Have a closer look! (http://slc.swarovskioptik.com/#/home/en) :t:

Thanks for the link. It was only a matter of time. Did not see if the 7x42 is going HD yet, which for me that is the one to look for. I wonder if the high density glass increase the weight slightly.

Magnificent move! So the SLC line is not going obsolete after all.

:clap::clap::clap:

I agree that is great news...

Thanks for the link. It was only a matter of time. Did not see if the 7x42 is going HD yet, which for me that is the one to look for. I wonder if the high density glass increase the weight slightly.

yep, the 7x42 is the one i will be hoping to aquire as well.
Looks like i will need to delay getting the Zeiss 32FL now.

more heartache for Leica LOL !! ...

Just when you thought your pig’s feet jar stash was safe… they have to come out with this – an opened ended HD “ELC” w/out the image warping field flatteners!

They reversed the dimensions in the ad; it should be 149mm long by 120mm wide. The shaved a little more than 1/2” off the height, but the width is the same. So the weight saving is probably in the barrels, which look slimmer like the new EL, and the magnesium frame.

One of the things I really liked about the SLC was the wide channel thumb groves, which were good for the BIG handed user, but those admittedly made the SLCs bulky (which was fine by me), but it also added weight.

Not sure what the HD SLC's thumb grooves look like, probably like the SV EL’s. If an SV EL owner could post a photo of the new EL's thumb grooves, that would be groovy.

The HD SLC gives “rollingballers” a choice now, but a lot is going to depend on the pricing. The 7x42 SLCs cost $1,500 new. If the HD’s go for $1,800, ouch but no biggie, but if they are priced at $2K or more, hunters and birders are going to be wondering if they should dig a little deeper and get the new EL, and that could hurt SLC sales unless Swaro also offers a 7x42 HD SLC, which will provide a clear choice.

Swaro could do the unthinkable and have a price freeze @ $1,500. The HD SLCs would sell as fast as Denny’s Slammers. But the chance of that happening is so astronomical that it would take a supercomputer to figure out.

I don’t see any mention of dielectric coatings. Even ChinBin EDs have dielectric coatings now, so they should be standard on alpha bins with SP prisms.

It’s premature to say this, being that I don’t know about the price or the prism coatings, but from a design perspective, I think Swaro has a winner with the HD SLC since it meets the two main objections I’ve read about the SLCs on various bins sites: (1) they now offer an 8x42 rather than only a 7x42, and (2), it’s lighter.

Steve, we must to make a trip to the Amish Shoe Store in the summer to try one. Or perhaps we can become “beta testers” (with full disclosure, of course )

Thanks for the link. It was only a matter of time. Did not see if the 7x42 is going HD yet, which for me that is the one to look for. I wonder if the high density glass increase the weight slightly.

HD isn't an acronym for high density but a marketing speak implying "high definition" i.e. ED glass.

The weight is not significantly different from regular crown glass.

I don’t see any mention of dielectric coatings. Even ChinBin EDs have dielectric coatings now, so they should be standard on alpha bins with SP prisms.

The previous (current) generation of SLCs already have SWAROBRIGHT (i.e. dielectric) roof prisms mirror coating so I'm pretty sure the ED upgrade will have it too.

http://www.swarovskioptik.us/en_us/products/binoculars-slc

In the SLC series, Swarovski Optik uses high-quality technologies such as the SWAROBRIGHT coating for maximum color fidelity across the whole light spectrum or the SWAROTOP and SWARODUR coatings for bright, high-contrast images.

And in very small print I notice "Available in 06/2010"

Didn't the previous SLC range have a 7x and a 10x and no 8x but this has an 8x and a 10x but no 7x? I think that might be significant!

of course hiding the technical data in Flash with gray on white text will not help spread the word!

Maybe I missed it elsewhere, but any plans for a revamped 8x30?

Lately I just want a small compact 8x30 something with wide field of view and close focus for butterfly's etc. The issue with the current 8x30 SLC is the price and it's close proximity to the EL 8x32 and Zeiss FL 8x32 etc, lack of close focusing and average optics compared to the top end models.

Matt

Just noticed the improved close focusing on both 8x42 and 10x42 models at 1.9m/6ft!!!

These might be good for butterfly watching, definately an improvement on the old models!!

Matt

What good eyes Kevin, available in June 2010 I did not see that. Not sure what to hope for next. A 8x32 in the new Swarovision, or the neu+ HD SLC in 7x42. I need one of them for sure but not both, and only have 3 months to save a lot.

so this doesnt have the field flattener like the EL?

The previous (current) generation of SLCs already have SWAROBRIGHT (i.e. dielectric) roof prisms mirror coating so I'm pretty sure the ED upgrade will have it too.

http://www.swarovskioptik.us/en_us/products/binoculars-slc

Kevin,

I didn't read mention of the word "dielectric" on that Swaro Website you posted nor is "dielectric" mentioned in SLC ads, which is what made me question it:

http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/swarovski/swarovski-slcnew-7x42-binocular-with-snap-shot-adapter

Same with B & H, Adorama, Amazon, and other dealers.

OTOH, "dielectric" is mentioned in the description of the Neu EL and SV EL:

http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/swarovski/swarovski-el-8x32-binocular-with-snap-shot-adapter

http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/swarovski/swarovski-el-8-5-x-42-swarovision-binocular

Not sure why Swaro would state that emphatically for the EL and not the SLC, but if Swarobright = dielectric, then the HD SLCs have dielectric coatings, which makes sense, but it would be nice if Swaro would state that explicitly.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Didn't the previous SLC range have a 7x and a 10x and no 8x but this has an 8x and a 10x but no 7x? I think that might be significant!

of course hiding the technical data in Flash with gray on white text will not help spread the word!

Yes, the previous gen 42mm SLCs only had two models - 7x42 and 10x42. Perhaps that's the way they are going to keep it, two models, but 8x42 and 10x42 instead.

The spec sheet only lists the 8x and 10x 42. If you hit the arrow on the right side of the spec sheet, you get the second page, so nothing is hidden, but it is hard to read with the color scheme and with many different languages next to each other.

Yes, it might be significant if they only have the two configurations in the 42mm line since Leica, Zeiss, and Nikon all offer both 7x42 and 8x42 configurations in their alphas.

However, what the Swaro SLC line-up has that the Nikon EDG or the Premier line doesn't, are larger objective/higher power bins like Zeiss and Leica, which hunters seem to like.

Nikon makes large format IF EP astro bins (Prostar/Astroluxe series), but the company apparently has no desire to compete against the Big Three in the large format, terrestrial bin market.

Presumably, the rest of the SLCs will eventually be updated with the new design features.

We've had this SWAROVISION is dielectric coating discussion here before . search the Swaro forum ;)

I'm not sure why the top Euro makers hide their technical details behind trademarks (as Swaro and Zeiss both do this e.g. trying to find out that the current Victory 8x20 have dielectric prisms is not actually in any of the Zeiss catalogs).

But SWAROVISION™ is a dielectric mirror coating.

So Swarobright is a dielectric coating along with Swarovision? I thought the New EL's were called Swarovision.

Interesting technical specs giving total number of lens elements and the % light transmission.

Nev

Brock is right the specs sheet is hard to read, somehow I got on the non-English page the first time.
Question: is 91% light transmission a high rating, I thought the current bins were higher than that, over the 95 range. If so it does give me pause as it would be better to delay purchasing anything for a while until the light transmission rating improves.

Question: is 91% light transmission a high rating, I thought the current bins were higher than that, over the 95 range.

I think the 95% transmission figure is only approached by a few roof prism bins with Abbe-König prisms and then only at a specific wavelength.
91% would be pretty much state of the art for a Schmidt-Pechan roof.

John

I agree. 91% is very good for a SP roof prism bin.

The 95% is for porros and perhaps AK (they'd be about 2% better than the SPs).

In Germany the price for the new SLC 8x42 is 1,890 EUR (Swarovision 8x42: 2,195 EUR); for the SLC 10x42 1,980 EUR (Swarovision 10x42: 2,295 EUR), so roughly a price difference of 300 EUR.
I wonder if this "new" SLC are just "old" EL with a different focusing mechanism. If you have a closer look, you find many similarities...

In Germany the price for the new SLC 8x42 is 1,890 EUR (EL: 2,195 EUR); for the SLC 10x42 1,980 EUR (EL: 2,295 EUR), so rougly a price difference of 300 EUR.
I wonder if this "new" SLC are just "old" EL with a different focusing mechanism. If you have a closer look, you find many similarities...

Can someone explain the difference between SLC and EL swaros for me please?


EDIT cancel that, I just found a thread dealing with that very topic
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=136374
Thanks
Nick

Can someone explain the difference between SLC and EL swaros for me please?

EL = open bridge, slightly inferior optics compared to ultravid HD and Victory FL.

SLC = heavy as a brick, good optics but not better than the cheaper 'brick' Trinovid.

Swarovision: finally on par what concerns the optics compare to Victory FL, and, with the open bridge, for some, better ergonomics than the competitors. Expensive.

SLC new: Looks like after 5+years of Victory FL, and 3+ years old Ultravid HD, they finally realised they could try to make a bin with the combination of short fast focus, good weight and fluorite glass. :t:

I would interject that, having used both extensively, the Swarovision optics are better than the Zeiss FL, full stop. I spent nearly all of yesterday hunting and birding behind my SVs and did not even remember until I was in my truck on the way home that there exist such things as chromatic aberration and glare in binoculars.

EL = open bridge, slightly inferior optics compared to ultravid HD and Victory FL.
:

I would totally disagree Temmie, but each to their own ;)


SLC = heavy as a brick, good optics but not better than the cheaper 'brick' Trinovid.

The new SLC's - Completely new design with HD lenses so logically optically better, with a better field of view and larger exit pupil diameter, now an 8x instead an 7x42, with the weight dramatically down and with a new focus mechanism (which is similar to new EL) - hardly a 'brick then ;)

I would totally disagree Temmie, but each to their own ;)
No question they are SLIGHTLY inferior, this can be measured and seen if you are capable of seeing the differences. For some aspects I am not capable seeing differences, like the CA people see more in Swaro, but I can see more neutral colors and better light transmission in certain circumstances with the Zeiss.

The new SLC's - Completely new design with HD lenses so logically optically better, with a better field of view and larger exit pupil diameter, now an 8x instead an 7x42, with the weight dramatically down and with a new focus mechanism (which is similar to new EL) - hardly a 'brick then ;)

Just want to temper the rave going on about Swaro optics lately. They are by no means any bad, but to say that they are innovating with the new SLC can honestly not be supported by any good arguments.

