• 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.

2019 - New models EL (1 Viewer)

Lee, note that often the field characteristics sometimes aren't symmetrical about the horizontal axis through the centre of the view (usually great care is taken to ensure symmetry about the vertical axis) - this is further complicated when field curvature is taken into account which can affect the perception of the view leading back towards one's feet or whatever.

Areas are often involved with circling raptors, surfacing critters etc, but we relate the 'feel' of that to a linear distance then generated into a circle. That's the great thing about circles - they're as high as they are wide ! :-O

The reason that the linear width is so often referenced is that people can get a reasonably accurate 'feel' for it - relating to the size of football fields, or olympic swimming pools, cars, height of a human etc. The beauty of that is that it can then be related back to closer distances by triangulation. ie. (3 olympic pools) 150m @1km, 15m @100m, (length of a car) 5m @33m, (height of your nanna)1.5m @10m, etc :cat:

Besides that tangible 'feel', it's just a whole lot easier to measure - ever tried to get a tape to stand straight up 150m in the air ?! 3:)




Chosun :gh:
 
Lee, note that often the field characteristics sometimes aren't symmetrical about the horizontal axis through the centre of the view (usually great care is taken to ensure symmetry about the vertical axis) - this is further complicated when field curvature is taken into account which can affect the perception of the view leading back towards one's feet or whatever.

Areas are often involved with circling raptors, surfacing critters etc, but we relate the 'feel' of that to a linear distance then generated into a circle. That's the great thing about circles - they're as high as they are wide ! :-O

The reason that the linear width is so often referenced is that people can get a reasonably accurate 'feel' for it - relating to the size of football fields, or olympic swimming pools, cars, height of a human etc. The beauty of that is that it can then be related back to closer distances by triangulation. ie. (3 olympic pools) 150m @1km, 15m @100m, (length of a car) 5m @33m, (height of your nanna)1.5m @10m, etc :cat:

Besides that tangible 'feel', it's just a whole lot easier to measure - ever tried to get a tape to stand straight up 150m in the air ?! 3:)
Chosun :gh:


No problem with any of that CJ and since we think about a linear measurement generated into a circle I think its useful to know the area of that circle.
Something you occasionally see on Birdforum is a comment that x bino only has a marginally bigger fov than y bino, and this increase could only accommodate 2 extra ducks at each side (or similar comment) which is indicative of being trapped into a linear way of thinking and forgetting that the fov has an area and not simply a diameter.
Maybe I feel this way because of the amount of time we spend in wide open scapes with huge skies and seascapes and the wildlife is often a small spark of life lurking within a big expanse.

Lee
 
Lee,

That 150 m Fov @ 1000 m of the 7x42 FL is above average for a 7x bin but calculated according to ISO is a very modest 55.4° Afov.

John

Hi John

Lets start agaiin from your post quoted above:

I only mentioned the FL 7x42 as an example of what can be achieved by a 'modular' approach to bino construction as speculated about in posts 48 and 58.

Lee
 
I only mentioned the FL 7x42 as an example of what can be achieved by a 'modular' approach to bino construction as speculated about in posts 48 and 58.

Lee,

Modularity rules and today 8x42 and 10x42 binoculars from the same family would only differ in their eyepieces. A 10x50 might even use the same eyepieces as the 8x42.

Something of a puzzle to me though are the old 10x42 and 7x42 Swarovski SLCs, the latter of which I own. It is a full 17 mm longer than the 10x42 of similar appearance, which suggests they do not have common objectives and are completely different designs. Perhaps Gijs or other Swaro historians can throw some light on this.

John
 
Lee,

Something of a puzzle to me though are the old 10x42 and 7x42 Swarovski SLCs, the latter of which I own. It is a full 17 mm longer than the 10x42 of similar appearance, which suggests they do not have common objectives and are completely different designs. Perhaps Gijs or other Swaro historians can throw some light on this.

John

Thats curious John. Gijs may well be able to comment on this.

Lee
 
Hi Lee..

I agree, but I just don't know how it would be possible to increase the fov beyond that of the Zeiss SF ...
I was just wondering how on earth it could be achieved ..

