Tom... I know that you have the EL 10x42.
Have you spent some time using the 10x42 SF? It's a great binocular!
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