Swarovski Swarovision EL 10x42 vs Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 (1 Viewer)

[dorubird]

I had the opportunity to compare Zeiss SF 10x42 (new black version) vs Swaovski EL Swarovision 10x42 (current version).
Here are the differences observed after a first comparison that lasted about 1 hour:

Optical differences
The resolution on the center was higher at SF. I tested it on a chart resolution with binoculars on tripod. I expected it to be better at Swaro because it has better contrast, but it didn't happen that way. Zeiss had a better definition. But on the edges Swaro is better with 100% FOV clarity. Zeiss only about 95%.
The impression of brightness was similar in both binoculars. But due to the Swaro bluer shade and a much closer colours to the reality, Swarovski white rendering seemed to be brighter than SF, which has a pale green hue. But the slightly lower contrast at SF seemed to make the shaded areas a little brighter than Swaro. So in conclusion the general impression was that the brightness was similar in both instruments.
Chromatic aberrations were similar with a slight edge advantage for SF. But I am talking here about almost invisible chromatic aberrations, both instruments behaving exemplary.
Glare resistance. I saw a very weak circular reflection at the bottom of the image with Swaro. It wasn't intrusive, but I saw this circular reflection only at the Swaro.

Construction differences
The ergonomics of SF are clearly superior, the balance of the binoculars being extraordinary. Both binoculars weigh 800g but SF seems much lighter. The focus is impeccable on SF, very uniform and silky. Instead, I think that at Swarovski I came across a bad specimen because it had a focus with a very inconsistent movement (with small leaks and differences in friction). The finish and design of Swarovski is much more carefully chosen, giving the impression of a price object, fitting more as a clothing accessory. Zeiss has a simpler military look.

My conclusion
Even if it has a lower contrast than Swaro and a green-leaning color, for me Zeiss SF 10x42 looks much more relaxing and pleasing than the Swarovision EL 10x42. In front of SF eyepieces I was amazed by the immersive and relaxed image. In comparation Swarovski EL Swarovision it's a very well optically corrected binoculars but lacks SF "magic". Basically with SF I have the impression that I look through a large window which I hold in my hands, the binoculars magically disappearing! In addition, SF has even a more three-dimensional image.

sorry for my bad english!

 

[AlphaFan]

Even if it has a lower contrast than Swaro and a green-leaning color, for me Zeiss SF 10x42 looks much more relaxing and pleasing than the Swarovision EL 10x42. In front of SF eyepieces I was amazed by the immersive and relaxed image.

Back in 2017 I set out to upgrade my main binocular and the EL was the frontrunner out of the gate. But took my time and compared them side-by-side with just about every other Alpha. The SFs really surprised me in many ways, but you summed it up pretty well by just highlighting its very immersive and relaxed view, along with the very well balanced handling and ergonomics. They were just a joy to use and what I ended up buying. No real regrets except for the eyecups - the only obvious failure in the design. Have had multiple issues/failures with them from the start, and strongly prefer SW‘s eyecup design and construction. Otherwise the SFs are a superb optical instrument and a joy to own and use.

 

[_Prism_]

dorubird did you end up buying the SF? I had a pretty similar experience in comparing these at Harrod's today, but I also threw the 10x42 NL Pure into the mix. While I didn't point them at a chart, my thoughts:
Optics
1. FOV - Tested at 90m and 200m. The Zeiss appeared slightly better than the EL. The NL won it for sure, but not by as much as I was expecting. At my real birding distances of 20-200m, the differences are not as dramatic as the specs suggest.
2. Brightness - I expected the Zeiss to be noticeably brighter, but I truly could not tell the difference between the three, and neither could the other two people I was with. That was surprising as I've seen the Zeiss reviewed as being very slightly brighter, but your explanation makes sense as the Zeiss has also been found to be more muted in certain tones. That said, just looking through them for around 5-10mins, the brightness and colours seemed equally natural and pleasing on all three.
3. Chromatic aberration was present on all three, but only around the edges and you really had to go looking for it. I echo your thoughts here again and give a very slight advantage to the SF (but truly just by a hair). CA simply isn't an issue with these three excellent binoculars.
4. Glare: Saw no glare on the EL or the SF, but saw some dramatic flare on the NL's! Initially I thought it was a huge fingerprint smudge on the bottom and went looking to clean it - was quite surprised that it was a flare!
Handling
1. Ergonomics: A clear win for the NL's here. As trivial as it may sound, I found them rather odd looking until I picked them up - they are simply a joy to hold. I also really liked the headrest! I must admit that I initially suspected this was a gimmick, but found that it genuinely reduced some of the shake by some 20% (though for over £2,400 I really wish they had thrown them in for free). The Zeiss were noticeably taller than the Swaro's, but also slightly lighter. The grip on both the Swaro's felt superior.
2. Focus: Did not notice any major differences between the three, except that the Zeiss was perhaps the lightest and smoothest feeling. No issues to report.

