• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

canon 10x42 vs swarovski 10x56 (1 Viewer)

Masio

Member
I find both canon 10x42 L IS and swarovski slc 10x56 at the same price, and I wonder which is better binocular in terms of wow factor, resolution, contrast, brightness and the ability to resolve details. I read that canon is flat field and focus closely and considerably more 3d effect, so is it better choice?
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I find both canon 10x42 L IS and swarovski slc 10x56 at the same price, and I wonder which is better binocular in terms of wow factor, resolution, contrast, brightness and the ability to resolve details. I read that canon is flat field and focus closely and considerably more 3d effect, so is it better choice?
I had both the Canon 10x42 L IS and the Swarovski 10x50 SV at the same time and tried them both for quite a while deciding which one to keep. I kept the Canon in the end for several reasons. The Canon controls flare better than the Swarovski, it has no RB like the Swaro but the edges are almost as sharp, the optics are overall very close with very similar AFOV and the Canon has a smoother focus wheel. When you engage the image stabilization on the Canon you have way more resolution and you can see way more detail than the Swarovski. The Swaro doesn't WOW any more than the Canon. They both have the same AFOV and are both sharp to the edge. In fact when you engage the IS on the Canon it WOW's more than the Swaro. Now the Swarovski does have better ergonomics if that is important to you. You are talking about the 10x56 SLC. I have not directly compared the two but other members that have preferred the SV. The SV is Swarovski's best binocular. There is a thread in the Swaro section about how a member chose the 12x50 SV over the 15x56 SLC. Also, over at Cloudy Night's an Astronomy Forum for Binoculars they say the SV 10x50's are preferable to the SLC 10x56 if you are going to use them mostly in the day.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=355472
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/587872-swarovski-slc-10x56-vs-swarovski-el-10x50/
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=348973
 
Last edited:

WJC

Well-known member
I find both canon 10x42 L IS and swarovski slc 10x56 at the same price, and I wonder which is better binocular in terms of wow factor, resolution, contrast, brightness and the ability to resolve details. I read that canon is flat field and focus closely and considerably more 3d effect, so is it better choice?

Hi, Masio, and Welcome:

Two things to consider:

Pi x R squared gives you the surface area of the objective lens. That, along with the size of your pupil will give you the “brightness” to expect. Two objectives will give you only slightly more brightness than one because the brain doesn’t work on the same opto-mechanical principles as a binocular.

HOWEVER, the 10x42 is a superb instrument and, in the realm of pleasure, the beauty of an image being steady can’t be overrated. Or, as it says in the Gosple of ... Bill: "A steady image can hide a multitude of aberrations."

And Gavin, hopefully “knowing nothing” is why you are here and is much more pleasing to some than the pontifications of a few who know equally as much but fail to recognize it. :cat:

“Honesty is the first chapter in the Book of Wisdom”—Thomas Jefferson

Bill
 
Last edited:

etudiant

Registered User
Supporter
As a happy Canon owner, I agree with your sentiment!
That said, honesty compels me to add that Canon has a niggardly guarantee and charges stiffly for customer service, while Swaro is the most generous in that regard.
The Canon warranty is not indicative of the service life of the item, mine served flawlessly for 9 years before needing repair, but it does reflect the reality that this is a much more complex device.
The Canon is much more capable, the IS function is just a step function up in performance, ( so much so that Swaro's chief designer has indicated that IS is a capability that he eventually hopes to introduce to Swaro), but there is a price.
 
Last edited:

wllmspd

Well-known member
My 12x Canon IS is still working after something like 15yrs(ish). I keep mine in a pelicase to protect it against accidental damage. Fingers crossed it keeps on running, as was mentioned, pressing the stabilise button really allows you to pull out the detail the optics can deliver. If you’ve got somewhere to rest your arms or a tripod then you can probably get almost the same stability.

PEter
 

kabsetz

Well-known member
I have owned the Canon 10x42 L IS for over ten years, and during that time pretty extensively tested all of the relevant competition, including the Swaro 10x56 SLC and 10x50 SV.

In a nutshell, for me the IS adds so much to both viewing pleasure and detail seen that I'm simply not going to ever use a non-IS binocular as my main observation tool anymore. If there were no IS in the Canon, it would be very near the equal of the Swarovski's, except in very low light where the advantages of the larger objectives of the 50 and 56 mm Swarovski's would come to play. However, the IS helps just as much if not more in low light than in daylight, so the only situations where I'd consider the Swarovskis unequivocally better would be if they are mounted on a tripod for low-light or astronomical viewing.

Kimmo
 

Pinewood

New York correspondent
United States
I find both canon 10x42 L IS and swarovski slc 10x56 at the same price, and I wonder which is better binocular in terms of wow factor, resolution, contrast, brightness and the ability to resolve details. I read that canon is flat field and focus closely and considerably more 3d effect, so is it better choice?

Hello Masio,

Beneath that rather ugly exterior, the Canon 10x42 L IS,beats a Porro prism binocular heart, so it has true stereopsis. The Canon may be considered a true Alpha Porro.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur
 

kabsetz

Well-known member
The 10x42 L IS has Porro II prisms between the eyepieces and the IS prisms. It's objective spacing is a constant 70 mm irrespective of the viewers' interpupillary distance. Therefore, it has stereopsis characteristics better than most roofs for people with narrow IPD - more so the narrower your IPD, but worse for people with > 70 mm IPD. A traditional porro binocular will have significantly wider objective spacing.

