-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Swarovski Swarovision EL 10x42 vs Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter dorubird
- Start date
No matter how much they "carry weight" or "make things look official" they remain completely subjective.
We just pay more attention when they are authored by someone whom we recognize as knowing what he is talking about.
Last edited:
I'm viewing with my 8x32 SF (back yard acreage) concurrent with surfing this forum, at present! Absolutely love them.
If I had to pare down to one pair of binoculars (horrors to contemplate!), I think the 8x32 SF would be the ones I'd keep for good. Razor sharpness, bright, not too big, not too small, not too heavy, superb focuser, great rear-ward balance, relatively flat field, sharpness to the edges, neutral color quality, plenty of eye relief, comfortable eyecups, excellent handling for stability, good stiction on the armor for a secure hold while carrying and using, minimal CA and glare - all around "top shelf".And, I'm sure that the Els are quite excellent, as well. Not likely to go wrong with either!
Last edited:
Don,
Only a little. Cant imagine why anybody would jettison a pair of Els for SFs. The chase for good, better, best is too subjective. Once youve bought, when things are this close, knowing there are differences, but those are small and tradeoffs, why don't we just go birding? In fact I believe the majority of birders do, just not bino nuts like those of us who come to BF.
Im not a fan of the longer size of the SF. Size matters, even with my longer frame. The barrels feel essentially the same. My particular Els have a wonderful focuser. One finger, two fingers, right hand, left hand. Slicker n dog snot. How can one be better? The rear balance is nice, but maybe a bit gimmicky paid for with that extra length. Its part of my 10X preference thing. After 40 years of 10s with normal balance, Ive sort of figured out how to hold the things. Id rather have wide FOV, flattened to the edge so the whole thing is sharp and clear, (not that this is an EL thing), then rear balance, if Im asked to trade gimmicks. And again, I have no issue tracking flying birds, where I bird with the relatively narrow FOV of those ELs.
It was Jan the other day in discussing that poll someone put out about favorite Alphas, (maybe?). The chart skewed towards SFs, or at least put their number in a surprisingly good light, while House of Outdoor sales data showed an overwhelming preference for Swaros. I think he was right in concluding that here, at BF where we're all about new and improved, and promoting the wisdom of our own choice, that those Zeiss showed better than real world purchasing by folks who go birding. They didn't show up for the poll, cuz they were busy using their binos.
But the poll still stands......
As well there's something I haven't talked about, thats a little weird, certainly subjective, The combo of size, lighter weight, (2 oz less... really?), and balance puts me off. Feels like there's something missing. I know, I know, Im nuts. Its the opposite of those UVHD+ 832s I handled Monday and you love so much. On paper the weight savings of those, is there, as expected for a 32. As well the length advantage is there - still, unlike SF and NL 32s. But it was this "density thing," for lack of better words. The UVs felt chunky, overbuilt, tank-like, high quality, even though their weight is competitive. That sense is not there with SFs for me. If anybody else sees this, maybe they can come up with better words. Or tell me I'm nuts. Its OK. SF 42s and 32s seem lightweight not light. I think Canip mentioned something about this in his NL 832 writeup here at BF.
If I didn't have Els, and was shopping today, I might come out differently, I get it.
Besides they're green. Green is the new black.
G'T
Last edited:
I'm viewing with my 8x32 SF (back yard acreage) concurrent with surfing this forum, at present! Absolutely love them.
If I had to pare down to one pair of binoculars (horrors to contemplate!), I think the 8x32 SF would be the ones I'd keep for good. Razor sharpness, not too big, not too small, not too heavy, superb focuser, great rear-ward balance, relatively flat field, sharpness to the edges, neutral color quality, plenty of eye relief, comfortable eyecups, excellent handling for stability, good stiction on the armor for secure hold - all around "top shelf".Well even though I mixed things above, these 2 posts are a bit apples and oranges. 8x32s in a thread questioning 10x42s? If we want to go there... There is or were (maybe still some places) EL 8x32, then there's SF 832 and NL 832. The jury is still out, though those that've made a choice still like to promote it, ala Jan's referenced comments in post 66. Reviews coming from reviewers I think we mostly trust, seem to run different from individuals who've made their choice.
