Swarovski 10x42 EL (1 Viewer)

I had a pair. I sold them to keep my EL 8x32 SV. Loved them, but wanted better diversity. I didn't want 8 and 10x42.

Thanks, AGPank. I am lost with these model names. With the Leica Trinovid it is the current one that is 'HD' but the old one (by nearly all accounts) is better in optical quality.

I find this Swaro SLC model to be an excellent binocular and I prefer it to the Swarovision. The current SLC is not called 'HD', it seems, but said by Swaro to be equal in optical quality, although it has farther close focus to lower the price and weight.

Allbinos gives high ratings to both SLC models for CA, astigmatism, and "coma", but 4/10.0 for "distortion", described as, "The distance of the first curved line from the field centre compared to the field of view radius", with the Swarovision given 10/10.0. How this matters in terrestrial nature observation I do not know. But the apparent sharpness of the outer field of view is very good in the SLC for a model with no field flattening.

Sorry about the further digression, but at least there is some comparison there with the subject of the thread!

adhoc said:

James/Bruce, could you please excuse my memory and further explain "1st gen. SLC HD 8x42"? Roughly when was it introduced? Or a photo would be perfect. Could you/anyone also please remind me, what was the first* Swaro roof-prism model called, which was introduced in the 1990s*, and was being made* when they added the double-hinge model? *As I remember. While we are at it, what was that first double-hinge model (forerunner to the present Swarovision) called? Thank you!

Click to expand...

Adhoc

Go to: http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/docum...-SWAROVSKI-OPTIK-1935-TO-THE PRESENT-TIME.pdf

You will find much to interest you there concerning the history of Swaro and the various models of bins.

Lee

Thanks, Lee. That is a fantastic article—it can easily be read as such. (Of course it answers all my questions.) Congratulations Gijs.

I hope someone has done or will do something similar on Leica or Zeiss, say, and the link will be posted in this forum!

adhoc said:

James/Bruce, could you please excuse my memory and further explain "1st gen. SLC HD 8x42"? Roughly when was it introduced? Or a photo would be perfect. Could .......

Click to expand...

The last two versions of the Swaro SLC are basically the same binocular with some small differences. There were also several SLC versions before the last two.

The current version is generally called the Swarovski SLC WB. The similar prior version is known as the Swarovski SLC WB HD. My guess is James is grouping these to versions together and is referring to the first (SLC WB HD) as the first generation. If looking at all of the SLC models over the years, then it would be something higher than the first generation.

The prior SLC WB HD was an all new body design and it came with ED glass. That was new for the line. It was also close in price to what some consider the Swaro flagship model, the EL SV. Speculation is that Swaro wanted more price separation between the two lines so in the fall of 2014, the prior SLC WB HD was discontinued and replaced with the SLC WB. This is now the current model.

The biggest difference is Swaro simplified the focus mechanism removing the close focus ability and claimed that allowed them to lower the price. They also changed the body armor and I think dropped the weight an ounce. Optically, they are basically the same. There may have been some minor changes to accommodate the changes to the focus. There has been some small debate that there are minor optical differences in the view. The Swaro reps I spoke with said the end view is the same.

Swaro added the HD to the name originally to indicate the binocular had ED glass. Now I believe all of their binoculars have ED glass so it was no longer necessary to use the HD in the name and it was eliminated in reference to the newest version of the SLC. The WB (actually W B) represents wide angle (W) and twist up eye cups (B). That still applies to the newest version.

Here is a link showing the prior Swaro SLC WB HD .......

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/712718-USA/Swarovski_58210_SLC_10x42_HD_Binocular.html

Here is a link showing the current Swaro SLC WB .......

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1000637-REG/swarovski_58310_10x42_slc_binocular.html

My personal preference is for the prior SLC WB HD, which I have in an 8X42 . I consider them optically the same but the prior version has the closer focus and I think better styling.

Long answer to a short question. It appears Lee's link answered the rest of your questions.

Thank you, Bruce, for the lengthy and thorough response. Pretty much everything I was wondering about is now clarified. Still, surprisingly, few people assess the SLC at the very best level which usually includes the Swarovision together with the best from Leica, Nikon and Zeiss.

The newest SLC does create a quandary in that it does not have a close focus compared to the other top tier models. Does that eliminate it from top tier classification? I do not know and am undecided. There is no standard definition of what is an "alpha" binocular so it is up to the individual to decide.

I do consider the prior SLC WB HD to be top tier. Actually I think it handles stray light slightly better than a couple of EL SV units that I have so technically, it may actually be better than the EL SV. The SLC does not have the edge sharpness of the EL SV, but that may not be bad because some members have stated they do like the flat field view.

An argument can be made for two classes of top tier binoculars. Those that have lens flatteners and those that are a classic design without lens flatteners. Much of the comparisons of the new Noctivid are with the Zeiss SF and the Swaro EL SV. Would it be more appropriate to compare it to the SLC and the Zeiss HT since it seems Leica did not go the lens flattener route with the Noctivid.

Here are what I consider high end lens flattener design binoculars:
- Zeiss SF
- Swaro EL SV
- Nikon EDG
- Canon 10x42 is L ( I seem to recall is has lens flatteners)
- Nikon SE

Here are what seem to be high end classic models:
- Leica Noctivid
- Zeiss HT
- Swaro SLC WB HD and possibly the newest SLC WB
- Leica Ultravid Plus
- Kowa Genesis
- Meopta Meostar
- Maven B1 and B2

That list is from memory so I may have left some out. Also opinions will vary but there appears to be general consensus on these from what I have read and experienced.

