• 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.

Swarovision vs. SLC HD (1 Viewer)

P

Pileatus

"Experientia Docet”
United States
A second look at
Swarovision 8.5X42 vs. 8X42 SLC HD

The SLC is very nice with great ergonomics. Centerfield resolution in these two models is virtually identical and the SLC's edges are very good...better than most. However, the SLC does have softer edges than the Swarovision and, when viewed side-by-side, the softness becomes apparent. The new EL is simply better because there are no visual distractions in the view.

Many have argued that edge softness and chromatic aberration (CA), have little effect in a low-power binocular. Swarovski, thankfully, has proven them wrong. Soft edges are distracting, especially to older eyes, and CA is often intrusive. Minimize both and the view improves.

I've seen them all and the Swarovsion models are simply the best, in my opinion, of course.
 
I had my first opportunity to view, in store, the new 8x SLC HD this weekend and by default asked to have the 8.5x SV at the same time. I spent a good bit of time going back and forth between to two binoculars, moving from objects near to far, items ranging from text to full size wildlife mounts. Had I only selected the SLC HD I'd have been reasonably impressed. Place the two side by side and I'll choose the SV each time.
 
SV vs SLCHD

I had the swarovisions but sent them back and bought the SLC hds and much prefer them simply because of the awful rolling ball effect which i found really troublesome in the swarovisions and to be honest not the type of effect i would want in a pair of binoculars costing £1700 .
I have had the SLCs for around 2 months now and love them they are razorsharp and very bright and very relaxing and easy on the eyes. :t:
 
Pileatus said:
A second look at
Swarovision 8.5X42 vs. 8X42 SLC HD

The SLC is very nice with great ergonomics. Centerfield resolution in these two models is virtually identical and the SLC's edges are very good...better than most. However, the SLC does have softer edges than the Swarovision and, when viewed side-by-side, the softness becomes apparent. The new EL is simply better because there are no visual distractions in the view....
Click to expand...

Except the "rolling ball," of course, which can be very distracting to those whose eyeballs lack sufficient pincushion to do what the EPs should.

bRoCk
 
brocknroller said:
Except the "rolling ball," of course, which can be very distracting to those whose eyeballs lack sufficient pincushion to do what the EPs should.

bRoCk
Click to expand...
When I looked for the "rolling ball" effect in the Swarovision I saw it. When I used the binocular as I normally would I didn't notice it. The difference between the static views of these two instruments soon became quite obvious..the Swarovision was better.
 
SV vs SLC

I agree that the static view is marginally better in the swarovisions due to the edge sharpness but in the real world we dont use our optics too often in that way , i have been birdwatching for 40+ years and panning is a massive part of everyday birdwatching .
I remenber the day i recieved my 10x42 swarovisions i was totally and utterly overawed by the crisp bright sharp view they presented to me ! and for the first couple of days this was fantastic , i was literally permanently attached to them ,even while sitting in the house i would spend hours looking at birds in the garden totally transfixed by these optics , but then i went on a 2 week birdwatching vacation and after many hours of watching sea birds and mountain birds i began to be aware of this "rolling ball"effect which progressively became more and more noticeable and at the same time irritating. Upon my return i contacted my supplier who exchanged them for another pair which were exactly the same so after a lot of deliberation i settled for the SLC HDs which imho are very difficult to differentiate between in the field apart from the distinct lack of "rolling ball", while discussing my options with my supplier he informed me that i wasnt alone and a few other customers had returned them after a week with the same complaint.
I was very dissapointed as i really loved my swarovisions ergonomics and gorgeous looks but alas it was not to be . :t:
 
A thought: I've got a feeling the rolling ball effect is more obvious with higher magnifications. I've got a 7x30 with zero pincushion distortion, but the rolling ball effect doesn't bother me all that much. With a 10x40, also with zero pincushion distortion, the rolling ball effect is immediately obvious to me and very distracting.

Hermann
 
zipolly said:
I agree that the static view is marginally better in the swarovisions due to the edge sharpness but in the real world we dont use our optics too often in that way , i have been birdwatching for 40+ years and panning is a massive part of everyday birdwatching .
I remenber the day i recieved my 10x42 swarovisions i was totally and utterly overawed by the crisp bright sharp view they presented to me ! and for the first couple of days this was fantastic , i was literally permanently attached to them ,even while sitting in the house i would spend hours looking at birds in the garden totally transfixed by these optics , but then i went on a 2 week birdwatching vacation and after many hours of watching sea birds and mountain birds i began to be aware of this "rolling ball"effect which progressively became more and more noticeable and at the same time irritating. Upon my return i contacted my supplier who exchanged them for another pair which were exactly the same so after a lot of deliberation i settled for the SLC HDs which imho are very difficult to differentiate between in the field apart from the distinct lack of "rolling ball", while discussing my options with my supplier he informed me that i wasnt alone and a few other customers had returned them after a week with the same complaint.
I was very dissapointed as i really loved my swarovisions ergonomics and gorgeous looks but alas it was not to be . :t:
Click to expand...


Good observations. If they don't work in the field, what's the point in owning them.
 
Omid said:
Could you please substantiate this statement a little bit? How could that be? Young eyes can "tolerate" soft edges but older people can't?
Click to expand...

Omid maybe he means field curvature as the soft edges and young people can focus better for this.
 
mooreorless said:
Omid maybe he means field curvature as the soft edges and young people can focus better for this.
Click to expand...

I think so. It is why people who don't wear glasses often need reading glasses after age 40.

You look toward the edge of the FOV and it is out of focus. A new Swarovski EL fixes this for about an additional $500.00 or so, as I see it, or don't see it. Alternatively, you can move the binocular so that the center of the field is now centered on the blurred edge or you can use the focus knob to sharpen the view of the edge.

You pay your money and make your choice. But not in that order.

Bob
 
Last edited:
SV vs SLC

brocknroller said:
Zip,

Could please compare the ergonomics of the SV and SLC-HD for us? Thanks.

Brock
Click to expand...

All i mean is that the swarovisions are a slightly better shape than the SLCs but saying that i find the SLCs a joy to handle and in one way they have an advantage in being smaller , but this is subject to personal preferences and many will prefer the more traditional shape of the SLCs.
I find the SLCs very easy to hold steady in comparison to previous binoculars i have owned which is very good for a 10x optic.
 
ceasar said:
I think so. It is why people who don't wear glasses often need reading glasses after age 40.

You look toward the edge of the FOV and it is out of focus. A new Swarovski EL fixes this for about an additional $500.00 or so, as I see it, or don't see it. Alternatively, you can move the binocular so that the center of the field is now centered on the blurred edge or you can use the focus knob to sharpen the view of the edge.

You pay your money and make your choice. But not in that order.

Bob
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha!! Now, its getting even more confusing with every nested quote! I was surprized how a sharper edge could help an older eye focus better at the center, after all that's where we are supposed to focus, isn't it?

In any case, I have said many times that edge-to-ege sharpness is a concept that belongs to photography not visual instruments. If you want to see something on the side, you simply pan your binoculars. That's how we (hunters) use binoculars. In the same way, if you want to see a sign on the side of the road, you turn your head, you don't buy a $3000 special glasses that sharpen your prepheral vision.
 
SV vs SLCHD

Omid said:
Ha ha ha!! Now, its getting even more confusing with every nested quote! I was surprized how a sharper edge could help an older eye focus better at the center, after all that's where we are supposed to focus, isn't it?

In any case, I have said many times that edge-to-ege sharpness is a concept that belongs to photography not visual instruments. If you want to see something on the side, you simply pan your binoculars. That's how we (hunters) use binoculars. In the same way, if you want to see a sign on the side of the road, you turn your head, you don't buy a $3000 special glasses that sharpen your prepheral vision.
Click to expand...

My point exactly the natural way to use binoculars is to pan left or right not move your eyeballs around and keep the optics fixed in the same position . If having razorsharp edges means having to accept "rolling ball" then i would take slightly soft edges and sharp centres any day !, and from the information i have gleaned from this forum "rolling ball" and perfect edge shapness seem to go hand in hand......unfortunatley. :t:
 
Omid said:
Ha ha ha!! Now, its getting even more confusing with every nested quote! I was surprized how a sharper edge could help an older eye focus better at the center, after all that's where we are supposed to focus, isn't it?

In any case, I have said many times that edge-to-ege sharpness is a concept that belongs to photography not visual instruments. If you want to see something on the side, you simply pan your binoculars. That's how we (hunters) use binoculars. In the same way, if you want to see a sign on the side of the road, you turn your head, you don't buy a $3000 special glasses that sharpen your prepheral vision.
Click to expand...

Indeed! :cat:
 
Omid said:
Ha ha ha!! Now, its getting even more confusing with every nested quote! I was surprized how a sharper edge could help an older eye focus better at the center, after all that's where we are supposed to focus, isn't it?

In any case, I have said many times that edge-to-ege sharpness is a concept that belongs to photography not visual instruments. If you want to see something on the side, you simply pan your binoculars. That's how we (hunters) use binoculars. In the same way, if you want to see a sign on the side of the road, you turn your head, you don't buy a $3000 special glasses that sharpen your prepheral vision.
Click to expand...
Edge-to-edge sharpness (or something very close) is very enticing and something I am willing to pay for. Swarovski is betting on it.
 
Pileatus said:
Edge-to-edge sharpness (or something very close) is very enticing and something I am willing to pay for. Swarovski is betting on it.
Click to expand...

You can get edge-to-edge sharpness with an 8x32 SE for $550 and w/out the "rolling ball" but you might get "image blackouts" instead.

The day they come out with a bin that has everything for everybody is the day when the stars fall from the sky.

I just love to wax poetic. :)

Brock
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 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
J
Brief comparison between Swarovski AX Visio 10x32 vs EL 10x32 Swarovision
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
tehri
tehri
H
Kahles Helia S 10x42 vs Zeis Conquest 10x42
Replies
13
Views
4K
Richard D
Richard D
D
A Zeiss Conquest HD on steroids.
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
ArchStanton
A
A
How many lens elements do sub-alphas bins have? less than alphas?
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Maljunulo
M

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top