My conclusions: Money not being a factor, I'd probably go for the NL's. They were the best to hold, had the widest FOV, the best strap system (shared with the EL) and the nicest accessories. However, at around £2,050, the Zeiss is nearly £400 less with the major trade-off being slightly less FOV - still a tempting proposition to be sure. All that said, as off late July 2021 the EL's are now heavily discounted and a comparative bargain at £1,600 - 20% less than even the Zeiss and substantially lower than their original retail price of £2,100. It's truly remarkable to me that what is effectively an 11-year old binocular (the EL) can still hold it's own against these two modern titans. It has the same clarity, build quality, and awesome strap system as the NL's for substantially less - and for that, it is truly the value champ of the three. Collectively, these are 3 of the very best and you simply can't go wrong with any of them.

 

[dorubird]

_Prism_ "@dorubird did you end up buying the SF? "​

Yes I did! I bought it for very good price.
I have never looked through a NL Pure, and for that your comparison with SF is very useful information to me! I'm glad that I chose this SF!

 

[GrampaTom]

"1. FOV - Tested at 90m and 200m. The Zeiss appeared slightly better than the EL. The NL won it for sure, but not by as much as I was expecting. At my real birding distances of 20-200m, the differences are not as dramatic as the specs suggest."

Yep well, FOV @ 1000 yards/meters is marketing isn't it? Who birds at 1000 with a bino? Divide by 10 to get 100 Yds/meters, its feet, (if using yards).

EL 1042 - 33.6'
SF 1042 - 36'
Nl 1042 - 39.9'

Yep, not by so much....

 

[_Prism_]

"1. FOV - Tested at 90m and 200m. The Zeiss appeared slightly better than the EL. The NL won it for sure, but not by as much as I was expecting. At my real birding distances of 20-200m, the differences are not as dramatic as the specs suggest."

Yep well, FOV @ 1000 yards/meters is marketing isn't it? Who birds at 1000 with a bino? Divide by 10 to get 100 Yds/meters, its feet, (if using yards).

EL 1042 - 33.6'
SF 1042 - 36'
Nl 1042 - 39.9'

Yep, not by so much....

My thoughts exactly! Precisely why it is so important to physically test these out in person. I love comparing a spec sheet as much as the next person, but at this level it is very much like comparing a Ferrari to a Lamborghini and a McLaren. The differences in optical performance are fairly minor to the point that they can be flat-out difficult to discern sometimes, and can even be overshadowed by cost, ergonomics, warranties, or other personal preferences.

 

[ZDHart]

"1. FOV - Tested at 90m and 200m. The Zeiss appeared slightly better than the EL. The NL won it for sure, but not by as much as I was expecting. At my real birding distances of 20-200m, the differences are not as dramatic as the specs suggest."

Yep well, FOV @ 1000 yards/meters is marketing isn't it? Who birds at 1000 with a bino? Divide by 10 to get 100 Yds/meters, its feet, (if using yards).

EL 1042 - 33.6'
SF 1042 - 36'
Nl 1042 - 39.9'

Yep, not by so much....

Totally agree, Tom.

And that 3' difference in field of view, at 100 yards, gives about a foot and a half wider on each edge. Practically negligible and hardly a difference to get any excitement over.

Long range hunters may be able to benefit from a somewhat wider field of view at 500 yards, but I think many birders may commonly view at perhaps 100-200 feet. I daily view birds on my property at distances of 50-100 feet!

 

[GrampaTom]

Especially when we're all focusing in the middle of the field anyway and peripheral vision, (edges) is for the odd wandering saber tooth tiger.

