Swarovski 8x42 HLC HD (1 Viewer)

Swarovski 8x42 SLC HD

Just wanted to mention that Camera Land is selling "salesman's samples" of the 8x42 SLC HD on eBay for as little as $1599 (if no one else bids).

I was lucky to buy one at this fantastic price just before Xmas. Frankly, I can't find anything negative about it ... and I've looked. The image is stunning and the focuser is as smooth as can be.

My local dealer says that Swaro decided to eliminate independent sales firms in favor of in-house sales personnel. This led to recovering a stock of salesmen's samples, many of which are in unopened boxes.

Great Xmas present for me. :king:

Ed

Merry Christmas Ed. I have to say that watching Swaro's ultra-elegant moving graphic advertisements of that model had me drooling. It is good looking, at the very least.
Ron

Ron,

I haven't been so darned impressed with a binocular for some time. Henry did a nice comparative review with the SV some time ago, which laid a firm foundation. Other influences were Renze's field analysis, and last but not least, the great price.

Since I've taken to using spectacles nowadays, my Swift 804s have become increasingly marginalized, and I've learned through experience that flat field instruments are simply not my cup of tea. The Nikon SE and LX L both have that flaw (okay, aggravation). So, regardless of what Swaro might do in the future by way of developing an 8x32 SV HD model, this SLC is the perfect instrument for me. (Those stinkers really knew what they were doing! :t

In fact, it's so great with spectacles that I actually prefer birding this way since transition lenses automatically adjust for ambient brightness. It's almost an epiphany for me to realize that eyecups, standard, winged, fold-over or twist-up, typically limit spatial perception. Had I realized that earlier I would have had a pair of non-prescription transition lenses made to order; but, better late than never. There is no law of man or nature that dictates a behavioral need or visual advantage for light-restricting eyecups, although it's probably not bino-politically correct to say so. It's just the way things have always been done. (So far, side reflections seem to have been well enough controlled by Swaro's opticians so that that's not an issue.)

Given my current level of enlightened enthusiasm I'm planning to do an analysis of how "the view" may actually be optimized by combining eyeglasses with binoculars. I could probably start a thread and one or two people might actually read it. :king:

Ed

Ed,
Well, it would be an epiphany for me too, if I realized it too. If you will get together a review of the SLC HD, and tell us what the dickens you are talking about, I promise to read it and bring all my 134 pounds of philosophical weight to bear. I am starting the search for a 0D reader, however, just on your promise.

Mainly though, I'm glad you're so happy and can easily believe it. My wife has the new 8.5 SV, which by most accounts is more same than different. I'm not crazy about the "distortionless" field myself, but otherwise, the sheer quality is quite something. I almost hate to look through it, it being not mine.
Ron

Thanks for the support, Ron. I was able to compare the 10x SLC and SV models before deciding (the local gun dealer doesn't stock anything but 10x for hunters). Again, the SV didn't work for me.

Ed
PS. You might like the SLC model, but I'm not trying to be a salesman.

Ed,

Do you mean to say that spatial perception is better when your pupils are a bit smaller due to the light coming from the sides? If so, would non-eyeglass-wearers benefit from semi-tranparent eyecups that would stop more intense stray light and would even it out a bit but would let enough through to stop your pupils from dilating?

Kimmo

I have been using the 10x42 SLC HD for a few months now, with Swaro's winged eyecups. They are a phenomenal glass.

Kimmo, Ron, jgraider, et al,

I certainly agree with jgraider that they are a "phenomenal glass." In fact, in my book they surpass any glass I've owned or examined to date. Others may prefer some other optic, so this is just my personal reaction.

These musings are a continuation of several short discussions with James Holdsworth and Looksharp65, concerning eyecups and the perception of the view that is related to them. http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2319703&postcount=51 So, this may not be particularly credible or even relevant to those who don't have experience using eyeglasses, — and that's OK. Nonetheless I posit that eyeglasses have special advantages when it comes to using birding binoculars. I've searched for supporting literature, but to no avail. It doesn't seem to be a topic that has attracted research or pundits in either the optics or human factors communities. The issue may also be somewhat taboo, because we cater to the young and healthy, and I'm admittedly turning things on their head to some extent.

