Thoughts about Swarovision and Flat FOV (1 Viewer)

[Marley]

In my recent in-home comparison between the 8.5x42 EL SV and the 8x42 SLC HD (and the 8x42 HT), I arrived at a question that I couldn't quite answer for myself.

First of all, to my eye, the optics of both the Swaros are identical and are the best that I have ever seen. Great color and simply the sharpest view that I have experienced.

To aid in this conclusion, I took the advice of the group and tried the SV by itself to see if I could get past the RB distortion, and you know, I can. I gave it some thought and asked my eyes and brain to focus on the subject and not the distortion and the view was far more enjoyable. Is the RB still there? Yes, it is, but like the pincushion distortion found in so many other bins, if you don't go looking for it, it is far less noticeable and irritating.

Now some of you are thinking that this guy has had just wee bit too much Swaro Kool-Aid and probably ought not to be believed. Perhaps so, but I reiterate, that while the distortion still exists (no denial here, Brock), if you can focus on the view, even RB can be minimized. The best part is that if I still find the RB to be too much, the SLC has none and still has the same crisp, clear, fabulous optics.

The one thing that is slightly missing is that ever-so-slight SV wow factor, and hence, my question -

Is it the flat FOV that is responsible for that little extra something in the SV? Outside of the field-flattening lenses and the extra bit of magnification, I'm fairly sure that there no other optical differences between the two bins, so is this a reasonable conclusion?

Is it like looking at a high-end big screen TV and while not focusing on the edges (the subject matter is usually in the center of view), the entire presentation is so clear that it provides some sort of sub-conscious pop in the view that just makes it that much more satisfying?

Thanks for any thoughts and insight.

Now I have the task of choosing between the two!

Steffan

 

[OsageArcher]

For me although I appreciate it it's not the flat field and edge performance so much - my 10x32 EL SVs give unparalleled clarity, resolution and brightness that makes them stand out. They seem as bright or brighter than other non-Swaro 42mm binos I have and have tried even though the objective diameter is almost a half-inch less. Couple that with their manageable, just-right size and ergonomics and they are truly exceptional.

I'd probably go with the SVs but I don't think you can make a wrong decision choosing one of the two...or even keeping both.

 

[Torview]

Well you said the SV had the "wow" so if I was in your position thats the one I`d choose.

On a personal note I`d love to look through a Swaro that was s undeniably sharper than the competition, I`m happy for those who see it but, I`m not one of them.

To me Sw, Leica Z and Nik all look equally fantastically sharp at the top end, and its other factors, CA, Distortion etc that sway me, maybe my eyes just are`nt good enough.

 

[james holdsworth]

I think the SLC-HD is the pick of the Swaro litter, but I'm not a flat-field fan.

 

[kabsetz]

Marley,

I'm glad you liked the SLC HD also. As far as the optical quality being Identical between it and the SV, that is basically true if we are looking at the central third of the viewfield. There is an insignificantly small difference in color balance and brightness, as can be seen in the transmission curves measured by Gijs, but this is so small as to be nearly undetectable in direct comparison and vanishes completely if you just use one or the other. Both are equally sharp barring sample differences, but 8.5x is not the same as 8x, and an image that little bit bigger often looks more impressive and also does let you see more detail.

However, off axis the difference is rather less than subtle, and the differences that are there have been overshadowed by the rb discussion. In an SV, the image across the entire field is sharp enough to give a satisfying image to your eyes, and there is very little astigmatism anywhere. This means that wherever your eyes flit in the image, you can look at what is there with relatively little effort. In the SLC HD, although it has a very large sweet spot for non-field-flattener binocular, astigmatism does increase off axis making your eyes work harder when looking at something there.

Kimmo

P.s. What happened to the Zeiss HT?

 

[GeeJayW]

An example where the flatter field of the EL SV shines over the SLC HD is when panning where there is (supposed to be) a straight object near the edge of the view. In the EL SV said object appears straight(er) to me. I find the pincushion distortion to be too much in the SLC HD under those circumstances. That said, for general viewing in the countryside they are excellent.

The EL SV are also fractionally better to my eyes for clarity of view, somehow 'cooler' and more 'open'. Nothing much in it, but the SV just gets the nod IMHO. I've been using both all weekend to look at frogs in our pond. BTW the straight lines were/are fence panels in the background.

I like the slightly smaller construction in the SLC HD (about an inch shorter), but I do like the open bridge of the EL SV.

I would be very happy indeed with a pair of SLC HD (my wife is), but I prefer the EL SV.

 

[Marley]

Thanks guys,

I appreciate the input.

After playing a bit more this afternoon, I decided on the SLC HDs, as to my eye, they are razor sharp and don't have the RB issues that the SV presents for me.

