• 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 (2 Viewers)

Pileatus said:
There ain't no achilles heel 'cause the Swarovski focus mechanism does its job. I meet a lot of Swaro owners and not one has ever complained about the focus. I guess you have to be an owner/user to understand how well the thing breaks in...and yes, I'd rather have it tight at the outset.

Some people just love bitching about expensive products.

Go Swarovski!
Click to expand...

Ya know, I've been using my 8x42 SLC HD quite a lot, and the focusing mechanism is now absolutely superb. Fresh out of the box it was slightly sticky, but in a day or two became amazingly smooth and predictable. I'd compare it quite favorably to the Nikon LX L in terms of smoothness, and take my hat off to the designers of an outstanding product.

BF has it's share of drama queens, I'm afraid.

Ed
 
The Kingfisher said:
The focus has now become smoother (after about a half day use). Not silky as my EDG of course, but in any case clearly smoother than right out of the box. The feeling is much the same as with the old SLC HD I think. The new one is perhaps still somewhat stiffer than the old model. But on the other hand .. both directions are now more similar in feel than what I experienced was the case with the SLC HD when I owned it.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear that it improved, particularly that both directions are more similar in stiction. The difference in turning one way compared to the other bothered me in the EL and SLC, particularly in the 8x30 SLCneu because of having to use my ring finger to focus. I tried a full sized SLC at a birding event, an "Alt" model, and while the focuser turned harder in one direction, it was easier to manage with my index finger.

But, given my druthers, I'd rather have a smoother focuser like the EDG, because I do a lot of close-in birding, which requires frequent focusing.

It's too bad the Steiner 8x30 Wildlife Pro doesn't have a wider FOV, because having a "set and forget" bin (if I had good accommodation) with a "manual overrride" for close focus would be ideal. Let your eyes do the focusing at medium and long range and your fingers at close range.

<B>
 
I've owned a Swaro 8x42 SLC HD for about 18 months now. Purchased it as a demo in pretty darn good shape at a very decent price and while I find I still use a 10x as my primary birding glass, this is everything I could wish for in an 8x bin. My unit, however does NOT have "superb" focusing. It's focusing is smooth, without glitches but requires about 20% more effort in clockwise direction than opposite and does not have that "luxurious" feel that my Zeiss 10x42 T*FL has. The Zeiss was also purchased as a demo about a year ago. For reference, I picked up a demo Zeiss 7x42 T*FL with lots of mileage at the same time as the 10x and it's focusing is very smooth but I can see that one day it will require some work. It's a green-armored, pre-LotuTec model but the price was wonderful and I wanted a 7x while I could still get one. For many years I used nothing but Leitz/Leica binoculars but three unfortunate encounters with Leica USA service within 18 months caused me to rethink my loyalties to that brand so please remember that I had been used to Leica focusing knobs and their peculiarities since 1973. Maybe everything is wonderful by comparison? I have spent enough time with a friend's 12x50 Swarovision to know that the focus (on his anyway) is fine and that I want one and I noticed no rolling balls of any kind!
 
Troubador said:
Hiya Bob

As far as I recall Swaro have left out the 22 components involved in bringing the close focus from 3 metres down to 2. With those components gone the close focus is now 3.2 metres. This is a factor that differentiates SLC from EL which gets down to 1.5 metres so you have to spend more to get the closer focus. I feel doubtful that you need 22 extra components to get that extra close focus. I may be wrong about that but my feeling is that Swaro thought they were getting some benefit with these 22 components that didn't in fact work out. What I am saying is that there are probably other ways of getting a 2 metre close focus than ones that necessarily call for all those extra bits.

Lee
Click to expand...

Hello Lee,

I agree. 22 components seems like a lot of parts for a focuser but what do I know? Even the 10 parts Brock says were left out (see thread 219 herein) seems like an awful lot.

