• 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.

First impressions: SLC 10x42 HD has arrived (1 Viewer)

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
This thread is a direct continuation of the one I started a day or two ago at https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=388597 . In that thread all who contributed gave me useful thoughts about the SLC 10x42 HD, based on which I decided to take a stab in the dark and order one, necessarily unseen owing to current travel and distancing provisions. I knew it would be different from the 10s in the EL series. That was an intentional choice both on grounds of cost and for other reasons mentioned further down.

Over twelve hours now since its delivery and less than 24 hours since the order was placed, I have had time to give my new SLC 10x42 HD a mini-field trial outdoors, where not only the prolonged spell of summery weather but also being currently free of the pressures of work has allowed a more relaxed evaluation. This is not an objective review; it's more a celebration of a new pair of binoculars. Sometimes you take the risk of buying something unseen and you are just lucky that things meet or surpass your expectations and everything goes according to your hopes.

The risks were certainly there. The reason for the purchase was to have a pair of 10x magnification binoculars that would be light, compact, and portable. The other 10 I have is the 10x50 EL SV Field Pro, excellent glass but, though quite light for its format, not exactly compact or a doddle to hold still. I'm fine with that bin for short spells or from a position where I can anchor my arms for a steady hold, but for a long walk or (currently) for close up spotting in the garden, it's not the 'go to' choice. I was not sure how well these smaller Swarovskis would help me against the 10x magnification shakes. Add to that there could be any number of other ergonomic factors not apparent from a review or photo or spec sheet that might turn you off a design you haven't picked up and handled before.

The first pleasant surprise on opening the box was a cosmetic one. The SLC had a good practical no nonsense look that was a lot more attractive than any photos had suggested. The item looked 'fit as a butcher's dog': solid, no looseness in the armouring, firm to grip with an excellent texture. The central hinge covers that extend to the barrels at each side are well-designed, whereas in pictures they look as though they could nip your fingers when focusing. To me the design does not look dated; instead it looks tough, simple, and functional and a suitable tool for troublefree handling. It looks and probably is as compact as a Leica Ultravid and I actually think at the time of writing that for its similar size it handles a fraction better than an Ultravid, itself a pretty and well-regarded industrial design. That's my judgement anyway, because if the thumb indentations on the SLC aren't in exactly the right place for both my hands it is much less of a problem than when the Leica's thumb ridges are in the wrong place. You can slide past a dip but you have to climb over a ridge.

I think sometimes I get too hung up about dioptre setting. This is something that Swarovski makes painless. Unlike Zeiss and Leica and possibly Nikon the dioptre clickstops seem to be correctly zeroed against the index line at the factory. This meant that knowing already how my 10x50 EL SV is set up (3 clicks from zero, moving in the minus direction), all I had to do was notch down to the same position on the new SLC. A few deliberate adjustments outdoors going slightly too far on either side to test my setting confirmed that the same three clicks to minus was indeed the proper correction. Incidentally, this was set up and checked against the print of a magazine at about 50 yards, and then tried out against indoor objects with fine detail - ceramics with colourful scenes and fine detail - to see if the setting held up at close range, about a foot out from minimum focus distance. It did and the detail looked lovely. Correctly adjusted it was clear from the 'focus snap' that this example of the SLC was manufactured to tight parameters.

Sometimes a small extension of the eyecups works best for me. Sometimes what works best is to move them all the way out then screw back down just one notch. Interestingly, working without glasses as I prefer to do when in a familiar setting and my eyesight doesn't need to be all that great to find things, I can use these SLCs with the eyecups fully retracted or just halfway out to the first detent (a few eighths of an inch, I'd guess). That was as far as I could go before starting to get a 'looking down a barrel' effect. Unlike the ELs the eyecups only have click stops at each end and one intermediate setting. Without glasses therefore I was using the space between intermediate and screwed in against the barrel. The resistance is sufficient for the eyecups to stay there even without a detent or notch at that point in their travel. At this stage it is worth saying that the eyecup action and quality are impressive: no hint of likely future deforming of the rubber end coverings: the whole assembly is firm and metal is used as in the EL series for a durable, high end finish.

With all now ready it was time to set about some viewing. When using a new pair of binos it helps to allow myself a bit of settling in time to get acclimatized. It was good that I had pretty much forgotten this was a 10x instrument; it was just an exciting new purchase and I wanted to enjoy the view. Only after a few minutes did I remember that 10x was 'supposed' to be shakier to use than 7 or 8x and by then I had proved to myself that with this glass I could hold a steady image. A big imagined hurdle not to mention purchase gamble overcome!

How did the image look compared with what I've been used to from other glass? A bit different: for a few minutes I wasn't sure of it and knew I had to be patient. Patience brought its reward. Initially an apparent lack of depth of field compared to other 42s I have used was off-putting. Within half an hour it was just part of the signature of this SLC. It started to add something instead of detract. What it added was, in camera terms, a sense of bokeh: an attractive fall-off in sharpness behind the focused object or plane. Somehow this looked different and better than what I see with 32s, which don't quite give me the same viewing satisfaction despite being good glass. But I digress.

When Swarovski is mentioned it isn't usually long till 'flat field' comes up in conversation. I have nothing against flat field and sometimes it gives an advantage in viewing, especially for stargazing (I don't do it) or when a viewing position doesn't allow much room to turn the binoculars, e.g. from a small window. However I never understand why some critics see lack of flat field as a design fault. It's a different design philosophy or emphasis, with good and possibly bad points depending on your priorities for binocular performance. The SLCs are not flat field of course and - am I allowed to say this? - seem to have a more three-dimensional image quality and a large sweet spot in the centre. Any outer field aberrations do not have the effect on me of spoiling the overall view.

** Next day addendum: looking through the SLC again today I realize that even out towards the edges the image is very useable. I would say that performance holds up better in the outer 20% or so than in the 7x42 T*FL, itself a respected design. **

Focuser: no shortcomings in consistency or ease of operation, but see the sentence after next. It moves positively without any play when changing direction and it moves evenly and smoothly. Not like an EDG - but probably not much else is as easy to focus as an EDG, from my own experience with just one Nikon bin and from the comments of reviewers and Birdforum members. The first time I tried to follow some birds flying directly overhead today with the SLC, the amount of turn needed was too much for me to keep up and I lost them. This could just be unfamiliarity and a question of getting used to it; then again it could be a minus point. I don't really have the experience to decide. It doesn't matter to me - yet. When not in a hurry I quite like a bit more turn as it helps find the correct focus point - another thing that I have had trouble with on some 32 size bins.

Today as said was a beautiful day so perhaps this was bound to make the viewing experience a generally positive one. How to describe the image and ease of view, apart from the depth of field comments made earlier? This is where I find it hard to sum things up as there are so many technical aspects that go to make up image character. What I can safely say is I am not too concerned to compare macro & micro-contrast, resolution, and so on. Instead I accept that the image is the sum of all its component parts and how that is arrived at doesn't affect my enjoyment of the view. It was a bright day today and so I saw an extremely bright image, though I read that the transmission is down a little bit on the EL series. Fine detail, in leaves for instance, was clearly rendered on the plane of focus, both close up and observable at a distance. Colour - I'll call it natural rather than neutral. Aren't they the same? By definition I think so, at least in this context, but the difference is that 'natural' reflects the joy of the SLC's view today whereas 'neutral' is just neutral, a zero and unemotional figure of neither joy nor coolness, a clinical absence of bias. So I'll stick with natural. To be honest now, that means I am not certain how the colour representation may in fact vary from strictly neutral or exact representation. Testing the SLC at close range with indoor objects: red apples in a bowl, ceramic bowls and plates and mugs with varying colours and designs - the beauty of the maker's art and use of colour was handled in a bright and saturated yet natural-looking rendition. To me there was no sense of any colour coming over as weak because it was affected by a bias towards another colour. Whenever I think of colour bias I cannot help thinking of the 'green ham' allusion that caught my imagination in others' discussion of another alpha product. None of the fruit or foodstuffs I viewed today looked off!

To sum up, and leaving aside the accessory rainguard, the band-attached objective covers, a pre-Field Pro type of strap that looks effective but which I haven't worked out or tried to attach yet, and the modern Swarovski green twin zip carry case, this is still a lot of writing so far to arrive at a simple conclusion ...

... The conclusion is that this is a sturdy no nonsense binocular, easy and well-balanced with minimum shake, compact and short for its class, and giving a well-defined, rounded image that I personally find very pleasing. It is somehow different from the offerings of other alpha marques I have used as well as from the parallel Swarovski EL family of binoculars. I look forward to giving it a lot of regular use and am interested yet to see what views it gives in duller or wet conditions. It would presumably make a good choice for a travel binocular if you are confident you can hold a 10x magnification binocular steady on the go. It just has that nice compact size and handling that I like.