 

[ZDHart]

I had the opportunity to compare Zeiss SF 10x42 (new black version) vs Swaovski EL Swarovision 10x42 (current version).
Here are the differences observed after a first comparison that lasted about 1 hour:

Optical differences
The resolution on the center was higher at SF. I tested it on a chart resolution with binoculars on tripod. I expected it to be better at Swaro because it has better contrast, but it didn't happen that way. Zeiss had a better definition. But on the edges Swaro is better with 100% FOV clarity. Zeiss only about 95%.
The impression of brightness was similar in both binoculars. But due to the Swaro bluer shade and a much closer colours to the reality, Swarovski white rendering seemed to be brighter than SF, which has a pale green hue. But the slightly lower contrast at SF seemed to make the shaded areas a little brighter than Swaro. So in conclusion the general impression was that the brightness was similar in both instruments.
Chromatic aberrations were similar with a slight edge advantage for SF. But I am talking here about almost invisible chromatic aberrations, both instruments behaving exemplary.
Glare resistance. I saw a very weak circular reflection at the bottom of the image with Swaro. It wasn't intrusive, but I saw this circular reflection only at the Swaro.

Construction differences
The ergonomics of SF are clearly superior, the balance of the binoculars being extraordinary. Both binoculars weigh 800g but SF seems much lighter. The focus is impeccable on SF, very uniform and silky. Instead, I think that at Swarovski I came across a bad specimen because it had a focus with a very inconsistent movement (with small leaks and differences in friction). The finish and design of Swarovski is much more carefully chosen, giving the impression of a price object, fitting more as a clothing accessory. Zeiss has a simpler military look.

My conclusion
Even if it has a lower contrast than Swaro and a green-leaning color, for me Zeiss SF 10x42 looks much more relaxing and pleasing than the Swarovision EL 10x42. In front of SF eyepieces I was amazed by the immersive and relaxed image. In comparation Swarovski EL Swarovision it's a very well optically corrected binoculars but lacks SF "magic". Basically with SF I have the impression that I look through a large window which I hold in my hands, the binoculars magically disappearing! In addition, SF has even a more three-dimensional image.

sorry for my bad english!

dorubird... I recently acquired a new pair of Zeiss 10x42 SF bins and I am blown away by how fine these binoculars are.

I agree with nearly all of your comments about the SF 10x42, with the exception that I don't notice any green cast, whatsoever, with my sample. As I compare the SF 10x42 with the NL Pure 10x32 I just received, I see no difference in color quality between these two. And while the NL 32s appear to be comparably sharp and crisp, optically, as the SF 42s... the SF 42s bring a "view" that is clearly just a bit nicer to enjoy. That's probably because I'm comparing a 32 to a 42, but the SF 10x42 "view" is superb.

Zeiss has indeed produced a masterpiece with their 10x42 SF. Exquisite and razor sharp optics, great ease-of-use, incredible balance, superb feel in the hands. And the focuser? Oh man... perfection - like it was made by Rolls Royce. Pure pleasure to operate that focuser.

I don't think anyone can say that there is a "best" pair of binoculars on the planet - but there certainly are a handful of truly fabulous looking glasses to choose from.

 

[ZDHart]

Especially when we're all focusing in the middle of the field anyway and peripheral vision, (edges) is for the odd wandering saber tooth tiger.

This is why I don't place a high value on having perfect sharpness all the way to the bleeding edge of the view. Who uses binoculars looking at the bleeding edge? That said, the SF retains great sharpness practically to the edge... if that is highly important to anyone.

 

[dorubird]

ZDHart​

"... I don't notice any green cast, whatsoever, with my sample."
This green cast on SF it is very subtle and I only saw it when I compare it directly with other binoculars with different color cast. Otherwise, just like you, I do not notice it in normal use, the binoculars have natural colors.

Regarding to the slightly larger field of NL Pure discussed here, I think this will be obvious only in astronomical observations! But in terrestrial observations, under 100m, the impression of a larger field is much diminished, exactly as you all just suggested.

As I use the binoculars more, in terms of ergonomics I have the impression that I have an 8x in my hand, not a 10x, SF it is so well balanced! Also realize that if I set carefully the eye shields a have no blackout in this big FOV and no flare...excellent binoculars! I think "the Soul" of this binoculars are his complex eyepieces. They are like two deep lakes from which no reflection of light can escapes!
The only complaint is that it is too long for a 10x42, I miss the compactness of my Conquest 10x42! But I calm down to the idea that you can not have this excellent optical performance without a greater focal length, which makes corrections easier to do!View attachment Victory SF 2.jpg

 

[Troubador]

Totally agree, Tom.

