I've been slow to contribute as I've been otherwise occupied for most of the week. However . . .
In general, premium manufacturers use their flagship line to showcase what’s possible - or more correctly what’s practicable
i.e. consistently possible within practical constraints, including economic considerations (e.g. see Gijs’ observations in post #128)
As I’ve noted previously with the EL series, the bar was set with:
- the unique physical design of the original EL (the open bridge/ axle-less body), and then
- the unique optical combination of the EL SV (the ‘Swarovision’ concept of field flattener lenses, HD glass, long eye relief and maximised transmission)
(see:
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=377255 )
So the problem now for Swarovski is: What’s going to meet expectations in terms of similar significant innovation?
There are of course similar expectations of Leica and Zeiss. However it’s arguable that the premium binocular market does expect more from Swarovski
e.g. both the 2015 Zeiss Victory SF and the 2016 Leica Noctivid are essentially EL SV alternatives
- though the SF is notable for its altered balance and the consequent ease of supporting its weight i.e. the ‘Ergobalance’ concept
But if the SF had been introduced by Swarovski, would it have been considered a satisfactory successor to the EL SV?
In this regard Swarovski may be a victim of it’s previous successes
In terms of possible directions for Swarovski:
Electronics
The most significant increase to practical performance in any flagship line, would be by the inclusion of Image Stabilisation technology
- especially so when used while standing without any other support
However, it would:
- necessarily add significantly to both bulk and weight (e.g. the Canon 10x40 IS is the size and weight of a conventional 10x50, and in a far less ergonomic package), and
- as with all electronics have reliability, durability, longevity and obsolescence issues
I suspect that market research indicates that for most potential buyers, the ephemeral nature of electronics,
is seen as incompatible with the primary values of durability and longevity associated with premium binoculars
i.e. incompatible with a product which would otherwise have a useful life expectancy of several decades
It’s notable that the clear advantage of IS (whoops, a pun!), does not seem to have been compelling in terms of its effect on premium binocular sales
e.g. on this forum, the much cheaper Canon 10x40 IS is the preferred choice of a pragmatic - but very small - minority
External Envelope
I previously offered a suggestion as how to significantly decrease the external size of the EL series, via the use of eyepiece focusing (as used on the original Leitz v2 Trinovid design)
- though with the likely trade-off of a greater minimum focus distance (see post #5 in the link above)
Would such a ‘lean and mean’ body be enough to meet expectations of a new generation EL?
- and coincidentally (!), what effect will today’s announcement by Leica of the relaunch of the Leitz v2 Trinovids have on such a possibility?
(see the link from the Leica Nature blog, per Dipped:
https://leica-nature-blog.com/leica-trinovid-we-are-proud-of-this-proof-of-quality/ )
Optics
There is probably the least significant potential here. Looking at the cross-section views of various premium optics, what’s striking is their general conformity to common patterns
(with the main differences being in eyepiece complexity, depending on whether a flat field view is required)
i.e. optically there’s generally one best way to accomplish a desired outcome, and nothing to be gained by unnecessarily complex alternatives
The greatest restriction on significantly increased optical performance, is that the market wants high performance in a relatively compact and light weight package
e.g. the Nikon WX line shows what’s possible, but with such a substantial increase in size and weight as to make it a very limited niche product (even ignoring the IF eyepieces)
(see the image of a 10x50 WX verses a 10x50 EL SV, from hk112 on a Cloudy Nights thread:
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/622620-nikon-wx-experience/ )
Perhaps the possibilities for significant binocular innovation - within the twin constraints of compactness and light weight - have reached a plateau
Finally, while the two previous EL introductions were spaced 10 years apart, such coincidence does not indicate a commitment to a 10 year product cycle
. . . we can only wait
John