The eye relief also seems to be a bit different (not sure of the specs offhand), but the eye cups fit my eye socket better (and therefore present a more trouble-free view) on the SLC HD than on the EL SV. Interesting that the removable eye cups are not swappable between models, unlike the old SLC and EL. Years ago, I was able to play with eye cups from various Swaro models and get a better eye/lens position. That is no longer an option.

Anyway, I am VERY satisfied with my choice, even though either model would have been great. I actually save $350.00 as well by choosing the SLC HD instead of the EL SV. Not bad for not compromising the view.

The 8x42 HT was also very good and certainly the brightest of the lot. It did, however provide a slightly less sharp view (I have found this with the 8x32 FLs, 8x42 FLs and 7x42 FLs that I have owned as well). It's almost like Zeiss focuses on CA and brightness and provides a very sharp, but (for me) not the sharpest image possible. It may be my eyes or it may simply be ultra sharp optics are second or third on the list of priorities for Zeiss. Remember, this is just the result that I had and applies only to my eyes! Anyone would be proud to own the HTs, but for me, the bin with the sharpest view is going to be the keeper.

Just as an aside, I tried my 7x42 Ultravids after a few days of using the SLCs and SVs and while they still have a very sharp sweet spot, they are not nearly as bright. I understand that much of this is due to Leica's choice to provide a warmer view (more reds/yellows etc) and the UV is still very pleasing to use.

Thanks again! I am very happy with this purchase.

Steffan

 

[GeeJayW]

Congrats on your choice. As you say going for the SLC HD is hardly a downgrade. Enjoy..

 

[elkcub]

Congratulations on making an excellent choice, and for the right reasons! :t: :t:

The eye relief is 18.5 mm, BTW, which improves slightly on the Zeiss 7x42 BGAT*P.

Happy birding,
Ed

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

May I know SLC HD falls to which category ? Is it to compete with Zeiss Conquest ?

 

[GeeJayW]

FWIW I saw a clearer view with better resolution through SLC HD than the Zeiss Conquest HD not a huge difference, but discernible. IIRC the SLC HD also have closer focusing as well, which is useful for bugs and plants. The Zeiss are much less expensive though and are very good bins, I would be proud and happy to have a pair.

 

[ceasar]

May I know SLC HD falls to which category ? Is it to compete with Zeiss Conquest ?

I don't think so. And it is also different than the EDG. I think it is there primarily to provide an option to the ELs. In everything else it is like gravy. It spreads itself around the whole plate.

Bob

 

[eitanaltman]

According to Clay Taylor (Swaro rep) the SLC lineup has always been more targeted to hunters, whereas the EL is more targeted to birders. That's why the EL has better close focus and different ergonomics. Ultra flat field performance and edge-to-edge sharpness is probably less important to the not-as-obsessive hunting crowd. And the SLC's traditionally have a slightly warmer/yellower view that theoretically improves low light contrast and makes the view more relaxing in bright conditions. That color balance difference is largely gone nowadays but I did find the SLC-HD ever so slightly yellower than the SV when I compared a couple of weeks ago.

But the SLC-HD is not at all a "mid level" line like the Conquest HD (and that's without mentioning that the SLC line has been around for a long time, so they obviously weren't introduced to "compete" with the Conquest). They are an equally top grade lineup, just with different characteristics than the SV.

To me, the SLC-HD view field a little easier and more "natural" than the flat field of the SV, and I liked the ergonomics better too. But it all depends on what works for YOU of course.

To the sharpness comments...like Torview I highly doubt that the Swaros are actually "sharper" than the Zeiss or Leica. Literal resolution is probably the same (or close enough to not be a factor with the limitations of human vision at 8x-10x magnifications). It's probably just a perceptual thing with the "apparent" sharpness where the particular aspects of the view just agree with you better.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

I don't think so. And it is also different than the EDG. I think it is there primarily to provide an option to the ELs. In everything else it is like gravy. It spreads itself around the whole plate.

Bob

According to Clay Taylor (Swaro rep) the SLC lineup has always been more targeted to hunters, whereas the EL is more targeted to birders. That's why the EL has better close focus and different ergonomics. Ultra flat field performance and edge-to-edge sharpness is probably less important to the not-as-obsessive hunting crowd. And the SLC's traditionally have a slightly warmer/yellower view that theoretically improves low light contrast and makes the view more relaxing in bright conditions. That color balance difference is largely gone nowadays but I did find the SLC-HD ever so slightly yellower than the SV when I compared a couple of weeks ago.

But the SLC-HD is not at all a "mid level" line like the Conquest HD (and that's without mentioning that the SLC line has been around for a long time, so they obviously weren't introduced to "compete" with the Conquest). They are an equally top grade lineup, just with different characteristics than the SV.