If you are just enthousiastic because they look slick (oh yes they do) and you want to spend your money on something new, you should.

But in comparison to Zeiss Victory T*FL they are:
1. pretty late with HD glass, so when viewing that marketing-talk-flash-player thingy that I blocked up first, I wondered if they really can be proud or should be ashamed about being the latest of the class with the fluorite glass.
2. They are very proud of the 'best overview in their class' providing a whopping 136m/1000m distance. This is a whole one (1) meter more than the Victory FL...
3. They have a new focusing mechanism. With one turn of the wheel, you focus from 2m to infinity. Zeiss did that already 5 years ago! If the focusing is smooth and free of play now, they are suggesting it wasn't so in earlier versions?
4. They still weigh 800grams, about 50 more than the Victory.

The only possible advantage would be the eye-relief, which is claimed to be 4mm larger than the Victory. But as I can see the whole FOV already with the 8x42, this would be no advantage particularly for me (maybe for some here).

I would interject that, having used both extensively, the Swarovision optics are better than the Zeiss FL

They better be, for ~150% of the price in Europe, and being developed many years after the Zeiss!

Seems odd to have the price so close, about $300, for the HD SLC to the EL, only a 15% upgrade to go from the HD SCL to the El. Not sure how this makes marketing sense, especially since they have not included the 7x42 as of yet.

The optical design of the new SLC looks like the SV-EL without the field flattener more than it resemble the old EL design. The old EL (and SLC) had 3 element objectives, a fixed doublet followed by a positive focusing element. The objective of the new SLC more closely resembles the SV-EL with a fixed triplet followed by a negative focusing element. I also see that the new SLC eyepiece is 5 elements rather than 4 as in the old SLC and EL.

The other thing I didn't pay attention too (as I usually have Flash turned off when browsing) was the new open-bridge design.

It's like the new (new!) 2010 Nikon EDG i.e. this is a single hinge open bridge design. Unlike the Swaro EL double hing open-bridge. There is no hinge at the objective end of the bin.

I see Leupold, Nikon, Kruger Optical and now Swaro all have one design like this. This is the trend of the future!

Seems odd to have the price so close, about $300, for the HD SLC to the EL, only a 15% upgrade to go from the HD SCL to the El. Not sure how this makes marketing sense, especially since they have not included the 7x42 as of yet.

Upsell to the next model, perhaps?

"Well, the SV is only $300 more ..."

It is curiously close in price.

I suspect the 7x42 SLC may have gone .. the previous range only had two bins the 7x and the 10x. Has the 8x now taken over?

[QUOTE=Kevin Purcell;1761135
I suspect the 7x42 SLC may have gone .. the previous range only had two bins the 7x and the 10x. Has the 8x now taken over?[/QUOTE]

Kevin,

Don't forget the 8x50, 8x56, 10x50 and 15x56 SLCs. It would be nice to see those in the new range.

Henry

Kevin,

Don't forget the 8x50, 8x56, 10x50 and 15x56 SLCs. It would be nice to see those in the new range.

Henry

Those I can see appearing. Just a little later. I was just considering the 42mm versions. Perhaps a version for later but it does seem odd given they have 8.5x SV so why not the 7x option at introduction.

That also brings up the idea that there would be a 32mm (or 30mm?) new SLC compact with the new "single hinge open bridge" enclosure. I hadn't thought of that either. ;)

Have these new SLC been formally announced in the US yet? They're not on the US front page but they are on the Austrian site front page (where I presume the OP found them).

http://www.swarovskioptik.at/de/startseite

Their PR in German is here

http://www.swarovskioptik.at/de/pressemitteilungen/pr-de_das-neue-slc-42-hd-fernglas

or you can be amused by the Google translation into English

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.swarovskioptik.at%2Fde%2Fpresse mitteilungen%2Fpr-de_das-neue-slc-42-hd-fernglas&sl=auto&tl=en

The mention the new focusing mechanism which seems to be "rate changing" to speed up the focus at closer distances (slow close focusing (or variation in the perceived focusing rate across the distance range) is a problem for bins that move a positive lens close to the objective). I wonder if they use some of the SV focuser ideas here?

So is this (to oversimplify) "just" a SV-like design minus the field flattener in a different style enclosure?

They also come with an innovative new bag. ;)

The mention the new focusing mechanism which seems to be "rate changing" to speed up the focus at closer distances (slow focusing is a problem for bins that move a positive lens close to the objective). I wonder if they use some of the SV focuser ideas here?

I don't think reports of the, in my opinion disappointing, SV focus are consistent with what is described here--this is more sophisticated! So now my hopes are much higher of seeing the SV focus upgraded in the near future to a variable ratio such that a single turn takes it from 5 feet to infinity, and with even more speed and precision than my candidate for the current functionality leader, the Zeiss 8x32 FL, which uses a conventional design.

--AP

No question they are SLIGHTLY inferior, this can be measured and seen if you are capable of seeing the differences. For some aspects I am not capable seeing differences, like the CA people see more in Swaro, but I can see more neutral colors and better light transmission in certain circumstances with the Zeiss.



Just want to temper the rave going on about Swaro optics lately. They are by no means any bad, but to say that they are innovating with the new SLC can honestly not be supported by any good arguments.

If you are just enthousiastic because they look slick (oh yes they do) and you want to spend your money on something new, you should.

But in comparison to Zeiss Victory T*FL they are:
1. pretty late with HD glass, so when viewing that marketing-talk-flash-player thingy that I blocked up first, I wondered if they really can be proud or should be ashamed about being the latest of the class with the fluorite glass.
2. They are very proud of the 'best overview in their class' providing a whopping 136m/1000m distance. This is a whole one (1) meter more than the Victory FL...
3. They have a new focusing mechanism. With one turn of the wheel, you focus from 2m to infinity. Zeiss did that already 5 years ago! If the focusing is smooth and free of play now, they are suggesting it wasn't so in earlier versions?
4. They still weigh 800grams, about 50 more than the Victory.

The only possible advantage would be the eye-relief, which is claimed to be 4mm larger than the Victory. But as I can see the whole FOV already with the 8x42, this would be no advantage particularly for me (maybe for some here).



They better be, for ~150% of the price in Europe, and being developed many years after the Zeiss!

Temmie:

Wow, you do not seem too enthused about the new products coming out from
Swarovski.

I think the new announcement on the new SLC is very exciting, and the reports
on the Swarovision are very positive.

I looks like Zeiss and Leica will be busy with their next efforts.

Lately all we have heard about is about the Chinese HD's, now when the Alphas
show their stuff it is setting the new standards.

You see, competition is good for everyone.

"The best never rest". ;)

Jerry

The mention the new focusing mechanism which seems to be "rate changing" to speed up the focus at closer distances

Where did you see the "rate changing" feature mentioned? Maybe a misunderstanding from the google translation?

Temmie:

Wow, you do not seem too enthused about the new products coming out from
Swarovski.

I think the new announcement on the new SLC is very exciting, and the reports
on the Swarovision are very positive.

I looks like Zeiss and Leica will be busy with their next efforts.

Lately all we have heard about is about the Chinese HD's, now when the Alphas
show their stuff it is setting the new standards.

You see, competition is good for everyone.

"The best never rest". ;)

Jerry

Agreed Jerry,

It can only serve to put more pressure on Zeiss, and in particular Leica who have been living in the shadow of Swarovski for qute a while now.

Lets hope the R&D men are working hard.
And as far as chinese bins are concerned, they can keep them... B (:

Where did you see the "rate changing" feature mentioned? Maybe a misunderstanding from the google translation?

Faster switching between near and far from new Fokussiermechanik

The new focus knob of hard and soft components is in any weather grip and stable. The Fokussiermechanik works very smoothly and consistently without clearance, so the SLC 42 HD is also accurate to use with gloves. With only a half revolutions gives you the option to change rapidly from infinity to Nahfokussierung less than two meters.


If they have positive focusing lens then they need to have done something special to do this. Swaro did do something special in the SV (a two lens focusing system, IIRC).

If it's a negative focusing lens system (like the SLC?) then they probably haven't changed much except sped up the rate.

As we haven't seen a cutaway (yet) then we don't know what the optical system looks like but if they have made them more EL-like(with a positive focuser) then they need a clever mechanism for this.

It's all speculation until we actually see their design.

Hi, I got no clue myself about details of focussing mechanics, but maybe you will get more out of Swarovski's translations instead of google's:

"With its unique combination of hard and soft components, the new focusing wheel offers excellent grip and stability in any weather conditions. Thanks to its focusing mechanism, which is particularly smooth and free from backlash, the SLC 42 HD SWAROVISION can be operated accurately even when wearing gloves. Just a turn and a half takes you from infinity to a close range focus of less than two metres."
http://www.swarovskioptik.com/en/press-releases/pr-en_the-new-slc-42-hd-binoculars

There is also a cutaway in the animation here: http://www.swarovskioptik.com/en/press-releases/pr-en_the-new-slc-42-hd-binoculars

Temmie:
Wow, you do not seem too enthused about the new products coming out from
Swarovski.
Just not a fan, but always applauding the arrival of really improved optics!
I think the new announcement on the new SLC is very exciting, and the reports
on the Swarovision are very positive.
please enjoy the excitement! ;)
I looks like Zeiss and Leica will be busy with their next efforts.
I don't see how Zeiss should feel the need to improve the quality of the glass, compared to the SLC. I don't know about the Swarovision, that one feels like a real improvement, indeed...
So Zeiss can do something with the pincushion and flat field, put bigger prisms in or redesign the oculars to make them again number one for eye relief (Swarovski has always exaggerated usable eye relief in their technical sheets), or redesign the ergonomics.
But for now, they are light, tack sharp, superfast en fluid focus and without too much CA that I can notice (but maybe you do). And the more I use them, the more I am convinced they are very well built. They are dirt cheap too, compared to Leica and Swaro in Europe. In the US, prices are awfully inflated!
Lately all we have heard about is about the Chinese HD's, now when the Alphas
show their stuff it is setting the new standards.
The Swarovision is setting a new standard, but don't forget they keep setting awful standards in price, too. The SLC is not setting any standards, as far as I can see. If they only had one of features REALLY better, e.g. the weight, or some sort of geared focus (I read on the dutch translation it has 1.5 revolutions from 2m to infinity, which is more than the 1 revolution on the English translation). Or some superb ergonomics. Okay, I don't know about the ergonomics yet, but they could easily build a cheaper model with EL/swarovision ergonomics. I realise there will be a good market for them: hunters etc. especially for the 10x50 and 8x50 configurations. The 7x42 and 10x42 is what I am looking at, and my comments are about...
You see, competition is good for everyone.
"The best never rest". ;)
The more I think about that, the more I am impressed by what Zeiss did with the Victory, and the less I am impressed with the marketing talk about the new SLC.

