That is quite a difference! Thanks for that. What is interesting is that the 56mm just looks like an enlarged 42mm. Exactly the same.
Last edited:
-
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.
Daytime benefit of large objectives? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter tenex
- Start date
"Dennis .... How about posting a picture of your new model CL next to the the 56mm SLC. That would make for a cool visual and Chuck loves those comparison shots!"
OK ,here is my Swaro family. Papa Swaro(SLC 56), Mama Swaro(CL 30), Baby Swaro(CL-P 8x25) and the adopted orphan(Nikon MHG 10x42).( Eye Cups are fully extended on all of them.)
Attachments
Last edited:
Nice pic!
Does Swarovski include a green wheelbarrow or trailer for the 56mm?
It does look pretty big doesn't it?:-O Especially with the eye cups extended.Nice pic!
Does Swarovski include a green wheelbarrow or trailer for the 56mm?
Last edited:
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Thanks for posting the photos. I was thinking Papa Bear, Mamma Bear, Baby Bear and Goldilocks, but I think it would be the SLC 56mm that would break the chair. I like the color of the CL, nice change and nice collection.
The Nikon MHG 10x42 I picked up pretty cheap. I like it but I still think I like 8x better because I can hold it steadier and for the better DOF. I am thinking about trading it for a SLC 8x42. The SLC line seems to be a good value for the money.
If you are a general nature observer and not a bird specialist you might notice that Swaro have ensured that if you want a close focus distance of 4.9ft you have to pay for the EL as the SLC can only manage 10.5ft.
Lee
I don't look at bugs that much and most of my birding is beyond 10 feet so the close focus on the SLC is not a problem. Out here in Colorado it seems most of your birding is in more open areas like lakes and mountain valleys so the birds are usually further away. Even the trees that the birds are in are taller than 10 feet. I actually do a lot of just nature watching also at greater distances. Wolves, Elk, Mountains Sheep, Coyotes, Deer and Bears in the parks.
Attachments
Last edited:
dries1
Member
If I were to look at bugs or things less than 15 feet away, I would get a Pentax 6X21. It seems that this close focus demand has IMO steered the present day bino design. Having a Glass that cannot focus to less than 20 feet is fine for me, I can see it unaided. I mean, I have a 10X glass I like, but I do not need to focus to 6 feet or for that matter 20 feet.
Andy W.
Andy W.
black crow
Well-known member
I kind of agree. Most close focus is kind of difficult with my close focus bins. I greatly prefer the 6.5x21 Papilio as the close ups are perfect and they can be carried on the belt with the main bino on a harness or around the neck.
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
The Papilio 6.5X21...Great Close-Up Optics. Mine focuses to 12"...very interesting views, sometimes Scary! :eek!:
Ted
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
For most of us, we want a do-it-all-in-one-package bin.
The Conquest 8x32 does this for me, I'm sure many other bins can said to do the same. I'm certainly not going to carry two bins in the field in case I need to see close up nor am I going to forgo the ability to do the same.
The Conquest 8x32 does this for me, I'm sure many other bins can said to do the same. I'm certainly not going to carry two bins in the field in case I need to see close up nor am I going to forgo the ability to do the same.
I really don't care to see a centipede at 6.5x. I would feel like I am in a monster movie. They scare me with no binoculars.
Attachments
Last edited:
Kind of hard to follow a fast moving bug though isn't it?
tenex
reality-based
Does Swarovski include a green wheelbarrow or trailer for the 56mm?
No, of course it's not included. The SLC attaches to the accessory wagon's built-in tripod by the center hinge, you just pry off the little hawk cover tab and push it into the slot on the wagon for safekeeping. Neat, but pricey.
Yes, this is not only the reason I don't mind a 10 ft or so close focus, but also why I use the 6 ft on my 32mm fairly seldom (though it's cool when I do), and part of why I prefer 10x to 8. I suppose if I traveled to Costa Rica it might be a different story...
tenex
reality-based
Before this thread loses focus as long ones seem to, I'm going to summarize (again) where it seems to have gone, and why I asked about large objectives in daytime in the first place.
Years ago my father always carried a 7x50 Zeiss around the scenic places of Colorado, Arizona, and Utah. I never understood why: it weighed a ton, its rubber armor seldom saw a drop of rain, it lacked central focusing (we weren't birders, but still)... After many years of carrying a 30-32mm glass myself, now I have a 10x56 SLC that by some karmic principle weighs exactly the same, and am trying to figure out why I like it so much. In daylight, that is; in lower light, the advantage is obvious.
It seems that many people really like something about the view through good large binoculars, sometimes well enough to justify lugging them. Many struggle to describe what it is, nearlly all to explain why. The explanations tend to be borrowed from astronomy, where "aperture rules" both for gathering light and minimizing diffraction -- but the pupil is fully dilated in darkness. What's going on in daylight with a contracted pupil is more complicated.
Comfort of a bigger exit pupil? Definitely. Probably even more important with shaky hands.
Brighter view? It depends; thicker lenses don't help. With mirrorless prisms, maybe. And perhaps more as a peripheral effect than on axis, thanks to the larger EP minimizing vignetting. Then again, there's Nagler's reasoning about the brightest possible image even if your pupil doesn't accommodate all of it... I'm still confused about this. In any case, any difference is nowhere near as obvious as in lower light.
Better view of shadow areas? Maybe, if those areas occupy the whole visible field allowing the pupil to dilate further. In more mixed light, probably not.
Better resolution? Maybe, but not due to diffraction limits (that's your own pupil). More likely because you're stopping down a large objective to its central portion where aberrations are better controlled.
Better color detail? Some claim that this is an even more obvious advantage than greater resolution, but I haven't heard a plausible explanation for it yet given the limit of one's own pupil. (Or does this get back to Nagler's argument?) I'm not sure I've seen it myself.
Is that a good summary so far? This isn't exactly rocket science, so the degree of confusion surprises me.
Years ago my father always carried a 7x50 Zeiss around the scenic places of Colorado, Arizona, and Utah. I never understood why: it weighed a ton, its rubber armor seldom saw a drop of rain, it lacked central focusing (we weren't birders, but still)... After many years of carrying a 30-32mm glass myself, now I have a 10x56 SLC that by some karmic principle weighs exactly the same, and am trying to figure out why I like it so much. In daylight, that is; in lower light, the advantage is obvious.
It seems that many people really like something about the view through good large binoculars, sometimes well enough to justify lugging them. Many struggle to describe what it is, nearlly all to explain why. The explanations tend to be borrowed from astronomy, where "aperture rules" both for gathering light and minimizing diffraction -- but the pupil is fully dilated in darkness. What's going on in daylight with a contracted pupil is more complicated.
Comfort of a bigger exit pupil? Definitely. Probably even more important with shaky hands.
Brighter view? It depends; thicker lenses don't help. With mirrorless prisms, maybe. And perhaps more as a peripheral effect than on axis, thanks to the larger EP minimizing vignetting. Then again, there's Nagler's reasoning about the brightest possible image even if your pupil doesn't accommodate all of it... I'm still confused about this. In any case, any difference is nowhere near as obvious as in lower light.
Better view of shadow areas? Maybe, if those areas occupy the whole visible field allowing the pupil to dilate further. In more mixed light, probably not.
Better resolution? Maybe, but not due to diffraction limits (that's your own pupil). More likely because you're stopping down a large objective to its central portion where aberrations are better controlled.
Better color detail? Some claim that this is an even more obvious advantage than greater resolution, but I haven't heard a plausible explanation for it yet given the limit of one's own pupil. (Or does this get back to Nagler's argument?) I'm not sure I've seen it myself.
Is that a good summary so far? This isn't exactly rocket science, so the degree of confusion surprises me.
Last edited:
Similar threads
