Am I the only one?

[TheGDog]

I skipped some of the posts here towards the end of the 2nd pageful, but having recently upgraded from having Vortex DiamondBack and Vulture... to now having Zeiss Conquest 10 and 15... another HUGE advantage is beautiful Depth of Field!!

So for Depth of field.... um... kind of think about it like the slices of the image you see in an MRI series. When you have a nice and deep Depth of Field, it's like being able to see the most number of MRI slices all glommed together without having to do anywhere near as much fussing with the focus knob.

Like the Vultures? Comparatively speaking they had a very narrow Depth of Field to them... so.. it costs you more time to verify an area has nothing in it since you have to fish a lil bit in front of and behind the initial point of aim you pointed the binos at each time you move the head on your tripod. (EDIT: when the surface you're pointing at is more horizontal in nature, obviously a super-steep hillside this benefit might be less impactful)

Your eyes and brain are presented that much more image data at a whack, so your efficiency at detecting stuff within the FOV goes significantly up!

 

[smokinbobf4]

Thanks all! I still am not sure what to do but this has helped immensely! And the fact that the thread hasn’t derailed is a huge plus! Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BigCountry49]

If casually using binoculars out to 300 yards your not missing a lot (if anything) keeping your Mavens. The differences in bin quality becomes noticed when you use them in larger open spaces for longer time periods. Even then the differences between $700-$1000 and $2000 bins are very slight. Alpha bins are a luxury of hunting but not a necessity for finding game. I know hunters with $300 bins that can find game faster than others using $3000 bins.

 

[smokinbobf4]

I live in North Dakota and do bow hunt in oak trees but I don’t need great glass for that. Rifle hunting I am in rolling pasture land, then I go out to the badlands for mule deer, and Montana for elk. The more I go, the more I see a benefit from glassing and have really enjoyed picking apart an area and would like to have decent glass. Just hard with all the options to know what to get. Most of the people around me, other than the guy that borrowed me his pures, have cheaper binos than me so not much chance for trying a bunch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smokinbobf4]

Does anyone have an opinion of the swaro slc? I have been doing some research and those come up an awful lot. A lot of talk about them being better in low light. It does t look like they make the 10x42 anymore, but maybe a could find a used set.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rob5589]

A $3200 12x compared to a $300 10x isn't a fair comparison due to the exit pupil??? For 2900 more that NL better do everything better.

 

[handwerk]

I think if you could find some used SLC's you'd be very happy and likely content, personally I enjoy using top tier binos and would choose to save money elsewhere.

 

[antlerz]

I tried to use a premium 10x32 as my primary binocular (3.2mm exit pupil). Then I used a good 8x42 alongside (10 yrs older). Although the 10x32 had amazing optics (as Im sure the 12x42 has) the 8x42 had advantages of easier eye placement, less glare, brighter view, more central FOV, more depth of field, and you could keep your eyes behind the glass longer and spot more animals for 1/2 the cost.
If the format you are using doesn't match the type of use its suited for it might not meet expectations as per the first post. When your fishing, there is a saying 'dont forget to fish your feet' Loads of hunting involves moderate distances where a 12x42 may not be optimal.
Sometimes less is more.

 

[nobody]

We've beat the notion of 10x42 vs 12x42 handily here, so I won't add to that. However, I think you're asking a fair question. All of us have to ask ourselves where that point of diminishing returns is with optics in general. And only your eyes can tell you where that point is. But you are doing the right thing in making that jump once rather than incrementally. I posted the scenario below in another thread, but I think it bears repeating here. Essentially what is laid out below is the best "buy once cry once" scenario that we should all strive for, in my opinion:

Here's something to consider. I always recommend to people that you save for as long as possible and buy less pairs of optics but a better pair of optics each time. If you buy your entry level binos, then a $200 pair, then a $500 pair, then a $700 pair, then a $1000 pair, then a $1200 pair, then an "alpha" level pair, you'll spend so much more money on that last pair in the long run just because of the losses you've taken on sale of your other binoculars.

Here's the math. The first number in each equation is what you buy them for and the second number is what you can realistically sell them for. I'm going to use Vortex's lineup as the main catalyst for this math, just because they have one pair in each of these price categories, but the same can be done swapping in other optics companies.

Diamondback HD's: $260 = $260 (don't sell because you'll need an extra/truck bino) loss
Viper HD's: $500 - $300 = $200 loss
Razor HD's: $1000 - $700 = $300 loss
Razor UHD's: $1500 = $1500 spent

If you add all the totals up, in order to pay for one pair of truck binos and one pair of the UHD's, you've spent $2,260.00. If you just buy the Diamondback's and save until you can afford and buy the UHD's, you're $1760 into the same end result, leaving $500 for tags and other gear upgrades along the way.

Again, you can swap in Leupold Alpines on the low end and Swarovski NL's on the upper end. But if you spend tons of money buying just small incremental increases, you'll end up spending so much more money to get to the end result of one backup pair and one high end pair.