I'll message you later my friend

Cheers Tim


The field of view can be increased to just about any size the designer wants. But what is the benefit in having a 15-degree REAL FOV if only 3 degrees is worth writing home about. Of course, those who get the chills bragging about their super-wide field—regardless of its quality—WOULD buy one, but fortunately they are in the super-minority.

Two things should always be considered. First, in optics the footbone is always connected to the headbone, and 3rd order aberrations aren’t corrected independent of each other. Correcting chromatic aberration to the level acceptable to observer “A” might shove spherical aberration (or other aberrations) through the roof as observed by observer “B.”

It is really easy for armchair speculators to wonder why this or that company doesn’t do this thing or that to “improve” this or that aspect of a certain product. But optical engineers don’t live in a vacuum ... okay, okay, MOST optical engineers don’t live in a vacuum. Their realities include those imposed on them by the laws of physics, financial reward, and their boss.

Help me, here Peter. Zemax was not designed for the iMac. But showing—graphically—how the correcting of one aberration can throw 2 or three others into the stratosphere would be helpful. :cat:

Just a thought,

Bill
 
Patudo.

I'm not really sure what your point is ?

The information I am given at a said point in time is correct to the best of my knowledge.
Things change however.
I would hope that my posts would help enlighten and inform others on the forum in relation to reviewing products and sharing news.

I don't appreciate my sincerity being called into question.


Cheers Tim
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We are all grateful for and interested in news from the brands or their dealers, however it leaks out. Its a shame they don't always come to fruition.

Lee
Moderator
 
Tim,

I think Patudo's point is obvious. If the information you posted was given in good faith, then it's apparent your sources are suspect.
Years ago a dealer gave me a bum steer about coming products from one of the major manufacturers and I was silly enough to post it here. I won't be doing that again, however trustworthy the personal contact.

John
 
SLC 7x42 vs 10x42 & MODULAR CONSTRUCTION

Back in post #84, Tringa45 mentions the reality of the current use of modular construction, and also raises the issue of the apparent anomaly of the SLC 7x42 verses it’s 10x42 counterpart

The x42 SLC’s were introduced in 1992 and were produced until 2009 (the last 7x42 I’ve observed) and 2010 (10x42)
(in contrast, the first Swarovski roof prism 8x42 was not until 1999 with the EL 8.5x42, and the first SLC was not until the all new 8x42 HD of 2010)

Both of the original SLC models were externally similar, and shared the same basic optical construction, as can be seen in the cross-section
(provided by elkcub, see post #242: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=204534&page=10 )

However, the specification sheets indicate that they differed significantly in some details:
- the first is from 1994 (again from elkcub, see post #60: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=288100&page=3 )
- and the latest that I have access to with 7x42/10x42 details, is from the 2005 catalogue *

In comparing optical details, there is an obvious trade-off in the respective balances between eye relief and diopter adjustment
And in terms of physical details, the 7x42 is not only 17 mm longer, but also significantly heavier by 9% - there’s a lot more glass in the 7x42!

The 7x42 was optimised to have a very large ‘sweet spot’, along with ease of viewing, presumedly to compete against the then long reigning king of the 7x42’s, the Zeiss Dialyt

I’ve attached a 1994 review from Stephen Ingraham, which interestingly is not completely positive as to the 7x42’s optical performance. Clearly at that stage it was ‘a work in progress’
In contrast, there is a large number of threads on this forum that are consistently highly favourable about the 7x42’s optical qualities
- starting with this recent one https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=361777 , those interested can more backwards in time


* the full 2005 catalogue can be found here: http://www.hoferwaffen.com/images/optics/Swarowski_en.pdf (it's 7.5 MB)


John
 

Attachments

  • 7x42:10x42 cross-section.jpg
    7x42:10x42 cross-section.jpg
    107.7 KB · Views: 54
  • 1994 specifications.jpg
    1994 specifications.jpg
    697.8 KB · Views: 46
  • 2005 specifications.pdf
    666 KB · Views: 14
  • Better View Desired: Stephen Ingraham 1994.pdf
    131.9 KB · Views: 23
Last edited:
John,

Thanks for the links. I may have posted this before, but this https://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/file.php?9,file=769,filename=image.jpg probably represents the level of my own 7x42 SLC (pre-Neu, late 2003 build). It has Swarobright and 3-layer multicoating and is likely the same level as one tested by Gijs, which showed quite respectable transmission, around 87% IIRC.

