• 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.

NL >=50 mm versions? (5 Viewers)

Maybe. The SLC HD '56 is made of aluminium, I suppose to differentiate it from the "top" magnesium models like the NL and El . The NL 32 is 640g, 42, 840g so I would guess the '52 would be around 1040g - about 150g less than the SLC.

I'm off living on the kayak for a few days during the usual try the new stuff out extravaganza that is birdfair so if/when it does emerge into the wild I'll have to wait a bit to try one.
 
The SLC HD '56 is made of aluminium, I suppose to differentiate it from the "top" magnesium models like the NL and El
No, it is not.

I'd guess closer to 1100g for NL 52, serious weight around the neck even if it does handle well. And I wonder whether SLC 56's days are numbered as well as EL 50's, depending on what magnifications become available. Swaro do seem to like to pare the range down these days, and there can't still be that large a market for big glass anyway. Do they imagine owners will all trade up from SLC/EL?
 
No, it is not.

I'd guess closer to 1100g for NL 52, serious weight around the neck even if it does handle well. And I wonder whether SLC 56's days are numbered as well as EL 50's, depending on what magnifications become available. Swaro do seem to like to pare the range down these days, and there can't still be that large a market for big glass anyway. Do they imagine owners will all trade up from SLC/EL?
Swarovski 10x56 SLC HD Review (for body construction of SLC HD)

I hope the SLC doesn't get discontinued any time soon, it seems like if they've chopped the El maybe that's the decision.
 
Swarovski 10x56 SLC HD Review (for body construction of SLC HD)
What Roger Vine said there was: "still quite heavy at nearly 1200g, perhaps because they still use aluminium not magnesium for the body." Just an idle guess, and wrong. Swarovski SLC catalogs clearly say all models are magnesium, as only makes sense.

I will certainly be keeping my SLC 56s.. Just had the 15x out for a walk around a lake this morning, wonderful glass.
 
I'm quite sure Mr Vine is writing that with the meaning that the increased weight may be due to the fact they use aluminium rather than magnesium for the body, not speculatively about what body material they use.

He would have written "perhaps they still use aluminium" not "perhaps because they still use aluminium" if he meant what your implying.

I remembered reading that the SLC '56 was aluminium bodied before but for my sins didn't investigate the source and couldn't see the information on the SLC's product page, tech forms or dealer websites. I'd be interested to know for sure as I believe Roger does thoroughly research his reviews. Do you have a link?

I don't blame you for wanting to keep the SLC's. I'd much prefer to use one than any of my current crop of bins for astronomy and thoroughly enjoyed owning the 8x56hd myself, optically I believe it's absolutely one of the best models ever made. The higher magnification models like yours are ones that I would probably have in the stable if resources permitted.
 
I'm quite sure Mr Vine is writing that with the meaning that the increased weight may be due to the fact they use aluminium rather than magnesium for the body, not speculatively about what body material they use.

He would have written "perhaps they still use aluminium" not "perhaps because they still use aluminium" if he meant what your implying.
Are you really? Nothing anyone can do about that, then! I might as well say: "He would have written 'perhaps due to the fact they use aluminum' if he meant what you're implying". But that would be very annoying.

As I said, Swarovski no longer use aluminum bodies. From the SLC catalog, 08/2013, when the new 56 was introduced:
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-03-30 124857.jpg
    Screenshot 2024-03-30 124857.jpg
    245.8 KB · Views: 18
Last edited:
Nits are annoying. As a lawyer i do a lot of nitpicking myself, its my work, but with binoculars that i see as a hobby, i try to avoid it but sometimes the nits are crawling all over the place and then im bitting by them also.

Anyway, im wondering if the new x52 Pure wil be interesting enough to consider a try out, for this i will await the reviews.
 
Nits are annoying. As a lawyer i do a lot of nitpicking myself, its my work, but with binoculars that i see as a hobby, i try to avoid it but sometimes the nits are crawling all over the place and then im bitting by them also.

Anyway, im wondering if the new x52 Pure wil be interesting enough to consider a try out, for this i will await the reviews.
One would hope they won’t go backwards optically, especially considering how fabulous the 42 is, I don’t really see how they could improve a whole lot in actual image quality, maybe they would be a little less fidgety on eye placement, which would be nice, and I’m sure they would perform better in low light, but part of the magic of the 12 x 42 is the incredible performance at 12X with a 10X sized format, obviously pure speculation on my behalf until they become available. My 10X50 SV had considerably more visible CA on the outer edge than the 10X42 did, for my eyes, the 12 x 42 NL is the most CA free view I’ve ever had, hopefully that wouldn’t get any worse in a 52.
 
Are you really? Nothing anyone can do about that, then! I might as well say: "He would have written 'perhaps due to the fact they use aluminum' if he meant what you're implying". But that would be very annoying.

As I said, Swarovski no longer uses aluminum bodies. From the SLC catalog, 08/2013, when the new 56 was introduced:
I could have saved you some time if I'd known you were debating my fallibility!
 
I'm quite sure Mr Vine is writing that with the meaning that the increased weight may be due to the fact they use aluminium rather than magnesium for the body, not speculatively about what body material they use.
Roger Vine writes wonderful reviews, but he is sometimes wrong like all of us, and he was wrong here (and also e.g. when he wrote that the leatherette of the Leica Retrovids is real leather, which it clearly isn‘t). Doesn’t keep me from reading Roger’s reviews.
 
Last edited:
I could have saved you some time if I'd known you were debating my fallibility!
I'm not sure what this means, but never mind. You could have saved some time if you'd accepted a simple statement of fact, or researched it yourself, instead of just expounding your personal faith in your interpretation of Roger's words. Facts do not require debate.
 
Last edited:
Back in 2021, following the introduction of the the NL x42, there was some discussion/ speculation/ hoping about the likelihood of a larger NL,
see: Is a 50mm NL likely?


As a big fan of the EL 12x50, one of the things that I'll be particularly interested in is the hand-held stability of an NL x52.
The NL's 'wasp waist' shape could make a significant contribution:
What will an NL x50 offer in terms of handling?

At this stage, in terms of hand-holding a large binocular with the NL's unique design, the Vortex Razor UHD's probably come closest to giving an idea
The UHD's come in three sizes, with the most relevant being the 12x50 and 18x56 versions

Roger Vine has reviewed the 18x56 at: Vortex Razor 18x56 UHD Review
See three photos, including one comparing the 18x56 to the conventionally shaped Swarovski SLC 15x56

Roger notes in relation to the Vortex:
'Those barrels with their long slim section and flared ends look weird. But here’s the thing, they make these the most comfortable big-eye bino’s I have tested. Reducing shakes in big-eyes means holding them around the objectives: Vortex know this and have designed accordingly, with that patch of ribbed armour where your fingertips go. This feature really helps make them easier to hold stead. The only problem is that the focuser is then a long way off; it might have been better on the front end of the bridge'

And in his conclusions, comparing the Vortex to the Swarovski SLC 15x56:
'The Razors’ slim, flared barrels are a bit easier and more comfortable to hold steady'


From Roger's comments it seems that he prefers a symmetric hold on the front of long and heavy binoculars (especially note the observation about the focuser location). And since he wears spectacles, he indexes and presumedly braces the ends of the eyecups against the spectacle lenses

In contrast I don't wear glasses, and with my EL 12x50 I prefer an asymmetric hold; with one hand as far forward as possible, and the other sufficiently rearward so that the thumb is braced against my nose - forming a triangle with the top of the two eyecups braced against my brow ridge
(compared to the photograph of Roger, my front hand would be more forward, and my back hand more rearward)


Either with or without glasses, I'd be surprised if the symmetrical hold of the waist of the NL x42 that seems to work so well for many, would be as successful with a longer and heavier - and presumedly more forward balanced - NL x50. Though the FRP forehead brace may help make a difference for some

And of course the smaller volume of the waist in the focuser area, will be a significant advantage for any with smaller hands wishing to hand-hold a large binocular

. . . so in anticipation of an NL 12x50


John


p.s. In contrast to the photograph, I hold my elbows closer together, so that my forearms are more nearly vertical when viewed from the front.
This means that the weight of the binocular is supported on the palms of my hands, and not my thumbs

Vortex.jpg

Vortex vs Swaro.jpg
 
Last edited:
Roger Vine writes wonderful reviews, but he is sonetimes wrong like all of us, and he was wrong here (and also e.g. when he wrote that the leatherette of the Leica Retrovids is real leather, which it clearly isn‘t). Doesn’t keep me from reading Roger’s reviews.
Yes, interestingly he's corrected it in the 15x review but left the incorrect information in the 10x. I also remember with the 8x56 conquest review when the photo of an 8x SLC 56 was clearly a badly photo shopped snap of another slc HD model.
Thanks for the correction gents.
 
I'm not sure what this means, but never mind. You could have saved some time if you'd accepted a simple statement of fact, or researched it yourself, instead of just expounding your personal faith in your interpretation of Roger's words. Facts do not require debate.
I think you would have understood the meaning before you edited your post to lessen its boisterous tone significantly! The tone down is appreciated though.
 
Back in 2021, following the introduction of the the NL x42, there was some discussion/ speculation/ hoping about the likelihood of a larger NL,
see: Is a 50mm NL likely?


As a big fan of the EL 12x50, one of the things that I'll be particularly interested in is the hand-held stability of an NL x52.
The NL's 'wasp waist' shape could make a significant contribution:


View attachment 1568972

View attachment 1568973

Really interesting the 12x52, hopefully it comes with a free headrest and they have the armor issues solved because they wont be cheap…
 
I think you would have understood the meaning before you edited your post to lessen its boisterous tone significantly! The tone down is appreciated though.
I don't understand this either. I didn't (need to) "tone down" my post reacting to your remark about "fallibility", merely rewrote it upon realizing "fallibility" wasn't the issue at all, neither yours nor Roger's. One distraction after another... now perhaps back to binoculars.
 
Roger Vine writes wonderful reviews, but he is sometimes wrong like all of us
plenty of total inaccuracies and WAG's on that website...even more in the astronomy section....there is no peer review section or even comments....it is what it is.....I would say it's worth the price of admission :)
 
IS…. You mean this one… US11327289B2 describes a system for a 57-70degree AFOV 17-33x scope, which could be what the ATC has become, or maybe a stabilised version, (maybe could be added to another objective??) Who knows. They’ve obviously been thinking where it would best fit their portfolio. Their anniversary year is turning out with plenty of new announcements…

Peter
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top