Now I have made my point and responded to the comments, I won't bother any longer disturbing other people's enthousiasm. B (:

In the English PR it is 1.5 turns from 2m to infinity.

I still can't find that cutaway of the new SLC ...

The SLC is not setting any standards, as far as I can see.

Yeah - sour grapes...

Ilkka ;)

For use in the field, basically whatever ED/HD alphas you have are going to give you the view you need, whatever critical standards you have. The spec details may lead you one way or another. I know that's not just what this discussion is about, but it's good to keep in mind.

I still can't find that cutaway of the new SLC ...

Sorry, wrong link in the post above. Here you find the animation with cutaways: http://slc.swarovskioptik.com/#/home/us

You need to click on one of the dots on the first image of the bin and then the cutways appear (in the text with the animation, it says a single turn. not really consistent with the press release...)

Thanks, Dalat, for your persistence.

Clicking on the HD Optics dot gives the cutaway. I hadn't tried that.

I suspect that's a negative lens focuser (given the distance between the focusing lens and the objective). So maybe nothing particularly new here.

Am I missing something here? Look at the 2 comparison pictures of the Antelope's(or deer, or whatever) head in the bottom right corner. Can anyone actually see a difference that matters?

http://slc.swarovskioptik.com/#/detail/hdlenses/bird/us

Bob

Am I missing something here? Look at the 2 comparison pictures of the Antelope's(or deer, or whatever) head in the bottom right corner. Can anyone actually see a difference that matters?

http://slc.swarovskioptik.com/#/detail/hdlenses/bird/us

Bob

Bottom side of the neck shows magenta, the top side yellow. Tiny pics don't help.
This whole thing must be a joke of some kind. I'm I to believe that the "old" EL will show this amount of CA? On axis? In that kind of light? If they do, their an amazing piece of crap. I doubt this is the case.

Thanks, Dalat, for your persistence.

Clicking on the HD Optics dot gives the cutaway. I hadn't tried that.

I suspect that's a negative lens focuser (given the distance between the focusing lens and the objective). So maybe nothing particularly new here.

I think that's a negative focuser too. It wouldn't be new for Leica, Nikon or Zeiss, but it is new for Swarovski. If you can find cutaways of the old SLC and EL you'll see they used positive focusers combined with fixed doublets. The new models use negative focusers combined with fixed triplets.

Thanks, Henry.

I was thinking that they had only switched to positive focusing in the EL but couldn't recall seeing an SLC cutaway before so I wasn't sure. Interesting that they would change back in the SLC. I guess it does give a more uniform focusing rate.

Kevin,

We still might not be quite on the same page. Here are all the basic differences I can see in cutaways of the SLC and EL models.

SLC old and Neu - fixed doublet followed by positive focuser. Prisms arranged with Schmidt prism first, followed by semi-pentaprism with roof. 4 element eyepiece in a 2-1-1 arrangement.

New SLC HD - fixed triplet followed by negative focuser. Prisms arranged with semi-pentaprism first, followed by Schmidt with roof. 5 element eyepiece in 2-2-1 arrangement.

Original EL - fixed doublet followed by positive focuser. Prisms arranged with semi-pentaprism first followed by Schmidt with roof. 4 element eyepiece in 2-1-1 arrangement.

EL-SV - fixed triplet followed by negative focusing element. No change in prism arrangement. 2 element field flattener followed by 4 element eyepiece in 1-2-1 arrangement.

So, compared to the current or any previous SLC, the SLC HD is a completely new design from stem to stern; new objective, focusing lens, eyepiece and a different prism arrangement. But, the basic design doesn't look so novel. It closely resembles the Leica Ultravid HD, which, except for improvements in coatings and ED glass, isn't much different from the 20 year old Trinovid.

I have to take a "Descent of Man" opinion here and suggest that Leica and Zeiss stick with what the models have, and just make some minor changes to improve their bin's functionality such as making the Ultravid's focuser a bit easier to turn.

Eeking out another 2% or 3% light transmission or a droplet more color saturation to keep up with the Joneses isn't worth the price of advancement, and therefore isn't really advancement in the Egalitarian sense. I don't think the human eye can even detect such a small difference, but your wallet will.

Neither is giving all alphas field flatteners a good idea (backwards step in the SV EL for those who see the "rolling ball").

If birders keep calling for incremental improvements, they better be prepared to pay for them through the nose and out the anus. Another Leica upgrade is going to cost them $3,000. Is that what they want to pay for binoculars?

If they are doctors, dentists, Ph.D.s (in a technical field), senior non-Ph.D. engineers, IT managers, hedge fund managers, or CEOs, they don't need to answer.

But if they are...
Just a slob like one of us
Just another bozo on the bus
Putting shoes on Baby's feet
Working hard to make ends meet

They are going to have to think through the financial ramifications of what they are asking.

After looking through the ZR 7x36 ED2 and the 8x32 SE, and wondering how much more those companies could do to improve the view and how much I would be willing to pay for those incremental improvements, I concluded that this quest for "optical perfection at any cost" has become a reductio ad absurda endeavor.

Nobody, not even an ornithologist, needs $3,000 binoculars, but that's exactly where we are heading with the next gen alphas.

I could buy a TeleVue TV-76 APO scope and complete package for $1,000 less. That's nuts!

Take a look at the guys with Trinnies who posted to the Leica thread (Upgrading from Trinovid BA to...). That's going to be of some of those now calling for Leica and Zeiss to make incremental improvements when in a few years the alpha prices finally go deeper than their pockets will allow.

Sales figures are going to drop for the alphas (Leica lost millions of dollars last year due to the recession and will have to make up for that shortfall), but the price per unit will keep going up, so they will survive. However, those improvements will price more and more would be alpha owners out of the market (or at least the new bin market).

Now that Leica has its "Goodwill Policy," it will take the worry about of buying used Leicas since they will be covered for repairs. I applaud Leica for doing that. It's about time. Nikon has been doing that for years. So has Swarovski.

I've seen some Leica refurbs, but not many like Nikons. Leica can help make up for the shortfall in new bin sales by beefing up its refurb market. So can Zeiss.

Now that the SLCs are priced within $300 of the SV EL (assuming that information is correct), they've lost their "second tier" line up.

Only Zeiss has a second tier line, and from what I've read, they could be better for the price point.

So what's going to happen in the future is that what once was the Mercedes Benz of bins is going to become the Rolls Royce of bins. Mercedes sells a lot of automobiles worldwide, and they also make trucks, Rolls doesn't.

The buck stops somewhere, and sooner or later, the buck is going to stop at your doorstep (the buck stopped at my doorstep in 1998! I was ahead of the trend :-).

So what's a po' boy to do, 'cept to sing for a rock'roll band? Well, there is an alternative model.

I prefer Nikon's multi-tier Egalitarian approach. They offer entry level bins, second tier bins, and an alpha line. Something for everybody. And they stand behind their products, both new and used, with a No Fault warranty.

If I had the ears of the CEOs of Leica, Swarovski, and Zeiss, I would say to their translators: I only have one word for you, just one word - Nikon.

And that concludes my sermon, which I had intended to deliver on Sunday, but I had to work, being a man of the cloth (or at least a self-righteous poser).

Thank you all for coming, and please remember to leave a donation for the poor in the pot at the door on your way out. :-)

The problem with a second tier approach to branding is that for me, I have never been able to figure out which tier of binocular was presented in a nikon add. The ideal solution for Leica would be to have an alpha tier and a second tier with two different names; if they still have the Leitz name available, that might be a good use?

Niels

Someone mentioned the single bridge design of these bins. What are the advantages and disadvantages of that design compared to the original EL design with two smaller bridges and an open area in between? Don't they have to add reinforcement (= weight) to avoid the colimation to go out of whack? I assume it is done in part to provide a visual difference.

Niels

The ideal solution for Leica would be to have an alpha tier and a second tier with two different names; if they still have the Leitz name available, that might be a good use?

Good idea, except I’d turn it on its head, with “E. Leitz” for the alphas (referencing the glory days of the M3 rangefinders) & “Leica” for the second tier. ;)

... Here are all the basic differences I can see in cutaways of the SLC and EL models.

SLC old and Neu - fixed doublet followed by positive focuser. Prisms arranged with Schmidt prism first, followed by semi-pentaprism with roof. 4 element eyepiece in a 2-1-1 arrangement.

New SLC HD - fixed triplet followed by negative focuser. Prisms arranged with semi-pentaprism first, followed by Schmidt with roof. 5 element eyepiece in 2-2-1 arrangement.

Original EL - fixed doublet followed by positive focuser. Prisms arranged with semi-pentaprism first followed by Schmidt with roof. 4 element eyepiece in 2-1-1 arrangement.

EL-SV - fixed triplet followed by negative focusing element. No change in prism arrangement. 2 element field flattener followed by 4 element eyepiece in 1-2-1 arrangement.

So, compared to the current or any previous SLC, the SLC HD is a completely new design from stem to stern; new objective, focusing lens, eyepiece and a different prism arrangement. But, the basic design doesn't look so novel. It closely resembles the Leica Ultravid HD, which, except for improvements in coatings and ED glass, isn't much different from the 20 year old Trinovid.

Outstanding comparative summary, Henry. :t:

Do you have an authoritative word on weather internal focusing equalizes image size over the instrument's focusing range?

Regards,
Ed

Someone mentioned the single bridge design of these bins. What are the advantages and disadvantages of that design compared to the original EL design with two smaller bridges and an open area in between? Don't they have to add reinforcement (= weight) to avoid the colimation to go out of whack? I assume it is done in part to provide a visual difference.

Niels

Neils,

Yes, I'm sure they had to beef up the one central hinge to carry the weight of both tubes. If you look at the old vs. new Nikon EDG, you'll see that the single bridge in the open end revision is larger.

One advantage of an open bridge design is weight savings. In the case of the EDG, this only amounted to about an ounce since it was already an open bridge design.

In the Swaro SLC, (not "EL," which slimmed down a bit, but has the same open bridge design), going to an open bridge meant dropping over 5 ounces of weight.

