Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Dennis, are you sure you didn't have a case of 'buck fever' ??! 3
Chosun :gh:
-
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.
I have $2K burning a hole in my pocket what binocular should I buy? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
Chosun :gh:
I can't really figure out why the 15x56 SLC was so much brighter than the 10x50 SV. The only thing I can think of is the twilight factors are 28.98 for the SLC and 22.36 for the SV. Maybe it is the AK prisms in the SLC. I have never thought of the big SV as dim but it was in comparison to the bigger glass.Dennis, are you sure you didn't have a case of 'buck fever' ??! 3
Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
After looking through the 15x56 I am thinking I should have. It is a little harder to hold steady but it is still hand holdable. I think for birding and daylight observation the 8x will be good but if you did any astronomy you might want to get the 10x or 15x. The 15x would be good for distant birding but not as good for closer stuff. Man, though for distant observation on a tripod the 15x56 would be the ticket. Here are some good reviews if you like to read reviews on the big 56mm binoculars.
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/444644-the-new-swarovski-slc-56s-under-the-stars/
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/446051-swarovski-slc-56-wb-vs-zeiss-victory-fl-56/
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/461299-help-me-8x56-or-10x56-slc-swarovskis/
http://scopeviews.co.uk/Swaro10x56SLC.htm
It is a little harder to hold steady but it is still hand holdable. I think for birding and daylight observation the 8x will be good but if you did any astronomy you might want to get the 10x or 15x. The 15x would be good for distant birding but not as good for closer stuff. Man, though for distant observation on a tripod the 15x56 would be the ticket. Here are some good reviews if you like to read reviews on the big 56mm binoculars.https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/444644-the-new-swarovski-slc-56s-under-the-stars/
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/446051-swarovski-slc-56-wb-vs-zeiss-victory-fl-56/
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/461299-help-me-8x56-or-10x56-slc-swarovskis/
http://scopeviews.co.uk/Swaro10x56SLC.htm
Last edited:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
I compared the 10's directly a couple of times on dulls days - 10X50SV, and 10x56 SLC HD. I thought the A-K prisms would slay it. Didn't happen. I would score them 1 win apiece for brightness. I prefer the coatings on the SV though, and only managed to see that A-K clarity once, and of course the SLC HD wasn't quite as sharp to the edge, and didn't have that immersive WOW view of the SV either. I had hoped the 10x56 SLC HD would be the holy grail - turns out it wasn't .....
It did win one contest hands down though, what it was, was holy mother of God this thing is heavy!! 3
Noticeably lighter in comparison was the 10x50SV, which was a pleasure to pick up directly afterwards (well for a reasonable amount of time anyway
Maybe seeing antelope across the store gave you a case of 'buck fever' and the adrenaline gave you feats of super human strength! :-O
I thought you might have gone 10, or 15x ..... I have a feeling down the track you will. :cat:
Don't get that 8x dusty - you'll need to return it in good condition! :king:
Chosun :gh:
Chosun. Are you sure you had the new Swarovski SLC HD 10x56's with the AK prisms? Because the new SLC's have almost 3% more light transmission than the EL's and at least a 7% advantage in light grasp because of the bigger objective lenses by all the laws of physics they should be brighter. The SLC's have an AFOV of 60 degrees versus the SV's 63 degrees so that is not a huge difference but you might notice that in the immersiveness of the view. I definitely found the SLC's brighter and here is a quite reliable reviewer who found the SLC's to be brighter than the EL's also. It surprises me you didn't but all our eyes are different. It could be if you are older your eyes can not use all the light from the SLC's. I bought an 8x because I can hold it steadier. 10x or above I need IS as in the Canon 10x42 IS-L or a tripod. That is why I preferred the Canon 10x42 IS-L over the Swarovski 10x50 SV. I feel the Swarovski SLC HD 8x56 will give me a STEADY view like the 10x50 SV except with better low light performance, less flare, no RB, a smoother focus and better CA control.I compared the 10's directly a couple of times on dulls days - 10X50SV, and 10x56 SLC HD. I thought the A-K prisms would slay it. Didn't happen. I would score them 1 win apiece for brightness. I prefer the coatings on the SV though, and only managed to see that A-K clarity once, and of course the SLC HD wasn't quite as sharp to the edge, and didn't have that immersive WOW view of the SV either. I had hoped the 10x56 SLC HD would be the holy grail - turns out it wasn't .....
