• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

New Swarovski 15x56 SLC (1 Viewer)

Lee, no - the point is that the by using the longer ABK prisms, the FL's have had to sacrifice some "air" (distance from the objectives to the prisms) to keep the overall length down, and in doing so end up with a "faster" optical design (lower f#) which will introduce more aberrations (Henry reported greater CA in his 8x56 FL over on the HT thread). These "new" ABK SLC's are going to run into the same issues.

The "old" x56 SLC's with S-P prisms were 216mm long (Papa bear)
The Zeiss x56 FL's with ABK prisms are 201mm long (Mama bear)
The "new" x56 SLC's with ABK prisms are 192mm long (Baby bear)

That's why I said it will interesting to see how these new "compact" (with lower f#) SLC's will fare in the CA department ......

The ABK prisms in the x42mm Zeiss's also compromise the f# able to be achieved in a given body length - that's why they optimise the centrefield design, use FL glass to tame the CA, and let the house of astigmatic cards fall where they may around the relatively fuzzier edges. Each design choice brings a new compromise somewhere along the line. That's why each of the manufactures optimise around different optical formulas, giving us several "flavaz" to choose from ..... ain't life grand ?! :cat:

We don't know where the "Goldilocks" point is, since apparently she was last seen converting to Buddhism .....
and off in search of "the middle way" ..... o:) |:d|



Chosun :gh:
 
Chosun Juan said:
Lee, no - the point is that the by using the longer ABK prisms, the FL's have had to sacrifice some "air" (distance from the objectives to the prisms) to keep the overall length down, and in doing so end up with a "faster" optical design (lower f#) which will introduce more aberrations (Henry reported greater CA in his 8x56 FL over on the HT thread). These "new" ABK SLC's are going to run into the same issues.

The "old" x56 SLC's with S-P prisms were 216mm long (Papa bear)
The Zeiss x56 FL's with ABK prisms are 201mm long (Mama bear)
The "new" x56 SLC's with ABK prisms are 192mm long (Baby bear)

That's why I said it will interesting to see how these new "compact" (with lower f#) SLC's will fare in the CA department ......

The ABK prisms in the x42mm Zeiss's also compromise the f# able to be achieved in a given body length - that's why they optimise the centrefield design, use FL glass to tame the CA, and let the house of astigmatic cards fall where they may around the relatively fuzzier edges. Each design choice brings a new compromise somewhere along the line. That's why each of the manufactures optimise around different optical formulas, giving us several "flavaz" to choose from ..... ain't life grand ?! :cat:

We don't know where the "Goldilocks" point is, since apparently she was last seen converting to Buddhism .....
and off in search of "the middle way" ..... o:) |:d|

Chosun :gh:
Click to expand...

Nice summary CJ thanks.

But Abbe Koenigs are definitely AKs not ABKs. Where did ABKs come from?

Your use of 'flavaz' sounds almost Geordie = how folks speak in the North East of England.

Don't tell me you are a local gal after all.

Lee
 
Troubador said:
.... But Abbe Koenigs are definitely AKs not ABKs. Where did ABKs come from? ....
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, but I's abit concerned that if I called them A-K's, and the post count just happened to be #47 ... well, you can guess the rest! |8.|
I just didn't want da NAS (have to be careful to misspell that :scribe: casin' it shows up on some black suits |8)| database |:x| ) gettin' all trigga happy like, an goin' whoop*ss :storm: on poor old BF's personage! :gn:

An besides that bit of public service, I decided I'd start a new trend ..... so ABK it is !! :king: ............... :cat:



Chosun :gh:
 
Last edited:
CJ, on the subject of acronyms, watch that "BF" these days! Pl. specify, BF (public) - i.e. Birdforum, i.e. us - or BF (pvt) (or pte). Don't mean to be snoopy but compared with the SNA I guess this is tolerable.
 
