-
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.
Swarovski SLC 10x56? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Conndomat
- Start date
dries1
Member
Andreas I have the SLC 10X56 and the FL 10X56, the SLC is a bit more pleasurable for the night sky because of less distortion near the field stop, however the FL to me performs better with glare as does the UV HD+. The SLC has great ergonomics, and as you are familiar with the 8X56 SLC you are used to the weight. Both the FL and SLC are on the heavy side for many. I much prefer the FL and the UV HD+ for daytime viewing. The UV HD+ has that wide FOV like the SV 10X50 at ~6.7 degrees. The SLC is a top glass in the 10X50/56 glass format
Andy W.
Andy W.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Hello Andy,
why do you prefer the FL during the day, only because of the better suppression of stray light?
In this regard, the 8x56 is completely uncritical, almost as good as a 7x42 EDG.
How does the SLC behave in terms of center sharpness, do you see any differences to the FL here and
do you see differences in contrast?
The FL might also be an option, but I would also like to use the 10x56 to watch stars,that Leica is unfortunately not an option for me because the eye relief should be too short (eyeglasses)!
Thank you,
Andreas
why do you prefer the FL during the day, only because of the better suppression of stray light?
In this regard, the 8x56 is completely uncritical, almost as good as a 7x42 EDG.
How does the SLC behave in terms of center sharpness, do you see any differences to the FL here and
do you see differences in contrast?
The FL might also be an option, but I would also like to use the 10x56 to watch stars,that Leica is unfortunately not an option for me because the eye relief should be too short (eyeglasses)!
Thank you,
Andreas
dries1
Member
The FL to me has better center sharpness and slightly better contrast and the view appears to be around you. The SLC is a current production and better on the night sky (however I notice any lights outside of the FOV at night to cause some veiling glare, but the view is with less astigmatism at the outer field) the FL is the king for fighting glare, however distorted stars at the outer periphery of the field of view. The SLC is much better from an ergonomic perspective, and better eye relief. Getting a FL in mint shape is tough to find, but likely lower in price. If I were you I would go with the SLC especially if you wear glasses.
Andy W.
Andy W.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Hello Andy,
thanks for your assessment, that helped a lot!
So you see the Zeiss optically a little bit better, better stray light suppression, higher sharpness, better contrast, because for a little less edge sharpness.
What really bothers me about binoculars is astigmatism, that was one reason why I sold the Zeiss FL 7x42!
Maybe the SLC 8x56 is the slightly better glass, stray light is hardly a problem there and the center sharpness I feel at the highest level!
By the way, the zeiss FL are not so rare here in Germany, with a little patience you can find very well preserved ones.
Thanks again,
Andreas
thanks for your assessment, that helped a lot!
So you see the Zeiss optically a little bit better, better stray light suppression, higher sharpness, better contrast, because for a little less edge sharpness.
What really bothers me about binoculars is astigmatism, that was one reason why I sold the Zeiss FL 7x42!
Maybe the SLC 8x56 is the slightly better glass, stray light is hardly a problem there and the center sharpness I feel at the highest level!
By the way, the zeiss FL are not so rare here in Germany, with a little patience you can find very well preserved ones.
Thanks again,
Andreas
Conndomat
United States of Europe
hmm, the 8x56 FL should also be extremely good in this area, some users say it is the best binocular from the FL series ?!
The high-end binoculars are somehow all good, only personal preferences then decide here, I have never seen a really bad binocular over 1000,- Euros.
Andreas
dries1
Member
The FL 8X56 shares the good qualities of the 10X56 FL, however the FOV is 7.6 degrees I believe, and shows slightly more astigmatism than the 10X56 FL, (especially at night with the stars approaching the field stop). Yes, otherwise still a great glass today. They used a very good quality, high transmission glass in the FLs.
You are correct, not too many disappointments at + $1000.
Andy W.
You are correct, not too many disappointments at + $1000.
Andy W.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
The Swarovski 8x56 also has "only" 7.6 degrees FOV, the AFOV is 60 degrees, but looks bigger because you are fully in the picture.
I saw the SLC 8x56 for the first time in a hunting shop, originally I was looking for the 10x56 and only looked casually through the 8x56, my first thought ... Incredible, my second thought, I must have ...
Andreas
I saw the SLC 8x56 for the first time in a hunting shop, originally I was looking for the 10x56 and only looked casually through the 8x56, my first thought ... Incredible, my second thought, I must have ...
Andreas
tenex
reality-based
Andreas, I had the same "incredible, must have" reaction to those SLCs, both optically and ergonomically, so I wound up with both the 10 and 15x. I haven't tried the 8x56 (rare here, as is the 10x) to compare, but if you love it and are wondering whether the 10 is "just as good" I can confidently predict that you will think so, for all the same reasons.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Hello tenex,
yes I have to try the 10x56, I've had it in my head for a long time!
