• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

New Swarovski SLC 42 Binoculars (1 Viewer)

Translate
http://www.ornithomedia.com/pratiqu...ovski-slc-8x42-leica-ultravid-8x42-00725.html


Final Standings

Binoculars Swarovski SLC 8x42 HD: the best model for the quality of the transmitted images. Its main (? Alone) is the default dial focus less convenient than the other two models;
Binoculars Zeiss Victory 8x42 HT: what are the best binoculars in terms of ergonomics. Its optical qualities are very good, but they lack the "little more" indefinable to be the first;
Leica Ultravid 8x42 HD Binoculars: this is the best model in terms of weight and size. His faults are double wheel a little hard to "snap" and pictures a little darker than the other two, including under normal viewing conditions.
 
Last edited:
Focus is getting better the More I use it.
Optically I hadn't been able to get something I haven't liked outside of slight flaring when looking into a direct sunset off-axis but it was very minor

I must say it's SHARP and there is no real peripheral distortion, unless I like really try hard to find something wrong with the image.
It's a very relaxed wide enveloping view
 
308CAL said:
Focus is getting better the More I use it.
Optically I hadn't been able to get something I haven't liked outside of slight flaring when looking into a direct sunset off-axis but it was very minor

I must say it's SHARP and there is no real peripheral distortion, unless I like really try hard to find something wrong with the image.
It's a very relaxed wide enveloping view
Click to expand...

Thanks for that clarification. This is the NEW, redesigned 8x42 SLC, not the original SLC-HD, correct?

The tip off is when you said it was slim, the SLC-HD doesn't look slim.

I sure would like to read a comparative review of the SLC-HD and the new SLC.

Brock
 
308CAL said:
Focus is getting better the More I use it.
Optically I hadn't been able to get something I haven't liked outside of slight flaring when looking into a direct sunset off-axis but it was very minor

I must say it's SHARP and there is no real peripheral distortion, unless I like really try hard to find something wrong with the image.
It's a very relaxed wide enveloping view
Click to expand...


I'm sure you will love them, I have spent some time with the SLC-HD and thought they were tremendous, preferring them over the SV series.
 
brocknroller said:
Thanks for that clarification. This is the NEW, redesigned 8x42 SLC, not the original SLC-HD, correct?

The tip off is when you said it was slim, the SLC-HD doesn't look slim.

I sure would like to read a comparative review of the SLC-HD and the new SLC.

Brock
Click to expand...

I thought the SLC was just a reskinned SLC-HD, with no change in body dimensions, just new rubber?

Also, optically, isn't the SLC identical to the SLC-HD? - so there should be no difference apart from the close focus.
 
James,
In the Swarovski stand at the Dutch Bird Fair I was told that the new SLC is optically identical to the SLC-HD. In the new SLC only the close focus and the color and the material of the rubber coat is different for the new SLC. The new rubber is meant to improve the grip on the binocular. I know that Swarovski had made a study of different rubbers and has asked quite a few persons to feel blindfolded how the different materials felt. I was in the shop of the DBPA were the experiments also were performed and I also participated in the investigation. Then I noticed that is it very difficult to decide which rubber feels best in the hand. But in the end one of them must have gotten the highest score resulting in the present SLC rubber coat.
Gijs
 
james holdsworth said:
I thought the SLC was just a reskinned SLC-HD, with no change in body dimensions, just new rubber?

Also, optically, isn't the SLC identical to the SLC-HD? - so there should be no difference apart from the close focus.
Click to expand...

James,

The two-tone armoring makes them look slimmer, like a black dress. :)

However, someone reported that the thumb indents on the oversized models are deeper than on the SLCneu's, which were rather shallow (you can see this in the photos of the 8x56 and 10x65 SLCs on Swaro's Website) .So there might have been more to the redesign than just changing the rubber unless they made the rubber thicker on the oversized models to accommodate the deeper thumb indents, bu t it would have to be pretty thick to make that much difference.

I liked the deep, wide thumb grooves on the "alt" SLCs. Most closed bridge roofs do not give me adequate thumb support the way porros do, and smaller, narrower thumb indents are often oriented in the wrong position for my thumbs since they are probably designed for average-sized hands.

A shallow thumb indent like the SLCneu had allows more flexibility in terms of grip and hand size, but it doesn't offer as good support, IMO, as the older SLCs.

Today's roof designs seem to be trending toward slimmer and lighter, but when you get to 50-56mm models, the weight is there anyway, so the deeper thumb grooves help support the weight.

Brock
 
Last edited:
Update

At their price point, they can stand toe to toe optically with any of the alphas

The focuser still isn't the best though

Super bright, crisp, neutral, large sweet spot-80% of image or so I would guess
Ample eye relief

It would be hard for me to justify $500 more for a zeiss HT
 
308CAL said:
At their price point, they can stand toe to toe optically with any of the alphas

The focuser still isn't the best though
Click to expand...

I tried all the different Swarovskis at a trade fair over here last week. Only *one* of about 10 different pairs I tried had a focuser I liked. The SLC's were on average better than the Swarovisions though, but still not really good compared to Nikon and Zeiss.

That's IMO one area where the Swarovski people haven't done their homework.

Hermann
 
Hermann said:
I tried all the different Swarovskis at a trade fair over here last week. Only *one* of about 10 different pairs I tried had a focuser I liked. The SLC's were on average better than the Swarovisions though, but still not really good compared to Nikon and Zeiss.

That's IMO one area where the Swarovski people haven't done their homework.

Hermann
Click to expand...


Hermann,

It sounds like you were able to try out a lot of different binoculars at this trade fair - any that particularly impressed - or didn't live up to expectations?
 
james holdsworth said:
Hermann,
It sounds like you were able to try out a lot of different binoculars at this trade fair - any that particularly impressed - or didn't live up to expectations?
Click to expand...

All the major players were there: Leica, Nikon, Swarovski and Zeiss. Lots of nice bins.

The one pair that stood out IMO was the Zeiss 8x42 HT, I liked that even better than the (very good) 10x42. I found the HT better than anything else I had a look at at the fair. Lovely binoculars. Of the Conquests I found the 8x32 HD best. A very neat pair with excellent optics. I find the focuser too fast, but at least it's smooth. From what I heard from the Zeiss people they have sorted out the problems with diopter shift that some of the early 8x32s and 10x32s suffered from. At least that's what they said. No information on what they're planing to do, but some clear indication that there will be some new products next year, echoing what Mike Jensen wrote here some weeks ago.

Swarovski: I liked the Swarovski 8x42 and the 10x42 SLC quite a lot. Of the Swarovisions I particularly liked the Swarovision 10x50 and the 8x32. In fact, Swarovski have got a very nice range of binoculars, if it wasn't for the fact that many of the focusers aren't really smooth. And these are presumably hand-picked binoculars ... But maybe I'm a bit too picky when it comes to focusers. The Habicht 7x42 was the one I liked best of the Habicht range, but the stiff focusers of that range and the narrow field of view of the 7x42 is a killer in my opinion, at least for birding. The ATX scopes are incredible.

The Leicas - nice, but not really up to scratch anymore. Seems like they're working on "something" though. The Nikon EDG was also very nice, good optics, especially the 7x42. The Monarch 8x30 was OK, but had fairly obvious problems against the light I thought.

I will buy a new binocular in the near future, my most modern roof is some 10 years old, so it's about time. If I were to buy one today, I'd get the Zeiss 8x42 HT, but I think I'll wait until sometime next year. The IWA, an important fair in Germany, is in March ...

Hermann
 
Herman, post 370,
Reading your post 370 and your comments about the Swarovsi focussers made me reinvestigate the focussers of about 10 each of different Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss focussers (so at least 10 and more binoculars of each brand) and I can not confirm your statement that the Swarovski foccussers are not working well or are not well designed. In one of the new Swarovski SLC HD 8x42's one could very faintly hear the sound of the spring that Swarovski uses in its focusser, but that did not affect the turning resistance in one direction or the other and it did not affect focussing speed.
Investigated were among others:
- Leica Ultravids HD and non-HD (8x42, 10x42, 8x32), Leica Trinovid (different types), Leica Geovid two types 8x42 (Uppendahl and Perger), .
- Zeiss Victory FL 7x42 and 8x32, Zeiss Victory RF 8x45, Zeiss Classic 10x40 and 8x30, Zeiss Conquests 8x30 and 10x50, Conquest HD 8x32, 8x42 42 and 10x42, Dialyt 8x56
- Swarovski EL 8x42 and 10x42, Swarovision 8x42 and 8x32, EL Range 8x42, Swarovski EL 8x32 and Swarovsion 8x32, Companion 8x30
Gijs
 
Gijs van Ginkel said:
Herman, post 370,
Reading your post 370 and your comments about the Swarovsi focussers made me reinvestigate the focussers of about 10 each of different Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss focussers (so at least 10 and more binoculars of each brand) and I can not confirm your statement that the Swarovski foccussers are not working well or are not well designed. In one of the new Swarovski SLC HD 8x42's one could very faintly hear the sound of the spring that Swarovski uses in its focusser, but that did not affect the turning resistance in one direction or the other and it did not affect focussing speed.
Investigated were among others:
- Leica Ultravids HD and non-HD (8x42, 10x42, 8x32), Leica Trinovid (different types), Leica Geovid two types 8x42 (Uppendahl and Perger), .
- Zeiss Victory FL 7x42 and 8x32, Zeiss Victory RF 8x45, Zeiss Classic 10x40 and 8x30, Zeiss Conquests 8x30 and 10x50, Conquest HD 8x32, 8x42 42 and 10x42, Dialyt 8x56
- Swarovski EL 8x42 and 10x42, Swarovision 8x42 and 8x32, EL Range 8x42, Swarovski EL 8x32 and Swarovsion 8x32, Companion 8x30
Gijs
Click to expand...


That settles it then....
 
Gijs van Ginkel said:
Herman, post 370,
Reading your post 370 and your comments about the Swarovsi focussers made me reinvestigate the focussers of about 10 each of different Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss focussers (so at least 10 and more binoculars of each brand) and I can not confirm your statement that the Swarovski foccussers are not working well or are not well designed. In one of the new Swarovski SLC HD 8x42's one could very faintly hear the sound of the spring that Swarovski uses in its focusser, but that did not affect the turning resistance in one direction or the other and it did not affect focussing speed.
Investigated were among others:
- Leica Ultravids HD and non-HD (8x42, 10x42, 8x32), Leica Trinovid (different types), Leica Geovid two types 8x42 (Uppendahl and Perger), .
- Zeiss Victory FL 7x42 and 8x32, Zeiss Victory RF 8x45, Zeiss Classic 10x40 and 8x30, Zeiss Conquests 8x30 and 10x50, Conquest HD 8x32, 8x42 42 and 10x42, Dialyt 8x56
- Swarovski EL 8x42 and 10x42, Swarovision 8x42 and 8x32, EL Range 8x42, Swarovski EL 8x32 and Swarovsion 8x32, Companion 8x30
Gijs
Click to expand...

Gijs,

What exactly do you mean when you say: "In one of the new Swarovski SLC HD 8x42's one could very faintly hear the sound of the spring that Swarovski uses in its focusser, but that did not affect the turning resistance in one direction or the other and it did not affect focussing speed."? Do you mean that the turning resistance was the same both clockwise and counterclockwise, or do you mean that it was the same as in the other Swarovski SLC HD's which did not have the sound, or did you mean something else entirely.

I also don't understand your reference to focussing speed.

Kimmo
 
Kimmo,
The turning resistance was in both directions equal or not noticeable different I must say to be exact. I did not hear in any of the binoculars investigated the faint sound that sounded like a relaxing spring except for one new SLC-HD 8x42.
Focussing speed means the amount of revolutions from close focus to infinity, I have measured that for different types of binoculars in my test reviews and that is of course not the same for all binoculars I have investigated in my post 373. I am sorry if that caused confusion.
Gijs
 
Gijs,

Ok. That is clear now. The spring sound I have heard on a couple of Zeiss HT's, with one having it quite loud, but on the Swarovski binoculars I have tried recently if there has been any it has been so quiet that I have not noticed it.

But I must disagree on the turning resistance matter. In all of the spring-loaded focussing designs, be it from Swarovski or Zeiss, I can feel that it is easier to focus with the spring than against the spring. That I and many others sense a difference and you and many others don't must be due to some people noticing differences more easily than others. This uneven turning resistance is not something that bothers me, it is just a fact and a design choice, made for very good reasons in my opinion.

For comparing focus speeds, the only way to do it meaningfully is to compare for the focus travel needed between some fixed distances. If you compare focus wheel rotations between minimum focus distance and focus travel stop at infinity end, you would misleadingly call a binocular slow-focusing if it focuses very close or has unusually much overshoot beyond infinity. A good example are the Swarovski SLC HD and the latest SLC, where the focus of the new model is much slower from ten meters to infinity although the total focus wheel travel is not that different because the close focus distance of the HD is much closer. That is why I always measure focus speed from ten meters to 1km, and if I want to be really precise, use a booster for determining exact focus for both distances.

Kimmo
 
james holdsworth said:
That settles it then....
Click to expand...

10 binoculars, one "expert" - that doesn't settle anything. Unless, of course, you're being facetious, then good show! ;)

I lost count, but we're well over 50 BF members (including me) who have reported "issues" with Swaro focusers being "coarse," "stiff," and similar adjectives, and turning harder in one direction than the other (most common complaint). And about half of those commenting (including me) reported focus issues with more than one sample Swaro. One guy, in fact, tried a suitcase full of samples at a birding show, and ALL of them had focuser issues! So we're talking well over 100 samples with all the complaints and returned samples.

Piergiovanni, another expert, had two ELs with stiff focusers, and even after returning them, they were still stiff, though improved.

Hermann is not the only one to report focuser issues on BF recently either, despite the focuser redesign, the new SLCs seem to have the same issues as the older SLCs and ELs. One I remember was 308CAL, but I think his problem with the SLC resolved or at least improved with use. Some do, some don't, some get worse over time.

Even Gijs admitted in his 2010 test of 42mm binoculars that new Swarovski SLC-HD’s focusing wheel was more smooth then that of the EL Swarovision.

For anyone to deny that Swaro has focuser issues at this point, well, they are experiencing selective memory, because the reports of issues with Swaro focusers have been plentiful.

I wouldn't put too much stock into what any one person finds in regard to Swaro focusers, regardless of his status as an amateur or expert, but rather "focus" on the many reports about focuser issues with Swaros on BF, Optics Talk, and in reviews. Swaros have many good qualities, and are "the best of the best" in some areas, but focusers are not one of those areas.

Brock
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

T
First Love Rekindled
Replies
8
Views
808
Tringa45
T
tenex
Choosing SLC over NL... (Swaro please read)
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
20K
[email protected]
D
W
Swarovski twilight glass
Replies
12
Views
3K
dries1
dries1
NDhunter
Swarovski SLC is now morphing into the Kahles Helia S 42
2
Replies
35
Views
11K
bkdc
B
D
A Zeiss Conquest HD on steroids.
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
ArchStanton
A

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top