New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 8.4x42 EL swarobright vs swarovision
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

8.4x42 EL swarobright vs swarovision

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  <12
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/26/2013 at 08:14
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 15452
A sharper, higher contrast image improves perception of detail in low light just as it does in good light. Could this, combined with a huge sweet spot (all the way out to the field edge in this case) perhaps be giving you the perception of higher light transmission? Swaro may be incrementally improving their existing coatings, but the SV has the same lens and prism coatings as their other binos according to Swaro.

I'm not doubting you see a noticeable improvement in image quality, but I'm pretty certain if Swaro made great strides in transmission % in the SV, they'd advertise that fact. I'd think that would be a more significant feat than an enhanced focuser, given the number of air/glass surfaces has increased in the SV. It's a very expensive bino; they need to tout every advantage possible.

I'd be interested in seeing this independent testing you're referring to. Did they test other optics, or just the Swaro EL vs. SV? Do you have a link
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/26/2013 at 16:33
NDhunter View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: September/15/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 418
Here is a binocular review of 42mm binoculars that shows how
the Swarovskis compare in light transmission.
If you do a net search for "Europa Ginkel 42" it will bring up a nice review of 42mm
binoculars, and offers transmission numbers.
This is a PDF article, and I cannot get it to link.
 
Transmission numbers for:
Swaro. 8.5x42 EL  -  82 Night
                         -  85 Day
Swaro. 8.5 EL SV  -  89 Night
                            90 Day
 
I have had a 2001, and a 2009 Swaro. EL 8.5x42, and now a EL SV 8.5x42.
I have compared these, as I had the first 2, and the 2009 late model has a nice
increase in brightness over the early version.  And the new SV has another increase
in brightness over the 2009.
 
In any case the EL 8.5x42 is a very nice binocular no matter what the year.
I agree with Timberbuck, these review numbers are what I would agree with.
It is possible that the review includes an early EL vs. the SV, and that would
explain the large difference.
 
Back to the original post, these differences are incremental, and so you would be
happy with any one of them.  Only you can decide which is best for you.
 
Jerry
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/26/2013 at 17:08
timberbuck View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: August/13/2012
Status: Offline
Points: 85
Steve and others here are the transmission test from one article I remembered to keep.

An article in 2010 by Dr. Gijis van Ginkel

Transmission values are measured at 500 and 555 NM (night transmission and day transmission)

The results.

Old EL 10x42- 79% and 80%   New SV 10x42- 84% and 86%
Old El 8.5x42- 82% and 85%  New SV 8.5x42-89% and 90%

Some others for your consideration

Leica Ultravid HD 8x42- 83% and 86%
Steiner discovery/peregrine XP-81% and 81%
Swarovski SLC HD 8x42-89% and 92%
Swarovski SLC HD 10x42-87% and 90%
Zeiss Victory FL 8x42-88% and 92%

Zeiss Victory HT (recently tested) 92.1% and 95.2%

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/26/2013 at 17:12
timberbuck View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: August/13/2012
Status: Offline
Points: 85
Thank you ND Hunter fore verifying my findings and opinions on the Swarovision's brightness increase over the older EL's. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/26/2013 at 17:18
timberbuck View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: August/13/2012
Status: Offline
Points: 85
As stated by ND possibly the results from the old EL's were from early units as the last EL's made in 2008/2009 were indeed brighter than the earlier models. So possibly the SV is only 2-3% brighter than the last couple years of the EL.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/26/2013 at 18:28
Klamath View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/20/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1303
Gis van Ginkel's tests are probably accurate.  However, that changes things a little.  These days 85% light transmission  is no big deal.  At that level lots of binoculars can produce world class images.  As for the SV EL, 90% in this day and age is no earth shattering accomplishment either, but yes, that should be noticeable by most viewers, and in my view is enough pure light transmission to do anything needed with a binocular.  So in my opinion, the increase from 85% to 90% is not as big as what might be claimed from transmission figures that start (allegedly) heading upward from 90%.  I had it in my head the EL was already at 90% and I could not get my head around the idea they had gone to 95-96% with the SV EL. I had seen the Allbinos review that put the EL at 94%, but was pretty skeptical of that too.  After all that , a 5-6% increase would  put the SV EL at 100%.  So when in doubt ask.  Big Smile
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/26/2013 at 18:49
NDhunter View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: September/15/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 418
Steve:
 
I find the Van Ginkel transmission tests to be accurate, as I have had several different models in the tests.
The Allbinos transmission results, are scattered all over the place.  And I don't think you
can compare one binoculars results to others.
 
