Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics duovid vs nikon edg or swarovision

I like the thought of being able to switch powers on the duovids, especially for the backpack hunting I do. However, the optic technology of the duovids are about 10 years old. For the same price I can pick up a Nikon edg, which are supposed to be spectacular, or a swarovision. I don't have any place nearby where I can actually look through these binoculars before I buy. For those who have actually looked through some of these binoculars, is the optical quality of the new generation of binos (edg, swarovision) a noticeable difference over the older duovids?

I'm interested in the 8+12x42 duovids, or 10x42 or 10x50s from other makers.

I haven't looked through any of them, so you might want to keep that mind as you read my comments.
What I have done is look through and own several top quality binoculars. When it come to the very best, you really need to stack them on a solid rest and go quickly between them to see the tiny differences present.
I also have lots of time in the field with them, everything from some pretty good 6X models, some of the best 8X models, and a really good 12X. I've had the oportunity to try out a few top quality 9-10X models as well.
First of all, binoculars with 10X magnification are desired to show detail at extended ranges most of the time. But if the binocular isn't used from a very steady position, a decent 8X will do at least as well. Not only that, a good, heavy 8X model will not tire the eyes nearly as much.
A top quality 12X, again used from a very steady position, can show you stuff that no 10X can.
I might add that a "very steady position" a dead rest, like a tripod, or close to it.
In open country, I often carry a light 6X30 Leupold Yosemite around my neck, and a much heavier 12X50 Leica for my sit down glassing sessions. Or at least a heavy 8X.
For back packing, or when I really need to see antlers or horns, I prefer a light 6X, and a spotting scope w/ a light tripod. E

I always do when reading your posts............

RDFinn,



You made me chuckle out loud.

I've looked through, fondled or owned all of the ones you've mentioned.

If the Duovid and switch power fits exactly what you're looking for, I'd not fret the age on them - they're fantastic.

The EDG is spectacular. If you plan on owning them for life, they're a splendid pick. If you think for a second you may move them at some point - you'll take a serious bath on them. They don't carry the brand joie de vivre as some other popular brands and Nikon CS is a hit or miss proposition - mostly miss.

For that reason alone, if you've narrowed it to "latest/greatest" technology, I'd choose the Swarovski without hesitation. (not to mention it's a top-of-the-heap bino)

Also, don't rule out a Leica Ultravid in the X's you're interested in.

I would not buy a Swarovision until you look through/use one and make sure the globe effect/rolling ball distortion caused by the field flattening lenses does not bother you. I could not tolerate it and sold mine, never looked back.

My pick would be the current Swarovski SLC or a Zeiss Victory HT over the Nikon or Leica you mentioned.

The SLC is a best buy at the moment, the Zeiss HT has a similar view with slightly better brightness but totally different handling. The Leica Ultravid HD plus is also in this catagory.

The new Zeiss Victory SF is the competition to the EDG and Swarovision with field flattening lenses with more edge pincushion distortion to reduce the globe effect. It also has the largest FOV in the industry. If price is not an issue be sure to check out the SF.

The 8-12 duovids appeal to me because of the large exit pupil at 8x42 for dawn/dusk with the option of 12 power for picking apart animals, especially when packing in someplace, which is how most of my hunting is done.

That being said, is the light transmission of the duovids on par with some of the other models mentioned above? The low light is the only reason I really would want the 8x42.

There are always slight differences in apparent brightness (not always due to light transmission in itself) even in various binoculars of the same brand. But I have been using the 8+12 Duovids for some years and have yet to encounter a situation where I wished for another binocular because the Duovid was too dim, and I also own several other top brands.

Have also noticed over the years that many people love to chase tiny differences in optical quality, while the best glassers I've been around aren't nearly as concerned about buying this year's latest and greatest. This is because skill in glassing makes far more difference than miniscule differences in optics.

+1.

OK, thanks everyone for your input. It's hard picking out optics without being able to look through them.

I own and have used for several years both the Nikon
EDG and the EL SV, 4+ years. They are both have ED glass and are at the highest level.

The Leica Duovid is a compromise with lesser glass,
and will be dimmer than the ones mentioned above.

A 10 yr. old any Leica, will be a step below these.

No, not exactly.

The EL with Swarovision, and Nikon EDG, or any other binocular providing an extra-flat field, are actually a little dimmer, because of the extra lens involved. Compare the 10x42 EL with the 10x42 SLC sometime and you'll see this. The EL's view will be sharper along the edges, but the overall view won't be as bright as through the SLC. And as I have pointed out before, a lot will depend on exactly how individual eyes see color, and hence work with the specific glass. that has as much to do with perceived brightness as light transmission.