Where is Chuck Hill?
Tom... I agree. If someone owns a pair of ELs, or a pair of SFs, and loves them...no reason to do a change-up for something else. Get on with life, use them and enjoy! (As most birders would be inclined to do. We gear-heads, though, are always fussing about what ever else there is, out there.)
And yes, the SF do have a very light weight feel to them, which I really enjoy. They still feel like quality - especially that focuser! Much different than the intensely "dense" feel that the UVHD+ 8x32 / 10x32 bins have. Those do feel rock-solid dense, indeed. And I like that, too. I think the light-weight feel of the larger SFs is great. And with the much smaller UVHD+, the dense feel is appropriate since they're so small. As I've said before, Saul Goodman!
And yes, the SF do have a very light weight feel to them, which I really enjoy. They still feel like quality - especially that focuser! Much different than the intensely "dense" feel that the UVHD+ 8x32 / 10x32 bins have. Those do feel rock-solid dense, indeed. And I like that, too. I think the light-weight feel of the larger SFs is great. And with the much smaller UVHD+, the dense feel is appropriate since they're so small. As I've said before, Saul Goodman!
Last edited:
dorubird
Well-known member
How is it possible that, on the one hand, the difference of FOV is not scored (6.4 vs 6.8 degrees) but the tiny difference of clarity on the edges of FOV is scored a lot (95% vs 100%)?! Form me this contradictory "small details" proves the lack of honesty in testing binoculars. Your table made me better understand your position clearly. It is really good and advisable to have all of us different opinions! But contradictory "small details" like ones above shows partiality in appreciating binoculars!
Riffing on dorubirds interesting chart, I would vote this way. Charts seem to carry weight, make things look official. I get folks like Holger Merlitz expresses his opinions this way. If it is he, I tend to pay attention. If it is me? You should not.
When I compared these two binoculars I tried with all my strength not to be biased with either of them! This it is important for me because I'm the one who buys and I can't lie to myself! But it is also important for others to see that it is a sincere and honest comparison, even if we have different preferences and expectations from a pair of binoculars!!
I wish you to be really happy with your Swaro EL binoculars because it's really a super binoculars!
Last edited:
Well, easy enough to understand, but of course charts like this (yours or mine), with mostly subjective scores complicate that. FOV, neither in yours or mine, made clear, explained, what was the basis for that score. See it? You explain now, it was the published angular FOV. I would explain my vote has to do with a very close linear FOV, also published, but that FOV quality is effected by Swaros use of flat field optics. SF1042=360', EL1042=399' - at 1000 yards! If you saw my earlier published chart, which reduced those published specs to 50 yards, (or even 100), a more representative distance for using binos to bird, and we get a different take on this FOV thing. SF1042=18', EL1042=16.8'. Really 1.2'? Now add in the observation by most, (not just me) that Swaro's flat field means they're sharper, clearer out to the edge and you get better useable FOV. Hence my vote, for both.
Lack of honesty? Well, you didnt understand this did you?
Your chart while filled with some objective criterion, is also full of the subjective. As is mine. We all have opinions. Ill stick with my FOV score.
T
Durobird, thinking about this some more and wanting to make sure, the data I used, was as transparent/accurate/honest as possible. Two things occurred. First perhaps you had not seen the FOV spreadsheet I alluded to a little while back, that was posted as an attachment requiring one to open it. Second, in my original spreadsheet done months ago, I was studying a different group of binos that did not include the SF1042. I added it in the one recently attached here, as others were interested, but today reading your #69 above, I note you used 6.8 degrees for I believe the SF. I had used 6.5 in the calculation of the described attachment. Wondering I went looking. I got that 6.5 from B&H. I could not find on Zeiss' website a reference to angular FOV, (perhaps I missed it). Anyway, wondering, I went and calculated from the linear FOV and with a bit of rusty trig muscles. I get 6.9, which given various roundings is reasonably close to your 6.8. I added this new, 2nd calculation to the chart, see it in red and left my original based on BH in blue. From the chart you can see the point I was making in #70 above and I dont believe that point is materially effected, by this additional information.