So, you can be quite assured the new Swarovision, is very bright, and it is a
step up over the previous model, in better contrast, brightness, and of course edge performance
as mentioned earlier.   
 
This would be expected from Swarovski.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/27/2013 at 00:21
Klamath View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/20/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1303
Originally posted by NDhunter NDhunter wrote:

Steve:
 
I find the Van Ginkel transmission tests to be accurate, as I have had several different models in the tests.
The Allbinos transmission results, are scattered all over the place.  And I don't think you
can compare one binoculars results to others.
 
So, you can be quite assured the new Swarovision, is very bright, and it is a
step up over the previous model, in better contrast, brightness, and of course edge performance
as mentioned earlier.   
 
This would be expected from Swarovski.

The more I look at van Ginkel's tests, the more he seems to be too low on some.  I know all about the warts and knobs on Allbinos tests, which is why I was not buying into the Allbino's # of 94+% light transmission on the EL.  If I might ask, how do you know he's accurate?  What methods do you use to corroborate his data?

I've seen the new Swarovision numerous times, so yes I know it's bright.  So are a lot of binoculars.  Chasing the holy grail of light transmission has its follies as far as I can see.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/27/2013 at 07:06
FrankD View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: November/11/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 686
Somewhat related to the discussion at hand, I am surprised by the original EL's daylight transmission number. From earlier light transmission data published several years ago I thought the original EL's numbers were in the higher 80's. To see them listed at 85 really shocks me because even the originals utilized dielectric coatings on the prisms, didn't they? They also had Swaro's best antireflective coatings on all of the lenses.
 
From what I remember of those earlier tests some binoculars such as the Nikon Premier/Venturer/LX and the Leica Trinovids had daylight transmission numbers around 82/83 percent. I would have expected the original ELs to be in the 88-89% range.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/27/2013 at 07:16
NDhunter View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: September/15/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 418
Originally posted by Klamath Klamath wrote:

Originally posted by NDhunter NDhunter wrote:

Steve:
 
I find the Van Ginkel transmission tests to be accurate, as I have had several different models in the tests.
The Allbinos transmission results, are scattered all over the place.  And I don't think you
can compare one binoculars results to others.
 
So, you can be quite assured the new Swarovision, is very bright, and it is a
step up over the previous model, in better contrast, brightness, and of course edge performance
as mentioned earlier.   
 
This would be expected from Swarovski.

The more I look at van Ginkel's tests, the more he seems to be too low on some.  I know all about the warts and knobs on Allbinos tests, which is why I was not buying into the Allbino's # of 94+% light transmission on the EL.  If I might ask, how do you know he's accurate?  What methods do you use to corroborate his data?

I've seen the new Swarovision numerous times, so yes I know it's bright.  So are a lot of binoculars.  Chasing the holy grail of light transmission has its follies as far as I can see.
Steve:
As far as these tests, I would surely not know if they are low, but if performed on the same
measuring equipment, that is what is important.  I have owned several of the models listed on
these tests, including Kahles, Swarovski, and Zeiss, and the transmission numbers seem to
be accurate, and most users of these I believe would agree, these numbers are no surprise.
 
I am only commenting on personal experience, as I only like to comment on things I've owned and
used. 
 
How do your own findings disagree with these tests?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/27/2013 at 14:33
Klamath View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/20/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1303
Jerry,

My feelings are expressed mostly like yours.  I believe what I see.  As far as light transmission tests go, while I see their data, I'm not sure how far to believe it.  For two instances, Allbinos tested the Swarovski EL at 94.5%.  I did not believe that then, nor do I now.  As far as van Ginkel's test it seems to me that the results for the Steiner Peregrine are pretty low, and I'm pretty sure I don't believe that that binocular only transmits 81%.  

