Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

SLC vs EL?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Thursday 22nd August 2013, 20:32   #1
edwincjones
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 1,187
SLC vs EL?

what is the difference between the two lines?

price does not seem that much-why would I get one vs the other?


edj
edwincjones is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 22nd August 2013, 21:57   #2
brocknroller
Registered User
 
brocknroller's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central PA
Posts: 5,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwincjones View Post
what is the difference between the two lines?

price does not seem that much-why would I get one vs the other?


edj
edj,

The Top 10 Reasons to Buy an SLC rather than EL

1. Price. I read that new SLC 42mm Swaros are going to be selling at lower price than the original SLC-HDs ($1800-$1900 vs. the EL's $2400). If that's reliable info and not just a dirty rumor, there's one reason. Perhaps your question is the reason they did this. Maybe the HDs weren't selling because they were almost the same price as the EL when traditionally, SLC's had been priced below the ELs and aimed at hunters, who already have a lot of money invested in their hunting paraphernalia.

2. EDGE. If you're the kind of birder who centers the bird automatically and doesn't care about perfectly sharp edges, you don't need an SV EL. In fact, you might find the sharp edges a bit distracting.

3. AMD. If you are sensitive to "rolling ball," and you're a panner and not a static birder, you will want to go with the SLC.

4. ERGOs. I'm a fan of the open bridge style (which, if Swaro sues anybody else, may become the exclusive domain of the EL), but not everybody likes the EL's open bridge design, which is long and narrow. If you prefer more traditional styling and grip in a roof, you will want the SLC's high-bar "H" style body.

5. LOW LIGHT HUNTER. If you hunt, you might prefer the large aperture 8x56 and 10x56 configurations, which are not available in the EL series.

6. TRADITION. The new SLCs are being marketed based on them being the traditional choice for hunters. The ELs are too "Fancy Schmancy" with their open bridge and field flatteners and too many namby pamby birders use them.

7. LONG RANGE VIEWING? Do you need to pump up the magnification to view at a long distance? If so, the 15x56 SLC is for you. The highest magnification in the EL series is 12x50 (which is new, they never had a 12x until recently), and it's a 50mm. If you can't hold 12x steady and have to mount the bin, you might as well max out the power at 15x.

8. BRIGHTER IS BETTER. If you're the kind of birder or hunter who likes to eek out those last few photons of brightness, the SLC is slightly higher in light transmission than the EL. You might not be able to see the difference, but you earn the bragging rights.

9. YOUNG EYES. "Soft edges are distracting, especially to older eyes." -- Pileatus If your focus accommodation is still good, you won't notice fuzzy edges on the SLC because you'll be able to focus the field curvature.

AND 10th REASON TO BUY AN SLC.... (a drum roll please)...

10. Dennis prefers the SV EL so you will never have to read thread after thread about why the SLC-HD is the greatest bin in the world.

<B>

P.S. Here's a BF thread on the SV EL vs. the SLC for further reading:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=182605
brocknroller is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 22nd August 2013, 23:50   #3
jgraider
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Texas
Posts: 1,325
[quote=brocknroller;2806120]edj,


AND 10th REASON TO BUY AN SLC.... (a drum roll please)...

10. Dennis prefers the SV EL so you will never have to read thread after thread about why the SLC-HD is the greatest bin in the world.

<B>

Laffin' my arse off........|
jgraider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd August 2013, 02:20   #4
edwincjones
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 1,187
so back to the question

If I ignore Brock's post
and
not concerned re Dennis's posts

???????

if we all went to the bino shop and decided for ourselves
and spend our time using the optics instead of reading about them
who would be left to post ?

edj

Last edited by edwincjones : Friday 23rd August 2013 at 02:26.
edwincjones is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd August 2013, 03:44   #5
cycleguy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: mile high, colorado
Posts: 928
Ha... nice work Brock.

I'll go with #6.... and believe sales would be noticeably better if they were called the SLC turbo, magnum, or sport.

When will swaro get it right?

CG
cycleguy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd August 2013, 05:05   #6
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: ky
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by brocknroller View Post
edj,


10. Dennis prefers the SV EL so you will never have to read thread after thread about why the SLC-HD is the greatest bin in the world.

