• 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.

10x42 SLC wb (1 Viewer)

arran

Well-known member
Hi all ,

Is there any reason way someone would buy a SLC 10X42 above the SV version if price and short focus is not an issue?

Thanks
 
If one likes flat field & edge sharpness more, EL SV would be better I think. That said, I have the same question too i.e., if price, short focus & flat field isn't an issue.
 
I feel the SV is better for me because I like the flat field and edge sharpness more than the SLC. The SV is Swarovski's best binocular. I have had quite a few SLC's and SV's and one thing I have experienced in the SLC's I have had is that a large percentage of them had sticky focusers, whereas, the SV's for some reason seemed to more free of that problem. For that reason I would prefer an SV and If you do decide on an SLC check the focuser for smoothness and and any stickiness issues or have the seller check it. There have been threads on Bird Forum about Swarovski SLC focuser issues. Also, keep in mind the close focus on the SLC is 3.3 meters ,whereas, the close focus on the SV is 1.3 meters. Could be important is you watch bugs.
 
Last edited:
Really, there is no reason to NOT buy a new SLC. Same glass and coatings as the EL SV. It's not any less of an optical instrument than the EL, just different. If you can live without a flat field(I can) the SLC allows with consumer to purchase a made in Austria Swarovski binocular without the EL price. I have a few...
 

Attachments

  • E896C70A-319F-4874-AD03-6EF6483911C1.jpeg
    E896C70A-319F-4874-AD03-6EF6483911C1.jpeg
    124.4 KB · Views: 192
Just getting back from a small optics event. The focus wheels on the SLCs need some real work. The rest was as expected above. If one wants to go with the SLC, they must make sure the focus wheel works out for them. It absolutely did not, for me.
 
Last edited:
Note that you can use the SLC’s with a inexpensive, simple tripod mount. I had both the SV and SLC’s. Sold the SLC’s to a friend because he was not wanting to spend the extra for the SV’s. I do miss the ability to use a tripod adapter. They are also not much larger physically than the 8x32 SV.
 
Last edited:
Just getting back from a small optics event. The focus wheels on the SLCs need some real work. The rest was as expected above. If one wants to go with the SLC, they must make sure the focus wheel works out for them. It absolutely did not, for me.

The two newer 42mm SLCs I have for sure aren't as smooth as the SV 8.5X42s that I have. There is certainly no "slack" in either but agree there is something that makes the SLC focus not quite as good. For some reason it seems to not bother me or I overlook it after using for a while. For me it's certainly not a deal breaker as everything else is about as good as it gets.

SLCs have slightly better light transmission. SLC 10x42- 91%, EL 10x42- 90%.

That's true and has been verified via transmission test.

You've probably handled more of the 42mm SLCs than any of us. Any comments on the focus adjustment?

Note that you can use the SLC’s with a inexpensive, simple tripod mount. I had both the SV and SLC’s. Sold the SLC’s to a friend because he was not wanting to spend the extra for the SV’s. I do miss the ability to use a tripod adapter. They are also not much larger physically than the 8x32 SV.

That's true! It's compact size is certainly one of it's attributes.

42mm SLC, 42mm UVHD+, and 32mm SV L to R in pic below.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0670.jpg
    IMG_0670.jpg
    63.3 KB · Views: 201
Last edited:
I don't want to sound like Swarovski can do no wrong, but I've never really had any issues or complaints about the focus wheels. None from customers and I own the 8x56 (way up there on my favorites list) and the 15x56 and have been very happy with them all around.
Have I just had an incredible luck of the draw or are my hot dog fingers just lacking enough sensitivity to notice?
The only SLC complaint I've had was from a customer who felt his 10x56 just wouldn't focus as sharply as he thought it should. Swarovski agreed and sent him a new replacement.
 
Last edited:
Just getting back from a small optics event. The focus wheels on the SLCs need some real work. The rest was as expected above. If one wants to go with the SLC, they must make sure the focus wheel works out for them. It absolutely did not, for me.

I am surprised to read your problems with a current SLC. I remember several years ago, I handled a brand new SLC in a retail location, and out of the box, it was surprisingly coarse and hard to start focus. I told this to the salesperson, I said I would recommend sending this one back. This issue was posted a few years
ago, and if you want to look back, it is on there.

I suppose Swarovski has cut some corners on the SLC, and this may be one of them. They have never been known for smooth focusers. I have experience. The older SLC models and the CL are good. I currently have a 8x32 EL SV, that has a focuser that bugs me, and I am thinking of sending it in.
Jerry
 
The focus on the large aperture 10X56 and 15X56 are perfect, I can't say anything about the 8X42 or the 10X42 SLC models.

Andy W.
 
The 10x42 SLC HD, if that is the same model but just before the FP version i.e. only difference is caps 'n straps, gets a very impressive write-up from Roger Vine in Scope Views: in particular for its compact size, sharp optics, and light weight (magnesium not aluminium - only 765g or 27oz), and therefore as a handy travel companion for astronomy, birding, and general tourist duties.

The focusing is described as similar to the EL apart from being slower turning. In summary a premium glass at a lower price and weight than the EL SV.

