The big thread about Swarovski SLC HD vs Nikon EDG (1 Viewer)

The Kingfisher · Sep 30, 2010

Today I received the new Swarovski 8x42 HD. I've only tried it for a little while to get a first impression. Spontaneously, I think it feels nice to look through - the field of view seems somehow larger than that in the EDG. Possibly it is slightly brighter than the EDG, seems to be at least as sharp (if not sharper) as the EDG - but the focus wheel is not as smooth as on the Nikon and the contrast not as high. Furthermore, it seems to handle chromatic aberration in a similar way as the EDG. Neither better nor worse as I can see right now, although I sometimes get the feeling that it actually shows a bit more CA than the EDG. It surprises me a bit! The colour seems to be neutral.

But I will compare them more accurately those coming days. I know that it can be a difficult decision to make, which one should I keep and which of them should be sent back. Time will tell..

I took a picture of the Nikon EDG 8x42 and the Swarovski SLC 8x42 HD so you can see how they look next to each other..|=)|

kabsetz · Sep 30, 2010

Kingfisher,

Just a comment on the field of view. I haven't seen the 8x42 EDG yet, but I have compared side-by-side the 8x42 SLC HD and the 8.5x42 SV. Between these, the subjective field of view should be wider in the SV, and probably is if one calculates it, but the image circle looks bigger in the SLC HD. This is because the SV's magnification diminishes markedly towards the field edge (as Henry Link showed in the photos he took of the SV's field edge some while back) whereas the SLC HD has a more constant magnification. Perhaps there is more of a magnification change in the EDG's also, since they also strive for a flat field and good edge sharpness.

Kimmo

mooreorless · Sep 30, 2010

I think the Swarovski HD looks better than the EDG. Must be the Habicht emblem.;-)

http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag...vpet&sigi=11m3qrqul&sigb=12ithekv5&fr=yhs-avg

ceasar · Sep 30, 2010

Noble bird, Steve! Just a sloppy eater! But doubtless it uses Swarovski Crystal for it's after dinner drink.B

Bob

vop · Oct 1, 2010

mooreorless said:
I think the Swarovski HD looks better than the EDG. Must be the Habicht emblem.;-)

http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag...vpet&sigi=11m3qrqul&sigb=12ithekv5&fr=yhs-avg

I agree, the Swarovski design is much more aesthetically pleasing.

That is one of the good things about Swarros, and it's one of the bad about Nikon. Except for the 8X30 EII (not the 10X35, it's kind of ugly) and the 10X42 SE, I haven't seen much good looking designs from Nikon (older porros of course). (It's of course my opinion; and yes I have a Mac not a PC!) The discontinued double hinged US model looked much nicer than this new one.

But being good friends with the focusing mechanism is very important so, just how bad is that in the Swarro is what I'm thinking now. Otherwise they seem quite equal according to your blitz comparison.

And how bad is the CA? Are you extremely sensitive and really looking for it or is it quite visible in normal situations (overhead flying bird at overcast day)?

'Cause to me that sounds bad for top of the line/pay through the nose ED/HD binoculars!

Kevin Conville · Oct 1, 2010

kabsetz said:
Kingfisher,

Just a comment on the field of view. I haven't seen the 8x42 EDG yet, but I have compared side-by-side the 8x42 SLC HD and the 8.5x42 SV. Between these, the subjective field of view should be wider in the SV, and probably is if one calculates it, but the image circle looks bigger in the SLC HD. This is because the SV's magnification diminishes markedly towards the field edge (as Henry Link showed in the photos he took of the SV's field edge some while back) whereas the SLC HD has a more constant magnification. Perhaps there is more of a magnification change in the EDG's also, since they also strive for a flat field and good edge sharpness.

Kimmo

I noticed this recently comparing a Nikon 8x30 EII with a 8x32 Trinovid. The Nikon has a larger apparent image circle but the actual angle of view between the field stop was slightly wider in the Trinovid. Aesthetically, the EII's view is more pleasing.

The Kingfisher · Oct 1, 2010

vop said:
I agree, the Swarovski design is much more aesthetically pleasing.

That is one of the good things about Swarros, and it's one of the bad about Nikon. Except for the 8X30 EII (not the 10X35, it's kind of ugly) and maybe the SE, I haven't seen much good looking designs from Nikon lately. (It's of course my opinion; and yes I have a Mac not a PC!) The discontinued double hinged US model looked much nicer than this new one.