Plus, the 8+12 Duovision, despite its "antique" optics, when set on 12x will still reveal more detail than any fixed 10x. Nikon does not make a 12x EDG, and while Swarovski does make a 12x EL it doesn't also provide the comfortable all-around viewing of an 8x42.

I am NOT saying the Duovid has absolutely the best optics of any binocular made today, just that it provides a range of performance others do not, no matter if their optical quality is slightly better. Any optic involves compromises.

John:

Unless you have spent some time with the newer optics,
the EDG and the SV, will trump the older Leica optics,
and that includes the Duovid.

A 12X may offer more detail, but not if it is 5% behind in transmission, those older Leica optics are a very noticeable step below.

Look at your subline, it is true.

This sounds like my argument for the Nikon 7-15X set on 15X.



This is a sad truth to me. The other day I was driving along and thought I saw something way out in a field. After pulling over, I started glassing some animals at the ragged edge of the ability of my favorite 7X50 binos. I couldn't quite see if they were deer or antelope. The 10X's and 15X's were put away since I was on the way back to the motel. I reached for the pickup 7-15X35 binos, which on 7X are not as good as my 7X50's and turned them up to 15X. I put the window up so I could use it for a rest and instantly could easily distinguish the animals as pronghorns. Higher magnification with good enough glass always beats out lower magnification glass of any quality.

Farmboy,

My subline is a joke provided by my friend Shrapnel.

Believe me, I have looked a lot through all the most recent glass, in varying conditions. Have also had several hunting companions with newer 10x glass ask to look through my sub-standard Duovids when they couldn't quite see what I was seeing.

Glad you own so many Swarovskis.

My wife accuses me of always finding the irony in a situation. Even she would give me a pass on this one...............

John:

Well now I know that was a joke, but it did seem strange
you present it that way.

I do have a bad optics habit, and with the hobby we try
and see lots of models.

Edit to add:

I do stand by my opinion.

I should give you a bit of credit, I did order your latest
book, "Modern Hunting Optics", I do like it, your style
is easy to get along with and I learned a bit about scopes
that I did not know.

Just to give you one more option, check out Nikon's MONARCH 7 8x42's. They are very clear,tough and backed by Nikon's No Fault Warranty. I have some of the above Euro bino's and while being good, are also 4 times the price of the MONARCH 7's. Just tossing this out there in case you didn't want to spend $1750+. I borrowed a pair of the EDG 10x42's 2 years ago and was quite inpressed, but then again, for over $2K they better be impressive.

Farmboy,

Thanks for buying the optics book.

Where did you get the 5% in light transmission? That much difference between the top brands of the past decade would be a major optical miracle, and as I have pointed out a number of times over the years, sheer light transmission is only one factor among several in perceived detail, which is what using binoculars is all about.

I can assure you that yes, 20% more magnification more than compensates for small differences in light transmission.

You also apparently assumed that I haven't looked through any new binoculars since Leica Duovids came out. This is far from true, and is of course made possible by all the major optics companies (and some not so major) continually sending me optics to test.

Plus, have you thoroughly tested hundreds of binoculars both technically, on various kinds of charts at different levels of light, and by having various people look through them, side-by-side, in the field? I often perform the technical test with more than one person, but always perform the "field tests" with more than one and usually several, because of the previously mentioned factor of individual eyes seeing color and brightness in different ways.

Swarovski makes great binoculars, the reason I have three right now--and have owned several others since around 1990. But they are not the only optics company on earth, and you might be surprised on the others that also make great binoculars. (Hint: It isn't just Nikon.)

You are apparently an example of exactly what I was talking about on my first post here, what I called "optics hunters" in a magazine article a couple of years ago. This doesn't mean you hunt with optics, but you stalk what are supposedly the latest and greatest binoculars, because you believe they will provide results far and above whatever came before. Yes, some of the newest binoculars do have slight optical advantages over older models, but what I am interested in (because my readers are) are practical differences. And given very good optics (which have been around a lot longer than you apparently think) the skill of the glasser is as important, and perhaps more so, than all the incremental advances in optics since phase-correction coatings for roof prisms were devised.

I have seen a number of long-time guides with battered old porro-prism glasses "outsee" their optics-hunter clients with the latest and greatest, because they know where to look, what to look for, and how to patiently glass for days. This doesn't mean they wouldn't see more with newer super-glass, but newer super-glass doesn't guarantee the typical hunter will start seeing 50% or even 5% more deer because they buy the latest, greatest binoculars every year or two. It just doesn't work that way.

I found a pair of half off duovids and went ahead and ordered them.