If you hope to see scientific methodology comparing these binoculars, it would be best to close this thread now.
Having always wanting a pair of Swarovski binoculars I decided to take advantage of the 10% off from LL Bean. I really want the 8x42 SV's or 10x50 SV's, but I just can't bring myself to spend that much. My wife was actually going to buy them for me for our 35th anniversary and I said no. Yeah, that was real dumb! - I just can't spend that much on a toy. I don't hunt or bird seriously, so they would have no serious purpose for me.
The bottom line - the Nikons are the better of the two binoculars. This only applies to my two binoculars and my eyes - I make no claim of universal truths for these two binoculars.
Focuser is smoother on the Nikon. The CL's actually have a rough spot, but it seems to be smooting out with continued use.
Sharpness - Nikon. They also seem to pop into focus easier. With the CL's I do a little more searching to find that sharp spot. I believe that I see more detail with the Nikons.
Color saturation warm/cool - to me it is a wash. Both are nice.
Waterproof - it is a tie. I don't look at anything in the rain unless it is behind a window. Of course the CL's actually win on this one.
Subjective feel - Close, but I think the Nikons. I like the little squatty body feel.
Size - CL's. These would be much easier to pack, but the Leica 8x20's are even more so.
Close focus - The CL's. I purposely did not read the specs. I think they focus about as close, but I have a harder time trying to accommodate my eyes with the Nikons.
Dusk - the Nikons are brighter. I could see more detail and a bit more color saturation with the Nikons. To be honest - neither was real exciting. In the real world I would not be out at dusk looking at anything with binoculars anyway.
CA - I went back and forth on this one. I guess that makes it a tie. In all honesty, I have to look at boring white boards with shadow behind them. Then I have to move the object to the edge of the FOV and I see color! I do that a lot in real world viewing. (that is sarcasm).
Eyecups - CL's. It is a lot easier to pop the eyecups in and out than fold back those rubber eyecups of the Nikons.
Potential to get mugged for my binoculars. CL's so Nikon's are safer! Also the Nikons have that 'old fashion design' so they must be junk. Like someone said in an earlier thread, only 1 in 200 might even recognize the name Swarovski.
The Leicas do a pretty good job, but 20mm is noticeably darker in most situations.
I am debating sending them back. They do not have any real world advantage over the Nikon's for me. On the other hand for the $836 delivered to me, I might just keep them because - they are Swarovski's!
My wife picked the Leicas first. Easier to hold and not too heavy. The CL's next. Sharper than the Nikons. The Nikons last because they are too heavy and bulky. They also shake more.
That cancels out anything I said!
Mike
Having always wanting a pair of Swarovski binoculars I decided to take advantage of the 10% off from LL Bean. I really want the 8x42 SV's or 10x50 SV's, but I just can't bring myself to spend that much. My wife was actually going to buy them for me for our 35th anniversary and I said no. Yeah, that was real dumb! - I just can't spend that much on a toy. I don't hunt or bird seriously, so they would have no serious purpose for me.
The bottom line - the Nikons are the better of the two binoculars. This only applies to my two binoculars and my eyes - I make no claim of universal truths for these two binoculars.
Focuser is smoother on the Nikon. The CL's actually have a rough spot, but it seems to be smooting out with continued use.
Sharpness - Nikon. They also seem to pop into focus easier. With the CL's I do a little more searching to find that sharp spot. I believe that I see more detail with the Nikons.
Color saturation warm/cool - to me it is a wash. Both are nice.
Waterproof - it is a tie. I don't look at anything in the rain unless it is behind a window. Of course the CL's actually win on this one.
Subjective feel - Close, but I think the Nikons. I like the little squatty body feel.
Size - CL's. These would be much easier to pack, but the Leica 8x20's are even more so.
Close focus - The CL's. I purposely did not read the specs. I think they focus about as close, but I have a harder time trying to accommodate my eyes with the Nikons.
Dusk - the Nikons are brighter. I could see more detail and a bit more color saturation with the Nikons. To be honest - neither was real exciting. In the real world I would not be out at dusk looking at anything with binoculars anyway.
CA - I went back and forth on this one. I guess that makes it a tie. In all honesty, I have to look at boring white boards with shadow behind them. Then I have to move the object to the edge of the FOV and I see color! I do that a lot in real world viewing. (that is sarcasm).
Eyecups - CL's. It is a lot easier to pop the eyecups in and out than fold back those rubber eyecups of the Nikons.
Potential to get mugged for my binoculars. CL's so Nikon's are safer! Also the Nikons have that 'old fashion design' so they must be junk. Like someone said in an earlier thread, only 1 in 200 might even recognize the name Swarovski.
The Leicas do a pretty good job, but 20mm is noticeably darker in most situations.
I am debating sending them back. They do not have any real world advantage over the Nikon's for me. On the other hand for the $836 delivered to me, I might just keep them because - they are Swarovski's!
My wife picked the Leicas first. Easier to hold and not too heavy. The CL's next. Sharper than the Nikons. The Nikons last because they are too heavy and bulky. They also shake more.
That cancels out anything I said!
Mike