But being good friends with the focusing mechanism is very important so, just how bad is that in the Swarro is what I'm thinking now. Otherwise they seem quite equal according to your blitz comparison.

And how bad is the CA? Are you extremely sensitive and really looking for it or is it quite visible in normal situations (overhead flying bird at overcast day)?

'Cause to me that sounds bad for top of the line pay through the nose ED/HD binoculars!

I agree, the Swarovski looks nicer than the Nikon when you look at the picture. But in reality, I am not as convinced.

The focuser of the SLC HD is not bad, but how it feels seems to vary a bit. Sometimes it feels smooth, sometimes smooth when focusing in one direction but not the other way, sometimes it feels a bit choppy and so on. When I mention this it sound really bad, but it is not quite as bad as it sounds actually. It obviously affects the overall feel of the binocular - especially compared to the incredible smooth focuser on the Nikon EDG.

Yes, I am sensitive to CA. For me chromatic aberration sometimes occur even in normal situations, such as an overhead flying bird and dark birds that swim in a lake. Yesterday (on a sunny afternoon), I was watching a flying cormorant. The Swarro showed slightly CA, while the Nikon handled this situation better and showed no CA. ED/HD-binoculars are not free from CA, but without ED/HD glass, I would certainly see a lot more CA than I do with the SLC HD and the EDG for example. A good example of this is if we compare the EDG with the Nikon HGL. The EDG handles chromatic aberrations much much better than the HGL does. I am very sensitive to CA, but I still think that both the SLC HD and the EDG handles chromatic aberrations quite okay!

The Kingfisher · Oct 2, 2010

After two days of testing..

Swarovski SLC 8X42 HD is a bit better when it comes to:

* Field of view
* Close focus
* Higher contrast
* Sharpness, middle
* Brightness

Nikon EDG 8x42 is a bit better when it comes to:

* Grip
* Focusing (both speed and feel)
* Sharpness, edge
* 3D
* Flare
* did better in my "roof gutter-test"

In other categories like CA, build quality, colour neutrality etc they were equally. Here are the scores (wich is very subjective):

Handling, focusing, close focus etc:

Swarovski SLC 8X42 HD: 46p
Nikon EDG 8x42: 46,5p

Optics:

Swarovski SLC 8X42 HD: 45,25
Nikon EDG 8x42: 47,25p

Overall score:

Swarovski SLC 8X42 HD: 91,25p
Nikon EDG 8x42: 93,75p

For me, the Nikon EDG seems to be the best binocular of the two. I felt it had a more natural view and better overall handling. But I have only have had the opportunity to use the Swarovski for two days..so maybe the view becomes more natural after using it a bit more!

vop · Oct 2, 2010

Have you put them through the freezer test to see if the focusing is winter friendly?

Also, when you find the Swaro brighter, having better center sharpness and contrast and field of view; how come the the EDG has higher optics score? Is the edge sharpness, sweetspot and flaring that bad in the SLC?

I feel that I would value the four first qualities higher than the latter three. And what is "roof gutter-test"?

Anyway, looks like two good binos, any of them seems like a good choice.:t:

denco@comcast.n · Oct 2, 2010

The Kingfisher said:
After two days of testing..

Swarovski SLC 8X42 HD is a bit better when it comes to:

* Field of view
* Close focus
* Higher contrast
* Sharpness, middle
* Brightness

Nikon EDG 8x42 is a bit better when it comes to:

* Grip
* Focusing (both speed and feel)
* Sharpness, edge
* 3D
* Flare
* did better in my "roof gutter-test"

In other categories like CA, build quality, colour neutrality etc they were equally. Here are the scores (wich is very subjective):

Handling, focusing, close focus etc:

Swarovski SLC 8X42 HD: 46p
Nikon EDG 8x42: 46,5p

Optics:

Swarovski SLC 8X42 HD: 45,25
Nikon EDG 8x42: 47,25p

Overall score:

Swarovski SLC 8X42 HD: 91,25p
Nikon EDG 8x42: 93,75p

For me, the Nikon EDG seems to be the best binocular of the two. I felt it had a more natural view and better overall handling. But I have only have had the opportunity to use the Swarovski for two days..so maybe the view becomes more natural after using it a bit more!

Have you tried the Zeiss FL 8x42? Give it a try before making up your mind.

