-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Where does SLC stand compared to others (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter J899
- Start date
It's just as alpha as a Zeiss HT is:t:
(I had to make a choice between the Zeiss HT and the new SLC, I preferred the SLC but that's very personal. Others might like the HT better |=)|)
Last edited:
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
Welcome to the BF!
I spent a couple of hours outside comparing the HT and SLC in 10x42's. Overall to me, the SLC had the optical edge in color fidelity, resolution and what seemed to be a wider apparent FOV that was very flat field like. I also had a greater sense of 3D depth that more effortlessly portrayed "as if you were there".
In Handling, I also preferred the SLC's armor texture (HT felt rubbery) and more ocular focus placement and balance, a different ergonomics that felt better in my hands. The real stickler for me was the HT's small rubber diopter wheel control. I found it very stiff, feeling like I was going to break it during adjustment...I wasn't impressed. The SLC's diopter is as good as it gets! The focuser on both was very smooth and precise, but the SLC seemed to lock in a razor sharp focus quicker then the HT...maybe just my imagination!?
Now, the Victory HT overall was also a great optical instrument that I'm sure I could enjoy. But for me, the SLC's optical edge, simple ergonomics and lower investment won the day!
Ted
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
SLC's - Alpha YES (IMO)!
CL's vs CHD - Price wise...Yes! Performance wise...not sure, never glassed with the Conquest HD, but have read they Are Good! Hopefully some one with experience on this comparison will give their opinion!
Last edited:
Thanks all for the input. Thus far, I've tried the Swarovski EL, CL, and Zeiss Conquest HD, Victory SF, and Victory HT. I've eliminated the Victory SF and Swaro EL / CL. I preferred the optics of the Victory HT & Conquest HD. My local shop doesn't stock the SLC, so I'm trying to determine how they would perform compared to the Zeiss I've tried.
Thanks
Thanks
Last edited:
My personal impression of the Victory SF and Swarovski EL was that their optics felt more 'synthetic' than the others...perhaps it has to do with field flattening?
The Victory HT / Conquest HD had what I perceived to be a more "natural" view. My thoughts thus far are that, while I definitely prefer the Victory HT over the Conquest HD, they are priced far enough apart and their performance is close enough that I'd consider the Conquest, due to value.
Before I purchase, though, I'd like to seriously consider the Swarovski SLC, but trying them out is not a possibility.
The Victory HT / Conquest HD had what I perceived to be a more "natural" view. My thoughts thus far are that, while I definitely prefer the Victory HT over the Conquest HD, they are priced far enough apart and their performance is close enough that I'd consider the Conquest, due to value.
Before I purchase, though, I'd like to seriously consider the Swarovski SLC, but trying them out is not a possibility.
That's an interesting comment.
Not to be argumentative, but I see the exact opposite in my EL SV 10X42. I am constantly amazed by the fact that the view is exactly as if my eyeballs were moved to 10% of the distance to the object.
I see nothing "synthetic" whatsoever.
jan van daalen
Well-known member
"Slim - Light - Compact".
Ted
Stossfest, leicht und compact (compared with the SL serie).
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
J899,
You live in the US, there are several B&M optics retailers and on-line sales that offer full return satisfaction guarantees that open up possibilities for you to try the SLC's and compare them locally to the CHD and VHT binoculars!
If this is not possible for you, then you'd be happy with the CHD. However, IMHO, the SLC has the "Most Natural View" of any bino I've ever glassed through, including the HT (see post #5 details). It is probably the most underrated Roof Prism Alpha Glass on the market. With their current market selling prices, I don't hesitate one second in recommending the Swaro SLC as the "BEST Purchase Value" in binoculars today!
Hope this helps in your decision,
Ted
Last edited:
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
I find the SLC very similar to my HT, same great sharpness and contrast with a bit bigger sweetspot but a bit more CA and flare / glare.
I much prefer the view through the SLC / HT than the 42 mm SV series, which [to my eyes] seem to lack the punch / vividness / dynamic ''wow'' of the SLC / HT's.
Cue peanut gallery.....
NDhunter
Experienced observer
I find the SLC very similar to my HT, same great sharpness and contrast with a bit bigger sweetspot but a bit more CA and flare / glare.
I much prefer the view through the SLC / HT than the 42 mm SV series, which [to my eyes] seem to lack the punch / vividness / dynamic ''wow'' of the SLC / HT's.
Cue peanut gallery.....
James:
I was going to respond to your post, but I do want to know more
about your "Peanut Gallery" reference.
Definition - Peanut Gallery, " A group of people whose opinions are
considered unimportant".
Does anyone dare respond to your post ?
Jerry
brocknroller
porromaniac
Originally Posted by J899 View Post
My personal impression of the Victory SF and Swarovski EL was that their optics felt more 'synthetic' than the others...perhaps it has to do with field flattening?
The Victory HT / Conquest HD had what I perceived to be a more "natural" view. My thoughts thus far are that, while I definitely prefer the Victory HT over the Conquest HD, they are priced far enough apart and their performance is close enough that I'd consider the Conquest, due to value.
