SLC 7x42 arriving today (2 Viewers)

[Maljunulo]

Additionally the whole business of comparison is something I increasingly dislike for the reason that having more than one pair of binoculars is something to enjoy, whereas too much analysis, in my case anyway, leads to finding fault with most or all of them and then where is the enjoyment?

I personally think there is a great deal of wisdom in this statement, and agree, and think a few in here should take heed to what you say.

 

[mbb]

I personally think there is a great deal of wisdom in this statement, and agree, and think a few in here should take heed to what you say.

Additionally the whole business of comparison is something I increasingly dislike for the reason that having more than one pair of binoculars is something to enjoy, whereas too much analysis, in my case anyway, leads to finding fault with most or all of them and then where is the enjoyment?

If it blocks one from enjoying just using his/her binoculars, going out birding, than for sure it should be avoided! I also have the impression we are often nitpicking here on the forum.
On the other hand, I do have enjoyed some time just comparing my binoculars, in part to help me understand what I like or not, or what really matters to me and (at least as importantly) what does not matter that much to me. That is all personal. E.g. valuing ergonomics (weight/shape/eyecups...) and good handling of difficult light (less glare or reflections) more than the last percentage of brightness, or discovering that more ‘3D‘ effect of both my cheap Docter 8x30 classic (Deltrintem) and expensive 8x30 Habicht, both porro’s. And this forum has helped me to understand why or what is causing this or that.
But than, when going out for a walk, I enjoy just having some good binoculars that I like, notwithstanding they all have some flaw: I had a magnificant moment today observing, or rather admiring a hen harrier flying for some time low over the fields, in beautiful light. I don’t think having a UV HD+ or EL 8x32, 8x42 or 7x42 would have made any difference at all for me at that moment compared to my 8x32 UV HD(non +) (There is always something that could be better, but hey, that is life and I cannot reasonably afford NL’s etc., which I am sure have flaws too ).

That, my limited funding, and the difficulty these days with corona to just find an opportunity to try someone’s binoculars out in the field, is what makes me doubt about purchasing a set of larger exit pupil binoculars. That is also why I posted the previous question. Yes, the larger exit pupil of my 8x32(4mm) is a benefit compared to that of my compact 8x25(3mm) binoculars, but mainly for the improved comfort of eye placement etc., more so than for the, to be honest, relatively limited real brightness advantage at low light, in real life/practice(!). Still, I would like some brighter binoculars for use at (very) late hours, but, based on the above (subjective) experience comparing 8x25/3mm and 8x32/4mm, I am not sure if 8x42/5mm would be enough of a brightness improvement to motivate spending that considerable amount of money on an additional set of binoculars. That is why I was curious about 7x42/6mm options if it would really make a difference in low light (SLC, UV HD(+), FL, Habicht ...: whatever really good one I could find a second hand offer for that I could afford and justify buying).
I happen to have an eye on both an SLC 7x42 and a EL SV 8,5x42 on second hand offer, but obviously I cannot buy both (or sadly even compare the two: distances, covid measures...). That is why this thread sparkled my attention. Thus, any feedback from real/field experience with both at dusk or later is welcome!

 

[SeldomPerched]

Your experiences with both the SLC New 7x42 and the SV 8,5x42 are very interesting. I am looking for some binoculars to complement my Ultravid 8x32 HD (which would remain my main day time binoculars), specifically for low-light use, and have been considering either 7x42-options as well as a second-hand SV 8,5x42 if I can save a bit more/longer. (Most 50mm binoculars seem too heavy for me, at 1200g or more.). However, I doubt about the 8,5x42 (exit pupil approx. 5mm) being enough of a brightness upgrade compared to the 8x32 (exit pupil 4mm) to complement it, as opposed to a 7x42 (exit pupil 6mm). But now I'm reading that you notice the SV 8,5x42 being a bit brighter, which of course becomes confusing for me

Gijs van Ginkel's measurements reported on the HouseOfOutdoor-website confirm that the SV has approximately 2 to 3% higher transmission values. Thus I guess the SV should indeed be a (very?) little bit brighter during daytime, when your eye pupils are smaller than 5mm anyway.
I was wondering now if you have had the chance to compare the two binoculars in darker hours, pas sunset, when it really gets (very) dark. Would you still prefer the SV at that time considering brightness?

