-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Comparing Zeiss and Swarovski 32 /30 models (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Swissboy
- Start date
Dennis
I was suspicious of 10x32's until I borrowed a Meopta B1 10x32 to review and found it to be unfussy and delightful.
When you say 'even though the FL was made years ago' I guess you mean 'launched' years ago because it is still made today.
Lee
Andy
I don't mean to brow beat you into liking a 10x32 just because I do because I understand a lot of liking different binoculars is just personal preference. BUT I really like to hear different opinions on why people choose what they do especially when they have had a lot of binoculars like you have. I am curious what 10x32's you have used and why you didn't care for them compared to their 10x42 equivalent? I am guessing it is the bigger exit pupil making eye placement easier and the brighter image under low light. Any other reasons? Is it overcast in Delaware quite often which makes the 42mm a better choice? I am sure that the amount of light you get in your location affects your binocular choice. Finally, what is your age if that is not to personal? Age can really affect how much benefit you get from the bigger 42mm aperture and also your willingness to carry a heavier binocular. Again, I am NOT trying to convince you to like 32mm binoculars. I just like to get some insight on why people choose what they do especially when itis somebody with a lot of viewing experience like you. Thanks!
I don't mean to brow beat you into liking a 10x32 just because I do because I understand a lot of liking different binoculars is just personal preference. BUT I really like to hear different opinions on why people choose what they do especially when they have had a lot of binoculars like you have. I am curious what 10x32's you have used and why you didn't care for them compared to their 10x42 equivalent? I am guessing it is the bigger exit pupil making eye placement easier and the brighter image under low light. Any other reasons? Is it overcast in Delaware quite often which makes the 42mm a better choice? I am sure that the amount of light you get in your location affects your binocular choice. Finally, what is your age if that is not to personal? Age can really affect how much benefit you get from the bigger 42mm aperture and also your willingness to carry a heavier binocular. Again, I am NOT trying to convince you to like 32mm binoculars. I just like to get some insight on why people choose what they do especially when itis somebody with a lot of viewing experience like you. Thanks!
Hi Andy
Nothing to apologise for Pal. I have been skeptical about 10x32 for years until I tried Meopta's B1 10x32 and I found the format was very usable. It does, after all give an EP bigger than 8x25 which has generated (Zeiss) a good deal of love recently.
Lee
dries1
Member
Dennis,
It is all about the exit pupil, and I am not young by any stretch. Delaware has quite a bit of sun, more than many part of Western Europe. I actually prefer an exit pupil of 5 - the view is more relaxing to my vision and that is why I do not use 8X32 or 10X42 much, in fact in those two configurations, I have the least amount of glass.
Most of what I use is 8X42/8X56 and 10X50/56. The only other glass I have which have less ER than than 5 are used more often looking up at the night sky, and for pure distance viewing are 12X50 and 15X56. I have no problem carrying around a 1000 gram glass, sometimes I use a harness over my shoulder, with a heavy 8 or 10X56, depending on the terrain.
Andy W.
It is all about the exit pupil, and I am not young by any stretch. Delaware has quite a bit of sun, more than many part of Western Europe. I actually prefer an exit pupil of 5 - the view is more relaxing to my vision and that is why I do not use 8X32 or 10X42 much, in fact in those two configurations, I have the least amount of glass.
Most of what I use is 8X42/8X56 and 10X50/56. The only other glass I have which have less ER than than 5 are used more often looking up at the night sky, and for pure distance viewing are 12X50 and 15X56. I have no problem carrying around a 1000 gram glass, sometimes I use a harness over my shoulder, with a heavy 8 or 10X56, depending on the terrain.
Andy W.
If it's still state of the art, as it seems to be, then discussing it seems very much worthwhile.
Andy
It's all about comfort and the relaxing view for you. You like big aperture with it's resulting big exit pupil. I understand having had quite a few binoculars with those kind of exit pupils. No fussiness with a 5mm or bigger EP. You just bang them up to your eyes and you get a full FOV with no black out worries. If you don't care for an 8x32 you definitely won't like a 10x32 either with it's even smaller EP. That just shows you how our eyes all different. I am comfortable with a 3.2 mm EP and you dislike them. You probably don't even mess around with compacts then. A lot of these decisions on what kind of binocular to use is just personal preference based on every bodies different physical characteristics. You have to decide what is important to YOU. All three of the top alpha 32mm are good you have to just decide what characteristic is most important to you. The SV is your binocular if you want the sharpest edges and flattest field and RB doesn't bother you and you like a smaller more ergonomic binocular, the EDG is your binocular if you prefer a slightly less flat field with not quite as sharp of edges as the SV but less chance of RB with better internal reflection or flare control and better CA control than the SV and finally if you like a more traditional optical design with off-axis astigmatism and some off-axis pincushion distortion creating softer edges and no RB while panning with excellent internal reflection or glare control and the best CA control of the three or perhaps any binocular the Zeiss FL is your binocular. You have to decide what you want.