Given that the previous 42mm cost around $1500 and that the new HD's cost $2,100 (allegedly), that's a relatively cheap weight loss program, about $120 per ounce. I'm sure Valerie Bertinelli got paid a lot more than that to lose 40 lbs.! :-)

But of course, there were other improvements...

The possible disadvantage to the Virginia Slim SLC might be in handling. The original SLC had wide, deep thumb grooves that I liked for my big hands.

I haven't seen the thumb groves on the new EL, but they are likely the same or similar to the new SLC's, given the similarities of the tube design.

So the question is if being able to wrap your fingers around the tubes will compensate for the lack of deep thumb supports underneath.

Would the SLC HD get knocked out of collimation more easily than the previous model is a good question. The bottom bridge is designed to keep the barrels aligned.

You see this end bridge on some large aperture astro bins for that reason. However, SP prisms have less offset than porro prisms, so that might not be as big an issue for roofs, particularly in the 42mm range.

If they use this open bridge design for the Swaro 15x56 SLC HD, which has longer barrels, they might add a second bridge at the end for more stability.

Another possible advantage of the "open end bridge" is for the big handed, who might find their fingers squished between the two bridges. Now they can let it all hang out, as long as their fingers and palms don't protrude too far beyond the objectives, which could cause reflections to bounce off their hands/fingers into the bin. If so, Bushwacker covers should do the trick.

All this is speculative on my part since I haven't tried the new SLC, but from using a variety of bins, porros and roofs, including three open bridge roofs, it's not difficult to imagine what some of the possible advantages and disadvantages might be to an open end design, given that most porros have open ends.

My take on the whole issue of open bridge designs in roofs is that they are an attempt to make roofs as comfortable and stable to hold as porros for average- and large-sized hand users. Smaller hand users might still prefer the closed bridge roof design.

When it comes to ergonomics, you will never actually know which design is comfortable until you get the bin in your hands.

For example, when I looked at the Celestron Regal LX roof, with its minimalist bridge and no thumb supports, I didn't think I would find it comfortable to hold, but the grooves in the top of the bridge and flat space on the bottom between the barrels gave ample support. Not as comfortable as other bins I've tried, but better than I would have thought from looking at them.

The most comfortable and stable ergonomic design bins I've tried are:

Leupold Cascades porros
Nikon 8x and 10x SEs
Nikon EDG
Nikon Premier roofs (full sized)
Nikon 8-16x40 XL Zooms
Orion Vista porros
Swarovski 7x30 SLC
Swift 804 Audubon
Zeiss 8x50 Octarem
ZR 7x36 ED2

Hi Brock,
Nice quatrain!

"Just a slob like one of us,
Another Bozo on the bus.
Putting shoes on Baby's feet,
Working hard to make ends meet."

Good work!

Bob

What's amazing to me is that some people think you must have Swarovski, Zeiss, or Leica imprinted somewhere on your glass to be able to see things, and see things brilliantly. None of their top offering will show me anything I can't see through a Meopta, Leupold GR HD, Zen Ray ED2, Bushnell Elite, ar a Nikon LXL to name a few, all of which can be had for $500-$1000, and saves me $1000-$1500+! In fact, my GR HD in 10x42 is optically superior to my Trinovid 10x42.

Do you have an authoritative word on weather internal focusing equalizes image size over the instrument's focusing range?

Regards,
Ed

Ed,

I don't know for sure. It makes sense to me and appears to be true for the my Zeiss FL's with negative focusers, but I never got around to measuring any others.

Henry

Ed,

I don't know for sure. It makes sense to me and appears to be true for the my Zeiss FL's with negative focusers, but I never got around to measuring any others.

Henry

Henry,

I still don't trust my own reasoning about these things. My tentative conclusion was that magnification should remain constant with internal focusing, and I wasn't even distinguishing between a positive or negative focuser.

If you ever make such an empirical evaluation I'd be very interested.

One reason why this might be important is that instruments with constant magnification would have different depth of field characteristics over the focusing range compared to moving eyepiece/objective systems.

Ed

The magnification shoul vary slightly. After all the focuser is just changing the (effective) focal length of the objective/focuser lenses. It shouldn't matter if this is a positive or negative focuser as the effective focal length of the objective/focuser will be the same for a given EP and magnification (though I think with a positive focuser it's a bit easier to get close focus closer so you see a bigger change in effective magnification).

Although he understood me, I should have asked Henry: Do you have an authoritative word on whether internal focusing holds effective magnification constant over the instrument's focusing range? That subject came up a year or so ago. I'm not sure where the issue of positive vs negative focuser came from, but Henry's data were pretty clear.

It should be easy enough for someone to resolve the matter theoretically, but I don't have a definitive reference as to how these internal focusing systems work.

Ed

Here's the old thread on magnification and focusing distance. I see now, after reading through it, why I felt slightly unnerved at the prospect of reopening the subject. Still, some good information there, half of which I had forgotten.

http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=118028

Thanks, Henry. The only thing I didn't forget was the lack of an answer, which noodles me a bit. |:S|

Ed

The other day I wrote a bit about the new SLC HD (http://alpinebirds.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-slc-42hd-binoculars-by-swarovski.html).

For those of you interested in seeing/using it, we will have it at the Pannonian Bird Experience (http://www.birdexperience.org) at the end of April.

The other day I wrote a bit about the new SLC HD (http://alpinebirds.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-slc-42hd-binoculars-by-swarovski.html).

For those of you interested in seeing/using it, we will have it at the Pannonian Bird Experience (http://www.birdexperience.org) at the end of April.

Dale,
Is an HD 7X42 SLC a vanishing hope?

Dale,
Is an HD 7X42 SLC a vanishing hope?

despite the advantages of a 7x bin (and the vocal support on BF), it seems that almost no one actually ever buys one. Consequently, the SLC HD has been moved up to an 8x and 10x. Incidentally, the FOV of the SLC 8x42 HD is a rather large 136m (compare this to the 140m of the 7x42 SLCneu).

SLC = Slightly Less Costly.

despite the advantages of a 7x bin (and the vocal support on BF), it seems that almost no one actually ever buys one. Consequently, the SLC HD has been moved up to an 8x and 10x. Incidentally, the FOV of the SLC 8x42 HD is a rather large 136m (compare this to the 140m of the 7x42 SLCneu).

Curious reasoning, considering that any Binocular Manufacturer that aspires to have the reputation as NUMBER 1 IN THE INDUSTRY, should absolutely have one in it's arsenal!

Query: How hard or costly is it to have one? Couldn't it be done by simply using a different ocular? Or do you have to change other interior components?

Cordially,
Bob

The other day I wrote a bit about the new SLC HD (http://alpinebirds.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-slc-42hd-binoculars-by-swarovski.html).

For those of you interested in seeing/using it, we will have it at the Pannonian Bird Experience (http://www.birdexperience.org) at the end of April.

Dale,

Thanks for posting that link to your review. Looks like you got a sneak peak before most of us even knew the SLC HD existed!

I have some questions related to your review and a statement from Swaro's ad for the SLC HD:

"The view is not quite as incredible as the EL42 Swarovisions, but it is still impressive, with a great big sweet spot with high transmission (I think the official figure is at least 91 or 92%) despite keeping colour fidelity a nose ahead of anything from other companies. There is always a compromise between transmission and colour fidelity which is why some binoculars with high colour transmission have such strong colour biases."

From what Kevin said earlier, Swarobright = dielectric coatings, therefore the SLCNeu already had dielectric coatings.

Plus, it seems that the other coatings, at least in name, are also the same as the "Neu" model: SWARODUR and SWAROTOP.

Are you saying that Swaro boosted light transmission on the SLC HD (can't remember what the SLCNeu's #'s were??).

And that boosted light transmission usually results in color bias, but not in the new SLC HDs?

Not sure what you mean, could you please clarify that? Thanks.

Also, this is from Swaro's press release: Cranston, Rhode Island - SWAROVSKI OPTIK announces the new SLC 42 HD. The high-performance HD Binocular has fluoride containing HD lenses to ensure bright images with maximum color fidelity and will minimize the color fringing that is unavoidable with conventional types of glass.

Someone on BF said earlier that ED glass does not increase light transmission in which case the blurb about "fluoride containing HD lenses"... "ensure bright images" is marketing propaganda?

The view through ED bins have always appeared brighter to my eyes, but I suppose that could be due to less scattering of the spectrum (extra low dispersion) and therefore more color saturation in my eye rather than ED glass increasing the overall light transmission. IOW, colors look more vivid, therefore increasing the apparent brightness of the image. There's a question in there somewhere. :-)


Q. Do you see any difference in color bias in the SLC HD vs. the SLCNeu?

Some people have commented on the blue bias of dielectric coatings, but if the SLCNeu already had dielectric coatings, why would the color bias change on the SLC HD? Did Swaro upgrade one or both of the other two coatings (SWARODUR, SWAROTOP)?

Q. Do the images through the SLC HD look brighter than the SLCNeu under the same lighting conditions?

Q. If the price difference between the SLC HD and SV EL is only $300 (haven't confirmed that so I may be propagating rumor here, but that's the only price info I've seen posted), then aside from perhaps being sensitive to the "rolling ball" in the ELs, why would someone chose to buy the SLC HD over the SV EL, particularly now that they are closer to the same magnification 8x vs. 8.5x (same in the 10x42 model)?

Thanks.

Dale,

Thanks for posting that link to your review. Looks like you got a sneak peak before most of us even knew the SLC HD existed!

I have some questions related to your review and a statement from Swaro's ad for the SLC HD:

"The view is not quite as incredible as the EL42 Swarovisions, but it is still impressive, with a great big sweet spot with high transmission (I think the official figure is at least 91 or 92%) despite keeping colour fidelity a nose ahead of anything from other companies. There is always a compromise between transmission and colour fidelity which is why some binoculars with high colour transmission have such strong colour biases."

From what Kevin said earlier, Swarobright = dielectric coatings, therefore the SLCNeu already had dielectric coatings.

Plus, it seems that the other coatings, at least in name, are also the same as the "Neu" model: SWARODUR and SWAROTOP.

Are you saying that Swaro boosted light transmission on the SLC HD (can't remember what the SLCNeu's #'s were??).

And that boosted light transmission usually results in color bias, but not in the new SLC HDs?

Not sure what you mean, could you please clarify that? Thanks.