This is a also work in progress, as I have not completely fact-checked my thinking, but here is the essence. Our normal 180º (approx.) field of vision is shown in the left panel. The two fields of view for each eye overlap by about 120º, which gives rise to stereoscopic vision. Thirty degree areas on the extreme left and right of the field, however, are monocular for each eye and remain totally unseen by the other.
The purpose of binoculars is to magnify the central 8-10º of the field, depending on its true field of view.

Let's assume that our binoculars have an apparent field of about 60º, which is typical for most roof designs. As shown in the second panel, the magnified area of the scene pretty much takes up half the normal overlap area on the retina, — and then the eyecups black out everything else. Unmagnified information that might be projected on the outer portion of the overlap area or the periphery of the retina is lost and can't be used for object motion detection, or to provide perspective cues for spatial orientation. Also, what this does to retinal adaptation is rather unnatural because the non-stimulated areas 'dark adapt' and the stimulated areas 'light adapt'. (Yes, contrary to what some may think, the retina is capable of non-uniform adaptation. That's another story.)

Panel three shows the same situation with eyeglasses, where the outer region is largely left in tact, except for a contact ring of varying thickness just outside the magnified area. For the Swaro 8x HD this ring is rather narrow by comparison with other binoculars, so narrow that it almost doesn't seem to be there. The transmission of the binoculars is so good that the magnified center works seamlessly with the periphery for "in the trees" birding as well as "out yonder" birding at the shoreline.

Anyway, I have several connections to make with the vision literature, but for now that's the underlying basis of my thinking. My eyeglasses also have "transition" lenses, a modern technology that modulates light so nicely that I'm not even aware when they are dark or light. That's true with or without the binoculars.

The last panel, incidentally, shows the 'visual horopter' and 'Panum's fusional area,' which underly stereopsis in the overlap area of the two visual fields. These, I believe, need to be taken into consideration if one is to understand why having a flat field has different implications for terrestrial vs astronomical viewing.

Sorry to be so verbose.

Ed

PS. Graphs and text have been corrected from the first post. I was going too fast. It would seem that some of the outer overlap area can also be seen using glasses, making for a very interesting blend of visual information, which I don't think is beyond the brain's capacity to use. This may be why I find using glasses stunningly effective in woodland birding.

Ed,

Great graphics. Did you make those yourself?

So the non-stimulated areas 'dark adapt' with the eyecups up and the same areas "light adapt" when you use eyeglasses since you can see the periphery, and that is more natural. I guess that makes sense.

The only problem is that the central portion is magnified 8x more than your peripheral vision, which is not natural and must play tricks on the brain like looking through a Fun House mirror where the center is magnified more than the edges (sort of like binoculars with barrel distortion but more extreme).

With porros, the protruding prism housings obstruct my peripheral vision so wearing glasses doesn't open the doors of perception. Although some Peyote might.

Plus, I have to deal with glare on the EPs from the scattered side light. With the SE, this side light turns into a blue crescent.

Don't your hands block your peripheral vision with roofs? I tried using my reading glasses with my 9x63 roofs, and all I could see on the sides were my knuckles. Above me, sky, and below me, grass. Not sure how that's advantageous for birding except perhaps spotting some birds flying in the sky.

I get what you're saying in principle at least, though you lost me with the visual helicopter and Pandemonium's spinal fusion area and how that relates to a flat field posing perceptual limitations. Perhaps you could elaborate more on that in your next paper.

I do see a better 3-D effect with the EII than with the SE.

The advantage I see with using glasses is that you can glance to the sides or overhead to spot birds without having to pull your eyes back from the eyepieces.

I like Kimmo's idea of having semi-transparent eyecups, or even better transition lens type eyecups that darken with the light level. However, I wonder if could get past my knuckles, if I'd be too distracted by what I saw in my peripheral vision to concentrate on looking at my intended targets.

The advantage of "tunnel vision" is that it filters out extraneous information.

Brock

Ed,
Thanks for the clear explanation and lovely graphics, and for this interesting idea.

I have experienced this when I put on sunglasses to use a binocular, and may have noticed it more than a full time glasses wearer might, because it is unusual for me. Indeed, the black area surrounding the field shrinks as a result of backing the eye off, and can appear shrunken to practically nothing, so that, almost immediately outside the magnified field appears the unmagnified surroundings. The binocular almost disappears from the view! Although the view of the surroundings outside the field is extremely peripheral, it is, as you say, much more natural than looking down a dark tunnel at the light at the end, and for a birdwatcher, useful in that nearby motion out to the side would not be obscured.