Just to be clear,
Col B is factory published linear FOV in feet @1000yards
Col C is B converted to 50 yards by %, or B X .05
Col G is the listing of FOV expressed as an angle
Cols H-J is the trig used to check that using % (Col B) works. I believe it does.
Compare Col J and C, given a slight variation do to rounding, for all practical purposes they are the same.
Note that 6.9's 18.09' is closer to Col B's 18.' Your 6.8 would drop in somewhere in between and all 3 would be very close.
If curious, Col K is 100 yds, via % or .1 X 1000 yard FOV.
For those who like to point out that area is more important, note Col E and F.
Back to my #70 @ 50 yards whatever angular FOV you choose to use you can see the number of feet @ 50 yards is small. Keep in mind that's total width so its 1/2 that for that extra bit of FOV per side. If I haven't done something boneheaded with this math I stand by what I wrote and the FOV score I used on the chart. If the SF were as sharp to the edge as the EL, Id vote differently.
Just to be clear,
Col B is factory published linear FOV in feet @1000yards
Col C is B converted to 50 yards by %, or B X .05
Col G is the listing of FOV expressed as an angle
Cols H-J is the trig used to check that using % (Col B) works. I believe it does.
Compare Col J and C, given a slight variation do to rounding, for all practical purposes they are the same.
Note that 6.9's 18.09' is closer to Col B's 18.' Your 6.8 would drop in somewhere in between and all 3 would be very close.
If curious, Col K is 100 yds, via % or .1 X 1000 yard FOV.
For those who like to point out that area is more important, note Col E and F.
Back to my #70 @ 50 yards whatever angular FOV you choose to use you can see the number of feet @ 50 yards is small. Keep in mind that's total width so its 1/2 that for that extra bit of FOV per side. If I haven't done something boneheaded with this math I stand by what I wrote and the FOV score I used on the chart. If the SF were as sharp to the edge as the EL, Id vote differently.
qwerty5
Well-known member
I was very surprised that the SF "won" that poll. I think it's due to the recent release of the NL, which probably stole most, if not all, of the EL votes. If you combine the EL and NL votes, they beat the SF quite thoroughly. I do think you are right with regards to BF members nitpicking on detail and going with the latest and greatest. The ELs are great, popular binos, and I think most birders bought them rather than spending all their time and money making sure they had the "best". Hence the real statistics from Jan.
dorubird
Well-known member
GrampaTom,
I didn't need any tables or manufacturer's specifications to realize that EL has a obvious tighter image than SF. I looked through both binoculars (EL and SF 10x42). It was easy to notice that EL had visibly smaller FOV and certainly AFOV than SF. The SF image was like a bigger window compared to ELs. From direct experience it was very easy to notice this SF immersion. The image through SF was like a large window with thin frames, and by comparison the image through ELs was like a smaller window with thicker black frames. ELs AFOV is more similar to Conquest HD (even slightly smaller, but imperceptible here) not in the SF league when it comes to AFOV! It's not a big difference like in the NL, but still It is obvious, let's not hide behind assumptions, numbers specifications and tables...I also noticed that ELs has 100% clarity on FOV, which I reported in post #1 and in my table from my post #52, but SF is not far behind with 95%. We have to look on last 5% to the edges to see a difference.
casscade
Well-known member
My vote goes to Swarovski as a package, awesome resolution, great brightness while keeping great contrast and color, fov, dof, size and weight, awesome warranty. My personal favorite Zeiss is actually the FL’s and HT’s in a 10x42. I’d be more that happy with either though, both awesome binoculars.
