Hello to all members of this forum. First of all, please be lenient with my poor English. I am new here and I would like to briefly introduce myself: my name is Javier Vela, I live in Marbella, Málaga, (Spain). I am currently a painter and writer and usually travel by bike through the geography of Andalusia and Spain in general, which I consider a true privilege. My thread on a small topic about two pocket binoculars - traveling by bike every gram of extra weight is very important - that I have acquired and about which I have had the opportunity to read some reviews and comparisons in this forum these months.
Just when I was determined to buy a leica trinovid 8x20, my family surprised me by gifting me some Swarovski cl 8x25. When I opened the package, not suspecting the contents, I was speechless: A Swaro CL pocket!!
I'm afraid the little Leicas will have to wait for another time....
I have taken the opportunity to compare them carefully with my Zeiss Terra ED 8x25 and, with the permission of the wise members of this magnificent forum, I allow myself to present my brief conclusions:
Both are very good binoculars, but...
1. The "things done right" feeling, select materials, superb finish, fit and presentation go to Swarovski without a doubt. We must also take in mind the huge difference in price (320 euros -here, in Spain- against 780).
2. Both binoculars have very good handling, but I find the Zeiss a little better. As for the eyecups, here -although the Terra are very comfortable on the eyes- we must admit that Swarovski engineers know what they are doing when designing their eyecups. Just perfect.
A weakness in the design of the Zeiss Terra is the placement of the diopter adjustment wheel. It sticks out at the end and is easy to move without being noticed. It is curious, but the same defect has remained in the design of his older brother and - from what I read in this forum - the best 8x25 binoculars on the market, the Zeiss Victory. How top brand design teams can make these easily avoidable mistakes is something I have never understood.
3. The colour reproduction is different in both. If we place them on a white background at about 20 cm, the pinkish tone of the Zeiss is clear versus a pronounced greenish tint in the Swarovski, which has surprised me not very positively. The reason is that I have been very fond of analogic photography and I had the opportunity to have and try many different cameras, Nikon, Olympus, Contax, Leica and Pentax. I always perceived very clear differences in colour reproduction depending on the lenses of each of those brands. While Nikons tended towards warm reddish tones, Pentax tended towards cooler tones. The balance and always the winner in brightness used to be the Zeiss lenses manufactured for Contax in Japan, while the most saturated colours were -unmistakably- the Leitz. The colour always depended on the coating layers used on the lenses, which varied and were perfected over the years within each brand, but always with the result known in the world of colour: a layer of a certain colour will filter that same colour and enhance the complementary (oranges and reds will induce greens and blues and so on.) Well, as far as these binoculars are concerned, the Zeiss Terra's tint is distinctly warm and reddish. This is due to their coatings, while Swaro - which shows a yellowish-green on the lenses and orange on the eyepieces, induces more intense green and blue tones and, as a result, a cool, greenish cast on pure whites. Nothing to object, everything depends on tastes and preferences, but the difference is very obvious.
4. The resolution -in what I have been able to verify- is a pinch better in the Swarovski, as well as the contrast (although often strong contrast can appear to have more resolution without being true).
5. The FOV, or field of view, is much wider on the Zeiss. However, although the Swarosvki has a narrower field of view, the sharpness at the edges is noticeably better and that creates a feeling of immersion in the scene. I think I could describe the issue as follows: through the Zeiss you contemplate and enjoy the landscape and with the Swaro you "penetrate" that same space with a greater sense of focus.
6. Visual comfort. In this, of course, everything will depend on the conformation of the eyes of each observer. In my case, the Zeiss vision is more comfortable, more relaxed. Looking through the Swaro, in a way that I don't quite understand, tends to strain my eyes more and the fact of turning to the right or left feels uncomfortable. I have tested for several hours and always get the same feeling: the comfort of the Zeiss and some discomfort in the Swaroovski when I move the binoculars. There would be a possible explanation if the collimation was not perfect, but being a premium brand I tend to imagine that it is a problem adapting my eyes (although, if I were given both binoculars without knowing the brand beforehand, I would say without a doubt that the Zeiss is better collimated than Swarovski, and I apologize in advance if I'm saying something inappropriate or the result of my ignorance.