Also, this is from Swaro's press release: Cranston, Rhode Island - SWAROVSKI OPTIK announces the new SLC 42 HD. The high-performance HD Binocular has fluoride containing HD lenses to ensure bright images with maximum color fidelity and will minimize the color fringing that is unavoidable with conventional types of glass.

Someone on BF said earlier that ED glass does not increase light transmission in which case the blurb about "fluoride containing HD lenses"... "ensure bright images" is marketing propaganda?

The view through ED bins have always appeared brighter to my eyes, but I suppose that could be due to less scattering of the spectrum (extra low dispersion) and therefore more color saturation in my eye rather than ED glass increasing the overall light transmission. IOW, colors look more vivid, therefore increasing the apparent brightness of the image. There's a question in there somewhere. :-)


Q. Do you see any difference in color bias in the SLC HD vs. the SLCNeu?

Some people have commented on the blue bias of dielectric coatings, but if the SLCNeu already had dielectric coatings, why would the color bias change on the SLC HD? Did Swaro upgrade one or both of the other two coatings (SWARODUR, SWAROTOP)?

Q. Do the images through the SLC HD look brighter than the SLCNeu under the same lighting conditions?

Q. If the price difference between the SLC HD and SV EL is only $300 (haven't confirmed that so I may be propagating rumor here, but that's the only price info I've seen posted), then aside from perhaps being sensitive to the "rolling ball" in the ELs, why would someone chose to buy the SLC HD over the SV EL, particularly now that they are closer to the same magnification 8x vs. 8.5x (same in the 10x42 model)?

Thanks.

Now these are excellent questions though i do not believe a straight anawer will be forthcoming i would love to compare the old and new SLC in low light conditions to see if i can tell the difference and intend to do that if i get a chance.

Dale,
Thanks for posting that link to your review. Looks like you got a sneak peak before most of us even knew the SLC HD existed!
I have some questions related to your review and a statement from Swaro's ad for the SLC HD:
"The view is not quite as incredible as the EL42 Swarovisions, but it is still impressive, with a great big sweet spot with high transmission (I think the official figure is at least 91 or 92%) despite keeping colour fidelity a nose ahead of anything from other companies. There is always a compromise between transmission and colour fidelity which is why some binoculars with high colour transmission have such strong colour biases."
From what Kevin said earlier, Swarobright = dielectric coatings, therefore the SLCNeu already had dielectric coatings. Plus, it seems that the other coatings, at least in name, are also the same as the "Neu" model: SWARODUR and SWAROTOP.

The coating name specifies a type of coating, but the specific formulation of the coating within a particular binocular is determined individually per surface and within the framework of that particular optical system, i.e. an antireflexion Swarotop on objective lens 2 will not be exactly the same in an EL 8,5x42 SV and an SLC 8x42 HD.

Are you saying that Swaro boosted light transmission on the SLC HD (can't remember what the SLCNeu's #'s were??). And that boosted light transmission usually results in color bias, but not in the new SLC HDs? Not sure what you mean, could you please clarify that? Thanks.

The new SLC HD has an official transmission of 91%.
Essentially, if you want to have perfect colour fidelity, the coatings need to produce a light transmission curve that is flat over the entire visible light spectrum. This is evidently very difficult to achieve as plethora factors tend to reduce transmission in the red-yellow side of the spectrum. This results in the typical transmission curve with a “bump” around bluish and can produce very high listed transmission values (as stated in catalogues and test reports), i.e. high transmission, high colour bias. In order to combat this and increase colour fidelity, lower wavelength transmission needs to be maximized and the blues reduced, producing a flatter transmission curve overall, but a lower listed transmission, which is only taken within a very limited wavelength range.

BUT, how perfectly each of the surface coatings are designed individually and within the whole system can make a great difference to light transmission throughout the spectrum. This is what has made the major transmission/colour difference between the SLC HD and the SLCneu in that the SLC HD has a completely new designed coatings system which maximizes transmission to a certain level, but does not push it any further as this would result in an unacceptable colour bias (too sloped a transmission curve).

Also, this is from Swaro's press release: Cranston, Rhode Island - SWAROVSKI OPTIK announces the new SLC 42 HD. The high-performance HD Binocular has fluoride containing HD lenses to ensure bright images with maximum color fidelity and will minimize the color fringing that is unavoidable with conventional types of glass.
Someone on BF said earlier that ED glass does not increase light transmission in which case the blurb about "fluoride containing HD lenses"... "ensure bright images" is marketing propaganda?
The view through ED bins have always appeared brighter to my eyes, but I suppose that could be due to less scattering of the spectrum (extra low dispersion) and therefore more color saturation in my eye rather than ED glass increasing the overall light transmission. IOW, colors look more vivid, therefore increasing the apparent brightness of the image. There's a question in there somewhere. :-)

In my understanding, you have it perfectly correct: HD lenses do not increase transmission, but images appear brighter because of the crispness image reproduction (but better controlled CA is probably the main argument for HD lenses).

Q. Do you see any difference in color bias in the SLC HD vs. the SLCNeu?
Some people have commented on the blue bias of dielectric coatings, but if the SLCNeu already had dielectric coatings, why would the color bias change on the SLC HD? Did Swaro upgrade one or both of the other two coatings (SWARODUR, SWAROTOP)?
Q. Do the images through the SLC HD look brighter than the SLCNeu under the same lighting conditions?

Colour differences are most likely to be apparent during the day. Other optical differences between the two binoculars will be most apparent under low light conditions.

Q. If the price difference between the SLC HD and SV EL is only $300 (haven't confirmed that so I may be propagating rumor here, but that's the only price info I've seen posted), then aside from perhaps being sensitive to the "rolling ball" in the ELs, why would someone chose to buy the SLC HD over the SV EL, particularly now that they are closer to the same magnification 8x vs. 8.5x (same in the 10x42 model)?
Thanks.

The two binoculars follow completely different optical strategies, but they are both great binoculars. The Swarovisions aim for (almost) perfect edge to edge sharpness with a minimum of distortion, creating an (almost) perfect image of whatever you are looking at. The SLC HD takes a more traditional approach by including somewhat more distortion and aiming to optimize its performance within this framework.

I am looking forward to external comparisons of these binoculars against other top-class binoculars. I am happy with both but it is always interesting to hear how lots of different eyes and tastes respond to the various optics on the market.

I am on leave for the next few days on so will be rather out of touch.

Happy birding, I am going to go play in the fresh snow now :t: the snowfinches have just started breeding and there are some photos that need to be made!

despite the advantages of a 7x bin (and the vocal support on BF), it seems that almost no one actually ever buys one. Consequently, the SLC HD has been moved up to an 8x and 10x. Incidentally, the FOV of the SLC 8x42 HD is a rather large 136m (compare this to the 140m of the 7x42 SLCneu).

I am sure I read in Swarovskis own publicity that the 7x42 slc was the best selling" most used binocular in the world " now you are saying nobody buys them what happened did they give them away????:-O

I am sure I read in Swarovskis own publicity that the 7x42 slc was the best selling" most used binocular in the world " now you are saying nobody buys them what happened did they give them away????:-O

Not that I'm doubting your recollection, of course, but it would really be interesting to see such a statement made by Swarovski. As for the statement itself, whether Swarovski made it or not, I doubt that it's true — not even for the SLC series, much less all the other binoculars "in the world."

Ed

(Dale Forbes) ...The new SLC HD has an official transmission of 91%.
Essentially, if you want to have perfect colour fidelity, the coatings need to produce a light transmission curve that is flat over the entire visible light spectrum. This is evidently very difficult to achieve as plethora factors tend to reduce transmission in the red-yellow side of the spectrum. This results in the typical transmission curve with a “bump” around bluish and can produce very high listed transmission values (as stated in catalogues and test reports), i.e. high transmission, high colour bias. In order to combat this and increase colour fidelity, lower wavelength transmission needs to be maximized and the blues reduced, producing a flatter transmission curve overall, but a lower listed transmission, which is only taken within a very limited wavelength range.

BUT, how perfectly each of the surface coatings are designed individually and within the whole system can make a great difference to light transmission throughout the spectrum. This is what has made the major transmission/colour difference between the SLC HD and the SLCneu in that the SLC HD has a completely new designed coatings system which maximizes transmission to a certain level, but does not push it any further as this would result in an unacceptable colour bias (too sloped a transmission curve).


Dale,

Very nicely put! Logic would suggest that the uniformity of transmission across the visible spectrum is the primary determiner of color fidelity. To the extent that uniformity is not attained, however, the visual sensitivity curve of the eye is necessary to understanding the resulting perception. The eye has a peak sensitivity to the color yellow at .56 nm. and drops off fairly symmetrically on either side. So, the final perception will depend on how the brain weights the distorted color balance.

Ed

despite the advantages of a 7x bin (and the vocal support on BF), it seems that almost no one actually ever buys one. Consequently, the SLC HD has been moved up to an 8x and 10x. Incidentally, the FOV of the SLC 8x42 HD is a rather large 136m (compare this to the 140m of the 7x42 SLCneu).

Sad to hear this as this was next on my list. Part of the problem may have been that very few retailers stocked the 7x bins, and actually they usually pushed the 10x, since that is what they had in stock. Except for the 7x42 B&L that my Mom recently took I have never looked through a Swaro 7x. Like a fabled mystical beast they may now remain only a figment of my imagination.

despite the advantages of a 7x bin (and the vocal support on BF), it seems that almost no one actually ever buys one. Consequently, the SLC HD has been moved up to an 8x and 10x. Incidentally, the FOV of the SLC 8x42 HD is a rather large 136m (compare this to the 140m of the 7x42 SLCneu).

That might be an over generalization. Perhaps no one was buying a 8.2° SLC 7x. Perhaps they were buying a 8.6° Zeiss 7x42 FL if they wanted a wider 7x bin ;)

This is not to "slag off" Swaro but they are the first to kill off the 7x in their roof range.

I think it's a general issue on how bin makers make their trade off: is there really enough of a market for a sufficiently different product. After all we've seen the 7x35 disappear (mostly) from the market. One wonders if Leica or Zeiss will follow this thinking in their next revision of their bins. Nikon already decided to make a 7x in their EDG range.

And the last sentence Dale wrote I think reveals "the problem" the 7x42 SLCneu didn't have a really wide FOV and not much wider than a lot of the 8x available.

As FOV and magnification are the major trade offs in deciding which bin you use for a particular task in a particular habitat then if you can't get a much wider 7x then you go for the almost wide enough 8x unless you want the 7x for shake reduction.