This is what you wrote above in #69,
"How is it possible that, on the one hand, the difference of FOV is not scored (6.4 vs 6.8 degrees) but the tiny difference of clarity on the edges of FOV is scored a lot (95% vs 100%)?! Form me this contradictory "small details" proves the lack of honesty in testing binoculars. Your table made me better understand your position clearly. It is really good and advisable to have all of us different opinions! But contradictory "small details" like ones above shows partiality in appreciating binoculars!"
Well, I thought you were not happy with my voting based on your read of somebody’s published FOV angle and guess at how I had arrived at mine. I took the time to resurrect my analysis, modify it a bit to answer the question you raised, in order to show you that particular vote (FOV) was based on charting and analysis. Now you want to go to your subjective? I’m confused. Which is it?
Last edited:
dorubird
Well-known member
GrampaTom,
If anybody look directly through these two particularly binoculars they will notice that the difference between 6.4 degrees and 6.8 degrees from specification is a real, not a subjective one! It's very simple, just compare the binoculars directly and you will see the AFOV difference immediately. If you only compare tables and numbers, the specifications may seem quite close to you (but even in specifications and tables they are not equal, even more in reality). I'm surprised we had a discussion that debates 6.4 vs 6.8 degrees. If you have both binoculars in front of you the 6.8 binoculars has a visibly higher AFOV than 6.5 one . If we don't have them next to each other, and only reading on the web about them, then we have only subjective assumptions about their AFOV.
The result of my comparison is not one of the specifications, but one with what I noticed directly with the binoculars in front my eyes! Specification comparisons can be made by anyone without ever getting their hands on binoculars.
If anybody look directly through these two particularly binoculars they will notice that the difference between 6.4 degrees and 6.8 degrees from specification is a real, not a subjective one! It's very simple, just compare the binoculars directly and you will see the AFOV difference immediately. If you only compare tables and numbers, the specifications may seem quite close to you (but even in specifications and tables they are not equal, even more in reality). I'm surprised we had a discussion that debates 6.4 vs 6.8 degrees. If you have both binoculars in front of you the 6.8 binoculars has a visibly higher AFOV than 6.5 one . If we don't have them next to each other, and only reading on the web about them, then we have only subjective assumptions about their AFOV.
The result of my comparison is not one of the specifications, but one with what I noticed directly with the binoculars in front my eyes! Specification comparisons can be made by anyone without ever getting their hands on binoculars.
Last edited:
Dorubird, 2 thoughts,
1. First, did you not write, and was I not correct, after reading, this was a criticism of my version of your EL/SF rating chart?
"How is it possible that, on the one hand, the difference of FOV is not scored (6.4 vs 6.8 degrees) but the tiny difference of clarity on the edges of FOV is scored a lot (95% vs 100%)?! Form me this contradictory "small details" proves the lack of honesty in testing binoculars. Your table made me better understand your position clearly. It is really good and advisable to have all of us different opinions! But contradictory "small details" like ones above shows partiality in appreciating binoculars!"
Did you not accuse me of a lack of honesty, in scoring FOV the way I did, inferring pretty directly it was all about my opinion/"partiality," (to use your word)?
2. Back to the FOV chart, notice the footnotes identify green as the three binos I own. Also notice the Zeiss Victory Pocket 825 has an angular FOV of 7.4 vs the EL's 6.4. That 1 degree is a bit more difference than the SF/EL variation you discuss. At 1000 yards the 336' of the EL FOV would seem dwarfed by the 390 of the Pockets. I go between these two while birding, and cant remember noticing the difference. Sorry. It may be my ways are different than yours. What I see, what my brain is looking for, the information I want, is different, I get that. One more anecdotal example, notice the gold band on the FOV cart. The NL 842 is the king of FOV. One day I took my 1042ELs to a local birding/bino store. The owner and I took the new 842NL out front gazed at a very active bird feeder about 20' away, then at license plates and small details in the parking lot to say a hundred yards out, then to a mountain top about a mile away. I walked out of the store, muttering I'd just saved myself $3000.00! Hopefully now you can see my rating on your chart was inspired by both this prior FOV analysis, (to include the angular FOV you cited), and my experience looking through various binoculars.