The picture in the SLC 8x56 is not quite as "clean", harmonious and "tidy" as in the Swarovski EL 8.5x42, nevertheless the picture has something magical and engaging, it seems very powerful to me.
I even use it for bird watching at the moment, originally it was only for the night to watch owls.
Andreas
yes I have to try the 10x56, I've had it in my head for a long time!
The picture in the SLC 8x56 is not quite as "clean", harmonious and "tidy" as in the Swarovski EL 8.5x42, nevertheless the picture has something magical and engaging, it seems very powerful to me.
I even use it for bird watching at the moment, originally it was only for the night to watch owls.
Andreas
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Hi,
short update to SLC 10x56 ...
Today I had the opportunity to take a short look at the binoculars, the hunting shop where I had already looked at the 8x56 had a 10x56 in stock!
First of all, the wow effect that I had with the 8x56 was not so present with the 10x56.
The AFOV, although the same size as the 8x56, looked a bit narrower, you weren't so deep in the picture, the 8x56 is a little more immersive!
The edge sharpness was about 80%, very similar to the 8x56 and the chromatic aberration was similarly low, the center sharpness was not as extreme as with the 8x56, Andy could be right here with his assessment that Zeiss FL could be a bit sharper.
Contrast and stray light suppression I could not test due to lack of time and possibility, overall a very good pair of binoculars, but does the 8x56 seem to be a little better!?
I would like to mention again, however, that this test was much too short to achieve a clear result, therefore the information given above is not final and requires closer examination.
Andreas
short update to SLC 10x56 ...
Today I had the opportunity to take a short look at the binoculars, the hunting shop where I had already looked at the 8x56 had a 10x56 in stock!
First of all, the wow effect that I had with the 8x56 was not so present with the 10x56.
The AFOV, although the same size as the 8x56, looked a bit narrower, you weren't so deep in the picture, the 8x56 is a little more immersive!
The edge sharpness was about 80%, very similar to the 8x56 and the chromatic aberration was similarly low, the center sharpness was not as extreme as with the 8x56, Andy could be right here with his assessment that Zeiss FL could be a bit sharper.
Contrast and stray light suppression I could not test due to lack of time and possibility, overall a very good pair of binoculars, but does the 8x56 seem to be a little better!?
I would like to mention again, however, that this test was much too short to achieve a clear result, therefore the information given above is not final and requires closer examination.
Andreas
My brother has a recent one (purchased 2018) which I have used on several occasions for long-distance raptor spotting.
In the hand - build quality feels superb, giving the impression of great integrity and reliability. Controls (focus, diopter, hinge, eyecups) are smooth, firm and positive, the usual Swarovski quality. I actually think I like the "dinosaur skin" rubber armouring a little better than that used on the ELs.
There's no getting away from the fact that this is a very big binocular by normal standards though. It is a big handful to hold, its weight, although not a problem when supported (elbows propped up etc) makes itself felt if you have to point it upwards for any length of time.
To look through - Sweet spot is very large, I would agree with the 80% figure you noted. 5.6mm exit pupil makes for very easy eye placement. Brightness is superb, one of the brightest binoculars I've ever looked through and almost too bright when searching against the background of bright white summer clouds. Resolution would seem to be excellent. Although the real measure of its capability in this area (like most large 10x binoculars) can only really be seen when tripod-mounted or otherwise stabillized. Most of my use is hand-held but supported (elbows resting on a shelf or other structure). When used this way it is still possible to discern considerable detail at long distance and birds of interest can be followed even after they have diminished into miniscule black flickering dots. Performance against glare and similar difficult conditions is good, better than the 8.5x42.
The image has the washed clean look that is probably the result of high transmission, sharpness and excellent CA control. Colour rendition matches what I see with my eyes very accurately, warm colours don't stand out as much as eg. with the Noctivid.
Misc fittings - Objective covers are not as refined as the ELs, but do the job OK. The strap itself is very good, providing plenty of support for this heavy binocular, but we have had the webbing connections occasionally twist up. A heavier grade material would help.
Some comparisons:
with the 8x56 SLC - I agree, and have noted before, that the 8x56's image has a kind of outstanding beauty to it that is really quite remarkable and which the 10x56, excellent though it is, does not quite duplicate. The 8x56 image, I agree, is more beautiful to look at. But the 10x magnification is (to me anyway) much more useful in a x56 binocular than 8x.
with the 10x54 HT - this was only for a period of 15 minutes or so at Birdfair a couple years back. Perceived brightness is similar and the HT is lighter and handles better. Optically the HT is a very strong performer. But both my brother and myself preferred the view through the 10x56 SLC. If I remember correctly, we felt the sweet spot was somewhat larger and the view moer effortless. SLC also gave the impression of superior build quality.
with the 10x50 WX - field of view is significantly smaller, obviously, so you see quite a bit less of what is in front of you. But what you see within its sweet spot compares very well. The SLC seems slightly brighter.