Kevin:
It really all goes back to sales numbers, the 7X sales have to be small compared
to the 8 and 10x. This would apply to most makers.

I am thinking for Swaro. there are more sales in the 12x and 15x SLC's and they are a market leader for many reasons, and especially for the hunters, who desire more of a long range optic. I think Dale offered that in his post.

If you surveyed birders, I am thinking the overwhelming power choice is 8X, and for many
is a very good choice. Think about the range of 8x20 - 8x56 from many makers, lots to
choose from.

Jerry

It's ironic that Swarovski is dropping it's Alpha 7 x 42 SLC while Nikon, for the first time, is introducing one in it's EDG line.

My guess is that the real reason Swarovski is dropping it is because it is not much selected by the hunting fraternity. It is more useful in birding pursuits where depth of field is a factor and where eye relief is important. It can't be saving them an awful lot of money by doing so. The only difference between the 8 x 42 and the 7 x 42, as far as I can see, appears to be the oculars used although I could be wrong about that.

Birder's who prefer a quality 7 x 42 roof prism can still opt for Leica, Zeiss, Nikon or Meopta. If they want to expand on their binocular inventory perhaps they will try Swarovski's other models at another time.

Bob

The only difference between the 8 x 42 and the 7 x 42, as far as I can see, appears to be the oculars used although I could be wrong about that.

For the Zeiss Fl range I believe the objective (and perhaps some of the baffling?) is different in the 7x than the 8x and 10x.

So there is some extra work designing (and perhaps some extra production engineering too) in a 7x.

NDHunter: I don't doubt that this is a business decision: looking at the costs and benefits for Swaro it's a win on the bottom line.

I've not seen any surveys showing what the breakdown is but I'd agree that most birders use 8x, followed by a 10x and then probably a big drop to 7x (and then perhaps 6x).

With wider FOV 8x that one gets today (compared to perhaps 20 years ago) I think most folks are happy with what they have in that compromise. In the days of the Kellner oculars less magnification meant more ER and more FOV (in proprtion to the the change). Today with more complex oculars you can get better absolute numbers for ER and FOV than you used to at 8x so 7x is less compelling.

But I do worry about the reduction in choice though especially in ED 7x: Swaro never shipped one.

We'll see what Leica and Zeiss do on their next design. Fortunately Nikon seem to think the 7x is still needed (at least for now) although their offering is not super wide. The irony here is if I was buying a EDG I'd probably get the 8x (as I already have a 7x42FL) and I suspect that's making Swaro's point ;)

is it correct New SLC-HD and SWAROVISION bins have 10 year warranty now ?...

is it correct New SLC-HD and SWAROVISION bins have 10 year warranty now ?...

Interesting. I initially though they would be the usual EU == 10 years but US == lifetime. It seems not according to the web site.

The english (UK? Worldwide?) warranty is here

http://www.swarovskioptik.com/en/products/binoculars-slc-42-hd/warranty

The USA warranty is here.

http://www.swarovskioptik.us/en_us/products/binoculars-slc-42-hd/warranty

Both point to the same PDF

http://www.swarovskioptik.us/upload/media/media/34/ga_slc_hd_en%5B1567%5D.pdf

which says "worldwide warranty of 10 years"

Is that true of the SV too?

I

Is that true of the SV too?

I just pulled the warranty card from an SV and it's the standard lifetime limited warranty that we see on all the US products. I'd be quite surprised if the New SLC's deviate from this.

Ben

Ben Lizdas
Sales Manager
Eagle Optics
www.eagleoptics.com (http://www.eagleoptics.com/)

Is there a difference then between the SLC HD and the SV warranty?

Or is there a bug on the web site?

I see there is no warranty info for the EL SV on the US site ... there is a page but no content.

http://www.swarovskioptik.us/en_us/products/binoculars-el-42-swarovision/warranty

but there is for the Worldwide english site

http://www.swarovskioptik.com/en/products/binoculars-el-42-swarovision/warranty

The english language warranty is in this PDF

http://www.swarovskioptik.com/upload/media/media/34/garantie_el42sv_en%5B1411%5D.pdf

and says 10 years.

So clearly something is wrong somewhere (I presume on the web site for the SV).

The NEU-SLC and HABICHT range of binocular still retain the 30 year warranty, it seems the 10 year warranty is destined for its latest products...

CamerlandNY Doug over at 24hourcampfire is saying that it's 10 years parts and labor and limited lifetime on the optical components. But I don't see any of this written down except for the 10 year bit.

Swaro need to clarify their message, I think. Whatever the warranty is it should be clear what it is.

Been in contact with Swarovski about the 30 year warranty being reduced to 10 years, and was told,

It has become impossible to keep spares for the units 30 years after the last one comes of the production line, therefore the warranty now on all new units will be 10 years.

I was in a bino shop yesterday, with a binoholic behind the desk. He offered me coffee trice, while I was able to test all binoculars of Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski, Meopta and Nikon, except for the SE and EDG which he did not have in the shop.
I also tested the Zeiss classic 7x42, Leica Ultravid non-HD, Zeiss Dialyt 8x30 without and with T* and T*P* coating and last but not least 2 versions of the Zeiss 8x56 Nightowl.
I even had a chance to test the Leica Geovid, Zeiss rangefinder, Fujinon 10x70, New Nikon Monarch and a Nikon 8x30 which looked a lot like the SE 8x32 on the outside.

About warranty:
-Swaro gives 25 years on the Swarovision, he said (when I asked about it).
-(his words): Swaro 'includes' the price of the warranty in their bins. They maybe get 2 promille of bins back in warranty which are faulty by bad usage, but they repair them anyway, as it is still cheaper and they feel that it is a good selling point (which it obviously is!). Zeiss and Leica told my binoholic that, even though he insisted they follow Swaro in the warranty service, they don't want to do that, as they feel it would be selling 2 products at the same time.
-Leica gives lifetime warranty on all bins with serial numbers after 1990. So you don't have to be first owner etc. I did not ask what happens after 2020 with your 1990 bin, as I plan on living longer. ;)
-Zeiss gives 10 years, but the Dutch importer adds another 20 years. If the importer is not longer in business, those extra 20 years are lost.

The shopowner reckons he sells about 60% Swaro, 25% Zeiss and 15% Leica. He said bin turnovers are about 700 million a year for Swarovksi, while the crystal counts for around 3.7 billion a year (euro).

While I was there, a representative of Schott was also in the store. He did not say a lot, except that they also deliver to Leica and Swaro. He showed me a cilinder of Schott glass which he claimed has 100% transmission for all visible wavelengths.

About the bino's:
I just tested them in low light conditions on the small print of something in the shop, about 7-8 meters away.

I could read the letters best with one bino: Zeiss 10x56 T*FL
In reference to that one, all others where notably less bright/sharp, but OK, most were still very good for their specifications.

general observations:
1. 10-powered bins were better to read the small print than 8x and 7x. 12x where also fine, even 15x but already quite dark.
2. x32 bins were notably worse, and I think I convinced myself there not to buy a x32 anytime soon for my birding, as I don't mind the extra weight.
3. Almost all Zeiss had quite hard focusknob, while Swaro (a bit surprising for me) and especially Nikon (not surprising) had smooth focus. I guess the shop had a lot of sub-optimal or not-yet-smooth focusing binoculars.

About the 'big' three:
- For the most common configuration in Europe, i.e. 10x42, I tested Leica HD, Zeiss FL and Swarovision side by side, and no surprise here: the Swarovision was the best. It was as sharp and as bright as Zeiss but with better edges and a slight wider FOV and slightly easier view. The Leica was a bit dimmer, but still in the same league. They put a price on the Swarovision about 10% higher than on Leica/Zeiss.
When comparing (even) the Swarovision with the mighty Zeiss 10x56T*FL, the differences were still clear. I think I have something to save money for!
- About the old 8x30 dialyt: nice ergonomics, but the optics are dated. Not worth it anymore for me, to dim and not brilliantly sharp as new ones. I did not see a huge difference between the different coatings. The non-coated was made before 1978 and was as good as the T* (1978-1988) and the T*P* (>1988).
- the Nightowls were sharp and very good, but they are really too heavy to carry around, and the balance is not good (top heavy). The focusing ring turned heavy, and I would not recommend them for quick birding. I would suggest a 8x56 Classic if it does not have to be waterproof.
- The 7x42 Zeiss, Leica and Swaro each have their own fans, but optically, the Zeiss has (unsurprising for me as I own one) the most fascinating view with that wide FOV.
- A pleasant surprise was an SE-like Nikon porro 8x30 for 219€. I almost bought it (but I bought something else!). Everything people rave about in the 8x32 SE, I could see in this example: wide and flat view, very sharp, lightweight and comfortable in the hand (and bad eyecups).
- The meopta were nice, but a little heavy and with (again) a heavy focusring.
- 8x32: The Nikon HG-L 8x32 has nice features (smooth focusing, comfortable to hold), but looked a little dim compared to the big three. The Leica was too small for my hands. The Zeiss had that heavy focusing (again!). I think the Swarovski is the best because it has the best ergonomics and the view is still very good. If there will be a Swarovision 8x32 (in two years, the binoholic said), it will be a winner.

Nice summary. I think the weight is what kept me from the alphas. I like 42mm but not the weight. I have cheap Bushnell Ultras and the 10x42 immediately became my favorite.

But since I like 32mm as well, some day I may move to 30 or 32mm alphas.

Hi Temmie, Thanks for your thoughts on all these binoculars. I was quite surprised that you liked the Swarovision 10x42, I always thought you seemed a little down on Swarovski.
Regards, Steve

I never disliked them, but always thought people somehow overrate them compared to the other brands... My biggest argument not buying them is their price. You can get (until shortly) optical better binoculars for (at least over here) 25% less.

But ofcourse they have their place among the top contenders! (look e.g. at my top 5 binoculars (http://birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1688440&postcount=116), 2 Swaro's among them (even before I saw the Swarovision!).

I agree Swarovski are not cheap and I misjudged you!!:smoke:;)
Regards,Steve

- A pleasant surprise was an SE-like Nikon porro 8x30 for 219€. I almost bought it (but I bought something else!). Everything people rave about in the 8x32 SE, I could see in this example: wide and flat view, very sharp, lightweight and comfortable in the hand (and bad eyecups).

Sounds like an E/EII to me - €219 was a good price if it was in good condition - you should have snapped it up:t:

Paul

spot on, Paskman, it was a E/EII type!
I thought, from pictures, that the EII had a more 'classic' looked compared to the more modern SE, but it seems I haven't paid enough attention ;)

If I have a little more money, and as the salesman said people were not really interested in porros nowadays, I may have a second chance in the near future...

