• 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)

• Actually, tangents off threads in this forum are often v. interesting, even merit threads of their own!

• Decided on a Sw. SLC? If you need close focus the present SLC HD is available at lowered prices now.

• If you don't then in a few mths the new and lighter SLC will be available for even less.

• Still cannot figure out how a difference in the close focus "mechanism" can save 20 components.

• Found, with some effort, <this illuminating post by Holger>. Can it be that the savings in cost and in components are due not to a "mechanism" but a different lens system?

• Was able to compare today for the first time an SLC HD, which is an 8x42, and an Sv., which is an 8.5x42, and thought of setting down these points here; sorry if this is old hat. Firstly, within dim places in daylight the SLC clearly shows more detail.

• The field of view in the SLC is much wider vs the Sv. than in the proportion of the stated 7.8⁰ vs 7.6⁰.

• BTW, surprised to find the better sharpness in the Sv. though nearly always referred to using the word "edge" is clearly noticeable even from ~ 2/3 of the way out. (Does not matter v. much to me personally, though!)

Pity the Sw. SLC HD 8x42 won't be around longer - such an efficient instrument for nature observation.

Pomp:

It is good to see you have had a little time with 2 very good optics.

I do find this post to be a putdown of the SV 8.5x42, and I have not
compared both of these, but do own the 8.5, and have spent a lot of
time with it.

The FOV of the SV is fully useable, unlike the SLC, and it is a pity your short
experience has left you not enjoying the full value of the Swarovision.

Jerry
 
Yes, indeed, it was "... such an efficient instrument for nature observation."

Well put. :t:

Ed
Come on guys, the new SLC model will be just as good as the first iteration. Afterall, who really cares about a miniscule adjustment in the close focus?
 
The parts saved in making a so-called "simpler" SLC removed the innovative logarithmic focusing mechanism and replaced it with a conventional one. If you think simpler and lower cost is better I'm sure Swaro could accommodate your wishes by removing it from the SV line as well, probably with only a miniscule adjustment in the close focus.

If you didn't realize you had it, and you don't know what it's good for, then you shouldn't mind losing it, right? :smoke:

Ed
 
Come on guys, the new SLC model will be just as good as the first iteration. Afterall, who really cares about a miniscule adjustment in the close focus?

If they'd managed to fix up the focus feel to a 'buttery smooth' 'precise goodness' standard, more befitting a $2K binocular as well, such that even Brock would stop carping on about it, then I'd suggest "not many", especially with 10x, and 15x. :scribe:

Perhaps Swarovski need to bring some of the 1980's Toyota switchgear committee engineers out of mothballs ...... so they can be taught how to do basic customer "focused" engineering design and manufacture work properly ..... |8.| .... |:$|


To (miss)quote |8)| your good self:
Go Zeiss!



Chosun :gh:
 
Jerry, no "putdown" was intended at all! What's in parentheses there is a personal preference: full-field sharpness makes a significant difference to some and not to others like me. But now I'd like to expand a bit on that post. Brightness. It is possible that below a certain level - thinking of dusk and dawn - the Sv. 8.5x may show more detail (due to the "twilight factor", in which I have much faith). FOV. Not due to individual variation in that Sv. - the friend with the SLC has compared it and yet another Sv. 8.5x. One thing I prefer about the Sv. (vs the SLC) is that it is "lighter in the hand" though its weighs more. I do have a personal, subjective preference for the SLC vs the Sv. but I hope it has not influenced the way I conveyed the info. in that post! A "personal but objective" reason is that I'm affected by "rolling ball" in it.

Ed, do you know where I can see a diagram of the "logarithmic focusing" mechanism"? Googled but found it only mentioned, and one diagram much too small in the image. Sw. has patented it. CJ, would you know where I could I read about that Toyota episode? Thanks, both.
 
Last edited:
Jerry...
Ed, where can I read about "the innovative logarithmic focusing mechanism"? CJ, ...

Pompadour,

I can only guess at the mathematics and mechanisms, but can point you to Gijs van Ginkel's 2010 comparative review of 42mm binoculars. (See pg. 2.) He slightly preferred the HD's focusing to the SV's. I find it somewhat faster, and for that reason slightly better.

Ed
 

Attachments

  • van Ginkel.2010.Test.42mm-1.binoculars copy.pdf
    455 KB · Views: 309
Ed, thanks. The editing of my post took effect seconds before yours appeared! Gijs's review is one instance where I "found it only mentioned". Will continue to search.
 
..... CJ, would you know where I could I read about that Toyota episode? Thanks, ....

