A2GG
Beth
No, that one is the latest version. I bought
the previous version. There aren't many left out there.
http://www.birders-store-minox.co.uk/minox_bl_8x42_br_limited_edition_binoculars_29.html
-
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.
Swarovski Sale? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Steve260
- Start date
No, that one is the latest version. I bought
the previous version. There aren't many left out there.
http://www.birders-store-minox.co.uk/minox_bl_8x42_br_limited_edition_binoculars_29.html
brocknroller
porromaniac
To say that Minox's letter terminology is confusing is an understatement. It's downright cornfusing.
So you don't mean the newer open bridge BL BRs? You mean the older closed bridge BL BR model, correct?
This one?
BL BR MIG
Brock
Last edited:
Different Stephen here- But as I said in my post above Swarovski confirmed to me before and just the other day that the MKIII 7x30 ER is 18 mm.
And I know that it is definitely longer than the MKIII 8x30. I have seen them both and spent a lot of time with both side by side. When they just had pull out/ push in eyecups, the 7x30" were definitely longer than the 8x30 ones.
When they went to twist up ones they used the same ones on both the 7x30 and 8x30 ones. But for EP design the 7x30 has longer ER- so for most eyeglass wearers the 7x30 is a bit better. But I still really had no problem with the 8x30.
But without eyewear, I have to hold my eyes farther away on the 7x30 twist up eye cups compared to the 8x30 ones with same eye cups.
I know it is confusing and I may have just made it more confusing.
All I know, is I wish I still had those pull out eye cups that I sold with my first 7x30 SLC. I then could easily post a pick of the difference in eyecup length with that one and the twist up ones now. Of course that would not confirm the eyepiece design being 18mm- but I guess you are just going to have to trust me and Swarovski on that.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Hi Stephen,
Relax, I'm a believer that the 7x30 MkIII had a longer ER of 18 mm. I also believe the 15 mm ER of my 8x30 SLC MkIII is about 2 mm short of what I need with glasses. When the ER is about 15 mm an important but confusing factor enters the picture. Presbyopics like me often find it inadequate, whereas myopics find it satisfactory. That's because eyeglasses change the optical location of the entry pupil of the eye. In the case of myopes the movement is towards the eye lens of the binoculars, reducing the ER requirement by 2-4 mm. Due to the negative power of their glasses, myopes also experience somewhat smaller retinal images and a larger retinal projection area, i.e., a larger AFOV. This accounts for some disagreements between users, and, incidentally, why I asked Brock earlier if he was short sighted. He may have misunderstood my intent, though.
Assuming the 7x30 SLC MkIII has an ER =18 mm, presbyopes would be quite pleased, but myopes could possibly face the problem of too long an ER. Hence, they would not be happy with a short eyecup, and would find various ways to hold the instrument further away.
That's my take on it.
Ed
Relax, I'm a believer that the 7x30 MkIII had a longer ER of 18 mm. I also believe the 15 mm ER of my 8x30 SLC MkIII is about 2 mm short of what I need with glasses. When the ER is about 15 mm an important but confusing factor enters the picture. Presbyopics like me often find it inadequate, whereas myopics find it satisfactory. That's because eyeglasses change the optical location of the entry pupil of the eye. In the case of myopes the movement is towards the eye lens of the binoculars, reducing the ER requirement by 2-4 mm. Due to the negative power of their glasses, myopes also experience somewhat smaller retinal images and a larger retinal projection area, i.e., a larger AFOV. This accounts for some disagreements between users, and, incidentally, why I asked Brock earlier if he was short sighted. He may have misunderstood my intent, though.
Assuming the 7x30 SLC MkIII has an ER =18 mm, presbyopes would be quite pleased, but myopes could possibly face the problem of too long an ER. Hence, they would not be happy with a short eyecup, and would find various ways to hold the instrument further away.
That's my take on it.
