10x42 SLC - VERY nice! (1 Viewer)

All,

I have been in the process lately of evaluating binoculars and in an interesting sort of way.

After much research and help from many of you, I have come to the conclusion that I need binoculars that have a shorter eye relief (ER). Bins with 17+ mm ER cause me to get blackouts with the slightest movement.

Instead of looking at a certain size bin, I have taken to looking for bins with shorter ER. I am happy to report that I found a dandy! I just purchased a pair of Swarovski 10x42 SLCs. Holy smokes! These are tremendous!

As far as I can tell, they are just as sharp as my 8.5x42 ELs, but are more compact and solid to boot! Now don't get me wrong. The ELs are built extremely well and have the edge regarding ergonomics. But the SLCs look to be carved out of two blocks of solid metal and then joined on a butter-smooth hinge. The only thing smoother is the focus mechanism. Just like the ELs. Until today I thought Leica had the best build quality. I have to give the nod to the SLCs. These things are stout!

After spending an hour in the parking lot of the optics shop comparing the 10x42 SLCs with a pair of 10x50 Ultravids, I raced home to call the Internet store where I had a pair of 10x50 Ultravids (15mm ER) on order. I was able to stop the order and immediately returned to the store to pick up the SLCs.

I took them home and have been sitting in the backyard checking out the birds at the feeder. I really love the additional 1.5x magnification over the ELs and have no problems holding them steady. For those of you that worry about the weight, I compared them on the Swaro website and they weigh in at a hefty 2 ounces heavier than my ELs. Not bad at all.

I am also happy to report that the 14mm ER does the trick with respect to blackouts! Yahoo! Anyone that does not wear glasses that experiences problems with blackouts should try shopping by ER. The offerings are fairly limited and are skewed towards the 10x side, but the views are more than worth it.

Finally, I ended up paying $1129.00 for the SLCs and would have paid $1450.00 for the 10x50 Ultravids. Not bad at all.

Keep and eye out for a pair of ELs for sale! With the way that I feel about these new SLCs, my ELs (18mm of ER = intermittant blackouts) may go by the wayside in a few months!

Thanks to all for your advice in this search! :clap:

Rgds,

Steffan

Greetings Steffan!

Sounds like you've been bitten by the "high quality bino" bug!

Congratulations on your purchase - I've always been quite fond of the SLC (and to a lesser extent the EL, mainly because of reliability issues not the optical quality). I agree with you about the build quality of the SLC and the smooooooth focus and hinge... I'm personally interested in eventually buying a pair of 7x30 SLC's (if I can find one... they are unfortunately not made any more).

Just a quick question - in your comparison did you ever actually compare the optical qualities of the Ultravid to the SLC side by side or though taking notes? I'm very curious... I've personally found that the Trinovid and Ultravid both have brighter and sharper images than the SLC's (at least with the low-power 7x and 8x models that I've been interested in comparing...). It sounds like you had the Ultravid on order, and cancelled the order, I guess I'm curious if you found a local pair and compared them before ordering?

Looking forward to your reply...

Best wishes,
Bawko

Bawko,

I did in fact have the 10x50 Ultravids to compare against the 10x42 SLCs. I also compared the 10x42 ELs with the SLCs. All was done over an hour's time in the store parking lot, although there was plenty to look at.

As far as optical quality is concerned, I have to say all three were neck and neck. As far as I am concerned, all three had very good sharpness close to the edge of view and I detected minimal if any CA. I will admit that the EL and the Ultravid were brighter, but not by much. I have to say that I am not the world's authority on bin optics, so I am probably not the best person to be writing any kind of objective reviews. I also feel that when you are comparing the top offerings from Leica, Swaro, Nikon and Zeiss, you are comparing one Ferrari against another against another. In my humble opinion, they all perform very well and I would be happy to own an HG, FL, EL or Ultravid. They are all outstanding. Making a choice between such bins must be done by the individual, as we all seem to have a different take on what makes a binocular world-class and what makes one just outstanding.