<B>

P.S. Here's a BF thread on the SV EL vs. the SLC for further reading:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=182605

Not for sure if number 10 is valid considering the brevity of Dennis's typical optical relationship. Several times in the past Dennis's then current favorite would coincide with a model I had but these awkward situations never lasted long due to the never ending quest for his next "best".

Steve
steve@37n84w is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd August 2013, 05:31   #7
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 6,346
Thumbs up

Edwin, the SLC and ELSV are just different optical formulas at the same high level (with all the same SWARO-coatings, "bright", etc, etc), in different ergonomic packages, but now at vastly different pricing* (one more sensible - one still ridiculous) .....

Because the SLC doesn't contain the field flattner elements of the ELSV, it has slightly higher light transmission, and though the clarity doesn't extend right to the edge of the FOV like in ELSV, it still has a large 'sweet spot', and less astigmatism and distortion in the periphery than Zeiss FL's.

(I don't think there's been too much detail on the logical comparison: SLC vs HT, but then again this is BF, and logic has little truck here!)

There are minor differences around magnification (8 v's 8.5x) and attendant small FOV and EP differences, and of course the ER is listed as greater in the ELSV (20mm), although at least in the 8x, I've never heard of a complaint that the 18.5mm ER of the SLC is not enough. As usual with ER figures, the whole story is not in the numbers, but in the viewing by the individual, due to different ocular lens recession constructions, differences in individual's physical facial characteristics, eyeglass prescription, etc, etc, etc.

As with all of these things though, the final arbiter is your eyes, and the fit, and handling for YOU. Try them both under some varied and testing lighting conditions (I don't think a quick squizz in a shop will cut it - they're so close that it would need to be in pretty low light to show the brightness differences between the 8x SLC's 91% tr, 5.25mm EP, 136m FOV, and the 8.5x ELSV's 90%tr, 4.94mm EP, 133m FOV)

Your eyes and wallet may just thank you!

* the pricing of the "new" SLC: which in x42 is really just a reskinned SLC HD neu, but curiously will be called neither "new", "neu", or "HD", but just plain ol' "SLC", yet will both be "new" and contain the same "HD" glass! ..... Importantly though it will be priced cheaper than the "old" "SLC HD neu" !!



Chosun

Last edited by Chosun Juan : Friday 23rd August 2013 at 05:33.
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 23rd August 2013, 05:35   #8
angelo225544
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 239
It is interesting and a bit puzzling how Swarovski has positioned the El and SLC. In a sense, they are co-alpha binoculars with different design philosophies. The EL was developed with field flatness a primary consideration, while the SLC produces a less flat FOV in what Swarovski hints may be a slightly more durable design. I can't imagine buying either without first experiencing both first hand. And while you're at it, check out Zeiss' newest offerings, it seems they may have a strong challenger with the new Victory HT.
angelo225544 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd August 2013, 06:08   #9
Torview
Registered User
 
Torview's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Dartmoor.
Posts: 2,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwincjones View Post
what is the difference between the two lines?

price does not seem that much-why would I get one vs the other?


edj
SV owners look down their noses at SLC users ?
Torview is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd August 2013, 08:35   #10
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwincjones View Post
what is the difference between the two lines?

price does not seem that much-why would I get one vs the other?


edj
Simply personal preference. If you prefer flat fields and sharp and can ignore the consequential magnification distortion it's the ELSV. Alternatively you feel pincushion and slight field curvature offers a more natural viewing experience then it's the SLC. Size, weight and ergonomics there is virtually nothing to choose between them.

I think I slight preferred the one finger focus, one on the bridge and two round the barrel hold of the SLC to the one and four of the ELSV but really nothing in it.

As I mentioned in the Birdfair thread, I found the 8x42 SLC slightly sharper than the 8.5x42 ELSV but the 8x32 ELSV beat both of them. Surely nothing more than sample variation. Colour etc. appeared identical.

Price difference? Producing and mounting an extra lens in the ELSV must cost something. We'll see when the dust settles, but I would expect a close price match for the SLC against the Zeiss HT. Not spent enough time with either to decide that particular shoot-out.

David

P.S. Forgot to mention there is a difference in the armour. The SLC has a smoother finish.

Last edited by typo : Friday 23rd August 2013 at 09:57.
typo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd August 2013, 09:05   #11
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 9,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
Simply personal preference. If you prefer flat fields and sharp and can ignore the consequential magnification distortion it's the ELSV. Alternatively you feel pincushion and slight field curvature offers a more natural viewing experience then it's the SLC. Size, weight and ergonomics there is virtually nothing to choose between them.

I think I slight preferred the one finger focus, one on the bridge and two round the barrel hold of the SLC to the one and four of the ELSV but really nothing in it.

As I mentioned in the Birdfair thread, I found the 8x42 SLC slightly sharper than the 8.5x42 ELSV but the 8x32 ELSV beat both of them. Surely nothing more than sample variation. Colour etc. appeared identical.

Price difference? Producing and mounting an extra lens in the ELSV must cost something. We'll see when the dust settles, but I would expect a close price match for the SLC against the Zeiss HT. Not spent enough time with either to decide that particular shoot-out.

David
According to a European dealer, the only difference between EL SV and SLC is literally just the field flattener. So choosing between the two comes down to the elements succinctly summarised by Typo.

Congratulations to Swaro for giving us the choice although commercially one does wonder about the wisdom of having two bins so closely related that they cannibalise sales off each other. However it clearly works for Swaro and gives us all something to ponder over.

One thing is for certain, you need to handle them both to find out which one speaks to you.

Like Typo I preferred SLC to EL SV in 42s but would take the SV 8x32 in preference to either.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd August 2013, 09:16   #12
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 6,346
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
According to a European dealer, the only difference between EL SV and SLC is literally just the field flattener.....
Also, there is this new fangdangled focusing concept ? ...... which means wot exactly ??
"The new SLC 42 has a modified focusing concept that has been developed for the new SLC 56 and is now integrated in the SLC 42 as well."

See here in response to Calvin: http://www.swarovskioptik.com/nature..._Family_nature



Chosun
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 23rd August 2013, 10:38   #13
Pileatus
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwincjones View Post
what is the difference between the two lines?

price does not seem that much-why would I get one vs the other?


edj
Actually, there is a significant price difference.
$1729 ... 8X42 SLC HD (new version)
$2459 ... 8.5X42 Swarovision (42% more)

I surrender. I deleted the remainder of this post to avoid any further nonsensical replies.

Last edited by Pileatus : Friday 23rd August 2013 at 11:07.
Pileatus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd August 2013, 10:57   #14
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 9,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pileatus View Post


Some of the commentary on this forum concerning flat field optics is completely off base. Suggesting that flat field optics are unnecessary because we should all confine ourselves to the centerfield is simplistic at best.
Pilly Old Pal

I don't think I have ever seen anyone post that everyone should confine themselves to the centrefield, meaning that if you don't you are somehow wrong.

I have only said that I centre the subject in the FOV and this is all I have seen others post. I haven't told anybody that this is what they should do and I haven't seen anyone else say this either.

I have tried EL SVs and they are undoubtedly fine bins but I wasn't captivated by the edges. I am not saying they put me off in some way and am not trying to damn sharp edges with faint praise, they just didn't bring any additional magic to my own personal party.

Enjoy your flat fields and sharp edges and long may you continue to do so.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd August 2013, 14:26   #15
Kammerdiner
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 1,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
...

I have only said that I centre the subject in the FOV and this is all I have seen others post. I haven't told anybody that this is what they should do and I haven't seen anyone else say this either.
...
Lee
Of course. But the counterintuitive part about the SV is that you don't have to center stuff. It really wasn't till this summer when I spent a lot of time on the coast that I realized how nice it is, for example, to just peruse a flock of Common Terns looking for the Roseates, or wander across a bunch of Black Skimmers dozing on the beach without moving the binoculars so much. It's a very natural, relaxed kind of viewing.

Think of it this way, when you read a book do you move your head or do you move your eyes? You move your eyes of course. That's what feels natural.

(Unless of course, like me, you're cursed with these stupid progressive eyeglass lenses that have a close-up reading portion about the size of a pea, in which case you stand in front of a class of 45 students trying to read a stupid quote and the best you can do is just try not to look like a five year old with your head moving from side to side, word to word. Could one of our optometrically inclined forum members please explain to me why progressive lenses stink so bad?!?)

Ahem. Way off topic. Sorry 'bout that. But the analogy is apt, I think, because some binoculars feel a bit like reading with progressive lenses and you just have to keep aiming them at the stuff you want to see.

This is not a do-or-die phenomenon of course, but if you're in the market for a top-notch bino you might as well give the SV a chance. See what you think. It's not just a flat field, it's a usable flat field.