It did win one contest hands down though, what it was, was holy mother of God this thing is heavy!! 3
Noticeably lighter in comparison was the 10x50SV, which was a pleasure to pick up directly afterwards (well for a reasonable amount of time anyway
Maybe seeing antelope across the store gave you a case of 'buck fever' and the adrenaline gave you feats of super human strength! :-O
I thought you might have gone 10, or 15x ..... I have a feeling down the track you will. :cat:
Don't get that 8x dusty - you'll need to return it in good condition! :king:
Chosun :gh:
"Zeiss have long used a special type of prism that is neither a Porro nor a Schmidt-Pechan, but something called an Abbe-König - strictly another type of roof prism. The good thing about this type of prism is that the light is bent around by total internal reflection (just like porros), with no mirror coatings required (unlike conventional roofs). This means the 10x56 SLCs, like the Zeiss FLs and Dialyts, simply transmit more light than even the best conventional roofs. Swarovski quote 93% light transmission: that’s 3% more than the Swarovski ELs and so the view is a little brighter in the daytime."
" But the SLCs are brighter day or night than the EL's, have more real eye relief, slightly less false colour and a smoother focuser in my sample; they’re cheaper too. "
"The SLC HDs are a touch brighter during the day and significantly brighter at dusk or at night thanks to their bigger objectives and Abbe-König prisms than the EL's."
"Chromatic aberration (false colour) suppression is better than any binoculars I have ever tested with the SLC's. Even my stiffest test – viewing roosting Jackdaws and Crows in high branches silhouetted against a clear sky yields almost no false colour and even focusing through produces no fringing. For the first time the view through these is like that through a small apochromatic refractor."
http://scopeviews.co.uk/Swaro10x56SLC.htm
http://scopeviews.co.uk/Swaro10x50EL.htm
Last edited:
I compared the same two 10x and found the SLC to be quite a handful vs the SV. It is not as refined externally and the 56 naturally does not lend itself to great ergonomics. Quality still excellent though, and smoother focusing. However, it did seem brighter in the large shadows and sharper when looking at details at distance in the shade. I did not see a difference in edge sharpness that I would consider as being significant to me. I think it’s the kind of binocular that really grows on you. I also thought it was nicely balanced and more steady to hold, especially after fatigue set in. I definitely wouldn’t lug either of them up Mount Everest.
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Dennis, yup! Definitely the A-K 56's (imagine how many of the HunTing crowd would be doing cartwheels in LaLa land if they had 47mm objectives? ..... just going to grab my AK47's Lol ! 3
Surprised me too.
1. Since my eyes are young enough that they are usually 4mm+ and I quite often find 5mm+ useful in the shadows even in daylight.
2. It was a reasonably dull day.
I think it is because of the SV's coatings - I am young enough to appreciate the better blue transmission, whereas I found the SLC's a bit dirty greenish ham looking + the fuzzier edge gives the illusion of less brightness to me. Also, the SLC field is more confined and doesn't give that immersive view. 1st outing, the 10x50 SV had that wonderful WOW 'crystalline' quality and sparkle arkle. I didn't get the 'clarity' I expected out of the A-K's that day. CA was a non issue in both bins for at least 2/3rds of the field. Just for the record too, I don't have any issues with RB in the SV.
2nd outing was maybe a slightly duller day. The A-K SLC's were noticeably brighter that day. You are really not going to notice a 3% difference in transmission, but that day, the A-K's had that famous 'clarity', and thus appeared brighter. These were different bins, 2 years down the track, so maybe they had different coatings? I can't be certain, but the view didn't appear as dirty washed.
