Swarovski Roofs
7x42
8x30
10x42
Leupold WindRiver
One of the great mysteries of the past year, for me, has been the new Swarovski roof prism binoculars. Within weeks of the introduction of the 7 and 10X42s I began to hear very positive comments. Some birders were actually excited about these binoculars. Yet when I finally managed to get the 7X42s to test for the August 1993 issue, I was less than impressed. Optically, they simply were not up to the rest of the best. Over the year since, any number of birders whose opinion I respect and trust have continued to give unsolicited testimonials to the quality of both the 7X42 and 10X42 glasses. Obviously something was amiss. When I brought the matter up with Swarovski they admitted that I might have gotten an early prototype for testing in 1993. With the introduction of the redesigned 8X30SLC I had an excuse to test the whole Swarovski roof prism line over again.
First some general comments: all three of the new Swarovskis are
completely waterproof, immersion tested, gas filled, binoculars. They
come as close to being weatherproof as any binoculars can. At this
price point, they set a standard that I think all manufacturers
should be expected to meet. All the new models share the same
essential body design. The covering is lightly textured with just a
slight give or squishableness that is very comfortable in the hands.
The bodies are intelligently contoured to fit average fingers. The
eyecups are exceptional (see comments under the 7X42s below). All in
all, the new line shows a good deal of attention to ease of use and
comfort. A very good effort on Swarovski's part.
Right out of the box it was obvious that this was a distinctly different binoculars than I had tested in 1993. The image indeed appeared, as reported, exceptionally bright and crispÐit is the kind of image that is immediately impressive (high "Whooow!" factor). The body is nicely balanced and fits the (my) hands well, but the glasses are on the heavy side. While the woven strap that comes with the binoculars is adequate, these glasses are definite candidates for specialized support systems. Swarovski sells a wide foam strap, or I found the Link to be comfortable. Despite the weight, the balance of the binoculars makes a steady image quite possible. The eyecups are the pop in, pop out variety, similar to the Leica Ultras, except that the surface that meets the face (or your glasses) on the Swarovskis has a comfortable amount of cushioningÐvery nice. I found the eyerelief, with the cups completely retracted, to be a bit too long for meÐI experienced continual blackout problems until I wrapped a large rubber band around each eyecup barrel to keep them out about a quarter of an inch. I am all for long eyerelief, and I think the pop in/out eyecups, especially as implemented by Swarovski, are far preferable to roll down rubber, but I do wish that makers of long eyerelief glasses would provide a way to adjust the eyecup height precisely to match different birder's needs. Click stops on the pop up eyecups would make a world of difference, or perhaps a simple twist to loosen, slide in, twist to tighten mechanism. I find that I simply can not comfortably use binoculars that have an eyerelief so long that the image blacks out. It drives me to distraction.
On the bench, tested resolution is a respectable 4.0 arc seconds and image quality is excellent, however, the 7X42s show an abnormally large amount of uncorrected chromatic aberration. Out of focus color makes a rainbow of the resolution chart on both sides of focus. In our preliminary Color Extinction test the 7X42s did very well, with a score that placed them among the best of the best in our test. They did not, however, show anything like the extra brightness that you might expect from initial impressions in the field. See the comments on contrast and brightness above. Their twilight resolution score was also far off the mark of the best in the test, though still quite respectable.
In extended use in the field, the 7X42s continued to be impressive. After a time it becomes clear that what appears to be exceptional brightness is, in fact, exceptional contrast, and a slightly warm color bias. The anti-reflective coatings used are perhaps the most efficient I have yet seen. You can literally have full sun falling right on the objective and see little or no degrading of the image do to flare. Though the 7X42s are far more neutral in color than past Swarovski efforts, there is still a very slight bias toward the yellowÐa kind of golden glow that adds to the impression of brightness, without, however, actually delivering any more usable color to your eye (see Color Extinction test above).
