[matt green]

OK, so I've never owned a pair of Swarovski's and just been reading some very good things regarding their customer care and after market service etc.

As the new Swarovisions are a bit out of my league at the moment I'm thinking SLC's!! At present I'm using 7x42's but was intrigued by the possibilities of 10x's recently after using a vintage pair of vintage bushnell 10x50 porros!!

Your thoughts welcomed!!

Matt

[black kite 1964]

Hi Matt. previously owned a pair of swaro 8x30 SLCs. I really liked them. Very good optically. Very light. Focusing wheel at front took some getting used. Only thing to improve them was close focusing!!

The larger SLC's I understand are heavier. The focusing wheel is in the normal place. Optical they are very good and represent good value for money. Keep your eyes open for a second hand pair!

[Malloot]

You also might consider the Swarovski habicht porro's.
They are even cheaper and the optics are very good.
Only there FOV is a bit less, but for me that is no problem.
They handle perfect.

[John Russell]

Matt,

I own 7x42 SLCs and they are truly excellent bins with a very easy view and good edge sharpness. The only negatives are their weight and a 4m close focus (if you consider those disadvantages).
Although I also own 10x42s (Zeiss Victory FL), I think 7x42s are the better choice as a universal bin offering 60% more viewing area and double the depth of field and, of course, less shake and more brightness under critical lighting conditions.

John

[matt green]

Originally Posted by John Russell

Matt,

I own 7x42 SLCs and they are truly excellent bins with a very easy view and good edge sharpness. The only negatives are their weight and a 4m close focus (if you consider those disadvantages).
Although I also own 10x42s (Zeiss Victory FL), I think 7x42s are the better choice as a universal bin offering 60% more viewing area and double the depth of field and, of course, less shake and more brightness under critical lighting conditions.

John

Interesting comments regarding your 7x42, but didn't you ever think you're missing out on an extra 1x when compared to 8x42's or higher?

Would be interested in hearing how 10x42 SLC users find the usability of their bins compared to lower mag bins, listing any advantages or disadvantages of both? Like I said in a previous post I haven't yet had the oportunity to handle and compare both the 7x42 and 10x42 together so your thoughts are much appreciated.

Matt

[ronh]

Matt,
I've never used SLCs but by all accounts they are optically the equals of the ELs, just narrower field and heavier, conventional design. I have an 8.5x EL, and I think you'd be happy, quality wise, with any Swaro.

But I do have a 7x50 and a 10x50, of the same series, Fujinon porros actually, and could comment on the magnification issue, just very subjectively of course. Take my suggestions with a huge grain of salt.

My favorite magnification is 8.0.

7x seems a tad low to me, and shows less than 8x, and even though it is indeed easier to focus and find things in than 8x, to me 8x is sufficiently easy to use that 7x seems like overkill in that direction. Provided, of course, the 8x is relatively wide field and focuses smooth and quick. Still, 7x is a heck of a lot of fun to use, and plenty for 95% of the birding situations I encounter.

10x on the other hand is a fabulous viewing experience, provided you are standing calmly and your target isn't 20 ft away and hauling willy nilly to the nearest cover. 10x to me is over a line, where what I see is so beyond the naked eye view that it is hard to make the connection--the view is somehow magical and extremely wow. Unfortunately, I am often winded from trapesing through difficult terrain, and my targets are unpredictable, so in actual field use 10x is so hard for me to point to hold that it is positively annoying, rather than the fun it promises to be.

So lacking the choice of 8x, I'd choose 7x over 10x for myself. If your life is calmer, I think you'd find 10x fantastic.
Ron

[spyglass]

So Matt, what kinda 7x42 do u have now?

[matt green]

Originally Posted by spyglass

So Matt, what kinda 7x42 do u have now?

Opticron imagic TGA porro's, they're not bad but do have that annoying habit of a wobbly bridge/focus mechanism! I've had occasional use of an 8x32 and definately see that different an extra 1x mag makes, just not sure how much it would swing it when deciding on a new pair of bins.

Matt

[Perry Grin]

Originally Posted by matt green

Interesting comments regarding your 7x42, but didn't you ever think you're missing out on an extra 1x when compared to 8x42's or higher?

Would be interested in hearing how 10x42 SLC users find the usability of their bins compared to lower mag bins, listing any advantages or disadvantages of both? Like I said in a previous post I haven't yet had the oportunity to handle and compare both the 7x42 and 10x42 together so your thoughts are much appreciated.

Matt

Hi Matt,

I'm a 10x42 SLC user and have no problem using them. I've never compared them with the 7x and 8x versions but do have a couple of pairs of 8x bins and I honestly don't seem any noticeable difference between them. Give em a go, as longs as you don't suffer from 'shakey hands' I think you'll love em.

Perry

[elkcub]

Matt,

Like Perry I own a 10x42SLC but never compared it with a 7x42SLC. I do own a Zeiss 7x42 BGAT*P, however, which is probably similar in format. As I've taken to wearing glasses I find the eye relief to be much more important than magnification. So, although I do like it a lot, the 10x42, unfortunately, has only 14mm of eye relief compared with 19+mm for the Zeiss. The 7x42SLC is listed as having an ER of 19mm, so I'd recommend you take that into consideration.

Ed

[John Russell]

Matt,

My choice of the 7x42 SLC was probably prejudiced by previous use of an old 7x50 Porro and the price advantage compared to the Leica and Zeiss alternatives, which each have their individual merits.
If you have compared your 7x Porros to 8x roofs, part of the perceived difference in magnification may be due to the large objective spacing of the Porros. This is a psychological effect, which no doubt Ed (elkcub) could better explain.
My 10x42 Victory FLs are superb but they give of their best on a monopod and I would not take them into the woods, where I'd be searching for the birds in all 3 dimensions.

John

[Jonathan B.]

Matt,

I would use a 10X bin for a full day or more before buying one. I once made the mistake of buying one, only to learn that it did not offer nearly as much stability as a 7X or 8X bin. I got rid of it and will never use 10X again. In fact I have learned that 8.5X is pushing my limits for steady hand-holding after hours in the field. In addition, 10X has much shallower depth of field than 7X and consequently does not provide quite as "natural" a view.

A great 7X bin, like the SLC, is very stable, has great depth of field, wide field of view, and is so sharp and contrasty that it will provide as much detail as a 10X, at least for me. Years ago I compared the 7X SLC to the new 8.5X EL, and I had a hard time deciding which one I preferred. It is a little heavy, but after many years in production it is still one of the finest binoculars made.

[Paskman]

Matt,

I had an SLC 7x42 - I bought it after throughly comparing it to a 10x42 SLC. The wide stable,crystal sharp image is vary addictive. I reluctantly sold it and bought an 8x30 EII for weight and finance reasons.

Paul

[oleaf]

Matt,

The 7x42 is one of the best all-around formats. You can see everything with a 7x that you can with a 8x, and 10x. On top of that 7x does things better in some respects than higher magnification formats.

Better FOV (always)
Better depth of field
More eye relief
More relaxed view
More stable

The SLC 7x are superb. You'll see more... and better with a 7x.

Cheers

[spyglass]

I'm in with Oleaf.....I'm on my 3d 7x42 and will always have one in the repertoire (I doubt I'll be able to improve on the one I've got now, so it should be he last). Also have a 7x26 Elite for totin' around all the time & find 7x will do nicely about 90% of the time. Now if you go after shorebirds/waterfowl, a 10x (or more) will probably be necessary, along with a scope. And you can't go wrong with any of the L-N-S-Z premiums, or if u can find a Bushnell/B&L Discoverer left in dealers' stock somewhere, also an excellent choice, at well below 1/4th of the "alpha wolf" glasses cost.....

[Richard Scott]

Hi Matt,
I've been birding with 10x40/42/50 bins for most of my birding life (35 years) and in the last couple of years made the decision to get some 8x32FL and only regret I didn't make the switch sooner.

I only get out my 10x42 trinovids when I go out scope-less. Its obviously a personal preference, but no way would I recommend a scope-carrying birder to bother with 10x bins. The single advantage of additional power is far out-weighed by numerous disadvantages as far as I can tell.

Regarding the SLCs - optically they are up there with the best, but the weight and minimum focus distance is a bit off-putting.

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by Paskman

Matt,

I had an SLC 7x42 - I bought it after throughly comparing it to a 10x42 SLC. The wide stable,crystal sharp image is vary addictive. I reluctantly sold it and bought an 8x30 EII for weight and finance reasons.

Paul

Paul,

An apples and pears comparison it would seem, being different aperture sizes and magnifications plus roofs vs. porros, but allowing for these differences, how does the view through the 7x42 SLC compare to the 8x30 EII?

I have the EII, and like it very much, but I found that when light levels dip, I prefer a bin with a larger exit pupil and larger objective, but one that gives the same if not better "ease of view" and wide sweet spot as the EII.

The 7x42 configuration generally seems to give more "ease of view" than an 8x42. The exceptions are some narrow FOV 7x42 porros.

My 804 MC Audubon provides the wide sweet spot and ease of view, but its not WP/FP, and the focuser, like most porros, stiffens in the cold.

So the 7x42 SLC would seem to complement the EII nicely, but so does the ZR 7x36 ED2, which weighs 10 oz. less than the SLC and costs $1,000 less.

The sweet spot isn't as wide as the EII, but it's decent for a 9* WF bin, and the fall off at the edges is gradual, which is something I prefer rather than a sharp centerfield and a steep drop off at the edges.

Have you compared the Swaro 7x42 to the ZR 7x36 ED2?

It might provide a less costly alternative to the Swaro 7x42 SLC for both of us.

The "shoot out" I'd like to see is a Swaro Neu 7x42 SLC vs. ZR 7x36 ED2 (the newer version with the stray light baffles).

I've seen older version 7x42 SLCs sell for as low as $500 on eBay, cosmetically blemished (most sold by hunters, who can be rough on their bins) but still VG optically, at least according to the descriptions. So an older 7x42 SLC is not out of the realm of possibilities, but those deals come few and far in between.

The latest low priced 7x SLC I saw on eBay was too trashed to consider buying, even though it sold for only $475, but I passed because he would not take returns. Being that Swaro's warranty is non-transferable, I'd have to pay for repairs out of pocket, which could be very costly.

The other issue is that my entrance pupils are probably around 5mm now (they were 5.5mm, but that was 10 years ago), so I might end up carrying more weight and objective than my eyes can possibly use with a 7x42.

Since Matt's only a "babe" (born 1975) he won't face this issue for quite some time.

[etc]

Originally Posted by Jonathan B.

Matt,

I would use a 10X bin for a full day or more before buying one. I once made the mistake of buying one, only to learn that it did not offer nearly as much stability as a 7X or 8X bin. I got rid of it and will never use 10X again. In fact I have learned that 8.5X is pushing my limits for steady hand-holding after hours in the field. In addition, 10X has much shallower depth of field than 7X and consequently does not provide quite as "natural" a view.

A great 7X bin, like the SLC, is very stable, has great depth of field, wide field of view, and is so sharp and contrasty that it will provide as much detail as a 10X, at least for me. Years ago I compared the 7X SLC to the new 8.5X EL, and I had a hard time deciding which one I preferred. It is a little heavy, but after many years in production it is still one of the finest binoculars made.

Agree with the above. Sharpness is always more important than power. I never had an SLC but had a 8x42 Leica and it was a awesome configuration power wise.

Now Leica is gone, have the EL, which has more features I like but optics wise, about the same.

Contemplating whether to get the "new" EL 8.5x42 or the 7x42 Leica Ultravid HD. SLC should also be an awesome choice. I did look at one briefly and it looked like it had a stabilizing feature. I think I would prefer Leica 7x42 over Swaro SLC 7x42 but both are outstanding and would be happy with either. In fact I suspect I would be just as happy with the 7x42 SLC as with my current 8.5x42 EL.

You can find lots of used Leicas and Swaros at good prices on Ebay. In US, they seem to cluster in the 700-800 (FRN) range.

I find 8.5x power too much to hand-hold under any circumstances. You have to find an object to rest on, like the roof of a car, or sitting on the ground and resting elbows on your knees, or something else. I cannot hand-hold it for more than few seconds, the picture quality really improves if you rest on something.

With 7x, in fact, you have the luxury of not needing a rest.

[Paskman]

Brock
I would have to say that the view through the 7x42 SLC (non NEU, but with Swarobright) was very similar to te EII's - during daylight hours. At dawn/dusk the SLC definitely came into its own; it is a lot brighter.

With regard to the sweet spots, I felt that they are both of a similar size as a proportion of the fields of view (ah that field of view in the EII's!!), I would say that the resolution is a fraction better in the EII's, but would accept that that is subjective.

I did get some CA in the SLC's which I have yet to detect in the EII's. Of course the SLC could survive a nuclear war, where as the EII's need cossetting.

Unfortunately as I was brassic (brassic lint - skint - a money free zone for those not aware of cockney rhyming slang) and I had the EII itch, something had to go. I had the Opticron Imagics as a pair of small portable bins, covering all weather usage which meant that I did not take the SLC's out for weight reasons, so the obvious choice for disposal were the SLC's, plus I made some money out of the deal.

I have to say that I have not seen the ZR 7x36 ED2, it would sound an ideal compromise for those who could not afford the SLC or wanted something lighter. Perhaps we could persuade Swarovski to upgrade their 7X42? Optically the same, just lighter in weight, an open bridge design, but cheaper than the new SLCs - which, I can safely say, I will never be able to afford.

I agree with your comments about the entrance pupils - perhaps we are all barking up the wrong tree - how about 7X32/36 SLC's?.

Happy New Year to all on the "Forum"; ignorami like me, the experts who provide such interesting and useful information and the manufacturers who give us the tools (toys?) to play with and keep our wallets empty.

Paul

[edwincjones]

this is a very good, and informative, thread

thanks to all,
edj

[Malloot]

Originally Posted by Paskman

....but cheaper than the new SLCs - which, I can safely say, I will never be able to afford....

Paul why don't you consider the Swarovski 7 x 42 Habicht. Great bins, for a reasonable price. I use them for a while now and wouldn't change them for any other type of bins. Except maybe only for a pair of SLC 8x56, but you always need something to want .

[Paskman]

Originally Posted by Malloot

Paul why don't you consider the Swarovski 7 x 42 Habicht. Great bins, for a reasonable price. I use them for a while now and wouldn't change them for any other type of bins. Except maybe only for a pair of SLC 8x56, but you always need something to want .

Unfortunately they don't have sufficient FOV and eye relief for me - I wear glasses. Surpisingly the EII's do work perfectly for me with glasses - funny old World. Love the look of the Habicht's though.

Paul

[Malloot]

Originally Posted by Paskman

Unfortunately they don't have sufficient FOV and eye relief for me - I wear glasses. Surpisingly the EII's do work perfectly for me with glasses - funny old World. Love the look of the Habicht's though.

Paul

I wear glasses also, no problems with eye relief for me. The FOV was aan improvement appose to my previous bins. But I can imagine the FOV could be to small when you are used to a more wider FOV.

[Paskman]

Originally Posted by Malloot

I wear glasses also, no problems with eye relief for me. The FOV was aan improvement appose to my previous bins. But I can imagine the FOV could be to small when you are used to a more wider FOV.

Perhaps I should give them another try. Now where can I find a pair for free?

Paul

[stephen b]

[QUOTE=brocknroller:

"....... Being that Swaro's warranty is non-transferable, I'd have to pay for repairs out of pocket, which could be very costly."



Brock,

Swarovski Does have a transferable warranty; and they are great about it.

I asked them about a pair of older Swarovski's that I bought used and was sending in for a once over. When I asked about the ownership issue and said I did not have the warranty card. They said: "We do not care, as far as we are concerned-they are yours now".

Now that is great service from a company that backs up their products. I, for one, plan to always be a Swarovski customer.