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

[elkcub]

Just thought I'd point out that there is a rare 10x42 SLC-HD on the famous auction site selling at a good price.

Ed

 

[AlphaFan]

Thoroughly enjoyed this thread. A bit late to the party as I'd been traveling a bit over the past few weeks.

The SLCs are a spectacular binocular - I own(ed) 8x42, 10x42, and 10x56 and loved them all. Their crystalline image and great depth of field rarely disappoint and often generate a warm, contented smile. However, over the years I've come to realize that there really isn't a perfect all-around binocular -- different models shine brightest for specific applications and environments. IME the crisp SLC view and very slow but precise focus make them excel on a tripod picking apart a landscape or for identifying waders at a distance. But they certainly wouldn't be my first choice for tracking migrating warblers hopping from branch to branch, or for viewing swallows in flight. Am fortunate to have collected a number of high-performing binoculars over the years. It's wonderful to be able to reach for what I consider "just the right tool" for different events. But if there were ever a Binocular-Hall-of-Fame I'm fairly certain the 42mm SLC would be on display.

 

[adhoc]

...SLCs...own(ed) 8x42, 10x42, and 10x56...But...wouldn't be my first choice for tracking migrating warblers hopping from branch to branch, or for viewing swallows in flight...

AlphaFan, could you please expand a bit there: what bino configurations or bino models do you find are preferable for these two purposes? Thanks.

 

[tenex]

(At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the original SLC HD 42 does not have the "very slow but precise focus" issue. For that matter, neither do the 56s.)

 

[elkcub]

And here is an example of a newer 8x42 SLC posing as an 8x42 SLC-HD on the famous auction site.

Be careful out there.
Ed

 

[Trinovid]

And here is an example of a newer 8x42 SLC posing as an 8x42 SLC-HD on the famous auction site.
Be careful out there.

I got the opposite situation last year when they had my Ultravid 8x32HD+ posing as a normal HD.

 

[quincy88]

...wish there was a 8x32 SLC

There used to be 32mm SLCs. I ran into a woman who had a pair of 8x32s when I was on a bird/whale watching day cruise. I traded her my UV 7x42s for a little bit. The 32mm SLCs were phenomenal. They had the focusing wheel on the front of the bridge (nearest the objective lenses) which I thought would be a bit goofy, but I adapted to it immediately. Excellent binoculars.
There also used to be 50mm SLCs. They even made a 7x50. I would love to try out a pair of those some day. Pretty rare I imagine.

 

[Richard D]

There used to be 32mm SLCs. I ran into a woman who had a pair of 8x32s when I was on a bird/whale watching day cruise. I traded her my UV 7x42s for a little bit. The 32mm SLCs were phenomenal. They had the focusing wheel on the front of the bridge (nearest the objective lenses) which I thought would be a bit goofy, but I adapted to it immediately. Excellent binoculars.
There also used to be 50mm SLCs. They even made a 7x50. I would love to try out a pair of those some day. Pretty rare I imagine.

I own the 7x50 SLCs and really like them. I bought them mainly for woodland birding, but to be honest I'm rarely in dense enough cover for their low light performance to be that necessary. Where they really come to the fore is for pre-sunrise birding or as dusk is fading into night. Watching the dawn flight of a Night Heron with them was quite magical.

On the positive side - resolution is so close to my ELs I can't observe a difference in normal use - maybe if I stuck them on a tripod and looked at test charts with a doubler, but I don't have the interest in observing test charts... Edge performance isn't far off ELs, any fall off isn't apparant in normal use, and CA is practically non-existent. Colour is very neutral - maybe very slightly on the warm side of neutral, but it's barely perceptible, they're effectively neutral. Contrast is good without being over the top. Only minor negatives are weight (but they're well balanced), FoV - perfectly adequate and the view is extremely immersive just not exceptionally expansive and close focus is fine for birds but probably not close enough for insect watchers.

How they compare to the 8x56s I don't know - I've only got the excellent 15s in 56mm,but switching between the 7s and 15s doesn't show any significant difference in quality of view.

 

[dries1]

Just thought I'd point out that there is a rare 10x42 SLC-HD on the famous auction site selling at a good price.

Ed

I am not sure about the seller though, always asking the sky for his glass.

 

[dries1]

There used to be 32mm SLCs. I ran into a woman who had a pair of 8x32s when I was on a bird/whale watching day cruise. I traded her my UV 7x42s for a little bit. The 32mm SLCs were phenomenal. They had the focusing wheel on the front of the bridge (nearest the objective lenses) which I thought would be a bit goofy, but I adapted to it immediately. Excellent binoculars.
There also used to be 50mm SLCs. They even made a 7x50. I would love to try out a pair of those some day. Pretty rare I imagine.

They are actually SLC 8X30s and they are an excellent glass by todays standards. Roger Vine does a review and he points out some important observations regarding the more suitable later models.

 

[elkcub]

I am not sure about the seller though, always asking the sky for his glass.