A shorter focal length eyepiece on the 10x42 could not account for the 17 mm difference in overall length, so there are probably very few optical commonalities, apart perhaps from the prisms.

John
 
SLC 7x42 vs 10x42 & MODULAR CONSTRUCTION

Back in post #84, Tringa45 mentions the reality of the current use of modular construction, and also raises the issue of the apparent anomaly of the SLC 7x42 verses it’s 10x42 counterpart

The x42 SLC’s were introduced in 1992 and were produced until 2009 (the last 7x42 I’ve observed) and 2010 (10x42)
(in contrast, the first Swarovski roof prism 8x42 was not until 1999 with the EL 8.5x42, and the first SLC was not until the all new 8x42 HD of 2010)

Both of the original SLC models were externally similar, and shared the same basic optical construction, as can be seen in the cross-section
(provided by elkcub, see post #242: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=204534&page=10 )

However, the specification sheets indicate that they differed significantly in some details:
- the first is from 1994 (again from elkcub, see post #60: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=288100&page=3 )
- and the latest that I have access to with 7x42/10x42 details, is from the 2005 catalogue *

In comparing optical details, there is an obvious trade-off in the respective balances between eye relief and diopter adjustment
And in terms of physical details, the 7x42 is not only 17 mm longer, but also significantly heavier by 9% - there’s a lot more glass in the 7x42!

The 7x42 was optimised to have a very large ‘sweet spot’, along with ease of viewing, presumedly to compete against the then long reigning king of the 7x42’s, the Zeiss Dialyt

I’ve attached a 1994 review from Stephen Ingraham, which interestingly is not completely positive as to the 7x42’s optical performance. Clearly at that stage it was ‘a work in progress’
In contrast, there is a large number of threads on this forum that are consistently highly favourable about the 7x42’s optical qualities
- starting with this recent one https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=361777 , those interested can more backwards in time


* the full 2005 catalogue can be found here: http://www.hoferwaffen.com/images/optics/Swarowski_en.pdf (it's 7.5 MB)


John
Regarding Steve's review of the 7X42 SLC.

I have a refurbished 7X42 SLC model with Swarobright and screw in eye cups that does not have the warm color cast of earlier models. I suppose Swarovski modified the design along the way. There's a bit more CA in it than in my Swarovski SV's but less than I see in my 7X42 Ultravid.
 
John

Just to clarify - with two related exceptions - once any of the original SLC models were introduced, their optical construction (lenses and groups verses coatings), remained the same throughout production *
Of course the engineers may have tweaked the curvature, thickness, composition or spacing of lenses to address either performance or production concerns

* The exceptions were the 7x30 and 8x30 models, with the Mk I and Mk II versions
Changes were made in 1989 to make the original unsealed units waterproof (with phase coating added at the same time)


There are of course degrees of modularity and commonality
With the original series of SLC’s the optics are in a 3 piece housing: a main body (with the prisms), an objective unit and an eyepiece unit
I’ve attached a cutaway of a x50 unit which shows this more clearly then the cross-section in my previous post
(it’s from Jan van Daalen: https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2617579&postcount=15 )
And for comparison, there’s also an image of the all new 2010 SLC’s construction

One would expect that the components in the x42’s were standardised - unless a variation was necessary
With the 3 piece housing it would easy to change some of the glass along with focal lengths, so as to vary optical outcomes
This would allow maintaining a common optical construction (verses completely identical optical components) on both the 7x42 and the 10x42

It’s also likely that many components (especially mechanical ones) were shared with the x50 and x56 lines
Jan Meijerink of Twentse Vogelwerkgroep has an interesting comparative photograph of the Neu series
(the original is in a review of some of the Neu models: https://tvwg.nl/testrapporten/kijkers/swarovski_slc.shtml )


Pileatus

In relation to the evolution of coatings on the SLC’s, I’d refer you to my post about the 15x56’s: https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3818992&postcount=14
see the comments regarding the First Series from 1999 to 2013

As indicated, by late 2009 there was a universal update to Swarotop multicoating, which resulted in the neutral image we now associate with Swarovski

