• 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)

I went and took a look at the new SLC's today, and having the opportunity, weighed them on a digital scale the shop uses to determine postage weights. Should be pretty accurate.

"Old" 8x42 SLC HD 828 g

"New"8x42 SLC 796 g

"New" 10x42 SLC 762 g

So this SLC HD was 4 g lighter than my home measurement of possibly a different sample, and the new SLC 8x is lighter but not as light as King's salesman had reported. The 10x42 on the other hand is very light for such a binocular. Its body is also shorter than that of the 8x42, although I did not measure the difference.

I also checked the focusing. They all have the spring loading, making turning resistance higher from far to close than from close to far. Of these three, the 10x42 SLC had the least resistance, the 8x42 SLC the highest, and the 8x42 SLC HD was in between (that one has served as a demo for a while) I thought they were all okay.

Focus speed was different in these new ones. We did a test where we checked the amount of focus wheel rotation needed to go from ca 3km to ca 10m (this was not measured, probably a bit under). We did not move while testing, so the distances, while not exactly known, did not vary. The SLC HD had focus about twice as fast as the new SLC. Since we have different eyesight, me and my friend got different results. I'm farsighted, so for the same distances I'm essentially focusing the binoculars closer, and therefore need more focus travel than my friend who does not need glasses for viewing far. For him, the focus travel from 3km to ca 10m was about 90 degrees for the SLC HD and 180 degrees for the SLC, and for me about 130 degrees for the SLC HD and about 260 degrees for the SLC.

I was not expecting any difference in focus speed between these two, so was rather surprised by the results.

I hadn't realized before how much of a difference to focus speed farsightedness/nearsightedness makes for a person not wearing glasses with binoculars, but of course it makes perfect sense. For me, this was the most interesting finding of the day.

Kimmo
 
Last edited:
I went and took a look at the new SLC's today, and having the opportunity, weighed them on a digital scale the shop uses to determine postage weights. Should be pretty accurate.

"Old" 8x42 SLC HD 828 g

"New"8x42 SLC 796 g

"New" 10x42 SLC 762 g

So this SLC HD was 4 g lighter than my home measurement of possibly a different sample, and the new SLC 8x is lighter but not as light as King's salesman had reported. The 10x42 on the other hand is very light for such a binocular. Its body is also shorter than that of the 8x42, although I did not measure the difference.

Kimmo

I think you got the numbers right! And I think my dealer weighed the 10x version instead of the 8x! On the dealer site they say:

8x42 SLC HD: 838 g
8x42 SLC: 798 g
10x42 SLC HD: 808 g
10x42 SLC: 767 g
 
My new slc is now on it's way to Swarovski Austria - were sent away by my dealer today. It should arrive to them on Monday. Then we'll see how long it takes before it comes back..
 
I went and took a look at the new SLC's today, and having the opportunity, weighed them on a digital scale the shop uses to determine postage weights. Should be pretty accurate.

"Old" 8x42 SLC HD 828 g

"New"8x42 SLC 796 g

"New" 10x42 SLC 762 g

So this SLC HD was 4 g lighter than my home measurement of possibly a different sample, and the new SLC 8x is lighter but not as light as King's salesman had reported. The 10x42 on the other hand is very light for such a binocular. Its body is also shorter than that of the 8x42, although I did not measure the difference.

I also checked the focusing. They all have the spring loading, making turning resistance higher from far to close than from close to far. Of these three, the 10x42 SLC had the least resistance, the 8x42 SLC the highest, and the 8x42 SLC HD was in between (that one has served as a demo for a while) I thought they were all okay.

Focus speed was different in these new ones. We did a test where we checked the amount of focus wheel rotation needed to go from ca 3km to ca 10m (this was not measured, probably a bit under). We did not move while testing, so the distances, while not exactly known, did not vary. The SLC HD had focus about twice as fast as the new SLC. Since we have different eyesight, me and my friend got different results. I'm farsighted, so for the same distances I'm essentially focusing the binoculars closer, and therefore need more focus travel than my friend who does not need glasses for viewing far. For him, the focus travel from 3km to ca 10m was about 90 degrees for the SLC HD and 180 degrees for the SLC, and for me about 130 degrees for the SLC HD and about 260 degrees for the SLC.

I was not expecting any difference in focus speed between these two, so was rather surprised by the results.

I hadn't realized before how much of a difference to focus speed farsightedness/nearsightedness makes for a person not wearing glasses with binoculars, but of course it makes perfect sense. For me, this was the most interesting finding of the day.

Kimmo

Good work, Kimmo, I've been waiting for such a comparison! :t:

So, the simplified SLC, with fewer parts and and greater economy, turns out to have a much slower focuser than its HD predecessor, while inheriting the same spring imbalance.

I wonder if the new 10x42 SLC focuser is any different than my 2002 model. There's a fair chance it's not.

Thanks again,
Ed

PS. I should also ask, since you are farsighted like me, whether you found the eye relief of the 10x42 SLC/HD to be comfortable. I found it to be notably less usable than the 8x42 HD. But then I do wear glasses.
 
Last edited:
...I hadn't realized before how much of a difference to focus speed farsightedness/nearsightedness makes for a person not wearing glasses with binoculars, but of course it makes perfect sense. For me, this was the most interesting finding of the day.

And your explanation is very interesting as well. :t:

Ed
 
Focus speed was different in these new ones. We did a test where we checked the amount of focus wheel rotation needed to go from ca 3km to ca 10m (this was not measured, probably a bit under). We did not move while testing, so the distances, while not exactly known, did not vary. The SLC HD had focus about twice as fast as the new SLC. Since we have different eyesight, me and my friend got different results. I'm farsighted, so for the same distances I'm essentially focusing the binoculars closer, and therefore need more focus travel than my friend who does not need glasses for viewing far. For him, the focus travel from 3km to ca 10m was about 90 degrees for the SLC HD and 180 degrees for the SLC, and for me about 130 degrees for the SLC HD and about 260 degrees for the SLC.
!
I was not expecting any difference in focus speed between these two, so was rather surprised by the results.

I hadn't realized before how much of a difference to focus speed farsightedness/nearsightedness makes for a person not wearing glasses with binoculars, but of course it makes perfect sense. For me, this was the most interesting finding of the day.

Kimmo

I did the same test with my Nikon EDG 8x42. I need glasses because I am nearsighted (-8 diop on both eyes). The result: it takes about 165 degrees for the Nikon focuser to go from 3 km down to 10 meters. Thats my result with my eyesight, but I don't know what that means in relation to Kimmos results with the SLC/SLC HD??! It should be slower than the old SLC HD, but a bit faster than the new SLC. Or?
 
Last edited:
Kingfisher,

Does this mean that you do or do not still own an 8x42 SLC HD?


Thanks,
Ed

I do NOT own it any more. As I wrote..I sold it. But after that I have bought the NEW SLC. That means that I now own the latest version of the SLC, the Nikon EDG and the Nikon 8x32 SE. That's all! |=)|
 
Last edited:
I do NOT own it any more. As I wrote..I sold it. But after that I have bought the NEW SLC. That means that I now own the latest version of the SLC, the Nikon EDG and the Nikon 8x32 SE. That's all! |=)|

Sorry, I missed your post #260. |:$|
 
Last edited:
I went and took a look at the new SLC's today, and having the opportunity, weighed them on a digital scale the shop uses to determine postage weights. Should be pretty accurate.

"Old" 8x42 SLC HD 828 g

"New"8x42 SLC 796 g

"New" 10x42 SLC 762 g

So this SLC HD was 4 g lighter than my home measurement of possibly a different sample, and the new SLC 8x is lighter but not as light as King's salesman had reported. The 10x42 on the other hand is very light for such a binocular. Its body is also shorter than that of the 8x42, although I did not measure the difference.

I also checked the focusing. They all have the spring loading, making turning resistance higher from far to close than from close to far. Of these three, the 10x42 SLC had the least resistance, the 8x42 SLC the highest, and the 8x42 SLC HD was in between (that one has served as a demo for a while) I thought they were all okay.

Focus speed was different in these new ones. We did a test where we checked the amount of focus wheel rotation needed to go from ca 3km to ca 10m (this was not measured, probably a bit under). We did not move while testing, so the distances, while not exactly known, did not vary. The SLC HD had focus about twice as fast as the new SLC. Since we have different eyesight, me and my friend got different results. I'm farsighted, so for the same distances I'm essentially focusing the binoculars closer, and therefore need more focus travel than my friend who does not need glasses for viewing far. For him, the focus travel from 3km to ca 10m was about 90 degrees for the SLC HD and 180 degrees for the SLC, and for me about 130 degrees for the SLC HD and about 260 degrees for the SLC.

I was not expecting any difference in focus speed between these two, so was rather surprised by the results.

I hadn't realized before how much of a difference to focus speed farsightedness/nearsightedness makes for a person not wearing glasses with binoculars, but of course it makes perfect sense. For me, this was the most interesting finding of the day.

Kimmo

I took a few measurements today, and fooled around with developing a human factors focusing model that I may present later. But right now, I'd like to summarize how the 8x42 HD compared with a circa 2002 10x42 SLC, and also a 1990's 7x42 BGAT*P.

From infinity to 10m, and then to 5m, it was essentially the same results for all three instruments. 90˚ of wheel turn reached 33 ft (10m) and another 90˚ reached 16 ft (5m). [Thereafter, the three behaved somewhat differently, which may be due to real differences, DOF variations, procedural flaws, or inaccuracy.]

Anyway, with my eyes and eyeglasses the results for the 8x42HD in the inf. to 10m range are the same as yours. Since the 2002 10x42 SLC is not any slower, or even the Zeiss BGAT*P, it would appear that the "improved" SLC HD is in a league of its own.

Ed
 
Last edited:
I took a few measurements today, and fooled around with developing a human factors focusing model that I may present later. But right now, I'd like to summarize how the 8x42 HD compared with a circa 2002 10x42 SLC, and also a 1990's 7x42 BGAT*P.

From infinity to 10m, and then to 5m, it was essentially the same picture for all three instruments. 90˚ of wheel turn reached 33 ft (10m) and another 90˚ reached 16 ft (5m). [Thereafter, the three behaved somewhat differently, which may be due to real differences, DOF variations, procedural flaws, or inaccuracy.]

Anyway, with my eyes and eyeglasses the results for the 8x42HD in the inf. to 10m range are the same as yours. Since the 2002 10x42 SLC is not any slower, or even the Zeiss BGAT*P, it would appear that the "improved" SLC HD is in a league of its own.

Ed

I am a little surprised, I must say. Not that the new slc has a bit slower focusing than the old slc hd, but that Nikon EDG seems to be slightly slower than both the slc hd and old swarros from 2002!
 
I did the same test with my Nikon EDG 8x42. I need glasses because I am nearsighted (-8 diop on both eyes). The result: it takes about 165 degrees for the Nikon focuser to go from 3 km down to 10 meters. Thats my result with my eyesight, but I don't know what that means in relation to Kimmos results with the SLC/SLC HD??! It should be slower than the old SLC HD, but a bit faster than the new SLC. Or?

I have to correct my self. It should be about 135-140 degrees for the Nikon EDG - not 165!
 
Last edited:
I heard from my dealer today that my new SLC was still foggy when they got it from me. It was TWO days after I discovered the fog in it!!

Kingfisher,

That's because it's waterproof. :eat:

Be careful when comparing focusing degrees across observers, which Kimmo found. You are strongly myopic, as I recall, while I am moderately hyperopic.

Ed
 
Last edited:
All,

Here are my measurements plus a little Excel model designed to show the number of bi-directional pushes and pulls involved in changing working distances. Of course, we all have different hands, so I built in a parameter (green, lower left) based on the first digit of my own index finger (i.e., representing men) and my wife's (i.e., representing women). Measurement is made from the first joint following around the ball of the finger to the tip.

Putting this together, from wheel diameter one calculates the perimeter length, and then the degrees of turn for each perimeter section movement. Movements are determined by typical finger pull and push lengths, which were estimated empirically as fractions (.69 and .56, respectively) of finger digit length. With finger digit length set to 32mm, as show in the first example, it takes about 5.53 pushes for the 8x42 SLC HD to go from inf. to 8 ft., and 4.52 pulls to go the other way. A small woman would have to work somewhat harder with 7.07 and 5.79 push/pulls respectfully. Although I more or less validated this analysis with my own specimen, the truth is that I can also change pull-push lengths at will, so this can only be a rough guide.

It should also be pointed out that the amount of force that can be applied with push or pull finger movements is not the same due to different muscle groups being involved. My general sense is that pulling allows for applying greater force than pushing, as well as the movement being somewhat longer. The latter is incorporated into the model; however, in order for the manufacturer to equalize the bi-directional force feel it may be necessary to unbalance the physical torque in each direction. This could be a reason Swarovski includes a spring in the focusing mechanism, which could also help to neutralize backlash.

The three binoculars differed significantly in their feel, stiction, and rolling resistance. Overall, I would rank them HD > SLC > BGAT*P, but I don't see how to translate that into a focus rating or score.

I wish I still had my 8x32 LX L, which would have provided data for an extremely fast focusing instrument. A small torque meter and a precision rotation gauge would also have helped a lot.

So, it's been fun, but that may be about as far as I can take this project.

Ed
 

Attachments

  • Men.jpg
    Men.jpg
    188.8 KB · Views: 97
  • Woman.jpg
    Woman.jpg
    189 KB · Views: 64
Last edited:
I have a small reflection concerning the repair of my binoculars..

The leak will certainly be repaired..and the focus will probably be better after their lubrication (or whatever the Swarovski does). But what worries me a little is that the sharpness will be changing for the worse because of Swarovski's intervention in the binoculars. Perhaps a completely unwarranted anxiety, or!?
 
Last edited:
Kingfisher,

It is highly unlikely that the sharpness would change for the worse or at all. That could only happen if the alignment of the optical elements would be messed up. Cleaning, re-purging and possibly lubricating is straightforward for competent technicians, and in any case they will check the binocular carefully before sending it back to you.

Kimmo
 
Kingfisher,

It is highly unlikely that the sharpness would change for the worse or at all. That could only happen if the alignment of the optical elements would be messed up. Cleaning, re-purging and possibly lubricating is straightforward for competent technicians, and in any case they will check the binocular carefully before sending it back to you.

Kimmo

Thanks Kimmo - it was exactly what I wanted to hear! :t:
 
All,

I wish I still had my 8x32 LX L, which would have provided data for an extremely fast focusing instrument. A small torque meter and a precision rotation gauge would also have helped a lot.

Ed

Hello Ed,

If you really want to pursue this you can make a tension gauge by taping and wrapping thread around the focus knob and pulling it with a digital fish scale or trigger scale with peak hold. Use the radius of the focus knob for the arm length.

See post http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1895136&postcount=17 for a decent method of measuring rotation angle.

Not professional, but good enough for comparing binos.
 
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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top