Hi from Italy. A specimen of New Swarovski SLC 15x56 WB has arrived this morning. I've written a small preview on my website, with a gallery. Obviously its are only my "first "impressions,because I am able to observe only for a pair of hours.
You can find the preview here:
http://www.binomania.it/wordpress/?p=4270
Best Regards from Italy
Piergiovanni
 
Thanks for the quick review of one binocular I would love to have , esp. with trying the original. Very nice pictures and the little one, she is very pretty!:t:
 
Last edited:
binomania said:
Hi from Italy. A specimen of New Swarovski SLC 15x56 WB has arrived this morning. I've written a small preview on my website, with a gallery. Obviously its are only my "first "impressions,because I am able to observe only for a pair of hours.
You can find the preview here:
http://www.binomania.it/wordpress/?p=4270
Best Regards from Italy
Piergiovanni
Click to expand...

Pier,

Thanks for posting your first impressions and the photos. It might be a little premature to announce another home run by Swaro before reading your in-depth review, but for sure the hits keep on coming from the Wizards of Absam, and most amazingly, you got a sample with a smooth focuser!

When I read that Swaro had removed 10 parts related to the SLC's focuser, I was hoping that the one-way spring was one of them, but two members who tried the new SLCs at the Bird Fair said they still turned harder in one direction than the other.

I look forward to reading your full review and learning how the new SLC compares to the older version. I also hope you get to review the 8x56 model.

Cheaper and better is a rare but winning combination.

Brock
 
brocknroller said:
Pier,

Thanks for posting your first impressions and the photos. It might be a little premature to announce another home run by Swaro before reading your in-depth review, but for sure the hits keep on coming from the Wizards of Absam, and most amazingly, you got a sample with a smooth focuser!

When I read that Swaro had removed 10 parts related to the SLC's focuser, I was hoping that the one-way spring was one of them, but two members who tried the new SLCs at the Bird Fair said they still turned harder in one direction than the other.

I look forward to reading your full review and learning how the new SLC compares to the older version. I also hope you get to review the 8x56 model.

Cheaper and better is a rare but winning combination.

Brock
Click to expand...

Hello Brock. I had two specimen of the SWAROVISION 8.5x42 and both have gone to Swarovski service to control the focus knob :) Of all the Swarovski tried the one with the best focus was the 8x32. I think that there are some differences from specimen to specimen. This 15x56 has a better focus knob of my 8.5x42 but I can not guarantee that will represent the entire new range SLC. A friend of mine owns a Nikon SE 12x50. We will do an astronomical comparison in September. I ask a friend to bring also the Nobilem 15x60 and the old SLC 15x56.
 
binomania said:
Hi from Italy. A specimen of New Swarovski SLC 15x56 WB has arrived this morning. I've written a small preview on my website, with a gallery. Obviously its are only my "first "impressions,because I am able to observe only for a pair of hours.
You can find the preview here:
http://www.binomania.it/wordpress/?p=4270
Best Regards from Italy
Piergiovanni
Click to expand...

Hi Pier, thanks for your impressions and the photos :t:

1. Eye Relief looks to be maximised by the use of the low profile (1mm projection) eyecups even though the listed ER spec is 'only' 16mm. When your friends with eyeglasses test, could you be sure to pay attention to the 'clearance' between spectacle surface and ocular lens surface, when the eyecups are in the fully down position? - it looks like it will be very close - any danger of contact? - especially for strongly curved spectacle lenses.

2. You seem quite impressed with the sharpness at the edges of the field of view. This 15x has a large 67° AFOV. This would seem extraordinarily remarkable without the use of field flattner elements. Can you confirm whether there are any field flattening elements in the new version SLC? If there is - are they singlet (a'la Nikon EDG), or doublet (a'la Swarovision). Are these field characteristics you described the same on the 8x56, and the 10x56 too?

3. Oh how I wish the 10x also had 67° AFOV !

Thanks,


Chosun :gh:
 
. Astronomers would like 15×56 binoculars especially if they had image stabilisers.

I wish the latest Nikon Monarch 20×56 had a lightweight efficient and perhaps waterproof image stabiliser. Also the 16 x 56.

As it is I use 12×56 non-stabilised and 18×50 stabilised. The latter binocular never fails to amaze me for instance picking out Jupiter's moons just clear of the limb of the planet.

Nothing else handheld comes close.

