Upgrade to Swarovski EL? (2 Viewers)

[quincy88]

Both are legendary optics for good reason. I say go for it. If you are curious, then just take the plunge. It'll sort itself out. After a few years, you'll probably get curious about another pair of binoculars, at which time I will also recommend that you go for it. Get a good price selling your Ultravids and a good price buying your ELs, and worry no longer.
I've bought a lot of pairs of binoculars over the years. I've owned a pair of EL 10x42s, but sold them. I currently own a couple pairs of Ultravids and a couple pairs of Trinovids. I'm a 42 user. And a Leica fan. But it's taken some experimentation to learn my preferences.

 

[Owlbarred]

Both are legendary optics for good reason. I say go for it. If you are curious, then just take the plunge. It'll sort itself out. After a few years, you'll probably get curious about another pair of binoculars, at which time I will also recommend that you go for it. Get a good price selling your Ultravids and a good price buying your ELs, and worry no longer.
I've bought a lot of pairs of binoculars over the years. I've owned a pair of EL 10x42s, but sold them. I currently own a couple pairs of Ultravids and a couple pairs of Trinovids. I'm a 42 user. And a Leica fan. But it's taken some experimentation to learn my preferences.

Excellent advice. I'd add, buy a used pair -- especially EL SV which are optically the same as Field Pros -- from a reputable seller and save big.

 

[claves_10]

If you haven´t decided yet my advice is to go for it as well. Get second hand EL and surely you will enjoy with out expending that much. Went yesterday with EL pro 10x42 and really enjoyed the morning. These days after couple rainy days, where the atmosphere is crystal clear. The view was an absolute joy. I am getting more and more used to the feel of the focus wheel and the view....wow perfect.
I believe is great to swap between binos and enjoy the differences between each.

 

[jackjack]

Optically, EL SV is significant step over the UV series.

it excels almost EVERY optical parts (center & edge sharpness, distortion, CA, AFOV, Brightness, color fidelity) even compared to NV series.
which have been small step over UVHD+

so, upgrade in EL will give a step over of overall image quality.

but, image quality is not Everything to choose the bino.

Leica UV leads on pleasent panning,
less flatter view that could feel more natural feel to your eyes,
less blue light (bit more yellow and red) for minimal eyestrain.

moreover, glare control and ghosting which Swaro sucks at

and of course better mechanics and compactness with more strong rubber on body and eyecup that will stick to you firmly even in hard uses.


overall, I would choose Swaro el because of jumping up with image quality even best leica in market can't follow up.
but if you like the advantages of leica I wrote, you can mind keeping it.

if one concerning which to by first, go for Swaro.

similar like reputation in Camera, Red dot of leica take at least 25% of the heavy price tag they have.
not at buffed as camera but still, least brand for price - value

 

[Paultricounty]

Optically, EL SV is significant step over the UV series.

it excels almost EVERY optical parts (center & edge sharpness, distortion, CA, AFOV, Brightness, color fidelity) even compared to NV series.
which have been small step over UVHD+

so, upgrade in EL will give a step over of overall image quality.

But it will be a step down from a natural image, a step down in overall observing eye comfort, a step down in glare and ghosting control, a step down on panning quality, a step down from a more immersive image due to the lack of field flatteners. So basically a step down in many areas that so many find so enjoyable about Leica. NV just one step better than UV 😉.

but, image quality is not Everything to choose the bino.

