Відео

Bonjour, les œilletons sont en plastique rigide jusqu'au bord et sont recouverts d'une couche de caoutchouc souple. L' extrémité circulaire qui "dépasse" des œilletons est dépourvue de plastique.

Bonjour, Je n'ai pas de contact avec des magasins. English Neil a réalisé un examen du Svbony SA205 8x42. Ce qui est intéressant pour moi (d'après son examen), c'est le fait que le grossissement soit proche de 7 au lieu de 8, ce qui ferait donc des 7x42 : probable meilleure profondeur de champ que des 8x42 mais champ de vision apparent probablement moins large que prévu, pupille de sortie proche de 6 mm, etc... neilenglish.net/product-review-svbony-sa-205-8-x-42/

@@colvertfurtif J'avais lu cette review mais j'apprécie toujours vos vidéos en complément. Une comparaison avec des sv aurait été intéressante. Avez-vous considéré demander à votre magasin locale ou un site en ligne? cela serait bénéfique pour eux, certainement pour nous et surement pour vous aussi à moindre frais. Bonne continuation.

​@@blueaquilae Merci de votre intérêt ! Je n'y ai pas encore pensé

I don't have the SV202 10x42 but I have the SV47 10x47 : noticable astigmatism or coma on the edge, the SV47 8x42 is much better to my eyes. So I expect more or less the same thing on the SV202 10x42 in terms of edge to edge sharpness though I know it's not good to extrapolate. In addition, I would start with the 8x42 for the ease of use. But the 10x42 is lighter (in the SV202 model). In general I always have that feeling that I spend more time to get a sharp image with a 10x42.

@@colvertfurtif finaly took the 10x42 for 97euros, helped me to do a choice ;) i think i'll be happy anyway !

Hello, this is the only 15x56 I have. The image is quite sharp but not as sharp as a 8x42 because I think it's difficult to have a sharp image with such a big magnifcation, but with 15 power you'll see more details (stargazing for example). The contrast is good. The chromatic aberrations are high. I see a lot of glares and reflections on the eyepieces in normal light condition. So, it's best to use it during grey days or low light condition (which is what binoculars with 56 mm diametres are aimed for)

@@colvertfurtif thank you for the thorough reply, you saved me time and nerve having to buy, dislike and return these!

To my eyes, today on a sunny day. -color rendition : yellow-green on the Svbony, more neutral on the Nikon. There is slight lack of saturation in the red for the Svbony when I look at a red roof, but the view on trees is great. -sharpness at the center : a bit better on the Nikon (less astigmatism?) or maybe it's just because I did not find the best position of the diopter ring on the Svbony. -Chromatic aberrations : the Svbony controls them in a better way, or maybe I did not adjust the IPD in the best way on the Nikon. -Ghost images due to reflection on the eyepieces : pink-red on the Svbony, green on the Nikon, same low intensity. -Glare control : I see glare in both cases. -Quality inside the barrels : I see a multicolored ring ("mirror effect") around the circle of the image on the Svbony, the image on the Nikon is free of this effect, so the Nikon is well blacked inside. For birdwatching, I recommend the Nikon because its weight is only 590 g and it's well blacked inside. Besides, It's very important to not extrapolate to others formats (I also have the Svbony SV202 8x32 which is free of the multicolored ring effect) . It's only my opinion on the 8x42 size, between the SV 202 and P7.

@@colvertfurtif Thank you so much for your reply! Speaking of Svbony SV202 series, I have two doubts in mind now. 1. Since the 8x42 was launched much later than the rest of the series (8x32, 10x42, 10x50), and even its retail price was mysteriously higher than the 10x42 of the series. I was wondering, did they improve something in the 8x42? To your tests, did you find anything interesting happening? 2. I'm still struggling if I should go for a more robust 8x42 option for better low light viewing but quite a lot heavier (about 200g difference) and bulker or just get a 8x32 for better portability but sacrifice image quality in low light. For this particular SV202 8x32 vs 8x42, how would you suggest? Do they have very similar image quality in bright to moderate light condition? Do you think 8x32 is good enough for watching indoor concerts? Thank you very much in advance! Have a great day!

