Swarovski Field Pro EL - x8.5 or x10 (1 Viewer)

[Gander]

This year, out of necessity, I will be upgrading my binoculars. This is the fourth occasion I have done this, and the first time I have decided to go for an "alpha". Following a lot of research, and careful consideration, I have pretty much decided to go for the Field Pro EL.
My current, and now rather aged binoculars, are Nikon Monarch 7s, and they have, for the price been wonderful. I opted for the x10, as FOV was pretty good for an x10, coming in at 6.9 degrees.
I know the basic pros and cons between x8 and x10, but my birding does include a significant amount of distance work, especially on my home patch that includes a 2 mile stretch of coastal path. I also bird regularly on estuaries and up in the Scottish mountains/glens, where again, birds can be distant. I have never felt the x10s gave me a stability issue, nor do I feel that they have hampered me in woodland, where the extra light and FOV of a x8 would come into its own. The only time I have wished I was using a x8 was early last year in the New Zealand bush, where I did struggle slightly under a very dense canopy. Generally though, about 40% of my birding is normally in woodland, and using the Monarch 7 x10 has not been an issue.
In considering the Field Pro EL, I have noted that although I will have all the benefits of better glass, the FOV on the x10 will be 6.4 degrees, a reduction of 0.5 degrees from the Monarch 7's. I also noted that the Field Pros come in x8.5 magnification. If they were a more standard x8, I probably would not be asking this question, but the extra 0.5 magnification, coupled with a 0.5 deg reduction in FOV from my current glasses, has me wondering if I should bite the bullet and go for the x8.5?
I don't foresee having an opportunity of trying them side by side in the field, so I am hoping someone who has might be able to comment.

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Hi Gander, I can't really help with the relative magnification / FOV question, but thought it may be worth mentioning that the close focus of the field-pro version is compromised against the previous swarovision iteration (longer close focus distance in an arguably cynical move to push buyers towards the NL).
If you are happy to buy used then the previous version will give you a better close focus distance (as well as a significant saving - e.g. HERE).
Out of interest, have you tried/considered the Zeiss SF? It offers a similar handling experience but with a much wider FOV.

 

[Gander]

Hi Gander, I can't really help with the relative magnification / FOV question, but thought it may be worth mentioning that the close focus of the field-pro version is compromised against the previous swarovision iteration (longer close focus distance in an arguably cynical move to push buyers towards the NL).
If you are happy to buy used then the previous version will give you a better close focus distance (as well as a significant saving - e.g. HERE).
Out of interest, have you tried/considered the Zeiss SF? It offers a similar handling experience but with a much wider FOV.

Hi,
I am reading that the Swarovision has minimum focus of 5 meters to Field Pro EL minimum of 3.3 metres (Pure is quoted at 2.5 metres). Am I reading that correctly?
I did look at Zeiss Victory SF, but it was more than I wanted to spend. I was also initially put off Zeiss by negative reviews concerning build quality. That said, I have seen a recent review that indicates build quality has been greatly improved recently.

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Hi,
I am reading that the Swarovision has minimum focus of 5 meters to Field Pro EL minimum of 3.3 metres (Pure is quoted at 2.5 metres). Am I reading that correctly?
I did look at Zeiss Victory SF, but it was more than I wanted to spend. I was also initially put off Zeiss by negative reviews concerning build quality. That said, I have seen a recent review that indicates build quality has been greatly improved recently.

