"Alan Gardiner" <alan.gardiner@poppet.com> wrote in message
news:bhcn1h$107a6c$1@ID-171913.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Mike Humberston" <oblivion@philomel.net> wrote in message
> news:8irijvks5j5059mbf1qmup3b5clepd6mrh@4ax.com...
> > "Alan Gardiner" <alan.gardiner@poppet.com> wrote:
> >
> > >As long as your pocket is deep enough the Swarovski with the two
> times
> > >adaptor fits the specification. It doubles the magnification so a 10X
> > >binocular converts to a 20X telescope.
> >
> > I've read a report which indicated that the adaptor gives a very
> significant
> > reduction in image brightness.  If you own one then do you find this
> to be the
> > case, Alan?
> >
>
> I don't own a pair but given the requirement they would be worth a try.
> There will be a reduction in image brightness naturally.
>


I just tried the Swarovskis 10x42 with a x2 adaptor
in one of the shops recommended here.
Narrow field of view and not bright but perfectly adequate
in bright conditions!

NIKON
Incidentally, I also tried top High Grade Nikons 10x32 but didnt like the
way they handled bright light off leaves. Sorry, not good enough.

LEITZ
Tried the Leitz. Yes Nice image but slightly heavy vs the
Swaro 10x32. My only real complaint was the focus
mechanism was rather stiff (even in hot conditions)
and sort of clunky. Maybe this will wear in but I was not impressed.


The Swarovski 10x32 were superb! But not perfect...

10x32 WONT TAKE THE ADAPTOR!

My main complaint here is that only the 10x42 accept a
bloomin x2 adabptor. Can you *believe* it! I find this so
irritating it's not true.

Guys! I am trying to save *weight* here. That's why I'm not
carrying a scope you dummies. And that's why I'm planning
on buying a 10x32 and not a 10x42. Weight!

It is pure snotty optical snobbish that is stopping
Swarovski from letting us fit the 10x32 with the
x2 adaptor.

No I dont care *how* dim the image is, it is entirely
clear the I would be able to see greater detail
with a x2 adaptor for small very distant objects
than without it.

Damn damn damn!


EYEPIECE DISTANCE
An other complaint is that it didnt seem very good
at close focus. I couldnt get the eyepieces close enough
together, and the overlap between circules ended up
poor - so much so that my eyes kept failing to focus.

I find it *gob-smacking* that Swarovski dont let you
get the two barrels closer than that. Why not build
them so close that literally anyone can use them?
Looking at infinity I was fine with them - but only
with them sqeezed together maximally!

I was also shown a 4 month old pair who's focus mechanism
wasnt working correctly despite having been
sent back to Swarovski. Maybe they are using the
wrong grease or something.

That said the focus action was extremely good (when new!).
Very low resistance and very few turns - perhaps a
shade *too* fast if anything.

BLACKOUTS
Finally I must say that they arent all that easy to use.
I personally found that they do tend to black out
very easy when the eye looks at something at the
edge of the FOV. I dont wear glasses.
I tried everything. Angling the my head forward, pulling
out the eye piece things... Livable with but not great.
I'll have to have another go.


BUY A LIGHT WEIGHT SCOPE TOO?

I am now seriously considering buying a second hand
Optolyth (30x75 I think) for hill walking where I'm
not planning anything too arduous. (e.g. If I have
any fillies coming with me... ;)  )

I am certainly not hauling any fat tripods up the hill
but I guess a quality light weight scope might be
a real bonus for certain things...

There could be some merit in a collapsible one
(lighter and longer - which give you more chance
to find a rock to prop it up on!)

The man in the shop told me that pre the Swaros,
(and possibly pre the Nikons)
the Optolyth 10x75 BGAs were the scope of choice
for birders at one point a few years back.

They were certainly pretty good. Nice camouflague
green colour and rubber armour too. Though I would
still prefer light-weight carbon-fibre/plastic to
aluminium just to save that precious weight.


Ship