Bob
 
Last edited:
DocSarvis said:
I've owned a Swaro 8x42 SLC HD for about 18 months now. Purchased it as a demo in pretty darn good shape at a very decent price and while I find I still use a 10x as my primary birding glass, this is everything I could wish for in an 8x bin. My unit, however does NOT have "superb" focusing. It's focusing is smooth, without glitches but requires about 20% more effort in clockwise direction than opposite and does not have that "luxurious" feel that my Zeiss 10x42 T*FL has. The Zeiss was also purchased as a demo about a year ago. For reference, I picked up a demo Zeiss 7x42 T*FL with lots of mileage at the same time as the 10x and it's focusing is very smooth but I can see that one day it will require some work. It's a green-armored, pre-LotuTec model but the price was wonderful and I wanted a 7x while I could still get one. For many years I used nothing but Leitz/Leica binoculars but three unfortunate encounters with Leica USA service within 18 months caused me to rethink my loyalties to that brand so please remember that I had been used to Leica focusing knobs and their peculiarities since 1973. Maybe everything is wonderful by comparison? I have spent enough time with a friend's 12x50 Swarovision to know that the focus (on his anyway) is fine and that I want one and I noticed no rolling balls of any kind!
Click to expand...

What you described is pretty typical with the one-way spring mechanism, which has been implicated as causing this harder to turn in one direction issue. Some people don't notice it, some notice it but are not bothered by it, and others have samples that turn more evenly in both directions.

As I've found and as others have found, getting a smooth focuser is hit or miss with Swarovski bins. Because your friend's 12x50 SV EL's focuser turns smoothly doesn't mean that your unit will if you buy one. But you'll be looking long with 12x, so turning 20% harder in one direction shouldn't be as big a deal as with your 8x42 SLC, but if the focuser is stiff in both directions, for me, it would be bothersome in any configuration.

More importantly, you know that you don't see any rolling balls of any kind - basketballs, baseballs, footballs, or cotton balls. ;) So there will be no unpleasant surprises in that regard.

And since the 12x50 SV EL has built-in micro-miniature stabilization, shakes shouldn't be be a problem either. All you need is a credit line of $2,759.

Brock
 
elkcub said:
Ya know, I've been using my 8x42 SLC HD quite a lot, and the focusing mechanism is now absolutely superb. Fresh out of the box it was slightly sticky, but in a day or two became amazingly smooth and predictable. I'd compare it quite favorably to the Nikon LX L in terms of smoothness, and take my hat off to the designers of an outstanding product.

BF has it's share of drama queens, I'm afraid.

Ed
Click to expand...

Ed,

BF also has its share of people who are always convinced their experience is universal. However, a perusal of the posts about Swaro focuser issues will prove it is most definitely not.

Btw, if you take your hat off, be sure to use SPF 45, it's California, after all. ;)

Brock
 
brocknroller said:
What you described is pretty typical with the one-way spring mechanism, which has been implicated as ...................

.........................................................................................................

And since the 12x50 SV EL has built-in micro-miniature stabilization, shakes shouldn't be be a problem either. All you need is a credit line of $2,759.

Brock
Click to expand...

Huh!!!??? What?

Is this how internet legends get started?:h?:

Bob
 
The new SLC and the old SLC HD are incredibly fine binoculars, but I must say that the Nikon EDG is also fantastic. So well that it is still my personal favorite among the roofs. The SLC has the brightness, possibly slightly better contrast, the glass feels a little "cleaner", diopter never change voluntarily, and it has a slightly better center sharpness (when the binoculars are handheld). But..the resolution of the Nikon EDG is almost as good as the SLC, it has better edge sharpness, handles chromatic aberration slightly better and the colors are richer. Furthermore..the focus of the EDG is so much more comfortable to use and the bino feels better in my hands because it lacks those sharp edges that the Swarro have. Actually, it is quite unnecessary to own two so amazing fine binoculars - the EDG does the job so well that it fulfills everything you want from a pair of binoculars. But on the other hand, it is great to have access to both, good to have a spare pair of binoculars just in case something happens to one of them, if you want to send one of them to service etc. Additionally (and perhaps the most important of all when you're single like me)..you always have access to an extra pair of very good binoculars in case you "stumble across" a new girlfriend or so.. ;)
 
Last edited:
Here are a few attached pictures of the SLC when it stands together with the EDG. The design/lines on the new SLC is pretty nice. Actually better looking than the old SLC HD, I must say. Or maybe it is not?! Hard to say.. |8)| I also cut together a picture of my old SLC HD and the new SLC. Different lighting, image quality and angle, but you can see them next to each other at least.. |=)|
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4692red500pix.jpg
    IMG_4692red500pix.jpg
    53 KB · Views: 204
  • IMG_4693red500pix.jpg
    IMG_4693red500pix.jpg
    53.1 KB · Views: 189
  • SLC HD + nya SLC.jpg
    SLC HD + nya SLC.jpg
    48.5 KB · Views: 262
Last edited:
King, Very nice pictures! I sort of like the old SLC looks better. When you say that the Nikon EDG lacks the sharp edges of the SLC do you mean bridge below the focuser on the SLC binoculars and the way this looks like it is angled down on the Nikon? Just below the focuser on the Nikon.
 