@@colvertfurtif Thank you so much for your reply! Appreciate that a lot and great help for me. Between the SV202 8x32 vs SV202 8x42, do you find any image quality difference in good light condition? As for low light, consider an indoor concert performance or indoor sports event in a museum hall, will it be obvious difference between them? Price is not that much difference, but there is a 200g heavier and also obvious bigger size. Thank you and have a nice day!

@@kp66udv 1. The 8x42 is heavier than the 10x42 (I don't have the 10x42), so I think the build quality is better. At least it's better than the 8x32. Indeed, I can slightly change the aligment of the optics by putting pressure (up/down) on the barrels of the 8x32 with my hands. I did this because I like to have an ultra perfect aligment when it's possible to move the barrels with my hands. It was risky because I could have broken the binoculars and the rubber. On the 8x42 it's impossible to move the barrels, so the the build quality of the 8x42 is impressive. 2. To me, the SV 202 in 8x42 is better than the SV 202 in 8x32 for the central sharpness (maybe less astigmatism) and the contrast, even in normal conditions. For watching indoor concerts, yes 8x32 is enough. I use an 8x42 more for the ease of the eyes placement than for the brigtness, I struggle more often with the 8x32 in order to get a sharp image. In dark places like indoor concerts, i think you will have a dark images in both cases, so you should pick the lightest. There are also the "low magnification" like the 5x25 (for example the very cheap Visionking, I have it : a bit heavy and too bulky for a "25 mm" but I like it for 50 euros or 50$), 6,5 x32 (for example Kowa BD II), 7x32 (Hawke) or 6x30 (Opticron or Kowa), etc ... which are interesting for concerts.

@@amiwho9780 Yes, to my eyes 8x42 is sharper to the 8x32. I struggle with the 8x32 in order to get a sharp image. I don't think there will be an obvious difference for indoor activities. In dark places, both of them will provide dark images. I also suggest the "low magnification" like the 5x25 (for example the very cheap Visionking, I have it : a bit heavy and too bulky for a "25 mm" but I like it for 50 euros or 50$), 6,5 x32 (for example Kowa BD II), 7x32 (Hawke) or 6x30 (Opticron or Kowa), etc ... which seem to be interesting for concerts.

ED is supposed to reduce chromatic aberrations. Sometimes, the difference is huge (birds on power lines, birds of prey in the sky) sometimes there is no difference (not enough constrat between a bird and its environment to really see chromatic aberrations). Most of the time, chromatic aberrations are not bothersome to me. I have the Nikon Monarch HG 10x42 and according to Allbinos reviews the rate of the control of the chromatic aberrations is 6,1/10. www.allbinos.com/314-binoculars_review-Nikon_Monarch_HG_10x42.html This afternoon under a sunny day, I targeted an antenna : It's hard to be objective with only my eyes, but based on the result of Albinos, I would rate the correction of the chromatic aberrations as followed : -Nikon 7S 10x42 : 5/10 -Svbony SV 202 8x42 : 5,5/10 -Nikon 10x42 Prostaff P7 : 3/10 -Nikon 8x42 Prostaff P7 : 4/10 But I said in a video (P7 10x42 vs 7S in 10x42), the IPD seems to be a key point.

@@colvertfurtif Thank you so much for reply! I understand both Nikon and Svbony have flat-field binoculars, but price gets higher and higher for all that. By watching quite a number of review videos, Nikon's image quality (rendering etc) is pleasing to watch. But Svbony's similar specs products cost less than half from Nikon's.

@@colvertfurtif Thank you so much for your reply! Appreciate that and great help to me on finding my first "serious" binoculars. Still researching. Have a great day!

www.lpo.fr/decouvrir-la-nature/fiches-especes/fiches-especes/oiseaux/pie-bavarde D'après la LPO : - "[La Pie bavarde] nidifie de mars à mai [ ]." Extrait de la fiche téléchargeable. - "Période d’incubation [ ] de 22 jours." - '"Envol au bout de 22 à 27 jours [ ]."