I found myself always wishing for just a little more power. The 7X image yields as much detail as the eye can use, in most situations, but, to me, it is just a little small to be completely satisfying (that is a fault of the power more than these particular glasses). The field of view is exceptional, as is depth of field, coming very close the ideal of matching the natural focused attention of the unaided brain/eye. That, of course, gives the glasses an exceptionally easy view (once you get the eyecups at the proper distance for your eyes). The focus placement is good, far enough out so that a hat brim doesn't get seriously in the way and easy to reach with the fingers of either hand. Focus ease and precision are excellent. Diopter adjustment is on a separate locking ring concentric with the focus ring.
The 7X42s have a lot going for them. Excellent optics,
weatherproofness, exceptional handling. For some reason, I still
can't quite give them the Reference Standard in the 7 to 8X full
sized binoculars class. My feeling is that, except on rainy, cold,
foggy days, I would still pick up the Zeiss 7X42s more often. Perhaps
another factor is that the 10X42 Swarovskis (see below) are simply so
much better, that I still feel that Swarovski has not maximized the
7-8X design. If they come out with 8X42 that matches the optical
quality of the 10X42, I will be first in line to buy one!
As regular readers of BVD know, I am fascinated by the
possibilities of the mid-sized binoculars class. I believe it should
be possible to produce an 8X30-35 binoculars that would provide all
the performance a birder needs and do it in a relatively light
weight, compact package that would be a joy to carry in the field.
The Leica Ultra 8X32 comes very close to meeting that idea, so close
that it is my current pick for best all around birding binoculars. I
was eager to see what the redesigned Swarovski 8X30 could do. First,
the Swarovski effort is nicer to hold, easier to handle in the field.
The covering is better, the eyecups are better, the focus on the
front is easier to get at once you get used to it. Optically, they
are also excellent, with a measured resolution of 4.0 arc seconds.
For most birding, the 8X30s would be completely satisfying. However,
my impression is that the Leicas still have the edge in extreme
conditions. While no current mid-sized binoculars equal the
performance of the big glasses at distance, in shadow, or in
twilight, the Leicas still come just a bit closer than the
Swarovskis. (I have not yet been able to test the Leicas on my Color
Extinction and Twilight Resolution tester, so I am going by memory
and general impressions hereÐmore later!) Would I buy and use the
Swarovskis, knowing that? I have recently seen the Swarovski 8X30s at
such an attractive price, from several reputable mail order optics
outlets, that I might find them very hard to resist! These are fine
glasses. They would not replace your full sized glasses in critical
situations, but for general birding, they are certainly very nice to
carry in the field.
Which brings us, as they say, to the best of the bunch! I don't like
10X binoculars. I find them too difficult, too uncomfortable to use
for extended periods in the field. I am convinced that you see more,
over time, through excellent 8X glasses than you ever will through
10X glasses. I say all that so that you will appreciate the impact of
this next: I like the Swarovski 10X42s, and, what is more, I would
certainly use them for my primary, day in and day out, birding
binoculars.
Part of it is, of course, the excellent optics. On the bench they
measure right up there with the best optics I have yet tested, coming
within a tenth of an arc second of the Swift Audubon 8.5X44s. Image
quality is excellent. Contrast, as you might expect from the comments
under the 7X42s, is exceptional. On the Color Extinction test they do
as well as the 7X42s, and on Twilight Resolution they score higher by
a factor of two than any other binoculars I had available for
testing! These are exceptional optics.
It has more to do, however, with their handling features. They are
exceptionally well balancedÐit is easier to hold them steady than
most high power binoculars, but the real source of their ease of use
is the combination of wide field and exceptional depth of field. They
simply do not have the finicky, restricted, focus I associate with
high power binoculars. They are easy and natural to look through.
(For some unknown reason they lack the locking diopter ring of the
8X30 and 7X42, though it appears to be the same concentric ring. It
does seem to stay put well even without the lock.)
The real kicker though is the addictive nature of the large image.