Ed
Last edited:
mooreorless
Well-known member
Hi Ed! Wow that is a blast from the past. I might of made a mistake measuring . I no longer have that 7x30. Back then there were no 8x42 SLC etc. just the SL series etc.
http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=119145&d=1198886074
A2GG
Beth
Yep that's the one.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Bob,
We have some newbies and the HHS hasn't exactly been a hot topic of conversation, so I don't think it hurt to point out that the light transmission is way behind the norm today (after seeing Ed's numbers, even more so than I had realized). There are Chinbins in the same price range or below that best the HHS by 15% or more.
The HHS was heralded as Swift's flagship roof. It seems under spec to hold such a title, particularly now after the ChinBin Revolution. Ditto for the Pentax ED line, particularly the 8x43 model, which has the same FOV as the HHS. Users traditionally expected more from Japanese-made bins than ChinBins, but at least with these two bins, that's no longer the case.
As to my use of the word "cult," I was, of course, using hyperbole. You've read enough of my posts by now that I think you should have realized that. What I meant is that there's a small group of HHS owners on BF who really like the bin despite its shortcomings, and I knew that I'd be hearing from them after making my "constructive criticisms."
It's not that the HHS is abominable. It has some good features - the long ER for eyeglass wearers, the famous Swift 5-element EP design, fairly robust build, and 8.5x with a 44mm objectives. The pebbly armor also looks "grippy," as some have reported.
But there are also the downsides, which Arek outlined in his review:
"The final result of the Swift is nothing to be ashamed of. The problem is that I expected a slightly better performance. The Swift fares, by and large, like the Delta Optical and the Weaver Grand Slam; it is cheaper than the latter but more expensive than the former and this is not good news.
"The transmission was the thing that disappointed me the most. A weak result in this category was obvious as soon as I looked through the binoculars – you could immediately notice this device gave the darkest image of all group of binoculars, tested at the same time.
"The field of view edges don’t help here – they are quite dark and additionally burdened with high coma and noticeable distortion"
If I were designing a flagship roof that carried my name (or initials), I know I'd want it to be better, that's my point. And it wouldn't cost much, as you suggested earlier, to make it better. Even lowly entry level Monarchs have dielectric prism coatings and Nikon's latest AR coatings.
To make a complete redesign with a WF and ED glass while retaining the ER would probably push the cost up to the $1,000 mark, if not more, if they made it in Japan. If they made it in China, it could be around half that much.
Since Swift Optical was sold off, we don't know if Alison Swift were still in charge if she would have updated the model with improved prism coatings and AR coatings to make the HHS come up to today's standards. But as it is, the HHS is a roof that is "frozen in time." So is the Pentax ED and the Nikon HGL/Premier. The HGL was ahead of its time, so it's not quite as "cold."
I'm not at all upset, except that I apparently ruffled your feathers. I apologize if that's the case. I was criticizing the bin, not its owners.
Brock
Last edited:
Hi Stephen,
Relax, I'm a believer that the 7x30 MkIII had a longer ER of 18 mm. I also believe the 15 mm ER of my 8x30 SLC MkIII is about 2 mm short of what I need with glasses. When the ER is about 15 mm an important but confusing factor enters the picture. Presbyopics like me often find it inadequate, whereas myopics find it satisfactory. That's because eyeglasses change the optical location of the entry pupil of the eye. In the case of myopes the movement is towards the eye lens of the binoculars, reducing the ER requirement by 2-4 mm. Due to the negative power of their glasses, myopes also experience somewhat smaller retinal images and a larger retinal projection area, i.e., a larger AFOV. This accounts for some disagreements between users, and, incidentally, why I asked Brock earlier if he was short sighted. He may have misunderstood my intent, though.
Assuming the 7x30 SLC MkIII has an ER =18 mm, presbyopes would be quite pleased, but myopes would possibly face the problem of too long an ER. Hence, they would not be happy with a short eyecup, and would find various ways to hold the instrument further away.
That's my take on it.
Ed
Ed,
Good post and info that I have certainly found to be true with my 7x30 SLC. With eyeglasses on it is great, and without them I do have to do the eyebrow bridge method of holding them. It has almost become so 2nd nature to me, that since I have probably used my 7x30 SLC more over the years than any other bino, I find myself gravitating to the eyebrow ridge placement with any bino I pick up- out of sheer habit.
BTW- I am and was very relaxed - I was not meaning to drive my info home too firmly ( just tried to give some detailed info)- but it may have seemed that way.
