Does the Swarovski SLC 8x42 HD have the rolling ball effect while panning? (1 Viewer)

[GrampaTom]

Ground Control to Grampa Tom,

I have the final Swarovski-badged x42 and they actually look fine and well made, including if you look in through the front or objective end. Their contemporary ELs look to me a bit more stylish but I maintain that the SLCs unusually look far better in reality than in photos. (It's usually the other way round for all kinds of products.) My own feeling since purchase is that these SLCs are solid but importantly for me are also light and short — the 10x is actually lighter and shorter than the 8x.

For what it's worth I have had nothing but good surprises from the performance, handling, and image quality from the last Sw 42 WB models and have not noticed anything that I'd count as a significant trade-off. The compact form and comparatively light weight, the good balance, and the snug as a gun grip — for me personally — completely outweigh the more distant closest focus in this model and luckily I like the slower focusing action. In short, of course there are compromises in all binoculars, as we know, but it's nice when the weaker points aren't seen to matter to the user! This user anyway.

That's just me but I get a sense that others who own these bins and post on here mostly seem to feel the same. The image is on the warm side but to my senescent eyes no more so than a Leica Ultravid — only the colour of the warmth is slightly different (I'd say yellower rather than redder).

It was Roger Vine's review of the 10x42 WB model (he called it HD but means the one we are talking about) that swayed me into the purchase in 2020; you can see it at Swarovski 10x42 SLC HD Review. He touches on all the things mentioned here and in retrospect I can say that his report strikes me as honest and fair as far as things I understand go, i.e. I don't know about the stargazing aspect, for example.

But it's true that Planet Earth is bluer through an EL...

Tom 2

No, I'm not sure any manufacturer documents such methods. But (as I should have said) the claimed transmission on the spec sheet is identical, 91% for both HD 42 and WB 42.

As to "degradation" or "downgrading" of certain models, the obvious evidence is the reduced close focus on the SLC 42 and EL 42 "Classic"(!) models, but photos have also been posted here [Edit: by John Roberts, see post #25 below] showing much cruder internal construction on SLC 42 which helps to explain the price drop. (I'm curious whether this happened also with EL.) It's a strange practice I haven't seen from other (alpha) makers.

All the same, SLCs have become my favorites now

Thanks Tom... er.... also. Ha! I know the SLCs have a great reputation among folks who own them. I was reacting to Tenex's pics in #18 (quoted above), of the objective lens hardware and specifically this comment, "but photos have also been posted here [Edit: by John Roberts, see post #25 below] showing much cruder internal construction on SLC 42." Thats all. I did think the presence of that apparent die cast ring and 2 torx head screws was a little crude. Surprised me. Not a knock on optics. In fact was hoping optics quality as distinct from features wasn't effected by this. Seems the case.

Tom again

 

[Szmako81]

The objective-side photos of the original 8x42 SLC HD and the revised cheaper version gave me quite a fright, but a quick check of my 8x56 (2020 manufacture) revealed that it is just like that shown in John Roberts' linked post #5, i.e. well baffled.

@Szmako81. I have a 7x42 SLC of 2003 vintage. The "Neu" version depicted possibly has somewhat better coatings than mine. It is a very solid (and heavy) binocular with mild pincussion distortion and better than average edge sharpness. Eye relief at 19 mm is ideal for glasses wearers and the view is more relaxing than almost anything else I have experienced.

John

PS: Just see you bought it in new (?) condition - don't let go of that!

Dear Tringa45,
I got the SW SLC 7x42!

The objective-side photos of the original 8x42 SLC HD and the revised cheaper version gave me quite a fright, but a quick check of my 8x56 (2020 manufacture) revealed that it is just like that shown in John Roberts' linked post #5, i.e. well baffled.

@Szmako81. I have a 7x42 SLC of 2003 vintage. The "Neu" version depicted possibly has somewhat better coatings than mine. It is a very solid (and heavy) binocular with mild pincussion distortion and better than average edge sharpness. Eye relief at 19 mm is ideal for glasses wearers and the view is more relaxing than almost anything else I have experienced.

John

PS: Just see you bought it in new (?) condition - don't let go of that!

Dear Tringa45, dear Members
The SW SLC 7x42 bino is finally here!
As a layman all I can say that the bino is in pristine condition, build quality and the color rendition is second to none! I am contended with the purchase with no money left!

P.s.: feel like cheating on my Leicas!

Szabolcs

 

[SeldomPerched]

Thanks Tom... er.... also. Ha! I know the SLCs have a great reputation among folks who own them. I was reacting to Tenex's pics in #18 (quoted above), of the objective lens hardware and specifically this comment, "but photos have also been posted here [Edit: by John Roberts, see post #25 below] showing much cruder internal construction on SLC 42." Thats all. I did think the presence of that apparent die cast ring and 2 torx head screws was a little crude. Surprised me. Not a knock on optics. In fact was hoping optics quality as distinct from features wasn't effected by this. Seems the case.