Your reports about the better handling of difficult light (less glare) of the SLC is also very interesting, as glare/veiling is something that can really annoy me when birding.

MBB, Justin will be able to answer you better. I can't access my SV or SLC at the moment and it's hard enough to be sure when using them let alone from memory. I just couldn't say. Glare though annoying is probably just a fact of life; I know that most of the time it doesn't affect my viewing, even with glass that is famous for it.


Tom

 

[eitanaltman]

That, my limited funding, and the difficulty these days with corona to just find an opportunity to try someone’s binoculars out in the field, is what makes me doubt about purchasing a set of larger exit pupil binoculars. That is also why I posted the previous question. Yes, the larger exit pupil of my 8x32(4mm) is a benefit compared to that of my compact 8x25(3mm) binoculars, but mainly for the improved comfort of eye placement etc., more so than for the, to be honest, relatively limited real brightness advantage at low light, in real life/practice(!). Still, I would like some brighter binoculars for use at (very) late hours, but, based on the above (subjective) experience comparing 8x25/3mm and 8x32/4mm, I am not sure if 8x42/5mm would be enough of a brightness improvement to motivate spending that considerable amount of money on an additional set of binoculars. That is why I was curious about 7x42/6mm options if it would really make a difference in low light (SLC, UV HD(+), FL, Habicht ...: whatever really good one I could find a second hand offer for that I could afford and justify buying).
I happen to have an eye on both an SLC 7x42 and a EL SV 8,5x42 on second hand offer, but obviously I cannot buy both (or sadly even compare the two: distances, covid measures...). That is why this thread sparkled my attention. Thus, any feedback from real/field experience with both at dusk or later is welcome!

Some real world feedback...

First, you have the right attitude. Enjoy what you have if it’s working for you, it’s a rabbit hole to try chasing incremental improvements because nothing is perfect. I had many wonderful birding experiences with binoculars I wouldn’t want to use anymore.

That said.....

I’m sorry to say that, as someone who has gone through this recently, the difference in usability and brightness between an 8x32 and a 7x42 is significant, much greater than the gap between 8x25 and 8x32. I have the 8x32 UVHD as well, it was our first real alpha, a present for my wife a couple of years ago. It blew me away! Even in mediocre light it looks great, although the viewing comfort gets noticeably worse. I don’t know what voodoo magic Leica has done to cram so much optical brilliance (including amazing glare control) into such a tiny binocular.

You are correct that in most situations, the practical benefit of the larger exit pupil is more about viewing comfort than perceived brightness. Plus, the human eyes/brain system is very adaptable. I happily used several 10x32’s for a few months and if I took one out for a walk in the evening with fading light, it didn’t feel too dim or that difficult to use.

But now that I have a 7x42 UVHD.... it’s just so EASY! So calm and deep and comfy, like the 8x32 UV view but you changed into some metaphorical warm fuzzy slippers for the eyeballs. It feels like they are simply impervious to lighting conditions. Bright and sunny or cold and gray, middle of the day or the gloom just after sunset, doesn’t matter! beautiful easy views every time!

And specific to your query about low light benefits... I am frequently birding at my local lake until after sunset once I’m done with work. In that post sunset gloom, when things are getting murky, I am often startled when I put the 7x42’s to my eyes because my brain is not expecting a view so bright, calm and easy. Like that momentary surprise when you are tasting something you expect to be mediocre but whoah it’s actually delicious! I can scan well into dusk without discomfort, in dim light that would be on the precipice of usability with the 8x32’s. And the 7x42 isn’t just usable, it’s still pleasurable.

But if the budget isn’t there.... it doesn’t specifically need to be the Ultravid 7x42. There are many other fine options with larger exit pupils and calm views even in poor light, including the SLC 7x42 discussed in this thread. Perhaps a second hand BA or BN 7x42? Or a Meopta Meostar, which is not far behind the SLC optically. An 8x50 would also work well if you don’t mind the extra weight. Many many porro options. Or to keep things lighter and cheaper, maybe a second hand Leitz 7x35 or 7x42 of later vintage?

 

[SeldomPerched]

If it blocks one from enjoying just using his/her binoculars, going out birding, than for sure it should be avoided! I also have the impression we are often nitpicking here on the forum.
On the other hand, I do have enjoyed some time just comparing my binoculars, in part to help me understand what I like or not, or what really matters to me and (at least as importantly) what does not matter that much to me. That is all personal. E.g. valuing ergonomics (weight/shape/eyecups...) and good handling of difficult light (less glare or reflections) more than the last percentage of brightness, or discovering that more ‘3D‘ effect of both my cheap Docter 8x30 classic (Deltrintem) and expensive 8x30 Habicht, both porro’s. And this forum has helped me to understand why or what is causing this or that.
But than, when going out for a walk, I enjoy just having some good binoculars that I like, notwithstanding they all have some flaw: I had a magnificant moment today observing, or rather admiring a hen harrier flying for some time low over the fields, in beautiful light. I don’t think having a UV HD+ or EL 8x32, 8x42 or 7x42 would have made any difference at all for me at that moment compared to my 8x32 UV HD(non +) (There is always something that could be better, but hey, that is life and I cannot reasonably afford NL’s etc., which I am sure have flaws too ).

That, my limited funding, and the difficulty these days with corona to just find an opportunity to try someone’s binoculars out in the field, is what makes me doubt about purchasing a set of larger exit pupil binoculars. That is also why I posted the previous question. Yes, the larger exit pupil of my 8x32(4mm) is a benefit compared to that of my compact 8x25(3mm) binoculars, but mainly for the improved comfort of eye placement etc., more so than for the, to be honest, relatively limited real brightness advantage at low light, in real life/practice(!). Still, I would like some brighter binoculars for use at (very) late hours, but, based on the above (subjective) experience comparing 8x25/3mm and 8x32/4mm, I am not sure if 8x42/5mm would be enough of a brightness improvement to motivate spending that considerable amount of money on an additional set of binoculars. That is why I was curious about 7x42/6mm options if it would really make a difference in low light (SLC, UV HD(+), FL, Habicht ...: whatever really good one I could find a second hand offer for that I could afford and justify buying).
I happen to have an eye on both an SLC 7x42 and a EL SV 8,5x42 on second hand offer, but obviously I cannot buy both (or sadly even compare the two: distances, covid measures...). That is why this thread sparkled my attention. Thus, any feedback from real/field experience with both at dusk or later is welcome!

Added later to what I have written below: Read Eitan's Leica findings in conjunction with the Zeiss angle below. There's no better or worse between the two but you choose depending which ingredients taste best to you...

Hi MBB, I don't know if you ever got an answer to your post quoted by me above and you may have sorted your options out or not... Just to say unless you are adamant about having a Swarovski the Zeisses are well worth a look for ultimate low light ability — depending on any age-related decline in your eyes of course: the 7x42 format ended at Zeiss when they replaced the FL series with HT and SF but if you can get an FL or even its legendary predecessor the Dialyt ClassiC (BG/AT*P*) you will have not only the 6mm EP but the added benefit of higher light transmission because those models have AK not SP prisms. After those models the AK prisms were / are still used in the Victory HT 8x42 (and other larger mag and/or objective sizes). The HT 8x42 is a further refinement in a newer body design of the FL and additionally has Schott HT glass (like the non-AK Leica UVHD Pluses). The HT is definitely a more modern glass than the SLC and it shows.

You will definitely find many fans of Zeiss for low light work on this forum and of the HT in particular (the QC problems discussed if you come across those discussions seem particularly to do with the 8x54 not the 8x42, AFAICR (that's my abbreviation not a binocular model lettering).

I think James Holdsworth and also Troubadour among others are well placed to sing the praises of the HT. I have one and it does have what some have described as a washed clean view but (not mattering to me or many) some astigmatism at the edge of the view. But there's always a price to pay of some kind!

And for the 7x42 T*FL read Roger Vine on Scope Views, who has more of an interest in astronomy but also goes nature watching and birding in the English Lake District. http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/ZeissVictory7X42FL.htm

If this is all too late, sorry!

Tom

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

7x42's seem to become more difficult to find, but I came across a Kite Ibis 7x42, that is certainly worthwille to look at/through, not too expensive and with attractive optical properties including high light transmission. I have mentioned it already before in the Kite subforum and a transmission spectrum can be found there too.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[eitanaltman]

One other point, I referenced how the 7x42 is seemingly impervious to external lighting conditions.... another benefit I’ve found is that it is also (for me at least) largely impervious to my own conditions.

What I mean is that there are times, especially early in the morning, where my fatigued eyes just don’t want to play nice with small exit pupils, especially my left eye for some reason. I assume it’s no different than waking up with stiff muscles for any other part of your body...

Whatever the reason — I assume mostly a combination of large exit pupil + very well corrected optics — the 7x42 is still delightful to use when 3-4mm EP binoculars are a struggle for my tired eyes. And this is not due to poor lighting; the sun is up, they don’t look any brighter or sharper. They are just easier, more comfortable, almost “soothing” if I try to use an 8x30 or 10x32 first and then swap to the 7x42.

 

[mbb]

Thank you Tom, Eitan and Gijs!

The Zeiss FL or UV HD+ are indeed the highest on my wishlist but, the FL pops up only very rarely and the UV HD+, still available new, is too expensive. The Zeiss HT also remains too expensive.
I guess my options are the Meostar, SLC Neu, Kite Ibis ED or Leitz Trinovid. The latter having the best form factor (size/weight/...), but I guess (haven’t tested them, thus based on reading here) that they cannot compete with the former three optically, which are all approximately the same price. (Nor with my UV HD 8x32, though with smaller exit pupil.) My main reserve about the Kite is their FOV (that in part defines the ‘joy’ of viewing through them) while for the Meostar and SLC Neu it is their weight (which shouldn’t be too heavy for me to take them, by foot and on the bike, preferably without harness). That is why I will skip the 50mm options: those are even heavier and I think it will result in me using them less (only when it is very dark and weight not an issue at all, not going far by foot or bike) while the 7x42 would probably be picked up more often, also when leaving at twilight, or maybe on cloudy days in the woods.
I guess one cannot have it all...
(If the Habicht had a larger FOV I would probably try those first... :-D)

I really don’t know why, but I have the impression that I should try the Meostar or the SLC Neu and just see if I can get along with their weight. Worst case I might resell them with not a lot of loss, I guess (but I would rather not have to). I guess I should just choose which one and go for it... The SLC Neu would probably be from 2007-2008 though, because I cannot find one from 2009-2010. I am not sure how big the impact is of not having the more recent coatings from the Swarovision launch from 2009, also compared to the more recent Meostar.

 

[eitanaltman]

The Swarobright coatings came out several years prior and were used on the original EL, the SLC Neu, and even some late production SLC just before the Neu came out. The Swarovision update was more about the design, especially the eyepiece which yielded the “flat” field, edge to edge sharpness and more eye relief.

So a Swaro from the 2007-08 era would still have the modern Swarobright + Swarotop + Swarodur combo.

The coatings may have improved slightly over the intervening years but not drastically.

 

[mbb]

The Swarobright coatings came out several years prior and were used on the original EL, the SLC Neu, and even some late production SLC just before the Neu came out. The Swarovision update was more about the design, especially the eyepiece which yielded the “flat” field, edge to edge sharpness and more eye relief.

So a Swaro from the 2007-08 era would still have the modern Swarobright + Swarotop + Swarodur combo.

The coatings may have improved slightly over the intervening years but not drastically.

Thank you for that info!
I have to admit I am getting confused about this and Swarovski does not provide very clear information about it either, it seems. The reason why I asked was because of the very informative post from John Roberts quoted below, from another thread about the SLC Neu 7x42, and referring to some info from Dale Forbes from Swarovski in yet another thread. From that post, it would seem that the main optical improvements from coatings occured around 2003 (new: Swarobright) but also in 2009 (updated Swarotop), while the 2007 update mainly regards easier cleaning (Swaroclean, which can also be handy of course, but not impacting the view once cleaned ). I guess the change from 2009 is not well documented or reported because it regards an ‘update’ and not a ‘new, additional’ coating, but an ‘update‘ can be very significant or insignificant...

I don’t really know what to make out of this

I haven’t seen any official communication from Swarovski regarding the changes from 2009 to the SLC Neu’s (as opposed to the introduction that year of the all new EL’s of course, and apart from the post from Dale Forbes referred to below). While I have seen interesting comparisons of transmission figures from Gijs Van Ginkel comparing the black armoured, green armoured and Neu’s in 8x30 format, it is not clear to me if those Neu’s were from before 2009 or not, or if anyone has done spme comparison (through measurements or visually) for any SLC Neu model comparing a version from 2004-2008 with one from 2009-2010.
As it regards antireflective coatings (Swarotop), maybe that was more about improving glare/flare/reflection attenuation or contrast than improving transmission, potentially not being reflected in transmission figures, though both are somewhat related of course. I am no expert...

Hi Tom (post #1),

In relation to changes to the SLC 7x42 . . .

• In mid 1992 production of both the 7x42 and the 10x42 commenced (the 8x42 SLC was only introduced in 2010, along with the all new 10x42)
The earliest x42 I’ve observed is a 10x42 model numbered D6226 07783, and the earliest 7x42 is D6237 10189

• By early 2003 at the latest, Swarobright/ dielectric prism coating was present on the 7x42 SLC (it was indicated on the box label)
It’s present by D7303/ but not D7027 (and it was introduced on the 10x42 by early 2001 at the latest, by D7103/ but not D7039)
n.b. Swarobright was introduced progressively across the SLC line over several years - it seems that each model required a different combination of coatings

• At the start of 2005 the ‘neu’ rubber armour covering was introduced across all the SLC line (observed from D7503)

• By mid 2007 Swaroclean was introduced across all the SLC line (the box label was marked ‘Easy to Clean’, with the earliest observed D7727/ but not D7721)

• At the start of 2009 the Swarotop/ anti-reflective coatings were updated (so D79 on)
See Dale Forbes' comments in post #29 at: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=155446

The original x42 models were discontinued in 2010. The last observed 7x42 is D8013 84600, and the last observed 10x42 is D8033 87526

- - - -

Across the life of the original SLC x42 series there were 3 different rubber armour coverings:

• the original single colour coating with distinct ‘shoulders’, in either green or black
• the updated single colour coating without the ‘shoulders’, in either green or black
• the 2 colour neu coating in green and black

See the 3 versions on the x30 models, in the third image in post #11 at: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=380550
n.b. RA coatings are often replaced during servicing, so they are only indicative as to dating a unit and therefore it’s original features, see post #12 in the link

- - - -

The 7x42 SLC is known for it’s optical quality including a large ‘sweet spot’. There are lot of threads on the forum with positive comments

And it seems that Swarovski made a special effort with the 7x42, since at it’s introduction it was competing with the likes of the Zeiss 7x42 Dialyt and the 7x45 Night Owl,
and the Leica 7x42 BA
This is reflected in the notably greater weight of the 7x42 SLC compared the 10x42 - an extra 2.8 oz/ 80 g - which implies significantly more glass was used


John


p.s. by sometime in 1999 Swarodur/ hard external lens coating was present on the SLC line (using Wayback, by then it was listed on the Swarovski website on the SLC line)
- so all production from 2000 on (D70 on) will have Swarodur

 

[eitanaltman]

As someone who also scrapes around for good use deals — I wouldn’t sweat those minor differences. You’re talking about something on the scale of Ultravid HD vs HD+ ... not worth worrying about, at least not enough to pass up a great deal.

Gijs’ data has many Swaro models from early Swarobright to later gen SV with the most recent coatings. It’s not a huge gap.

My 7x42 and 8x32 Leicas are both HD, not Plus. I’m not going to worry about what’s missing when I got them for less than 1/2 price

 

[mbb]

As someone who also scrapes around for good use deals — I wouldn’t sweat those minor differences. You’re talking about something on the scale of Ultravid HD vs HD+ ... not worth worrying about, at least not enough to pass up a great deal.

Gijs’ data has many Swaro models from early Swarobright to later gen SV with the most recent coatings. It’s not a huge gap.

My 7x42 and 8x32 Leicas are both HD, not Plus. I’m not going to worry about what’s missing when I got them for less than 1/2 price

A very true remark!

I am also happy with my 8x32 UV HD (non+) and won’t pay full price for the HD+ upgrade. (If however someone would sell me the HD+ for the price I have paid for my HD, I might resell my HD . But I am not actively looking, but just enjoying the UV HD I have now.)

I might still leave the question open out of curiosity: always willing to learn a bit and know what is out there

 

[mbb]

Yep, I pretty much throw the RYO harness on all of my binoculars nowadays. I like the ease of converting it between a harness, strap, bandolier, etc. I need to buy some extra clips actually.

Justin

Does the RYO harness work well with such heavy binoculars, also on summer days when you don’t wear a thick sweater and jacket/coat, but a T-shirt?
Due to their thin shoe-lace resembling cords, I would have thought the RYO harness would mainly be a great match for 8x25 to 8x32 binucolars. Or do you usually wear a (thick) jacket when birding, with the harness around it, resulting in some padding?

 

[eitanaltman]

I live in San Diego CA where I am out birding in a t-shirt the majority of the time. The RYO harness is still quite comfortable to use even with a typical weight (750-800g) 42mm binocular.

It's frankly overkill for a 25mm and most 32mm binoculars. I giggle a bit thinking about someone using a harness of any kind with a 25mm!!

With a smaller binocular I much prefer bandolier style with something thin, lately I mostly use DIY w gutted paracord, cheap and easy. A <600g binocular just isn't that heavy worn bandolier style, as long as it's not pulling down on the back of your neck.

But make no mistake, the RYO harness is still comfortable even with a full-sized binocular. It does dig a bit with a heavier binocular when you're just wearing a t-shirt, but my heaviest binocular is 750g (the aforementioned Leica 7x42 UVHD). For a short walk I'll wear the 7x42 bandolier style with the RYO, if I start to feel the weight a bit I'll just slip my arm through the cords and boom it's a harness.

I'm not sure I'd want to wear a real brick like the SLC at almost a kilo with a thin t-shirt, but it probably wouldn't be that bad on a shorter walk. But somehow the RYO cord has this ideal balance of elasticity and firmness that somehow lets it stretch enough to distribute the weight, but not dig hard into the skin.

 

[mbb]

I live in San Diego CA where I am out birding in a t-shirt the majority of the time. The RYO harness is still quite comfortable to use even with a typical weight (750-800g) 42mm binocular.

It's frankly overkill for a 25mm and most 32mm binoculars. I giggle a bit thinking about someone using a harness of any kind with a 25mm!!

With a smaller binocular I much prefer bandolier style with something thin, lately I mostly use DIY w gutted paracord, cheap and easy. A <600g binocular just isn't that heavy worn bandolier style, as long as it's not pulling down on the back of your neck.

But make no mistake, the RYO harness is still comfortable even with a full-sized binocular. It does dig a bit with a heavier binocular when you're just wearing a t-shirt, but my heaviest binocular is 750g (the aforementioned Leica 7x42 UVHD). For a short walk I'll wear the 7x42 bandolier style with the RYO, if I start to feel the weight a bit I'll just slip my arm through the cords and boom it's a harness.

I'm not sure I'd want to wear a real brick like the SLC at almost a kilo with a thin t-shirt, but it probably wouldn't be that bad on a shorter walk. But somehow the RYO cord has this ideal balance of elasticity and firmness that somehow lets it stretch enough to distribute the weight, but not dig hard into the skin.

I would not think of or recommend using a regular harness for a 8x25, but as the RYO looks like basically just a double, somewhat elastiek cord, thus very lightweight and compact to stow away, I might image considering it e.g. for a lightweight 8x25 when used on a long and hard walk/climb or for cycling (especially if in ‘sporty’ cycling piosition), with the RYO-trick of strapping the barrels of the binoculars close to the chest.

For heavier binoculars like typical 42mm ones, I have really been wondering about the RYO comfort when just wearing a T-shirt (without sweater, jacket...) It is interesting to hear your experience on that. Thank you! I might have to just try it. It seems more difficult to find here in the EU, but it seems that it is also sold under the Bushnell brand (or maybe that is not the original rebranded, but a clone, I haven’t really looked into it).

Do you really notice an important difference in the field between carrying a 42mm of approximately 750-800g and one of approximately 950g? For both carrying and handholding?
I experience a significant threshold between the 25-30/32mm range and 42mm range (more than between 25 and 30/32mm , where the difference for me is mainly compactness when folded and, of course, viewing comfort),but I have nothing beyond my 10x42 of approx.750g to know if a further increase to e.g. 950g would reach some kond of next ‘threshold’.