black lark
Registered User
i am planning to buy this one for birdwatching, any comments are good.
-
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.
slc 10x50 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter black lark
- Start date
chartwell99
Well-known member
I have a Leica 10 x 50 BA which is roughly the same size, weight and (although some may differ) optical equal. In my view, it's an outstanding binocular for twilight hawk watching, but you really need a finn stick or monopod to realize the true potential of this configuration.
Last edited:
Patriot222
Well-known member
I think that the 10x50 SLC is one of the best three models that Swarovski makes. I think the image is better than the EL in several catagories. I own the EL because I'm limited by the weight I can carry along with my other gear. I don't know if you'll be carrying them all day or not but if you don't mind the weight the image quality is spectacular. 10x magnification isn't always my preferred hand held binocular but the extra weight helps to dampen the oscillations a bit. I really prefer using 10x bins with a monopod or better yet a tripod, but that's just me.
Last edited:
Paul Godolphin
Member
Great Binos!
Hi Black Lark
I agree with the other two. The 10x50 roof configuration is one helluva terrific binocular when when seen at the top end of the quality range, as in the SLC and the Leica.
I just swapped from Swarovski 8.5x EL's to the Leica Ultravid 10x50. I looked at the SLC 10x50 too. Both of them are hugely superior in every way to their 10x42 counterparts. I won't bore you with all the details, but just about every parameter that can be seen or measured is way, way better on the 50's in both makes. I'll never go back to the 42mm format again.
But..... WEIGHT.
Oh my God yes, that!
My EL's were 860g and felt easy to carry, and perfect in-hand. The Ultravids are 1010g, and the SLC's were (if I remember right) approx. 1150 or 1250g, not sure which. You wouldn't think that small increase would make much difference, eh?
When I tested both in the store, the SLC's felt like a big heavy, very good solid quality binocular. The Ultravids were almost identical in shape and size to my old 8.5x EL's and even fitted into the existing EL soft case I had. Big bonus!
Optically they were both superb, but the image was a little crisper on the Ultravids, although maybe looked a gnat's whisker less bright. The SLC image was yellower, so maybe it gave a false impression, I dunno.
The increase in POWER was incredible! During the first couple of days I was momentarily mis-identifying Blackbirds and Starlings as CORVIDS! Jeez, I didn't remember there being that much difference? I thought the field of view was a tad narrower on the SLC's, but the depth of focus was better in the opinion of my 50-year-old eyes. Maybe some younger guys could give their comments here? I've met a lot of fellas out birding who are in my age group and seem to be moving the same way, ie.to higher magnification with big lenses for more light. I guess the combination of aging and increased eye strain damage from extended computer use will see this migration continue!
Anyhow, great binoculars. The Ultravids of course, were marred a few months later when they developed the well-known 'Jerky Focus Wheel Fault' and they now reside in a closet back in my old house, awaiting getting fixed.
It digusts me that Leica have continued to sell this faulty design for four years AFTER they've been made aware of it. At least they have fixed it on the new Ultravid FL that's just come out. The Swarovski showed no problems, and the focussing had the usual nice 'oily' feel.
But oh man, these suckers are HEAVY! Even the Ultravids at just 160g heavier then my EL's feel like a debilitating handicap when I take them out. My neck aches and I get sweaty under the strap. I'm always trying to manouver the strap further back onto my coat collar to spread the weight, but it jumps forward again. I reckon these could snap your neck if you had to jump jown a bank without supporting them in one hand!
And that's just a 160g increase! God knows what it would have been like if I'd bought the Sawrovskis? A lucky escape, I think!
Good luck with your decision Black Lark. Whichever you choose, just make sure that you TRY them in the store first. There's a lot a faulty equipment out there because of lax quality control, especially on Swarovskis. So check everything ten times over before getting the Credit Card out. Then.... get ready to enjoy the best views you've had for years!
all the best Paul
Hi Black Lark
I agree with the other two. The 10x50 roof configuration is one helluva terrific binocular when when seen at the top end of the quality range, as in the SLC and the Leica.
I just swapped from Swarovski 8.5x EL's to the Leica Ultravid 10x50. I looked at the SLC 10x50 too. Both of them are hugely superior in every way to their 10x42 counterparts. I won't bore you with all the details, but just about every parameter that can be seen or measured is way, way better on the 50's in both makes. I'll never go back to the 42mm format again.
But..... WEIGHT.
Oh my God yes, that!
My EL's were 860g and felt easy to carry, and perfect in-hand. The Ultravids are 1010g, and the SLC's were (if I remember right) approx. 1150 or 1250g, not sure which. You wouldn't think that small increase would make much difference, eh?
When I tested both in the store, the SLC's felt like a big heavy, very good solid quality binocular. The Ultravids were almost identical in shape and size to my old 8.5x EL's and even fitted into the existing EL soft case I had. Big bonus!
Optically they were both superb, but the image was a little crisper on the Ultravids, although maybe looked a gnat's whisker less bright. The SLC image was yellower, so maybe it gave a false impression, I dunno.
The increase in POWER was incredible! During the first couple of days I was momentarily mis-identifying Blackbirds and Starlings as CORVIDS! Jeez, I didn't remember there being that much difference? I thought the field of view was a tad narrower on the SLC's, but the depth of focus was better in the opinion of my 50-year-old eyes. Maybe some younger guys could give their comments here? I've met a lot of fellas out birding who are in my age group and seem to be moving the same way, ie.to higher magnification with big lenses for more light. I guess the combination of aging and increased eye strain damage from extended computer use will see this migration continue!