Not everybody needs or wants alpha glass either, so that top end of where you'll spend money will change depending on what you want from your optics. But the concept holds true. If you are plenty happy with a $500 pair, then buy as few pairs to get to the $500 pair as possible and spend the other money on more gear and tags.

 

[antlerz]

We've beat the notion of 10x42 vs 12x42 handily here, so I won't add to that. However, I think you're asking a fair question. All of us have to ask ourselves where that point of diminishing returns is with optics in general. And only your eyes can tell you where that point is. But you are doing the right thing in making that jump once rather than incrementally. I posted the scenario below in another thread, but I think it bears repeating here. Essentially what is laid out below is the best "buy once cry once" scenario that we should all strive for, in my opinion:

Here's something to consider. I always recommend to people that you save for as long as possible and buy less pairs of optics but a better pair of optics each time. If you buy your entry level binos, then a $200 pair, then a $500 pair, then a $700 pair, then a $1000 pair, then a $1200 pair, then an "alpha" level pair, you'll spend so much more money on that last pair in the long run just because of the losses you've taken on sale of your other binoculars.

Here's the math. The first number in each equation is what you buy them for and the second number is what you can realistically sell them for. I'm going to use Vortex's lineup as the main catalyst for this math, just because they have one pair in each of these price categories, but the same can be done swapping in other optics companies.

Diamondback HD's: $260 = $260 (don't sell because you'll need an extra/truck bino) loss
Viper HD's: $500 - $300 = $200 loss
Razor HD's: $1000 - $700 = $300 loss
Razor UHD's: $1500 = $1500 spent

If you add all the totals up, in order to pay for one pair of truck binos and one pair of the UHD's, you've spent $2,260.00. If you just buy the Diamondback's and save until you can afford and buy the UHD's, you're $1760 into the same end result, leaving $500 for tags and other gear upgrades along the way.

Again, you can swap in Leupold Alpines on the low end and Swarovski NL's on the upper end. But if you spend tons of money buying just small incremental increases, you'll end up spending so much more money to get to the end result of one backup pair and one high end pair.

Not everybody needs or wants alpha glass either, so that top end of where you'll spend money will change depending on what you want from your optics. But the concept holds true. If you are plenty happy with a $500 pair, then buy as few pairs to get to the $500 pair as possible and spend the other money on more gear and tags.

Agree - get the best you can. Just be aware and make sure you get the best format otherwise you may not get the gains.

 

[TheGDog]

.Dude... long story shorter.. when you go up to the spendy glass? The better sharper picture you now get? It's like crack for your brain man! Especially as your Vision degrades with age! That better glasses image makes your brain be like "No wait! Don't put it away just yet! I like this because it's better than reality itself!" because it offers you an image you simply would not get with your own eyes due to the coatings enhancing contrast and the better glass giving you that nTh more degree of sharpness at the farther distances.

I spent a lot of time going back and forth tween the Zeiss 10's and the Vulture 15s cause at first I was shocked because it seemed like... the 10s were giving me same magnification as the 15's and I thought How TF is that possible? It's not. The difference was that contrast/sharpness provide more image detail for your brain, so you literally are seeing more data in that FOV.. therefore your brain has more to process.. and your instincts pick up on this fact and get excited by it!

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Does anyone have an opinion of the swaro slc? I have been doing some research and those come up an awful lot. A lot of talk about them being better in low light. It does t look like they make the 10x42 anymore, but maybe a could find a used set.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The SLCs are great. I have them in both 15s and the 10s. No current plans to replace either of them.

Zero issues with extended glassing sessions. Very easy to glass from dawn to dusk without eye strain/fatigue. Clarity has been top notch under a variety of conditions and terrain. Both have been reliable despite taking a ton of abuse.

Choose whichever optic makes the most sense for your eyes and where/how you hunt.

 

[smokinbobf4]

Well without being able to try any others, I almost decided I would like to get the slc 10x42. Lucky for me they are non existent other than a pair on eBay for $2,000. I will keep my eye out for some and continue to research and try any I can find.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JGRaider]

Can't go wrong with Swaro no matter what. My 8x42 SLC's are actually a touch brighter than my 10x50 SV's. Not by much, but it's there. In guiding over 150 hunters over a 16 yr period, I got to see most high end stuff at the time (never saw Noctovids, or SF). The SLC's IMO are one of the top 3 hunting binos on the planet.

