• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Zeiss or Swaro? (1 Viewer)

Kiwimac

Member
Great trout fishing on the feeder streams emptying into Lake Taupo. I couldn't believe the size of the fish that you can catch there!

Yes, big ones!

However, I grew up fishing trout in the UK and I find the permitting of lures etc a bit below the belt!


Odd New Zealand fact: you'll never see trout on menus or for sale. It's illegal to sell it.
 

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
The Leica Noctivid is a very good binocular. I was very impressed with it but chose the Zeiss SF due to slightly better ergonomics. I fancied a change from Swarovski ELs.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:

mpeace

Well-known member
OOI has anyone compared them to Noctivids?

I compared the Zeiss SF 8x42 I had with a pair of Noctivid 8x42 and Swarovski EL 8.5x42 in a shop.

The main thing I learnt from that is that you can't learn anything much comparing binoculars at this level in a shop - you need to get out and use them in the field, in different environments and different lighting to know which you prefer.

So good luck with your EL it really is a great binocular.

(btw I went away from the shop with the ELs leaving behind the SFs as part-exchange. I didn't get on so well with the particular pair of Noctivids they had).
 

Kiwimac

Member
I compared the Zeiss SF 8x42 I had with a pair of Noctivid 8x42 and Swarovski EL 8.5x42 in a shop.

The main thing I learnt from that is that you can't learn anything much comparing binoculars at this level in a shop - you need to get out and use them in the field, in different environments and different lighting to know which you prefer.

So good luck with your EL it really is a great binocular.

(btw I went away from the shop with the ELs leaving behind the SFs as part-exchange. I didn't get on so well with the particular pair of Noctivids they had).

Yes I would agree if I was buying in the UK - I grew up not too far from Reading btw.

Problem is in NZ that you simply do not have the number of dealers with wide stock and they certainly won't be letting you wander off into the back blocks with $10,000 worth of kit for the weekend..!

I think the fact that one of the better known sporting optics suppliers, in the largest city in NZ, has never sold a single pair of Zeiss SF tells you a fair bit..!
 

Vespobuteo

Well-known member
I would take the Swarovski 8.5x42 before the HT 10x42, any day, or night. But since you seem happy with the 8x32 Ultravid, why bother with any of the heavier bins? The wise thing is probably to stick with the Leicas. Still excellent bins.
 

marcsantacurz

Well-known member
Kiwimac,

You got the right bin, IMO. I have both the 8.5x42 EL FPro and the 10x42 HT. If I had to choose one, it would be the swaro. The HT are really great at 10x and very bright, but I do prefer the EL's view. I do not notice so much the 8x5 to 10x difference except at long range. There's also less fiddling with the EL's focus compared to the 10x (depth of field). I got the HT for about US$1200 (NZ$1800) used, so that sold it for me for 10x. But if I were paying close to full price and choosing between them, the EL's would be for me.

Marc
 

Kiwimac

Member
I would take the Swarovski 8.5x42 before the HT 10x42, any day, or night. But since you seem happy with the 8x32 Ultravid, why bother with any of the heavier bins? The wise thing is probably to stick with the Leicas. Still excellent bins.

After 12 years, the technology and design moves on. The UVs have been through two changes since mine - HD then HD Plus. I have not found the IPD to be perfect for me either - it took me a long while to get a setting in which the two eyes were making one images with no dark ring intruding.

I just think it's time for a change. If I like the ELs, the UVs will get sold to fund part of their cost and in due course, I might get a smaller pair of pocket size bins such as the CL perhaps.

They should arrive tomorrow, so weather permitting I will try and get down onto the nearest birding location (that isn't my 10 acre back yard) to see what they can do.
 

Swissboy

Sempach, Switzerland
Supporter
Switzerland
……….... But since you seem happy with the 8x32 Ultravid, why bother with any of the heavier bins?............QUOTE]

I notice that there is something about a x42 that exceeds a x32. The view is what I would call fuller or more immersive. I have both a Zeiss FL 8x42 and 8x32, and while both provide superb viewing, the larger one (x42) creates a special "WOW" impression whenever I compare.

So the smaller model is meant to serve whenever I do want to carry less weight, but for most occasions I keep using the heavier one.
 

Vespobuteo

Well-known member
After 12 years, the technology and design moves on. The UVs have been through two changes since mine - HD then HD Plus. I have not found the IPD to be perfect for me either - it took me a long while to get a setting in which the two eyes were making one images with no dark ring intruding.

I just think it's time for a change. If I like the ELs, the UVs will get sold to fund part of their cost and in due course, I might get a smaller pair of pocket size bins such as the CL perhaps.

They should arrive tomorrow, so weather permitting I will try and get down onto the nearest birding location (that isn't my 10 acre back yard) to see what they can do.

Yes, technology moves on, even though it's in rather small steps when it comes to binoculars, I'm sure they will be a noticeable step up.

Tell us what you think when you tried them.
 

