Swarovski New Models 2019 ? (1 Viewer)

Hello everyone, I am next to buy for me some (Swarovski 12x50 EL) soon I will be on birthday, but before I would like to know if somebody knows if the Swarovski company plans to release this EL model in its fourth generation, I understand that the 12x50 EL are those of the third generation, will this year come an update for this EL series? Thank you.

Jose.

Jose

The primary EL series chronology is:
A) 1999 - EL x42 introduced (x32 followed in 2003)
B) 2009 - EL Swarovsion x42 introduced (with x50 in 2010 and x32 in 2011)


While the EL introduced a radical new body design, it had up-to-date but conventional optics
The great mechanical achievement was in building a centre focus mechanism, without a central control rod (see my previous post: https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3843649&postcount=9 ) *
During it’s life span there were several hardware modifications, most notably to the focuser's smoothness and to the ratio of the focuser's speed
And of course there were incremental firmware modifications - upgrades to the coatings

* It seems that an unrecognised accomplishment was in also building mechanical durability into the design,
without using either the full length hinge of conventional roof prism designs, or the supporting axle of Porro designs
During the 1980’s and 1990’s, it was often asserted that the full length piano style hinge of RP designs, made them more durable than the 2 small hinges on Porro designs
(and now we also have the mini length bridges on many current designs including the SLC’s)


The Swarovision concept comprised a series of innovations (see the image from a 2011 catalogue), that in total resulted in a significantly different optical experience
And while the EL SV's were upgraded to the FieldPro version in mid 2015, in contrast the changes were minor
They comprised a new colour and pattern covering, and incorporated a quick detachable neck strap mechanism along with attached objective covers
(the same changes had previously been made to the EL Range in late 2014, and the new 2017 version of the CL includes the same style covering and QD system)


If Swarovski’s working on a 10 year cycle for it’s premier binocular line, it would be reasonable to expect something soon, or soonish
However, in a sense Swarovski has created a rod for it’s own back, as many knowledgable binocular buyers would expect that a 3rd generation EL will be similarly innovative
So the big question is ‘Where is there to go next?'


John

Maybe optical stabilisation at higher magnification / lower weight. Though they'd be putting the scopes out of business then.
Alternatively high quality zoom pieces again at low weight with wider fields of view.
Or if I'm stretching for 'new' things, built in camera / photo options, again not very likely to happen.

But I don't expect anything groundbreaking like that, certainly not at manageable weights or realistic low prices.

I'd be more than content with a current model 12x50 EL, or even the non field pro version to be honest.

lestat said:

Maybe optical stabilisation at higher magnification / lower weight. Though they'd be putting the scopes out of business then.
Alternatively high quality zoom pieces again at low weight with wider fields of view.
Or if I'm stretching for 'new' things, built in camera / photo options, again not very likely to happen.

But I don't expect anything groundbreaking like that, certainly not at manageable weights or realistic low prices.

I'd be more than content with a current model 12x50 EL, or even the non field pro version to be honest.

Click to expand...

There was a BF posting some time back quoting the senior Swaro designer that optical stabilization was a longer term goal, but not imminently possible.
Your suggestion of an improved zoom might be more feasible and would surely be welcome.
I don't know whether Swaro has an electronics partner to drive their presence into the electro-optics space, as Leica does with Panasonic or Zeiss with Sony, but I do think it is the future and Swaro is at risk if they remain purely focused on crystals and optics.

A leaner bodied EL?

Having thought about my post of yesterday, one possible line of significant innovation for a 3rd generation EL would be a much leaner bodied EL

On modern roof prism binoculars, the de facto standard for focusing is internal focusing by movement of a lens in the objective group
- as seen in the cut away EL SV image where the focusing mechanism is highlighted in light green

An alternative is internal focusing by the movement of eyepiece elements. The classic example is the Leitz v2 Trinovids, as shown in the cross section of the 7x42 B version

As there is no focusing mechanism within the objective area, the objective unit only needs to be physically wide enough to house the light column
(along with any necessary light control measures such as baffles)
And the inherent compactness of the design can be seen in this image comparing a Leitz 10x40 (pre-B) to a Leica x42 BA
(it’s from the photography reviewer Ken Rockwell: https://kenrockwell.com/leica/trinovid/10x40.htm )