 

[Shraggs]

A few years ago I posted an extensive evaluation of the swaro el and meoopta hd in 12x50. At that time pre covid I could afford either. I’m discerning but practical and tried to convey the ever so slight optical advantage was not twice the price. Ergonomics favored the meopta to me also. The only reason I kept the els was my eyeglass prescription needs 16mm of clearance where the meopta suffered. In my case it was worth 1500 bucks. My ZEISS 8x42 victory have good eye relief as does most of their glass. Point there are some other considerations. I certainly would not compare different powers. I think getting older may really need the better glass and better eye relief. I agree with many meopta remains the best blend of value and performance if the eye relief works for you. The Nikon hg is killer for the price as mentioned, mavens too. If I’m truly budget focused the first thing I would do is stay in the smallish size as I feel 8x42 even 32 seem more forgiving on optical performance vs bigger glass and power. That’s an opinion. I have lots of good glass, but one surprise is a 6x30 leupold Yosemite. Perfect in the timber, folks are stunned when they look thru a $80 (at the time). One friend bought the 10x30 - guess what it sucked. Not high quality components with poor light transmission. The 6s gathered lots of light. If your goal is higher power, 10s to an extent certainly 12 and 15 to me that really narrows the options I would consider, but it’s not exclusive swaro territory.

 

[Shraggs]

JGRider, I agree. I should’ve left the SLC out above- used and even new their price point has them in a very competitive place for really good glass.

 

[Spiral Horn]

JG is onto something here. Relative brightness, especially during daylight hours depends on a confluence of many factors. It isn’t purely a matter of exit pupil, although that is certainly one factor that helps.

For example, most would expect all 10x56 binoculars to be exceptionally bright. They are in low-light conditions but that does not necessarily translate into better daytime performance - your eyes are not dilated and there are limits to the amount of raw transmission they can absorb. Here, optical design and the relative grade of components play a big role. A 10x56 with Abbe-Koenig prisms, triplet high-fluoride lens elements and state-of-the-art coatings will not only be exceptionally bright but will likely offer a smidge more detail in the image.

After spending a few weeks with the Maven B6 10x50s I’ve concluded they are exceptionally bright. They easily outperform both my SLC and Victory SF 10x42s at finding critters hidden in the underbrush during low light. IME I would be stunned if they do not have better low-light performance than the 42mm NLs as well. Not saying they are better than the other binos mentioned, but they are a low-light star.

 

[pc3]

Pretty much. If you are a casual hunter or come out west for a hunt here and there you just might not benefit from the expensive stuff. If though you spend hours and hours everyday, hunt after hunt then in my world and IMO top tier glass will pay off with some fantastic finds. Those finds do add up to successes over the years. I love my NL 12's but for just hanging around my neck and hand-holding I'm not convinced they are better than having my EL 10's. I bought them to pair with BTX size glass but I'm finding I never put them on a tripod when packing the big glass. I may end up selling them and recoup the $$$ for reasons stated.

I'll second the Meopta's compared to the Swaro 15's. As much as I hate to say it I think in reality you will not lose anything if you are glassing with the Meopta.

I agree...if I was super cashed up of course I would have Swarovski etc.

But what I can afford is at the Meopta price point. I have an S2 Meopta spotter and 10x42 HD bino's I am not "unseeing" anything with that set up I don't feel.

I bought both optics on special and am $1000's cheaper than the equivalent Swarovski optics. In my life there are competing interests;

educating the kids
paying the bills
and putting some $$ away long term so I don't have to work at some stage !

Infact my young son uses vortex DB 8x32 and a Hawke spotter and reality is, he is not missing anything with his set up either !

 

[Tmac]

So here is another question for Formidulous and anyone else who would like to weigh in. What would be the best I could get for around a grand? More or less for that matter. Ergos and really the eye cups are not my favorite on my c.1’s. And I would like to get a new pair even if it’s the the Swaros. I debated the el also since they are cheaper but maybe I shouldn’t even spend that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When I upgraded a few years back my answer to that question was Meopta. I ended up with the Cabela‘s branded version for a great price, same as the Meostar line. I went with the 10x. They worked so well I have since got 15x and their S2 Spotting Scope. All are optically excellent.

 

[Sixgunz]

Does anyone have an opinion of the swaro slc? I have been doing some research and those come up an awful lot. A lot of talk about them being better in low light. It does t look like they make the 10x42 anymore, but maybe a could find a used set.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 10x42 HD SLCs are, IMO, the best binocular on the planet for the money. I am no engineer or optics expert. I base my opinion on looking through binos I've owned or looked through in person.

I recently got a pair of 10x42 NLs...and, yes, they are awesome and they feel wonderful. I must admit the shape of the bodies are addictive once you get used to them. Swarovski hit a home run with this. My only regret is if Swarovski comes out with a 10x42 NL Range model in the next year. But, I wasn't going to not buy them based on something that may never happen.

They are also double the money vs a mint used set of SLCs. Are they worth it? I dunno....that's up to you. I wanted a pair of 10x42s and I have the money to buy whatever I wanted. Yes, I love Zeiss, Kahles and Leica optics and own all of them. I am of the opinion that Swarovski is the gold standard and really wanted the NLs.

ELs are/were out of the question for me because of the optical issues when following a running animal and their flattening lens characteristics. I get the same issues from the overhead HD camera on NFL games. It makes me nauseous.

If you can afford NLs, get em. You won't be disappointed. However, the SLCs are the hidden gem.