Side by side with the Peregrine and the EL, with the color balance being about equal between the two, the brightness looks to be equal.  If indeed it takes say 2-3% light transmission to be noticeable, than there should be at least twice that difference between the Peregrines and the Swarovski's, so the Peregrine should appear dimmer than the EL, but it does not.  I do think the SV does appear brighter than either, but the contrast and color balance is different too. That is just what my eyes tell me, and that is not a bench test result.  I also don't think you are safe taking manufacturer's figures at face value either.

Clay Taylor, the Swarovski rep at our local Winter Wings festival told me the SLC-HD is designed to transmit up to 2% more light over the SV in low light scenarios.  I don't know if that is Swarovski selling the glass to hunters, or the real deal.

Now as to "appearing dimmer", I think the "apparent" terminology is a trap in and of itself, and I personally don't like to see it.  My take on an image is that what we see is like a three legged stool. The image is the seat.  The three legs are 1- resolution capability of the instrument; 2- Coatings (to include their effect on contrast an color balance); and 3- light transmission.  The cross supports between the three legs are 1- quality, 2- design, and 3- workmanship.  So the image is going to be "apparently" different to different  eyes.  I can see no use in using it because what I like somebody else may not.  I think everybody jumps to the erroneous conclusion the "brighter image" is the result of light transmission improvement.  That may well play a role, but there is a lot more going on inside the binocular.

So, I suppose when my eyes tell me that a binocular is bright enough to satisfy me, I just tend to believe what I see and generally don't even look to the light transmission data.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/27/2013 at 15:06
JGRaider View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: February/06/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1512
Not directed at anyone here, but I think people tend to put way too much faith in all these tests, whether from a manufacturer, independent lab, retailer, or whomever.  The obvious real test should be with our own eyes.  I just saw an advertisement on CL of NY in regards to the light transmission of the Meopta 8x32---"Premium grade precision optical system is fully multi-coated with MeoBrite 550 Ion Assisted lens coatings for 99.8 percent light transmission."

That's got to be some kind of record.  
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/27/2013 at 15:08
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 15452
Originally posted by JGRaider JGRaider wrote:

... for 99.8 percent light transmission."


Per lens surface.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/27/2013 at 15:50
JGRaider View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: February/06/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1512
That's what is should have said Rifle, but inside the quotes is exactly what it says.  
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/27/2013 at 17:28
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 15452
I know. And the "per lens" concept still applies even when used in the context of the entire sentence in quotations. They're talking about the efficiency of their lens coatings, i.e. their MB550 coatings permit each lens to transmit 99.8% available light. Whether or not that's b.s. (and I happen to believe it is, but that's a whole other topic), that's what they mean. So, say, for example, an optic has 12 lenses. With 2 lens surfaces per, you have 24 X .2 = 4.8. In that example, given no other losses elsewhere, you'd have 4.8% total loss or 95.2% transmission.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/27/2013 at 18:07
NDhunter View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: September/15/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 418
I can agree with what everyone has posted on the subject, and have no objections.
 
I posted about the experience I have with the Swaros. as mentioned in the original post. 
The Ginkel review, does have merit and backs up some transmission numbers, about many common binoculars. 
And going back to the question about the orig. Swaro. EL vs. the Swarovision, you can take your
pick, both very good, and among the top 2 handfuls on the market today. Smile
 
There are many fine binoculars on the market today.  And most every maker has improvements in
the new models. 
 
Jerry 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/27/2013 at 20:50
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 15452
I wouldn't be surprised if improved dielectric prism coatings are more responsible for the transmission improvements in today's upper crust binos than enhanced lens coatings. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/28/2013 at 08:19
JGRaider View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: February/06/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1512
I believe the same is true for mid priced stuff, which is one reason the $500-$1000 class of binos are so good.  The days of "having" to spend $1500 for exceptionally good binoculars are gone.
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "8.4x42 EL swarobright vs swarovision"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
There are no similar posts.


This page was generated in 0.200 seconds.