AlanFrench
Well-known member
I just noticed the Swarovski SLCs are being advertised as Mark III instead of Mark II. Anyone know what the differences are?
Clear skies, Alan
Clear skies, Alan
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
SLC Mark III (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter AlanFrench
- Start date
AlanFrench said:
Swarobright coating?
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=19742 message #11
Ilkka
AlanFrench
Well-known member
iporali said:
Not sure. I thought they were up to Mark II when I got mine, and a check with Swarovski said my SLCs had the Swarobright coatings. The box provides no clue as to II or III, and perhaps it was the III. It would be nice, since they make changes, to provide better indications of what you have. At any rate, I am not thinking of "upgrading" if indeed I have the II model - just curious.
Clear skies, Alan
Jonathan B.
Well-known member
AlanFrench said:
Alan:
I think Henry Link has commented on Mark II/Mark III in this forum somewhere, but I can't find it (short of reading all of his posts). Leica and Zeiss enthusiasts have created websites with terrific information on the evolution of those manufacturers' products with serial number ranges as guides. I have also been frustrated that neither Swarovski nor any Swarovskiphile has done the same.
henry link
Well-known member
Jonathan B. said:
Jonathan,
That post was about the 8X30 SLC which has a different history from the big SLCs. The Mark I appeared in the mid 80's. It was followed a few years later by a Mark II which looked almost the same but added phase coating and waterproofing. The current version, which looks quite different from the first two but similar to the big SLC's came out about 1996. The bigger SLCs didn't start to appear until sometime in the mid 90's. Did Swarovski consider those to be Mark III's from the start since they match the 8X30 Mark III or do they have their own seperate evolution of I, II, and III's? Ample opportunity here for Mark confusion. Surely somebody at Swarovski knows.
Henry
Jonathan B.
Well-known member
henry link said:
Henry,
Let me test your knowledge about another Swarovski matter. One of the traits of the 8x30 SLC that I disliked was an amber cast to the image. I know this was still present in the SLC as late as 1998 or so. Do you know when Swarovski changed the coatings to correct the 8x30 SLC's color rendition to a more neutral state?
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Jonathan B. said:
Something to be added about the 8x30 SLC Mk II is that the flat glass plate in front of the objective creates a very annoying glare when the sun is oblique — which is usually just when a bird is begging to be observed. It's the same as the glare of sunlight from a glass window pane. I finally found this disturbing enough to part with the pair I'd been using since 1994. Otherwise, it's an absolutely wonderful example of human engineering yet to be equalled (IMO). I haven't tried the Mk III, but it might the a good substitute ... except that I really liked the winged eyecups.
elkcub
henry link
Well-known member
Jonathan B. said:
Sorry Jonathan, I didn't even realize the color had been made more neutral in the SLC's. I haven't seen a pair in a while. Hunters liked the yellow cast, so it was probably after Swarovski decided to go after the birding market with the EL's.
Jonathan B.
Well-known member
henry link said:
In a sporting goods store recently I compared a 7x30 SLC with original instruction book dated 1998 to a new 8x30SLC. The 8x30 had neutral color rendition, while the 7x30 showed the expected amber cast. In the past I had said that I did not like the small SLCs with focusing wheels at the far end. However the focus on the 7x30, which was in virtually unused condition, was superbly smooth, making it very easy to use. The amber cast is only slightly distracting, and is actually almost soothing when viewing in open sunlight. The close focus is a little disappointing at about 13 feet. That said, it had an amazingly natural image and was extremely sharp. I had not handled one before and it was a revelation. This is clearly an underrated binocular.