Cheers B
back to Swaro current sale-
I had mentioned earlier in this thread that 3 days ago I bought a 8x42 Swaro SLC. Got a smoking deal on it with the Swaro sale and especially when on top of that at same time Cabelas was having an in store 10% sale on any purchase until 8/13. Optically the SLC was super, But.... the long and short of it, it went back to the store last night.
The more I used and checked out the 8x42 SLC- the more I became dissatisfied with the focus mechanism. The total focus wheel travel on these ( SLC's) for me from 50' to infinity is right at 1/4 of a turn or so. Really about the same as the 8x30 Habichts. Well in that turn distance and even in many other spots of the rotation there is an annoying "squeaking" sound and it is quite stiff. I could not figure out if it was coming from the wheel itself, or part of it may be coming from the very tight tolerance in space between the armoring and the focus wheel. Distance is extremely tight in this bino. I have a 59 IPD- which may contribute some; although the armoring is right up close to the focus wheel in a large percentage of the wheel.
The SLC's focus wheel on the one I bought is stiffer than the Habicht's even with their H2O proof seals. And the Habicht never bothers me at all. The SLC focus was really annoying and either seemed to be worsening, or maybe it was just bugging me more as I used it. It was "squeak, squeak, squeak"- through out all of my use of it. I have a 7x30 SLC where the focus is like smooth olive oil, and even the Habicht's is really quite great.
I thought, I am not going to tolerate, or except this ( the SLC) focus mechanism- especially for a bin that cost that much, even with the deal. So I decided to return them, and the SLC's went back to Cabelas to find a new home. Even the optics counter fella was surprised at how it felt. Real shame - because the optics are stellar. I had read about the focus deal with some of these Swaro's on here, but I had never had a problem with any swaro bino before. But the demo at Cabelas on the 8x42 Swaro was horrible and I thought mine was OK when I bought it. Except when using mine after purchase I realized that the worst part of the focus was right in the 1/4 turn of travel that I would be using 99% of the time. I just did not want to deal with it.
So, there is an update on my purchase- that many here probably do not really need to hear or care about, but that was my experience. I was just happy that it was not a mail order item, and it made it easier to return. Otherwise, maybe I would have sent them back to SONA instead of returning them. But I did not want to deal with that and incur cost and time with these.
I had mentioned earlier in this thread that 3 days ago I bought a 8x42 Swaro SLC. Got a smoking deal on it with the Swaro sale and especially when on top of that at same time Cabelas was having an in store 10% sale on any purchase until 8/13. Optically the SLC was super, But.... the long and short of it, it went back to the store last night.
The more I used and checked out the 8x42 SLC- the more I became dissatisfied with the focus mechanism. The total focus wheel travel on these ( SLC's) for me from 50' to infinity is right at 1/4 of a turn or so. Really about the same as the 8x30 Habichts. Well in that turn distance and even in many other spots of the rotation there is an annoying "squeaking" sound and it is quite stiff. I could not figure out if it was coming from the wheel itself, or part of it may be coming from the very tight tolerance in space between the armoring and the focus wheel. Distance is extremely tight in this bino. I have a 59 IPD- which may contribute some; although the armoring is right up close to the focus wheel in a large percentage of the wheel.
The SLC's focus wheel on the one I bought is stiffer than the Habicht's even with their H2O proof seals. And the Habicht never bothers me at all. The SLC focus was really annoying and either seemed to be worsening, or maybe it was just bugging me more as I used it. It was "squeak, squeak, squeak"- through out all of my use of it. I have a 7x30 SLC where the focus is like smooth olive oil, and even the Habicht's is really quite great.
I thought, I am not going to tolerate, or except this ( the SLC) focus mechanism- especially for a bin that cost that much, even with the deal. So I decided to return them, and the SLC's went back to Cabelas to find a new home. Even the optics counter fella was surprised at how it felt. Real shame - because the optics are stellar. I had read about the focus deal with some of these Swaro's on here, but I had never had a problem with any swaro bino before. But the demo at Cabelas on the 8x42 Swaro was horrible and I thought mine was OK when I bought it. Except when using mine after purchase I realized that the worst part of the focus was right in the 1/4 turn of travel that I would be using 99% of the time. I just did not want to deal with it.
