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

[dries1]

Yes they are still a nice 10X40 today.

 

[GrampaTom]

From, Paul Krugman, Economics Prof, opinion contributor to New York Times, Aug 13:

"To be a good empirical economist, you must be prepared to make use of economic data without forgetting that the data is at best an imperfect guide to reality."​

 

[GrampaTom]

Dries, these to?

 

[GrampaTom]

There's a touch of irony looking back at those 2 historic choices. I kept the Zeiss, still have em, still love em. The Leitz went to my sister in MD. My brother in law and I go birding on the local reservoir when I get to visit. I kinda regret parting with them... Nah, glad they enjoy them. They are beauts, though! The irony part, is I bought the equivalent 830 to those Zeiss 1040s within months of getting the 10s back in 1985 or so. Couldn't figure out what the benefit was. They were a little smaller, a little lighter and missing 2X. I sold them within the year!

 

[dries1]

I have a Leitz 7X42 in service, which are rare these days without any internal fogging or fungus. That green 10X40 is a nice sample, the armor looks good, a rare beast for sure. No more rubber eyecups around anymore, I got replacements for my 7X42 a month before Leica stopped selling them, a pity.

 

[dorubird]

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

First of all, my English isn't very good ... sorry for that!
Each of us has own preferences or expectations and we observe differently! Consequently You like ELs more, I like SF more. So we are two different happy binoculars consumers

 

[GrampaTom]

No more rubber eyecups around anymore, I got replacements for my 7X42 a month before Leica stopped selling them, a pity.

I was wondering about that. Its been a couple years since I was there. The pic is new. I was not aware the eyecups had failed, and wondered/hoped there was a fix.

 

[GrampaTom]

First of all, my English isn't very good ... sorry for that!
Each of us has own preferences or expectations and we observe differently! Consequently You like ELs more, I like SF more. So we are two different happy binoculars consumers

No problem. I as well, am sorry for the confusion. Onwards and upwards.

 

[dries1]

Nothing is impossible, well almost nothing. One might have to buy a dud for an eyecup salvage. You might want to check with Company 7 in MD, they actually service these older Leitz.

 

[Patudo]

However Patudo, ahem. Peregrine Falcons at 1000 meters with a 10 X bino? Ive got a bridge to sell.....

I'll be brief, given the thread starter's admonition to stay on track. I'll just say that probably at least 70 to 75% of my observations of this species are at 1km or more. I used to have a great viewpoint (now lost to "development") where the birds, perched some 600 to 650m away, would often come towards me when hunting. But that was very much the exception. The urban environment allows distances to be measured fairly accurately; I know when I'm observing from the playing fields at Regent's Park and a bird passes behind the BT Tower that it is over a mile away. If you can't follow them at those ranges you will miss out on much that this truly spectacular species can offer.

Now, about that bridge you're selling...

Getting back on topic - I tried both the 10x42s under discussion a couple years back at Birdfair and thought both were outstanding. I liked the SF better for my style of birding - lighter perceived weight and better balance made it slightly, but noticeably more pleasant to hold to my eyes for long periods of time, and I liked the greater field of view, which was again slight but noticeable. But the EL gave the impression of being better built (I stress this is only the impression I got - I don't put my binoculars through the kind of hard field use some do, and am sure the SF would hold up well enough for my requirements), especially in areas like the eyecups. Optically both seemed equally sharp and bright to me, and from what I recall, colour rendition (at least in the conditions that day) seemed very similar. Ease of view likewise seemed very similar. They were so similar optically that the SF seemed like a slightly larger and lighter EL with a wider field of view, the EL like a more compact SF with slightly less field of view, albeit sharp to the very edge. I'd choose the SF for myself, eyecups notwithstanding, if prices were equal - but they are not, and at some £400 less the difference in price is not inconsiderable.