!
I've looked through samples of all the big 3 and doubt, seriously, that, if all three brands were disguised to be unrecognizable in, say a 10x42 model, very few members here could look through them and name, with certainty, which brand they were without a lucky guess.
That said, it may surprise you to hear that I'm, most likely, returning to big green for my next binocular. |=)|
Not because I believe they're better than Zeiss or Leica though.
brocknroller
A professed porromaniac
Not because you believe they're (Swaros) better than Zeiss or Leica though, but because???? You left us hanging, Sagittarius. Why are you returning to the "Big Green" brand?
<B>
winwinbino
Well-known member
I guess it's mostly due to personal peference. Sold all my top glasses (named Big 4, Edg included) and sit back clamly to consider which I would reunion. The final decision is the 'Big Green' or the 'Coke'.
Sagittarius
Well-known member
You nailed it, winwinbino !
I agree, the Nikon EDG should be considered right up there with the Big 3.
"Big 4" should definitely be used instead of Big 3, these days. :t:
henry link
Well-known member
OK, here goes. The cutaway in question can be found here:
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3191374&postcount=47
Starting at the ocular end. The first four lenses are the eyelens, the transfer lens (a cemented doublet here) and the field lens. Taken together these form what looks like a 4 element Konig eyepiece. That basic eyepiece is modified by the next two lenses, which are positioned between the eyepiece fieldstop and the prisms. They act like a Barlow or Smyth lens, effectively increasing the focal length of the objective and in this case are calculated to reduce the astigmatism and field curvature of the basic eyepiece. The basic eyepiece in the Zeiss SF appears to be a modified 6 element Erfle combined with a singlet ahead of the fieldstop. The use of a singlet rather than a doublet in that position probably explains the reports of edge corrections in the SF being inferior to the SV.
The next lens on the other side of the prisms is the focusing lens. In the SV it's negative (center is thinner than the edge). The focusing lens in the Zeiss SF is positive. A negative focuser increases the effective focal length of the fixed objective lenses up front, a positive focuser decreases the effective focal length. The fixed objective lenses up front in the SV form a triplet (cemented doublet air spaced from a singlet). In the Zeiss SF those lenses form a cemented doublet in a Steinheil arrangement with the negative lens first.
Last edited:
