Tobias Mennle
Well-known member
Renze, do you feel this is connected with glare/ghosting or is it irrelevant once you have the bino in the right position? The 8x42 SLC is quite good in its control of glare/ghosting.
-
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.
Which one do you like better, the SLC or the SV. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter bh46118
- Start date
Renze, do you feel this is connected with glare/ghosting or is it irrelevant once you have the bino in the right position? The 8x42 SLC is quite good in its control of glare/ghosting.
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Tobias,
If you are referring to the prism reflections, no they are in no way interfering with the view, no matter where you place your pupils, so eye placement is completely irrelevant indeed. Note that Swarovski is quite frank about the nature of the phenomenon and I suspect they would be far more cautious if the 'spiders webs' were in fact, or could be explained as, optical flaws.
In comparing SLC to SV I'm with Kimmo in post #62 when he says 'I like both the SV's and the SLC's (...) and am unwilling to elevate one above the other. One comment, though. One poster said he thought the 8x32 SV was considerably brighter than the 8x42 SLC. My experience with these binoculars does not in any way support such a view'.
I might add that glare/ghosting in both binocular models is a non-issue to me. The only Swarovski binocular I've seen where glare/ghosting is at stake is the 8x30 porro. Here eye placement is critical.
Renze
Tobias Mennle
Well-known member
Irrelevant to eye placement, I thought so.
SLC vs SV 8x42/8.5x42, my samples are very very different. In fact, the SV made me change my view on both roof prism and flat field designs almost instantly. It has a totally crazy contrast transfer right to minimum distance. I can bent down and still focus my feet. OMG. Have watched my sleeping dog´s paws and a lot of stuff in my living room as well as far wet trees glimmering in sodium light. The contrast. Suddenly even a roof image is 3D. The whole experience reminds me of my excitement when watching scanning electron microscope images for the first time… No other bino I have used has this view. Definitely my new reference glass.
Yes the Habicht 8x30 has glare/ghosting, but this is the Achilles heel of many a bino. Wouldn´t say the 8x30 is critical in eye placement though. The 8x32 SV has about the same amount of glare, although it´s a 60 years younger and 1000.- more expensive design...
SLC vs SV 8x42/8.5x42, my samples are very very different. In fact, the SV made me change my view on both roof prism and flat field designs almost instantly. It has a totally crazy contrast transfer right to minimum distance. I can bent down and still focus my feet. OMG. Have watched my sleeping dog´s paws and a lot of stuff in my living room as well as far wet trees glimmering in sodium light. The contrast. Suddenly even a roof image is 3D. The whole experience reminds me of my excitement when watching scanning electron microscope images for the first time… No other bino I have used has this view. Definitely my new reference glass.
Yes the Habicht 8x30 has glare/ghosting, but this is the Achilles heel of many a bino. Wouldn´t say the 8x30 is critical in eye placement though. The 8x32 SV has about the same amount of glare, although it´s a 60 years younger and 1000.- more expensive design...
Last edited:
HighNorth
Well-known member
Have you had a chance to try the new Zeiss SF Tobias?
brocknroller
porromaniac
Brilliant idea!
Swarovski should re-implement close focusing on a subset of the newest 8x42 SLCs for birders who really need the feature.
Ed
OR reserve that close-focus feature for the yet-to-come 8x32 and 10x32 SLCs. California dreamin' on such a winter's day....
I wonder how much Swaro really saved per unit by reducing the close focus on the SLC? I suspect taking away something was mainly a ploy to reduce the price, because the SLC-HD and SV EL were originally too closely priced. Buyers might have thought, well, if I'm going to pay close to $2,000, I might as well go $350 more and buy the flagship model SV EL. Or if they didn't have deep pockets, I'll buy a Meopta instead of an SLC-HD, as someone said above. Of course, now the SLC is down to $1799 and the SV EL is up to $2,500.
If you look carefully, you can find an 8x42 SLC-HD for $1,500 -- that's $1,000 less than the SV EL, and you get the good close focus to boot!
Swarovski-SLC-8x42
If I had $1,500 burning a hole in my pocket, I'd buy the 8x42 SLC-HD to extinguish it.
<B>
Last edited:
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Tobias,
Hm, quite remarkable findings, even puzzling. SV blows away SLC (post #83), really? Are you sure there's nothing wrong with the SLC?
And the SV image showing 3D? In this notorious flat field design?
Of course there's always the possibility of personal preference: your eyes and brain just waiting for the SV to arrive. Where have you been all these years, my love?
Renze
Last edited:
PeterPS
Well-Known Member
I also see a 3D image through the SV, quite similar to that of a porro like the EII. In fact, as far as I know, "flat" field means an image that's sharp to the edge rather than a 2D image.
People are different, have different tastes, see things differently and make different choices (which makes the world go round....). There will always be people who will prefer the SLC over the SV and vice-versa. We could ask a member of the forum who has first-hand experience with selling these two models to tell us the percentages: x% for SLC and (100-x)% for SV. Those figures will show which of the two is the preferred model, if any (it could be too close to call), at least WHEN the price is taken into account.
But if the price is taken out of the equation I would like to believe that that there is little real doubt that the SV is the "better" model of the two (wrt to most metrics): this belief is partly supported by the way Swarovski Optik have priced them, and by the way Allbinos website has ranked them (in that ranking the SLC HD is 13 places behind the SV); and btw, for me those "spider webs" of the SLC have shifted the balance even more in the favor of the SV......
Peter.
People are different, have different tastes, see things differently and make different choices (which makes the world go round....). There will always be people who will prefer the SLC over the SV and vice-versa. We could ask a member of the forum who has first-hand experience with selling these two models to tell us the percentages: x% for SLC and (100-x)% for SV. Those figures will show which of the two is the preferred model, if any (it could be too close to call), at least WHEN the price is taken into account.
But if the price is taken out of the equation I would like to believe that that there is little real doubt that the SV is the "better" model of the two (wrt to most metrics): this belief is partly supported by the way Swarovski Optik have priced them, and by the way Allbinos website has ranked them (in that ranking the SLC HD is 13 places behind the SV); and btw, for me those "spider webs" of the SLC have shifted the balance even more in the favor of the SV......
Peter.
Last edited:
Holger Merlitz
Well-known member
All right, thanks for this confirmation. Actually, I like these structures, they allow us to look "into the soul" of that machine. No problem with them, the show up when light enters through the eyepieces, which should not happen during normal use ...
Cheers,
Holger
Holger Merlitz
Well-known member
Be careful, Tobias, Dennis might be dropping in here
When you talk about the "8x42 SV", then you refer to the 8.5x42 SV, right? Or is it the 8x42 SLC? Actually, I also prefer the older 8.5x42 EL over the later SV, it had that ease of view which appears to be lost with the new model (which, no doubt, is brighter and with improved edge-sharpness).
Cheers,
Holger
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
That's why binoculars don't 'blow away' others. They're always there for us to enjoy.
Renze
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Looks like I don't really understand what Flat Field means exactly, how it is of consequence to the image and - more important - to the eyes. As I don't like to go off topic and the issue probably has been discussed extensively already on the forum, can someone direct me to a good thread where the phenomenon is explained? Or to any relevant source of information on the WWW?
For the moment I understand flat field technology has nothing to do with a 3D view. OK, but then, what's happening here: https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2014/03/why-do-we-want-flat-glass/ ?
Incidentally, I picked up the link from a Swarovski EL 8x32 SV review on Tobias Mennle's website (http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/index.html), where Tobias is quite clear about the flat field technology applied to the 8x32 SV. In fact he doesn't like it at all. Quote Tobias: "Very unusual sharpness far into the edges. But the flat field images look - flat. Very flat. The image is not immersive. Technically fantastic, emotionally and aesthetically disappointing. (Comes the link). His conclusions fit very well with mine about the 8x32 Swarovision flat field experience. Flat is flat, NOT threedimensional, and newer is not always better".
Tobias, where are you? Is the 8.5x44 SV so much different in design than the 8x32 SV? Is flat field technology of consequence to 3D viewing or not?
Renze
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Yes they are. And self delusion goes both ways. You should read about it. It kind of sobers your opinion.
Mark
PeterPS
Well-Known Member
What a good characterization! Indeed some of us see 2D images where others see 3D ones; some see smaller objects in a 3D image, some see normal size etc etc.; and when you put together all these "delusional" people with strong but different opinions you get a forum that's going to last forever.......
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Thanks Torview, I've started a new thread to discuss flat field, distortion and 3D illusion.
Renze
Tobias Mennle
Well-known member
to High North, I have not tried the Zeiss, but I will.
Torview
Well-known member
Not sure I understand you, but I`m happy to be educated.
Mark might be referring to how two people exchanging views on BF can both delude themselves into believing they understand what the other person is talking about. :smoke:
Lee