10x42 slc-neu HD (1 Viewer)

[jalethbridge]

Can anyone point me in the direction of a review/discussion on the 10x42 HD SLCs?
Thanks
Jonathan

 

[John Russell]

Jonathan,

It's been said so many times before but, particularly at this price point, I think you have to test them yourself.

In this format there probably are only four serious competitors, the EL Swarovision, Leica Ultravid, Zeiss FL and Nikon EDG.

Two years ago I bought a Zeiss Victory FL, which I considered then to be the best 10x42 available. A couple of weeks ago I met a fellow birder with a 10x42 Swarovision and having tried that am now a little dissatisfied. There are of course many, who dislike the lack of pincussion distortion and the attendant rolling ball effect but I seem to be immune to that, so it's all very much a matter of personal taste.

If the Swarovisions have an Achilles heel it is that individual samples have a somewhat sticky focussing wheel (as experienced at a bird festival recently) so it is really mandatory to check the individual bin before purchase.

John

 

[mooreorless]

Hi John, If you type in Achilles heel on search you can find quite a bit of information on here.

 

[brocknroller]

Jonathan,

It's been said so many times before but, particularly at this price point, I think you have to test them yourself.

In this format there probably are only four serious competitors, the EL Swarovision, Leica Ultravid, Zeiss FL and Nikon EDG.

Two years ago I bought a Zeiss Victory FL, which I considered then to be the best 10x42 available. A couple of weeks ago I met a fellow birder with a 10x42 Swarovision and having tried that am now a little dissatisfied. There are of course many, who dislike the lack of pincussion distortion and the attendant rolling ball effect but I seem to be immune to that, so it's all very much a matter of personal taste.

If the Swarovisions have an Achilles heel it is that individual samples have a somewhat sticky focussing wheel (as experienced at a bird festival recently) so it is really mandatory to check the individual bin before purchase.

John

John,

Thank you for pointing out Swaros' "Achilles heel" - their sticky focusers. When I made that same comment myself, I got a rain of bird droppings from naysayers.

Not only I have experienced the "sticky focusers" with Swaros first hand on two different models that were made nearly a decade apart, but I've lost count of how many comments I've read about this same issue from others.

Despite that, some people don't seem to notice it or do notice it but don't consider it a problem. And as you suggest, there might be sample variation, with some Swaro focusers working properly and some not.

At this price point, however, buyers should expect consistency in manufacturing and focusers that turn smoothly in both directions.

Steve - Did you notice how much Judge Roy Bean looks like you? Spooky.

Brock

 

[mooreorless]

Brock I think he is a relative, so don't mess with me. I found a lot of your posts on the achilles heel reference to Swarovski focuser on here, same way rolling ball > Swaro and Nikon and on and on etc. forever more.

 

[pimpelmees]

Jonathan,

If the Swarovisions have an Achilles heel it is that individual samples have a somewhat sticky focussing wheel (as experienced at a bird festival recently) John

so what....is that a problem :smoke:

 

[John Russell]

And as you suggest, there might be sample variation, with some Swaro focusers working properly and some not.

Brock,

At said bird festival I picked up a Swarovision, a 10x50 if I remember correctly, and remarked to the Swaro rep: "That's a bit notchy."
An hour or two later I came back to the stand and noted that it had loosened up nicely. The Swaro rep gave me a wink and said: "We swapped it."

John

 

[brocknroller]

Brock,

At said bird festival I picked up a Swarovision, a 10x50 if I remember correctly, and remarked to the Swaro rep: "That's a bit notchy."
An hour or two later I came back to the stand and noted that it had loosened up nicely. The Swaro rep gave me a wink and said: "We swapped it."

John

Ah, hah! Proof beyond reasonable doubt of sample variation. Even Swaro's reps know there's a difference

Wonder who wound up with the notchy sample? Probably a hunter who wouldn't care since he's looking long.

I rest my case.
'
Judge Roy Bean

 

[brocknroller]

Brock I think he is a relative, so don't mess with me. I found a lot of your posts on the achilles heel reference to Swarovski focuser on here, same way rolling ball > Swaro and Nikon and on and on etc. forever more.

I think you mean, "Nevermoore, nevermoore" from my parody of "The Raven" when I substituted the word "rolling" for "tapping" in the line

"While I nodded, nearly bowing, suddenly there came a rolling..."

And went on from there... Thought I kept a copy of that but I can't find it in my Word docs and nothing is showing up on Scroogle. So if you find it, let me know...evermoore.

It's like ole' Winston said:

If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.

But when you have a "creative license," you can be clever and persistent at the same time.