What clinched the deal for me was size and money, as optical quality had already been defined. While comparing bins, the store keeper mentioned bin size, specifically to be wary of too large a bin, for if it is too bulky or it seems difficult to tote around, it may very well stay in the closet. At that point, I looked at the 10x50 Ultravids and started to wonder. I still had them on order through Eagle Optics, so I was fairly well set on taking delivery. Then the minutes wore on and I kept returing to the SLCs. They were much more compact than either the ELs or the Ultravids and I really like the build quality and smoooooth focus, on top of the excellent optics. I took one last look at the price tag and decided that my Visa card could stand to be $300+ dollars lighter, so I went home, canceled the Ultravid order and picked up the SLCs. The 10x42 ELs were excellent as well, but at ~$1700.00, it just seemed like a bit too much money to pay, especially when the optics were in line with the SLCs. What can I say? I am thrilled to have a compact 10x bin that is made to such high standards and best of all, does not present blackouts when moving or panning.

I would really love to have a 7x42 of anything, but all of the manufacturers seem to be offering ER that just doesn't work with my face/eyes (18, 19, 20 mm and higher). I swear, if it gets any worse, they will be specing ER in meters and not millimeters! If you have any suggestions regarding 7x42s with shorter ER (14 or 15 mm), I would love to hear them. I have read several of your posts and know that you appreciate 7x bins.

In the mean time, I need to stay away from the optics store until my Visa is payed off. With the EL and the SLC, I got a little carried away!

Rgds,

Steffan

Hi Steffan,

I'm most delighted for you, and can't help feeling somewhat smug that we independently came to a very similar conclusion about the magnificent 10x42 SLC. Personally, I think it's the "classic" of the SLC line, and arguably the finest 10x binocular ever made by the company!

You might wish to post your own equipment review here.
http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php?product=121

Regards and congratulations to a fellow 10x42 SLC owner,
Elkcub
PS. I'm somewhat (pleasantly) surprised that you went for the 10x42 SLC considering the earlier threads about the 7x. What happened?

Elkcub,

I am still in the market for a 7x bin, but I became so tired of seeing eye relief in excess of 17mm (too long for me), that I started to shop by ER specs and not by magnification.

Don't get me wrong. I was looking for compliments to my 8.5 EL, both on the high and low sides, so a 10x bin was not a total change in direction.

Now that I have the 8.5 and 10x magnifications, I would like to round the collection off with a 7x, but I have yet to find a great fit. I have to say that both the 7x Ultravid and Zeiss FL are excellent glasses. I have compared them side by side and I like attributes of both. The Ultravid felt better in hand. I also preferred the Ultravid's slower focus, eye cup design and physical dimensions (smaller). The FL was a tad brighter, but it was also a bit larger, I didn't care for the lighter gauge plastic of the eye cups or focus knob and I felt that the speed of focus was too fast. That being said, both are top notch bins and anyone owning either has world-class optics that will last a lifetime. Nitpicks at this level are exactly that. It's like comparing two Ferraris and complaining about the light vs. dark leather or the 50 series vs. 60 series tires.

So with all of that said, these two 7x bins still did not pass the acid test, and that is if I can induce blackouts while moving or panning. With the new 10x42 SLCs, I cannot (14 mm ER). With the 7x bins (16/17 mm ER), I can. This may be something I have to learn to put up with, as a 7x bin is in my future and the I have narrowed it down to the two that I have mentioned.

Thanks for taking the time to share your impression of the SLC. It is one fine 10x bin with a build quality that is second to none. There may be optics that are a bit brighter, but anyone taking the SLC in hand would have to admit that these are really well put together. Each time I pick them up I get the impression of two pieces of solid steel joined with a butter-smooth yet almost zero-tolerance fitted hinge. When you combine that with an incredibly smooth focus and Swaro optics, you have one outstanding binocular. Those that have not considered the SLC line should at least add them to your "try-out" list. These should not be overlooked!