One thing about the new SLC: the armoring seems to give better grip than the old one did (especially in wet weather). The rubber material also gives a different feeling, partly because the texture is different and partly because the rubber is thicker. Overall, this means that the bino does not get nearly as cold as the old SLC at low temperatures = you no longer need to frostbite your fingers if you happen to forget your thick gloves at home..
 
ceasar said:
Huh!!!??? What?

Is this how internet legends get started?:h?:

Bob
Click to expand...

Oh, you ,mean like your would-be Internet legend that Nikon stockpiled the SE prism housings for the past 10 years and when they feel the need to update the coatings, they only make new EPs and objectives and their housings, and screw them on the old prism housings, so that the serial #s bear no relationship with the year the models were manufactured because the prism housings were all produced at the same time. Now that was a real whopper! Fortunately, it didn't attain legendary status because apparently no-one believed it. ;)

No, if I'm going to claim dubious credit, it would have to be for creating a more plausible and therefore successful Internet legend, namely, that early lead-free glass was not up to par with lead glass (as OHARA admitted in two technical papers) and that this sub-par glass caused roofs at the turn of the century (2000) to show more false color than their lead glass predecessors, which is why there was an uptick in reports of CA at the time, and subsequently, why ED glass was added to roofs.

I've seen my comments in one form and another quoted all over the place. Perhaps it's not true, though OHARA did state that its early lead-free glass for microscopes created more CA at the extreme ends of the spectrum for photographic microscopy, but it never said if any of that early glass was used in sports optics. Whatever the case, my theory achieved bona fided Internet legend status. :smoke:

I also took a lot of flak from those who believed that no optical glass company would release glass that wasn't read for "prime time." But then I pointed out all the other glitches that came out on bins that were later fixed such as the meat clever strap lugs on the original Victories, the many, many EDG I's manufactured with loose focuser knobs, the 820 Audubon eyecups that were "not made for human eyes," etc. Those examples and more do not prove OHARA or any other glass company released sub-par lead free glass in sports optics, but if they did for microscopes, it at least seems plausible.

In any case, my theory has since been replaced by a theory that it was the internal focusing element in roofs, introduced around the same time as lead-free glass, that was the true culprit behind the increase in CA in roofs.

My hyperbole about the "micro-stabilization" above was in reference to the lucky dudes who Swaro took on a trip to Extremadura who said that the 12x50s SV ELs were as easy to hold steady as the 10x50s. Not in my shaky hands they wouldn't, but maybe in "coolhand68's". ;)

Brock
 
Last edited:
brocknroller said:
Oh, you ,mean like your would-be Internet legend that Nikon stockpiled the SE prism housings for the past 10 years and when they feel the need to update the coatings, they only make new EPs and objectives and their housings, and screw them on the old prism housings, so that the serial #s bear no relationship with the year the models were manufactured because the prism housings were all produced at the same time. Now that was a real whopper! Fortunately, it didn't attain legendary status because apparently no-one believed it. ;)

No, if I'm going to claim dubious credit, it would have to be for creating a more plausible and therefore successful Internet legend, namely, that early lead-free glass was not up to par with lead glass (as OHARA admitted in two technical papers) and that this sub-par glass caused roofs at the turn of the century (2000) to show more false color than their lead glass predecessors, which is why there was an uptick in reports of CA at the time, and subsequently, why ED glass was added to roofs.

I've seen my comments in one form and another quoted all over the place. Perhaps it's not true, though OHARA did state that its early lead-free glass for microscopes created more CA at the extreme ends of the spectrum for photographic microscopy, but it never said if any of that early glass was used in sports optics. Whatever the case, my theory achieved bona fided Internet legend status. :smoke:

I also took a lot of flak from those who believed that no optical glass company would release glass that wasn't read for "prime time." But then I pointed out all the other glitches that came out on bins that were later fixed such as the meat clever strap lugs on the original Victories, the many, many EDG I's manufactured with loose focuser knobs, the 820 Audubon eyecups that were "not made for human eyes," etc. Those examples and more do not prove OHARA or any other glass company released sub-par lead free glass in sports optics, but if they did for microscopes, it at least seems plausible.