Some time back, there was a discussion here of a vague issue that in retrospect bears a resemblance to this. http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=198292 Brock's post #14 was getting close, and I think Looksharpe was also. (My deeply learned #15 is certainly of merit.)

Of course the other side of the coin, which has traditionally ruled binocular design and usage, is that light from the side can be an annoying distraction, and can even create reflected spots in the eye lenses. What you advocate does however seem to me like a better and more natural view when the entire environment is evenly lit.

The horopter, sheesh. It's is right up there with the epsilon/delta definition of a limit, or time dilation at speed, but I have made a precious little headway on the concept. It is probably foolish for me to comment without a better understanding, but it seems you are suggesting that a curved field which matches the horopter will groove best with the perception, and therefore any sharp to edge (and therefore flat fielded) binocular will be unnatural in this sense. (I may be misunderstanding you already, since you put up the shape of the horopter but didn't really tell us what you were thinking.)

While this idea has a geometrical beauty to it, I can't grasp its practical importance. When viewing the world with naked eye, the shape of the field doesn't match the horopter, does it? (Duh, in fact. What IS the shape of the field the naked eye sees?) Yet nobody complains that the view is unnatural. Although I have not tried one, the SLC-HD is said to be almost as sharp to the edge as the Swarovision, so is probably too flat of field to fit this idea of ideal field curvature.

I suspect that the reason you don't like the Swarovision is the plain old rolling ball effect. The two concepts are fundamentally different, and I don't think could be shown to be equivalent or be confused, since the RB effect does not require two eyes.

Ron

Brock,

I'm trying to figure out what kind of hominoid you must be with knuckles getting in the way of side vision. I have no problem using my HR/5 Audubons the same way with glasses. The contact ring is a little wider, and the ER is a bit short, but it works fine with tight fitting glasses.

Yes, the magnified central view is not "natural" relative to the peripheral images, but as I mentioned they are mainly useful for perspective cues, and motion detection. And in correcting the graphs, I now realize that much of the overlap area must also be visible in non-magnified form.

The graphics were my first stab at using MS PowerPoint 2008. Six years ago I was quite proficient with version 2004, but this one is even better. The background diagram came from the internet.

Ed

Hello Ed,

As a non-spectacles wearer I tried to replicate your specific condition, using spectacles I have lying around (but seldom use) for long(er) distance viewing. To my surprise I’ve come to the same conclusion as you. And this, I should add, before your second post containing the possible explanation (without the science!).
Before elaborating some more on this, I’d like to make a few remarks.

• It occurs to me that this is the first time, at least to me, that a binocular user prefers the spectacled view over the non-spectacled view.
• Your position seems to me rather unusual in the way that you, having used binoculars with unaided eyes for the greater part of your life, made the change to wearing spectacles. This could explain why there are few other reports of the phenomena you’re experiencing.
• Your experiences could be ‘contaminated’ by the positive effect of the spectacles on your visus. That is, isn’t it possible that you only have upgraded your viewing ability to a normal level, and now you’re led to believe you’re seeing things quite out of the ordinary?

OK, my experiences. Firstly I have to say that my visus is not improved when using my spectacles in the normal way, without binoculars. On the contrary I’d say. While I don’t have a preference for the center of the view, the periphery is worse: the spectacles seem to force my eyes toward the center (I have better, more natural peripheral vision without spectacles).
Yet, when using binoculars with these same spectacles the FoV seems to expand beyond the normal limits. There is less ‘black tube’, only a small black ring between the binoculars viewing circle and a periphery showing itself unmagnified past the binoculars. Of course what I see past the binoculars is only a fraction of the peripheral I see with the unaided eye, but it’s definitely pleasing. There’s more context, a more overall view, with a zoomed-in center part. I’ve always liked the usual binoculars’ view with its cut-out-from-reality-effect (splendid isolation! heightened concentration!) but I have to say that this completely different experience is just as pleasing, maybe even more so.

A few notes:

I think all non-spectacles users can induce the experience by rolling or screwing down the eyecups, find the binoculars’ ideal distance to the eye and compare with the eyecups-up view.

Non-spectacles wearers will experience serious stability problems this way. So in this case the ‘expanded FoV experience’ conflicts with ergonomical issues and - ultimately - resolution.

I found the experience significantly less pronounced with porro binoculars, probably because their width prevents sufficient periphery coming through.

Next to the Swarovski 8x42 SLC HD I tried out several slim-bodied, long eye relief roof binoculars, notably Zeiss 7x42 Classic and Leitz Trinovid 7x35 and 7x42, and found the effect in all of them. My favorite here however was the Trinovid 7x42, notably the one with the least FoV: 8 deg. against 8.6 for the other two. My inference is that a large sweet spot and less pronounced field curvature (blur) is probably more important here than a wide FoV.

No other binocular in my possession was able to give me quite the same experience as the Swarovski 8x42 SLC HD. Its ease of view and field performance (sweet spot, transparency, field curvature) was already excellent but went to yet another level with the eyecups down (and/or spectacles on). A factor significantly contributing to this, I feel, is its freedom in eye placement. More than most other 8x40/2 binoculars the SLC HD has quite some margin in this.

I wonder how critical field curvature could be for inducing the ‘expanded FoV experience’. It’s no surprise I think that the hazy edge in wide angle binoculars like the Trinovid 7x35 and Zeiss 7x42 B/GAT is not favorable, but on the other hand my experience with the 8.5x42 Swarovision tells me that a sharpened-up edge might work against it just as well. So is there an optimum? And why?


Renze

Renze de Vries said:

...Firstly I have to say that my visus is not improved when using my spectacles in the normal way, without binoculars. On the contrary I’d say. While I don’t have a preference for the center of the view, the periphery is worse: the spectacles seem to force my eyes toward the center (I have better, more natural peripheral vision without spectacles)...

Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect specs to expand peripheral vision, but they don't need to detract from it in the way you describe, at least in my experience. My glasses are a modified aviator design with thin metal frame and provide excellent unobstructed and well-corrected peripheral coverage, and they don't interfere with the bit of field outside the area they cover. Specs with small lenses, especially those with thick dark boxy plastic frames, give me claustrophobia. The fact that they've been so popular (at least in the USA for the past 10-20 years) demonstrates to me that most people are not very visually aware, or at least are driven more by fashion concerns than practicality.

--AP

A thought on eyecups. I rarely use bins without glasses, but when I do, I find it most comfortable to twist the eyecups out only partially, and rest the upper edge against the brow above my eyes (in same place that my glasses press into my brow when pushing bins into my glasses/face for stability), leaving the sides and bottom partially open. This technique can't be used with many older bins (or, I suppose, by people without a brow) especially porros of the past, which often had small oculars with small diameter eyecups. Today's mid and full-sized bins generally have very wide diameter eyecups.

On stray/peripheral light. I always wear a wide circular-brimmed hat when using bins with glasses (=99.9% of time I use binoculars) to block bright light from the sides (especially relevant when sun is 90 degrees from viewing direction), otherwise I do not get the bright view through the bins that I seek, but my visual attention is attracted to the brightly side lighting and way it lights up my glasses etc ).

Alexis, I agree 100% with your view of having the larger aviator style glasses. I left my wife pick out my new small trendy glasses and they are just fashion nice and that is all. New prescription on left side. I don't normally use glasses when observing.

ronh said:

Some time back, there was a discussion here of a vague issue that in retrospect bears a resemblance to this. http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=198292 Brock's post #14 was getting close, and I think Looksharpe was also. (My deeply learned #15 is certainly of merit.)
Ron

Click to expand...

Ron,

Thanks for the link, which proves this issue was indeed discussed before. And quite good as well. There's another link in post #5 where looksharp65poses the question quite clearly. Quote: When using glasses, and the eyecups are down, I have a feeling that the AFOV is greater.

With respect to concepts, PFoV (perceived field of view) is suggested to describe the phenomenon in addition to TFoV and AFoV. Also I found FrankD's 'a walk-in view' very enlightening (Frank, I never really understood what you were talking about, but I think I do now).

Renze

brocknroller said:

Ed,

Great graphics......................................................

..........................................................................................

...................................................................................................

I like Kimmo's idea of having semi-transparent eyecups, or even better transition lens type eyecups that darken with the light level. However, I wonder if could get past my knuckles, if I'd be too distracted by what I saw in my peripheral vision to concentrate on looking at my intended targets.

The advantage of "tunnel vision" is that it filters out extraneous information.

Brock

Click to expand...

Agreed!

If only we humans had evolved with semi-transparent third eyelids! :brains:

Bob