Rgds,

Steffan

Steffan,

Very interesting. I guess my own thinking is only somewhat similar, since I tend to organize my binoculars into task categories, like shore birding, woodland, back-yard, neighborhood walks, travel, theatre, ballgames, and even looking out of buildings/airplanes. The binoculars have to be "right" for the anticipated tasks, and I prefer not to have too much overlap because that would lead to confusion and consternation. Weight, size and "image" (to be candid) come into play in addition to having superb optics.

Shore birding and hawk migration watching are no problems: that's the domain of the 10x42 SLC with a 2x extender and a FISMO. |:S| My much-loved 8x30 Mk II is natural for in-land and back-yard birding (often with the FISMO), and the 10x25 SLC is for travel, looking from tall buildings and airplanes. But when it comes to neighborhood walks my wife's 8x20 SLCs just couldn't cut it (too petite), the 8x30s were too big and the 10x25 were limited in short focus. So, finally, that's where a 7x came in. I searched for something that would not be too obvious, could easily be hidden under my jacket, provided a substantial view similar to the 8x30s (in daylight) — but something that would also be acceptably old-fashioned. The perfect solution for me turned out to be a vintage Bushnell 7x26 Custom Compact. |=)| Now I'm thinking about a 6x papilio for bug watching, but I'm cautious about buying one without trying it first. I already have a #5 OptiVisor for desk work, so after that it will have to be a binocular microscope.

Getting back to your quest, what is the motivation for a 7x42? Personally, if I were to consider something like that it would be a classic Zeiss BGAT or modern FL. The Swaro 7x42 is really too heavy and doesn't have the close focus ability. Unfortunately, Leica's pincushion distortion is a show stopper for me, particularly anticipating looking up at or down from buildings. I'm sorry I didn't get a BGAT when I had a chance recently, but those are the breaks.

Sorry for rambling so long, but you are, after all, one who has chosen an 10x42 SLC. BTW, was it the old or SLCnew?

Elkcub

elkcub said:

Getting back to your quest, what is the motivation for a 7x42? Personally, if I were to consider something like that it would be a classic Zeiss BGAT or modern FL. The Swaro 7x42 is really too heavy and doesn't have the close focus ability. Unfortunately, Leica's pincushion distortion is a show stopper for me, particularly anticipating looking up at or down from buildings. I'm sorry I didn't get a BGAT when I had a chance recently, but those are the breaks.

Sorry for rambling so long, but you are, after all, one who has chosen an 10x42 SLC. BTW, was it the old or SLCnew?

Elkcub

Click to expand...

Elkcub,

almost all modern binoculars, especially the roofs, show some pincushion distorsion. With the 7x42 Leicas this distorsion is quite moderate but with the 7x42 Zeiss FL it´s noticeable. It´s a pity that Swarovski didn´t improve some important properties (closest focus and weight) with the last rebuild of their 7x42 (and most other SLCs). BTW when I once tried a 7x42 SLC those had push-in-pull-out eyecups and not twistable ones.

Steve

hinnark said:

Elkcub,

almost all modern binoculars, especially the roofs, show some pincushion distorsion. With the 7x42 Leicas this distorsion is quite moderate but with the 7x42 Zeiss FL it´s noticeable. It´s a pity that Swarovski didn´t improve some important properties (closest focus and weight) with the last rebuild of their 7x42 (and most other SLCs). BTW when I once tried a 7x42 SLC those had push-in-pull-out eyecups and not twistable ones.

Steve

Click to expand...

Steve,

Yes, I agree, they all show some distortion — and probably should. Although for years I was very interested in 8x32BNs, it was really the extreme level of it that put me off time and time again. (Try looking up at tall buildings with a pair to see what I mean.) Interesting about the 7x FL being more noticeable than the 7x BR(?). So, does that mean the 8x32 BRs also have less pincushion than the BNs? At the time I was evaluating they hadn't yet hit the street. [Hopefully, this will not start another row about pincushion. I'm only expressing my personal inability to cope with it in extremus.]

