Does the Swarovski SLC 8x42 HD have the rolling ball effect while panning? (1 Viewer)

[elkcub]

That is weird. And ugly. The WB is the latest?

Yes, the 8x42 SLC WB replaced the original 8x42 SLC-HD, although Swaro customer service reps insisted that it still used HD glass.

Ed

 

[GrampaTom]

Do the newest SLC X56 versions have this construction?

 

[John A Roberts]

SLC x42 Transmission
See Gijs’ tests at: https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/verrekijkers/verrekijkers-testen-en-vergelijken/

A) In a March 2016 test of a 2015 production 8x42 unit, the transmission noted in the table is:
91% at 550 nm, and 88% at 500 nm (see the accompanying graph).

B) In a May 2017 test, another 8x42 unit (year unstated) is shown to have transmission values of:
90.1% at 550 nm, and 88.2% at 500 nm (there’s no corresponding graph).
So a result of individual unit variation, or a minor tweak to the coatings?


EL Legend x42 objective interiors
I’d been waiting to see an image showing the objective interior of the July 2020 revision to the EL SV.
And it does not seem to have been modified the way the SLC was.
See the image from my recent post #82 at: Premium (Alpha) my list.
(the unit has the new numbering introduced in September 2020).

John

 

[elkcub]

No, I'm not sure any manufacturer documents such methods. But (as I should have said) the claimed transmission on the spec sheet is identical, 91% for both HD 42 and WB 42. (I think Allbinos claims to see a slight difference)

As to "degradation" or "downgrading" of certain models, the obvious evidence is the reduced close focus on the SLC 42 and EL 42 "Classic"(!) models, but photos have also been posted here showing much cruder internal construction on SLC 42 which helps to explain the price drop. (I'm curious whether this happened also with EL.) It's a strange practice I haven't seen from other (alpha) makers.

All the same, SLCs have become my favorites now.

I take it that this construction change would hold true for both the 8x and 10x models. I do have to admit this goes way beyond even my prior understanding. As a curiosity it would be interesting to see photos of the new Kahles version.

Ed

 

[John A Roberts]

To summarise,

The all new x42 SLC was introduced in 2010.
The 2013 revisions (focuser, internal objective construction and external covering) reduced the price, and increased the differences compared to the EL SV.
Both the 8x42 and 10x42 SLC’s have all three revisions.

The all new x56 SLC was introduced in 2013 (it replaced the original series models dating from 1998 and 1999).
The objective interiors are like those of the other Swarovski premium roof prism models.

There are images of the various x42 and x56 objective interiors in posts #4 and 5 at: Swarovski 8x42 SLC ?


John

 

[Szmako81]

Hello Sz,

Overall, Swarovski has an excellent reputation for restoring damaged binoculars to original condition, sometimes to even better than original condition. In the USA, Swarovski Optik North America (SONA) provides this service for optical products they imported, and I've used them many times over the years. However, I don't know the situation on Europe so you would need to check out the warranty policy with Swarovski (Austria?) as to its terms.

Since you're buying on eBay there should be a statement about the condition of the binoculars and an indication as to whether the seller will accept returns if you're not satisfied (usually 30 days), and who pays for the postage. Personally, I would make an effort to contact the seller to get the serial number and to determine who owned it previously. If the seller is the original owner ask why he/she is selling? It it's a dealer ask about their confidence in the binoculars, and also about the warranty status.

I'm sure others on BF have better insights.

Ed

Thanks, Ed!

 

[Szmako81]

Does the SW SLC 7x42 B have a globe-effect? Saw one for sale on eBay.

Thanks in advance, Szabolcs

 

[Pileatus]

Does the SW SLC 7x42 B have a globe-effect? Saw one for sale on eBay.

Thanks in advance, Szabolcs

No…

 

[Szmako81]

No…

Thank You!

 

[jafritten]

...UV; the optical character of SLC 42 strikes me as rather similar overall (but with less chromatic aberration), so I expect you'll like it.

I agree. I own the SLC 10x42 which is great. However, I like the colours and the ergonomy of the Ultravids better.

 

[Tringa45]

Do the newest SLC X56 versions have this construction?