@@colvertfurtif Merci! ☺️

@@veroniquemoioli1542 De rien !

To me, between the 7S in 10x42 and P7 in 10x42 : -field of view = P7 winner -control of the kidney beaning effect (blackout) = P7 winner. The eyecups are much more longer on the P7. -handling = 7s winner -neckstrap : 7s winner -compactness : P7 winner. -(light)weight : P7 winner. -control of chromatic aberrations : I don't know, maybe 7s winner because the adjustement of the interpullary distance seems to be something to care about on the P7 in this regard. Besides, it is often said that when the barrels are longer (more or less, longer focal distance of the objective lens), it's easier to control chromatic aberrations. -coatings : p7 winner (water repellent coating is very usefull to avoid/reduce fog due to potential water drops on the lenses). To me, between the P3 and the P7 in 8x42: -neutality of the colors : p7 winner. -coatings : p7 winner (water repellent coating) -(light)weight : p3 winner, almost the same weight than P7.

I don't have this model. With 6x magnification, you should have a stable image.

Crêt de la Neige

It's worth it if you want better central sharpness, more neutral image, bigger field of view, more robustness.

по-моему мнению, это не парето-оптимально, цена слишком завышена. Отношение добавочной полезности к добавочной цене.

The ring can be hard to turn the fist time you use it. It happened to me on the majority of new binoculars.

Yes but not the water repellent coating

Considering the price (50 euros), i don't think that the housing of the SV 47 is made of a magnesium alloy or other metal. To me, it means that it's probably a polycarbonate chassis (plastic). I have my own opinion but it's up to you to decide which one is better according to your taste. I prefer the SV 202 because the field of view is wider (SV 47 8x42 vs SV 202 8x42) and the sharpness is better for distant objects. For example, when I adjusted the binoculars on the first quarter Moon, the lunar craters seemed sharper to me through the SV 202.

@@colvertfurtifпонятно.

I don't have at this price range or entry level binoculars cutting glare in a good way. The best I have in the control of the glare is the Leica Ultravid HD 8x32 (score 5/5 on allbinos' review in "Internal reflection" section) but I can still see glare and other flares. In addition, I think you could expect good control of the glare if the objective lenses are very recessed but in this case with the loss of compactness.

Oui !

@@colvertfurtif n'etant pas un grand anglophone, premiere paire, essentiellement bivouac discret, observation environnement, animaus etc etc... est-ce pertinent de monter en 10*50 ou un bon 10*42 suffit ?

@@oceanworldwar Je dirais que pour le confort, le 10x42 c'est mieux. Le 10x50 me semble trop lourd à transporter Au dessus de 800 grammes, je me lasse vite au bout de 30 minutes. Cependant, certaines paires lourdes sont dotées d'un excellent équilibre. Par exemple mes Nikon action EX sont lourdes avec ses 1,1 kg avec la courroie mais je prends du plaisir à observer quand je suis en position d'observation. Je ne sais pas comment l’expliquer, c'est comme si la douleur au niveau de mes bras étaient bien répartie sur les Nikon Action EX. Il y a peut-être surement mieux, par exemple il me semble que j'avais lu des tests qui parlaient des Zeiss Victory SF avec leur ergo-balance qui les rendent agréables à porter. Donc le 10x42, c'est le choix le moins risqué pour moi car même si une paire n'est pas suffisamment bien équilibrée, elle aura quand même l'avantage de la compacité. Parce que imaginons, vous achetez une paire 10x50 moyennement équilibrée pour vous (avec le poids des jumelles essentiellement à l'avant par exemple qui fait tirer les jumelles vers le bas et qui risque de vous fatiguer les bras rapidement) de plus de 800 grammes, et admettons très volumineuse : cela ferait beaucoup d'inconvénients pour le confort, pour moi, à moins d'utiliser un trépied.

@@colvertfurtif un grand merci, je vais "essayer"quelque jumelles demain dans un store local. je sais dans quelle direction regarder desormais !

