Swarovski's New Binoculars??
No word as of yet. Will let you know when I get something definite.
Yes, have tested a 7x42 EDG prototype and we currently have an 8x42 and a 7x42 EDG on the shelf.
Cannot honestly see how a binocular can get any better than the EDG. The 7x42 I tested had the best optical score, especially resolution, of any 7x42 I have ever tested. Edge sharpness, contrast, brightness - the EDG has it all covered. Build quality was lifetime throughout. Nikon has definitely upped the ante on all the premium Euro binoculars on the market. If I actually needed another binocular, I would find a way to buy an EDG. If an 8x32 EDG comes my way, my bank account is in trouble. It's a binocular addicts dream.
I am quite happy with the 8x32s I have. I go and look for wawrblers and forget about the brand I have in hand. I always sondered why no 8x32 Monarch was made. Did not like the 8x36.
http://www.opticsplanet.com/nikon-8x32- ... -7563.html
Yes, I know they are out there. What I meant was that when we get one in stock and I get to drool on it, I will be in trouble. Just a matter of time before one comes through.
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:28 am
I agree. Will cost a lot of body parts, but they wouldn't be a Swaro, otherwise. Something to look forward to.
Has anyone looked through the HD's
What does it mean to call your glasses "HD" anyway... is they're specs or parameters that cause one glass to qualify and another not?
Sorry I"m skeptical, but until I know what the difference is, I will suspect it could be a new label slapped on the same glass to meet the new advertising slogans "HD".
I"ve seen "labels" tossed around freely in other markets... and the public is aware of the difference of "HD" tv verses not.... so why not capitalize on the meaning that so many already identify with right?
Can anyone shed some real light on this?
Will these glasses actually be "Better" or the same?
Yes, HD (as well as ED) is an actual type of lens glass. It does exist and in most applications will offer an improvement over standard flint/crown objectives in terms of color correction and hence resolution. Its use is becoming more popular in binoculars to achieve that last few percentage points of improvement. Will it improve an already superb objective used in the Swarovsk? I suspect it will, though the difference for many people may not even be noticeable in the field and I doubt very much if it will be worth selling your old EL to get it.
From a marketing perspective, however, it is almost a must for Swarovski, given that all the other premium binos competitors have gone to the use of HD and ED in their premium binos. The fight for the top spot in the binocular world is a fierce and never ending contest. If you want to compete, you have to keep up with the latest technology, no matter how slight the improvement.
We will all have to wait and see at this point.
All in all, just speculation on my part, but always fun for us optic addicts. Keeps things interesting.
So when you say " 3 element", would it stand to reason that its technically harder to achieve the same light transmission through those 3 elements than only needing "2 elements" with the HD configuration?
forgive me if I totally misunderstood your answer... I'm still gleaning quite a bit
Yes, that's essentially the weakness of using a 3 element design - lower light transmission compared to a 2 element design. Keep in mind, though, that we are not talking big percentages, here, but it may be another factor to convince the engineers at Swarovski to go the HD route.
I think the real question is..... "is it better?" or "can it be better, with the same engineering effort involved?
I guess we won't know till its here... I would love to compare both side by side... I have a feeling I won't be able to tell the difference, but only time will tell.
At any rate, I can't conceive that Swarovski would degrade the final quality in a greedy effort to save more money with new technology.
I think it will be at least as good.. if not somehow better.
Concerning the 8.5 X 42
I see a FOV of 399 ft/1000yards with the new design compared to the current 390 ft/1000yards
I also see a minimum focus range of 4.9 ft. compared to 8ft now.
Exit pupil is the same
Subjective apparent FOV is 60, compared to presently 62
Eye relief is 20 compared to 18 presently
FOV degrees is 7.6 compared to 7.4 now
The extra closeness to the minimum focus range is quite interesting.
I wouldn't rate any of those as significant, with the possible exception of close focus and that would likely only be a factor for butterfly watchers. Yes, looking forward to seeing the new model, myself.
I noticed as a lens assembly is longer and more telephoto, the less depth of field is usually the price to pay as well as less ability to see up close.
I realize this is different technology being only 2 lenses, but I was wondering how sheer physics weighed into this?
I doubt it would be significant. There are limitations imposed by a roof prism design. If you want more depth of field, go to a porro prism, which has a greater horizontal distance between the barrels.