I really like that A-K or Porro 'clarity' , but I like that 'crystalline' quality of the SV's too ...... I guess my perfect bin hasn't been made yet .....
Apart from the weights, I much preferred the ergonomics of the 50mm SV - rock steady. I didn't get along so well with the big SLC - a bit like holding on to a brick. And that's where it sits for me - the SLC ergos make it a no go.
It would be interesting to glass after sunset with the 10x56 SLC's and see what they are like ..... I'd want a porter though for the trip home
I hope your health insurance is paid up :t:
Chosun :gh:
henry link
Well-known member
I haven't seen any of the new 56mm SLCs, but generally speaking and as usual all things being equal a 15x56 will have none of the naturally occurring low aberration advantages of a stopped down 8x56 in daylight. The aperture of a 15x56 may be large, but the exit pupil is small, about the same size as an 8x30, so in daylight the eye accepts the same percentage of the full aperture from both and (all things being equal) will experience an image with similar spherical aberration from both, but almost twice as much longitudinal chromatic aberration and reduced DOF from the 15x56. 10x56s fall in between, with daylight aberrations lower than 15x56s, but higher than 8x56s.
Last edited:
14Goudvink
Well-known member
To complicate things: the 15x have a flatter field/sharper edges (more AMD?) than the 10x and even more than the 8x. So I guess the optical design (aberrations) is not equal and there are other variables in this equation than magnification alone.
Dennis: if you're not prepared to mount the 15X on a tripod I would think twice about buying them. They can be used hand-held for short periods, but they really shine on a tripod.
I use a short and light tripod (1 kg) that fits nicely in my backback. I can use the tripod as a monopod (with only one leg extended) or I sit down with the tripod only partly extended for maximum stability. In this way I avoid having to carry a big and heavy tripod.
I find the 15x SLC to be much easier and much more fun to use than a spotting scope. For quick ID's I often carry a 2.5x 'doubler' that gives me a 37.5 x 56 telesope.
George
Dennis: if you're not prepared to mount the 15X on a tripod I would think twice about buying them. They can be used hand-held for short periods, but they really shine on a tripod.
I use a short and light tripod (1 kg) that fits nicely in my backback. I can use the tripod as a monopod (with only one leg extended) or I sit down with the tripod only partly extended for maximum stability. In this way I avoid having to carry a big and heavy tripod.
I find the 15x SLC to be much easier and much more fun to use than a spotting scope. For quick ID's I often carry a 2.5x 'doubler' that gives me a 37.5 x 56 telesope.
George
henry link
Well-known member
George,
Yes, my comments were limited to axial aberrations. The 15x56 SLC could use an extra Barlow type field group in the eyepiece, which would improve off-axis aberrations compared to the 10x and 8x. In addition the daylight adapted eye is certain to experience more off-axis vignetting with the 15x56, which would further enhance sharpness near the field edge at a little cost to image brightness in the same area.
Henry
Yes, my comments were limited to axial aberrations. The 15x56 SLC could use an extra Barlow type field group in the eyepiece, which would improve off-axis aberrations compared to the 10x and 8x. In addition the daylight adapted eye is certain to experience more off-axis vignetting with the 15x56, which would further enhance sharpness near the field edge at a little cost to image brightness in the same area.
Henry
Last edited:
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
Dennis,
Performed similar comparison activity 3 years ago, except added the EL12X50SV in the mix. Although I didn't get to test performances outdoors (so consider my comments accordingly), spent over 2 hours glassing their daylight natural-lit dome displays and deep shadowy crevices of nook and crannies in the far reaching departments.
In the end, came away with my 10X50SV! Neither the 12X-EL or the 15X-SLC had the ease of the relaxed step-in view that the bigger 5.0 EP of the 10X50 had. Even though I was also experiencing greater details in the much narrower FOV and smaller exit pupils of the big optics, between image shake and smaller comfortable eye box placements, for me they just didn't cut the mustard.
