edwincjones
Well-known member
what is the difference between the two lines?
price does not seem that much-why would I get one vs the other?
edj
price does not seem that much-why would I get one vs the other?
edj
-
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.
SLC vs EL? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter edwincjones
- Start date
brocknroller
porromaniac
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
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........
edwincjones
Well-known member
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
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:
steve@37n84w
Well-known member
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
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
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!) :-O
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 :cat: will be called neither "new", "neu", or "HD", but just plain ol' "SLC", yet will both be "new" and contain the same "HD" glass! :brains: ..... Importantly though it will be priced cheaper than the "old" "SLC HD neu" !! :h?: :bounce: :t:
Chosun :gh:
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!) :-O
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 :cat: will be called neither "new", "neu", or "HD", but just plain ol' "SLC", yet will both be "new" and contain the same "HD" glass! :brains: ..... Importantly though it will be priced cheaper than the "old" "SLC HD neu" !! :h?: :bounce: :t:
Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
angelo225544
Well-known member
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.
Torview
Well-known member
SV owners look down their noses at SLC users ?
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:
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
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Also, there is this new fangdangled focusing concept ? ...... which means wot exactly ?? :h?:
"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/blog/SLC_Family_nature
Chosun :gh:
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:
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
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
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:
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 :-O
Lee
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Reading "portal." So that's what they call it. Well, at least they don't exaggerate. :-O
Mark
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
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 !! |<| |8.| |>| ........ |:d|
Chosun :gh:
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
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
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_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html
https://www.allbinos.com/223-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_10x42_Swarovision.html
https://www.allbinos.com/122-binoculars_review-Swarovski_SLC_New_10x42_WB.html
https://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html
https://www.allbinos.com/223-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_10x42_Swarovision.html
https://www.allbinos.com/122-binoculars_review-Swarovski_SLC_New_10x42_WB.html
Last edited:
Similar threads