A final point. The fact that the SLC was despatched so promptly by the dealer and that the initial telephone service was so helpful got the whole experience off to a favourable and memorable start. I hope that this account adds some information and colour to the more technical information you may have already read about the Swarovski 10x42 SLC HD binocular. It has already been great fun using the SLC and its magnification to search out some loud but very small birds in large tall trees.

Tom
 
Last edited:

elkcub

Silicon Valley, California
United States
Tom,

That was an enjoyable review. My personal preferences correspond to yours in all respects, and particularly that a 'flat field' is not an attraction (er, ... is objectionable). Too bad Swarovski modified the original SLC-HD series which had a faster focuser and closer short focus. The 8x42 SLC-HD turned out to be my cup of tea and saved me from the urge to buy more binoculars. By the same token, however, I don't think the higher power 10x42 SLC HD would benefit that much by having a shorter focus, since it gets nearly the same image size anyway.

Use yours in good health. :t:

Ed
 

Attachments

  • SLC_HD_cut_mechanik_Schnitt[2314].jpg
    SLC_HD_cut_mechanik_Schnitt[2314].jpg
    162.3 KB · Views: 149
Last edited:

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
Tom,

That was an enjoyable review. My personal preferences correspond to yours in all respects, and particularly that a 'flat field' is not an attraction (er, ... is objectionable). Too bad Swarovski modified the original SLC-HD series which had a faster focuser and closer short focus. The 8x42 SLC-HD turned out to be my cup of tea and saved me from the urge to buy more binoculars. By the same token, however, I don't think the higher power 10x42 SLC HD would benefit that much by having a shorter focus, since it gets nearly the same image size anyway.

Use yours in good health. :t:

Ed

Thank you, Ed, and that is a very clear cut-away image. Good to have it. I'm thinking - or hoping - that this will save me from the same urge! Out of interest, would you say your 8x42 differs in any way from what I put in my impressions of the 10?

Tom
 

dries1

Member
Tom,

Thanks for the review of the SLC 10X42, enjoy as Ed said in good health, a fitting time to spend time with some glass. It is a very popular here in the US, just goes to show that it must be a very good glass.

Andy W.
 

Patudo

Well-known member
Enjoyed your post SeldomPerched! There are few better things in life than getting familiar, detail by detail, with the great qualities of a really good binocular, which the SLC series indisputably are. The SLCs I have used mirror your impressions re build quality almost to the letter - giving a impression of real integrity and substance in all the mechanicals, from eyecups to diopter, that is very impressive. The SLCs' design concept, and Swarovski choosing to offer them alongside the EL series, are really interesting from point of view of manufacturer strategy. It would be most interesting to know whether Zeiss was thinking along similar lines during the period it offered both HT and SF models.

I've tried the 10x50 SV FP, which I found most impressive, and my first thought on reading your other post was that if I had one, I'd be pretty unlikely to bother trying any other 10x binoculars, except possibly the Zeiss SF. That being said, I own both 10x50 and 10x40 (not Swarovski) myself, and although I love the 5mm exit pupil of the 10x50, the smaller format has real advantages in portability. 10x mag and 40mm objective is a combination with some excellent qualities. It's easy to see why 10x40/42 have been amongst of the most popular formats for decades. It's also great that you have the 10x50 SV as a first-class benchmark to compare your new SLC with - because binoculars at this level are so good that side by side comparison is needed to underline what can be very fine distinctions.

It would be really interesting to read your thoughts, over the coming weeks and months (it's absolutely true that the full picture of a binocular's optical performance can only be gained by using it over a wide variety of conditions and situations), the following compared with your 10x50:

- Ease of eye placement, particularly in difficult conditions (low light and other situations that baffle the eye - haze, glare etc) and over long viewing sessions.

- Brightness and detail in low light.

These are the traditional advantages the 10x50 has over the 10x42, and the eye placement issue I have definitely noticed in other brands (cf. the 10x42 Meostar HD while delivering a very good image, I found noticeably more finicky in terms of eye placement than the 10x50 from the same stable - but I've found the SLCs I've used and tried to be very "easy on the eye", albeit only one has been a 4mm exit pupil model). It'll be interesting to have your take on how closely the 10x42 SLC approaches the 10x50 SV in these aspects.

Very best regards

patudo

PS. which dealer was it that provided the excellent service you noted?
 

tenex

reality-based
Only after a few minutes did I remember that 10x was 'supposed' to be shakier to use than 7 or 8x and by then I had proved to myself that with this glass I could hold a steady image.
It would be interesting to hear why you think you find the SLC 42 easier to hold steady than the EL 50: weight alone, or shape/ergonomics?

Initially an apparent lack of depth of field compared to other 42s I have used was off-putting.
Any 10x bino will show this, compared to 7 or 8x.

The first time I tried to follow some birds flying directly overhead today with the SLC, the amount of turn needed was too much for me to keep up and I lost them.
This is a reason why you might prefer the Trinovid BR you're considering to the SLC. I suppose Swaro went with a slower focuser on these latest SLCs to distinguish their product lines and cater to hunters.
 

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
Tom,

Thanks for the review of the SLC 10X42, enjoy as Ed said in good health, a fitting time to spend time with some glass. It is a very popular here in the US, just goes to show that it must be a very good glass.

Andy W.

Thanks for your wishes, Andy. Funny thing is that I have just seen in the fold-out that comes with the instruction book that when it comes to the 56mm SLCs only the 15x is available in the US. For some reason probably discussed on here before the 8x and 10x 56s aren't marketed there. Also I see the 8x56 weighs nearly 1 oz heavier than the 15x56.

I am really enjoying this glass; the colours are maybe a bit on the warm side of neutral after all, but in a different way from Leica.

Tom
 

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
Enjoyed your post SeldomPerched! There are few better things in life than getting familiar, detail by detail, with the great qualities of a really good binocular, which the SLC series indisputably are. The SLCs I have used mirror your impressions re build quality almost to the letter - giving a impression of real integrity and substance in all the mechanicals, from eyecups to diopter, that is very impressive. The SLCs' design concept, and Swarovski choosing to offer them alongside the EL series, are really interesting from point of view of manufacturer strategy. It would be most interesting to know whether Zeiss was thinking along similar lines during the period it offered both HT and SF models.

I've tried the 10x50 SV FP, which I found most impressive, and my first thought on reading your other post was that if I had one, I'd be pretty unlikely to bother trying any other 10x binoculars, except possibly the Zeiss SF. That being said, I own both 10x50 and 10x40 (not Swarovski) myself, and although I love the 5mm exit pupil of the 10x50, the smaller format has real advantages in portability. 10x mag and 40mm objective is a combination with some excellent qualities. It's easy to see why 10x40/42 have been amongst of the most popular formats for decades. It's also great that you have the 10x50 SV as a first-class benchmark to compare your new SLC with - because binoculars at this level are so good that side by side comparison is needed to underline what can be very fine distinctions.

It would be really interesting to read your thoughts, over the coming weeks and months (it's absolutely true that the full picture of a binocular's optical performance can only be gained by using it over a wide variety of conditions and situations), the following compared with your 10x50:

- Ease of eye placement, particularly in difficult conditions (low light and other situations that baffle the eye - haze, glare etc) and over long viewing sessions.

- Brightness and detail in low light.

These are the traditional advantages the 10x50 has over the 10x42, and the eye placement issue I have definitely noticed in other brands (cf. the 10x42 Meostar HD while delivering a very good image, I found noticeably more finicky in terms of eye placement than the 10x50 from the same stable - but I've found the SLCs I've used and tried to be very "easy on the eye", albeit only one has been a 4mm exit pupil model). It'll be interesting to have your take on how closely the 10x42 SLC approaches the 10x50 SV in these aspects.

Very best regards

patudo

PS. which dealer was it that provided the excellent service you noted?

Thank you for the kind comments, Patudo - reassuring as I know I tend to get carried away in print. I think words might be my main hobby! I will answer you briefly here but I have a few more things to add that I'll send to you in a message if that is OK with you. Nothing sinister!

First, yes - I surprised myself in enjoying this SLC as much as I already have in two days. Partly because I had got conditioned from (a) bits I had read that the SLCs were a notch or two down on the 'flagship' ELs; I obviously only read superficially, and from (b) photos I had seen that didn't exactly flatter the exterior looks. Now that I have the real thing it's more obvious how much is going for its design: the solidity, the compactness, the comparatively small size for a 42 (I may be wrong as I don't know a lot of makes and models), the very nice colour of the image and fall off in sharpness behind the focus plane - as pointed out this bokeh may be common to all 42s but it seems very attractive to me in this one, whatever the others may be like. None of the foregoing would sway me though if I couldn't hold it still and comfortably; and I find it every bit as comfortable as a twin bridge model. I borrowed an EL 8x32 and have to say that is really comfortable to hold but even though it has breathtaking sharpness I think I prefer this SLC for a just very nice picture! I realize comparison of 32 and 42 is misleading but in terms of handholding comfort I'd say they are both fine for my not very large hands.

