The new 8x30 CLl's (3 Viewers)

[[email protected]]

Not to get into a debate- I was just correcting the error.




Pretty sure you are specifically implying (or saying) that they are "not going to make any more porro's".



How many they make and difficulty in purchasing them is different than not making any. Nikon does not make many super high quality Porro's anymore either-, but that does not prevent them from being desired and purchased.



All true; but....they are not "dead" yet and they are still being made and are desired, so many people here and around the world (eg: Holger Merlitz among others) are not ready yet to "get used to it" as you put it.

There are a few optical purist who still prefer porro's for birding but my point is they don't sell nearly as well as roofs so the manufacturers put the majority of there R&D development money into roofs. Hence roofs are becoming better and better whereas porro's are frozen in time like a dinosaur doomed for extinction. They are not benefitting from the newer and better coatings like the roofs. In 5 years porro's will be dead in the sizes used for birding. The big beasts of course will still be here in the porro design for the astronomers and of course the little reverse porros will be here for the insect watchers..

 

[John Russell]

In 5 years porro's will be dead.

For birding applications maybe, but the military still seem to want them and once you go above 56 mm or 58 mm objectives, there's no alternative to Porros.
And then, of course, reversed Porros still offer advantages for close-up work like butterflying.

John

 

[dipped]

I spent some time with an 8x30 CL at a store today. I was able to measure the eye relief, get a good look at distortion, do a quick star test at 64x and compare the view through the CL to some other binoculars, including the 8x32 EL, 8.5x42SV, 8x42 SLC HD and Nikon 8x32 SE....
... Any 8x32 with modern coatings will be at least a little brighter in low light because the extra aperture by itself delivers about 13% more photons to the retina.

After 9 pages and over 200 posts it is refreshing to have an objective report on these babies. I was beginning to think everything swaro. touched turned to gold. Thanks Henry.

What did you use for an artificial star? I presume from previous posts your set up was an 8x binocular mounted on a tripod to view the Cl's also on a tripod.

I recently tried to artificial star test some scopes inside a reserve centre but couldn't find anything small enough. Maybe there's a (small) market for a battery powered artificial star that could be used wherever.

 

[elkcub]

Has anyone seen or tried the new 8x30 CL's, are they a step up from the
SLC's?
I thinking about getting a pair and am wondering if they are worth it?
Thanks
Art

Returning to Art's OP, there appears to be enough evidence at hand to satisfy me, at least, that the CL is not a step up from the 8x30 SLC, and in some important respects may be a step down. Historically, it appears to represent Swarovski's first effort to establish a lower tier product line, but only time will tell if that was wise. For SLC owners, however, there is little to recommend changing to the CL, — and it would probably be more effective getting factory service if the need exists.

I take full responsibility for this statement, recognizing that I have not actually looked through or handled a CL, on a table, a bench, or in the field. For those who take issue, I simply ask that they present an objective side-by-side comparison of the two instruments. In the meantime, I'm going birding this afternoon with my trusty 8x30WB (refurbished under warranty) SLC ... o

Ed

 

[mooreorless]

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2214242#post2214242

This is what the OP says, so I guess he is ok with the CL he has. I guess that is all that matters. Right? That a person is happy with what he has. This is in reply with what the original poster ended up getting, a CL.

 

[henry link]

What did you use for an artificial star? I presume from previous posts your set up was an 8x binocular mounted on a tripod to view the Cl's also on a tripod.

I recently tried to artificial star test some scopes inside a reserve centre but couldn't find anything small enough. Maybe there's a (small) market for a battery powered artificial star that could be used wherever.

I used a corner of the gas tank door of a shiny black Mercedes parked about 100' away in the sun. It made a very nice glitter point. You really don't need a second tripod for a binocular star test like this. You can hand hold the second binocular well enough behind the eyepiece of the mounted binocular.

Yes, scopes need smaller glitter points than little binoculars because of the higher resolution and they need some distance to reach minimum spherical aberration. I try for a minimum distance of at least 50 times the focal length in outdoor glitter point tests like this. The longer the better if the air is steady enough.

Henry

 

[ceasar]

There are a few optical purist who still prefer porro's but my point is they don't sell nearly as well as roofs so the manufacturers put the majority of there R&D development money into roofs. Hence roofs are becoming better and better whereas Porro's are frozen in time like a dinosaur doomed for extinction. They are not benefitting from the newer and better coatings like the roofs. In 5 years porro's will be dead.

Dennis,

Everybody knows what you wrote in your first sentence! If you want to predict what is going to happen in the future tell us something useful for a change. Like, will Astronomy Stores still be selling them? Get specific if you are going to be the Binocular Oracle of Denver! Otherwise you will lose your credibility.

Bob

 

[elkcub]

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2214242#post2214242

This is what the OP says, so I guess he is ok with the CL he has. I guess that is all that matters. Right? That a person is happy with what he has.

Absolutely, like they say, "Ya pays yur money and takes yur choice," and I absolutely believe in the pursuit of happiness.

Based on his posts, I'm not sure if the OP made a side by side comparison with the 8x30SLC (Neu or otherwise), but if he did there is no explanation as to why he was happier with the CL. I suspect he's not an SLC owner, however, so the question he asked may be more important to me than to him.

Ed

 

[[email protected]]

After 9 pages and over 200 posts it is refreshing to have an objective report on these babies. I was beginning to think everything swaro. touched turned to gold. Thanks Henry.

What did you use for an artificial star? I presume from previous posts your set up was an 8x binocular mounted on a tripod to view the Cl's also on a tripod.

I recently tried to artificial star test some scopes inside a reserve centre but couldn't find anything small enough. Maybe there's a (small) market for a battery powered artificial star that could be used wherever.

Sorry, but Henry's review is no more objective than anybody elses on this thread. I see no numbers or tests that he ran. It's all subjective based on what his eyes see. His review is just one opinion of the CL's. It's holds no more weight than anybody elses. I wouldn't base my decision to buy or not buy the CL's based on his opinion. Try them yourself.

 

[[email protected]]

For birding applications maybe, but the military still seem to want them and once you go above 56 mm or 58 mm objectives, there's no alternative to Porros.
And then, of course, reversed Porros still offer advantages for close-up work like butterflying.

John

I meant for birding. I corrected my statement to reflect that fact. Of course we will always have the huge astronomical porro's and the tiny reverse porro's.

 

[NDhunter]

Returning to Art's OP, there appears to be enough evidence at hand to satisfy me, at least, that the CL is not a step up from the 8x30 SLC, and in some important respects may be a step down. Historically, it appears to represent Swarovski's first effort to establish a lower tier product line, but only time will tell if that was wise. For SLC owners, however, there is little to recommend changing to the CL, — and it would probably be more effective getting factory service if the need exists.

I take full responsibility for this statement, recognizing that I have not actually looked through or handled a CL, on a table, a bench, or in the field. For those who take issue, I simply ask that they present an objective side-by-side comparison of the two instruments. In the meantime, I'm going birding this afternoon with my trusty 8x30WB (refurbished under warranty) SLC ... o

Ed

Ed:

You seem to be smug with your armchair review of a binocular you have not
yet seen. The 8x30 SLC is a very nice binocular, and so is the 8x30 CL.
Have you tried a late model SLC NEU? These have the updated coatings and perform very well. The CL has them also, plus a new optic redesign.

I have had both but have not done a side by side comparison. I rate them
both as about equal.

Enjoy your SLC, but please do not tell us it is better than the newer versions,
and how it is better than the CL.


Jerry

 

[elkcub]

Jerry,

Yes, I have tried the SLC Neu, both the 8x30 and 10x42. The coatings and view are about the same as my upgraded Mk III and 10x42 SLC, so I'm really happy with what I've got. [I actually compared the 10x SLC and SLC Neu side by side, but the 8x30 comparision is by memory.]

What is the "new optic redesign" of the CL? If the coatings are the same, as you said, the other optical aspects don't seem particularly new or ground breaking to me [based on Henry's observations]. In fact, the loss of FOV with no greater ER is a major setback in my book. Admittedly, the mechanics and cosmetics of the CL are appealing.

In any case, if you're happy with them then I'm very happy for you. :t:

Ed

 

[stephen b]

Based on his posts, I'm not sure if the OP made a side by side comparison with the 8x30SLC (Neu or otherwise), but if he did there is no explanation as to why he was happier with the CL. I suspect he's not an SLC owner, however, so the question he asked may be more important to me than to him.

Ed

The OP actually is a SLC NEU (8x30) owner along with a 8x32 EL. He is just keeping all 3 according to this post below -post 212 8/09 - ( apparently it does not make a big difference as to how they compare- because he can pick which one that he wants for the given task):

I have decided to make the Genisis my range glasses and use the EL's and CL's in the field along with the SLC neu's.
The CL's will work well for the kind of use I intend for them.
They sure are compact and easy to use and give a very good view.
Thanks
Art

 

[elkcub]

Sorry, but Henry's review is no more objective than anybody elses on this thread. I see no numbers or tests that he ran. It's all subjective based on what his eyes see. His review is just one opinion of the CL's. It's holds no more weight than anybody elses. I wouldn't base my decision to buy or not buy the CL's based on his opinion. Try them yourself.

Henry's "review' in this instance is actually a set of scientific "observations" the procedures for which have been refined and described on earlier threads. Most of his observations could, and often are, represented by numbers; but, more importantly, they could all be repeated by other observers using the same or similar procedures. In that case, repetition would serve a useful purpose. The fact that he uses his eyes to see, of course, is essential for all observation, including astronomy, anatomy, physics, chemistry, and even behavioral science. http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/aboutscience/Observation.html

Conclusions and opinions follow from observations, and the quality of an opinion is determined the evidence that led to it. Science is not a one-voice one-vote democracy by any means, and whereas facts can change opinions, opinions can not alter facts no matter how passionately or often they are stated.

That, of course, is just my take on the situation.

Ed

 

[elkcub]

The OP actually is a SLC NEU (8x30) owner along with a 8x32 EL. He is just keeping all 3 according to this post below -post 212 8/09 - ( apparently it does not make a big difference as to how they compare- because he can pick which one that he wants for the given task):

Yeah, I read it that way too at first, but figured I was misunderstanding. I used to do that sort of thing collecting Barry Wood knifes, trying to decide which of three to buy, and winding up buying all of them. I can't do that with binoculars. No place to put them.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[ronh]

Dennis, and others, really like the little Swarovski. All Henry did was show that it doesn't violate the laws of optics nor economics. Must it?

Henry hardly needs me to defend him. But he teaches optics, and reason. I'm a sucker for that stuff.
Ron

 

[ceasar]

Actually the 8 x 30 CL sounds like a neat, handy little binocular, even with it's rather narrow FOV. I don't think I would like to pay nearly 1000 bucks for one though.

I don't think the 10 x 30 version is any bargain at all. It has a FOV only 2 feet wider at 100 yards than the Nikon 10 x 25 Premier with an exit pupil only .5mm greater. It is not nearly as portable and it costs about 500 bucks more.

Bob

 

[[email protected]]

Henry's "review' in this instance is actually a set of scientific "observations" the procedures for which have been refined and described on earlier threads. Most of his observations could, and often are, represented by numbers; but, more importantly, they could all be repeated by other observers using the same or similar procedures. In that case, repetition would serve a useful purpose. The fact that he uses his eyes to see, of course, is essential for all observation, including astronomy, anatomy, physics, chemistry, and even behavioral science. http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/aboutscience/Observation.html

Conclusions and opinions follow from observations, and the quality of an opinion is determined the evidence that led to it. Science is not a one-voice one-vote democracy by any means, and whereas facts can change opinions, opinions can not alter facts no matter how passionately or often they are stated.

That, of course, is just my take on the situation.

Ed

"but, more importantly, they could all be repeated by other observers using the same or similar procedures. In that case, repetition would serve a useful purpose."

Repetition of his procedures by other observors and the statistical results of those findings are the only way I would even begin to believe his results. ONE person using even controlled procedures is not valid scientific data especially when his results are based on subjective measurement by his eyes. For that reason his review is no more objective than any of the other reviews. Henry has biases and preconceived ideas about what he should see just like anybody else. We know from past reviews that he likes Zeiss products. People tend to take his reviews as fact because he obviously has alot of textbook optical knowledge to back them up with but they are no more founded in scientific method than any of these other reviews. You would be very foolish to take any one mans opinion on to buy or not buy a particular pair of binoculars such as the Swarovski CL. Now if twenty people say they are very good you would have a better chance of being satisfied with such binoculars.

 

[[email protected]]

Actually the 8 x 30 CL sounds like a neat, handy little binocular, even with it's rather narrow FOV. I don't think I would like to pay nearly 1000 bucks for one though.

I don't think the 10 x 30 version is any bargain at all. It has a FOV only 2 feet wider at 100 yards than the Nikon 10 x 25 Premier with an exit pupil only .5mm greater. It is not nearly as portable and it costs about 500 bucks more.

Bob

Actually the CL represents quite a bargain even at it's $929.00 price tag. When you really consider the build quality and optical quality and the lifetime warranty with a company like Swarovski backing them up I would say it is one of the best bargains in the binocular market right now. You really don't notice the slightly smaller FOV and the overall view is great. The Nikon Premier 10x25 is not even in the same class as the CL 10x30. BIG difference not only in optics but in ergonomics and quality. If you get the time compare the two at your dealer. The 10x30 CL is easily worth the $500.00. You don't buy binoculars just by FOV. You can't just compare binoculars by their specifications you have to try them.

 

[ivan86]

I own a CL 10x30, im very happy with them.

Sharpness and contrast are very good, way better then my old Vortex Fury.
The sweet spot is at least the 70% of the fov, with perfect pin point stars.

At the edge it hold a good sharpness, i think that the 10x has better edge performance then 8x, in fact even without a flat field it show a good contrast, enought good to feel satisfied.

There is some chromatic residual at the edge, if you have enought experience you can notice it even at the center field but only in particularly conditions, like observing in backlight.

I cannot say that it is the best 30-32mm bino on market, because it is simply no true. I have tried all the top binoculars on the market, from Leica to Zeiss and without doubt it is not the best.

But you must consider what you get for the PRICE: Swaro EL, Leica Ultravid HD, Zeiss FL are ofc better bino but they cost a lot more, sometimes twice the price.

In my opinion the CL is the right compromise in performance and price between the high-end chinese binoculars such ZEN and other, and the alpha from Swarovski, Leica, ecc ecc.

If you consider that you get for the price the best warranty in the world then it worth every single euro.

Let me say that it also looks great and i can held it better then any other 25/30mm binocular i have tried.

greets,
Ivan