Similarly in relation to the EL SV, compare the cross section from the EL SV patent to that of the Trinovid
Without the need for the objective focusing mechanism, a substantial reduction would be possible to both the bulk of the objective assembly and the main body of the EL SV
And in the EL series, as the focusing mechanism is necessarily routed through the rear bridge arms, it would seem to be ideally suited for adaption to eyepiece focusing

So this begs the question is to why internal focusing via eyepiece movement has remained unused in recent times

It seems that one limitation is the minimum possible focusing distance - on the Leitz 7x42 B it was nominally 8.5 metres!
In 2017 when Leica proposed to reintroduce some of the Leitz models, the published specifications listed the minimum focus for both the 8x40 and 10x40 as 4 m, and that of the 7x35 as 3m

In contrast, the minimum focus for the current EL SV x42 models is 1.5 m
And for other current x42’s the figures are: Swarovski SLC 3.2 m; Leica Noctivid 1.9 m and Ultravid 2.9 to 3.3 m; Zeiss SF 1.5 and HT 1.9 m

So an achievable minimum focus distance may not be within what would be considered acceptable for the premium line of an a major manufacturer

Of course the above is largely blue-sky thinking on my part and Swarovski will obviously take the course it sees best
However, it does raise the possibility that either Swarovski or another manufacturer could take a refreshing approach to current roof prism designs

John

Changes I'd like to see (but that won't happen):

1. Optical stabilization.
2. A switch to AK prisms, at least in some binoculars.
3. Improvements to the Habicht porros: More modern eyepieces, better glare control in the 8x30.

Hermann

Hermann said:

Changes I'd like to see (but that won't happen):

1. Optical stabilization.
2. A switch to AK prisms, at least in some binoculars.
3. Improvements to the Habicht porros: More modern eyepieces, better glare control in the 8x30.

Hermann

Click to expand...

Optical stabilization is a ways off, at least for Swaro.
My Canon 10x42ISL experience is that the IS goes wonky after a decade of hard use and is very difficult to properly repair. I just bought a new one eventually. The $500 repair charge was basically a writeoff.
That is not an experience consistent with Swaro life time customer support.
There either needs to be a greatly more reliable IS mechanism or a recognition by Swaro customers that the IS needs periodic replacement, at some cost. My guess is that Swaro is betting on the former, some sort of miniaturized lifetime IS, but that it is not nearly ready for the market.

John A Roberts said:

So this begs the question is to why internal focusing via eyepiece movement has remained unused in recent times

Click to expand...

In the cutaway öf the Leitz Trinovid it's not only the two eyepiece groups that are moved during focussing, but also the whole Uppendahl prism assembly.
Though the latter would have little or no influence on focus, it is weighty and consists of three cemented components.
It's quite conceivable that this arrangement would not be as resistant to shock as modern designs with focussing lenses between objectives and prisms.

John

John

I understand why you think from the Leitz Trinovid cross section that both the ocular lenses and the prisms move during focusing
i.e. from observing the path of the red line that goes along the ocular axis and then appears to turn 90 degrees along the back of the rear prism

While the right angle piece is part of the focus plate, it only moves the 3 ocular lenses
And in the cross section the bulk of the plate is behind, but not attached to, the prisms

See the explanation and accompanying photos by Frank LPT of this forum (aka wpg)

The information is from his Flickr account:
- for images 1 and 2 go to: https://www.flickr.com/photos/binocwpg/8103365896/in/photostream/
- for images 3 and 4 go to: https://www.flickr.com/photos/binocwpg/8103363102/in/photostream


John

Thanks, John. I get it now.
The eye relief would probably vary according to focus setting - decreasing towards infinity?

John

John

Seemingly not

The Leitz v2 Trinovid production spanned 1963 to 1988
However neither contemporary reviewers, nor later ones, commented on eye relief changing with focus distance

So if it was technically present, it was too small to be of practical consequence
- those forum members who are knowledgeable in optics may be able to offer greater insight


John

John A Roberts said:

John

Seemingly not

The Leitz v2 Trinovid production spanned 1963 to 1988
However neither contemporary reviewers, nor later ones, commented on eye relief changing with focus distance

So if it was technically present, it was too small to be of practical consequence
- those forum members who are knowledgeable in optics may be able to offer greater insight


John

Click to expand...

