Telescope Reviews: Swarovski 10x50 SLC

Wes,

Glad to hear the 804s were useful to you. I still own a pair myself and use them for both stargazing and birding.

Fiske and I just returned from an extended birding expedition in Florida to look for the legendary ivory-billed woodpecker.

We got very excited when we spotted not just one but a group of them, but when they didn’t move, we crept closer for a better look and were disappointed about what we found – wooden replicas attached to a tree used as signs to advertise a local restaurant (Eat at Ivory Woods Restaurant, Next Exit Off I-275 :-).

Searching for the perfect binoculars is like the search for the illusive ivory-billed woodpecker. Just when you think you finally found the perfect binoculars, you take a closer look, and it turns out to be an illusion. As long as you realize, as you do, that perfect optics are impossible to find in a fast optical system such as binoculars (not sure it’s possible in any optical system, but that’s another discussion), then the pursuit of perfection is the goal, not perfection itself. Or as Buddha might have put it: Becoming is superior to being.

I can understand both the fun and fascination of comparing binoculars of different types and configurations. I do this myself. In fact, I wrote a 4-way comparison using my 8x32 SE, 8x30 E2, 8x50 Octarem, and 8x32 LX. Took me a long time to do my testing and write up my review, but before I finished my computer had a fatal crash, and Poof! it was gone. I may have a back-up copy of some version of it on zip disk, but my new computer doesn’t support the Iomega 250 drive, so I will have to wait until Microsoft creates that update to find out (they already have the Io 100 drivers). I didn’t write down the “data” (which is not at the level of Edz’s data, of course) but still useable, I think.

As long as you don’t lament that your birding binoculars aren’t as good as your astronomy binoculars because they don’t have as good edges, or vice versa, your astronomy binoculars don’t have a good close focus, and realize that they were designed the way they were because of their intended purpose, or in the case of cheaper binoculars, to cut costs, then it’s fine and dandy to compare apples to oranges or even applies to kumquats.

I agree with Edz’s statement below except for the last sentence:

It’s not that the “data” presented in Edz's reports and reviews and other CNers bin reviews aren’t useful to birders (unless they are written over their heads), but rather that the data are incomplete.

Ed’s small bins reports do not include “data” on overall sharpness (combination of resolution and contrast), contrast, color saturation, apparent brightness, flare, how many turns from close focus to infinity, hang, waterproofing, fog proofing, and ergonomics - issues important to birders, but not so much for stargazers.

I personally don’t care to know if binoculars can withstand a dunking and then freezing in the fridge, but some birders do, and hunters like this test too, because they are often outside in the winter when freezing rain can turn to ice within minutes.

Some of these qualities can be quantified, others either can’t or I’m not so sure about. Perhaps this is the reason that birders rely on seasoned bird optics reviewers’ opinions, because some “qualities” are difficult to “quantify”.

Fiske, how would you rate the 8x30 E2’s “hang” on a scale of 1-5? Or should it be 1-10? If there are no standards, it’s fairly meaningless “data”. OTOH, saying that the E2s hang at an angle of about 45 degrees and poke you in the chest as you walk so that you have to hold them down with one hand, THAT’s useful information to me.

Even more useful is the fix: Take the strap (I have an EO neoprene strap) and loop it through the center post rather than the strap connectors. Not only does it make the bins hang straight down (or nearly, depending on the size of your belly :-), but it also gets the strap near the connectors out of the way of your thumbs and hands (though you may have to push the strap toward the edge of the center post, I taped the straps at the middle of the center post, and this keeps them away from my hands.

So to repeat my earlier point -- many optics issues relevant to birders are not part of Edz’s “data” or other CN reviewers “data” or reviews, and thus the need for a CN forum where such issues are evaluated and discussed.

And that could be this forum; it doesn’t need to be Cloudy Days. The title of this forum is “Binoculars” not “Astronomy Binoculars” and birding optics are being evaluated here, so why not?

Don’t worry Ed, I’m not here to give you grief, or hijack this thread, but merely to add another POV to the discussion, and I apologize for my derisive comments on CD last month.

The sum it up, my first point was to illustrate the need for more relevant "data" and more discussions of birding optics on the CN bin forum, particularly since birding optics are being discussed here much more than they are on Cloudy Days.

My second point, is that I see far too often that for those who do "eyeball" evaluations of birding optics and don't share the same "data" as experts who bench test optics are often dismissed as not useful or incorrect.

Birders use binoculars in the hand, not on the bench, and at low powers, not boosted powers, so what they see is what they get.

If they can only see 65% to the edge with their focus accommodation, and others see the different values, that doesn't invalidate their observations, it just means that for them that's the best their eyes can do. And that will be true for many people, particularly in their age group, in this example.

Is that incorrect or non-useful "data"? I don't think so, because it tells me that the bin being evaluated has a good deal of field curvature, and that I may not be able to see as much of the edges as I would ideally like. Caveat Emptor!

I just use this example, because it is mentioned earlier in this thread, but it could be other bin qualities being measured.

Close focus distances can vary from person to person too. So can depth of field perception and usable ER.

The best you can do sometimes is work with average results.

That's not something a scientifically minded person likes to hear, and frankly, it's not what I want to hear either, I wish all qualities of optics could be standardized, so I could make purchasing decisions based solely on reviews since I live far from optics stores.

But in practice, "averaging" is what most of us have live with when it comes to choosing optics even when we know what the values are measured on the bench.

Optics issues relevant to birders and hunters are discussed on Birdforum, and they do have experts such as Kimmo and Henry chiming in from time to time with hard data, but sometimes days or weeks pass when there is no or very little activity on the BF brand binoculars forums.

If anyone hasn't visited BF binoculars forums, they are divided into 11 major manufacturers (from Leica to Bushnell to Minox – it’s not alphabetical, as you noticed) and one forum for “Other” binoculars.

Below the brand forums are a various threads related to binoculars, which are usually more active than the brand threads.

Check it out to get a feel for what topics are discussed:

Birdforum Bincoculars Forums

Btw, Wes, if you were wondering what gear Fiske and I were wearing while stalking the ivory-billed woodpeckers, here’s a photo:

Big Foot Suit

This outfit also works well for stalking the Abominable Snowman and Big Foot. :-)

Brock