Pomp,

I recalled that from a case study for Engineering /Industrial Design, back in the day. It was from previous decades, but aside from "bespoke" craftsmanship from some of the historical masters - the Toyata attention to Ergonomics /USI - "User Interface Design" with regard to the positioning, functionality, and importantly "feel" (tactile feel, anatomical size relativity, forces involved, movement travel, and engagement precision, etc, etc) of switchgear, was a bit of a revolution in the mass production Automotive Industry. The Americans previously had some lovely "looking" switchgear - but alas I think they ended up blinded by all the chrome and bling! Toyota introduced design by "committees" (cross-functional "teams") of Engineers, Designers, Ergonomists, Statisticians, etc - something now regarded as de rigueur, ...... but obviously yet to make its way up the Alps ! |^|

In a double-edged sword fashion, it turned out (along with QA, process control, and Reliability) to be one of their Key Competitive Advantages at the time ..... although in later years, along with financial tsunamis, business conservatism, ageing customer demographics and brand appeal, a lack of any real styling panache' (last gen Celica, and Supra excluded) between the 1967 "2000GT" and the 2010 "Lexus LFA" (so bad that even some American cars designed during that period were thought to be more stylish and beautiful - ugh !), the phrase "designed by committee" became a thinly veiled backhander, now synonymous with "boring", and the "fridge on wheels" accusation. |8(|

It's pretty much standard professional Design practice now across many industries. I haven't looked, but I'm sure you could dig up some info without having to resort to Engineering or Strategic Business texts !

All in all, in this day and age, it really shouldn't be that hard to design a precision focuser that feels absolutely sublime to the vast majority of the population ...... |^|



Chosun :gh:


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[EDIT]: Here ya go Pomp, a few snippets, though without a "Svengali" for guidance, or being a Director of one of the Japanese Multinationals, I fear they may be more confusing hinderance than help, as even the behemoths themselves have not found their way out of the wilderness!

A few pointers:- ...... Kaizen in Manufacturing = good ...... design by committee for ergonomics = good ..... styling design by committee = bad ...... quirky Japanese styling paradigm shifts for the sake of quirky Japanese styling paradigm shifts = quirky Japanese styling paradigm shifts for the sake of quirky Japanese styling paradigm shifts! ..... future product conception, design and manufacure guided by aerodynamics, efficiency, and sustainability = good.

Note1. your beloved technology advances will render knob twiddling obsolete due to voice recognition and commands .....
Note2. "Beam me up Scotty" will render terrestial vehicular transport obsolete!
......... :cat:

http://mreed.umtri.umich.edu/mreed/research_ergonomics.html
http://www.e.okayama-u.ac.jp/~kshimizu/downloads/iir.pdf
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/13/us-autoshow-toyota-design-idUSBRE90C0EF20130113
http://www.autonews.com/article/201...-toyota-to-join-stylings-a-list#axzz2dR5SKbYa
 
Last edited:
I think the bottom line is they needed to establish a distinct price differential between the pedestrian SLC line and the elite Swarovisions. Now, when birders gather, there won't be any doubt what the pecking order is. Fortunately, the original SLC/HD (how long did this model last) will be distinguishable from the new and devolved SLC by its armor. Ranked by price the new hierarchy will be: Swarovision, SLC/HD and SLC (new versions only, not the much older SLC models).

The new Swarovski taxonomy should be mastered as soon as possible, certainly before any forays into the field. Identifying birds is useful; knowing the make and model of other birder's bin(s) is essential knowledge. I learned that on Birdforum!
 
Good idea John. The next order of business is to make sure that every optics company boldly displays the country of manufacture on the top of the binocular so we can even further establish the pecking order.

;)
 
CJ, thanks for the voluminous response. Interesting stuff I didn't know. E.g., until now had thought the critical phrase "designed by committee" had come down the ages! But would disagree with you on a key matter - about the efficient mech. interfacing between product and user having "yet to make its way up the Alps". I'd expect this anyway from Swaro, and Leica and Zeiss, as a result of (to quote you again) "'bespoke' craftsmanship from ... historical masters". (Re my superior futurist attitude I confess I got carried away a bit with all this and forgot it for a while - thanks for reminding me.)

An interesting matter nearer topic - that special close focusing mecahnism, lost to the SLC in the new model. Has any user reported that they have benefitted from it? Gijs only mentions the presence of the system. Ed compares the "focusing" of the SLC and Sv. but doesn't specify close range. Looked up just now (no great fun) 5 user reviews of the SLC HD 8x42 and 31 of the Sv. 8.5x42 in the Eagle Optics site. Not one mentions focus action at close range. It is, of course, quite possible that the system works so well most users don't notice it! The one exception I found is a well-known optics site. The reviewer/s, after mentioning the "logarithmic" mechanism, actually test the close focusing separatley, and praise this, but for fine-focusing ability, so it seems they think the design slows down, not speeds up, the focusing there!
 
Last edited:
I think the bottom line is they needed to establish a distinct price differential between the pedestrian SLC line and the elite Swarovisions. Now, when birders gather, there won't be any doubt what the pecking order is. Fortunately, the original SLC/HD (how long did this model last) will be distinguishable from the new and devolved SLC by its armor. Ranked by price the new hierarchy will be: Swarovision, SLC/HD and SLC (new versions only, not the much older SLC models).