Anyhow, great binoculars. The Ultravids of course, were marred a few months later when they developed the well-known 'Jerky Focus Wheel Fault' and they now reside in a closet back in my old house, awaiting getting fixed.
It digusts me that Leica have continued to sell this faulty design for four years AFTER they've been made aware of it. At least they have fixed it on the new Ultravid FL that's just come out. The Swarovski showed no problems, and the focussing had the usual nice 'oily' feel.
But oh man, these suckers are HEAVY! Even the Ultravids at just 160g heavier then my EL's feel like a debilitating handicap when I take them out. My neck aches and I get sweaty under the strap. I'm always trying to manouver the strap further back onto my coat collar to spread the weight, but it jumps forward again. I reckon these could snap your neck if you had to jump jown a bank without supporting them in one hand!
And that's just a 160g increase! God knows what it would have been like if I'd bought the Sawrovskis? A lucky escape, I think!
Good luck with your decision Black Lark. Whichever you choose, just make sure that you TRY them in the store first. There's a lot a faulty equipment out there because of lax quality control, especially on Swarovskis. So check everything ten times over before getting the Credit Card out. Then.... get ready to enjoy the best views you've had for years!
all the best Paul
Interesting discussion, actually!
Paul Godolphin, you said that you "never go back to the 42mm format again". What is the real reason? The improvement in brightness you will not notice except from real low light occasions. And 10x50 is in your opinion too heavy. What is then the improvement?
I know that some people claims that they see more details with larger aperture, but this is true with high magnifications as spottingscopes and astronomical scope, and not with the low power of a binocular. There the magnification rules.
Regards, Patric
Paul Godolphin, you said that you "never go back to the 42mm format again". What is the real reason? The improvement in brightness you will not notice except from real low light occasions. And 10x50 is in your opinion too heavy. What is then the improvement?
I know that some people claims that they see more details with larger aperture, but this is true with high magnifications as spottingscopes and astronomical scope, and not with the low power of a binocular. There the magnification rules.
Regards, Patric
Paul Godolphin
Member
Hi Patric
Well, weight sure isn't the reason, ho ho! These are big heavy binocs! It's a shame really, but manufacturers seem to put less resources into the development of the 50 size than their 40/42mm models. But since my dealer tells me that the 40's outsell the 50's by 100-to-one, that's no surprise! But I'm sure that if the bigger glasses got the same degree of attention, then they'd sell better. Wow, just think how great a 10x50 Swarovski EL would be!
Anyhow, to answer your question, I'd never go back to 40/42 size binocs (despite the weight) because the definition really is much better on all the 50's I've looked at. And all other areas seem better too. There's a little less edge distortion, a bit better depth of focus, etc etc. And the brightness really does make a difference, at least to me.
The best comparision I can make is between a big 1000cc motorcycle and a twitchy little 350cc Yamaha racer. Sure, we know that the 350 Yamaha won all the unlimited races at Daytona in the 70's, and was quicker that the big heavy, more powerful bikes. But the big bikes cruise around with such ease, and with much more power and torque than is required. They could tow a car if required. However, the little bike can be made to perform the same in a small light package, but it handles like a piece of paper in the wind, it's highly-tuned engine screams like an insect and runs at 20,000rpm on the limits of it's construction to produce the required performance. The rider is constantly adjusting the throttle and changing up/down through a dozen or more gears. The big version just chugs along happliy, with performance to spare, just like the big binocs have a 'relaxed' tolerance and can beat the little 'insect' glasses without extreme tweaking to get out the last drop of performance. In other words, the optical dimensions of these big long heavy glasses are the way they should be, not the way they have to be.
Check out Henry Link's reviews of the enormous (but properly dimensioned) Zeiss models to see what I'm trying to explain.
Sure, we can get over the shortcomings of reduced-size optics by good design and quality control, but why should we? Let's use the better dimensions in the first place!
I hope my muddled attempt to explain my rationale answers your question Patric. It's just a personal viewpoint, of course.
All the best
Paul
Last edited:
Paul,
I know the Swarovskis are great binoculars. And the 10x50 is really great according to your impression. One of my absolute favorite binoculars is the 7x42. I like the stable image and comfortable large exit pupil, it's a true allround binocular, very comfortable to handhold.
But I have also tried as well the EL 8,5x42 and SLC 8x50 who I have experienced as impressive. By the way; I think the most impressive image I have ever seen has the SLC 7x50. It was many years ago but I remember the image as total flat and sharp to the very edges. And of course extremely bright and clear.
Regards, Patric
I know the Swarovskis are great binoculars. And the 10x50 is really great according to your impression. One of my absolute favorite binoculars is the 7x42. I like the stable image and comfortable large exit pupil, it's a true allround binocular, very comfortable to handhold.
But I have also tried as well the EL 8,5x42 and SLC 8x50 who I have experienced as impressive. By the way; I think the most impressive image I have ever seen has the SLC 7x50. It was many years ago but I remember the image as total flat and sharp to the very edges. And of course extremely bright and clear.
Regards, Patric