The Kingfisher · Oct 2, 2010

vop said:
Have you put them through the freezer test to see if the focusing is winter friendly?

Also, when you find the Swaro brighter, having better center sharpness and contrast and field of view; how come the the EDG has higher optics score? Is the edge sharpness, sweetspot and flaring that bad in the SLC?

I feel that I would value the four first qualities higher than the latter three. And what is "roof gutter-test"?

Anyway, looks like two good binos, any of them seems like a good choice.:t:

You can see the individual scores in the attached file. Maybe you will get answers to your queries there! But I can explaine it briefly for you: 0,25+0,25+0,25+0,25 = 1 while 0,5+0,75 = 1,25... |;|

The "roof gutter test"..hmm I didn´t know what to call it..so I came up with that strange name. I looked at a roof gutter (or just say a horizontal line). While I moved the binoculars up and down, I tried to see (in the edges of the binocular field) how much the horizontal line bent. Higher points for straighter line.

The Kingfisher · Oct 2, 2010

Now I see that an error has crept into the test. My calculator (not me.. |;| ) have miscalculated by 0,25 p. Swarovski has to have an optic score of 45p and not 45,25p...and an overall score of 91p and not 91,25 p. Very important.. |=)|

The Kingfisher · Oct 2, 2010

[email protected] said:
Have you tried the Zeiss FL 8x42? Give it a try before making up your mind.

Yes, I have! I did not like the cheap, plastic feel of it. Soft edges and a focus wheel without feeling was not something I liked either. But it is not impossible that I would have liked it better if I had tried it again.

I have basically made my mind up completely for the Nikon EDG now. It does almost everything right according to me (as one can tell from my little test). But I'll give the SLC HD a last chance for tomorrow, by exclusively using it for most of the day.

The Kingfisher · Oct 3, 2010

I did the test again and got a final result that was almost identical to the first one.

Test 1.

Swarovski: 46 + 45 = 91 p
Nikon: 46.5 + 47.25 = 93.75 p

Test 2nd

Swarovski: 45.50 + 45.75 = 91.25 p
Nikon: 45.75 + 47.75 = 93.50 p

I can only say that both the SLC HD and the EDG are very nice binoculars. No doubt about it! Perhaps the Swarovski has a bit more "WOW-feel" to its optical performance, but the view of the Nikon is somehow more natural and comfortable for my eyes. Damn (sorry!), I can not decide which one I should choose.. :eek!:

denco@comcast.n · Oct 3, 2010

The Kingfisher said:
I did the test again and got a final result that was almost identical to the first one.

Test 1.

Swarovski: 46 + 45 = 91 p
Nikon: 46.5 + 47.25 = 93.75 p

Test 2nd

Swarovski: 45.50 + 45.75 = 91.25 p
Nikon: 45.75 + 47.75 = 93.50 p

I can only say that both the SLC HD and the EDG are very nice binoculars. No doubt about it! Perhaps the Swarovski has a bit more "WOW-feel" to its optical performance, but the view of the Nikon is somehow more natural and comfortable for my eyes. Damn (sorry!), I can not decide which one I should choose.. :eek!:

One small consideration is that in my experience the Swarovski will probably hold it's value a little better than the Nikon. But you shouldn't let that sway you. I would give more weight to sharpness in center of the field ,FOV and contrast because they are more important to me and would probably go with the Swarovski but on the other hand I know what you mean by natural view. What you see through the Nikon appears more real or what you would see without binoculars and Nikon's are good at that. The EII's are the same way. Your dealing with two top binoculars so it's going to be hard to decide. Nice comparison chart.

denco@comcast.n · Oct 3, 2010

The Kingfisher said:
Yes, I have! I did not like the cheap, plastic feel of it. Soft edges and a focus wheel without feeling was not something I liked either. But it is not impossible that I would have liked it better if I had tried it again.

I have basically made my mind up completely for the Nikon EDG now. It does almost everything right according to me (as one can tell from my little test). But I'll give the SLC HD a last chance for tomorrow, by exclusively using it for most of the day.