I've been in touch with the dealer in the last few days to point out that his other auction is NOT for an SLC-HD. He was very polite and interested to understand the difference between the two products. As it stands the 10x42 SLC-HD is priced below the 8x42 SLC and about what I paid for my 8x42 ten yrs. ago. Personally, knowing what I do, if I were looking for a 10x SLC-HD I'd definitely go for this one. Note that he has 100% positive feedback and pays for returns within 30 days. (No, he's not my brother-in-law. ) It should also be covered by SONA's warranty.

Ed

 

[Vespobuteo]

They are actually SLC 8X30s and they are an excellent glass by todays standards. Roger Vine does a review and he points out some important observations regarding the more suitable later models.

Did the coatings on the later 8x30 SLC ever got rid of the yellow cast?

 

[dries1]

Did the coatings on the later 8x30 SLC ever got rid of the yellow cast?

I am not sure, I have the NEU 8X30 from 2006. When I think of yellow cast I think of a Meopta 2005 Meostar which to my eyes was obvious. Did the modern SLCs in 42 show a yellow cast to your eyes?

 

[dries1]

I've been in touch with the dealer in the last few days to point out that his other auction is NOT for an SLC-HD. He was very polite and interested to understand the difference between the two products. As it stands the 10x42 SLC-HD is priced below the 8x42 SLC and about what I paid for my 8x42 ten yrs. ago. Personally, knowing what I do, if I were looking for a 10x SLC-HD I'd definitely go for this one. Note that he has 100% positive feedback and pays for returns within 30 days. (No, he's not my brother-in-law. ) It should also be covered by SONA's warranty.

Ed

He is the same guy who was selling a Nikon EDG in 10X32 as open box, but it was later determined that it was sold (used) by a birdforum member. I have my preferred sellers, he is not one, but by all means if some one want to go for the SLC, have at it.

 

[quincy88]

They are actually SLC 8X30s and they are an excellent glass by todays standards. Roger Vine does a review and he points out some important observations regarding the more suitable later models.

Oh right. Thanks for the correction. They were 8x30s. They were the black ones and they looked really nice in black.

 

[dries1]

Yes they are nice in Black, hopefully with the later coatings. Prices for these seem to be climbing also, which is a bit odd - to me anyway.

 

[Vespobuteo]

I am not sure, I have the NEU 8X30 from 2006. When I think of yellow cast I think of a Meopta 2005 Meostar which to my eyes was obvious. Did the modern SLCs in 42 show a yellow cast to your eyes?

The later 8x30 SLC:s probably got SwaroBright around 2002?

swarobright and non swarobright-what are the differences?

Hello, I am very curious what are the differences between swarobright and non swarobright optics. Is this difference visible in brightness only, or also in the clearness, clarity, sharpness and resolution? I have recently found on international site two slc 7x42b one swarobright from 2002...

www.birdforum.net

Modern SLC:s are just fine, maybe a bit cooler than EL SV, and perhaps tuned more to high contrast/low light?
But the coatings might have been updated over the years.

 

[ReinierB]

I have the SLC 8x42 HD and really like it. It is a perfect fit for my face. No blackouts, nice eyecups that fit in my sockets. I fully extend the eyecups and I do not wear glasses.
I only think it is a pity that it is not a 10 power. The 10x42 was already sold out. But I wonder if the SLC 10x42 would be a perfect fit as well, because of the eye relief of just 16 mm compared with the 18.5 mm of the SLC 8x42.
Does anybody notice this difference and favors one of the two for this reason? I can understand that the SLC 8x42 would be better for wearers of glasses, would it be for me as well?
As far as I can understand, eye relief is only important for wearers of glasses, or does it also say something about how well the binos fit you?
The SLC 8x42 fits me perfectly. Will the SLC 10x42 fit as nice as well?

I also wonder why the SLC 10x42 is a bit lighter compared to the SLC 8x42. Is that noticeable?

 

[tenex]

The anatomical issue some users without glasses (like me) can encounter with today's high-relief eyepieces is insufficient eyecup depth, but if the 8x42 fits you well, the 10x should as well. (I had to put 8x eyecups on the 10x and would have trouble using the 8x, with both 42 and 56mm SLCs.) If I could have just one binocular it would be this 10x42. Good luck in your search.

I suppose the 8x may be heavier due to an extra or thicker element in the eyepiece. It seems a minor difference.

 

[ReinierB]

The anatomical issue some users without glasses (like me) can encounter with today's high-relief eyepieces is insufficient eyecup depth, but if the 8x42 fits you well, the 10x should as well. (I had to put 8x eyecups on the 10x and would have trouble using the 8x, with both 42 and 56mm SLCs.) If I could have just one binocular it would be this 10x42. Good luck in your search.

I suppose the 8x may be heavier due to an extra or thicker element in the eyepiece. It seems a minor difference.

Thanks!
Do the eyecups of the 56mm feel the same? Do they have the same diameter? The eyecups of the 42mm are really comfortable and fit my eyesockets perfectly.