Tom again

Hi Tom-1, though I mentioned other aspects as well, I knew you were talking specifically about the internal construction. My feeling is that as with the rest of the binocular (cosmetic appearance, solidity etc) the internal construction does not look crude. It is simpler but it works fine and, importantly if you are going by the photos, it looks more refined and solid than the impression given by what was probably a not too steady hand-held shot taken close up, and therefore distorting the appearance — still talking internals. Interestingly the new internal arrangements result in very low flare, though I can't say if it was even lower in the earlier model/s. To me (but understandably not necessarily to all others) there is no issue at all. In the end, still an alpha and sharp focus snaps into place without any seesawing about; the optics must be very well adjusted as I expect is usual with Swarovski. This is the case with both of mine: the 8x and the 10x.

I probably come over a bit biased towards the last SLC 42s; it is true I don't much care for some of the earlier ones, mostly because they are so heavy by comparison, which is why I sold the 7x I briefly had, superbly constructed though it was, with a very nice system of dioptre control.

Tom-2

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Szabolcs (post #42),

Hopefully some additional information:

Your 7x42 SLC neu #D764x dates from late 2006 (76 + 1930 = 2006; and the 40/+ week of the year).

It’s has Swarovski’s usual high quality materials and build (and as you say it’s still in mint condition).
In terms of the specifications, see the table from the 2005 catalogue.
And it’s more than bright enough, as shown in the graph from Gijs of the 8x30 SLC neu from the same time; along with a very slightly warm image.

So the main limitations are relatively minor: it’s both somewhat heavier, and doesn’t focus as close, as many current x42 roof prism binoculars.

Some prefer its slightly warmer image to the more neutral one on most current Swarovski's (it's a relatively fine degree of difference not noticed by many).
Additionally as you know, it doesn’t have the flat field of view with minimised geometric distortion, that’s used in most current Swarovski’s.
But again many prefer the older style viewing characteristics. And for most neither makes a significant difference in use.

So congratulations on your purchase, hopefully it will give you many years of satisfying use.


John

 

[Szmako81]

Hi Szabolcs (post #42),

Hopefully some additional information:

Your 7x42 SLC neu #D764x dates from late 2006 (76 + 1930 = 2006; and the 40/+ week of the year).

It’s has Swarovski’s usual high quality materials and build (and as you say it’s still in mint condition).
In terms of the specifications, see the table from the 2005 catalogue.
And it’s more than bright enough, as shown in the graph from Gijs of the 8x30 SLC neu from the same time; along with a very slightly warm image.

So the main limitations are relatively minor: it’s both somewhat heavier, and doesn’t focus as close, as many current x42 roof prism binoculars.

Some prefer its slightly warmer image to the more neutral one on most current Swarovski's (it's a relatively fine degree of difference not noticed by many).
Additionally as you know, it doesn’t have the flat field of view with minimised geometric distortion, that’s used in most current Swarovski’s.
But again many prefer the older style viewing characteristics. And for most neither makes a significant difference in use.

So congratulations on your purchase, hopefully it will give you many years of satisfying use.


John

View attachment 1464147

Dear John,

Thanks for the add. info and your kind words!

Have a nice day!

Szabolcs

 

[tenex]

In fact was hoping optics quality as distinct from features wasn't effected by this. Seems the case.

Comments from Swaro have been quoted here multiple times to the effect that the optics did not change in 2013 (only what moves them around) so we can presume they have not in the Kahles-branded version either. (I always wondered about this, since one could imagine some further improvement possible once the closer focus was eliminated. Perhaps we can think of it as evidence that little was, i.e. close focus isn't as much of an optical compromise as some seem to imagine.)

P.s.: feel like cheating on my Leicas!

There's no point in guilt without enjoyment... congratulations!

 

[Szmako81]

Comments from Swaro have been quoted here multiple times to the effect that the optics did not change in 2013 (only what moves them around) so we can presume they have not in the Kahles-branded version either. (I always wondered about this, since one could imagine some further improvement possible once the closer focus was eliminated. Perhaps we can think of it as evidence that little was, i.e. close focus isn't as much of an optical compromise as some seem to imagine.)


There's no point in guilt without enjoyment... congratulations!

Yes, You're right!
Szabolcs

 

[SeldomPerched]

Comments from Swaro have been quoted here multiple times to the effect that the optics did not change in 2013 (only what moves them around) so we can presume they have not in the Kahles-branded version either. (I always wondered about this, since one could imagine some further improvement possible once the closer focus was eliminated. Perhaps we can think of it as evidence that little was, i.e. close focus isn't as much of an optical compromise as some seem to imagine.)


There's no point in guilt without enjoyment... congratulations!