Admittedly the 10X image does not deliver significantly more detail
to the eye in most situations, but it is certainly attractive. The
bird is big! Without the handling drawbacks of most high power
binoculars, that big bird effect makes it very hard to go back to 8X
or 7X binoculars. Yes, I do experience somewhat more fatigue using
the 10X42s than I do with 8.5X or 7X glasses, but, with these
glasses, it is worth it! I would still love to see what an 8X42
Swarovski would be like, but for now the 10X glasses are fine indeed.
Given their waterproofness, their exceptional resolution, and their
twilight performance, I have to give them the Reference Standard for
high power binoculars. The Celestron 9.5X44s are still slightly
better at extracting color detail, appear just a shade brighter in
the field (though with lower contrast), and have a very good feel in
the hands, but, overall, the Swarovskis edge them out. I would not
carry the Celestrons as my day to day birding binocularsÐI would
carry the Swarovskis, and that, to me, says a whole lot about their
general quality and field worthiness!
Leupold and Stevens are well know in the hunting community. Their rifle scopes, in particular, have long been thought of as top of the line products. They produce some interesting compact spotting scopes (which I hope to review in a future issue), and they have pretty much always included binoculars in their line. Until now, though, they were not really suitable for birding. L&S;have evidently targeted the birding market as an area of expansion (they were a major presence at the ABA convention this past summer) and have introduced a line of imported binoculars, the WindRiver series, that they are pitching particularly to birders. I was able to test the 8X32 and the 10X42 center focus models for this issue.
I have often said that moderately priced roof prism binoculars are the most difficult product anyone could try to make. The constraints of the design can not really be effectively overcome except by very costly manufacturing techniques and materials. Particularly, no roof prism binoculars without phase coating are going to equal the performance of porroprism glasses often selling for quite a bit less. Still, given the marketing appeal of the roof prism design, people will try. L&S;have actually done pretty well. By using full multicoating they have minimized the drawbacks of the design, and they have been able to build in quite a number of positive features. Both binoculars are attractively rubber armored in black, employ internal center focusing, are water-resistant, and fully multicoated. Both are also quite light weight and compact, with the 10X42s being exceptional for their class. At this price point you can't expect phase coated prisms, and the lack of phase coating is evident, both in the field and on the bench.
Both binoculars have the same tested resolution at 4.7 arc seconds. That is a respectable performance without coming close to the best of the competition. Neither have particularly good image quality (test bars are fuzzy even at maximum resolution). It is the lack of image quality that effects their field performance more than resolution. The 10X42s have quite respectable scores in both the Color Extinction and Twilight Resolution tests. The 8X32s don't fair very well in either test.
In the field, while both glasses have a nice feel, and are easy to carry, neither is exceptionally easy to use. The fields are fairly narrow, limited eyerelief (more limited than the figures indicate) restricts them even further, and the depth of field and close focus are only adequate.
Are they worth a look? If you need weather-resistant glasses for back upÐfor those rainy, cold, foggy days when your main binoculars would be useless in 10 minutesÐand you don't want to spend a bundle, then the WindRivers will certainly fill your need and keep you birding when you might otherwise be tempted to stay at home. Don't expect them to equal the performance of $1000 roof prisms, or even that of $250 porros, and you will not be disappointed. At the price, the WindRivers are undoubtedly a good value in roof prism binoculars. If your binoculars use is less demanding than birding, if you are going to use the binoculars primarily for hunting or sight-seeing, then I would have no problem recommending the WindRivers.
My advice to Leupold and Stevens (or any other maker trying for
the birding market): don't try for moderately priced roof prisms. Try
for exceptional roof prisms that will sell for $100 to $200 less than
the current bestÐor try for an exceptional, light weight,
compact, weatherproof porro glass than hits the $300 price point.
Either would sell to birders. It would not take much to make the
WindRivers competitive: phase coating and slightly better
eyepiecesÐat what cost, I don't know. (WindRiver
Pros?ÐWindRiver Birders? Stranger things have happened. It took
Swift two tries to get the Audubons right.)