And that 3' difference in field of view, at 100 yards, gives about a foot and a half wider on each side. Practically negligible and hardly a difference to get any excitement over.

Long range hunters may be able to benefit from a somewhat wider field of view at 500 yards, but I think many birders may commonly view at perhaps 100-200 feet. I daily view birds on my property at distances of 50-100 feet!

ZD hope you don't mind but I am going to be a smart alec and point out that the 3' difference isn't simply present at both ends of the fov but all the way around the circular fov and it means that a bino with 39' has an area of view 17% bigger than one with 36'. If you are imagining a row of ducks then for sure an extra 3' doesn't give room for a lot more ducks side-by-side in a line, but instead if you imagine panning across the sky looking for, perhaps, migrating raptors you will have an easier job scanning an extra 17% all the time. Similarly, panning across lakes or the sea, trying to spot that diving duck coming back to the surface, an extra 17% of view gives you a better chance and if you encounter small birds (or dragonflies or butterflies) flying past you at high speed trying to grab a view with your binos will have a greater probability of success with an extra 17% area of view.

I wish bino brands would publish area of view at 1,000 metres / yards as this seems more representative of what you see through your bins than the simple linear measurement.

Lee

 

[GrampaTom]

Lee,

Ive thought about this common rebuttal to the linear FOV conversation... a little.
Just so we have the numbers, (@ 100 yards):

--------------FOV---------Sq Area---% bigger than EL
EL 1042------33.6'--------887sf------- -
SF 1042----- 36'----------1018sf-------15%
Nl 1042------39.9'--------1250sf-------41%

On paper, the first response has to be Wow! Seems a slam dunk. Then some questions occur.
1. As you wrote, how come the industry publishes FOV @ 1000 Yds/M?
2. How come industry does not publish Square Area?
3. How come a few of us at least don't see it in quite such dramatic terms?

It'll be fun to hear from others, especially if Ive screwed up the math. Here's my knee jerk attempt at answers.

1. Marketing! Think of all the R&D money spent, that we pay for in sales price, to accomplish this.
2. This is trickier. They think the average customer wont get it. FOV is good enough. Or, there are some holes in this approach that leads to too much controversy.

Who knows what lurks in the mind of Binocular marketers?

3. This one's a bit more interesting... There are indeed some holes in the theory, literally. Its true we dont just look in horizontal lines through the round view, binos provide. But how much of the available square area is useable? At any point in time even with a dense flock of birds, can we use all of it? How often isn't the target a bird or 2, flying in from some angle, that we are working real hard to notice, then position to the center of the view, where we see best? Do we even see equally well at the periphery at 12, 6, 9 or 3 o'clock? Reading about all the veiling glare noticers there seems to be some issue with 6 o'clock views... ahem. Often the upper reaches of the view are where the sun is, so looking up to find stuff isn't always the best. The point? Square Area is bigger and more descriptive of all thats "possible" to see. It gets us part way to a better idea, on paper, it seems. Most of us though are staring at the center of the view, where all this peripheral action is secondary.

I was struck by this though. Couple days ago in the thread "Focuser Smoothness on NL Pure" Focuser smoothness on NL Pure? the discussion wandered to how to buy binos in this day and age of Amazon, et al. Jan Van Daalen commented in #65 ":One sale takes a minimum of one hour and it is all about education, education and education." That led to an offline email exchange with another BFer, that went here, "Too many guys report issue with this or that bino. Poor eye alignment, shaky hands, even glare!!, what if these are mostly the result of people buying online with no prior experience, no training, and only buying what they've read about in online forums."

I hope that doesn't get too close to the bone for some. Binoculars are simple things, right? You just pick them up, put the little end to your eyes and look. If its blurry, there's a knob there you can turn to clear things up. With training, with practice.... "beware the man with one gun." Dont you get used to what you have and find ways to make it work..... Spending $3K if it just goes for what is practically speaking just a little bit wider FOV or square area.... really?

 

[ZDHart]

Regarding to the slightly larger field of NL Pure discussed here, I think this will be obvious only in astronomical observations! But in terrestrial observations, under 100m, the impression of a larger field is much diminished, exactly as you all just suggested.