All I know from unscientific user experience is that the image quality from my final version 8x & 10x42 SLCs is to my eyes clearly better than that from the last version 7x (discontinued much earlier and in the older heavy formulation) that I briefly owned. But I couldn't now explain or describe the differences.

 

[ReinierB]

All I know from unscientific user experience is that the image quality from my final version 8x & 10x42 SLCs is to my eyes clearly better than that from the last version 7x (discontinued much earlier and in the older heavy formulation) that I briefly owned. But I couldn't now explain or describe the differences.

Which one do you prefer? The SLC 8x42 or the SLC 10x42? Do you notice the weight difference and the difference in eye relief? I have the SLC 8x42 but sometimes want to swap it for a 10x42.

 

[Gabor1973]

Dear Members,

I am relatively new to binos. When first wanted to purchase one, I went for the Swaros right away. Unfortunately, while I was panning with the EL, newer SLC WB and NL models, it made my stomach rise. I experienced a globe-like phenomenon.
On ebay there is a Swaro SLC 8x42 HD for 1590 Euros.
Before spending that much on it, could someone help me with some advice? Does anyone of You have the aforementioned model?
The globe-effect is there as well?

Hi Szabolcs! I've recently bought a pair of SLC 10X42 binos and I have experienced very strong nausea and vertigo after long panning with them. I think SLC hasn't got so much ammount of field flattening system as Nikon HG or Pure NL. Maybe I'm suffering from Benignus positionalis vertigo again. God knows! I will see later! Üdvözlet a fedélzetről!

 

[SeldomPerched]

To Tenex as not sure if my 'quote click' has worked:

Exactly my feelings too - still at 2 years on!

I love the SLC x42s that I have (8x and 10x) but still long-term Leica loyalty (mainly cameras but I have the 8x32 and 7x42 UVHDs and love them too makes it hard for me to sell the Leicas even though I'd get more for them and the SLCs for reasons I struggle to identify probably give me more viewing pleasure. I must gradually be 'normalizing' though as I don't come in this forum so often! (Don't take that too seriously.....)

 

[SeldomPerched]

To ReinierB as not sure if my 'quote click' has worked:

Hello Reinier, I know we've corresponded about the SLCs not long ago but just to say after taking both out just this morning before the sun was far up in its ascent I still unreservedly prefer the 8 for the reasons you ask about in your post; however the 10x is still excellent and if I didn't have the 8x to compare against I would struggle to put question marks instead of ticks in a checklist!

 

[SeldomPerched]

Thanks Tom... er.... also. Ha! I know the SLCs have a great reputation among folks who own them. I was reacting to Tenex's pics in #18 (quoted above), of the objective lens hardware and specifically this comment, "but photos have also been posted here [Edit: by John Roberts, see post #25 below] showing much cruder internal construction on SLC 42." Thats all. I did think the presence of that apparent die cast ring and 2 torx head screws was a little crude. Surprised me. Not a knock on optics. In fact was hoping optics quality as distinct from features wasn't effected by this. Seems the case.

Tom again

Hi Tom-1, sorry it's taken my a year or two to see (maybe remember?) your reply. Hope all is well with you and points taken from your post. I still have the two SLC x42s and used them this morning though currently other things are taking my time by choice or necessity as the case may be. All the best,

Tom-2

 

[ReinierB]

To ReinierB as not sure if my 'quote click' has worked:

Hello Reinier, I know we've corresponded about the SLCs not long ago but just to say after taking both out just this morning before the sun was far up in its ascent I still unreservedly prefer the 8 for the reasons you ask about in your post; however the 10x is still excellent and if I didn't have the 8x to compare against I would struggle to put question marks instead of ticks in a checklist!

I kept the SLC 8x42 and sold the SLC 10x42.
The 8x42 is a bit brighter and more comfortable due to the longer eye relief (I get just a bit more blackouts with the 10x42). The focusers are a bit slow. For me another reason to keep the 8x42. It's my dimlight bin most of the time.
The SLC 8x42 appeared to me brighter than the EL 10x50. I had both a couple of months. I am a huge fan of the SLC 42's. Compact for a 42, very bright and the most comfortable eyecups in my line up (EL50, NL32, SLC42).

 

[Canip]

I am a huge fan of the SLC 42's.

+ 1 !!!
(if Ukraine loses the war, Europe comes under Russian control and new laws limit the ownership to one binocular per person, it will be the SLC 8x42 for me)

 

[ReinierB]

+ 1 !!!
(if Ukraine loses the war, Europe comes under Russian control and new laws limit the ownership to one binocular per person, it will be the SLC 8x42 for me)

Im not sure. I actually think I would keep the NL 10x32 instead. But the SLC 8x42 and the NL 10x32 are a great couple! I hope they will allow us to keep two pairs.

 

[Canip]

I hope they will allow us to keep two pairs.

You ask kindly that they let you keep two pairs, and if you are lucky you may get away with keeping 4 ("two pairs").