Leica UV leads on pleasent panning,
less flatter view that could feel more natural feel to your eyes,
less blue light (bit more yellow and red) for minimal eyestrain.

moreover, glare control and ghosting which Swaro sucks at

and of course better mechanics and compactness with more strong rubber on body and eyecup that will stick to you firmly even in hard uses.


overall, I would choose Swaro el because of jumping up with image quality even best leica in market can't follow up.
but if you like the advantages of leica I wrote, you can mind keeping it.

if one concerning which to by first, go for Swaro.

similar like reputation in Camera, Red dot of leica take at least 25% of the heavy price tag they have.
not at buffed as camera but still, least brand for price - value

View attachment 1606023
View attachment 1606024

Optically, EL SV is significant step over the UV series.

it excels almost EVERY optical parts (center & edge sharpness, distortion, CA, AFOV, Brightness, color fidelity) even compared to NV series.
which have been small step over UVHD+

so, upgrade in EL will give a step over of overall image quality.

but, image quality is not Everything to choose the bino.

Leica UV leads on pleasent panning,
less flatter view that could feel more natural feel to your eyes,
less blue light (bit more yellow and red) for minimal eyestrain.

moreover, glare control and ghosting which Swaro sucks at

and of course better mechanics and compactness with more strong rubber on body and eyecup that will stick to you firmly even in hard uses.


overall, I would choose Swaro el because of jumping up with image quality even best leica in market can't follow up.
but if you like the advantages of leica I wrote, you can mind keeping it.

if one concerning which to by first, go for Swaro.

similar like reputation in Camera, Red dot of leica take at least 25% of the heavy price tag they have.
not at buffed as camera but still, least brand for price - value

View attachment 1606023
View attachment 1606024

 

[Maljunulo]

Just out of vulgar curiosity, and in the interest of consistency, does anyone have a working definition of a step?

 

[jackjack]

Just out of vulgar curiosity, and in the interest of consistency, does anyone have a working definition of a step?

significant diffrence enough for passionate user to notice.

two step is for diffrence that novice user that have use only one or two bino or none can recognize in comparison.

It is my subjective rank but I tested some diffrent bino side comparison against many users of diffrent bino experience. which is very similar of my 'steps'

for me, noticable differ in 30 sec each of comparing in every eye condition is considered step differ.
which I can safely say which one is better then other in that area.

if just wanting for upgrade in specific area, step ahead mean, it is safe for majority to user to go for it to feel the improvement they want

for example

Brightness step

Zeiss Terra / Zeiss CHD / FL / HT

(so, HT is two step brighter then CHD enough for novice user to recognize)

FOV step

(8x42)

HGL / EDG / Razor UHD / SF / NL

Central Sharpness step

M7 / MHG / CHD / EL

meostar b1+ / SFL / EL

Kowa SV / Kowa Genesis / Zeiss CHD / EL


Edge sharpness step

SV2O2 / Nikon E2 / SA205 / leica NV / Nikon EDG / Swaro EL

CA step

Alpen teton / BN / CHD / HT / SF

Distortion step

HT / monarch 7 / CHD / EL

extra.

for overall optics.

such as

Terra / CHD / SF

Sv202 / sa205 / ms apo / SRBC / NL

yf 30 / M7 30 / CL 30 / SFL 30 / EL32

+ FOV step reference

CL 8x30
EL 8x32
NL 8x32
NL 8x42


Edge sharpness step

CHD / NV / CL / NL


brightness step

NV / HT


about 2.5 ~ 3 step difference.
which bon bino user can recognize the difference in 1~2 min each of comparison.

such as Edge / central sharpness gap between Nikon monarch 7/ Swaro EL

Nikon 3s / Alpen teton in 10x42


glare suppression step

UVHD+ / CHD // EL (1.5 ~ two step below CHD)


you can see some other step differ references in my comparison post.

 

[Paultricounty]

significant diffrence enough for passionate user to notice.

two step is for diffrence that novice user that have use only one or two bino or none can recognize in comparison.