One of the reasons I developed the FOV chart, months ago, is that I was not experiencing the new and improved wider FOV with the excitement that many here on BF do. I wanted an explanation. Reducing linear FOV from 1000 yards, (an irrelevant spec for birders, I still argue), to 50 or 100 yards, distances that most of us, (except Patudo) readily admit is where we bird most, it seems to me the lack of awe at the newest wide FOV binos is explained. How useful is a couple of feet in width at those differences? For me, whether looking at the chart or through various binos, not much. For you, apparently it's different. OK.
Forgive me if I have misunderstood you.
Back please, to a much bigger point, the one I tried to make in post #61. You seemed to criticize my so-named "riff" on your chart, based on this one score. There were quite a few more differences in how we each rated those 2 binoculars, besides FOV. I believe the point I attempted to make there is still well made. Charts like these no matter how technical they appear, are still full of opinion. We each have those.
"You pay your money, you make your choice."
Over and out.
T
1. First, did you not write, and was I not correct, after reading, this was a criticism of my version of your EL/SF rating chart?
"How is it possible that, on the one hand, the difference of FOV is not scored (6.4 vs 6.8 degrees) but the tiny difference of clarity on the edges of FOV is scored a lot (95% vs 100%)?! Form me this contradictory "small details" proves the lack of honesty in testing binoculars. Your table made me better understand your position clearly. It is really good and advisable to have all of us different opinions! But contradictory "small details" like ones above shows partiality in appreciating binoculars!"
Did you not accuse me of a lack of honesty, in scoring FOV the way I did, inferring pretty directly it was all about my opinion/"partiality," (to use your word)?
2. Back to the FOV chart, notice the footnotes identify green as the three binos I own. Also notice the Zeiss Victory Pocket 825 has an angular FOV of 7.4 vs the EL's 6.4. That 1 degree is a bit more difference than the SF/EL variation you discuss. At 1000 yards the 336' of the EL FOV would seem dwarfed by the 390 of the Pockets. I go between these two while birding, and cant remember noticing the difference. Sorry. It may be my ways are different than yours. What I see, what my brain is looking for, the information I want, is different, I get that. One more anecdotal example, notice the gold band on the FOV cart. The NL 842 is the king of FOV. One day I took my 1042ELs to a local birding/bino store. The owner and I took the new 842NL out front gazed at a very active bird feeder about 20' away, then at license plates and small details in the parking lot to say a hundred yards out, then to a mountain top about a mile away. I walked out of the store, muttering I'd just saved myself $3000.00! Hopefully now you can see my rating on your chart was inspired by both this prior FOV analysis, (to include the angular FOV you cited), and my experience looking through various binoculars.
One of the reasons I developed the FOV chart, months ago, is that I was not experiencing the new and improved wider FOV with the excitement that many here on BF do. I wanted an explanation. Reducing linear FOV from 1000 yards, (an irrelevant spec for birders, I still argue), to 50 or 100 yards, distances that most of us, (except Patudo) readily admit is where we bird most, it seems to me the lack of awe at the newest wide FOV binos is explained. How useful is a couple of feet in width at those differences? For me, whether looking at the chart or through various binos, not much. For you, apparently it's different. OK.
Forgive me if I have misunderstood you.
Back please, to a much bigger point, the one I tried to make in post #61. You seemed to criticize my so-named "riff" on your chart, based on this one score. There were quite a few more differences in how we each rated those 2 binoculars, besides FOV. I believe the point I attempted to make there is still well made. Charts like these no matter how technical they appear, are still full of opinion. We each have those.
"You pay your money, you make your choice."
Over and out.
T
Similar threads