As I use the binoculars more, in terms of ergonomics I have the impression that I have an 8x in my hand, not a 10x, SF it is so well balanced! Also realize that if I set carefully the eye shields a have no blackout in this big FOV and no flare...excellent binoculars! I think "the Soul" of this binoculars are his complex eyepieces. They are like two deep lakes from which no reflection of light can escapes!
The only complaint is that it is too long for a 10x42, I miss the compactness of my Conquest 10x42! But I calm down to the idea that you can not have this excellent optical performance without a greater focal length, which makes corrections easier to do!

dorubird... I have the Conquest HD 10x42s also. Have been using them for about 8 years, and they are fantastic binoculars!

As I compare my new SF 10x42 to the Conquest HD 10x42, yes, the SFs are close to an inch longer. In use, though, I don't really notice it. I do notice how great the balance is with the SFs, and the exceptional "views" they offer. I love them!

Troubador... As for my word choice on the extra foot and a half field-of-view on each "side", yes... I should have said an extra foot and a half at the edges, so I edited my comment above.

Some extra field of view can certainly be useful in some circumstances. Personally, as I use binoculars (mostly at closer distances), I don't find a bit of extra field of view at 1000 yards to be a significant motivating factor (at my usual shorter ranges) when choosing a pair of bins. But each individual has their own circumstances, viewing situations, perspective views and resulting preferences, of course!

We are living in the golden age of binoculars right now! So many awesome choices at each price point. Gotta love that.

 

[_Prism_]

dorubird... I recently acquired a new pair of Zeiss 10x42 SF bins and I am blown away by how fine these binoculars are.

I agree with nearly all of your comments about the SF 10x42, with the exception that I don't notice any green cast, whatsoever, with my sample. As I compare the SF 10x42 with the NL Pure 10x32 I just received, I see no difference in color quality between these two. And while the NL 32s appear to be comparably sharp and crisp, optically, as the SF 42s... the SF 42s bring a "view" that is clearly just a bit nicer to enjoy. That's probably because I'm comparing a 32 to a 42, but the SF 10x42 "view" is superb.

Zeiss has indeed produced a masterpiece with their 10x42 SF. Exquisite and razor sharp optics, great ease-of-use, incredible balance, superb feel in the hands. And the focuser? Oh man... perfection - like it was made by Rolls Royce. Pure pleasure to operate that focuser.

I don't think anyone can say that there is a "best" pair of binoculars on the planet - but there certainly are a handful of truly fabulous looking glasses to choose from.

Found a 10x42 SF in mint condition at a fairly reasonable price today and decided to grab one as well. Wonderful overall - if I had one criticism (aside from the length) it would probably be that I can't stand the objective covers! They're the same as the ones on my 10x32 Conquest HD, which are a bit of a nuisance to push in and dangle from a lanyard. I also have a 10x42 Ultravid HD Plus and love the simple flip-down covers (similar to the Swaro covers) - much quicker and less fiddly to use.
I agree that there is no perfect set of bins out there - for me, it would probably be something with the optics of this SF, in the body of the Ultravid!
As a side note - I think the Conquest HD's are phenomenal (perhaps the best bins under £1,000), and the 8x32 in particular is a real gem!

 

[Maljunulo]

Found a 10x42 SF in mint condition at a fairly reasonable price today ........

Gray/grey or black?

Nice find.

 

[_Prism_]

Lee,

Ive thought about this common rebuttal to the linear FOV conversation... a little.
Just so we have the numbers, (@ 100 yards):

--------------FOV---------Sq Area---% bigger than EL
EL 1042------33.6'--------887sf------- -
SF 1042----- 36'----------1018sf-------15%
Nl 1042------39.9'--------1250sf-------41%

On paper, the first response has to be Wow! Seems a slam dunk. Then some questions occur.
1. As you wrote, how come the industry publishes FOV @ 1000 Yds/M?
2. How come industry does not publish Square Area?
3. How come a few of us at least don't see it in quite such dramatic terms?

It'll be fun to hear from others, especially if Ive screwed up the math. Here's my knee jerk attempt at answers.

1. Marketing! Think of all the R&D money spent, that we pay for in sales price, to accomplish this.
2. This is trickier. They think the average customer wont get it. FOV is good enough. Or, there are some holes in this approach that leads to too much controversy.

Who knows what lurks in the mind of Binocular marketers?