A close focus improvement would be wonderful for the SLCs, — something similar to what Leica did in going from the BA to BNs. I wonder what it would take. I evaluated that aspect very carefully between the 10x42 SLC and EL and found the 3-4 ft. difference didn't add up to anything practical for me considering the other tradeoffs (sans cost). Being task oriented, as mentioned earlier, I think the short focus would be relatively more beneficial or the 8x30 (yes!) and 7x42s (altho I would never use one). At least for the 10x42s, the "weight and balance" is salient, so they would need to be very cautious on that front.

The series started with push-pull eyecups, a different polyurethane formulation with less graceful armor design, and probably more hunter-friendly coatings. All these improvements come with the newer models and mostly go unnoticed.

Regards,
-elk

Hi Elkcub,

My 10x42 SLC is the older design. I did not have the opportunity to try the new models and from what I had read, the only changes were cosmetic.

I find, as you do, that bins of different magnification lend themselves to specific tasks. 10x for greater distances, 7x for greater FOV, brightness and DOF and then 8 or 8.5x for something in the middle.

In my quest for a pair of 7x glasses, I recently ordered a pair of 7x42 FLs and 7x42 Ultravids in order to conduct a comparison study. I really liked both bins, but I was still under the impression that I could find a pair that would show zero incidence of blackout, especially when panning. Since neither bin could provide this level of performance, I quickly returned them. I have since come to the conclusion that I may have to compromise and accept slight blackout with movement. If I can get an undisturbed FOV when holding steady, I think that will be good enough.

I wish I had held onto the 7x bins for a while longer, as I now have a better understanding of what is acceptable and what is not. I will probably have to conduct the exercise again, but that will be OK. Eagle Optics is very good about letting you try bins for 30 days and then return them if you don't care for them. I have a feeling that the Ultravid will win the contest, as I prefer its handling, slightly better build quality and slower focus. I just have to convince myself that the FL's brightness is something I can do without. Either way I will end up with a sensational pair of 7x glasses.

If we could only get Swarovski to produce a 7x EL!

Rgds,

Steffan

Marley said:

If we could only get Swarovski to produce a 7x EL!

Rgds,
Steffan

Click to expand...

Steffan,

If Swarovski produced a 7x32 EL or 7x42 EL, I'd be the first to place and order - regardless of the price.

Best wishes,
Bawko

elkcub said:

Steve,

Yes, I agree, they all show some distortion — and probably should. Although for years I was very interested in 8x32BNs, it was really the extreme level of it that put me off time and time again. (Try looking up at tall buildings with a pair to see what I mean.) Interesting about the 7x FL being more noticeable than the 7x BR(?). So, does that mean the 8x32 BRs also have less pincushion than the BNs? At the time I was evaluating they hadn't yet hit the street. [Hopefully, this will not start another row about pincushion. I'm only expressing my personal inability to cope with it in extremus.]

A close focus improvement would be wonderful for the SLCs, — something similar to what Leica did in going from the BA to BNs. I wonder what it would take. I evaluated that aspect very carefully between the 10x42 SLC and EL and found the 3-4 ft. difference didn't add up to anything practical for me considering the other tradeoffs (sans cost). Being task oriented, as mentioned earlier, I think the short focus would be relatively more beneficial or the 8x30 (yes!) and 7x42s (altho I would never use one). At least for the 10x42s, the "weight and balance" is salient, so they would need to be very cautious on that front.

The series started with push-pull eyecups, a different polyurethane formulation with less graceful armor design, and probably more hunter-friendly coatings. All these improvements come with the newer models and mostly go unnoticed.

Regards,
-elk

Click to expand...

Elk,

I noticed your purchase of the 10x42 already and I think this was a good choice. To be honest: I couldn´t detect any remarkable differences of optical performance between the 10x42 SLC and EL so far. I guess the reason why they didn´t change the specifications of the SLC series might be to justify the price distance to the EL series. I agree, a 8x30 or a 7x42 SLC with a shorter focus would also be a temptation for me because I´m very interested in insects, butterflies and the whole world of wonders in nature´s microcosm. It´s a wonderful feeling lying in the grass with a little piece of optics that let you view all that life of birds and other animals from infinity to closeness. I should take a look at the Pentax Papilos.
With the 8x32 and 10x32 Leicas (no matter if Trinovid BA, BN or Ultravid) pincushion distorsion has never bothered me. But I used them in the field most of the time and not in the city.