It's all about comfort and the relaxing view for you. You like big aperture with it's resulting big exit pupil. I understand having had quite a few binoculars with those kind of exit pupils. No fussiness with a 5mm or bigger EP. You just bang them up to your eyes and you get a full FOV with no black out worries. If you don't care for an 8x32 you definitely won't like a 10x32 either with it's even smaller EP. That just shows you how our eyes all different. I am comfortable with a 3.2 mm EP and you dislike them. You probably don't even mess around with compacts then. A lot of these decisions on what kind of binocular to use is just personal preference based on every bodies different physical characteristics. You have to decide what is important to YOU. All three of the top alpha 32mm are good you have to just decide what characteristic is most important to you. The SV is your binocular if you want the sharpest edges and flattest field and RB doesn't bother you and you like a smaller more ergonomic binocular, the EDG is your binocular if you prefer a slightly less flat field with not quite as sharp of edges as the SV but less chance of RB with better internal reflection or flare control and better CA control than the SV and finally if you like a more traditional optical design with off-axis astigmatism and some off-axis pincushion distortion creating softer edges and no RB while panning with excellent internal reflection or glare control and the best CA control of the three or perhaps any binocular the Zeiss FL is your binocular. You have to decide what you want.
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
Hey Lee,
Just to keep the record straight that diagram incorrectly suggests there are two lenses when really there is only one. The straight line at the top of the field flattener actually represents the uncut back side of the lens rather than another element. You can see the same treatment of every other concave surface represented in the diagram.
The photo of an actual SF below makes it clearer that the field flattener is a singlet.
Henry
Attachments
Hi Henry and thank you for spotting this and pointing it out. Apologies to Dennis too.
Lee
Elkhornsun
Well-known member
Optical engineers with the advent of computers can now make design revisions in a fraction of the time. New coatings have also improved optical performance. I would not want to make a decision on current binoculars based on ones manufacturer 3 or more years ago. The Swarovski Companion models have been improved of late and their performance improved.
For me it comes down to holding the binoculars in my hands and looking through them with my eyes under various lighting conditions and deciding which one I like the best. Technical specifications have been of little or no use in my own decision process. I try to buy from B&H as they make the RMA process incredibly easy should I decide having received a binocular that I do not like it for any reason.
For me it comes down to holding the binoculars in my hands and looking through them with my eyes under various lighting conditions and deciding which one I like the best. Technical specifications have been of little or no use in my own decision process. I try to buy from B&H as they make the RMA process incredibly easy should I decide having received a binocular that I do not like it for any reason.
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
It's easier to revise designs than to implement those revisions in the manufacturing process. Although small changes in coatings are sometimes made, their effect on performance is trivial compared to changes in the lenses, and it doesn't seem that such substantive changes happen very often (if ever) over the very long model lifetimes (usually at least 10 years) of most premium quality binoculars. So I can't imagine that examination 3+ year old units wouldn't be valid for deciding among competing models. I have bins of current models that were made 15+ years ago that are not substantively optically different than current production of the same model. The current Swarovski Companion x30 models are the same as the old models in name only. They are a complete optical re-design, not a tweak of the old ones.
--AP
wachipilotes
Well-known member
Is there such a difference between the 8x32FL model and its 10x3FL brother in terms of optics, image quality? on the outside it looks the same ..
Greetings,
Wachi.
Greetings,
Wachi.
To me, the only difference was the fact that I was unable to keep that 10x steady enough. Both 8x and 10x had superb images as far as I was concerned. So not sure where you get the notion of a big difference? I had them simultaneously for several days of comparison. The difference observed was just due to the different magnifications. 10x provides more details, as long as the view is sufficiently steady.
wachipilotes
Well-known member
I read the following not long ago regarding my question: " there is a big difference between the similar looking FL 8x32 and FL 10x32. And between the FL 10x32 and all other Zeiss binoculars. The FL 10x32 is by far the best with regard to wideness of the field and sharpness to the edge.
Regards,
Wachi.
Regards,
Wachi.
I have been unable to find this quote. However, the one difference that has been discussed extensively is the fact that the 10x model has an additional lens that serves as a field flattener. Thus, the edge sharpness ought to be improved. Personally, this was not obvious as far as I'm concerned, and the Zeiss model did not show the - to me - irritating roller ball effect when scanning. This in contrast to the Swarovski models I had compared both Zeiss with. Regarding the wideness of the field, the Zeiss 10x32 does not shine particularly. So I wonder whether you got the SF model mixed in, as there, the wideness of the field is exceptional. But we are then talking about x42 models.
wachipilotes
Well-known member
I found this comment in another forum, in Cloudynights. But I imagine that everyone sees it in their own way, in short, personal opinions.
Wachi
Wachi
