New Swarovski SLC 42 Binoculars (22 Viewers)

[elkcub]

Hi Ron,

I'm about played out on this, but I do remembered your method for measuring rotation angles. Unfortunately, it's very difficult for me to tape a paper scale around focusing wheels. So I use markings on the wheel itself and measure rotation against a fixed reference point on the body. The 8x42 HD's wheel, for example, has 36 ridges, each representing 360/36 = 10˚ rotation. The 10x42 SLC and 7x42 Zeiss have 16 equally spaced diopter marks, each representing 22.5˚ rotation. Interpolation may be effective to ±10˚, but DOF variations are by far the biggest obstacle, and would require impractical procedural controls.

I like your idea for a mini torque meter, although some binoculars would be much more difficult to instrument than others. The 7x42 BGAT*P, for example, has a very narrow wheel. If that could be overcome, though, string length might also be a neat way to measure rotation angles, given a known wheel radius.

My primary interest is erg-o-nomics (literally, "work" measurement), so I directed this analysis at the push/pull efforts required for changing working distances. There have been various assertions about the 8x42 SLC HD being too slow, i.e., that more effort is required than with "normal" or older instruments. However, putting Kimmo's results together with mine, I'm satisfied that the SLC HD simply has a greater focusing range, which increases the number of push/pulls and perhaps gives the false impression that it's slower. Between 10m and infinity, at least, these three birding binoculars behaved about the same. Curiously, the simplified 8x42 SLC design appears to be significantly slower, so I'm wondering how economy can be realized when basic performance is compromised.

Ed

 

[The Kingfisher]

I took a few measurements today, and fooled around with developing a human factors focusing model that I may present later. But right now, I'd like to summarize how the 8x42 HD compared with a circa 2002 10x42 SLC, and also a 1990's 7x42 BGAT*P.

From infinity to 10m, and then to 5m, it was essentially the same results for all three instruments. 90˚ of wheel turn reached 33 ft (10m) and another 90˚ reached 16 ft (5m). [Thereafter, the three behaved somewhat differently, which may be due to real differences, DOF variations, procedural flaws, or inaccuracy.]

Anyway, with my eyes and eyeglasses the results for the 8x42HD in the inf. to 10m range are the same as yours. Since the 2002 10x42 SLC is not any slower, or even the Zeiss BGAT*P, it would appear that the "improved" SLC HD is in a league of its own.

Ed

Wondering if we do not exaggerate the importance of a rapid focus slightly!?

Although the new SLC is twice as slow (or half as fast) as the old SLC HD, it will not be TOO slow in practice. The differences in the fields between the two binoculars will be perceived as minimal, I think!

This is for the following reasons:

1. It's not often you actually need to quickly focus from 10 meters to 3 km - or vice versa. The distances you need to switch quickly between is usually much narrower, which means that the difference between a fast-focusing binocular and a not quite as fast-focusing binocular will be less than what it first appears to be.

2. If you have the focus set to 10 meters and see a bird fly 3 km away..well the bird will fly so slowly anyway that you have ample of time to get it sharp before it is gone.

3. You have the focus set at 3 km and you discover a bird in a bush at 10 meters. Since the bird has probably been in the bush during the time you've had your eye on something else, it will probably still be in the bush after you focused with a slightly slower binocular. If the bird still would fly away, it will probably not fly towards you but rather away from you - which means you do not need to focus right down to 10 meters anyway.

So..that you need to quickly change focus from 10 meters to 3 km (or vice versa) does not happen very often, I think. Not for me anyway because I usually tend to have my focus set on some sort of "intermediate position" to be ready to focus on a bird far away or close.

You can also focus without looking through the binoculars - you just have to be aware of how the focus is set before you start to focus on the new object. If you know it, you can then begin focus while lifting the binoculars to your eyes!

So I think.. |8)|

 

[brocknroller]

Wondering if we do not exaggerate the importance of a rapid focus slightly!?

Although the new SLC is twice as slow (or half as fast) as the old SLC HD, it will not be TOO slow in practice. The differences in the fields between the two binoculars will be perceived as minimal, I think!