JRB

 

[Tyrolean]

I have had new Swarovisions for several months now and I can say that the focus wheel was just slightly tough at the beginning; now it's as smooth as you can wish.

 

[Kammerdiner]

I have had new Swarovisions for several months now and I can say that the focus wheel was just slightly tough at the beginning; now it's as smooth as you can wish.

No point in disputing things with Brock. He made up his mind ten years ago and hasn't examined it since.

Someone hereabouts called it an "idee fixe." Here in America we used to call it a "one-idea man." No point in asking him to reconsider. He won't even look through an SV. Case closed. (Sounds a lot like contemporary American Republicans on any number of fronts, doesn't it?).

A useful quote vis a vis Churchill: "The dangerous man is the one who has only one idea, because then he'll fight and die for it." - Francis Crick. Crick's not an American but you get the drift.

And of course the few ideas in this case (focus, brightness, rolling ball, etc.) are more annoying than dangerous so that makes it even less worth the while.

Off for migrating hawks with the SV,

Mark

 

[Bob A (SD)]

(Sounds a lot like contemporary American Republicans on any number of fronts, doesn't it?).

You liberals never miss an opportunity to assail those who don't share your views. Last time I looked this forum was devoted to optics which doesn't include your degenerative myopia.

 

[Matt_RTH]

Thank you, Bob! +1

 

[mooreorless]

Hi Matt, You have two very nice pictures posted on here. I don't know what anything political has to do with optics. I am with you and Bob.

Mark you might be surprised where Brock is politically, so I like I said you two would get along in "real" life.

 

[ceasar]

No point in disputing things with Brock. He made up his mind ten years ago and hasn't examined it since.

Someone hereabouts called it an "idee fixe." Here in America we used to call it a "one-idea man." No point in asking him to reconsider. He won't even look through an SV. Case closed. (Sounds a lot like contemporary American Republicans on any number of fronts, doesn't it?).

A useful quote vis a vis Churchill: "The dangerous man is the one who has only one idea, because then he'll fight and die for it." - Francis Crick. Crick's not an American but you get the drift.

And of course the few ideas in this case (focus, brightness, rolling ball, etc.) are more annoying than dangerous so that makes it even less worth the while.

Off for migrating hawks with the SV,

Mark

I like Brock's viewpoints but often disagree with them--if that makes sense.

Here is a quote from Wendell Berry: "It is easy for me to imagine that the next great division in the world will be between people who wish to live as creatures and people who wish to live as machines."

Applied to optics, it seems that one should not disagree these days from the data banks of the computers which "see" and interpret the ranges and the amounts of "light" they analyze however much our respective analog eyes differ in what they see.

Bob

 

[jalethbridge]

and reviews?.....

 

[Kammerdiner]

Mark you might be surprised where Brock is politically, so I like I said you two would get along in "real" life.

Oh, I can figure out his politics. He's pretty smart.

We share a love of optics, and also disputation. No problem there. We're both stubborn enough to wind up in a fistfight though.:-O

Brock, my apologies for the ad hominem stuff. No harm intended.

Bob, not surprisingly I've read a lot of Wendell Berry. Thanks for the quote.

Jonathan, I can't help you so I'll exit stage left.B

Mark

 

[brocknroller]

No point in disputing things with Brock. He made up his mind ten years ago and hasn't examined it since.

Someone hereabouts called it an "idee fixe." Here in America we used to call it a "one-idea man." No point in asking him to reconsider. He won't even look through an SV. Case closed. (Sounds a lot like contemporary American Republicans on any number of fronts, doesn't it?).

A useful quote vis a vis Churchill: "The dangerous man is the one who has only one idea, because then he'll fight and die for it." - Francis Crick. Crick's not an American but you get the drift.

And of course the few ideas in this case (focus, brightness, rolling ball, etc.) are more annoying than dangerous so that makes it even less worth the while.

Off for migrating hawks with the SV,

Mark

Hanged in effigy.

P.S. "No harm intended."

Judge Roy Bean (The Hanging Judge)

 

[jalethbridge]

I am so glad I started this thread.
What I want to get is opinions on the Swaro SLC 10x42 HD binoculars. Note not the Swarovision ELs.
Sixteen posts later and not one person has commented on the bins I am interested in. Instead we have yet another esoteric discussion that is, from my point of view at least, completely off-topic and utterly useless.
Call me a killjoy if you will, but why not think before you post? Perhaps even look at the thread title and initial post. I am perhaps being a tad impolite, and unconducive to getting a positive and useful response, but c'mon guys, read the sixteen posts and ask yourselves what, in my shoes, you would make of it?
Rgds
Jonathan

 

[Kammerdiner]

Jonathan,

You're not being "impolite." You're being right.

Mark