• 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.

10x50 EL or 10x54 HT (1 Viewer)

Inquisitor, Gijs,

I have not had a chance to see the new Leica UVHD+'s yet, but I have directly compared the Zeiss 8x42 HT with the Swarovski 10x50 SV and the x42 and x56 SLC's. I found the HT and the big SV to be the finest views I have ever seen, and on about a par with each other - each of them with different strengths ..... The HT it's 'clarity' and the SV it's 'crystalline sparkle' - both qualify for a WOW! in my book. I place the SV slightly ahead because I prefer its handling. :king:

Gijs, I am surprised that you found the new UVHD+ (what with its Ultra FL and HT glass trickery) not as bright as the SLC. I know some rave over its view, but I thought the SLC was rather blah, and was disappointed not to be blown away by the 56mm A-K SLC's ...... :cat:


Chosun :gh:
 
I found the SLC's sweetspot to be clearly bigger than the HT's and their easy of view (eye placement, possibility to roam around the FOV) to be greater.

On the other hand they have less close focus and they focus (a lot) slower.

Slow focus doesn't bother me, I actually like it because I am prone to fiddling with the focuser to squeeze out that last .001% of perfection that vanishes every time the light changes.

How did you find the SLC in terms of clarity and resolution compared to the HT? It seems some like it a lot and others are blah. I know from the above that you find it an easier bin to view through.
 
If you haven't seen it already, Tobias had a nice shoot-out review....

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/shootouts/shootoutpremier8x42s/8x42shootout.html

Not overly technical but does capture the essence of the image better than raw numbers ever could.

James, I know you are a happy HT user. What do you personally have to say about the "so bright as to have washed out colors" idea that is sometimes associated with the HT?

I like colors and punch, but I am also often out in gloomy cloudy weather as well.
 
I know I must judge with my own eyes and hands but I appreciate the feedback and ideas being given here. Thanks

Brightness, clarity, and resolution remain my main goals but I don't like the idea of being shortchanged on the sweetspot.

This whole 10x50 EL exercise has been tough in that it is forcing me to realize that simply being the best optically doesn't mean it is the best binocular for me.
 
Last edited:
James, I know you are a happy HT user. What do you personally have to say about the "so bright as to have washed out colors" idea that is sometimes associated with the HT?

I like colors and punch, but I am also often out in gloomy cloudy weather as well.

James will no doubt reply, but do allow me to step in here.

The idea that HT has a washed-out colour-poor view is one that really mystifies me. We regularly visit Scotland in Autumn when the grasses have turned red and the bracken has gone brown. I have observed hillsides like this above turquoise seas and the whole scene has scintillated with colour.

My wife's Leicas present these scenes with a touch more warmth to the reds, but whether that is more true to life is debateable. It becomes a matter of personal taste rather than absolute fact.

Lee
 
James, I know you are a happy HT user. What do you personally have to say about the "so bright as to have washed out colors" idea that is sometimes associated with the HT?

I like colors and punch, but I am also often out in gloomy cloudy weather as well.

It was said of the FL series before the HT as well. I own both and never see any ''washed out'' look. After all, we are talking a 3-4% difference from an SV - I don't think one would be fine and the other washed out.

Now, ''washed clean'' I would agree with. The neutral colour representation, the ultra-white whites, the lack of CA and flare present an unusually fine and clean image.

Deeper colour saturation is often the territory of a binocular with lower transmission, like the UV's and UV HD's. Their peak is est. 7 - 8 % lower, and I'm sure that will be easily visible in the field. Some love the deeper shades and tones, some want all the light possible to illuminate the image.
 
Chosun, post 41,
Yes, I can not help it, but the overall light transmission of the 2015 SLC is substantially higher than the transmission of the Leica Ulravid HD-plus also produced in 2015.
If you look at all the parameters, that make a binocular attractive for users I think (and I am not the only one) that the Ultravid HD-plus-2015 comes second after the new SLC-2015 (except for the focussing speed, which is 1,3 revolutions from close focus to infinity for the Leica and 2 for the SLC). So, if you have the opportunity to compare the two binoculars I am curious how you judge them.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
How did you find the SLC in terms of clarity and resolution compared to the HT? It seems some like it a lot and others are blah. I know from the above that you find it an easier bin to view through.

I just did a casual comparison and the day was bright, so I didn't notice any difference in resolution or clarity. The HT didn't give me a wow and I kept going back to the SLC because of its big sweetspot, ease of view and perfect handling (for me). This is all very subjective and I hope you find a way to compare these bins for yourself.


George
 
Yes, I can not help it, but the overall light transmission of the 2015 SLC is substantially higher than the transmission of the Leica Ulravid HD-plus also produced in 2015.

I can't argue with you about the transmission, simply because I don't have access to objective data on transmission.

If you look at all the parameters, that make a binocular attractive for users I think (and I am not the only one) that the Ultravid HD-plus-2015 comes second after the new SLC-2015 (except for the focussing speed, which is 1,3 revolutions from close focus to infinity for the Leica and 2 for the SLC).

And this is where things get difficult, simply because you're talking here about subjective value judgements. You see, I find the Leica more attractive than the SLC - it's smaller, it's lighter and it has a better focusing mechanism. These are parameters I find very important, and on these the Leica is better IMO. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Hermann
 
Hermann, post 49,
My "objective"parameters in favor of the SLC are: slightly brighter (on measured transmission data and visual inspection), larger FOV (136m/1000m versus 130 m/1000m) larger eyerelief (18,5 mm versus 15,5 mm).
Subjective is certainly: handling comfort, but that is for my taste almost the same, Yes, the SLC weighs 30 grams more, but that is hardly noticeable in my hands. I prefer the screw mount of the eyecups of the SLC over the bajonet mount of the Leica, but I will agree with you that this is a matter of taste also.
I do not share your higher appreciation of the focussing mechanism of the Leica, both have their own merits and I found them both smooth and pleasant to use.
Yes, the Leica is a bit smaller than the SLC, but that is not a lot. The close focus of both binoculars is almost equal. That of the SLC is even a bit smaller (2,8 m versus 3 m), but that is really a "peanut"difference.
And considering that the SLC is 450 euros cheaper in The Netherlands than the Leica makes the decision for quite a few people easier I think.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Hello,

I have been working towards getting the funds for this for quite a while and I am finally ready to order. I want a "big" 10x.

The EL 10x50 seems to be something of a forum champion at the moment. But I can't help but wonder how much brighter the HT might be with a smidgen more diameter and the HT glass?

It seems the EL has a much nicer field of view and eye relief (not to mention edge sharpness) and I am leaning that way due to those specs and partly because of all of the spherical aberration reports in the early 54mm HTs.

Can anyone tell me how good/bad a current 10x54 HT might be?

Would anyone pick the HT over the EL?

Raw/pure resolution, brightness, and glare control are the main considerations. CA would ideally be low but so far I can detect it in anything which I look for it in so I am not going to sweat it. I don't really know yet if I care about edge sharpness as I have never had it.

Thoughts?

Also, why are the Swaros on sale at Eagle?

Thanks

I don't have those two binoculars but I do have a 10X42 HT and a 10X42 SV. I've heard a LOT of good things about the 10X50 SV. BUT....if I bought a big objective 10X it would be all about light....and the 10X54 HT has a 4mm larger objective and is all ready the brightest there is so i might be inclined to go that direction.
 
Ok...so I was able to go to a large sporting goods store and check out the 10x42 SLC and the 10x42 HT. As per usual they did not have the 8x in either. I found that the SLC was in fact better feeling in the hand due to the smaller size and seemed to have an easier view in terms of feeling quickly lined up. What price is to be paid in terms of glare was not determined. Obviously I could not see crap in the store in terms of being able to actually determine pure performance. Bad lights, no time, and a disinterested employee waiting on me.

The armour/rubber between the two makes little difference to me.

The SLC is truly bothering me. On one hand everybody respects and trusts Gijs' measurements and then you have a thread like this one (in the comments after review) where multiple experienced members low rate the new SLC....what is even worse is that the 8x is deemed particulary bad.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=311690

Mentally I want the HT to "win" but practically I am starting to lean towards the SLC being a better long term fit if I could just shake the doubt surrounding the non HD model. Is there reason to believe that they have been re-upgraded or improved since the initial removal of the HD version? Could/should I play the serial number game and get one very recently made?

Also, as I explore options of getting rid of the 10x50....is there any reputable dealer in the US that takes trade-ins on this level of bin? Mine were new at Christmas 2015. Or will they have to be converted to cash prior to repurchasing?
 
Inquisitor, post 52,
Trust your hands and your eyes to make a final decision. The SLC and the HT are both fine binoculars and you will not regret it when you buy one of them. Really it is important that you trust your own experiences. I myself do not believe at all (and I have solid reasons for it based on measurements and practical use) that the 8x SLC is bad.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
The newest SLC is an HD model- they just do not use that term in model name. Optically is is the same glass and optics ( minus the close focus, and maybe slight change in focus speed) as the SLC HD model. I had a head optics tech at SONA tell me this directly when I asked about optic differences- "The glass and optics are the same ( HD and WB model); the only thing different is the close focus; armor; and maybe slightly, and only slightly different speed of focus)". He went on to say that: "The only reason Swarovski made a change in the SLC was because they wanted to create a price separation between the SLC and the SV; so they made a change in the close focus (cheaper to do), and made a price change." He said if it was not for the SV, the SLC would probably be priced higher anyways.

As far as the 8x42 SLC being a very good binocular- it is. I just thought that the 10x wowed me a little more. But that may be it being a 10x. I do personally now own a 8x42 SLC WB, and it is a very nice binocular. Is it as good as the 10x model comparatively; well I am not sure, but I usually use and like 8x for most purposes- so it is good enough for me. I guess I can live with it ;).
 
The SLC is truly bothering me. On one hand everybody respects and trusts Gijs' measurements and then you have a thread like this one (in the comments after review) where multiple experienced members low rate the new SLC....what is even worse is that the 8x is deemed particulary bad.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=311690

There are good results for the SLC too, also from respectable sources:
http://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/read.php?9,426194
(hope you can autotranslate this)

It is very difficult to take personal preferences and sample variation out of the equation when comparing top bins, so at the end of the day it is your eyes and hands that decide what is best (for you).

George
 
Stephen, thanks for clarifying your remarks in the other thread which I linked earlier.

You, George, and Gijs have been helpful and have eased my mind about the SLC. I will stop being suspicious of the SLC and will choose it freely if after trying them more I come to prefer it. I will try to not lot the internet create doubt and cloud my judgement on what my own eyes and hands tell me.

The amount of your help as been such that originally I intentionally avoided the SLC and now may very well pick it over the HT. The HT may be technically better in a few ways but the SLC seems perhaps more comfortable and livable day in and day out.

Not much else to talk about I guess....up to me now.

Thanks to all.
Btw, PM me if you have a 8x42 HT or SLC in great and practically new shape and are interested in discussing some form of a swap.
 
Chosun, post 41,
Yes, I can not help it, but the overall light transmission of the 2015 SLC is substantially higher than the transmission of the Leica Ulravid HD-plus also produced in 2015.
If you look at all the parameters, that make a binocular attractive for users I think (and I am not the only one) that the Ultravid HD-plus-2015 comes second after the new SLC-2015 (except for the focussing speed, which is 1,3 revolutions from close focus to infinity for the Leica and 2 for the SLC). So, if you have the opportunity to compare the two binoculars I am curious how you judge them.
Gijs van Ginkel

Gijs, thanks for your response. I must admit I am quite keen to see and compare the new Leica UVHD+ (with so many good reports) with it's competitors, alas this will probably have to wait until the end of the year at Birdfair unless I stumble upon an opportunity earlier. I will be sure to make a point of comparing it to the Swaro SLC first (before my perception becomes influenced by any Swaro 10x50 SV 'aliveness', or Zeiss HT 'clarity').

I think comparitively looking through on hand SV's and (HT's) when I was able to test the full SLC range informed my opinion of them as ordinary somewhat, since for the Swaro's at least, there is not much between the SLC and the SV in terms of raw transmission numbers, but the colours just seem so much more 'alive' through the SV's (particularly the 10X50) ...... I would really like to know the details of any differences in glass grade types between the SV and SLC (my hunch is that the SV's may contain some HT or similar type glass), and also if there are any differences in the level of coatings (lenses and S-P mirror) between the two.???? :cat:


Chosun :gh:
 
I don't have those two binoculars but I do have a 10X42 HT and a 10X42 SV. I've heard a LOT of good things about the 10X50 SV. BUT....if I bought a big objective 10X it would be all about light....and the 10X54 HT has a 4mm larger objective and is all ready the brightest there is so i might be inclined to go that direction.

Chuck, those bigger EP numbers sound fine in theory, but I would carefully read all the reports and reviews of the x54mm HT's here on BF to get the real drum on their optical quality. The 10x50 SV is very special and a real WOW ..... however while it's 5mm EP is great during daytime, for my young eyes it will run out of EP at sunset. I have viewed all the A-K prism x56mm SLC's, particularly the 10x hoping it would be the holy grail I was after. I was disappointed with the daytime viewing in comparison with the 10x50 SV ...... I would like to grill these more at twilight to see if they can offer any benefits .....

As it was, the only benefit the hefty x56mm SLC's offer is to make the x50mm SV's seem 'light' in comparison when you pick them up straight after! 3:)


Chosun :gh:
 
Stephen, thanks for clarifying your remarks in the other thread which I linked earlier.

You, George, and Gijs have been helpful and have eased my mind about the SLC. I will stop being suspicious of the SLC and will choose it freely if after trying them more I come to prefer it. I will try to not lot the internet create doubt and cloud my judgement on what my own eyes and hands tell me.

The amount of your help as been such that originally I intentionally avoided the SLC and now may very well pick it over the HT. The HT may be technically better in a few ways but the SLC seems perhaps more comfortable and livable day in and day out.

Not much else to talk about I guess....up to me now.

Thanks to all.
Btw, PM me if you have a 8x42 HT or SLC in great and practically new shape and are interested in discussing some form of a swap.

Inquisitor, all the optics that have been discussed are fine indeed and the differences will be small. At the end of the day you will have to go with your optical preference and hope that lines up with your handling preference!

For me the Zeiss 8x42 HT and Swarovski 10x50 SV are optical WOW's, but I'm not frothing over the HT's handling for me, and unfortunately the 1kg of the SV doesn't overjoy me either :-C

Off to continue searching for the grail ...... :loveme:


Chosun :gh:
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 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