Shame they can only update the glass and not the coatings! I'm pretty sure mine (2004 or thereabouts) are non Swarobright, but they still deliver good enough performance that I could not justify the cost of an upgrade - good enough to feel that sensation of pleasure looking through them at all the times of day I use them. They tick so many boxes - small in size, but with a large sweet spot, great depth of field, weather resistant. Great little product.
-
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.
Thoughts on the SLC WB? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jremmons
- Start date
NDhunter
Experienced observer
I am not sure which model you have there, but the 42 SLC's received
Swarobright di-electric prism coatings in 2002, and the 30 SLC in 2003.
I hope this helps.
Jerry
Riverstalker
Member
They are unfortunately the ugliest bins in our solar system :-(
Swarovski really need to update the rubber armor !
Swarovski really need to update the rubber armor !
Tobias Mennle
Well-known member
Absolutely. Dinosaur skin. Even an EDG looks great compared to them. I felt double my age using them.
They are a good design, but my sample seemed to be somewhat of a lemon giving me the nagging feeling Swarovski downgraded them from the predecessor model and to not assemble them at Swarovision precision level.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
I am a bit surprised by the negative feelings about the armor of the SLC. I have watched how carefully Swarovski had made that choice, asking many many customers to check how ifferent types of armor felt in the hands of customers(the person who did the investigation had brought a number of different samples to choose from) and in the end the choice was made for the armor it has now. I am very satisfied with it and I am sure that dinosaur skins were not available in Austria at the time of choice, of course that may change in the near future, since somewhere in the US a mud pool with dinosaur remains are found, and, if the archeologists are willing to sell, may be we will have some real dinosaur skin on some exquisite binoculars.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel
Thank you Gijs. I had wondered how users felt about the optics, the in-field experience (e.g hiking with the weight vs. balance when using) while birding, focus, perhaps some comparisons to what they think are competing models in the market, and why they ended up choosing SLC over others. Chuck had mentioned how at times he felt the close focus was limiting so that is useful as well. Thank you!
Sure do!
The SLC is basically one of the three I use the most. Thoughts are...you can't beat it for a general birding binocular. It's probably #3 on my usage list. That's really only because the SV 8X32 tends to get on a plane mostly because it's a little lighter and sometimes I like a 7X42. I would be fine if I only had the SLC. It's the "bargain" Swarovski.
Close focus...I'll say this...At times I WILL be at the focus stop...which is about 10 ft. That's about time to put the binoculars down anyway. I don't think I ever had a time last year where that limited me from IDing birds or viewing with a nice image in any way. The Leica UVHD+ 7X42 CF is almost exactly the same.
Anything specific you'd like to know?
Attachments
Last edited:
Hi Chuck! Thanks for the quick response (post #28) and the note on the close focus. It certainly helps! I am looking to move on from an 8x MHG - and I think you have a good bit of experience with it too. When comparing the two despite the ~2x cost differences, it is clear from reading around and talking to a few people the SLC is (a) better at resolution/sharpness, (b) comparable if not slighty slower focus speed, (c) comparable if not slightly better glare and ghosting controls (d) doesn't give up too much on FoV, (e) comparable CA (f) cooler color balance and (g) gains a good amount of weight. Would you agree? And would you add anything else as pros/cons?
I am primarily looking for an 8x42, and it is clear there are always trade offs. If the EuroHD had existed in those dimensions, or the B2/Genesis 8.5x had been lighter and wider, or the MHG a little sharper with quick focus, my search would have ended a little while ago.
I haven't handled the SLC before, so I am also wondering about its weight and how it interferes with the balance/comfort when viewing over extended periods of time especially when hiking and tracking quickly moving birds in flight.
If you think there are other qualities about the SLC that are worth mentioning relative to these models I have mentioned, that would be very helpful to me (and I am sure others) as well. Thank you Chuck!
I am primarily looking for an 8x42, and it is clear there are always trade offs. If the EuroHD had existed in those dimensions, or the B2/Genesis 8.5x had been lighter and wider, or the MHG a little sharper with quick focus, my search would have ended a little while ago.
I haven't handled the SLC before, so I am also wondering about its weight and how it interferes with the balance/comfort when viewing over extended periods of time especially when hiking and tracking quickly moving birds in flight. If you think there are other qualities about the SLC that are worth mentioning relative to these models I have mentioned, that would be very helpful to me (and I am sure others) as well. Thank you Chuck!
Last edited:
14Goudvink
Well-known member
I like the SLC a lot, but unfortunately don't own one. From the couple of times I tested it I seem to remember the focus was really slow.
Meopta does produce a Meostar 8x42 with a generous FOV. A bit heavy and a bit warm in colour, though.
George
Meopta does produce a Meostar 8x42 with a generous FOV. A bit heavy and a bit warm in colour, though.
George
I have a SLC 8x42 since almost 6 years and no matter what other binoculares i tested i like my SLC the most. It is by far my favourite binocular. I tried a 8,5x42 aswell as a 10x50 EL, a zeiss 8x32 fl and a trinovid 8x32 bn. Even though i miss the compact size of the trinovid bn in all other regards the slc is my everyday binocular. The advantages of the 42mm diameter are more important for me than a few grams less. Even on long journeys it is not to heavy (worn with a harness).
Sure, the focus is a bit slower than in other binoculars. But so far it never was a reason i missed a bird. Holger Merlitz wrote that the faster focusing binoculars !might! have a tendency for technical failures.
Regarding the noise the focus wheel sometimes does i cant imagine that it is the armour. Sooner or later it must be grinded down and the sound should disappear. My whole „dino skin“ was almost smooth after 5 years just by touching with the bare hand. If it would be excessive armour that produces the sound it must be worn of aswell sooner or later. I sended my bino to swarovski and they fixed it. Its completely silent now. By the way, i had never a difference between focus directions. In both directions i cant feel any resistance at all.
My only real complain about the slc is the lens cap from hard plastic. Whoever came up with this idea should be covered with such a thing too!! If you try to sneak through the field with this thing constantly knocking against the binocular knows what i mean. And it never remains on the binocular. After a few steps it always falls off. I tried to order rubber caps from the el series but swaro told me that they wont fit.
Is the wb hd the older or newer version? The one with the black hinges are older and today there are only the ones with the green hinge. Is there a difference?
Sure, the focus is a bit slower than in other binoculars. But so far it never was a reason i missed a bird. Holger Merlitz wrote that the faster focusing binoculars !might! have a tendency for technical failures.
Regarding the noise the focus wheel sometimes does i cant imagine that it is the armour. Sooner or later it must be grinded down and the sound should disappear. My whole „dino skin“ was almost smooth after 5 years just by touching with the bare hand. If it would be excessive armour that produces the sound it must be worn of aswell sooner or later. I sended my bino to swarovski and they fixed it. Its completely silent now. By the way, i had never a difference between focus directions. In both directions i cant feel any resistance at all.
My only real complain about the slc is the lens cap from hard plastic. Whoever came up with this idea should be covered with such a thing too!! If you try to sneak through the field with this thing constantly knocking against the binocular knows what i mean. And it never remains on the binocular. After a few steps it always falls off. I tried to order rubber caps from the el series but swaro told me that they wont fit.
Is the wb hd the older or newer version? The one with the black hinges are older and today there are only the ones with the green hinge. Is there a difference?
Last edited:
Thanks @14Goudvink & Odradek.
@14Goudvink, I was looking at the HD version of the Meostar. I will look up the non-HD 8x42 as well. Thanks!
@Odradek, The posts in this thread indicate that the older SLC HD is better than the current version in construction and focus. They appear to be optically similar.
@14Goudvink, I was looking at the HD version of the Meostar. I will look up the non-HD 8x42 as well. Thanks!
@Odradek, The posts in this thread indicate that the older SLC HD is better than the current version in construction and focus. They appear to be optically similar.
Hi Chuck! Thanks for the quick response (post #28) and the note on the close focus. It certainly helps! I am looking to move on from an 8x MHG - and I think you have a good bit of experience with it too. When comparing the two despite the ~2x cost differences, it is clear from reading around and talking to a few people the SLC is (a) better at resolution/sharpness, (b) comparable if not slighty slower focus speed, (c) comparable if not slightly better glare and ghosting controls (d) doesn't give up too much on FoV, (e) comparable CA (f) cooler color balance and (g) gains a good amount of weight. Would you agree? And would you add anything else as pros/cons?
I am primarily looking for an 8x42, and it is clear there are always trade offs. If the EuroHD had existed in those dimensions, or the B2/Genesis 8.5x had been lighter and wider, or the MHG a little sharper with quick focus, my search would have ended a little while ago.
If you think there are other qualities about the SLC that are worth mentioning relative to these models I have mentioned, that would be very helpful to me (and I am sure others) as well. Thank you Chuck!
First....
I want to say....don't overthink this...LOL! The current model SLC 8X42 is among the best binoculars THERE IS! Seriously...let that sink in for a minute or two..
I have both the current SLC and the SLC HD. Optically, there isn't two cents difference that I can see. The current SLC focus IS a little slower but I wouldn't call it SLOW. Generally once you get used to the focus on a binocular it's almost a moot point for me(within reason). Going from about 25 feet to about 100yds(prob close to infinity)...the current SLC required about half a turn and both the SLC HD and the Monarch HG both took about 1/3 turn. Focus is smooth on all.
I weighed the SLC, the SLC HD, Meostar B.1 7X42, ALONG with the Monarch HG....all with nothing more than Rick Young UL harness snaps. As you know this meant removing the objective covers on the MHG and the Meostar:
SLC HD- 29.6 ounces
SLC- 28.1 ounces
MHG- 23.3 ounces
Meostar B.1- 32.2 ounces
it's easy to see why I like the MHG. Consider an SV 8X32 is about 22 ounces. The SV 32mm is the best in the ergonomics/weight/balance category. The SLCs are too bad though. They ARE compact binoculars for a 42mm so the weight sits in the palm of your hand. Very Leica UVHDish. So you are gonna gain about five ounces over the MHG. I absolutely don't think the weight of the SLC would interfere with anything whatsoever.
I think all the points you make are pretty much right on. The SLC is overall better optically except for FOV. I don't see any CA with it unless I go looking for it. The image is among the flattest...flatter than the MHG with a "field flattener." Diopter is super easy to adjust.
I don't see how one could go wrong with this binocular but I've been wrong before LOL! I feel like this is the BEST binocular at this price point and below.
Attachments
So if i am correct the HD version is the former model? Thats maybe the first time i see a product having the HD label in the past. Isn´t it normal that the HD´s are the newer lines from any product?
What is/was the better construction in the HD model compared to the new line?
What is/was the better construction in the HD model compared to the new line?
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
They dropped the designation "HD" in part to differentiate it from the new models, which have different body armoring (see post 33, lower left). Their rationale for making the change is still curious to me, but personally, I think the SLC-HD model was drawing business away from their more expensive SV line. It certainly violated the company motto of "Improving what is good." The original SLC-HD had provision for faster and closer focusing, which made it slightly heavier, but the optics were otherwise the same.
Ed
Last edited:
I think that's exactly right. Why buy an EL SV when for the most part an SLC will do everything the EL will for less? So create a market for the EL by increasing close focus distance and decreasing focus speed of the SLC. Still the greater CF distance has really never been an issue for me.
Steve C
Well-known member
Not to disagree with anything Chuck said, but add the market hype for the EL SV was the "flat field". I also think that the SLC is the best Swarovski binocular, and I'm another one scratching his head over the ugly armor comments. To each their own I suppose.