Before I purchase, though, I'd like to seriously consider the Swarovski SLC, but trying them out is not a possibility.
I GOL (gaffawed out loud) when I read this debate over which roofs have a more natural view, because regardless of edge sharpness I find that no roof has as natural a view as a porro. Diminish the 3-D effect and you diminish the naturalness of the view, because humans see in 3-D. If you're going to mimic a cyclops, you might as well use a spotting scope.
The other thing I GOL about was reading how some birders have not only come around to accepting a flat field view in a birding bin but they actually prefer it and think it's more "natural." When I first came on BF back in 1893 ("After the Gold Rush"), I expressed my preference for flat field views, having come to birding after using bins for stargazing (no one is more obsessed with edge sharpness than a binocular wielding amateur astronomer).
At that time, a lot of people thought field flatteners were unnecessary if not downright unnatural. Human eyesight is such that we don't see images sharp to the edge. If you look straight ahead, you will see a "zone of sharpness" (to borrow Stephen Ingraham's term) and an out of focus image in the periphery.
One BF member said something to the effect: You simply center the bird, my dear boy. (an oft quoted if somewhat embellished line)
The field of view of a human eye is 95° away from the nose, 60° toward the nose, 75° downward, and 60° upward, which gives humans an almost 180-degree forward-facing horizontal field of view, but of course, not all of that view in focus.
The FOV of binoculars is a lot less so I want as much of the image in focus as possible. I don't need a view that is totally sharp to the edge, particularly when smooth panning is sacrificed to achieve that, resulting in "rolling ball," an Absam ring and other Weird Science Funhouse Effects, which also happens when designers go to the opposite extreme and put in too much pincushion.
For me, a bin that balances pincushion with AMD and sharp edges with some field curvature (> 70% out) with gradual fall off toward the edges is more natural than one that goes to either extreme.
I found that the Swaro 10x42 SLC-HD to have the best balance of those qualities than any bin I've tried (except, of course, it lacked the more natural 3-D effect of a porro). I don't mean to set the SLC-HD as an absolute standard for everyone, because what's good for the goose may not be good for the gander, but for this "goose," it is the standard. YMMV (and will probably be less than EPA estimates, and way less than Kia's). :smoke:
Brock
My personal impression of the Victory SF and Swarovski EL was that their optics felt more 'synthetic' than the others...perhaps it has to do with field flattening?
The Victory HT / Conquest HD had what I perceived to be a more "natural" view. My thoughts thus far are that, while I definitely prefer the Victory HT over the Conquest HD, they are priced far enough apart and their performance is close enough that I'd consider the Conquest, due to value.
Before I purchase, though, I'd like to seriously consider the Swarovski SLC, but trying them out is not a possibility.
I GOL (gaffawed out loud) when I read this debate over which roofs have a more natural view, because regardless of edge sharpness I find that no roof has as natural a view as a porro. Diminish the 3-D effect and you diminish the naturalness of the view, because humans see in 3-D. If you're going to mimic a cyclops, you might as well use a spotting scope.
The other thing I GOL about was reading how some birders have not only come around to accepting a flat field view in a birding bin but they actually prefer it and think it's more "natural." When I first came on BF back in 1893 ("After the Gold Rush"), I expressed my preference for flat field views, having come to birding after using bins for stargazing (no one is more obsessed with edge sharpness than a binocular wielding amateur astronomer).
At that time, a lot of people thought field flatteners were unnecessary if not downright unnatural. Human eyesight is such that we don't see images sharp to the edge. If you look straight ahead, you will see a "zone of sharpness" (to borrow Stephen Ingraham's term) and an out of focus image in the periphery.
One BF member said something to the effect: You simply center the bird, my dear boy. (an oft quoted if somewhat embellished line)
The field of view of a human eye is 95° away from the nose, 60° toward the nose, 75° downward, and 60° upward, which gives humans an almost 180-degree forward-facing horizontal field of view, but of course, not all of that view in focus.
The FOV of binoculars is a lot less so I want as much of the image in focus as possible. I don't need a view that is totally sharp to the edge, particularly when smooth panning is sacrificed to achieve that, resulting in "rolling ball," an Absam ring and other Weird Science Funhouse Effects, which also happens when designers go to the opposite extreme and put in too much pincushion.
For me, a bin that balances pincushion with AMD and sharp edges with some field curvature (> 70% out) with gradual fall off toward the edges is more natural than one that goes to either extreme.
I found that the Swaro 10x42 SLC-HD to have the best balance of those qualities than any bin I've tried (except, of course, it lacked the more natural 3-D effect of a porro). I don't mean to set the SLC-HD as an absolute standard for everyone, because what's good for the goose may not be good for the gander, but for this "goose," it is the standard. YMMV (and will probably be less than EPA estimates, and way less than Kia's). :smoke:
Brock
Last edited:
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Sorry if that came out as derogatory, it was just a light-hearted jab.....
I find views / opinions here to be basically unbendable, so I rarely comment anymore.
