No matter how much they "carry weight" or "make things look official" they remain completely subjective.View attachment 1400226
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.
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".I was very fond of my 10X42 EL SV.
I like my 8X32 SF better.
Don,Tom... I know that you have the EL 10x42.
Have you spent some time using the 10x42 SF? It's a great binocular!
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".
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.
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.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!
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.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......
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