New Swarovski SLC 42 Binoculars (5 Viewers)

The SLC competes with the Ultravid and the HT. At the new price, the SLC is more than competitive.

The Swarovision line competes with the EDG. Both offer flat fields, something that many birders find appealing.

Swarovski is establishing a price distinction between the SLC and SV while at the same time making it clear who the SLC competes with. My guess is SLC sales paled in comparison to Swarovisions. If true, that will no longer be the case.

It's rare for my Swarovisions (8x32/8.5) to feel slow focussing while birding. And I do have the FL to compare them to.

It happened twice this year that I can remember and they were both special cases. Once when Kinglets came in well under ten feet. Flighty little things. I just took a step back, problem solved. I wouldn't care to try to follow them at that distance with any kind of binocular anyway. Drive yourself nuts.

A second time while looking at White Ibis digging for mole crabs on a beach, at about as close as I cared to get, maybe seven feet. But if you need a Swarovision to look at Ibis at seven feet you're kind of a birding nut anyway. :-O

How cool to see them with that kind of detail though!

I don't spend much time with butterflies and bugs, but if you don't wait for them to take a seat you'll look kind of foolish trying to chase them no matter what bino you're using. The FL would still be quicker to use though. Personally, I don't see how Swaro's slow close focus could be any advantage in that situation.

As for overlap, anything closer than maybe five feet (with roofs) and I'm going crosseyed. Not too pleasant. I had one that focused down to 1 meter but I sure as heck didn't want to go there. I'd get a Papilio for that kind of stuff.

So yes, if the new SLC can drop hundreds of dollars and price and still focus to ten feet I'd say they have a winner.

Mark

pompadour said:

..... Tested three other combinations of instrument and user: a 6x, 10x and 12x and myself - without my glasses. Each focuses down to 9 ft. No problems at this distance .....

Click to expand...

Pomp, well ! ..... eminently glad to hear of your eyesight's ability to focus down to at least 9ft without glasses ......

and I should hope that it continues to work at a good deal closer range than that !! 3



Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan said:

Pomp, well ! ..... eminently glad to hear of your eyesight's ability to focus down to at least 9ft without glasses ......

and I should hope that it continues to work at a good deal closer range than that !! 3



Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

LOL :t:

Lee

NDhunter said:

Alexis:

The Swarovision does have a variable ratio focus, and that may not be
what you prefer.

They focus from 20 ft. to infinity in 1/2 turn of the focuser, 180*.
From 20 ft down to 5 ft. is 1 1/2 turns, 540 *.

I find the focus ratio is perfect with normal use, birding, etc.
The close focus is much slower, but it is a design decision, and was
incorporated into the design for insect and for close nature observing.

I agree it is slow down low, but I suppose you just need to slow down,
smell the roses, and just appreciate the view, it is superb.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is absolutely nothing special about the focus ratio of the Swarovision bins. Like all binoculars (except the Brunton Epoch and Pentax Papilio) the SV has an even-ratio focus (i.e. the focusing lens moves the same amount for a given amount of movement of the focus knob). There is nothing special about that design. It is not a feature to benefit close-focus users. All lenses require more movement to achieve focus nearby than they do to make corrections at distance. The problem with conventional even-ratio focus in a very close-focusing capable system is that it is hard to find a ratio that allows quick focus close-up without being way too fast at distance (as, for example found in the Nikon 8x32 LX/HG or the waterproof B&L 8x42 Elite), or that is comfortable at distance without being way too slow close-up (as, for example, in the original focus version of the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL, or now in the SV). Somehow (some combo of large radius focus knob, smooth action etc), in the Zeiss FL line, at least for me (I know some complain it is too fast at distance), the compromise is quite good, especially in the 8x32 model. Insect viewers are _not_ looking for bins to focus more slowly close-up, but rather, to speed up the focus that is inherently slow in conventional designs. That is what the Pentax Papilio and Brunton Epoch do--they have a variable ratio that moves the focus proportionally faster close up and slower at distance so it maintains a comfortable ratio across a wide focusing range. It overcomes the natural tendency of focus to be slow close up and fast at distance. Unfortunately, the logic/benefit of such design is so poorly understood that Pentax does not even advertise that it is part of the innovative Papilio design, and Brunton (last I knew) accidentally advertises that its innovative variable-ratio focus works the opposite from its actual operation, thus perpetuating the mythology of the desirability of slow focus at close distance for the benefit of precision close focus during insect watching (I've written about this, and Brunton's backwards advertising in previous threads, so I'll say no more here).