Vespobuteo

Well-known member
……….... But since you seem happy with the 8x32 Ultravid, why bother with any of the heavier bins?............QUOTE]

I notice that there is something about a x42 that exceeds a x32. The view is what I would call fuller or more immersive. I have both a Zeiss FL 8x42 and 8x32, and while both provide superb viewing, the larger one (x42) creates a special "WOW" impression whenever I compare.

So the smaller model is meant to serve whenever I do want to carry less weight, but for most occasions I keep using the heavier one.

Yes, I can agree with that. Smaller bins will be more of a compromise. But not everyone will take the extra weight and cost.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Yes, I can agree with that. Smaller bins will be more of a compromise. But not everyone will take the extra weight and cost.
"I notice that there is something about a x42 that exceeds a x32. The view is what I would call fuller or more immersive. I have both a Zeiss FL 8x42 and 8x32, and while both provide superb viewing, the larger one (x42) creates a special "WOW" impression whenever I compare."

It is kind of funny but I think in the Swarovski's it is the exact opposite. The 8x32 SV has a fuller, more immersive view than the 8.5x42 SV IMO. The smaller 32mm creates more of a "WOW" impression with it's bigger FOV . That is a big reason I prefer the SV 8x32 over the bigger SV 8.5 x42 another is weight and size.
 
Last edited:

42za

Well-known member
I much prefer to use binoculars that have a large exit pupil as I find that they are more comfortable in use.
I have an old Japanese classic vintage 7 x 35 porro that I use very often despite its having old glass and old style coating.
The newer binoculars do give a superior view however ---- there is no denying that fact.

There is always a compromise to be made somewhere LOL.

Cheers.
 

wdc

Well-known member
"I notice that there is something about a x42 that exceeds a x32. The view is what I would call fuller or more immersive. I have both a Zeiss FL 8x42 and 8x32, and while both provide superb viewing, the larger one (x42) creates a special "WOW" impression whenever I compare."

It is kind of funny but I think in the Swarovski's it is the exact opposite. The 8x32 SV has a fuller, more immersive view than the 8.5x42 SV IMO. The smaller 32mm creates more of a "WOW" impression with it's bigger FOV . That is a big reason I prefer the SV 8x32 over the bigger SV 8.5 x42 another is weight and size.

It might be the AFOV that is a contributing factor in this issue of 'Wow' (not a factual wow, but the subjective one....) ;-)

I think a wide AFOV can be immersive, regardless of the TRUE fov, imho. A wide, immersive effect is the equivalent of sitting closer to a movie screen, and the narrow AFOV is like sitting in the balcony. Same FOV, but you're further, perceptually, from the screen.

The Leica Trinovid HD 8x32, and the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42, both have fairly narrow AFOV, to my eyes (nor do they have exceptionally wide fields in their class anyways..) 'Balcony views'

On the opposite end of the spectrum, both the SF 8x42, and Noctivid 10 x 42 have immersive views to my eyes, even though the Noctivid FOV is smaller than either the Conquest or the Trinovid. The effect seems much more reliant on the relationship of eye relief and AFOV.

-Bill
 

Kiwimac

Member
So they arrived this morning.

Lovely packaging. They are what in the US seems to be 'the field pro package' but here it is the only way they come.

Not as heavy as I was expecting, although a much bigger instrument than the Leicas. Lovely build, lovely feel in the hand. Focus knob could be a few mm further forward (or longer) for my hands in a perfect world but not a deal breaker by any means.

The view?

Amazing. I had no idea just how marked the pincushion distortion was in my Leicas until I tried them side by side with these. All of a sudden I noticed straight edges (fence posts and that sort of thing) were actually bent - something I had just not seen. The Canon 15x50 IS that I have also has field flattener lenses, but I have never really used that side by side with the Leica because it is a whole different device - very good in many ways, portability not being one of them.

The ELs were brighter and had a more pleasant view all round. I took them for the last dog walk of the day, as the light was failing, and was frankly amazed at the detail I could still see very clearly through the ELs that the naked eye simply stood no chance (and I have better than 20/20 due to LASIK last year) of seeing. Our paddock gate, a wooden one, was vaguely discernable (very vaguely) as a lighter grey rectangle in the dimness. Through the ELs I could count the bolt heads holding it together!

The overall package is nice - the new strap is just fabulous. Swarovski should licence that system to camera makers. The lack of belt loops on the field case is an omission IMV but a tiny quibble.

Design seems very good. Excellent eyecups (much better than the UVs), love the dioptre adjustment system (I had blended LASIK so my left eye sees close and my right eye sees far. A challenge for a bino without good adjustment!).

One oddity I did notice - or at least, I think I noticed it - relates to the view in bright light with a light colour overall scene.

I was adjusting the IPD and I swear that I noticed a ring around the outer edge of the view circle that was somehow not the same as the main area. I cannot really describe what the difference was - perhaps "hazy" might be approximately correct.

It was not a really obvious thing, did not appear to be there on darker scenes and could well be my eyes, my technique or something else I do not know about. I could not even swear blind it was actually there!