The objective-side photos of the original 8x42 SLC HD and the revised cheaper version gave me quite a fright, but a quick check of my 8x56 (2020 manufacture) revealed that it is just like that shown in John Roberts' linked post #5, i.e. well baffled.

@Szmako81. I have a 7x42 SLC of 2003 vintage. The "Neu" version depicted possibly has somewhat better coatings than mine. It is a very solid (and heavy) binocular with mild pincussion distortion and better than average edge sharpness. Eye relief at 19 mm is ideal for glasses wearers and the view is more relaxing than almost anything else I have experienced.

John

PS: Just see you bought it in new (?) condition - don't let go of that!

 

[Szmako81]

The objective-side photos of the original 8x42 SLC HD and the revised cheaper version gave me quite a fright, but a quick check of my 8x56 (2020 manufacture) revealed that it is just like that shown in John Roberts' linked post #5, i.e. well baffled.

@Szmako81. I have a 7x42 SLC of 2003 vintage. The "Neu" version depicted possibly has somewhat better coatings than mine. It is a very solid (and heavy) binocular with mild pincussion distortion and better than average edge sharpness. Eye relief at 19 mm is ideal for glasses wearers and the view is more relaxing than almost anything else I have experienced.

John

PS: Just see you bought it in new (?) condition - don't let go of that!

I take your advice! Thanks!
Better choice than the Leica Trinovid 7x42 BA??

 

[Tringa45]

I take your advice! Thanks!
Better choice than the Leica Trinovid 7x42 BA??

I couldn't really comment on that, but both the Leica BA and the old SLCs had reputations for being (solid) "bricks".
One of the reasons for the ease of view of the SLC may be the generously sized (and consequently heavy) prisms.
If you hold the binocular at arm's length and turn it to one side, you will see that the exit pupils are still 3/4 moon shaped before they occlude.
On many binoculars they are almond-shaped. It makes me wonder what the exit pupils on the new ultra-lightweight Zeiss SFL look like.

John

 

[William Lewis]

I take your advice! Thanks!
Better choice than the Leica Trinovid 7x42 BA??

Depends what you want. The slc 8x56hd gave the best view for me of all the binocualars I looked through at birdfair including all the top ones from all the top makes but I don't mind the weight, like high transmission and am happy with a slightly narrower field of view than the likes of the nl.

I did a slightly more detailed run down here, there may be a slight but not really noticeable amount of rolling ball but there's a fair bit if pincushion distortion to help reduce it to a really insignificant ammount for me at least. Try em!

I'm silly enough to have both of swarovski's highest transmission and largest exit pupil binoculars at the moment. A habicht 7x42 GA 96% transmission 6mm exit pupil and a 8x56 SLC hd with 93% transmission and a 7mm exit pupil. I thought I'd just pop up a few things I've found having used both extensively in case anyone thinking of giving them a go for birdwatching.

They go about achieving a good view in very different ways, which may suit some birders more than others.

The habicht is a very traditional porro prism binocular it's been around since 1947, armoured in this case and waterproof, with straps and caps it weight in around 850 grams. It has as far as I can see 7 glass elements per barrel, a cemented doublet objective, 2 prisms and a 3 element eye piece, all the glass elements have the latest coatings and the prisms reflect the image upright through total internal reflection - no mirror coatings. The field of view is narrow at 114m at 1000m but perfectly useable, there's very little chromatic aberration in the field, although due to its simple design and lack of field flatteners the field is only sharp in the centre. Adjustment wise there's not much, fold down rubber eye cups, a central focuser and a diopter adjuster in the right barrel, eye relief is short again due to the simple design, not a good one for glasses wearers.

The SLC hd is bang up to date, released in its current guise in 2013. Armoured and waterproof with straps and caps (including objective caps which the habicht doesn't come with) it weighs in around 1350 grams. There's much more glass involved than the habichts 12 elements per barrel and these are bigger too with the 56mm objectives. These include field flatteners, high flourite glass in the objectives and a much more complicated eye piece design. This time the prisms are abe konig giving the binocular a straighter but longer form, again they reflect the view upright with total internal reflection. The field of view is much wider at 133m at 1000m despite the 1x increase in magnification, it's both useable and immersive. Thanks to the field flatteners the view is sharp pretty much to the edges although chromatic aberration does creep in more quickly and significantly than with the habichts but only off centre. There is a lot of adjustment so set up time to get the most out of them is a lengthy process, the usual diopter although this time built into the focus wheel which clicks out to reveal the scale and can't be moved accidentally, twist out eye cups and the usual focuser and ipd adjustment. Eye relief is huge, you could probably use them wearing 2 pairs of glasses!