I'm not a big fan of the Zeiss 8x32 FL, but I end up using it a lot because it delivers both the bugs and the birds to my eyes quickly and efficiently for ID. I enjoy my Swarovski and other slow close-focus bins in the winter months when the bugs aren't out (as neither are the roses), and I wish I could enjoy using them in the spring, summer and fall too (because I like them better than the FL in other respects) but they are just too irritatingly slow for close work.

--AP

Kammerdiner said:

I don't spend much time with butterflies and bugs, but if you don't wait for them to take a seat you'll look kind of foolish trying to chase them no matter what bino you're using. The FL would still be quicker to use though. Personally, I don't see how Swaro's slow close focus could be any advantage in that situation.

As for overlap, anything closer than maybe five feet (with roofs) and I'm going crosseyed. Not too pleasant.

Mark

Click to expand...

Hi Mark

Trying to follow flying dragonflies or butterflies is a recipe for madness, but I still do it sometimes. That could explain a lot LOL. But as you suggest, I mostly wait for them to land.

If they land within a tangle of vegetation I sometimes find it easy to 'overshoot' the focus point with the FLs, due to their relatively fast focus (which is of great benefit in other situations). If the insect is smallish then I can focus to and fro 'over' it without seeing it so I have to find it again with the naked eye. This particularly happens with damselflies or edge-on butterflies with closed wings. The relatively slower HT focus won me significantly more perched insects recently in France, where the vegetation in the south can be dense and thorny.

On the other hand in more open habitats my 8x32 FL captures the bugs more quickly: never satisfied are we?

I agree 5 or 6 feet is as close as one would want to focus with roofs. I tried some that focused closer at the Bird Fair and then had trouble finding my way to the gents washroom due to warped vision.

Lee

brocknroller said:

I've heard the argument before about why a birder/bugger/butterflier (say that 5x fast) would want one bin that can do it all...
...Butterfly season is rather short compared to the time you can see birds, which is year round...

Click to expand...

It is true that butterflies only fly during the warm months. Where I currently live most of the year, in Minnesota, the prime season is May to September. During those months, I'm not inclined to use a bin that doesn't work for butterflies because many species are very local and have very short flight periods within that season, so viewing them is a rare treat. In comparison, birds are easy to find (even the transients), or if they are rare in MN are easy to find elsewhere, so I've pretty much seen them all.

brocknroller said:

...Where Swaro needs to "focus" its close focusing efforts is on the SV EL, which already has a good close focus, but some have complained that the speed at the close focus range is too "pokey". Perhaps that will be changed on the SV EL II.

Click to expand...

Let's hope so! For me, the whole point of premium optics is to deliver the view when lesser bins fail, which if we are honest, is not very often (i.e. mid-range bins work fine for nearly all viewing). By incorporating a variable-ratio focus to complement the excellent near focus limit of the SV, Swarovski could distinguish itself from other makers of much cheaper close-focus capable bins (which these days are not hard to find, e.g. Bushnell, Eagle Optics) by making the close focus abilities truly functional and enjoyable to use. That is the attention to design that I expect from Swarovski and any maker that wishes to gain distinction as a maker of premium bins.

--AP

CJ, Lee, ha ha - with my short sight I'll be happy if I can (without glasses of either kind) focus *out* to 9 ft! Realised later that the info might be useless anyway, that may be no-one experiences the overlap problem until closer in than that.

NDhunter said:

Alexis:

The Swarovision does have a variable ratio focus, and that may not be
what you prefer.

They focus from 20 ft. to infinity in 1/2 turn of the focuser, 180*.
From 20 ft down to 5 ft. is 1 1/2 turns, 540 *.

I find the focus ratio is perfect with normal use, birding, etc.
The close focus is much slower, but it is a design decision, and was
incorporated into the design for insect and for close nature observing.

I agree it is slow down low, but I suppose you just need to slow down,
smell the roses, and just appreciate the view, it is superb.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Jerry,

I'll second Alexis about this. What you've described is the normal behavior of a constant speed focuser, in this case one that changes the focus evenly by about 1 diopter for each 15º of focuser rotation. It seems slower at close distances because the value of a 1 diopter focus change shrinks dramatically as distance shrinks. The change (very approximately) from infinity to 20' is about 11-12 diopters, but 20' down to 5' is closer to 36 diopters. More than half the travel of the focuser is used just to go from 10' to 5'.

Henry

Alexis, Henry, where can one see a diagram, cutaway or otherwise, of the Pentax and Brunton mechanisms? Thanks. It is said of the Swaro. SLC change that "the new focusing mechanism has 20 fewer components than the previous one". Does this mean the SLC HD also has a special mechanism? Holger, in this thread, having remarked, "the bulk of the travel that has to be covered by the focuser happens near the short end", adds, "1.5m or 2.5m make a big difference for the construction of the focusing mechanism." In dimensions, possibly, but in number of components?

Alexis and Henry:

Well, I did not know that, and it is good you explained how this works.

I just thought the focus was constant throughout the range, but that seems
clearly to not be the case.
After testing another binocular it focuses the entire range in less than 270 degrees.
That is quite a difference.

In some ways faster is better.

Jerry

pompadour said:

Alexis, Henry, where can one see a diagram, cutaway or otherwise, of the Pentax and Brunton mechanisms? Thanks. It is said of the Swaro. SLC change that "the new focusing mechanism has 20 fewer components than the previous one". Does this mean the SLC HD also has a special mechanism? Holger, in this thread, having remarked, "the bulk of the travel that has to be covered by the focuser happens near the short end", adds, "1.5m or 2.5m make a big difference for the construction of the focusing mechanism." In dimensions, possibly, but in number of components?

Click to expand...

Pomp

What was called SLC 8x42 HD and is now just called SLC 8x42 has indeed had its focus mechanism reduced by the 20 components that were necessary for its close focusing capability. So instead of 1.9 m it now only focuses down to 3.2m.

All SLCs now have HD glass but instead of them all being called HD, none of them are. I'm sure it all makes sense in Austria. Or if you are wearing leather shorts.

Lee

We've got 5 pages of comments. Anyone thinking about purchasing one of the new SLC 42's?

I agree with Henry and Alexis.

There was some discussion of the simple math involved a few years ago, see
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1895136&postcount=17.

Concerning the above example, if an 8X binocular the following table would apply:




All of the binoculars that I have measured the focus speed on have been remarkably linear (within the limits of accommodation of the eye or booster and slack in the focus knob) and I have yet to run across a dual/variable rate focuser.

FWIW most of the Nikons checked average about 6-8 degs./diopter;
Zeiss, about 10-11 degs./diopter;
Leica, around 14°/d
Zen-Ray 7x36 ED2=14.1°/d
Swaro (depending on model, more variable than others) seem to be around 15-18°/d.
Promaster 8x43 ELX ED was 22°/d.

My personal choice for favored focus speed is around 12-15°/d.

pompadour said:

Alexis, Henry, where can one see a diagram, cutaway or otherwise, of the Pentax and Brunton mechanisms? ...

Click to expand...