Anyone experienced such a thing?
 

Conndomat

United States of Europe
Europe
One oddity I did notice - or at least, I think I noticed it - relates to the view in bright light with a light colour overall scene.

I was adjusting the IPD and I swear that I noticed a ring around the outer edge of the view circle that was somehow not the same as the main area. I cannot really describe what the difference was - perhaps "hazy" might be approximately correct.

It was not a really obvious thing, did not appear to be there on darker scenes and could well be my eyes, my technique or something else I do not know about. I could not even swear blind it was actually there!

Anyone experienced such a thing?

Hi,

that's the famous Absamring, so named because the swarovski's are made in Absam Austria.
Occurs in some observation situations, but I have not really noticed that in my 8,5x42er!

Congratulations to the Swarovski, my glass for the island!;)

Andreas
 

Kiwimac

Member
Hi,

that's the famous Absamring, so named because the swarovski's are made in Absam Austria.
Occurs in some observation situations, but I have not really noticed that in my 8,5x42er!

Congratulations to the Swarovski, my glass for the island!;)

Andreas

Ah, so it's "normal" then?
 

Conndomat

United States of Europe
Europe
"The Absam ring occurs when you push it too far with the edge definition. It seems to be a kind of wave in the position of the image plane.

Without image field flattening, the intermediate image, which is produced by the lens, is not on a surface, but on a curved image shell - this is just the image field curvature, a well-known aberration. If you focus on the center of the image, the vertex of this image shell is in focus and the object appears in focus. Beyond the center of the image, however, this shell increasingly bends away from the focal plane and the image appears out of focus. Usually it is possible to keep about 50-60% of the image reasonably sharp (depending on the accommodation capacity of the observer), further out the star points will soon be washed out.

The Bildebnungslinse (also Smyth lens) is placed in front of the intermediate image, and it gives the image shell with an additional curvature in the opposite direction, so that it ideally becomes almost flat. Of course, this does not work perfectly, but then you can achieve a sharp picture up to 80-90% towards the edge. The Fujinon FMT-SX, or the old Swarovski EL were examples of this performance class.

Here, the Smyth lens has actually reached its limits. Recently, however, one tries to drive the game a little further: edge sharpness at any price! A two-piece Smyth group is bent in such a way that the image shell intersects the same focal plane not only in the center, but also at the edge, so that both the image center and the image edge appear sharp. However, this does not succeed in keeping the image completely flat on this plane over the entire visual angle range: the intermediate image lies with the vertex on the focal plane, then slowly moves away from this plane with increasing visual angle, at around 80% a turning point to reach and then turn back to the focal plane.

The absam ring is then the area in which the intermediate image is at a maximum distance from the focal plane before it is bent back. At the same time, the distortion of the image also changes in such a way that it switches from a slightly pincushion distortion (0-80% viewing angle) to a barrel-shaped distortion (near the edge of the image), which can give the impression of the globe effect when panned."

Holger Merlitz


Yes, it is normal!

Andreas
 

Kiwimac

Member
"The Absam ring occurs when you push it too far with the edge definition. It seems to be a kind of wave in the position of the image plane.

Without image field flattening, the intermediate image, which is produced by the lens, is not on a surface, but on a curved image shell - this is just the image field curvature, a well-known aberration. If you focus on the center of the image, the vertex of this image shell is in focus and the object appears in focus. Beyond the center of the image, however, this shell increasingly bends away from the focal plane and the image appears out of focus. Usually it is possible to keep about 50-60% of the image reasonably sharp (depending on the accommodation capacity of the observer), further out the star points will soon be washed out.

The Bildebnungslinse (also Smyth lens) is placed in front of the intermediate image, and it gives the image shell with an additional curvature in the opposite direction, so that it ideally becomes almost flat. Of course, this does not work perfectly, but then you can achieve a sharp picture up to 80-90% towards the edge. The Fujinon FMT-SX, or the old Swarovski EL were examples of this performance class.

Here, the Smyth lens has actually reached its limits. Recently, however, one tries to drive the game a little further: edge sharpness at any price! A two-piece Smyth group is bent in such a way that the image shell intersects the same focal plane not only in the center, but also at the edge, so that both the image center and the image edge appear sharp. However, this does not succeed in keeping the image completely flat on this plane over the entire visual angle range: the intermediate image lies with the vertex on the focal plane, then slowly moves away from this plane with increasing visual angle, at around 80% a turning point to reach and then turn back to the focal plane.

The absam ring is then the area in which the intermediate image is at a maximum distance from the focal plane before it is bent back. At the same time, the distortion of the image also changes in such a way that it switches from a slightly pincushion distortion (0-80% viewing angle) to a barrel-shaped distortion (near the edge of the image), which can give the impression of the globe effect when panned."

Holger Merlitz


Yes, it is normal!

Andreas

Well, thanks for that! Some serious detail there.

The overall view is so good that unless I really look to the far edges, it's not noticeable.

The EL is greatly impressive so far. I can't imagine the Noctivids would have been better, just different.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top