I believe that is correct based on other threads - 5m is almost 1980's level of 'close' focusing. It may not be an issue for all, but it's poor for passerines, dense scrub and forest habitats, insects etc.
It is also worth being aware users of new Swarovski binoculars have reported with armour falling to bits - the older version didn't seem to have any problems in this regard.
I'm a bit of a Zeiss fan, so perhaps take this with a pinch of salt, but I see nothing wrong with Zeiss build quality at all; My FL's have been on all my overseas trips in the last 8 years or so without issue, working in a range of environments and temperatures; my HT's are a more recent addition and are used primarily during work for VP surveys, but operate without fault. I did think of selling them at one time, but I will keep them now I've learnt to 'cope' with 10x. Should you need service, Gary out of ECBR is the official Zeiss agent, and (in my experience) completes work quickly and professionally.
I'm not hugely familiar with the SF (I see no need to upgrade and would rather spend funds on birding trips), but the original grey version had some build quality issues - I'm not sure that the newer black version has recorded much in the way of problems.

Hope this helps!

P. S. SW optics have a used 10x42 SF at a good price currently, I'm sure they would have some wiggle room in the price too if you called them!

 

[jafritten]

Hi Gander, I own the Field Pro ELs in the 8.5x configuration and Leica Ultravid 10x42s. At longer ranges the 8.5x show me more detail than my 10x42 Ultravid HD+. At very close ranges, like 5 metres or so, I would say that the 10x has a slight edge over the 8.5x magnification; the 10x show me more detail. I don't think the different makes play a role here.

(An explanation for this apparent paradox could be that jitter and body motion have a stronger effect at longer ranges because shake is multiplied by magnification AND is also factored by the viewing distance. Maybe that's all rubbish. That is how I make sense of it anyway.)

So, in my experience (YMMV) 8.5x is better for longer distances in handheld use. If I were you, I'd go for the 8.5x magnification. I also think that 8.5x compared to 8x does make a difference in practice. It's not just an odd number.

Btw, the close focus of the Swarovision is 1.9 metres not 5.

 

[mwhogue]

Gander,

Short version, based on what you say, go for the 8.5x42. Much bigger FOV and greater DOF versus the 10x42 (especially if you will be keeping your Nikon?).

My experience is the same as @jafritten - the extra .5 magnification is noticeable compared to a "straight eight".

Good luck with the Quest.

Mike

 

[Dennis Mau]

Hi. I would go for the Swarovski EL 8.5x42 Field Pro. That extra .5x of magnification makes quite a difference, and I think if I just had one binocular, I would stay around 7x or 8x. The Swarovski EL 8.5x42 Field Pro is a very nice all around birding binocular that will serve you well no matter where you use it. Another suggestion since you liked your Nikon M7 10x42 would be the Nikon HG 8x42.

I prefer the Nikon HG 8x42 over the Swarovski EL 8.5x42 Field Pro because it has a bigger 8.3 degree FOV, it is smaller and lighter, less expensive, and has no armor problems. The Nikon EDG 8x42 is another option, but it is more expensive than the Nikon HG 8x42 and has a much smaller 7.7 degree FOV, it is much heavier and bigger and Nikon no longer supports because it was discontinued about 5 years ago it so if you break it Nikon can't fix it, and they send you an HG 8x42 instead.

 

[Scott98]

I would sound a note of caution on this purchase - you may not even like the EL's versus the M7. The M7 10x42 is only 24 ounces, the EL's and NL's in 42mm are quite a bit heavier. The body style of the EL is also very different than the M7.

I was all set to buy a pair of 8.5x42 EL until I tried them in the shop. It's a 2-bridge bino, and my hand would not fit in between the 2 bridges, so one or more of my fingers was always stuck upwards, it felt awkward and I didn't like it. The 10x50 EL had enough room in between the bridges and felt totally comfortable.

I didn't like the focuser action on the EL's either. I had a pair of Nikon HG/LXL 8x42 with a much better focuser and easier hold. For me, upgrading to a new Nikon EDG turned out to be the best fit. I discovered I generally like Nikon's designs better than Swaro. I ordered new 42mm EDG from Kyoie in Japan and now 7x42 EDG is my birding bino. So if you want to stay close to what you have in the M7 except with state-of-the-art optics and mechanics you could go 10x42 EDG.

FWIW I do like the body and focuser of the NL42's better than the EL's.