I've hiked the isle of skye for 3 days with the habichts, climbed Snowdon with the Slc's round my neck and spent many hours using both in a variety of habitats. Your view may be different to mine but this is what I've found comparing them.

For me both offer similar daytime brightness, maybe a slight advantage to the habichts or maybe my eyes have read the specs and are seeing what they've read! There's not much in it. When it gets really dark there's nothing in it between them for me, I'm 38 with good vision but I suspect my pupils only dilate to a maximum of 6mm so really can't use the extra exit pupil of the slc's, if you download the study linked here you can see if you'd likely benefit for that 1mm increase Factors affecting light-adapted pupil size in normal human subjects. | IOVS | ARVO Journals.

The difference in magnification of only 1x doesn't manifest itself greatly in terms of how much detail you can see centre field however the stability and depth of field with the habichts is noticeably better, for me there equal in ability to i.d a bird centre field, to clarify I found them equal when you can see a bird naked eye and want to i.d it.

Off centre when your scanning an area for birds you can't see naked eye, or for example if an elusive avian has dived somewhere into a bush or tree the slc's have a distinct advantage. The wider field that's sharp to the edges means you will generally find that bird faster with them.

Handling wise is probably where the biggest differences come between them, let's go from one end to the other. Eye pieces, if you don't wear glasses you can just chuck the habicht up to your eyes, no messing, just set the ipd and dipter and your good, they both have proper scales too so it's child's play to set up if your sharing them.

Slc's are a different beast, there's much more adjustment, it takes great care and some time to get everything set just so, if not done correctly you could easily think they were terrible. Eye cups and ipd in the wrong position - kidney beans and glare will be your only friends. There is a scale on the diopter but not any really useful one for the ipd, I have to just obscure the bridge of the letter A in Austria to get my ipd right. Not so good for sharing and time consuming to set up, get it right and there mega.

Focus wheels? There both great, well weighted and accurate. The habichts is a little heavier but smoother, the slc's is lighter and smaller with a slight feeling of more friction, like rubbing 2 bits of paper together. The habichts focus usefully closer than the slc's to a degree that even when birding is a useful difference - you can't focus on your own feet with either like you can with some.

Form factor is classic porro with the habichts, this is good and bad. For viewing and focusing at the same time I find the wider spaced barrels of porro's easier to point, more contact between hands and binocular as well for me. When going for maximum stability however moving your hands to the objectives is a jump, forget about using the focus at the same time, when there though stability is great.


With the Slc's there's been a great deal of work done on the ergonomics, the barrels have really deep cut outs underneath, there not actually that much wider than an nl in the regular hand position next to the focus wheel. Moving down the barrels is also easier, no big jump in hand position, it's also just possible to hold near the ends and move the focus wheel, partly due to the shape and partly due to the lighter focus action.

Weights as stated, if you don't like it, don't get the SLC! I personally don't find it at all inhibiting but I do a physical job, plenty will find them too heavy.

Does any of this make a difference to getting on a to bird on the wing, I tend to think so, even with the narrower field of view I find it easier with the habichts due to the more stable hold when using the focus and (although not really handling!) the greater depth of field.

These glasses are designed with low light viewing higher than some on the priority list, just before you get there though a low sun may come into play, so how do they cope with glare? Both are excellent, really really good, no milky wash outs or crescents really inhibit either. Once set up I find the slc's slightly better despite there less recessed objectives, neither is anywhere near bad.

So there a hefty investment either way- how tough are they to keep that investment delivering? I think the habichts are tougher and in all likely hood easier to repair, there just as well armoured, if not better, and there's less weight behind them when they do hit something, the objectives are also further recessed and without twist out eye cups there's less to go wrong. Neither has come to harm in regular use though or got any worse over time.

So in summary which is better? Honestly there just different compromises, I prefer the slc's but I can comfortably carry them. It just depends on your personal priorities. For me I'm just glad to have a binocular with me that will perform in all lighting conditions better than almost any other.