Believe you'll find the SLC 8 X 56's larger exit pupil, much wider FOV and more comfortable eye placement all advantages to obtaining an even better step-through picture window ease-of-view than the 15 X 56! Yes, the added details that can be observed with the higher powers is seductive, that is if you can maintain a steady non-shaking sight picture...but then remember, you already have that capability in the hand-held 10X42L IS!! :t:
Ted
I agree on the tripod. That is a good idea with the short tripod and using it as a monopod. It would be more fun than a spotter and with a doubler would be very effective.
Your thoughts on the Swarovski SLC HD 8x56 were one reason I went with it. I want that aberration free crystalline on-axis view. It should be here any minute. Thanks.
I agree. What surprised me was how much brighter the 15x56 SLC was than the 10x50 SV. It would be nice to have the 8x56 SLC for handheld birding use and the 15x56 SLC on a tripod to use as a spotter and observation binocular. The 15x in the SLC makes a big difference over the 10x in the Canon.
That is a job for the Swarovski CL 8x30 or 8x25 CL-P.
After sunset is when the big SLC's will shine. That is what I am looking for. I like to glass for Elk and Rocky Mountain Sheep in the park in the evenings. I preferred my Canon 10x42 IS-L over the 10x50 SV's for the steady view. I have a hard time holding 10x steady. The SLC's 8x56 will give me a steady 10x50 SV like view although not quite as flat with a little more brightness especially in low light. I found the ergonomics of the bigger SLC to be surprising. They were not end heavy like the big Zeiss 8x56 FL's. The balance was so good that IMO holding them was not much different than the smaller 10x50 SV's. What would be nice would be an 8x50 SV with a 65 degree AFOV. You would probably like that.Dennis, yup! Definitely the A-K 56's (imagine how many of the HunTing crowd would be doing cartwheels in LaLa land if they had 47mm objectives? ..... just going to grab my AK47's Lol ! 3
Surprised me too.
1. Since my eyes are young enough that they are usually 4mm+ and I quite often find 5mm+ useful in the shadows even in daylight.
2. It was a reasonably dull day.
I think it is because of the SV's coatings - I am young enough to appreciate the better blue transmission, whereas I found the SLC's a bit dirty greenish ham looking + the fuzzier edge gives the illusion of less brightness to me. Also, the SLC field is more confined and doesn't give that immersive view. 1st outing, the 10x50 SV had that wonderful WOW 'crystalline' quality and sparkle arkle. I didn't get the 'clarity' I expected out of the A-K's that day. CA was a non issue in both bins for at least 2/3rds of the field. Just for the record too, I don't have any issues with RB in the SV.
2nd outing was maybe a slightly duller day. The A-K SLC's were noticeably brighter that day. You are really not going to notice a 3% difference in transmission, but that day, the A-K's had that famous 'clarity', and thus appeared brighter. These were different bins, 2 years down the track, so maybe they had different coatings? I can't be certain, but the view didn't appear as dirty washed.
I really like that A-K or Porro 'clarity' , but I like that 'crystalline' quality of the SV's too ...... I guess my perfect bin hasn't been made yet .....
Apart from the weights, I much preferred the ergonomics of the 50mm SV - rock steady. I didn't get along so well with the big SLC - a bit like holding on to a brick. And that's where it sits for me - the SLC ergos make it a no go.
It would be interesting to glass after sunset with the 10x56 SLC's and see what they are like ..... I'd want a porter though for the trip home
I hope your health insurance is paid up :t:
Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Max transmission might be close to 5% higher in the SLC.
Didn't you notice any difference in "tint"?
I tried a 8x56 SLC recently and the view was very bright and immersive with 20+mm eye relief. Lovely binocular with good balance and easy to hold for a 56mm bin. Felt lighter than it is.
The view was warmer than the SV:s to my eyes. I think that might add to the feeling of being brighter.
I think the SLC was warmer than the SV. The big SLC was without a doubt brighter than the SV. Almost like switching on a flashlight.
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Maybe you should add some ND-filters on the objectives when using them in bright light, otherwise they might burn a hole in your eye sockets instead of your cash pockets...:-O
Similar threads