In any case, my theory has since been replaced by a theory that it was the internal focusing element in roofs, introduced around the same time as lead-free glass, that was the true culprit behind the increase in CA in roofs.

My hyperbole about the "micro-stabilization" above was in reference to the lucky dudes who Swaro took on a trip to Extremadura who said that the 12x50s SV ELs were as easy to hold steady as the 10x50s. Not in my shaky hands they wouldn't, but maybe in "coolhand68's". ;)

Brock
Click to expand...

OK Brock,

You got to the point of my own hyperbolic comment in your last paragraph which clears that up.

I don't know what you are talking about in your first paragraph. There is nothing "legendary" about a common sense manufacturing process. It is speculation on my part. And I'll point out here that you forgot that the Serial Numbers on the SE's are separate parts glued into the prism housings and can easily be sequenced onto new binoculars.

The SE's have modular interchangeable parts. So do the EII's for that matter. If you need to make new binoculars to replace the ones sold it makes sense to have enough interchangeable parts available to get it done efficiently. Why pull out the stamping machinery for prism housings every time you need to replace SE models that have been sold out? They are used on all 3 models. The same thing for the eye pieces. Why else are all the SE models affected with Kidney Beaning if the eye pieces aren't the same? I think I missed the prisms. They are all the same too.

So much for that.

The rest of your comments have nothing to do with me and I never criticized them one way or another.

Bob
 
I prefer the look of the old SLC HD, which is only a few years old anyway. Is there any optical improvement over the old version ?

I hope this doesn't mean there going change the design of the SV's.

Tim
 
The Kingfisher said:
The new SLC and the old SLC HD are incredibly fine binoculars, but I must say that the Nikon EDG is also fantastic. So well that it is still my personal favorite among the roofs. The SLC has the brightness, possibly slightly better contrast, the glass feels a little "cleaner", diopter never change voluntarily, and it has a slightly better center sharpness (when the binoculars are handheld). But..the resolution of the Nikon EDG is almost as good as the SLC, it has better edge sharpness, handles chromatic aberration slightly better and the colors are richer. Furthermore..the focus of the EDG is so much more comfortable to use and the bino feels better in my hands because it lacks those sharp edges that the Swarro have. Actually, it is quite unnecessary to own two so amazing fine binoculars - the EDG does the job so well that it fulfills everything you want from a pair of binoculars. But on the other hand, it is great to have access to both, good to have a spare pair of binoculars just in case something happens to one of them, if you want to send one of them to service etc. Additionally (and perhaps the most important of all when you're single like me)..you always have access to an extra pair of very good binoculars in case you "stumble across" a new girlfriend or so.. ;)
Click to expand...

Hi Kingfisher,
You have said that the EDG is sharper than the new SLC in the edge of the field, but is there any improvement over the "old" SLC HD for the edge sharpness?
I have read that an the new 56mm SLC there is an aspherical element that act as a field flattener.. Does anyone know if this element is present in the 42mm too?

Andrea
 
andrea86bert said:
Hi Kingfisher,
You have said that the EDG is sharper than the new SLC in the edge of the field, but is there any improvement over the "old" SLC HD for the edge sharpness?
I have read that an the new 56mm SLC there is an aspherical element that act as a field flattener.. Does anyone know if this element is present in the 42mm too?

Andrea
Click to expand...

I do not think there is an improvement of the edge sharpness in the new SLC. I think it's the same as in the old one. I must admit that the somewhat soft edges of the SLC binocular are a little bit distracting because I am used to use the Nikon EDG with field flatternes. I have not heard or red anything about any "aspherical element" in the SLC 42..so I can not help you with that one. Sorry!
 
The focus on my new SLC has now become much better - almost perfect actually!

From being really stiff and choppy right out of the box, it is now almost completely smooth and much less stiff. It felt like the focus got better and better the more I focused, but the improvement suddenly stopped. The focus was still irritable choppy, and a "squeaking noice" could also be heard when focusing. In desperation I put the bino under the tap and flushed some water (just a second or so) over the focus wheel. And VOILA - it helped! The focus immediately became almost perfectly smooth and the squeaking sound disappeared. Am I happy or am I happy now? I'm happy.. |:D|
 
Last edited:
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
863
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: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top