I would compare the armor on the Zeiss FL to the upholstery in a BMW or Mercedes and the armor on the Nikon EDG to a Lexus. The Zeiss FL armor to me has a high quality feel but it is a little less flashy and harder than the EDG. The focus wheel on the Zeiss FL is like shifting a BMW also not quite as smooth as the EDG but nonetheless very sure and positive with no slop whereas the Nikon EDG is silky smooth again like a Lexus. Again it depends on what type of engineering you prefer Japanese or German. Too me the Germans do things a little less flashy than the Japanese and tend to have more simple elegant designs. I don't think the edges on the Zeiss FL are that soft but they are a little softer than some of the other alphas like the Swarovision's but this a design decision to get a really sharp, sharp center which I prefer. I would say the design of the Swarovski SLC HD is somewhere between the Zeiss FL and the Nikon EDG. Let me ask you this do you like Lexus's or BMW's better? If you like Lexus's better go with the Nikon EDG and if you like BMW's go with the Swarovski SLC HD or the Zeiss FL.

mooreorless · Oct 4, 2010

This is in the U.S., when I was going to trade in my old non phase coated Swarovski 7x30SLCompact roof prism , the shop I went to gave me $450 in trade on a Swaro 8x30 SLC neu and the Nikon 8x32LX I had with me they would only give me $375. I asked why and they said they could sell the Swarovski easier. The guy said he knew the Nikon was newer etc. and knew the original prices.
BTW that is what Swarovski called the 8x30SLC and 7x30SLC 7x30SLcompact back then.
http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=119145&d=1198886074

The Kingfisher · Oct 4, 2010

One small consideration is that in my experience the Swarovski will probably hold it's value a little better than the Nikon. But you shouldn't let that sway you.

Yes, that´s true. I have thought about that. But my intention is to keep the binoculars in many many years. Therefore, I want the whole "package" should feel right - everything from very good optics to how it feels in your hands, etc.

The Kingfisher · Oct 4, 2010

[email protected] said:
I would compare the armor on the Zeiss FL to the upholstery in a BMW or Mercedes and the armor on the Nikon EDG to a Lexus. The Zeiss FL armor to me has a high quality feel but it is a little less flashy and harder than the EDG. The focus wheel on the Zeiss FL is like shifting a BMW also not quite as smooth as the EDG but nonetheless very sure and positive with no slop whereas the Nikon EDG is silky smooth again like a Lexus. Again it depends on what type of engineering you prefer Japanese or German. Too me the Germans do things a little less flashy than the Japanese and tend to have more simple elegant designs. I don't think the edges on the Zeiss FL are that soft but they are a little softer than some of the other alphas like the Swarovision's but this a design decision to get a really sharp, sharp center which I prefer. I would say the design of the Swarovski SLC HD is somewhere between the Zeiss FL and the Nikon EDG. Let me ask you this do you like Lexus's or BMW's better? If you like Lexus's better go with the Nikon EDG and if you like BMW's go with the Swarovski SLC HD or the Zeiss FL.

Thanks for this nice comparison between binoculars and cars! I actually think I prefer the Lexus.. |=)|

The Swarovski has a slightly higher resolution than the Nikon. This I found when I had the binoculars on a tripod and compared them with each other. Hand held, I also feel that the Swarovski is crisper/sharper than the Nikon. BUT, in the field I do not think that I see more details or identifying birds easier with the Swarovski SLC HD. Quite the contrary! I almost feel that the Nikon performs better in practice and some details are easier to see with it than with the Swarovski. Maybe it's because the Nikon is more stable in my hands and therefore creates less vibration?!

But another reason (which I strongly believe in) is that the Nikon EDG seems to separate the colors better than the SLC HD. Colors "will not float together" in the same way as I feel they are doing with the SLC HD. This, together with more three dimensionality that gives body and soul to the image, and perhaps less vibration is probably what makes me feel that the Nikon sometimes performs better in the field than the Swarovski do. In all cases I have experienced this in several different situations in the field. So I have no other explanation for it other than what I wrote above.

brocknroller · Oct 6, 2010

and the Nikon 8x32 SE is like a Honda Civic, inexpensive but reliable. I had my Honda Civic for 14 years until the undercarriage started to rot (they use a lot of salt on the road here). If I had the bottom "undercoated" again in year 7, it would probably still be on the road.

All I ever did to it was replace the clutch (1x), brakes (2x), and half of the exhaust system (1x). Can't beat the maintenance cost, kind of like Nikon's No Faulty repair policy.

bRoCk

The big thread about Swarovski SLC HD vs Nikon EDG (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

yardbirder

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

porromaniac

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread