I purchased the SLC 15s a few weeks ago from one of the nationwide hunting stores. So far, I really like them and haven't noticed anything that needs to be improved.
I haven’t had the opportunity to compare these 15s side-by-side to any of others. Once, I got to handle the Conquests, and I have never seen the Mavens. Those two are the others that had me curious. I chose the SLCs for three reasons:
I have compared the 10x42 Conquests and SLCs for a few hours a couple years ago and I preferred the SLCs.
Neither the Zeiss nor the Maven was available in my hometown
And because of the recommendation here: http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/Swaro15x56SLCHD.htm.
So far, I have used these binoculars for birding, hunting, astronomy, and general observations. I use them handheld (which is steadier and more useful than I thought it would be), on a monopod, and on a tripod. I typically use them on the monopod when I am out in the field.
I haven’t performed any science on these, so any statements that I make are just my perception and cannot be backed up by quantitative facts. Now, onto their virtues:
First, the configuration is totally awesome (not specific to my SLCs, but worth noting). 15s are great birding glass when looking at seabirds from shore or at waterfowl from across the pond. They are also great hunting glass for looking across muskegs and peering into open woods. The 56 mm objectives are a good compromise because they are both huge and compact – the objectives are way bigger than my 12s, but the overall binocular is only a bit bigger and a bit heavier (the SLCs are the most compact in this configuration, which is always an important criterion for me).
Second, they are as clear as any binocular I have ever used.
Third, they are really bright. Very glad Swarovski went AK on these. Their low light performance is much better than I would have guessed based on their exit pupil. As some of you recall, I was working on a low light figure of merit which put a lot of emphasis on the exit pupil, these 15s have shown me some of the error in that thought process. They do have that effect of making the world brighter when looking through them in dark surroundings.
Fourth, they are comfortable to hold and carry with their huge thumb indents. Ergonomically they fit me really well. The story is a bit more complicated than it is with smaller binoculars though. Because of their magnification and weight, I have to hold them near the objectives to make the image stable enough to be useful, but when I am holding them in this way I cannot reach the focus. This means that I alternate between holding as still as possible and focusing. I don’t see this as a problem and assume that a similar procedure would have to be applied to any binocular in this configuration.
Fifth, the focus is slow. It takes ∼2.25 turns from 12’ to ∞ and has more resistance than my Ultravids. It is however very smooth. In a smaller binocular the slow focus would be a deal breaker for me, but in these it is perfect. The slow focus fits the magnification really well and allows for very nice fine-tuning of the image. Being off by a little bit with this much magnification is a problem, so I really like the slow, deliberate focus on these.
Sixth, Swarovski makes the best straps, ocular covers, objective covers, carry bag, and carry bag strap that I have seen. All of the accessories that came with these are better than those that came with my Ultravids. All of them.
Seventh, I really like the flat field of these. I have tried the EL 8.5s (Pre Field Pro - I owned them for three weeks) and found the flat field really distracting and didn’t like it at all. Everything that I looked at seemed unnatural in some way. But the SLC 15s are a joy to look through in part because of their flat field. I can’t put my finger on why I like the flat field in these and why I didn’t in the 8.5s – I suspect it has something to do with the narrower field of view on the 15s but I really don’t know.
Eighth, the color is great, and I have not noticed a significant bias towards any part of the spectrum. Chromatic aberrations are minimal and I have only noticed it in really tough conditions – as good as I have seen in any binocular in this regard.
These have been on quite a few adventures with me over the past few weeks and I have thoroughly enjoyed them so far. I have a hard time imagining how the Swarovski SLC 15x56s could be improved upon in future iterations. In my limited experience, these binoculars are without flaw. If you are a birder/hunter/astronomer/northern lights enthusiast/ mountain viewer/ boat and airplane watcher/general observer then I suspect you may find binoculars that could last a lifetime in this model.
To address my previous thread mentioning these SLCs, I haven't yet gotten a doubler/booster and have instead put my money towards the outdoorsman's monopod, pistol grip panner, and binocular stud/adapter, which is a really nice system.
-as you were, q
I haven’t had the opportunity to compare these 15s side-by-side to any of others. Once, I got to handle the Conquests, and I have never seen the Mavens. Those two are the others that had me curious. I chose the SLCs for three reasons:
I have compared the 10x42 Conquests and SLCs for a few hours a couple years ago and I preferred the SLCs.
Neither the Zeiss nor the Maven was available in my hometown
And because of the recommendation here: http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/Swaro15x56SLCHD.htm.
So far, I have used these binoculars for birding, hunting, astronomy, and general observations. I use them handheld (which is steadier and more useful than I thought it would be), on a monopod, and on a tripod. I typically use them on the monopod when I am out in the field.
I haven’t performed any science on these, so any statements that I make are just my perception and cannot be backed up by quantitative facts. Now, onto their virtues:
First, the configuration is totally awesome (not specific to my SLCs, but worth noting). 15s are great birding glass when looking at seabirds from shore or at waterfowl from across the pond. They are also great hunting glass for looking across muskegs and peering into open woods. The 56 mm objectives are a good compromise because they are both huge and compact – the objectives are way bigger than my 12s, but the overall binocular is only a bit bigger and a bit heavier (the SLCs are the most compact in this configuration, which is always an important criterion for me).
Second, they are as clear as any binocular I have ever used.
Third, they are really bright. Very glad Swarovski went AK on these. Their low light performance is much better than I would have guessed based on their exit pupil. As some of you recall, I was working on a low light figure of merit which put a lot of emphasis on the exit pupil, these 15s have shown me some of the error in that thought process. They do have that effect of making the world brighter when looking through them in dark surroundings.
Fourth, they are comfortable to hold and carry with their huge thumb indents. Ergonomically they fit me really well. The story is a bit more complicated than it is with smaller binoculars though. Because of their magnification and weight, I have to hold them near the objectives to make the image stable enough to be useful, but when I am holding them in this way I cannot reach the focus. This means that I alternate between holding as still as possible and focusing. I don’t see this as a problem and assume that a similar procedure would have to be applied to any binocular in this configuration.
Fifth, the focus is slow. It takes ∼2.25 turns from 12’ to ∞ and has more resistance than my Ultravids. It is however very smooth. In a smaller binocular the slow focus would be a deal breaker for me, but in these it is perfect. The slow focus fits the magnification really well and allows for very nice fine-tuning of the image. Being off by a little bit with this much magnification is a problem, so I really like the slow, deliberate focus on these.
Sixth, Swarovski makes the best straps, ocular covers, objective covers, carry bag, and carry bag strap that I have seen. All of the accessories that came with these are better than those that came with my Ultravids. All of them.
Seventh, I really like the flat field of these. I have tried the EL 8.5s (Pre Field Pro - I owned them for three weeks) and found the flat field really distracting and didn’t like it at all. Everything that I looked at seemed unnatural in some way. But the SLC 15s are a joy to look through in part because of their flat field. I can’t put my finger on why I like the flat field in these and why I didn’t in the 8.5s – I suspect it has something to do with the narrower field of view on the 15s but I really don’t know.
Eighth, the color is great, and I have not noticed a significant bias towards any part of the spectrum. Chromatic aberrations are minimal and I have only noticed it in really tough conditions – as good as I have seen in any binocular in this regard.
These have been on quite a few adventures with me over the past few weeks and I have thoroughly enjoyed them so far. I have a hard time imagining how the Swarovski SLC 15x56s could be improved upon in future iterations. In my limited experience, these binoculars are without flaw. If you are a birder/hunter/astronomer/northern lights enthusiast/ mountain viewer/ boat and airplane watcher/general observer then I suspect you may find binoculars that could last a lifetime in this model.
To address my previous thread mentioning these SLCs, I haven't yet gotten a doubler/booster and have instead put my money towards the outdoorsman's monopod, pistol grip panner, and binocular stud/adapter, which is a really nice system.
-as you were, q