Regarding the comparison with the EL 10x50 Field Pro, some of the aspects you ask about I can't actually address at present. However it's true to say that its size and front end weight don't make it as easy for me to wield steadily as I originally thought when trying it in the shop and when reading helpful comments on this forum. I'm no weakling but some days it seems harder to hold still than others. That doesn't mean I am giving up on it; it has not been a disappointment in any way but I wouldn't take it with me on general travel.

I see good sides in flat field and again in the traditional design. But for birding on the move I'd either use a 7 or 8 or this 10x42 SLC. As said, the sum of the optical decisions in its formula somehow just produce a very pleasing image. All i a package that is actually smaller than a Zeiss Victory 7x42 T*FL. (But that of course has A-K prisms.)

All the best,

Tom
 

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
Hi Tenex, useful information within your questions and explanations; thank you.

(1). "Any 10x bino will show this, compared to 7 or 8x."

Yes, had I stopped to think, I knew this already but almost forgot I was using a 10x - even though getting a 10x was the whole point of ordering new binoculars - as I was having such a good time trying them out. Interestingly, I have since read that perhaps the bokeh of the SLC is more pronounced than in some 10s. In other words the unfocused area behind fades away more obviously and in an attractive way. I certainly liked that once I got used to being careful with my focusing.

(2). "It would be interesting to hear why you think you find the SLC 42 easier to hold steady than the EL 50: weight alone, or shape/ergonomics?"

I think the SLC is easier for me to hold steady for both the reasons you give. To split your 2 reasons further and make them 3, I'd say (1) that the extra weight of the EL 50 has an effect, (2) that the ergonomics in terms of balance don't help, because I think all the medium and large ELs are a bit front-heavy (opposite of a Zeiss SF which I don't own but have used on loan from a dealer for 14 days in 2018), but (3) that the hold with the double bridge is probably an advantage to set against the other two disadvantages. I have used an EL 8x32 Field Pro and holding that is a dream, for me anyway. But so is this SLC. Going back to the weight aspect, some find some extra weight has a positive effect on a steady hold, others the opposite. As usual, I expect 'it depends'!

The slower focuser is not something that will really bother me much. I am quite good at deciding that any quirks of a design are something I must overcome through practice at technique. For instance I am happy to work at a manual focus camera lens even for sport and critical focus when clearly there would be a greater hit rate of successful shots with an AF system. Or a camera with no meter when all sorts of magic matrix systems are available, even in a mobile phone, judging from typical results most people get and take for granted these days.

(3). "This is a reason why you might prefer the Trinovid BR you're considering to the SLC. I suppose Swaro went with a slower focuser on these latest SLCs to distinguish their product lines and cater to hunters."

It's true I'm very interested in this Trinovid, partly because it's so well spoken of and a lot cheaper second hand than a new UVHD Plus but mainly because I love Leica colour and glow -- even though many will say the glow part is wishful thinking or a figment of the imagination. Be that as it may I am as you know very impressed by the SLC and in some ways the look and ease of its image remind me of Leica. Was it you who suggested the other day that the SLC might be Swarovski's Leica and the Trinovid 2012-15 model Leica's Swarovski?

All the best,

Tom
 

tenex

reality-based
Was it you who suggested the other day that the SLC might be Swarovski's "Leica" and the Trinovid 2012-15 model Leica's "Swarovski"?
Yes, in a PM, though I put scare-quotes around that. The Swaro with the most field curvature (I hear), vs the Leica with the biggest sweet spot and least pincushioning, with similar FOV and other parameters, would make an interesting side-by-side comparison if one had both at hand. What is panning like with the SLC 42? The Trinovid BR is starting to have that effect people eventually call rolling-ball.
 

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
Yes, in a PM, though I put scare-quotes around that. The Swaro with the most field curvature (I hear), vs the Leica with the biggest sweet spot and least pincushioning, with similar FOV and other parameters, would make an interesting side-by-side comparison if one had both at hand. What is panning like with the SLC 42? The Trinovid BR is starting to have that effect people eventually call rolling-ball.

Quick reply as I just noticed I hadn't answered your question... I'll try to check the panning today and get back to you.

Tom
 

lmans66

Out Birding....
Supporter
United States
Great review...I do love the SLC as I compared side by side to a Zeiss Victory HT....Ultimately I thought the Swaro a solid pair although less ergonomical than the Zeiss. At times I wish I would have bought the SLC and might easily trade for one of someone offered a trade but I am happy with the ergonomics and clarity (especially in low light) that the Zeiss has.
I am happy for you....sounds like all is well
 

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
Great review...I do love the SLC as I compared side by side to a Zeiss Victory HT....Ultimately I thought the Swaro a solid pair although less ergonomical than the Zeiss. At times I wish I would have bought the SLC and might easily trade for one of someone offered a trade but I am happy with the ergonomics and clarity (especially in low light) that the Zeiss has.
I am happy for you....sounds like all is well

Hi Jim,

Thank you for the generous words. I'm interested in your findings as I bought an HT (8x42) from Troubador nearly two years ago. It is very fine and of course up there at the top for poor light performance but I'd have to say the SLC (I know mine is a 10x so I shouldn't compare it directly with the 8x) has an easier view; this is being fussy of course as both are superb bins, but I'd say though the SLC is not flat field like an EL Swarovision it is very good right out to the edges with less fall off than the HT. In actual use I can't object to either at all.

You find the HT more ergonomic? interesting how different we can be; I have got used to it but initially found it a bit odd needing to hold the long barrels nearer to the front. For me this SLC is possibly the most ergonomic glass I have and that makes holding a 10x steady a lot easier - which is the reason I chose it (after reading Roger Vine's review in Scope Views).

Thanks again for the feedback; very best wishes, Jim.

Tom
 
Last edited:

lmans66

Out Birding....
Supporter
United States
Hi Jim,

Thank you for the generous words. I'm interested in your findings as I bought an HT (8x42) from Trobadour nearly two years ago. It is very fine and of course up there at the top for poor light performance but I'd have to say the SLC (I know mine is a 10x so I shouldn't compare it directly with the 8x) has an easier view; this is being fussy of course as both are superb bins, but I'd say though the SLC is not flat field like an EL Swarovision it is very good right out to the edges with less fall off than the HT. In actual use I can't object to either at all.

You find the HT more ergonomic? interesting how different we can be; I have got used to it but initially found it a bit odd needing to hold the long barrels nearer to the front. For me this SLC is possibly the most ergonomic glass I have and that makes holding a 10x steady a lot easier - which is the reason I chose it (after reading Roger Vine's review in Scope Views).

Thanks again for the feedback; very best wishes, Jim.

Tom
Tom...yes...I found the ergonomics of the Zeiss HT to be much more superb to my liking and hands than the Swaro. I wanted to like the Swaro....I had both bins and would go out with them comparing and contrasting. A wonderful approach by the way that I was lucky to have. But in the end, while I enjoyed the view of the SLC, I enjoyed the ergonomics of the Zeiss plus the view was not exactly bad! But when I hold a pair of bins all day in my hands and up to my face, I want them to feel good. The coating, the length, finger placement, ease of focus wheel, one handed focus etc etc... All 'for me' ....hit the Zeiss.

But I can't knock the Swaro though....wish I could have both. jim
 

Sollas

Well-known member
Hi Jim,

Thank you for the generous words. I'm interested in your findings as I bought an HT (8x42) from Trobadour nearly two years ago. It is very fine and of course up there at the top for poor light performance but I'd have to say the SLC (I know mine is a 10x so I shouldn't compare it directly with the 8x) has an easier view; this is being fussy of course as both are superb bins, but I'd say though the SLC is not flat field like an EL Swarovision it is very good right out to the edges with less fall off than the HT. In actual use I can't object to either at all.

You find the HT more ergonomic? interesting how different we can be; I have got used to it but initially found it a bit odd needing to hold the long barrels nearer to the front. For me this SLC is possibly the most ergonomic glass I have and that makes holding a 10x steady a lot easier - which is the reason I chose it (after reading Roger Vine's review in Scope Views).

Thanks again for the feedback; very best wishes, Jim.

Tom

I remember when I bought my 8x42 HT’s I made the mistake of quickly trying the SLC 8x42. Have to say it was a very close thing. I got a great deal with the HT’s which are undoubtedly bright and clear, yet somehow there was an ease of view with the SLC’s which did pause my in my tracks.