BruceH said:

Here are what I consider high end lens flattener design binoculars:
...Canon 10x42 is L ( I seem to recall is has lens flatteners)...

Click to expand...

Correct Bruce. Canon states "Doublet Field Flattener Lenses for sharp, distortion-free images edge-to-edge". The 10X42L IS FOV is very sharp edge to edge and to my eyes, presents no RB while panning!

Ted

Ted .... Thanks for the confirmation. :t:

adhoc said:

Thank you, Bruce, for the lengthy and thorough response. Pretty much everything I was wondering about is now clarified. Still, surprisingly, few people assess the SLC at the very best level which usually includes the Swarovision together with the best from Leica, Nikon and Zeiss.

Click to expand...

This a shame because SLC is right up there. I tend to forget about it because I am a nature observer, not specialising in birding, and its 3.2m / 10.5ft close focus rules it out for me.

Bruce is absolutely right to include it in his lists.

Lee

Bruce, Lee, it is not the long close focus that makes some reviewers rate the SLC well below the Swarovision. Allbinos in their 10x42 rankings place the Swarovision 2nd, scoring 90%, the current SLC (with long close focus) 18th with 82%, and the SLC HD (with good close focus) 19th with 82%. The pre-2010 EL is 11th scoring 84%, and the SLC 'Neu' is 5th with 86%! Tobias Menle in his Greatest Binoculars states in 2015: "I suspect the SLC has been downgraded a bit compared to its predecessor to conquer a new niche below the premium model Swarovision. The SLC looks a bit softer than the others, especially below 10 meters, and does not quite achieve the wowing view of an alpha bin. ... The focuser is squeaky and rough, and the industrial design looks strange and old fashioned, lacking appeal. Swarovski should really let the SLC be a premium alternative to the Swarovision for those prefering curved fields. In Europe, street price is way to close to the superior Ultravid and HT to make the SLC a good buy ..." I personally find that in nature observation the SLC HD 8x42 conveys more detail (very slightly more) than the Swarovision 8.5x42 (note, despite the latter's greater x). My visual acuity is better than 20/20. Something subjective is going on here that I have not seen explained. Adding in edit: I should point out that, with ref. to my post #22, in the Allbinos scoring, compared with the Swarovision, the two newer SLCs lose 3.6% each for "distortion" (and the SLC Neu 3.0%).

adhoc said:

Bruce, Lee, it is not the long close focus that makes some reviewers rate the SLC well below the Swarovision. Allbinos in their 10x42 rankings place the Swarovision 2nd, scoring 90%, the current SLC (with long close focus) 18th with 82%, and the SLC HD (with good close focus) 19th with 82%. The pre-2010 EL is 11th scoring 84%, and the SLC 'Neu' is 5th with 86%! Tobias Menle in his Greatest Binoculars states in 2015: "I suspect the SLC has been downgraded a bit compared to its predecessor to conquer a new niche below the premium model Swarovision. The SLC looks a bit softer than the others, especially below 10 meters, and does not quite achieve the wowing view of an alpha bin. ... The focuser is squeaky and rough, and the industrial design looks strange and old fashioned, lacking appeal. Swarovski should really let the SLC be a premium alternative to the Swarovision for those prefering curved fields. In Europe, street price is way to close to the superior Ultravid and HT to make the SLC a good buy ..." I personally find that in nature observation the SLC HD 8x42 conveys more detail (very slightly more) than the Swarovision 8.5x42 (note, despite the latter's greater x). My visual acuity is better than 20/20. Something subjective is going on here that I have not seen explained.

Click to expand...

One day there was an optimist talking to a cynic, both of them getting some fresh air after days on Bird Forum.
The Optimist said how happy he was that Swarovski had done the right thing and dropped the price of SLC so that folks who wanted a top grade Swaro didn't have to pay full whack and buy an EL.
The Cynic replied that it was simply a devious ploy by Swarovski, downgrading the close focus capability of the SLC just enough that the right number of people would be forced to buy an EL just to get the close focus distance they wanted.

Lee

I've compared the 8x42 SLC WB to the SLC WB HD in hand and could find no discernible differences aside from close focus and the feel of the armor. Both are great buys at the $1300-1400 price mark you can sometimes find them.

I've also compared the SLC WB to the EL SV I've got and think that the SV has the amazing edge performance whereas the WB had better glare/flare resistance. Apart from that the images were so similar to my eyes that any differences, perceived or measurable, were inconsequential.

jremmons said:

I've compared the 8x42 SLC WB to the SLC WB HD in hand and could find no discernible differences aside from close focus and the feel of the armor. Both are great buys at the $1300-1400 price mark you can sometimes find them.

I've also compared the SLC WB to the EL SV I've got and think that the SV has the amazing edge performance whereas the WB had better glare/flare resistance. Apart from that the images were so similar to my eyes that any differences, perceived or measurable, were inconsequential.

Click to expand...

J its a similar toss-up with HT (better low light and somewhat better transparancy) and SF (huge FOV and better handling) and when the dust settles and time and experience step in it might be the same with Ultravid+ and Noctivid too.

Lee