It is my subjective rank but I tested some diffrent bino side comparison against many users of diffrent bino experience. which is very similar of my 'steps'

for me, noticable differ in 30 sec each of comparing in every eye condition is considered step differ.
which I can safely say which one is better then other in that area.

if just wanting for upgrade in specific area, step ahead mean, it is safe for majority to user to go for it to feel the improvement they want

for example

Brightness step

Zeiss Terra / Zeiss CHD / FL / HT

(so, HT is two step brighter then CHD enough for novice user to recognize)

FOV step

(8x42)

HGL / EDG / Razor UHD / SF / NL

Central Sharpness step

M7 / MHG / CHD / EL

meostar b1+ / SFL / EL

Kowa SV / Kowa Genesis / Zeiss CHD / EL


Edge sharpness step

SV2O2 / Nikon E2 / SA205 / leica NV / Nikon EDG / Swaro EL

CA step

Alpen teton / BN / CHD / HT / SF

Distortion step

HT / monarch 7 / CHD / EL

extra.

for overall optics.

such as

Terra / CHD / SF

Sv202 / sa205 / ms apo / SRBC / NL

yf 30 / M7 30 / CL 30 / SFL 30 / EL32

+ FOV step reference

CL 8x30
EL 8x32
NL 8x32
NL 8x42
View attachment 1606105

Edge sharpness step

CHD / NV / CL / NL
View attachment 1606107

brightness step

NV / HT
View attachment 1606124

about 2.5 ~ 3 step difference.
which bon bino user can recognize the difference in 1~2 min each of comparison.

such as Edge / central sharpness gap between Nikon monarch 7/ Swaro EL

Nikon 3s / Alpen teton in 10x42
View attachment 1606125

glare suppression step

UVHD+ / CHD // EL (1.5 ~ two step below CHD)
View attachment 1606121

you can see some other step differ references in my comparison post.

Some are also clearly out of focus, I’m just saying. Even when we try to subjectively opine which one is a step better in some area, it can fall short becasue of lighting conditions. For one example, If veiling glare is present in one binocular, say an EL because of sun angle , then the one that was second or third in the subjective opinion list becomes superior, in let’s say sharpness area. Imo. ✌🏼

 

[jackjack]

Some are also clearly out of focus, I’m just saying. Even when we try to subjectively opine which one is a step better in some area, it can fall short becasue of lighting conditions. For one example, If veiling glare is present in one binocular, say an EL because of sun angle , then the one that was second or third in the subjective opinion list becomes superior in let’s say sharpness. Imo. ✌🏼

yes for the night time brightness comparison, it's impossible to get focus clearly even I take more then 10 photos.
even harder when bino is darker

but brightness at night doesn't change by minor focus shake if the alignment and camera setting are same.

there are specific part of optics that individual user prefer. some prefer Kowa genesis which is not as bright and sharp as recent alpha because of the lack of CA
other prefer E2 bino made more then 20years ago because of it's 3D pop and wide FOV.

some prefer EDG for comfortness and mechanical issues.

that's why I compare them in various parts. not just saying that one is better then other in total.
intending readers to choose the bino that suit their preference. like I said at UV & EL thread above.

for instance,

though NL pure 10x42 is better bino then SRBC 10x42, for whom wants to see the biggest sweet spot, SRBC is better choice for them.

and for the meostar and sfl.
though SFL is better overall, if somone want their bino to be more relaxing view, less blue view (worse color fidelity) of meostar will be better fitted to one's preference.

 

[Paultricounty]

yes for the night time brightness comparison, it's impossible to get focus clearly even I take more then 10 photos.
even harder when bino is darker

but brightness at bight doesn't change by focus shake if the alignment and camera setting are same.

Doesn’t the camera optical train skew the final result to some degree, that is different than what human eye sees? I feel from my experiences that the optic used to take a photo can add or leave something out that is not present to the user in the field.

 

[jackjack]

Doesn’t the camera optical train skew the final result to some degree, that is different than what human eye sees? I feel from my experiences that the optic used to take a photo can add or leave something out that is not present to the user in the field.

in terms of brightness? I think human eyes are more sensitive. that mean the diffrence is bigger.

 

[Paultricounty]

in terms of brightness? I think human eyes are more sensitive. that mean the diffrence is bigger.