I have the use of my brother's example and if you have any details you would like to check, I can get hold of it and do what I can to assist.
Regards,
patudo
In the hand - build quality feels superb, giving the impression of great integrity and reliability. Controls (focus, diopter, hinge, eyecups) are smooth, firm and positive, the usual Swarovski quality. I actually think I like the "dinosaur skin" rubber armouring a little better than that used on the ELs.
There's no getting away from the fact that this is a very big binocular by normal standards though. It is a big handful to hold, its weight, although not a problem when supported (elbows propped up etc) makes itself felt if you have to point it upwards for any length of time.
To look through - Sweet spot is very large, I would agree with the 80% figure you noted. 5.6mm exit pupil makes for very easy eye placement. Brightness is superb, one of the brightest binoculars I've ever looked through and almost too bright when searching against the background of bright white summer clouds. Resolution would seem to be excellent. Although the real measure of its capability in this area (like most large 10x binoculars) can only really be seen when tripod-mounted or otherwise stabillized. Most of my use is hand-held but supported (elbows resting on a shelf or other structure). When used this way it is still possible to discern considerable detail at long distance and birds of interest can be followed even after they have diminished into miniscule black flickering dots. Performance against glare and similar difficult conditions is good, better than the 8.5x42.
The image has the washed clean look that is probably the result of high transmission, sharpness and excellent CA control. Colour rendition matches what I see with my eyes very accurately, warm colours don't stand out as much as eg. with the Noctivid.
Misc fittings - Objective covers are not as refined as the ELs, but do the job OK. The strap itself is very good, providing plenty of support for this heavy binocular, but we have had the webbing connections occasionally twist up. A heavier grade material would help.
Some comparisons:
with the 8x56 SLC - I agree, and have noted before, that the 8x56's image has a kind of outstanding beauty to it that is really quite remarkable and which the 10x56, excellent though it is, does not quite duplicate. The 8x56 image, I agree, is more beautiful to look at. But the 10x magnification is (to me anyway) much more useful in a x56 binocular than 8x.
with the 10x54 HT - this was only for a period of 15 minutes or so at Birdfair a couple years back. Perceived brightness is similar and the HT is lighter and handles better. Optically the HT is a very strong performer. But both my brother and myself preferred the view through the 10x56 SLC. If I remember correctly, we felt the sweet spot was somewhat larger and the view moer effortless. SLC also gave the impression of superior build quality.
with the 10x50 WX - field of view is significantly smaller, obviously, so you see quite a bit less of what is in front of you. But what you see within its sweet spot compares very well. The SLC seems slightly brighter.
I have the use of my brother's example and if you have any details you would like to check, I can get hold of it and do what I can to assist.
Regards,
patudo
tenex
reality-based
An interesting observation given the identical (stated) AFOV. I suspect this particular "immersion" is an aestheic factor in people who prefer lower-power binos generally. That voids my guarantee of satisfaction.
I wonder whether I could see such a difference in center sharpness. The 10x56 seems very crisp to me, more so than other binos we have. I've never seen the 8x.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Hi all,
I would like to emphasize again that this was a very superficial test, the time was just too short and I do not want to talk about the 10x56 any worse than it is!
I have to check the binoculars again carefully and calmly, sometimes great love comes only at second glance ...
Andreas
I would like to emphasize again that this was a very superficial test, the time was just too short and I do not want to talk about the 10x56 any worse than it is!
I have to check the binoculars again carefully and calmly, sometimes great love comes only at second glance ...
Andreas
tenex
reality-based
What's up this summer? (Yes, the 10x needs a dark sky. The 15x does better for astronomy around my home too.)
SeldomPerched
Well-known member
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Hello Tom ... all,
yes the 8x56 are excellent glasses, meanwhile I also understand Henry Link that these binoculars are his main observation glass!
In my opinion, the 8x56 are used much more frequently in Europe than the 10x56, could be related to the fact that there are still many forest areas in Europe and especially in Germany, in the USA everything is more extensive.
However, this could also change in the next few decades, climate change will also leave its mark here, and the forests are already seriously damaged.
Andreas
yes the 8x56 are excellent glasses, meanwhile I also understand Henry Link that these binoculars are his main observation glass!
In my opinion, the 8x56 are used much more frequently in Europe than the 10x56, could be related to the fact that there are still many forest areas in Europe and especially in Germany, in the USA everything is more extensive.
However, this could also change in the next few decades, climate change will also leave its mark here, and the forests are already seriously damaged.
Andreas
Similar threads