Here is the review - and another point occurs in favour of these binos: Roger Vine is generally much more flat field-inclined as an astronomer rather than a birder or naturalist. But despite this he likes the optical characteristics of this SLC which aren't flat field. http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/Swaro10x42SLCHD.htm

Hope this helps.

Tom
 
Last edited:
The 10x42 SLC HD, if that is the same model but just before the FP version i.e. only difference is caps 'n straps, gets a very impressive write-up from Roger Vine...
The focusing is described as similar to the EL apart from being slower turning.
That matches my own experience comparing 56mm SLCs with 50mm ELs. (By the way, there is no FP SLC.)
The focus on the large aperture 10X56 and 15X56 are perfect, I can't say anything about the 8X42 or the 10X42 SLC models.
I have the same two and can confirm that. It's hard to imagine why the focus on 42mm SLCs would be more problematic than the 56s...?
 
Some observations on the SLC HD focusers . . .

Same Mechanism on all SLC HD’s?
I’d be surprised if the same parts are used for the mechanisms of both the x42 and x56 models
If nothing else there seems to be at least one mechanical consideration - the x56 mechanism is moving a larger part from a greater distance
To get some idea of the relative sizes, see the image that was previously on the Norwegian site: https://www.kikkertspesialisten.no
Consequently, the 2 may have different haptics


Chronology
The original x42 HD was introduced in 2010 and had a minimum focus distance of 1.9 m

The modified/ current version of the x42 HD was introduced in 2013 (the one with with the all over RA coating - compare the 2 in Chuck’s photo in post #4)
The minimum focus distance was increased to 3.2 m (along with the focuser travel - see below). Swarovski indicated this allowed them the use a simplified focusing mechanism

The x56 HD was introduced in 2013, and has a minimum focus distance of 3.9 m (the previous SLC neu x56 was made until then, and was a wholly different design)
Interestingly, the focuser travel seems to very depending on the particular model and it’s perceived likely use (see below)


Amount of Travel - Infinity to Minimum Focus
A) x42 models:
- Original x42 HD: 1 1/2 turns (to 1.9 m) - per Swarovski’s 2011 catalogue
- Current 10x42 HD: just over 2 turns (to 3.2 m) - per Roger Vine (see the list of his reviews at: http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/BinoReviews.htm )

B) x56 Models:
- 10x56 HD: 1 turn - per Roger Vine
- 15x56 HD: almost 2 turns - per Roger Vine
( 15x56 neu: just over 1 turn, to 8 m - per Roger Vine)

It would be interesting to know if the above corresponds to the experience of others (and I would not be surprised if there are minor variations)


John
 

Attachments

  • x42 vs x56.jpg
    x42 vs x56.jpg
    185.2 KB · Views: 100
Last edited:
I realize SLCs are well respected in the community. I love everything about them too except for the focus. And hence the frustration I guess that I am venting out. I am just unable to see why such an expensive product like that has such a cheap focuser. With no disrespect to John’s and others’ involved study of the optic, this is not about the turns required for infinity focus. I am sorry but a <$700 optic like the Toric/Conquest/old ViperHd/MeoproHD/M7/Vanguard/BDXD can do this well. So if cost cutting and “simplified focus” is the reason, then I am only pushed to wonder about the quality of the design of the focus mechanism itself.
 
I have two recent 8X42 SLC:

2011 8X42 HD- exactly two turns lock to lock
2017 8X42(current)- About 2.25 turns lock to lock
2017 10X56- 1.4 turns lock to lock.

I'd have to say the older 8X42 models focus is slightly smoother. ZERO slack in either. I'd say both are "good." Wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me with either. Neither as smooth as the current SV 8.5X42 FP. 10X56 SLC focus is equal to the SV.
 
That matches my own experience comparing 56mm SLCs with 50mm ELs. (By the way, there is no FP SLC.)

I have the same two and can confirm that. It's hard to imagine why the focus on 42mm SLCs would be more problematic than the 56s...?

I passed by (as it just so happened!!) a Swarovski stockist yesterday and tried out the 10x42 SLC HD. The focus action was no different to my mind from an EL and the compact form of the binoculars was very handy. I liked the image and it just felt possibly slightly more rounded than from an EL, as you would expect. There was no suggestion that it was of lesser manufacturing quality by the way. There was also an 8x56 SLC which the assistant was keen to show me; very nice but I didn't want to buy either right now!

Tom
 
Really, there is no reason to NOT buy a new SLC. Same glass and coatings as the EL SV. It's not any less of an optical instrument than the EL, just different. If you can live without a flat field(I can) the SLC allows with consumer to purchase a made in Austria Swarovski binocular without the EL price. I have a few...

Some month ago I tried the new SLC 8x42. And I tried SV 8x42 earlier.
Both are so excellent binoculars. I think the edge sharpness of SV is mostly a noticeable advantage with the binocular mounted and especially at the starry sky, because in normal use a slight blurring at the edges is not noticeable.
And I like the eye cups of SLC better because they makes it possible to make use of more of the eye relief. Even if I have not compared them side-by-side my clear impression is that I would be fully satisfied with SLC.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top