New SLC is on the way... (1 Viewer)

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

ceasar said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Kevin Purcell said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Stirring the Pot

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

njlarsen said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

henry link said:

... 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.

Click to expand...

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

njlarsen said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

elkcub said:

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

Regards,
Ed

Click to expand...

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 link said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

For those of you interested in seeing/using it, we will have it at the Pannonian Bird Experience at the end of April.