I’m interested here because I’m contemplating the Habicht 10x40 WGA’s and a bit curious as to whether the SLC 10x42mihht be a better option?
 

jremmons

Wildlife Biologist
I do regret selling my 8x42 SLC-HD (the older model w/ the two-toned armor). The overall sharpness and lack of distortion was exemplary.

Justin
 

NDhunter

Experienced observer
United States
Tom...yes...I found the ergonomics of the Zeiss HT to be much more superb to my liking and hands than the Swaro. I wanted to like the Swaro....I had both bins and would go out with them comparing and contrasting. A wonderful approach by the way that I was lucky to have. But in the end, while I enjoyed the view of the SLC, I enjoyed the ergonomics of the Zeiss plus the view was not exactly bad! But when I hold a pair of bins all day in my hands and up to my face, I want them to feel good. The coating, the length, finger placement, ease of focus wheel, one handed focus etc etc... All 'for me' ....hit the Zeiss.

But I can't knock the Swaro though....wish I could have both. jim

Jim:
I found the ergos of the Zeiss Victory HT dreadful, when I first got to try one I could not figure out which finger to focus with. Not good at all. :eek!:
The problem with that is, it does not matter much how the view is with the
issue.
I find the Zeiss Victory SF, to be just perfect all the way around. That is why the HT is gone. Zeiss did not need 2 binoculars at that price point.

Which one did you keep ?

Jerry
 

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
I do regret selling my 8x42 SLC-HD (the older model w/ the two-toned armor). The overall sharpness and lack of distortion was exemplary.

Justin

Justin,

The more I use mine the more I like it - and I liked it the first day anyhow! Out of interest what do you mainly use instead of similar size and/or weight, no matter whether 7, 8 or 10x mag. ?

Best wishes,

Tom
 
Last edited:

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
Jim:
I found the ergos of the Zeiss Victory HT dreadful, when I first got to try one I could not figure out which finger to focus with. Not good at all. :eek!:
The problem with that is, it does not matter much how the view is with the
issue.
I find the Zeiss Victory SF, to be just perfect all the way around. That is why the HT is gone. Zeiss did not need 2 binoculars at that price point.

Which one did you keep ?

Jerry

Jerry and Jim,

Just to say I didn't find it took long to adapt my hold on the HT to be comfortable. I don't have it with me just now as quarantine has come in between but I think I hold it with one hand further forward and the focusing hand a bit closer to the face, which helps with the focusing. And yes it does have a breathtaking view, almost too bright in the first few seconds of viewing if that makes sense.

Tom
 

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
Today I ditched the paperwork I had started and went outdoors to trace the birdsong I could hear. Not much luck till later in the day, as almost everything was hiding under the canopy, but it led me to comparing the 8x32 EL FP version I have for a while against the new 10x42 SLC - for colour more than anything else since they are different magnifications.

Would those who have used both of these agree that the EL is a little bit more towards blue in its colour signature? It was hard to be sure as when I did the comparison the sun was getting low and small amounts of cloud would come in between and mean I couldn't always beat the lighting and consequent colour temperature changes. I noticed it most in the way leaves looked cooler through the EL, and also reddish hues. Pink hues in flowers showed just a touch of violet. With both bins the contrast was excellent except when the 8x32 EL showed noticeable flare. That seems to be part of that model's make-up, if I'm not mistaken? I wouldn't attempt to compare resolution as my eyes may not be up to it and anyway comparing an 8 against a 10 for that is risky.

I've got to say the dioptre zeroing on the Swarovskis is something that though seldom mentioned really is a plus point to me. Easy to check the setting and reset after lending to someone else, and a real time and effort saver if you get another Swarovski binocular - you just notch it round to the same setting and Bob's your uncle. I wish the other makers could follow this obvious step in zeroing the adjuster.

Anyway, having started this thread by buying a 10x42 SLC, I can say after a week of use that this has been a confidence-building purchase. 10x is something I no longer worry about holding steady; I'm using it effectively to view birds and other wildlife locally (mostly at home); it offers a solid but compact and comfortable size that is almost the same as the 8x32 EL, itself a supremely comfortable bin to use. The thumb indents underneath fit me well as a bonus point. Both bins share the same carry case design: the label inside the SLC bag says something along the lines of (M) 32 EL / 42 SLC... meaning you get the power of a 10x42 in a package as neat as the 8x32.

Tom
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top