The new Swarovski taxonomy should be mastered as soon as possible, certainly before any forays into the field. Identifying birds is useful; knowing the make and model of other birder's bin(s) is essential knowledge. I learned that on Birdforum!

Nice. :smoke:
 
Good idea John. The next order of business is to make sure that every optics company boldly displays the country of manufacture on the top of the binocular so we can even further establish the pecking order.

;)

Frank,
On the lighter side...

At the Cape May hawkwatch last year I heard a Leica bearing birder bemoaning the fact that everyone was sporting new Swarovski's. I don't think he was aware of Swarovski's sponsorship or the box full of optics available (on loan of course) to anyone on the watch. It was a lot of fun to use a 10X50 SV for half an hour followed by an 8X32 then a 12X50 and so on. They had scopes available, but after I looked through the Kowa at the optics shop, I wasn't overwhelmed.

Enjoy!
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that link, Pomp,. those were the comments from Holger I was looking for when I referred to the tradeoffs in close focusing in roofs:

"...So it continues: A close focusing point even below 2m - not useful, in fact rather harmful, because it increases the required travel for the focusing lens. But there is no space left - modern binoculars have to be compact, so they are forced to increase the power of the focusing lens, which in turn increases aberrations, which in turn have to be compensated by increasingly complex and expensive ocular designs.

"A high power focusing lens requires a high precision mechanics with low tolerances. But the test magazines tend to praise binoculars with fast focusers - from 2m to infinity within less than one turn, which cannot at the same time be precise. The result: With modern high-end glasses, the focusing precision has gone down, hardly any manufacturer who does not have serious troubles to cope with all those contradicting requirements. Whether the current high end binoculars will still perform after 20 years, as well as the older generation glasses are performing today? I doubt. Short term profit, shorter life cycles, that is what counts. Warranty times are already going down."

Doesn't sound like Ed agrees.

But to each his own. For close focus, you have the SV EL even though some users complain about all that focus travel and for more typical birding distances you have the newer, cheaper SLC.

Good to have choices, both in features and price points.

<B>
 
I think the bottom line is they needed to establish a distinct price differential between the pedestrian SLC line and the elite Swarovisions. Now, when birders gather, there won't be any doubt what the pecking order is. Fortunately, the original SLC/HD (how long did this model last) will be distinguishable from the new and devolved SLC by its armor. Ranked by price the new hierarchy will be: Swarovision, SLC/HD and SLC (new versions only, not the much older SLC models).

The new Swarovski taxonomy should be mastered as soon as possible, certainly before any forays into the field. Identifying birds is useful; knowing the make and model of other birder's bin(s) is essential knowledge. I learned that on Birdforum!

You know I have bitten my tongue long enough! But,pily shut up!!! Pedestrian SLC? Give me and us a break! They are as good if not better than the sv's! I have looked until my eyeballs have bugged out! Please, the sv's are nice! But, quit pushing them so hard! There are other binoculars out there that fit people better!!! Bryce...
 
You know I have bitten my tongue long enough! But,pily shut up!!! Pedestrian SLC? Give me and us a break! They are as good if not better than the sv's! I have looked until my eyeballs have bugged out! Please, the sv's are nice! But, quit pushing them so hard! There are other binoculars out there that fit people better!!! Bryce...

Bryce,

If you read Pileatus' comments very carefully, you may come to agree that he avoided saying the SLC line is pedestrian. My interpretation is that he said Swarovski "...needed to establish a distinct price differential between a pedestrian SLC line and an elite Swarovision line." If that's what he meant, then I have to agree that such a cynical motive could explain why a near perfect product would be deliberately made less remarkable.

For me, sadly, it also alters the meaning of founder David Swarovski's principle of "constantly improving what is good," to "constantly improving what is good for profit." ;)

Capitalism rules!

Ed

PS. Now is the time to purchase an SLC-HD, for those who like it, since the prices will probably drop below the new SLC.
 
Last edited:
Lighten up folks. BF opinions are nothing but vague suggestions regarding quality or usefulness. Much of what we read is simply pure entertainment with a dash of experience thrown in for good measure.

I loved the SLC/HD the first time I set eyes on it. If The SV wasn't available, I'd own one. As it is, I preferred the SV and spent my hard-earned money to purchase one. Expensive? Yes. Worth it? To me it sure is. Do I see more than the guy next to me with an SLC (or any other bin for that matter)? The answer depends on where we're looking at a particular moment in time. Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't.

The bottom line is rather obvious. If you can actually sense the subtleties of an expensive alpha AND you can afford it AND you'll actually use it for something other than writing missives on BF then maybe you should consider owning one. Otherwise, I suggest you beg, borrow or buy a simple, inexpensive binocular that you find acceptable. Oh, and try to have some fun. I do believe that's the point of the entire exercise.
 
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