Swarovski deserve a great deal of credit for producing 2 so distinct but capable choices for a variety of users priorities.

I really enjoyed testing them and writing this!

Will
View attachment 1460648

 

[Szmako81]

I couldn't really comment on that, but both the Leica BA and the old SLCs had reputations for being (solid) "bricks".
One of the reasons for the ease of view of the SLC may be the generously sized (and consequently heavy) prisms.
If you hold the binocular at arm's length and turn it to one side, you will see that the exit pupils are still 3/4 moon shaped before they occlude.
On many binoculars they are almond-shaped. It makes me wonder what the exit pupils on the new ultra-lightweight Zeiss SFL look like.

John

Depends what you want. The slc 8x56hd gave the best view for me of all the binocualars I looked through at birdfair including all the top ones from all the top makes but I don't mind the weight, like high transmission and am happy with a slightly narrower field of view than the likes of the nl.

I did a slightly more detailed run down here, there may be a slight but not really noticeable amount of rolling ball but there's a fair bit if pincushion distortion to help reduce it to a really insignificant ammount for me at least. Try em!

When You are saying "there may be a slight but not really noticeable amount of rolling ball", You're referring to the SW 8x56 SLC?
Unfortunately, I am sensitive to RB.

 

[Szmako81]

Depends what you want. The slc 8x56hd gave the best view for me of all the binocualars I looked through at birdfair including all the top ones from all the top makes but I don't mind the weight, like high transmission and am happy with a slightly narrower field of view than the likes of the nl.

I did a slightly more detailed run down here, there may be a slight but not really noticeable amount of rolling ball but there's a fair bit if pincushion distortion to help reduce it to a really insignificant ammount for me at least. Try em!

Tried the SW 8x56 SLC, made my stomach rise. That's why having Leicas.

 

[William Lewis]

Yes slc 8x56 hd 2013 onwards. Strange how different people see different things.

 

[Tringa45]

Tried the SW 8x56 SLC, made my stomach rise.

Hard to understand if it was the latest version (after 2013).
On the graph I linked in post#6 the 8x56 SLC has quite a lot of pincussion compared to the Swarovision ELs, which are infamous for rolling ball..

John

 

[Szmako81]

Hard to understand if it was the latest version (after 2013).
On the graph I linked in post#6 the 8x56 SLC has quite a lot of pincussion compared to the Swarovision ELs, which are infamous for rolling ball..

John

It was two weeks ago when I tried the SLC in a shop just for hunters.
When driving the car in the Alps on holiday, it also makes my stomach rise. Since childhood I've been blessed with such a sensitivity.

 

[SeldomPerched]

That is weird. And ugly. The WB is the latest?

Ground Control to Grampa Tom,

I have the final Swarovski-badged x42 and they actually look fine and well made, including if you look in through the front or objective end. Their contemporary ELs look to me a bit more stylish but I maintain that the SLCs unusually look far better in reality than in photos. (It's usually the other way round for all kinds of products.) My own feeling since purchase is that these SLCs are solid but importantly for me are also light and short — the 10x is actually lighter and shorter than the 8x.

For what it's worth I have had nothing but good surprises from the performance, handling, and image quality from the last Sw 42 WB models and have not noticed anything that I'd count as a significant trade-off. The compact form and comparatively light weight, the good balance, and the snug as a gun grip — for me personally — completely outweigh the more distant closest focus in this model and luckily I like the slower focusing action. In short, of course there are compromises in all binoculars, as we know, but it's nice when the weaker points aren't seen to matter to the user! This user anyway.

That's just me but I get a sense that others who own these bins and post on here mostly seem to feel the same. The image is on the warm side but to my senescent eyes no more so than a Leica Ultravid — only the colour of the warmth is slightly different (I'd say yellower rather than redder).

It was Roger Vine's review of the 10x42 WB model (he called it HD but means the one we are talking about) that swayed me into the purchase in 2020; you can see it at Swarovski 10x42 SLC HD Review. He touches on all the things mentioned here and in retrospect I can say that his report strikes me as honest and fair as far as things I understand go, i.e. I don't know about the stargazing aspect, for example.

But it's true that Planet Earth is bluer through an EL...

Tom 2