But in all other respects I agree with Arthur, the Canon is a true Alpha Porro.

Kimmo
 

Masio

Member
Many thanks, I have narrow IPD, so canon will be suitable for me. From what I've read do you think that canon 10x42 has more 3D and sharper image compared to SLC 10x56?
 

dries1

Member
Masio,

If the Swarovski can be purchased for the same price of the Canon ($1,169.00) on the internet AND it is fully functional as a new one (NO PROBLEMS), I would go with the Swarovski. When the Canon has problems, how good is it without image stabilization, likely not as god as the Swaro.
I have an old Nikon HG 10X42 in excellent shape, and love the views albeit only 6 degrees FOV and a bit heavy, but what a view. Many have said that it suffers from rolling ball and excessive Chromatic Aberration (CA). I have never experienced Rolling ball with it nor CA, nor any other bino. I would try them first, (TRY BEFORE YOU BUY) and make your decision.

Andy W.
 

Masio

Member
In Europe Canon 10x42 is much more expensive and the price is close to SLC 10x56, so I wonder if the canon is better, even without the stabilization probably is more 3D, wow, sharper and flatter image. I read that SLC 10x56 has no 3D, softer edges and maybe a little less sharp.
 

jan van daalen

Well-known member
In Europe Canon 10x42 is much more expensive and the price is close to SLC 10x56, so I wonder if the canon is better, even without the stabilization probably is more 3D, wow, sharper and flatter image. I read that SLC 10x56 has no 3D, softer edges and maybe a little less sharp.

Masio,

IMHO reading on Forums etc. is for shared experiences regarding brands service issues, for specs and price comparisons, for test results (objective/subjective?).
Trying is the actual thing you do before you buy and based on gathered info like 3DB :).

Jan
 

etudiant

Registered User
Supporter
The Canon 10x42 really is optically very good, even without the IS engaged. Decent field of view, adequate eye relief, bright and sharp almost to the edges, very well baffled and fully waterproof. The glass is not dependent on its IS function to shine, but the IS really changes the viewing experience, the bird views stay steady, no jitter.

I did not know that the European price of the Canons was close to that of the Swaros. Here in the US, the Swaros cost almost double, $2200 vs $1275 on Amazon.
 

Stanbo

Well-known member
Hello Masio,

Beneath that rather ugly exterior, the Canon 10x42 L IS,beats a Porro prism binocular heart, so it has true stereopsis. The Canon may be considered a true Alpha Porro.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

Arthur

While the Canons are now all poro prisms and have most of the benefits that that optical design bestows, their set up isn't the same as for a "normal" poro which has a much wider objective spacing than IPD (eyepiece spacing).

My Nikon 8x32 SE has an objective spacing of 132mm and a my IPD is 69mm, so quite a significant difference and this gives an appreciable 3D effect: like having you eyes set 132mm apart.

I have just measured my 10x42L and the objective spacing, which is fixed, is 69mm and my IPD is also 69mm. This suggests to me that there is no more 3D effect than a roof which will have a similar straight through view. Most people will have an IPD within a few mm of mine, so even if it is different it will not make any discernible difference to the negligible 3D effect.

Having said that it doesn't diminish from the fact that the Canon 10x42L is a brilliant binocular.

Stan

PS Kimmo sorry for saying what you have already said but I missed your post #11.
 
Last edited:

henry link

Well-known member
I would add to Stan's post that the stereopsis of the Swaro is likely to be a little greater than the Canon due to the objective off-set from the Abbe-Konig prisms. The 56mm Zeiss FLs have a similar off-set to the 56mm Swaros. If I set my 8x56 FL to an IPD of 69mm the objective spacing is 85mm.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
In Europe Canon 10x42 is much more expensive and the price is close to SLC 10x56, so I wonder if the canon is better, even without the stabilization probably is more 3D, wow, sharper and flatter image. I read that SLC 10x56 has no 3D, softer edges and maybe a little less sharp.
The Canon will definitely be sharper at the edges than the SLC. One big advantage of the Canon is it has an AFOV of 65 degrees and the SLC is only 60 degrees. The AFOV is what gives you the WOW factor or the big immersive view. The Canon will have more WOW factor especially when you engage the IS. The Canon is your alpha porro that people dream about. If Canon would just improve the ergonomics a little it would be perfect.
 
Last edited:

Stanbo

Well-known member
I would add to Stan's post that the stereopsis of the Swaro is likely to be a little greater than the Canon due to the objective off-set from the Abbe-Konig prisms. The 56mm Zeiss FLs have a similar off-set to the 56mm Swaros. If I set my 8x56 FL to an IPD of 69mm the objective spacing is 85mm.

Henry,

I did mention that the objectives on the Canon are fixed and it was my intention to also say that on traditional binoculars that the objection spacing could vary. I should be more careful.

You are perfectly correct for 56mm roof objectives which is what is being discussed. However, I think the objective spacing on roofs generally reduce as the objective diameter reduces and my 8x42mm Nikon EDG set at an IPD of 69mm has an objective spacing of 69mm. Is the Abbe-Konig prism the only one that can accommodate the greater barrel diameter of the 56mm roof objective?

When I compare the difference between the spacing and IPD of the Nikon 8x32 SE and your Zeiss 8x56 which are 132mm/69mm and 85/69, the differences are 63mm and 16mm respectively . I can certainly see a pronounced 3D effect at a 63mm but I doubt if I could at 16mm. I wonder whether you can at this small increase.

Stan
 
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

Top