So, there is an update on my purchase- that many here probably do not really need to hear or care about, but that was my experience. I was just happy that it was not a mail order item, and it made it easier to return. Otherwise, maybe I would have sent them back to SONA instead of returning them. But I did not want to deal with that and incur cost and time with these.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Stephen,
I'm curious why you didn't exchange it or send it to SONA for warranty service? Over a twenty year period they have addressed every problem I ever had with a smile. Other than the focuser did you have any disappointment with the view? I find my SLC-HD absolutely extraordinary, and once the initial squeaking subsides (3-4 days) it has a wonderfully smooth and precise focus action. My understanding is that the new SLC has a slower focus than mine due to elimination of the close-focus capability.
Ed
PS. This might be an interesting thread to read.
I'm curious why you didn't exchange it or send it to SONA for warranty service? Over a twenty year period they have addressed every problem I ever had with a smile. Other than the focuser did you have any disappointment with the view? I find my SLC-HD absolutely extraordinary, and once the initial squeaking subsides (3-4 days) it has a wonderfully smooth and precise focus action. My understanding is that the new SLC has a slower focus than mine due to elimination of the close-focus capability.
Ed
PS. This might be an interesting thread to read.
Last edited:
Ed,
I did think the view through the SLC was simply fantastic. But truth be told, I probably got impatient with them after spending a bit of time with them over 3 days. I knew SONA would take care of me just fine, but I was not sure I even wanted to go that route. And these SLC's were more of a splurge ( a significant one at that) - probably brought on by me because of the good deal on them. It was not as if I really NEEDED a new binocular.
Also, for my uses I am actually more of a mid size bino fan, and the SLC's even though they are great would probably not be carried and used as much as my smaller bins. And even though they are not as good as the SLC's, I already have (2) other 8x42's- a very good Leupold Cascade porro, and another fairly decent view China made 22 oz 8x42 roof.
I thought about all of it quite a bit before deciding I did not want to keep them the way they were: and for me I just did not want to take the effort to send them into SONA. Because, as I said I really did not need these.
Thanks for the link to that thread.
I did think the view through the SLC was simply fantastic. But truth be told, I probably got impatient with them after spending a bit of time with them over 3 days. I knew SONA would take care of me just fine, but I was not sure I even wanted to go that route. And these SLC's were more of a splurge ( a significant one at that) - probably brought on by me because of the good deal on them. It was not as if I really NEEDED a new binocular.
Also, for my uses I am actually more of a mid size bino fan, and the SLC's even though they are great would probably not be carried and used as much as my smaller bins. And even though they are not as good as the SLC's, I already have (2) other 8x42's- a very good Leupold Cascade porro, and another fairly decent view China made 22 oz 8x42 roof.
I thought about all of it quite a bit before deciding I did not want to keep them the way they were: and for me I just did not want to take the effort to send them into SONA. Because, as I said I really did not need these.
Thanks for the link to that thread.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Stephen,
Not to worry, its only a binocular.
B
Ed
Woah, there! It's not "only a binocular," it's an "absolutely extraordinary" binocular, with a "wonderfully smooth and precise focus action," or at least you lucked out and got one that was wonderfully smooth if squeaky at first. As we've read (or at least I have, not sure if we're reading the same posts), and from my own experience with Swaros, not everyone has been that lucky, some Swaro focusers don't get better and need tweaking at Swarovski.
Having tried the 10x42 SLC-HD, I can attest that it is a great bin. I wouldn't go as far as calling it "absolutely extraordinary," but then, I haven't tried the 8x42 model, which is probably more impressive due to its wider FOV and greater DOF.
Image-wise, the SLC-HD had almost everything I wanted in a birding bin except the depth perception and ergonomics of a porro.
Love to try the 8x42. Well, actually, I'd like to try three or four or five of them and pick the one with a smooth focuser like yours. I'm not as lucky at craps as you are.
