Telescope Reviews: Swarovski 10x50 SLC

Fiske,

Well, I can't answer your last question since the only Swaro I've tried is mooreorless's 7x30 SL and that's 30 years old (and darn good I might add for a non-p coated roof). Hate the pinky focuser but like the ergonomics much better than my LX.

I didn't test it for CA against my porros, because as I mentioned ealier, I've STOPPED testing for CA, because if I do see it, I'm likely to keep looking for it (my OCD kicks in :-).

As far as the trade-offs, I would refer you back to the edge performance link I posted to Ingrham's z-birding Website where he says that Zeiss bins are designed for the widest FOV and the best sharpness at the center of the field.

How those design criteria affect CA, I couldn't say, but it would be a very good question to ask Stephen on z-birding! It could be part of the reason why Zeiss added FL glass.

Ugh, darn jumping cursor on my laptop ate my post. I will have to start all over again!!!

This time I will write in Word and then paste. This tiny message window drives me nuts anyway. Have to scroll down to see what I just wrote. Talk about a narrow AFOV!

Okay. Yes, you surmised correctly, I notice the CA most when I’m looking at birds against a snowy background. The most typical situation is when birds are eating sunflower seeds that have fallen from my tube feeder (some get knocked down there, and some are dropped by titmice, which seem to be fussy eaters, they take one seed out, don’t like it, and drop it on the ground, and then take another, and if they like it, fly away to a nearby branch to eat it).

In this situation, I set the IPD closer to see a circle so the IPD setting may also have something to do with the amount of CA.

However, even when watching birds at a distance in the winter, a hawk against a gray, wintery sky, or a crow perched on a branch with the sky in the background, I see more CA with the LX than I do with any of my porros.

So many reviewers, including “experts,” have commented on the CA in the LX series that I have to conclude there something more going on than all of them not setting their IPD properly.

When I first started birding, I noticed that 8 out 10 complaints about CA were made by owners of roof prism bins, so I concluded ipso facto that roof bins had inherently more CA than porros.

But as I become more experienced and knowledgeable about optics, I realized that 8 out of 10 birders use roofs rather than porros and that most of them have mid-priced roofs, which generally are not as well corrected for CA as porros or top tier roofs.

And mid-priced roofs generally have a narrower FOV than same configuration birding porros and alpha roofs. So users were more likely to notice the CA at the edges since the edges are closer to their central vision than in an 8-8.8* FOV bin.

To be thorough, you also have to consider that not all bins by the same manufacturer even at the top level were created equally.

For example, I’ve seen more complaints about CA from Ultravid owners (original, not HD version) than I have from Trinovid owners.

But to be even more thorough, you have to consider that not everyone is as sensitive to CA as others are.

For example, here’s a birder who sees no difference between the CA in the original Ultravid vs. the HD model:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=103993

Notice he’s comparing two 10x32s, and if there’s any configuration you are likely to see CA, it’s this one.

Also note that earlier he saw low CA in his 10x32 Ultravid but on the day he tested the old version vs. the new version, he saw none "no matter where he looked" despite it being a December day.

He was having a good CA day. :-)

Here's a battle of the HD/XD/FLs. Some interesting posts on that thread about over design criteria vs. adding ED elements:
CA Leica Ultravid HD

So even users' perceptions of a high quality bins can change from day to day, and from one weather/lighting condition to another, and from one alpha bin to another.

So when I look at a bench test review and compare that to a review by someone who has owned the binoculars for two years and used them day in day out in the field, it’s not surprising that even when talking about the same qualities, they might get different results, and no surprise at all, that they might "weight" those results differently than an astronomer would who mounts his bins on a tripod and the only seagulls he sees are off-axis. :-)

To me, there is no test so revealing for birding binoculars as those performed in the field over a period of months under different lighting and weather conditions, at different times, and at best, with different users.

Another analogy. Ever read Car & Driver reports? They have two kinds. One is the equivalent to the “bench test” for optics. They take a car out on a racing track and put it through its paces. Then come back with “data” such as how well it does in the slalom, how fast it goes from 0-60 mph, how much torque the engine has, how much horsepower, how far the breaking distance is at 55 mph, etc.

I don’t drive on a test track, but I can take some of that data and extrapolate it to my normal driving conditions. But better yet is the long-term tests they do when they lease a car for six months, do an initial track test, and then after six months, give you a summary of how it held up in actual driving conditions. Sometimes, their initial impression of the car as tested on the track changes when they actually ride the car “in the field”.

Not that the data changes much, but their evaluation of what matters most to a commuter POV vs. a R/T POV.

I keep hammering the same point over and over, looking at it from different perspectives, and using different analogies, and I realize that some people will never get the gist of what I’m saying or they will get it and deny that it has any validity

To that I say, poppycock! No, just kidding, I say "to each his own”.

--------------------
B'rock, son of Grilka
Member of the House of Kozak
Klingon Poet-Warrior
----------------------------------------------
"The character of a Klingon poet-warrior is measured not only by the metal of his blade--but also by the mettle of his words."

Post Extras: