Choosing SLC over NL... (Swaro please read) (1 Viewer)

[tenex]

Since I kept asking myself why I just bought a decade-old SLC HD instead of an NL, arguably the best field-usable binocular ever made, I made a list...

Advantages of NL 10x42 over SLC:

• larger FOV (21% linear, 46% by area)
• even sharper at edge than SLC (which is quite good)

Disadvantages of NL:

• costs twice as much
• more susceptible to glare
• 14mm/.55in longer, 60g/2.1oz heavier
• unergonomic diopter lever
• annoying FieldPro attachments
• less durable armor with ugly seam
• no Swaroclean lens coating
• strange side entry field bag

I didn't even list rolling ball because it's so well managed in NL, so passing over edge sharpness and glare which also aren't huge concerns for me, I was left weighing larger FOV (which I do appreciate) against a list of foolish feature choices that all together put me off buying NL, just as the open bridge put me off ELs years ago -- whereas SLC feels like an old friend. And if I really want to feel eco-friendly (about a binocular meant to last decades), forget about NL being PFAS-free, I'm much greener buying used SLC than new NL.

So in short, there's nothing I actually dislike about this SLC, and that turns out to matter for me. Whereas given enough reasons to dislike NL despite its optics, I won't pay $3k for one; at that price I'd want no odd difficulties. In my opinion Swarovski have shot themselves in the foot trying to be too clever, instead of letting optical quality sell itself.

We just got back from the San Juan mountains of Colorado where I enjoyed using this SLC daily (replacing my trusty Leica 32). Black Swifts, Western Tanagers, marmots and wildflowers galore, and mining history...

 

[Ce2613]

Nice place for good views. I like when you say it costs double the price as a drawback… and in this case we’re talking about 1500€. That’s enough money for a nice trip well more enriching than a +21% FOV. Wise choice

 

[tehri]

1500€... That’s enough money for a nice trip well more enriching than a +21% FOV. Wise choice

That's a good and smart point of view... but if you can afford those NL's, +21% FOV will make, not only one, but every trip more 'enriching'

 

[chill6x6]

Quite honestly...optically, you're not going to beat an SLC. I still believe the SLCs have one of the best views of any 42mm binocular I have. Swarovski certainly did something right with the SLC. I think you made a good choice!

 

[GrampaTom]

SLC vs SFL... anyone?

 

[Richard D]

SLC vs SFL... anyone?

I've not tried the SFL, but I suspect there's not much in it that doesn't fall into personal preferences.

 

[kimmik]

Money = consumption = environmentally-unfriendly.

So I agree, buying used SLC, or even new SLC is greener than NL… unless you spend the saved $1500 on gasoline instead 😆

 

[kimmik]

A couple further small points for NL:

Slightly more neutral colour.
Slightly better eye relief (10x42).

Otherwise completely agree with your views tenex. If I had an SLC first, I would probably not have the NL. Vice versa.

 

[pm42]

Money = consumption = environmentally-unfriendly.

So is the Internet: more greenhouse gas than planes.
So we should also stop using this forum if we go this way

But this thread is the usual "sub-alphas are very good" with a hint of "let's over-rationalize my choice instead of simply stating my preferences".
So we end up with sentences like this:

In my opinion Swarovski have shot themselves in the foot trying to be too clever, instead of letting optical quality sell itself.

I wonder where Swaro shot them in the foot: they sell plenty of NL Pure, the users are quite satisfied, the reviews are positive...
Just like the negative points above, it looks like some trying to convince itself he made the right choice.
We have a saying in France: "if you want to kill your dog accuse him of having rabies" and reading about the "ugly seam" of the NL Pure armor as it mattered really made me think of it.

 

[[email protected]]

I've not tried the SFL, but I suspect there's not much in it that doesn't fall into personal preferences.

I guess you would prefer the SLC 10x42 over the SLF 10x40 if you preferred a bigger especially wider, heavier binocular with a much smaller FOV, less sharp edges, less accurate colors, more CA especially on the edge, and a much rougher focuser that is often harder in one direction and is not positioned as well under your fingers than the SFL. I really can't see why anybody would, though. If you like Swarovski's choosing between the NL, EL and SLC there is no doubt the NL and the EL are optically superior because they both have sharper edges and better contrast than the SLC and in the case of the NL a bigger FOV, but the NL has more glare than either the EL or the SLC and for me, it was a dealbreaker. Of the three and when you consider value I would choose the EL 8.5x42 but for about the same amount of money you can get the Zeiss SFL 8x40, and it is lighter and smaller than the EL 8.5x42 has a bigger FOV, better more accurate colors and really outside of the bigger FOV the SFL is the equal of the NL and the SFL has less glare and truer colors. Honestly, with the introduction of the SFL I don't see why anybody would buy an NL, EL, SLC or SF unless you have to have the bigger FOV of the NL and SF.

 

[kimmik]

But if you physically smash a SLC against a SFL….

 

[dries1]

Now we have the SFL in the discussion. Dennis I just have one question.

When can I expect the sfl for sale on bf. I am looking for a bargain.

 

[Rotherbirder]

I guess you would prefer the SLC 10x42 over the SLF 10x40 if you preferred a bigger especially wider, heavier binocular with a much smaller FOV, less sharp edges, less accurate colors, more CA especially on the edge, and a much rougher focuser that is often harder in one direction and is not positioned as well under your fingers than the SFL. I really can't see why anybody would, though.

Yet another hobbyhorse is born!

RB

 

[pm42]

Yet another hobbyhorse is born!

They do not live a long life usually though.

 

[GrampaTom]

Now we have the SFL in the discussion. Dennis I just have one question.

When can I expect the sfl for sale on bf. I am looking for a bargain.

Hold on, hold on. It wasnt Dennis it was me....

 

[GrampaTom]

Since I kept asking myself why I just bought a decade-old SLC HD instead of an NL, arguably the best field-usable binocular ever made, I made a list...

Advantages of NL 10x42 over SLC:

• larger FOV (21% linear, 46% by area)
• even sharper at edge than SLC (which is quite good)

Disadvantages of NL:

• costs twice as much
• more susceptible to glare
• 14mm/.55in longer, 60g/2.1oz heavier
• unergonomic diopter lever
• annoying FieldPro attachments
• less durable armor with ugly seam
• no Swaroclean lens coating
• strange side entry field bag

I didn't even list rolling ball because it's so well managed in NL, so passing over edge sharpness and glare which also aren't huge concerns for me, I was left weighing larger FOV (which I do appreciate) against a list of foolish feature choices that all together put me off buying NL, just as the open bridge put me off ELs years ago -- whereas SLC feels like an old friend. And if I really want to feel eco-friendly (about a binocular meant to last decades), forget about NL being PFAS-free, I'm much greener buying used SLC than new NL.

So in short, there's nothing I actually dislike about this SLC, and that turns out to matter for me. Whereas given enough reasons to dislike NL despite its optics, I won't pay $3k for one; at that price I'd want no odd difficulties. In my opinion Swarovski have shot themselves in the foot trying to be too clever, instead of letting optical quality sell itself.

We just got back from the San Juan mountains of Colorado where I enjoyed using this SLC daily (replacing my trusty Leica 32). Black Swifts, Western Tanagers, marmots and wildflowers galore, and mining history...

Tenex, as a fellow 10X guy, in dis here environment among all these 8X lovers, we need to treat each other as gently, and respectfully as possible.

I agree:
Costs twice as much - you bet, thats ugly
no swaroclean - another you bet. I dont mind the task of lens cleaning, but I hate the potential for scratching.
But:
Fieldpro is not annoying. Its brilliant. You need to go between a system or 2 - strap, pouch, harness to get it.
Ugly seam? No its a mold parting line. Theres gotta be some way to get the part out of the mold.
Glare? Really, really, oofff.....

With the hope of repairing our solidarity, I do agree Swaro seems to add stuff, adding cost, bidding up the price that is of suspicious value. The ATX (is it?) spotting scope comes to mind, with its $1000 premium over the reportedly great Kowa 883 for modularity. Why? The point is maybe more debatable with regard to the NLs, as I kind of like the new body style and handling. It seems a fair guess most of the cost/price increase of the NL was do to the new body rather than anything they did optically.

Enjoy your new binos. I bet they're great

G'Tom10X

 

[dries1]

It is all about the money, follow the money.

 

[tenex]

But this thread is the usual "sub-alphas are very good" with a hint of "let's over-rationalize my choice instead of simply stating my preferences"...

SLC HD was and is not "sub" alpha. But this reply is the usual attempt to turn a simple account of enjoyment and preference into some kind of argument. After getting excited about NLs but doing nothing for two years (nearly three now?) I found it interesting that dislikes somehow outweighed likes for me here, and that a model I somehow missed at the time could be so nice to find now. You're entitled to your own preferences, and may even express them in my thread, but you may not attack mine. De gustibus...

I wonder where Swaro shot them in the foot: they sell plenty of NL Pure, the users are quite satisfied, the reviews are positive...

This thought occurred to me as I wrote that sentence; I'm sure NLs are selling well, just not to me, and perhaps others like me, so they could sell even better.

It's just possible that I've been a bit perverse, buying a used SLC after Swaro killed them off, instead of what they want me to buy... But in any case, I'm very happy with my choice.

 

[pm42]

just not to me, and perhaps others like me, so they could sell even better.

In fact, I'm sure they are waiting for your advice on how to sell more binoculars.

It's just possible that I've been a bit perverse,

Not at all, you seem perfectly sane and reasonable, at least to me. But what do I know? I bought 2 NL Pure.

instead of what they want me to buy...

You think Swaro wants you to do something? Do they talk to you while you sleep? Try to control your mind?

But in any case, I'm very happy with my choice.

If you are happy, we are happy.

 

[Richard D]

...
You think Swaro wants you to do something? Do they talk to you while you sleep? Try to control your mind?
...

Not sure what you're getting at, I maybe having a humour failure, but surely stopping selling something and replacing it with an alternative surely suggests they want you to buy the new alternative?