7. Regarding the size and portability, I have to say that none of them are really pocket binoculars. I have an Opticron Aspheric 8x25 and it is smaller and more comfortable to transport. And I imagine a Curio or a Trino/ultravid will be too.
Greetings to all members
Just when I was determined to buy a leica trinovid 8x20, my family surprised me by gifting me some Swarovski cl 8x25. When I opened the package, not suspecting the contents, I was speechless: A Swaro CL pocket!!
I'm afraid the little Leicas will have to wait for another time....I have taken the opportunity to compare them carefully with my Zeiss Terra ED 8x25 and, with the permission of the wise members of this magnificent forum, I allow myself to present my brief conclusions:
Both are very good binoculars, but...
1. The "things done right" feeling, select materials, superb finish, fit and presentation go to Swarovski without a doubt. We must also take in mind the huge difference in price (320 euros -here, in Spain- against 780).
2. Both binoculars have very good handling, but I find the Zeiss a little better. As for the eyecups, here -although the Terra are very comfortable on the eyes- we must admit that Swarovski engineers know what they are doing when designing their eyecups. Just perfect.
A weakness in the design of the Zeiss Terra is the placement of the diopter adjustment wheel. It sticks out at the end and is easy to move without being noticed. It is curious, but the same defect has remained in the design of his older brother and - from what I read in this forum - the best 8x25 binoculars on the market, the Zeiss Victory. How top brand design teams can make these easily avoidable mistakes is something I have never understood.
3. The colour reproduction is different in both. If we place them on a white background at about 20 cm, the pinkish tone of the Zeiss is clear versus a pronounced greenish tint in the Swarovski, which has surprised me not very positively. The reason is that I have been very fond of analogic photography and I had the opportunity to have and try many different cameras, Nikon, Olympus, Contax, Leica and Pentax. I always perceived very clear differences in colour reproduction depending on the lenses of each of those brands. While Nikons tended towards warm reddish tones, Pentax tended towards cooler tones. The balance and always the winner in brightness used to be the Zeiss lenses manufactured for Contax in Japan, while the most saturated colours were -unmistakably- the Leitz. The colour always depended on the coating layers used on the lenses, which varied and were perfected over the years within each brand, but always with the result known in the world of colour: a layer of a certain colour will filter that same colour and enhance the complementary (oranges and reds will induce greens and blues and so on.) Well, as far as these binoculars are concerned, the Zeiss Terra's tint is distinctly warm and reddish. This is due to their coatings, while Swaro - which shows a yellowish-green on the lenses and orange on the eyepieces, induces more intense green and blue tones and, as a result, a cool, greenish cast on pure whites. Nothing to object, everything depends on tastes and preferences, but the difference is very obvious.
4. The resolution -in what I have been able to verify- is a pinch better in the Swarovski, as well as the contrast (although often strong contrast can appear to have more resolution without being true).
5. The FOV, or field of view, is much wider on the Zeiss. However, although the Swarosvki has a narrower field of view, the sharpness at the edges is noticeably better and that creates a feeling of immersion in the scene. I think I could describe the issue as follows: through the Zeiss you contemplate and enjoy the landscape and with the Swaro you "penetrate" that same space with a greater sense of focus.
6. Visual comfort. In this, of course, everything will depend on the conformation of the eyes of each observer. In my case, the Zeiss vision is more comfortable, more relaxed. Looking through the Swaro, in a way that I don't quite understand, tends to strain my eyes more and the fact of turning to the right or left feels uncomfortable. I have tested for several hours and always get the same feeling: the comfort of the Zeiss and some discomfort in the Swaroovski when I move the binoculars. There would be a possible explanation if the collimation was not perfect, but being a premium brand I tend to imagine that it is a problem adapting my eyes (although, if I were given both binoculars without knowing the brand beforehand, I would say without a doubt that the Zeiss is better collimated than Swarovski, and I apologize in advance if I'm saying something inappropriate or the result of my ignorance.
7. Regarding the size and portability, I have to say that none of them are really pocket binoculars. I have an Opticron Aspheric 8x25 and it is smaller and more comfortable to transport. And I imagine a Curio or a Trino/ultravid will be too.
Greetings to all members
.