Steve

All,

I have not tried or tested SLC binoculars since Swarobright coatings were introduced, but Kikkertspeasialisten in Norway rate the 10x42 SLC higher than the 10x42 EL, largely because they prefer the SLC's color balance and think that it works better in dusk and gray weather.

I had a very brief look at the Papilo the other day - indoors only. The image definitely did not suck, and it was quite uncanny to focus to about a foot, relatively quickly. The one feature I was dismayed by was the coatings. Judging by the color of the reflections, there are some uncoated surfaces in the system, and the image in the store indoors with bright fluorescent as well as halogen lighting, was decidedly dimmer than I would have hoped for. This usually means that outdoors, in dusk they would do poorly and in bright daylight might easily suffer from excessive reflections. If I get a chance to try them out properly, I'll post my impressions on the Pentax thread.


Kimmo

hinnark said:

Elk,

I noticed your purchase of the 10x42 already and I think this was a good choice. To be honest: I couldn´t detect any remarkable differences of optical performance between the 10x42 SLC and EL so far. I guess the reason why they didn´t change the specifications of the SLC series might be to justify the price distance to the EL series. I agree, a 8x30 or a 7x42 SLC with a shorter focus would also be a temptation for me because I´m very interested in insects, butterflies and the whole world of wonders in nature´s microcosm. It´s a wonderful feeling lying in the grass with a little piece of optics that let you view all that life of birds and other animals from infinity to closeness. I should take a look at the Pentax Papilos.
With the 8x32 and 10x32 Leicas (no matter if Trinovid BA, BN or Ultravid) pincushion distorsion has never bothered me. But I used them in the field most of the time and not in the city.

Steve

Click to expand...

Hi Steve,

Being 10x oriented I was also interested in the 10x32 Leicas, but for some reason never got to evaluate them. Since you have both the 8x and 10x models, how would you characterize the difference — or which do you prefer? Is the 3.2 mm EP a serious limitation for general birding?

Thanks,
-elk

kabsetz said:

All,

I have not tried or tested SLC binoculars since Swarobright coatings were introduced, but Kikkertspeasialisten in Norway rate the 10x42 SLC higher than the 10x42 EL, largely because they prefer the SLC's color balance and think that it works better in dusk and gray weather.

I had a very brief look at the Papilo the other day - indoors only. The image definitely did not suck, and it was quite uncanny to focus to about a foot, relatively quickly. The one feature I was dismayed by was the coatings. Judging by the color of the reflections, there are some uncoated surfaces in the system, and the image in the store indoors with bright fluorescent as well as halogen lighting, was decidedly dimmer than I would have hoped for. This usually means that outdoors, in dusk they would do poorly and in bright daylight might easily suffer from excessive reflections. If I get a chance to try them out properly, I'll post my impressions on the Pentax thread.
Kimmo

Click to expand...

Hi Kimmo,

I may be dense but I couldn't detect any difference between the EL and SLC by way of color balance, but I'm not sensitive to that subtlety. Maybe there was a difference and I instinctively went for the SLC. In any case, the SLC's view is more "natural" to me than any other product, and I have little sense of looking through an optical interface to the world.

I find the focus control on SLCs about as good as one could hope for, since it is wide, quick, and has no backlash or dead zone. The picture snaps into focus beautifully. The overall construction has solid qualities like BNs, but with a much more comfortable grip in my opinion. Being a human factors guy, I'm always impressed by little nuances, like the way the thumb grooves spread the pressure over the length of the thumb, and the upper surface being designed to allow the fingers to make contact evenly without hard points. The SLCnew design actually seems to be a reversion back to the Mk II, which allowed finger tip placement.