I wasn’t talking specifically about brightness. I was relating in a more general sense.

 

[Conndomat]

in terms of brightness? I think human eyes are more sensitive. that mean the diffrence is bigger.

Hello,

What exposure time and aperture were set when comparing NV and HT brightness?

Andreas

 

[Paultricounty]

Hello,

What exposure time and aperture were set when comparing NV and HT brightness?

Andreas

Isn’t that another thing to be considered when speaking about qualitative accuracy. The natural lighting degrades within the few minutes it takes to switch up the binoculars on the tripod. So if the aperture is the same setting, that might have a slight effect, and/or if you’re making a slight adjustment to the aperture setting, then who’s to say that adjustment compensated accurately.

 

[jackjack]

Hello,

What exposure time and aperture were set when comparing NV and HT brightness?

Andreas

iso 3200

1/20 sec

 

[Conndomat]

in terms of brightness? I think human eyes are more sensitive. that mean the diffrence is bigger.

1/20 sec

which bon bino user can recognize the difference in 1~2 min each of comparison.

Think again...

Andreas

 

[Maljunulo]

Doesn’t the camera optical train skew the final result to some degree, that is different than what human eye sees? I feel from my experiences that the optic used to take a photo can add or leave something out that is not present to the user in the field.

I think that’s the point some of us are trying to make.

Taking a photo through an optic, in order to present it as a quantitative assessment of a difference with a second optic, is fraught with many, many traps.

To present the photos as what the camera sees is one thing, but to use the photos to somehow sort and rank the binoculars, strikes me as at best risky, and at worst unsound.

(just my opinion)

 

[claves_10]

Maljunulo I know what you are trying to say but what is the alternative. Me saying that X bino has better CA more sharpness, best contrast, excellence sweet spot, 4K resolution .....
Digiscoping might not be a final say BUT at least is a way to measure differences. If the same person takes pictures with the same phone, same image quality and maybe making the same errors ..the differences that can be observed from the picture from Bino A and Bino B,can be a discerning factor and give a more tangible explanation. On top of that the Birdforum user Jackjack besides posting those pictures as reference sees previously through the binos with BOTH his eyes, makes a personal review, as we all do, and then explain his feeling along a comparison digiscoping picture.

Digiscoping can not determine more contrast, sharpness, CA .... ok ok won't argue that. But at least it is "MORE" tangible measuring tool. Not perfect.

 

[jackjack]

I think that’s the point some of us are trying to make.

Taking a photo through an optic, in order to present it as a quantitative assessment of a difference with a second optic, is fraught with many, many traps.

To present the photos as what the camera sees is one thing, but to use the photos to somehow sort and rank the binoculars, strikes me as at best risky, and at worst unsound.

(just my opinion)

all the reviews that I wrote inculding the ranking, Is Always made by studious observation through my own eyes

(each tubes, tubes combined, with and without booster, near and far diatance.. extra)

which seems to have more sensitivity in some optical parts such as
Brightness, Color contrast, Center and edge sharpness, CA, distortion
and of course 3D renedition that digiscope photo will never mange to show.

all of the comparison photo is taken under 90sec differ to minimize the light differ.
(60sec usually)
thats one of the reason I became fast at digiscope enough to scope some jets.

(improtance of the close - to prefectly same viewing situation.)

ELSV 10x32 in winter and summer
showing almost totally different view
I can't and won't use a digiscoped result in comparison such as this difference.

once, I tried to make a room that have same lighting situation and camera setting thea shows same results 24/7
so I can use digiscoped results taken from different days. to rank all the bino I saw

and, eventually I failed it.

so I'm just using my reference binos for direct comparison with bino I reviewing.
such as ELSV 8x32 / 10x32 which I have it for a long time that I compared it will almost every bino I reviewed.

 

[Maljunulo]

You have certainly been meticulous, but I remain unconvinced that the photos contribute objectivity to a subjective evaluation.