And specifically regarding the 7x42’s, Swarobright dielectric prism coating was introduced by late 2010 (as indicated by the marking on box labels: not on #D7027; on #D7033)
>> EDIT: Swarobright was first introduced on the 7x42's in late 2000 (70 + 1930 = 2000). It seems that simple addition is getting beyond me! See Chuck's post below <<

If a unit’s been refurbished, it’s possible that a pre-2009 unit may have later improvements, depending on what parts needed replacing when the servicing was done
As you’d be aware, a detailed listing that’s sent with a serviced unit indicates the parts replaced


John
 

Attachments

  • x50 SLC.jpg
    x50 SLC.jpg
    281.2 KB · Views: 64
  • 2010 SLC x42.jpg
    2010 SLC x42.jpg
    195.7 KB · Views: 62
  • SLC Neu series.jpg
    SLC Neu series.jpg
    64.7 KB · Views: 79
Last edited:
John,
Concerning the SLC 7X42 NEU...I bought one new and using the +30 rule with the serial number is shows to have been made in 2008 and has Swarobright. You might want to double check your serial #'s too just to be sure.

LOTS of differences internally between that 7X42 NEU and my current 8X42. Definitely the NEU looks more "hand made" on the inside than the current model.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0856.jpg
    IMG_0856.jpg
    96.8 KB · Views: 37
  • A4CAC7A7-EBE6-4B3B-9212-12494F6DD849.jpeg
    A4CAC7A7-EBE6-4B3B-9212-12494F6DD849.jpeg
    129.9 KB · Views: 103
John

Just to clarify - with two related exceptions - once any of the original SLC models were introduced, their optical construction (lenses and groups verses coatings), remained the same throughout production *
Of course the engineers may have tweaked the curvature, thickness, composition or spacing of lenses to address either performance or production concerns

* The exceptions were the 7x30 and 8x30 models, with the Mk I and Mk II versions
Changes were made in 1989 to make the original unsealed units waterproof (with phase coating added at the same time)


There are of course degrees of modularity and commonality
With the original series of SLC’s the optics are in a 3 piece housing: a main body (with the prisms), an objective unit and an eyepiece unit
I’ve attached a cutaway of a x50 unit which shows this more clearly then the cross-section in my previous post
(it’s from Jan van Daalen: https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2617579&postcount=15 )
And for comparison, there’s also an image of the all new 2010 SLC’s construction

One would expect that the components in the x42’s were standardised - unless a variation was necessary
With the 3 piece housing it would easy to change some of the glass along with focal lengths, so as to vary optical outcomes
This would allow maintaining a common optical construction (verses completely identical optical components) on both the 7x42 and the 10x42

It’s also likely that many components (especially mechanical ones) were shared with the x50 and x56 lines
Jan Meijerink of Twentse Vogelwerkgroep has an interesting comparative photograph of the Neu series
(the original is in a review of some of the Neu models: https://tvwg.nl/testrapporten/kijkers/swarovski_slc.shtml )


Pileatus

In relation to the evolution of coatings on the SLC’s, I’d refer you to my post about the 15x56’s: https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3818992&postcount=14
see the comments regarding the First Series from 1999 to 2013

As indicated, by late 2009 there was a universal update to Swarotop multicoating, which resulted in the neutral image we now associate with Swarovski

And specifically regarding the 7x42’s, Swarobright dielectric prism coating was introduced by late 2010 (as indicated by the marking on box labels: not on #D7027; on #D7033)

If a unit’s been refurbished, it’s possible that a pre-2009 unit may have later improvements, depending on what parts needed replacing when the servicing was done
As you’d be aware, a detailed listing that’s sent with a serviced unit indicates the parts replaced


John
Many thanks for the great information!

My 7X42 SLC was originally made in 1996 and refurbished in 2015. The prism was replaced along with a lot of other work (housing, focus, etc.). It looks and operates like a new bin.

PS
I'm not sure if earlier models had push or screw type eye cups. Mine has screw in/out eye cups.
 
So, to sum up, nothing on the horizon for ELs in 2019.
Nothing from the big USA SHOT event so Birdfair 2019 will be fairly sterile in terms of new binoculars - no 32mm Zeiss SF, Leica Noctivid
 
Last edited:
By Re-do

Sounds like its done by a company that does stuff thats been done before.......
And have you seen their Wick-Trimmer? Don't put that in your trouser pocket...

Lee
 
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