This is for the following reasons:

1. It's not often you actually need to quickly focus from 10 meters to 3 km - or vice versa. The distances you need to switch quickly between is usually much narrower, which means that the difference between a fast-focusing binocular and a not quite as fast-focusing binocular will be less than what it first appears to be.

2. If you have the focus set to 10 meters and see a bird fly 3 km away..well the bird will fly so slowly anyway that you have ample of time to get it sharp before it is gone.

3. You have the focus set at 3 km and you discover a bird in a bush at 10 meters. Since the bird has probably been in the bush during the time you've had your eye on something else, it will probably still be in the bush after you focused with a slightly slower binocular. If the bird still would fly away, it will probably not fly towards you but rather away from you - which means you do not need to focus right down to 10 meters anyway.

So..that you need to quickly change focus from 10 meters to 3 km (or vice versa) does not happen very often, I think. Not for me anyway because I usually tend to have my focus set on some sort of "intermediate position" to be ready to focus on a bird far away or close.

You can also focus without looking through the binoculars - you just have to be aware of how the focus is set before you start to focus on the new object. If you know it, you can then begin focus while lifting the binoculars to your eyes!

So I think.. |8)|

What's not on Ed's list is the original ELs, which had quite pokey focusers. Out of the binoculars I've used, I would put the Nikon 8x32 LX on the too fast side and the original EL on the too slow side. What made matters worse is that the EL's focsuser was stiff. If it had been smoother, I could have done some two-fingered speed dialing when necessary, but as it was, the bird would sometimes be gone by the time I got to the distance where it was. With the LX. I could get to the distance quickly, but then I had to fine tune the focus since it was easy to overshoot or focus on something immediately in front or back sine the depth perception was quite shallow at medium distances for my eyes.

Most of the other bins I've owned or tried fall somewhere in the middle, some maybe a little faster than I prefer or a little slower, but not too fast or too slow as to be an issue, at least at the birding distances I typically focus.

I think the emphasis on rapid focusers has done more harm than good, because it has almost become a contest on who's the "fastest draw in town."

Of course, if you're young and/or your focus accommodation is very good, you might not find fast focusers as finicky as I do, and you might even find them desirable. But looking around at birding events, birdwatching is not a young person's hobby. Some parents take their kids, and there are some early twentysomethings. What I don't see much of are late twentysomethings and early- to mid-thirtysomethings. They are probably at home changing diapers or taking their kids to soccer matchesor ballet recitals. I see mostly middle aged to older folks at birding events around here, and I live in a college town where the average age is 25.

So I'm going out on a chromatically aberrated limb here and saying that if a company is going to "err," better to err on the side of slower than too rapid.

<B>

 

[Alexis Powell]

Wondering if we do not exaggerate the importance of a rapid focus slightly!...

I'd say no. I appreciate rapid but precise focus because I use it a lot. I don't like focus that is too rapid, like on (famously) the Nikon x32 LX and B&L x42 waterproof Elite models, but I like the ratio of the Leica Ultravid and Zeiss FL models. Swarovski has always tended toward slow focus. In fact, the painfully slow focus of the models with which it first tried to break into the birding market in the USA (in the late 1980s, very early 1990s?) still registers in my memory of why birders were not so enthusiastic about the brand back then.

Come on Swarovski, give us variable-ratio focusing on the next iteration of the EL Swarovision!

--AP

 

[elkcub]

Wondering if we do not exaggerate the importance of a rapid focus slightly!?

Although the new SLC is twice as slow (or half as fast) as the old SLC HD, it will not be TOO slow in practice. The differences in the fields between the two binoculars will be perceived as minimal, I think!

This is for the following reasons:

1. It's not often you actually need to quickly focus from 10 meters to 3 km - or vice versa. The distances you need to switch quickly between is usually much narrower, which means that the difference between a fast-focusing binocular and a not quite as fast-focusing binocular will be less than what it first appears to be.

2. If you have the focus set to 10 meters and see a bird fly 3 km away..well the bird will fly so slowly anyway that you have ample of time to get it sharp before it is gone.

3. You have the focus set at 3 km and you discover a bird in a bush at 10 meters. Since the bird has probably been in the bush during the time you've had your eye on something else, it will probably still be in the bush after you focused with a slightly slower binocular. If the bird still would fly away, it will probably not fly towards you but rather away from you - which means you do not need to focus right down to 10 meters anyway.

So..that you need to quickly change focus from 10 meters to 3 km (or vice versa) does not happen very often, I think. Not for me anyway because I usually tend to have my focus set on some sort of "intermediate position" to be ready to focus on a bird far away or close.

You can also focus without looking through the binoculars - you just have to be aware of how the focus is set before you start to focus on the new object. If you know it, you can then begin focus while lifting the binoculars to your eyes!

So I think.. |8)|

Yes, I think you've made fine points here, and I may have slipped from being objective to judgmental, ... which was not my intention. Sometimes I think there's a grousing gene in humans that will express itself no matter what. As far as I know there is no standard for an ideal focusing speed, although focusing workload can be conceptualized (as in physics) as Force x Distance. From what I've heard the new SLC takes about the same force to move as the HD model, so half the speed implies twice the work getting from here to there and back again. And I'm a lazy guy. o

Seriously, one thing that surprises me is that Swarovski would redesign the new SLC to be slower that the original 10x42 SLC, which has become a favorite in the hunting community they seem to be courting. In that domain close focusing is probably not too critical, but changing to a lower than typical speed may trigger some grousing.

I hope none of this lessens the enjoyment of your new SLC. It's just a discussion.

Ed

 

[Odradek]

Can someone tell me something about the SLC line? How good are they? How sharp are they in the center? How do they compare to the SV? So far i heared that the SLC are like the SV without the field flatteners and therefore without globe effekt. Are the SLC´s more like the Zeiss Conquest line and the "cheap" alternative?

It seems to me that the SLC´s are rarely mentioned anywhere. Mostly people mention the EL SV. I also cant find more than 2-3 reviews. Why is that?

 

[elkcub]

I'd say no. I appreciate rapid but precise focus because I use it a lot. I don't like focus that is too rapid, like on (famously) the Nikon x32 LX and B&L x42 waterproof Elite models, but I like the ratio of the Leica Ultravid and Zeiss FL models. Swarovski has always tended toward slow focus. In fact, the painfully slow focus of the models with which it first tried to break into the birding market in the USA (in the late 1980s, very early 1990s?) still registers in my memory of why birders were not so enthusiastic about the brand back then.

Come on Swarovski, give us variable-ratio focusing on the next iteration of the EL Swarovision!

--AP

Alexis,

By "variable-ratio focusing" I assume you mean effecting a declining gear ratio from close to distant focusing. Although it was mentioned by someone recently that Swaro staff scoffed at this, until otherwise proven I believe it's really an engineering challenge not a human acceptance issue. In fact, I think it would be highly beneficial because the operator is manipulating working distances, and therefore would benefit from a linear relationship between wheel rotation and distance rather than diopters. The engineering challenge, however, would probably involve the use of exponential cams, or some sort of pulley system in the drive mechanism. Not too likely.

Ed

 

[The Kingfisher]

Can someone tell me something about the SLC line? How good are they? How sharp are they in the center? How do they compare to the SV? So far i heared that the SLC are like the SV without the field flatteners and therefore without globe effekt. Are the SLC´s more like the Zeiss Conquest line and the "cheap" alternative?

It seems to me that the SLC´s are rarely mentioned anywhere. Mostly people mention the EL SV. I also cant find more than 2-3 reviews. Why is that?

I would say that the SLC line is absolutely top class. Rivaling the SWAROVISION, Nikon EDG and Zeiss HT. Which one you choose of them is a matter of taste, I think. All of these binoculars have many strengths, and quite a few weak ones. Leica Ultravid HD is a cut below, I believe, and then there is another jump down to the Zeiss Conquest. The SLC binoculars are generally very sharp in the center and are not ashamed of themselves no matter what other binoculars they are compared against.

 

[elkcub]

Can someone tell me something about the SLC line? How good are they? How sharp are they in the center? How do they compare to the SV? So far i heared that the SLC are like the SV without the field flatteners and therefore without globe effekt. Are the SLC´s more like the Zeiss Conquest line and the "cheap" alternative?

It seems to me that the SLC´s are rarely mentioned anywhere. Mostly people mention the EL SV. I also cant find more than 2-3 reviews. Why is that?

The SLC line is optically in the same top-tier category as the SVs, and they are not "cheap" alternatives. As you mentioned they don't use a field flattener, which to folks like me is a feature not a flaw.

Basically, the SV has a more complex design and costs more money, so it gets the lion's share of attention from some less than objective reviewers who impose their own biases to get attention. Unfortunately, under these circumstances a brilliant design, like the SLC HD, can become prematurely extinct.

My advise is to grab one at bargain basement prices before they become the holy grail for binocular aficionados, ... as they surely will.

Ed

PS. Henry Link made the seminal comparison of SLC HD and SV binoculars to be found HERE. His conclusion was:

My overall conclusion from my brief experience is that the SLC-HD is another very attractive high end binocular. Think of it as an alternative “alpha” class binocular from Swarovski rather than a second tier model. Without considering price at all, the choice between it and the EL-SV probably comes down to personal preferences between the ergonomics, magnification, distortion characteristics and maybe color transmission and brightness. Edge sharpness is the only area where the SV is optically the clear winner.

 

[Alexis Powell]

...By "variable-ratio focusing" I assume you mean effecting a declining gear ratio from close to distant focusing...

Yes, that's what I mean by variable ratio. It's wonderful!

...The engineering challenge, however, would probably involve the use of exponential cams, or some sort of pulley system in the drive mechanism. Not too likely...

Brunton, Pentax, and Minox all have current products that employ variable ratio focus, so I think Swarovski should be up to the challenge.

--AP

 

[elkcub]

I'd like to hear more about that. Which models? Any diagrams available or discussions?

Ed

 

[james holdsworth]

The SLC line is optically in the same top-tier category as the SVs, and they are not "cheap" alternatives. As you mentioned they don't use a field flattener, which to folks like me is a feature not a flaw.

Basically, the SV has a more complex design and costs more money, so it gets the lion's share of attention from some less than objective reviewers who impose their own biases to get attention. Unfortunately, under these circumstances a brilliant design, like the SLC HD, can become prematurely extinct.

My advise is to grab one at bargain basement prices before they become the holy grail for binocular aficionados, ... as they surely will.

Ed



PS. Henry Link made the seminal comparison of SLC HD and SV binoculars to be found HERE. His conclusion was:

My experience with the SLC-HD is that, compared to several SV specimens, they [the SLC's] seemed consistently sharper, with more ''pop'' to the image. The SLC-HD remains one of my all-time favourites - only the HT seem to have more ''wow'' in the image.

 

[BruceH]

Can someone tell me something about the SLC line? How good are they? How sharp are they in the center? How do they compare to the SV? So far i heared that the SLC are like the SV without the field flatteners and therefore without globe effekt. ..................................

Adding to this excellent question, how does the SLC HD compare to the last version of the now discontinued non Swarovision EL 42mm models? That is a more apples to apples comparision since they both lack field flatteners. However the 8.5X of the EL does complicate the comparision to some degree.

Do the SLC HD models handle glare and CA better than the prior non Swarovision EL models? Are the SLC HD's better, worse or about the same optically?

Eye relief and field of view seem about the same.

Per Camera Land:
10X42 SLC HD
- FOV 330FT/1000YDS
- Eye Relief 16mm

8X42 SLC HD
- FOV 408FT/1000YDS
- Eye Relief 18.5mm



10X42 non Swaro EL
- FOV 330FT/1000YDS
- Eye Relief 15mm

From Optics for Birding:
8.5X42 non Swaro EL
- FOV 390FT/1000YDS
- Eye Relief 18mm

Like new used non Swaro ELs appear to be selling in the US about two or three hundred dollars less than the discontinued SLC HD models, so that may be a better deal if they are as good optically.

Thanks.

 

[elkcub]

The SLC HD series, as well as the new SLC series, employs "HD" lenses, which puts them beyond earlier non-HD models in terms of image quality. In my opinion greater "sharpness" primarily results from controlling chromatic aberration so as to enhance image acutance.

Ed

 

[elkcub]

My experience with the SLC-HD is that, compared to several SV specimens, they [the SLC's] seemed consistently sharper, with more ''pop'' to the image. The SLC-HD remains one of my all-time favourites - only the HT seem to have more ''wow'' in the image.

I didn't realize POP and WOW could be measured other than with exclamation points. But, I agree with you!!!

Regards,
Ed

 

[Alexis Powell]

I'd like to hear more about that. Which models? Any diagrams available or discussions?

Ed

I've brought it up from time to time, including in this thread! It gets some discussion on and off for a page or two after my post #90, then comes back up for a while after post #163 by hinnark, and now again.

Pentax Papilio models, the full-sized Brunton Epoch models, and the Minox HG (with QCF) models are the variable-ratio bins that I am aware of in current production. I've not seen any diagrams.

--AP

 

[james holdsworth]

I didn't realize POP and WOW could be measured other than with exclamation points. But, I agree with you!!!

Regards,
Ed

I think its mostly contrast that I'm seeing, and [strangely enough, at least to me] there do seem to be some people that either can't see this contrast or don't really like the effect.

For me, a lack of contrast makes even the sharpest, brightest bino. look dull, flat and bland.

 

[elkcub]

I've brought it up from time to time, including in this thread! It gets some discussion on and off for a page or two after my post #90, then comes back up for a while after post #163 by hinnark, and now again.

Pentax Papilio models, the full-sized Brunton Epoch models, and the Minox HG (with QCF) models are the variable-ratio bins that I am aware of in current production. I've not seen any diagrams.

--AP

I came across this reference to variable speed focus that has me intrigued. More info would be very helpful. Has anyone reviewed this beast?

More importantly, have you used this or any other variable speed focusing binocular and how well did it work?

With a compact, durable magnesium frame, the Minox 10x52 HG BR asph. binocular weighs just 28 oz. Minox HG binoculars maximize user comfort with features like 4-position, adjustable eyecups and a fully-locking diopter adjustment. The QCF variable-speed focus system on HG binoculars provides rapid and precise focus from minimum close focus to infinity with just one full turn of the knob (faster at 20-30 feet and slower at further distances than the older version.) A thoughtful range-finding scale on the knob allows viewers to take distance readings at a glance. Fully sealed and argon-filled, Minox HG 10x52 BR asph. binoculars are internally fog-proof and waterproof to a depth of 16 feet. Made in Germany.

Ed

 

[typo]

Can someone tell me something about the SLC line? How good are they? How sharp are they in the center? How do they compare to the SV? So far i heared that the SLC are like the SV without the field flatteners and therefore without globe effekt. Are the SLC´s more like the Zeiss Conquest line and the "cheap" alternative?

It seems to me that the SLC´s are rarely mentioned anywhere. Mostly people mention the EL SV. I also cant find more than 2-3 reviews. Why is that?

Like James comments above, when compared to the ELSV I found both the SLC HD and the new SLC sharper. I'd also judge them sharper than the Conquest HD, but too close to call vs. the HT.

David

 

[Alexis Powell]

I came across this reference to variable speed focus that has me intrigued. More info would be very helpful. Has anyone reviewed this beast?

More importantly, have you used this or any other variable speed focusing binocular and how well did it work?

Ed

All of the Minox HG have that feature, not just the big 10x52. I haven't tried the Minox, but I own and have used the Pentax a lot. Given its 18" close focus, focusing would be a real chore in the close range (or too course at distance) if it didn't have a variable (or dual) ratio focus. I've tried the Brunton Epoch on numerous occasions and the focus from the close limit of 3 feet to infinity is smooth, precise, and works so well it does not to call attention to itself. I'm not a fan of the Epoch for other (optical) reasons, so I don't own one.

--AP