To me, the SLC-HD view field a little easier and more "natural" than the flat field of the SV, and I liked the ergonomics better too. But it all depends on what works for YOU of course.

To the sharpness comments...like Torview I highly doubt that the Swaros are actually "sharper" than the Zeiss or Leica. Literal resolution is probably the same (or close enough to not be a factor with the limitations of human vision at 8x-10x magnifications). It's probably just a perceptual thing with the "apparent" sharpness where the particular aspects of the view just agree with you better.

Thanks a lot for the explanation :king:

 

[DCC74]

I've had a new SV 8.5x42 just kicking around the house for a few months now, and I have not noticed any rolling ball or other anomalies. All I've noticed is a superb view, superb ergonomics, and excellence in low light. Too bad I didn't get to use it hunting - bought it too late in the year.

More to your question (I think), I have noticed the edge sharpness in this glass. This was something I'd always read about but didn't care about. However, with this bin, I now can see and appreciate glassing without having to move anything other than my eyes "inside" the FOV. Now that I have it, I really appreciate it. Kinda like HDTV, once you actually see the difference for yourself.

 

[mooreorless]

It is funny what people like, I thought the 8x42SLC-HD very nice but did not compare to the SV 8.5x42. I had looked through 8.5 SV first and the young fellow at LCSS handed me the HD, I looked through it and handed it back after a few looks.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Horukuru (post 10),
I have investigated quite a few 42 mm binoculars and among others the SLCHD 8x42, the Swarovsion 8,5x42, the Zeiss Victory HT 8x42. Looking at the measured specifications and my visual impressions the SLC-HD can compete very well with the Zeiss Victory HT and certainly outperforms the Conquest HD 8x42.
I do not quite understand how observers in this forum can actually see a better sharpness difference between different 8x binoculars, since at bright daylight the optimum resolution of the eye using a binocular with magnification of 8x is approx. 7,5 arcsec and that is what these 8x binoculars all easily must be able to resolve. Is it possible that it is not sharpness that is discussed but differences in contrast performance?
Gijs

 

[Leif]

I do not quite understand how observers in this forum can actually see a better sharpness difference between different 8x binoculars, since at bright daylight the optimum resolution of the eye using a binocular with magnification of 8x is approx. 7,5 arcsec and that is what these 8x binoculars all easily must be able to resolve. Is it possible that it is not sharpness that is discussed but differences in contrast performance?
Gijs

That is an interesting and possibly contentious point. I have long thought that the resolution of the binocular is irrelevant, as it outresolves the eye, and that what we see as apparent sharpness is determined by the contrast at and around the level of detail the eye can see. However, one person explained to me that in bright light the resolution of an 8x40 binocular (which is equivalent to an 8x16 binocular assuming a 2mm pupil) is close to the resolution of the eye. I won't mention the person's name unless he wishes to jump into the discussion. His argument seemed quite sound, unless I missed something.

However, as you know, resolution is really the same as contrast at low spatial frequencies anyway.

Clearly an observer can measure something we can call apparent resolution in bright light using a resolution chart. No doubt the value differs between observers. It has been said here by several people that the variation in resolution between samples of the same 8x40 binocular is as large as that between different makes of 8x40 binocular. (I have not performed tests, so I cannot comment.) Does that also apply to apparent resolution?

For me the difference in binoculars is not really the on axis performance. Most are similar, although some do show too much on-axis CA. What defines the best is the off axis performance: sweet spot width, field curvature, distortion, edge softness, off-axis CA, contrast.

 

[typo]

Leif,

I have explained this in some detail to Gijs previously as well. I guess he's forgotten.

David

 

[brocknroller]

I define "sharpness" the way Arthur does, as resolution + contrast, because contrast and by extension, color balance or color contrast, is so important in seeing details in the real world. I think that's why resolution tests done "in the lab" (or "on the bench" as we often say here) don't always match what people report when they look through the bins. being tested.

And this opinion can change depending on the viewing conditions. For example, today it snowed, and the landscape was covered in white. I looked outside with the Celestron 7x50 Nova I just bought and my 8x30 EII. Normally, the red bias of the EII helps me find birds more easily in the trees and brush, but today when the landscape looked "black 'n white" the cooler bias of the Novas (which seemed slightly blue) provided better apparent contrast and the views looked "sharper" than the EIIs, even though I'm sure if they were put "on the bench," the EII, with its excellent optics and 8x, would beat the 7x Novas in resolution.

Assuming we're talking about two bins with high quality optics, and that neither sample is under par, I think that when one person says bin A looks "sharper" to my eyes than bin B, variations in color balance is probably what they are noticing.

<B>