John,

I was out yesterday with a group of birders, one of whom had an 8x40 Leitz Trinovid. I folded down the eyecups and tried it with my glasses on, but could detect no change in eye relief over the focussing range, which only extended down to around 6 m.

Although I think the moving eyepiece elements must result in a measureable change in eye relief, it is insignificant as you suggested. For an 8x40 it was extremely light and compact by today's standards and performed very respectably despite its lack of phase coating.

John

John

I’m not surprised that you had a positive experience with the 8x40
Notwithstanding it had the common limitation of roof prisms of the era (a slight image softness, due to the lack of phase coating which was introduced first by Zeiss in 1989),
the design and handling qualities of the Leitz v2 Trinovids are still immediately obvious today and must have been a revelation when they were introduced in 1963

They had the expected Leitz quality in terms of materials, fit and finish
And they incorporated cutting edge technology and features in a package that was compact, ergonomic and elegant
In short, they embodied the great functional design in which Leitz (now Leica) frequently excels

They had most of the features that we today take for granted in binoculars - especially with the B eyepiece versions that commenced in 1965
And in relation to internal focus, while the Leitz wasn't air-tight and gas filled as we expect of modern binoculars,
the gasket sealed design was significantly more weather resistant than contemporary binoculars using external focusing mechanisms

During the 25 years of production, there was a variety of offerings:
6x24, 8x32, 10x40, 7x35 B, 7x42 B, 8x40 B, 8x32 B and 10x40 B (with rubber armoured versions introduced in 1979)

And as context helps provide understanding, a little history . . .


A) Prior to 1963
External focus/ air pump Porro prism designs dominated, with the main roof prism alternative being the Hensoldt (which dated back to 1905!)

Except for the use of Abbe-Koening prisms, the Hensoldt design was otherwise functionally identical to that of external focus Porros
All the models were very long (a combination of using a ‘relaxed’ optical formula employing long objective housings along with A-K prisms)
And they had a level of waterproofness similar to other external focus designs, and were dated in their styling
The post-WWII models included various magnifications from 6 to 16 power, combined with objectives from 30 to 56 mm
- see the image from a 1953 catalogue: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/temp/
(and a 1956 catalogue can be found at the excellent resource Miniature Binoculars: http://www.miniaturebinoculars.com/part2/Page13012.htm )


B) Other Roof Prism choices 1963 to 1988
None of the roof prism binoculars from the major brands equalled the Trinovid in the totality of it’s features

In 1964 Zeiss introduced the first version of its Dialyt 8x30 B, which was followed in 1968 by the 10x40 B
Both used Schmidt-Pechan prisms, were compact and had modern styling
However they were externally focused by moving the objective lens pairs within their open ended housings, and so they were not particularly weatherproof
- see the image from: https://forum.astronomie.de/threads/fernglas-zeiss-8x30b-classic.149765/#post-851836
And there was only the two models
(In 1968 Zeiss introduced a slightly updated version of the Hensoldt design in 8x56 B, with the 7x42 B following in 1981, and later a rare 6x42 B individual focus version
However they had the same limitations as their ancestors)

It was not until 1985 that Swarovski introduced its first roof prism offering the SLC in 8x30, with the 7x30 following in 1986
Like Zeiss they also used Schmidt-Pechan prisms, were compact with modern styling, and were externally focused by moving the objective lens pairs in open ended housings
- see the image courtesy of Henry Link: https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2215925&postcount=237
(It was not until after the discontinuation of the Trinovid, that the air-tight x30 Mk II version was introduced in 1989, and the larger 42 mm objective models weren’t introduced until 1992)


C) And then in 1990
Leica again took the lead with the introduction of the Trinovid Ultra BA line . . .
(see the early Leica BA, per a 2017 listing at http://www.leicashop.com/ )


John

Robert

You are of course right about Ken Rockwell’s comment as to 7.5 meters being an acceptable minimum focusing distance

FYI some background about Ken:
He primarily writes about photographic equipment and it’s use from the perspective of a working professional photographer. And as such his comments are often knowledgable and pragmatic
However he can be idiosyncratic, and will often include comment intended to be humorous/ ironic/ provocative. So for many he's a polarising figure (no pun intended . . . well maybe just a little bit)

I ended up chosing the particular photo because it best illustrated the point I wanted to make - there was a surprising lack of other suitable comparative images


John