The P7 series has water repellent coating and much wider field of view on the 10x42 and 8x30.

If the binoculars are well collimated, there is something wrong with the eyepiece on the right. Did you adjust the sharpness through the two barrels?

@@colvertfurtif joe no se como traducir conel movil 😭🤣 el ingles esta fatal 😂😂

@@RUSSINHO99 Google traduction :ocular de la derecha. ¿Ajustaste la nitidez a través de los dos cañones?

@@RUSSINHO99 Google traduction : Si los binoculares estan colimados, hay algun problema con ocular de la derecha.

@@colvertfurtif hmmm pues no me acuerdo bien. Igual he empezado por el esquerdo por la costumbre.

In the book I have, the authors talk about anisometropia to explain this issue.

@@colvertfurtif mañana mirare en el ordenador y lo voy a traducir todo. De momento muchas gracias

I would say it depends on the shape of the eyeglasses. In addition, the higher the eye relief, the easier the use with glasses is. Moreover, the higher the size of the eyepiece lenses is, the easier the use with eyeglass is (no difference for the size of the eyepieces lenses between the P7 in 8x42 and 10x42). It also depends on the effective eye relief : the available room for the eyeglasses when the eyecups are fully retracted is a bit shorter than the eye relief in pratice. On the P7 10x42, the effective eye relief is quite good because the eyecups are flat. I would say it also depends on the apparent field of view. It's easier to use eyeglasses when the size of the circle of the image is small. And the apparent field of view of the P7/P3 in 8x42 is smaller than the one in the P7/P3 in10x42. For eyeglasses wearers the P7/P3 in 8x42 is a safer option because it can fit to the majority of eyeglasses thanks to the 20.2 mm of eye relief and its apparent field of view which is not big. The eye relief of the P7 in 10x42 is shorter, 15.7 mm.

Hello, yes it's 16 magnification. When I compare to my Nikon 16x50, the magnification seems similar. I also have the Nikon 12x50 Aculon. And the magnification is higher than the 12x50. It's imposible for me to say that it's exactly 16.00 but there is no intention to "cheat".

@@colvertfurtif muchas gracias!

Your question was very interesting, it would be great for the community if you can repeat here again. Sorry again for my clumsiness.

Thank you for your views. Much appreciated

Way too long explanation

Yo tengo el Solognac 900 10x42 y francamente por el precio 230€ no creo que se encuentre nada mejor ,por otra parte tengo unos vanguard ed IV 10x42 que valen el doble que los solognac y quitando el campo de vision que es mayor y la cantidad de CA que es mucho menor ,veo mas nitido por los solognac ,con lo cual me hace pensar que muchas veces no estafan con esto de la optica

No, I haven't. I'm not interested in the Prostaff 5 series because the field of view doesn't appeal me : [110 meters/1000 meters (330:3 = 110)] for the 8x42 or 330 feet at 1000 yards. www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product-archive/binoculars/prostaff-5-8x42.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs 98 meters/1000 meters for the 10x42 [or 294 feet at 1000 yards (98x3=294)]. www.nikon.com.au/prostaff-5-10x42 For the price, there are binoculars with wider field of view. I would choose the P7 because the P7 has attractive features to me : phase coating (for sharpness), dielectric coating (for brightness), water repellent coating (against fog on the outer surface of lenses), immersive view for the 10x42 (field of view "OK" for the 8x42). Perhaps the advantage of the Prostaff 5 series : there are 10x50 and 12x50 and they are relatively lightweight. Those formats don't exist on the Nikon Prostaff 7s/P7 series for example. There is a review of the Prostaff 10x50 on Allbinos. For example, it is said that there is an aluminizing coating (not as good as the dielectric coating).I did not find if the Prostaff 5 series has a phase coating and water repellent coating or not, so I don't think so. www.allbinos.com/283-binoculars_review-Nikon_Prostaff_5_10x50.html

@@colvertfurtif ok thank you, can you recommend some good binoculars within a price range of €250 please ? Apart from the p7.