I've never seen a diagram of either. I first learned about the Brunton from Steve Ingraham's review on BVD, and I subsequently tried it out. Very very nice (at least at room temp on the 2-3 times I've played with it over the years), but the rest of the package was not to my liking (e.g. narrow FOV, so poor field overlap at close focus). I only know about the Pentax variable (or maybe dual) ratio focus from personal experience. I noticed immediately that they focused comfortably both very near (~18 inches) and near infinity, and wondered about that. If you watch the movement of the objectives (behind the front glass window) it is easy to see that they move relatively far per turn of the focus knob at close distances as compared to far.

--AP

The Zeiss HT 8X42 focuses down to 1.9m with a minimum IPD of 54mm. The new 8X42 SLC has a 56mm minimum IPD and a longer short focus. If you want a close focus bin...buy the Zeiss HT with the shorter close focus and a more accommodating IPD (minimum 54mm vs. 56mm).

Go Zeiss!

I guess the reduced prices for the SLC42mm bins could simply mean that they didn't sell enough of the SLC HDs. For most people that were willing to pay that amount of money for new binoculars the price difference between the SLC HD and the EL line was probably not big enough to prevent them from thinking along those lines: "If I'm taking that much money I can add a couple of few bucks more to get the very best." With reduced production costs and increased selling numbers due to reduced selling prices, the profit should increase at the end as well.

Steve

The new 8x42 SLC sounds like it will be a good binocular and a good seller.

Now that Swarovski has had their second upgrade of the SLC line 8x42's with HD glass, I am wondering if Swarovski will come out with an HD upgrade to their classic 8x30 SLC in either a 8x30/32 SLC??- or if I could wish, a 7x30 SLC ( I know, not going to happen). I know they have the format covered in the SV line and they have the CL 8x30 ( non HD glass, and to me not an optical upgrade to the previous 8x30 SLC). I would like to see what Swarovski would/ could come up with with a 8x30/32 SLC HD. It could be about half way price wise between the CL and the SV and my guess would be they could sell quite a few. There are a number of fans still out there that liked the previous 30 mm SLC's.

stephen b said:

The new 8x42 SLC sounds like it will be a good binocular and a good seller.

Now that Swarovski has had their second upgrade of the SLC line 8x42's with HD glass, I am wondering if Swarovski will come out with an HD upgrade to their classic 8x30 SLC in either a 8x30/32 SLC??- or if I could wish, a 7x30 SLC ( I know, not going to happen). I know they have the format covered in the SV line and they have the CL 8x30 ( non HD glass, and to me not an optical upgrade to the previous 8x30 SLC). I would like to see what Swarovski would/ could come up with with a 8x30/32 SLC HD. It could be about half way price wise between the CL and the SV and my guess would be they could sell quite a few. There are a number of fans still out there that liked the previous 30 mm SLC's.

Click to expand...

They should can the CL and just stick with the winners...SV & SLC.

We've got 5 pages of comments. Anyone thinking about purchasing one of the new SLC 42's?

Click to expand...

• Actually, tangents off threads in this forum are often v. interesting, even merit threads of their own!

• Decided on a Sw. SLC? If you need close focus the present SLC HD is available at lowered prices now.

• If you don't then in a few mths the new and lighter SLC will be available for even less.

• Still cannot figure out how a difference in the close focus "mechanism" can save 20 components.

• Found, with some effort, <this illuminating post by Holger>. Can it be that the savings in cost and in components are due not to a "mechanism" but a different lens system?

• Was able to compare today for the first time an SLC HD, which is an 8x42, and an Sv., which is an 8.5x42, and thought of setting down these points here; sorry if this is old hat. Firstly, within dim places in daylight the SLC clearly shows more detail.

• The field of view in the SLC is much wider vs the Sv. than in the proportion of the stated 7.8⁰ vs 7.6⁰.

• BTW, surprised to find the better sharpness in the Sv. though nearly always referred to using the word "edge" is clearly noticeable even from ~ 2/3 of the way out. (Does not matter v. much to me personally, though!)

Pity the Sw. SLC HD 8x42 won't be around longer - such an efficient instrument for nature observation.