Mark

Last edited by Kammerdiner : Friday 23rd August 2013 at 14:40. Reason: typos.
Kammerdiner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd August 2013, 15:33   #16
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 9,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kammerdiner View Post
Of course. But the counterintuitive part about the SV is that you don't have to center stuff. It really wasn't till this summer when I spent a lot of time on the coast that I realized how nice it is, for example, to just peruse a flock of Common Terns looking for the Roseates, or wander across a bunch of Black Skimmers dozing on the beach without moving the binoculars so much. It's a very natural, relaxed kind of viewing.

Think of it this way, when you read a book do you move your head or do you move your eyes? You move your eyes of course. That's what feels natural.

(Unless of course, like me, you're cursed with these stupid progressive eyeglass lenses that have a close-up reading portion about the size of a pea, in which case you stand in front of a class of 45 students trying to read a stupid quote and the best you can do is just try not to look like a five year old with your head moving from side to side, word to word. Could one of our optometrically inclined forum members please explain to me why progressive lenses stink so bad?!?)

Ahem. Way off topic. Sorry 'bout that. But the analogy is apt, I think, because some binoculars feel a bit like reading with progressive lenses and you just have to keep aiming them at the stuff you want to see.

This is not a do-or-die phenomenon of course, but if you're in the market for a top-notch bino you might as well give the SV a chance. See what you think. It's not just a flat field, it's a usable flat field.

Mark
M

Then the conditions at the Bird Fair probably didn't favour edge gazing, as there were no flocks of anything or wide open spaces with stuff dotted about. I will keep an open mind about this and have another go.

So your reading portal in your progressives is as big as a pea? I sometimes think mine is about the size of a lentil, a small lentil

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd August 2013, 15:47   #17
Kammerdiner
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 1,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
M

Then the conditions at the Bird Fair probably didn't favour edge gazing, as there were no flocks of anything or wide open spaces with stuff dotted about. I will keep an open mind about this and have another go.

So your reading portal in your progressives is as big as a pea? I sometimes think mine is about the size of a lentil, a small lentil

Lee
Reading "portal." So that's what they call it. Well, at least they don't exaggerate.

Mark
Kammerdiner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd August 2013, 20:05   #18
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 6,346
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kammerdiner View Post
Of course. But the counterintuitive part about the SV is that you don't have to center stuff. It really wasn't till this summer when I spent a lot of time on the coast that I realized how nice it is, for example, to just peruse a flock of Common Terns looking for the Roseates, or wander across a bunch of Black Skimmers dozing on the beach without moving the binoculars so much. It's a very natural, relaxed kind of viewing.

Think of it this way, when you read a book do you move your head or do you move your eyes? You move your eyes of course. That's what feels natural.

(Unless of course, like me, you're cursed with these stupid progressive eyeglass lenses that have a close-up reading portion about the size of a pea, in which case you stand in front of a class of 45 students trying to read a stupid quote and the best you can do is just try not to look like a five year old with your head moving from side to side, word to word. Could one of our optometrically inclined forum members please explain to me why progressive lenses stink so bad?!?)

Ahem. Way off topic. Sorry 'bout that. But the analogy is apt, I think, because some binoculars feel a bit like reading with progressive lenses and you just have to keep aiming them at the stuff you want to see.

This is not a do-or-die phenomenon of course, but if you're in the market for a top-notch bino you might as well give the SV a chance. See what you think. It's not just a flat field, it's a usable flat field.

Mark
Mark, that certainly does seem to make natural sense. One thing I have noticed as an eyeglass wearer is the need to keep my eyes centered within the glasses frame to reduce CA, and no doubt other aberrations as well.

Flat-field edge clarity, or Centre-view killer transmission - I think it's great that we've got these different bin options open to us. The next glasses prescription I get, I'll pay a little more attention (and no doubt $) to the optics of my eyeglasses ...... I reckon I'd like to have a little each way bet !! ........



Chosun
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 6th November 2019, 11:32   #19
Swedpat
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Boden, Sweden
Posts: 645
Time to wake up an old thread. I have read about different opinions. The discussion may be a bit changed now because of updated versions.
Regarding eye relief the new EL usually is meant to be better than SLC. I don't think that is correct in practice because the high edge of the eyecup of EL makes more of the ER wasted compared to SLC which lets your eyeglasses come closer to the eyepiece lens.
I found that the 8x32 and 8x42 of SV EL worked good with eyeglasses but it would be even better with slightly thinner eyecups. SV 12x50 EL didn't work good at all despite stated 19mm ER, could not see the entire FOV.