@@BeginnerBirdwatcher It's not easy to answer because at this price range, there are too many compromises. Something I don't like in a pair of binoculars may be not bothersome for someone else. For example I don't like the weight of the SV202 8x42 (720 grammes) and the miror effect outside the circle of the image but they have a great value (I bought mine 135 euros). I don't like the balance of my Bresser Pirsch 8x42 but I really appreciate the fact that I can look through them with a Covid mask without getting fog on the lenses (water repellent coating like the P7 or long eyecups? I don't know but it's effective against steam). Moreover, BBR review and Allbinos can show you brands with good reputation like Vortex, Carson, Sightron, Zeiss, Bresser, Athlon, Kowa, etc... If I did not have my Nikon binoculars, I would be interested in Vortex Diamondback HD or Bresser Pirsch ED (if you wait for a voucher because one day I recently saw the Bresser pisrch 10x42 ED for only 250 euros on a French e- market) because they are lightweight and have a lifetime warranty.

@@colvertfurtif ok thanks I am split between the P7 and Diamondback HD may wait and purchase the vortex vipers I'm not sure yet. I'm stuck on the 8-42 and 10-42's I've been told that the higher the magnification the harder it is to steady them without the aid of a tripod. Thanks again

Ps it's difficult in France as so far I haven't found a shop in Limoges that is specialists in binoculars. Or I just haven't found the shop lol. And internet shopping is ok but most online shops don't allow you to try before you buy.

Yes but in my opinion all binoculars are good for stargazing. The sharpness is not very important to see nebulas or Messier objects because a nebula will stay a blur object, so a cheap 10x50 can do the job. But for contemplation, I prefer my monarch HG 10x42 because on the P7 10x42 or 8x42 there are visible astigmatism at the edge. But yes P7 are very good at the center, stars look like points at the center but not at the edge. For stargazing I use mainly 8x30 (wide field of view and light weight), 8x42 (image steady and quite lightweight), 10x42 (good magnification and quite lightweight, ), 15x56 and 16x50 (for Messier objects, Andromeda galaxy, the Moon or if the quality of the sky is bad because of light pollution). I think high magnification is great on open clusters. The Pleiades are wonderfull with high power. But all powers are good if you have a clear intention of your use.

@@colvertfurtif Great, thanks! I have the Canon 15x50 IS and they're great for stargazing. But I might pick up a pair of these P7s for more general use, they seem much easier to carry around.

@@theodosios2615 Yes, I can imagine the beauty of the view in your stabilized binoculars : high power and steady image, bigger exit pupil than a classic 16x50, I guess they are great for stargazing ! Yes P7 are very good for general use.

Hello Neil ! Thank you for your comment and the share of your experience !

To my taste 8x42 P7 is better for birdwatching . Because I have all the time the binculars around my neck. So a low weight is important for me, to me it's more important than the correction of chromatic aberrations for example, because even with chromatic aberrations around a bird in challenging conditions, I can still identify a bird. In addition the P7 has a water repellent coating (water condensation on the eyepiece lenses after a big effort or the consequences of a big difference of temperature will be reduce) and a dielectric coating (more brightness in theory) So, water repellent coating is also very important for me during cold days because the difference of temperature of the body and the outdoor is very high. Moreover, I find that the image of an 8x42 is easier to focus, more depth of field, more room for the eye placement : it's important for me for birdwatching because If I spend to much time to focus or to find the right placement for my eyes, the bird I target has time to go away. Nevertheless, I also like 10 power. Actually, when I look through my 8x42 P7, I tell myself "I would like to have a little bit more magnification and little bit more field of view and apparent field of view" and when I have my 7S 10x42 : "I would like to have a steadier image, more field of view (when I use the P7 10x42 I don't say this because the apparent fied of view is great). The ease of use of an 8x42 miss me a bit" etc...

​@@colvertfurtifmuito obrigado pela resposta, sua experiência com equipamento me ajudou muito na escolha do meu primeiro binóculos, vou de P7 8x42 mesmo! Obrigado!