Good luck Temmie, I have one and even with the fold down eyecups they are great.

Paul

now I am confused.. will Swarovski change warranty for all products, or just new SLC? 10 year is still not too bad.

I think it is time for a Rep. from Swarovski to chime in here about the warranty. Dale Forbes you seem to
reply when the time is right. What do you say?

Hi Folks,

I had a chance to look through the pre-production model of the new Swarovski SLC binocular. Image and a short note is in my blog (http://web.me.com/gyorgy.szimuly/SzimiStyles_Birding_Experience_EN/Blog/Entries/2010/4/25_Brief_binocular_self-test_at_the_BirdExperience.html).

Cheers, Szimi
__________________
Blog: http://web.me.com/gyorgy.szimuly/Szi...Blog/Blog.html

The online documentation for the US warranty is vague but, as I have posted before, the documents that came with my SVs plainly state that they have a lifetime warranty to owners living in the US.

I don't know much, but I know that much ;)

The new SLC HD binoculars are now showing as in stock at some of the internet retailers.

Who will be the first to report how they compare ?

The new SLC HDbinoculars are now showing as in stock at some of the internet retailers.

Who will be the first to report how they compare ?

Yes, we did just get our first shipment of the SLC HD's (http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars?query=slc+hd) today. I saw NDhunter's post and decided to check out the 8x42's and compare them with the Swarovison EL's (http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars?query=Swarovision).
First off, the SLC's are about 1/2" shorter in length.
The diopter control is now integrated into the focus wheel like on the EL's.
The field of view on the SLC's is in fact wider than the SV's (+.2 deg). I guess that is accounted for by the additional .5x power on the SV.

The optics between the two appear to be identical, minus the field flattener/rolling ball effect. Disclaimer here: I own a pair of the 8.5x SV's and am not sensitive to this phenomenon. As I look to the edge of my FOV, the resolution certainly softens on the SLC's where the SV's stays sharp. Having said that, the SLC HD's sweet spot is quite good and typical with what I have observed with the Leica HD's, which I consider to have excellent edge sharpness. Resolution at a distance on both pieces is superb.

I was told the SLC HD's would use the same fluoride infused glass (HD) as the SV's and that would appear to be the case. Personally, I'll take the edge sharpness of the SV's any day. If you're not a fan of the "rolling ball" but otherwise like the view through the SV's, than the new SLC HD's are the bino for you.

Included is an excellent upgraded case (now included with the SV's as well) along with a Limited Lifetime Warranty card. Hat's off to Swarovski on this one. :t:

Ben

Ben Lizdas
Sales Manager
Eagle Optics
www.eagleoptics.com (http://www.eagleoptics.com/)

Yes, we did just get our first shipment of the SLC HD's (http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars?query=slc+hd) today. I saw NDhunter's post and decided to check out the 8x42's and compare them with the Swarovison EL's (http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars?query=Swarovision).
First off, the SLC's are about 1/2" shorter in length.
The diopter control is now integrated into the focus wheel like on the EL's.
The field of view on the SLC's is in fact wider than the SV's (+.2 deg). I guess that is accounted for by the additional .5x power on the SV.

The optics between the two appear to be identical, minus the field flattener/rolling ball effect. Disclaimer here: I own a pair of the 8.5x SV's and am not sensitive to this phenomenon. As I look to the edge of my FOV, the resolution certainly softens on the SLC's where the SV's stays sharp. Having said that, the SLC HD's sweet spot is quite good and typical with what I have observed with the Leica HD's, which I consider to have excellent edge sharpness. Resolution at a distance on both pieces is superb.

I was told the SLC HD's would use the same fluoride infused glass (HD) as the SV's and that would appear to be the case. Personally, I'll take the edge sharpness of the SV's any day. If you're not a fan of the "rolling ball" but otherwise like the view through the SV's, than the new SLC HD's are the bino for you.

Included is an excellent upgraded case (now included with the SV's as well) along with a Limited Lifetime Warranty card. Hat's off to Swarovski on this one. :t:

Ben

Ben Lizdas
Sales Manager
Eagle Optics
www.eagleoptics.com (http://www.eagleoptics.com/)
On the 10X the eye relief on the SLC also seems to be quite a bit shorter. It is 16 mm on the SLC vs. 20 mm on the SV. Is this likely to be an issue? I need a lot of eye relief. Would be nice to hear from someone who is able to compare them.

Mike

My first impression of the new Swarovski SLC 8x42 HD (http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/swarovski/swarovski-slc-8x42-hd-binocular):

http://birddigiscoper.blogspot.com/2010/06/swarovski-slc-8x42-hd.html

Mike M.
www.birddigiscoper.com

Sorry if i seem a bit confused here but can someone please explain the advantages the EL's have over the SLC's ? , i was pretty close to buying a pair of EL's but now the arrival of the SLC's have really confused me , it seems the new SLC's are superb but without the rolling ball effect and roughly £150 cheaper so now iam hoping someone here may put my mind at rest ! thank you in anticipation :eek!:

Zipolly, Reread post #96 above from Ben. Softer edges on the SLC HD. It would be best to try before buying if possible.
Regards,Steve

My first impression of the new Swarovski SLC 8x42 HD (http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/swarovski/swarovski-slc-8x42-hd-binocular):

http://birddigiscoper.blogspot.com/2010/06/swarovski-slc-8x42-hd.html

Mike M.
www.birddigiscoper.com

from your blog:
Overall, I think the SLC HD is a worthy contender in the super-premium class of binoculars that includes the Nikon EDG, Leica Ultravid HD, and the Zeiss FL.

It seems to be a worthy contender for 3 binoculars that are on the market for years... I really don't want to say they are anything bad, but I am very critical towards marketing talk about the new SLC. I consider the Swarovisions as a real upgrade of the overal package and a clear winner in the x42 top league, especially the edge sharpness.

But the SLC is (disappointingly) expensive compared to its competitors, e.g. Nikon EDG (always very expensive in europe) and Zeiss FL (tipically cheap in Europe). I wonder why they just haven't incorporated the flat field in the SLC, because that is, at least for me, the big :t: about the new Swaro optical design.

I am already saving for the 8x32 Swarovision o:)

I do hope they make a swarovision 8x32. To me it would nearly ideal.

Mike

Ben Lizdas,

From your post #96 above you state: "The optics between the two appear to be identical,..........."

Does this mean that both the SV and the SLC have the same new large Oculars?

Bob

Sorry if i seem a bit confused here but can someone please explain the advantages the EL's have over the SLC's ? , i was pretty close to buying a pair of EL's but now the arrival of the SLC's have really confused me , it seems the new SLC's are superb but without the rolling ball effect and roughly £150 cheaper so now iam hoping someone here may put my mind at rest ! thank you in anticipation :eek!:

Polly:

From what the posters show above, the new SLC will have the new HD glass and
put them in line with the current Leica Ultravid and the Zeiss FL. The EL Swarovision is different in any of those above, as it has the field flattening lens,
which should improve the edges all the way. The only other premium optic
offering the field flatteners and HD glass would be the Nikon EDG, :t: and they have done these in such a way, to allow a small amount of pincushion, to avoid some of the rolling ball, yet give a great view.

It should be no surprise to anyone here, that Swaro. would not not have the SLC be an equal to the EL, the "Flagship".

The SLC has been the workhorse, available in many sizes, and it is nice it is now
in the 8x42. Other things to check out are differences in eyerelief, etc.
I think it is great to see Swaro. roll out both of these 2 new bins, and within less than 6 months of each other. :t:

Jerry

Polly:

<snip> The SLC has been the workhorse, available in many sizes, and it is nice it is now
in the 8x42. Other things to check out are differences in eyerelief, etc.
I think it is great to see Swaro. roll out both of these 2 new bins, and within less than 6 months of each other. :t:

Jerry

Workhorse at a racehorse price. :-)

I also disagree with Mike, who said the SLC HD competes with the Nikon EDG.

The EDG has field flatteners like the EL. So the SV EL is its competition, although the 2010 EDG does look like the new HD SLC, at least the version released in Japan, and its priced the same.

I'd like a clarification on the SLC HD's edge performance. Sure it's not as good as the EL, but is it good enough ?

I tried a 2009 8x30 SLC Neu and the sweet spot was quite ample, in fact, larger than the 2001 EL I tried, and it the sharpness fell off gradually at the edges, so I didn't see the fuzz edges in my peripheral vision.

The earlier 7x30 SLC I tried had fuzzy edges that I found a bit distracting - the "Coke Bottle Effect".

Oh, say, can you see the fuzzy edges off-axis in the SLC HD by the dawn's early light, or do you need to move an object toward the edges to see the image blur?

How far from the center do you approximate the image sharpness starts to fall off, percentage-wise????

I realize this is somewhat subjective, particularly if the "fuzz" is due to field curvature, but even a rough estimation would be helpful. Thanks.

Brock

Ben Lizdas,

From your post #96 above you state: "The optics between the two appear to be identical,..........."

Does this mean that both the SV and the SLC have the same new large Oculars?

Bob

Yes Bob, they do appear to be the same size. Now if they are identical by design, that I can't attest to. I've never had one apart and hope to keep it that way ;)

Ben

You can tell a good deal about the differences in the optical designs of the SLC-HD and the EL-SV if you examine the animated internal views on the Swarovski website. The objectives are very similar, 4 elements/3 groups with negative focusing lenses, but the oculars are quite different. The EL-SV appears to be 6 elements/5 groups if you consider the field flattener doublet to be the eyepiece field lenses. The SLC-HD has a more conventional 5 element/3 group eyepiece similar to Zeiss and Leica.

Both the SLC-HD and EL-SV are radically different from their predecessors which had 3 element objectives with positive focussing lenses and 4 element eyepieces.

June 15th, 2010 @ 10:37AM Central Time (US)

I'm at my desk with the following bins:

Nikon EDG 8x42
Leica Ultravid HD 8x42
Swarovski Swarovision EL 8.5x42
Swarovski SLC 8x42 HD
Zeiss FL 8x42

I will do live reviews and answer questions here:

http://www.efnet.org/

Nickname: (choose a name for yourself)

Channel: #bingeeks

I'll try to be on most of the day today.