Hmmm, I was afraid of that with the Papilio. All the more reason to be cautious about it. For near-in birding I've taken a liking to an old Bushnell 7x26 that gets me to 7-8 ft. without too much IPD fussing. I wish I could find a good copy of the 6x25 that get's closer.

Elkcub

elkcub said:

Hi Steve,

Being 10x oriented I was also interested in the 10x32 Leicas, but for some reason never got to evaluate them. Since you have both the 8x and 10x models, how would you characterize the difference — or which do you prefer? Is the 3.2 mm EP a serious limitation for general birding?

Thanks,
-elk

Click to expand...

Elk,

the first question is difficult to answer for me. On the one hand I like the wide fov that comes with the 8x32. On the other hand the fov of the 10x32 Leica is wider than with any other 10x (e.g. 10x50 or 10x42) binocular that is waterproof and of high quality. Now Swarovski and Zeiss has followed with models of 10x32 type with the same fov. I had always some trouble to understand what apparent fov should be. Comparing both type of binos side by side gives you an idea what this could mean since the 8x32´s afov is 61,6 and with the 10x32 it´s 68 degrees. The sharpness at the edges and across the whole fov, though very good with the 8x32, are really excellent with the 10x32. In fact that 10x32 Leicas are close to what I would call perfect binoculars. So if I have to decide only between these two I probably would vote for the 10x32. But in your case, as one who already owns a 10x42 binocular I think a 8x32 would be a better complement. The 10x42 works as a high power instrument and the 8x32 would be the choice for wider fields of view.
BTW: the Ultravids with 32 aperture are too small for my hands. So I prefer the Trinovids in respect of ergonomics.

An EP of 3,2 mm isn´t a problem for all day birding at all IMHO. Even in our most of the time cloudy weather circumstances here in Northern Europe the situations at day when 3,2 mm wouldn´t be enough are very rare. It also don´t abandon you immediately at dawn, probably because of very good light transmission. To find the right eye distance is a bit more difficult with small EPs. But once you´ve found it, you got it.

Steve

hinnark said:

Elk,

the first question is difficult to answer for me. On the one hand I like the wide fov that comes with the 8x32. On the other hand the fov of the 10x32 Leica is wider than with any other 10x (e.g. 10x50 or 10x42) binocular that is waterproof and of high quality. Now Swarovski and Zeiss has followed with models of 10x32 type with the same fov. I had always some trouble to understand what apparent fov should be. Comparing both type of binos side by side gives you an idea what this could mean since the 8x32´s afov is 61,6 and with the 10x32 it´s 68 degrees. The sharpness at the edges and across the whole fov, though very good with the 8x32, are really excellent with the 10x32. In fact that 10x32 Leicas are close to what I would call perfect binoculars. So if I have to decide only between these two I probably would vote for the 10x32. But in your case, as one who already owns a 10x42 binocular I think a 8x32 would be a better complement. The 10x42 works as a high power instrument and the 8x32 would be the choice for wider fields of view.
BTW: the Ultravids with 32 aperture are too small for my hands. So I prefer the Trinovids in respect of ergonomics.

An EP of 3,2 mm isn´t a problem for all day birding at all IMHO. Even in our most of the time cloudy weather circumstances here in Northern Europe the situations at day when 3,2 mm wouldn´t be enough are very rare. It also don´t abandon you immediately at dawn, probably because of very good light transmission. To find the right eye distance is a bit more difficult with small EPs. But once you´ve found it, you got it.

Steve

Click to expand...

Outstanding. That's very easy to understand and wholy consistent with what I'd have thought. To complement my Swaro 10x42 I use an 8x30 SLC, BTW which has the wide field and significantly lower weight to make it more "general purpose." (Don't tell Bawko but I agree with his appraisal of the 7/8x30/32 as the best all around configuration.)

I'm off for a 7-day trip so I'll cut this short, but thanks a lot for the insights.
Regards,
-elk
PS. Oops, maybe that best all-around should include 10/32.