5m to 100m

It depends on what you need. If a low weight is your priority, then p7 is better in 10x42 or 8x42. If you think that balance is more important than a low weight, then 7s is better. If the field of view is important for you, p7 is better. If the correction of chromatic aberration is important for you, I think 7s is better. If the grip is important, 7s is better. If brightness is essential for you, p7 is better. If you would enjoy a locking diopter ring, p7 is better. If compactness is an advantage for you, then p7 is better.

All are good for birdwatching in 8x42 or 10x42. My favourite is the the P7 because they have a dielectric coating and water repellent coating. The P3 has "only" a silver coating, and for the 7s only Nikon knows the nature of the coating. If I compare my 10x42 7s to my 10x42 P7, I would say the 10x42 7s has less chromatic aberration than the 10x42 p7 (I'm not sure because adjusting the IPD [interpupillar distance] can reduce or increase the chromatic aberration but the big field of view of the P7 and its low weight is definitely a joy to use. Nevertheless, I prefer the balance of the 10x42 7s and its larger neckstrap. To me the 10x42 P7 has more vivid colors. For the moment I don't have time to compare them carefully but I think I will compare the 10x42 7s and 10x42 P7 one day.

@@colvertfurtif @colvertfurtif Thank you so much for your detail reply! Does the advantage of 7s only occur in 10x42? I am thinking to buy a 8x42 because i am doing bird photography and all i need is to know the approximate locationand the breed of the birds. I guess I may consider the P7. Thank you so much!

​@@tmr11059 I don't know about the first question because in the 7s series I have only the 10x42. But what I see on paper is that 8x30 7s and 8x42 7s have a small field of view, under 120 metres at 1000 metres. It's not big at all. The 8x42 p7 is a bit better, 126 metres at 1000 metres. The 8x30 p7 is much better is this regard, 152 metres at 1000 metres ! (but probably more blur with such a big field of view). I would say : 8x42 P7 : relaxing view, lightweight, long eye relief (it's very important if you wear eyeglass), field of view "OK". 8x30 P7 : eye placement can be finicky, very lightweight, eye relief "OK", big field of view, it can do the "job" in your case.

​@@colvertfurtif Really appreciate your detail ans. I just noticed that the eye relief for the P7 10x42 is only 15mm. In this case, I will get the 8x42 because I am wearing glass. Thank you so much for your help!!

I have just purchased the Nikon p7. 8x42. I had tried the p3, Nikon monarch, Celestion and some Bushnells. I can’t believe how good the p7s are. I am not experienced in all things binocular - but for what I paid - which has to be allowed for I’ve been blown away.

The price depends on the country you live. I would recommand to look at the official Nikon website of your area.

P7

My first choice in 8x42/10x42 would be the Prostaff P7 : only 600 grammes with phase coating, dialectric coating, and water repellent coating and neutral image. I don't have neither the 3 s nor the Prostaff 5. On paper, the less impressive for me is the Prostaff 5 because the field of view is narrower than on the others models. What I think about my Prostaff binoculars : Prostaff P7 8x42 : lightweight, long eye relief, water repellent coating. => comfortable to use at any season, any situation. Prostaff P7 10x42 : lightweight, huge apparent field of view, water repellent coating. => High immersive experience. Prostaff P3 8x42 : yellow image, my eyes don't hurt in high ambiant light. => Beautiful views in "yellow" environment. Prostaff 7S :10x42 : very nice balance, I see less chromatic aberrations than on the P7 10x42. => Interesting for watching birds of prey in the sky.

i bought p7 8*42 yesterday

Thank you ! Actually, I see a slight field curvature. I think it's all about accommodation. My camcorder has a better accommodation than my eyes. Maybe a very young person can have the chance to see the image as well as we can see on the video through the binoculars. It's a difference between 8x42 and 10x42 on the P7(and probably on the P3). On the 10x42, the apparent field of view is much bigger, but coma and astigmatism are more noticeable at the edge.

@@colvertfurtif Many thanks! 🙂