Mike M.
Eagle Optics Staff
www.birddigiscoper.com

(looking right now)

Performance-wise, the SLC HD competes with the Nikon EDG. The EDG is not sharp edge-to-edge like the SV EL is. The SLC HD has much better center resolution than the EDG, on par with the SV EL. To my eye, the SLC HD is sharper to the edge than the EDG is.

Mike M.
www.birddigiscoper.com

(looking right now)

Performance-wise, the SLC HD competes with the Nikon EDG. The EDG is not sharp edge-to-edge like the SV EL is. The SLC HD has much better center resolution than the EDG, on par with the SV EL. To my eye, the SLC HD is sharper to the edge than the EDG is.

Mike M.
www.birddigiscoper.com

Mike,

I see your point now. I was thinking in terms of them both having field flattener elements.

Edge performance wise, the SV EL beats the EDG, but I wouldn't tolerate the "rolling ball" in the EL. So that's "makes no never mind" of the EL's field flatteners since they negate the bin's usefulness to me.

However, your comment about the "SLC HD has much better center resolution than the EDG" is a point worth considering.

I'd like to see the experts get out their quantum micrometers and find out how these three bins stack up under controlled conditions. Not that bench tested results always match up to what I see with my own two eyes, but it at least gives me a another basis for comparison.

I would expect the EL to beat the EDG in center field resolution, because of the extra magnification, but if the 8x42 SLC HD also has "much better" on-axis resolution than the 8x42 EDG... then that means its time to buy some more pig's feet in the big, family sized jars, because it's going to take a hellava lot of quarters to save up for an SLC HD.

I'll probably wait for "retreads" from Camera Land or SWFA, otherwise, I might be saving for the rest of my life.

Of course, it's probably premature at this point to give the SLC HD the Good Birdhouse Peeping ™ seal of approval before actually looking through one. Some unpleasant surprise might crop up like the loose focuser cap on the first run EDG or the "rolling ball" on the SV EL.

I'm disappointed Swaro didn't keep the push-in diopter control on the SLC, I really liked that feature.

However, I'm getting used to the pull out cap on the EL. In fact, the other day when I was comparing the 2001 EL to the ZR 7x36 ED2, I tried to pull out the cap on the ED2 to adjust the diopter. Duh! :-)

Btw, when I tried to log on to EFnet, I got the error message: Too many connections.

Well, at least it didn't say: EF you! :-)

Thanks for that info.

Brock

I've closed the chat! A few people were able to get in. Perhaps I'll do something like it again in the future if there is interest.

Mike M.

it's going to take a hellava lot of quarters to save up for an SLC HD.

Brock

Your right the SLC-HD is an expensive item, which only makes my new Habicht 8x30W seem an absolute bargain, and it really is superb.
I just wish i had got one a lot sooner...

You can tell a good deal about the differences in the optical designs of the SLC-HD and the EL-SV if you examine the animated internal views on the Swarovski website. The objectives are very similar, 4 elements/3 groups with negative focusing lenses, but the oculars are quite different. The EL-SV appears to be 6 elements/5 groups if you consider the field flattener doublet to be the eyepiece field lenses. The SLC-HD has a more conventional 5 element/3 group eyepiece similar to Zeiss and Leica.

Both the SLC-HD and EL-SV are radically different from their predecessors which had 3 element objectives with positive focussing lenses and 4 element eyepieces.

Henry,
Is it safe to state then that the most important/significant improvement on the EL-SV and the SLC-HD is Swarovski's redesign of their oculars? These oculars must be rather more expensive to make than the older versions I would think.
Bob

Bob,

The SLC-HD eyepiece doesn't look too special, but the EL-SV eyepiece is certainly more complex than usual for a binocular.

Also, beyond the ED glass the objectives are completely redesigned. The old SLC (except for the 8x30) and EL were alone among the alphas in using fixed doublets with positive focusers. The new ones now use fixed triplets with negative focusers, like the design Leica, Zeiss and Nikon have been using for many years.

Henry

Thanks Henry!
Swarovski has seen Leica, Zeiss and Nikon's objectives and raised them on the oculars!;)
Bob

I've closed the chat! A few people were able to get in. Perhaps I'll do something like it again in the future if there is interest.

Mike M.

If you kept a copy of the chat I'd love to see it posted!

Also, beyond the ED glass the objectives are completely redesigned. The old SLC (except for the 8x30) and EL were alone among the alphas in using fixed doublets with positive focusers. The new ones now use fixed triplets with negative focusers, like the design Leica, Zeiss and Nikon have been using for many years.

Yeap, the didn't want to be seen using the same overall design as the "Chinese EDs" (and Meopta too; they're the only positive focuser designs out there that I know of). ;)

The SLC HD has much better center resolution than the EDG, on par with the SV EL.

How did you gain this impression? Did you use a tripler?

John

Maybe Mike meant to use the subjective term "sharpness" instead of "resolution". Certainly all of these binoculars should have resolution around 3-3.5 arc seconds, much too good for anyone to see at 8x and not all that easy for most of us at 24x. My acuity is around 90 arc seconds, so for me to barely discern line pairs at 3 arc seconds requires at least 30x and it's much easier at 40x or more.

Edit: I should have mentioned that the "daylight" resolution of all these binoculars would be reduced by the smaller effective aperture imposed by the pupil size of the eye to something between 4 and 6 arc seconds, depending on the brightness of the conditions. But, even 6 arc seconds is still too good to see at 8x.

Your right the SLC-HD is an expensive item, which only makes my new Habicht 8x30W seem an absolute bargain, and it really is superb.
I just wish i had got one a lot sooner...

Has Swaro updated the Habicht with SwaroÜberDüper™ AR coatings?

Have you compared the Habicht to an 8x30 SLC Neu?

I tried an 8.5x 2001 EL and a 2009 8x30 SLC side by side, and the coatings are much improved on the SLC. Colors really pop, contrast is noticeably better. The color bias is more neutral, and there is also less CA (not that the original EL had an objectionable amount).

The EL is still be better of the two bins in terms of resolution, DOF, depth of focus, 3-D effect, low light performance, ergonomics, and close focus, but I can "clearly" see the difference the updated coatings (and perhaps more advanced glass) make in the SLC's more "transparent" image.

The EL still holds up quite well, considering the innovations that manufacturers have made over the past decade, but I'm sure a 2009 EL would be even more impressive.

I have an 8x32 SE and 8x30 EII, so I'm covered in the midsized category. When the clouds roll in and don't roll out for week at a time, it would be nice to have a full sized bin with the latest (or next to latest) coatings.

I'm hoping the prices drop on the pre-HD SLCs after the HD's are released. We might see a spate of trade-in refurbs from Swaro.

In the wide range of specifications of the SLC family there's a product without direct challengers, one time the zeiss 15X60 is out of production, the 15X56. Curious about a new generation. By the way, would ZR people intested in "big eyes"?

Fernando

Hello, do you think the new SLC 10X42 10X42 are better than the Leica Ultravid HD

Has Swaro updated the Habicht with SwaroÜberDüper™ AR coatings?

Have you compared the Habicht to an 8x30 SLC Neu?

I tried an 8.5x 2001 EL and a 2009 8x30 SLC side by side, and the coatings are much improved on the SLC. Colors really pop, contrast is noticeably better. The color bias is more neutral, and there is also less CA (not that the original EL had an objectionable amount).

The EL is still be better of the two bins in terms of resolution, DOF, depth of focus, 3-D effect, low light performance, ergonomics, and close focus, but I can "clearly" see the difference the updated coatings (and perhaps more advanced glass) make in the SLC's more "transparent" image.

The EL still holds up quite well, considering the innovations that manufacturers have made over the past decade, but I'm sure a 2009 EL would be even more impressive.

I have an 8x32 SE and 8x30 EII, so I'm covered in the midsized category. When the clouds roll in and don't roll out for week at a time, it would be nice to have a full sized bin with the latest (or next to latest) coatings.

I'm hoping the prices drop on the pre-HD SLCs after the HD's are released. We might see a spate of trade-in refurbs from Swaro.

Brock:

I think you bring up some points that do merit more discussion. I am wondering
about how the SLC HD, does compare with the latest pre-swarovision Swaro. EL, and SLC.
From what Swaro. has told us all of the latest 2009 Anniversary models, SLC and EL, have had the latest SV coatings, Swarotop, and from what I have seen they are very good. I think Swaro. has done a very good job on the latest coatings.

So, now that gets us talking about HD glass. I have some experience with HD glass, and it does make me wonder about how much of an improvement it really offers.
In my opinion, for most users, it may be the coatings that count just as much as the glass composition, and engineering of the whole package. I am thinking that too much is made about the greatness of HD glass.

An example may be the Leica Utravid BR, vs the HD. Is there really much difference? Or are we just picking nits?

I guess more will offer opinions here as the new SLC HD gets some looks.

As far as the Nikon SE, just enjoy it. ;) You are able to enjoy a great view.
Just a classic excellent design.

Jerry

Brock:

I think you bring up some points that do merit more discussion. I am wondering
about how the SLC HD, does compare with the latest pre-swarovision Swaro. EL, and SLC.
From what Swaro. has told us all of the latest 2009 Anniversary models, SLC and EL, have had the latest SV coatings, Swarotop, and from what I have seen they are very good. I think Swaro. has done a very good job on the latest coatings.

So, now that gets us talking about HD glass. I have some experience with HD glass, and it does make me wonder about how much of an improvement it really offers.
In my opinion, for most users, it may be the coatings that count just as much as the glass composition, and engineering of the whole package. I am thinking that too much is made about the greatness of HD glass.

An example may be the Leica Utravid BR, vs the HD. Is there really much difference? Or are we just picking nits?

I guess more will offer opinions here as the new SLC HD gets some looks.

As far as the Nikon SE, just enjoy it. ;) You are able to enjoy a great view.
Just a classic excellent design.

Jerry

Dear Jerry, I think you also hit on a few very important points. The design and serial-production implementation of coatings is incredibly to the optical quality of binoculars, but it is by no means the only important point. HD glass does make a difference, BUT just replacing out a couple of lenses with HD lenses does not make any great difference. Without a complete optical system re-design, HD lenses will always just be a marketing ploy with no real benefit to the birder.

At the end of the day, it is the entire package that makes a great binocular. Great coatings, great optical design, great engineering, quality materials and high quality control.

We are happy with the way the SLC HD turned out but only time will tell whether birders share our enthusiasm.

So how does the SLC new compare to the SLC HD? or to the non SV EL?

DOES THE SLC HD focus know feel smooth as butter or what? is it on the level of the nikon premier?