3. This one's a bit more interesting... There are indeed some holes in the theory, literally. Its true we dont just look in horizontal lines through the round view, binos provide. But how much of the available square area is useable? At any point in time even with a dense flock of birds, can we use all of it? How often isn't the target a bird or 2, flying in from some angle, that we are working real hard to notice, then position to the center of the view, where we see best? Do we even see equally well at the periphery at 12, 6, 9 or 3 o'clock? Reading about all the veiling glare noticers there seems to be some issue with 6 o'clock views... ahem. Often the upper reaches of the view are where the sun is, so looking up to find stuff isn't always the best. The point? Square Area is bigger and more descriptive of all thats "possible" to see. It gets us part way to a better idea, on paper, it seems. Most of us though are staring at the center of the view, where all this peripheral action is secondary.

I was struck by this though. Couple days ago in the thread "Focuser Smoothness on NL Pure" Focuser smoothness on NL Pure? the discussion wandered to how to buy binos in this day and age of Amazon, et al. Jan Van Daalen commented in #65 ":One sale takes a minimum of one hour and it is all about education, education and education." That led to an offline email exchange with another BFer, that went here, "Too many guys report issue with this or that bino. Poor eye alignment, shaky hands, even glare!!, what if these are mostly the result of people buying online with no prior experience, no training, and only buying what they've read about in online forums."

I hope that doesn't get too close to the bone for some. Binoculars are simple things, right? You just pick them up, put the little end to your eyes and look. If its blurry, there's a knob there you can turn to clear things up. With training, with practice.... "beware the man with one gun." Dont you get used to what you have and find ways to make it work..... Spending $3K if it just got a wider FOV or square area....

1. It might be because it sounds more significant (and has less decimals) than publishing it at 100 y / m (but just a guess).
2. Again just a guess, but it may be because it's easier to visualize size linearly rather than in terms of circular area (at least for me - a flat 400 ft just sounds way easier to picture than 1,250 ft in a circle).
3. You may have already answered this one yourself - it's because we are mostly focused in the centre of the image. Secondly, most of the differences tend to be fairly minor (for instance, the SF vs the EL). The only time I've personally ever noticed a truly substantial difference was between my comparisons of the EL and the NL's a couple of days back. That difference was instantly noticeable, whereas I really had to go looking for a difference between the SF's vs the EL's.
-Al

 

[_Prism_]

Gray/grey or black?

Nice find.

Thanks, was a huge stroke of luck to be honest. It's a black, late 2020 model, brand new condition with the box etc (the seller purchased it along with an NL and decided to stick with the NL). One man's trash truly is another's treasure!

 

[_Prism_]

ZDHart​

"... I don't notice any green cast, whatsoever, with my sample."
This green cast on SF it is very subtle and I only saw it when I compare it directly with other binoculars with different color cast. Otherwise, just like you, I do not notice it in normal use, the binoculars have natural colors.

Regarding to the slightly larger field of NL Pure discussed here, I think this will be obvious only in astronomical observations! But in terrestrial observations, under 100m, the impression of a larger field is much diminished, exactly as you all just suggested.

As I use the binoculars more, in terms of ergonomics I have the impression that I have an 8x in my hand, not a 10x, SF it is so well balanced! Also realize that if I set carefully the eye shields a have no blackout in this big FOV and no flare...excellent binoculars! I think "the Soul" of this binoculars are his complex eyepieces. They are like two deep lakes from which no reflection of light can escapes!
The only complaint is that it is too long for a 10x42, I miss the compactness of my Conquest 10x42! But I calm down to the idea that you can not have this excellent optical performance without a greater focal length, which makes corrections easier to do!View attachment 1398117View attachment 1398118View attachment 1398119View attachment 1398120View attachment 1398121View attachment 1398122

Love them and bought one today as mentioned above! Wish it were even a few millimetres shorter (but as long as we're dreaming, I wish I could put their optics in my 10x42 Ultravid HD Plus's! Wishful thinking I suppose! Not sure if you've ever tried the Leica's, but their build quality, diopter, and ergonomics are simply sublime (however, the Zeiss totally outclasses them on optics).

 

[dorubird]

_Prism_,​

Enjoy your treasure...sometimes treasures are thrown in the trash, but it is important to distinguish them from garbage

"...Not sure if you've ever tried the Leica's, but their build quality, diopter, and ergonomics are simply sublime (however, the Zeiss totally outclasses them on optics)"
I know the build quality of Leica binos and I especially like their irresistible design. From Leica now I have only three little Trinovids:
8x20 BC (from 1988), 8x20 BCA (from 2020) and 10x25 BCA (from 2007)... I am delighted to look at and look through them