The fact that you can use a 15×56 binocular on a tripod doesn't appeal to me one bit.
Looking high in the sky you just harm your neck and back.

I wish that Canon made a 22×56 image stabilised binocular with the same weight as the 18×50. That certainly would be a winner for me. if not a 22×50.

What will probably happen is that digital binoculars will take over with image stabilising and also all sorts of gizmos.
However, I do wish that the many makers of high magnification binoculars would introduce long-lasting lightweight image stabilisation.
 
Binastro said:
. Astronomers would like 15×56 binoculars especially if they had image stabilisers.

I wish the latest Nikon Monarch 20×56 had a lightweight efficient and perhaps waterproof image stabiliser. Also the 16 x 56.

As it is I use 12×56 non-stabilised and 18×50 stabilised. The latter binocular never fails to amaze me for instance picking out Jupiter's moons just clear of the limb of the planet.

Nothing else handheld comes close.

The fact that you can use a 15×56 binocular on a tripod doesn't appeal to me one bit.
Looking high in the sky you just harm your neck and back.

I wish that Canon made a 22×56 image stabilised binocular with the same weight as the 18×50. That certainly would be a winner for me. if not a 22×50.

What will probably happen is that digital binoculars will take over with image stabilising and also all sorts of gizmos.
However, I do wish that the many makers of high magnification binoculars would introduce long-lasting lightweight image stabilisation.
Click to expand...


Considering that the Zeiss 20x60 S is now decades old, wouldn't it be nice if Zeiss could incorporate some recent design updates, using new technologies, to give us a much smaller and lighter - all mechanical IS system?

I know I would eat up a 25x60 HT/S, if one existed.
 
binomania said:
Hello Brock. I had two specimen of the SWAROVISION 8.5x42 and both have gone to Swarovski service to control the focus knob :) Of all the Swarovski tried the one with the best focus was the 8x32. I think that there are some differences from specimen to specimen. This 15x56 has a better focus knob of my 8.5x42 but I can not guarantee that will represent the entire new range SLC. A friend of mine owns a Nikon SE 12x50. We will do an astronomical comparison in September. I ask a friend to bring also the Nobilem 15x60 and the old SLC 15x56.
Click to expand...

Pier,

Two members tried some SLC samples at the Bird Fair, and they both reported that the focusers were either "gritty" or turned harder in one direction than the other.

QUOTES:

"The focus had the usual Swaro feel with different tensions forward and back, and a couple had noticable grittiness." (post #2)

"3 out of 5 Swaros I tried had gritty focusing feel, and 2 had a very gritty feel to the eyecups when moved. Not good." (post #4)

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=264377

Whatever 10 components they took out of the SLC-HD's focuser to make the new SLCs, the one-way spring or other culprit for the focuser issues wasn't removed and replaced with something "new and improved". You'd think if they were going to redesign the focuser, why not fix these problems?

The only thing I can think of is that doing so would have forced the company to add cost rather than reduce the cost of the SLCs. Yet, I wonder how many Swaros are returned because of focuser issues and what those focuser repair costs add up to? Over the long run, it might be worth Swarovski absorbing the cost of redesigning the focuser.

I suspect that until enough people migrate to another brand because of the Swaro focuser issues, like one member did when they failed to fix his EL's focuser to his satisfaction and he sold the EL and bought an FL, the focuser issues will remain. Some will turn smoothly, some won't. "You pays your money and you takes your chances"

No use carping about the focuser issues, because Swarovski is obviously not interested. Then again, I might write them and see if they post the reason for these issues to the SLC Website like they replied to Henry's question. I doubt it!

Brock
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

T
First Love Rekindled
Replies
8
Views
872
Tringa45
T
J
Brief comparison between Swarovski AX Visio 10x32 vs EL 10x32 Swarovision
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
tehri
tehri
W
Swarovski twilight glass
Replies
12
Views
3K
dries1
dries1
dorubird
Swarovski Habicht 7x42 dissection
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
13K
William Lewis
W
Richard D
Thoughts on a week with the SLC 15x56s
Replies
12
Views
2K
Richard D
Richard D

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top