Brock
mooreorless
Well-known member
Woah, there! It's not "only a binocular," it's an "absolutely extraordinary" binocular, with a "wonderfully smooth and precise focus action," or at least you lucked out and got one that was wonderfully smooth if squeaky at first. As we've read (or at least I have, not sure if we're reading the same posts), and from my own experience with Swaros, not everyone has been that lucky, some Swaro focusers don't get better and need tweaking at Swarovski.
Having tried the 10x42 SLC-HD, I can attest that it is a great bin. I wouldn't go as far as calling it "absolutely extraordinary," but then, I haven't tried the 8x42 model, which is probably more impressive due to its wider FOV and greater DOF.
Image-wise, the SLC-HD had almost everything I wanted in a birding bin except the depth perception and ergonomics of a porro.
Love to try the 8x42. Well, actually, I'd like to try three or four or five of them and pick the one with a smooth focuser like yours. I'm not as lucky at craps as you are.
Brock
So Brock, if the 10x42 SLC-HD you tried cost $250-$500 would it be "absolutely extraordinary," ??? I am just wondering, you "seemed" to like it a lot.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Steve,
It's not a about the price, though I do think it's overpriced, but I think that about all alphas, however, for $250-$500, for sure, the 10x42 SLC-HD would be an "extraordinary" buy, but still not an "absolutely extraordinary" bin because of the reasons I mentioned in my reply to Ed - it doesn't have the depth perception or ergonomics of a Porro.
Take the EPs and objective lenses from the SLC-HD and the eyecups and fit them into a 10x42 SE body, and then it might approach the divine.
I did like the 10x42 SLC-HD a lot, for a roof. Good balance, enough weight to stop the shakes, the eyecups I really liked, Swaro eyecups fit my face better than any others, huge sweet spot, nice color balance, good flare control, and excellent CA control. Ticks most of my "must have" boxes. The focuser was a bit harder to turn in one direction, but not enough to bother me. All in all, I give it ****. If it were a Porro, it would get *****.
Someone on BF described the 8x42 SLC-HD as "Porro-like." That makes me want to try the 8x42 model. With more depth of field than the 10x and alleged depth perception approaching a Porro (difficult to achieve with an 8x roof, easier with a 7x or 6x), then like Ed, I might give it the mother of all superlatives.
Brock
brocknroller
porromaniac
It's a bit cheaper than the non-ED opened bridge version, and it's lighter, and a bit smaller, the ER is the same on both models, but the FOV is significantly wider on the open bridge version - 7.8* - that's more to my liking, as is the open bridge design.
However, those are the specs on the HD model, which is MIG and even more expensive than the non-ED version. Not sure about the specs on the original open bridge BL BD. Minox used to make most its bins in Japan, and generally, they had smaller FsOV than the MIG versions.
Since a bit narrowish FOV doesn't bother you, and you like bins that are light and compact, you should like these provided the image is also to your liking. Let us know after you've tried them.
Fortunately, they are black, and black goes with everything, so you won't have to buy a new handbag to match.
Brock
Last edited:
I just ordered a pair of 10X42 EL SV, and am bemoaning the fact that they won't be here until Tuesday. Ordering on Friday is not a good strategy for those who like instant gratification.
I was able to compare both the SV 8.5X42, and the 10X42, with my Nikon Venturer LX 10X42. I expected to like the 8.5X42 more, but the little bit of extra magnification carried the day.
The biggest difference was in looking into a much darker area, where the SV showed quite a bit more detail, compared to the Nikon.
The SV images have a "presence" which is lacking in the Nikon, in that the glasses seem to disappear, and it is as if you are looking directly at the object, except ten times closer, and with a clarity and definition which is quite startling. In comparison, the older glasses just don't "have it" to the same extent.
All in all, I will be delighted to get the new glasses on Tuesday, and will only feel a slight twinge at laying my faithful Nikon LX aside. They have been dragged all over, and have served me well, but the Swarovski EL SV are simply .......... better.|
|Brock,
Do you need a reminder that the main reason the SEs were discontinued was because they were Porros? A secondary reason is because they were expensive Porros.
Binocular forums have addresses on the boulevard of broken dreams.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RA4rqkPt8Y
Bob
Similar threads