In the video below SLC WB is placed in "upper middle class" while EL is placed in "premium class".
I am interested to know your opinion: do you agree with that SLC does not belong to premium class?

https://youtu.be/t0GTeZ9cCAQ
__________________
2,3x40 Constellation, Zeiss 5x10 Miniquick, Vixen HR 6x21 ED monocular, Visionking 5x25, Leupold Katmai 6x32, Vortex Viper HD 6x32
Nikon Sporter 8x36, Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42, Bresser "Lidl bargain" 10x50, Garrett Optical 11x56, Oberwerk 11x70, Pentax PF-65ED AII, Skywatcher Equinox-80 PRO OTA
Swedpat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th November 2019, 15:00   #20
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,201
I have had both the SLC's and EL's in different formats. The EL is Swarovski's best binocular and the SLC is 2nd. I would agree that the EL is Swarovski's premium binocular and the SLC is upper middle class. The SLC is a very good upper tier binocular but IMO it is not an alpha like the EL. The EL is better in many ways than the SLC. In Allbino's ranking of 10x42's the EL is 2nd and the SLC is 5th. You can compare the two and see specifically where the EL is superior. The EL is superior in distortion, coma, edge sharpness, FOV and close focus which is 1.35m versus 3.3m for the SLC. The SLC does handle glare a little better than the EL but when I have compared the two I have always been WOWED more by the EL's. The smaller 32mm EL's can show quite a bit of glare but the 42mm and 50mm EL's are pretty good.

https://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ra...ing-10x42.html
https://www.allbinos.com/223-binocul...arovision.html
https://www.allbinos.com/122-binocul..._10x42_WB.html

Last edited by [email protected] : Wednesday 6th November 2019 at 15:14.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th November 2019, 17:14   #21
RobMorane
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Alps
Posts: 120
Depends of the format.

Regarding the 42mm, some people find the SLC optically identical to the EL (so Alpha to them) , most find the EL above the SLC.

The SLC 56 are Alpha for sure, but can't really be compared to EL (it's like comparing orange and apples)
But on paper, AK Prisms and better light transmission for the SLC's
RobMorane is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th November 2019, 21:39   #22
RobMorane
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Alps
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
"Regarding the 42mm, some people find the SLC optically identical to the EL (so Alpha to them)"

Really! I find that hard to believe. They are both excellent binoculars but there is big differences between them IMO. They must not look at the edges.
It has been said on this very forum Dennis, and comming from people more experienced than you. And honestly, I don't find that hard to believe at all.
RobMorane is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 7th November 2019, 07:11   #23
Swedpat
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Boden, Sweden
Posts: 645
Thanks for your replies. I think this can be a matter of personal opinion. And what was premium binoculars a few years ago maybe isn't considered to be that today. For example I think there is no discussion that Swarovski SLC new 7X42 B(which I earlier owned but replaced with Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42) at least was a premium glass at the time of its introduction. It's not as sharp as the new SLC but I think it had the best edge sharpness of Swarovskis(and better than rivalling 7x42 models) until Swarovision was released.
Apart from that I think it's important to state that neither FOV, ER or close focus are characteristics of quality but performance, and I am doubtful if these things should be included in the valuation of whether the glass belongs to premium class or not. That may also be a matter of opinion of course...
__________________
2,3x40 Constellation, Zeiss 5x10 Miniquick, Vixen HR 6x21 ED monocular, Visionking 5x25, Leupold Katmai 6x32, Vortex Viper HD 6x32
Nikon Sporter 8x36, Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42, Bresser "Lidl bargain" 10x50, Garrett Optical 11x56, Oberwerk 11x70, Pentax PF-65ED AII, Skywatcher Equinox-80 PRO OTA

Last edited by Swedpat : Thursday 7th November 2019 at 13:28.
Swedpat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 8th November 2019, 07:35   #24
thanks4thefish42
B-b-b-bird, b-birdd's a word

 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 9
Speaking for Western US hunters they are even more obsessed with Optics and Swar EL is the most lusted after model for literally hours of scanning using a tripod.
thanks4thefish42 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.24429011 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:48.