Wow some of these look awesome! Wish they were easier to find or actually came with the binoculars nowadays.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
John A Roberts
Well-known member
Expanding on my post from yesterday, Swarovski also provided earlier versions of bags with their roof prism binoculars.
Starting with the original roof prism offering, the SLC 8x30 introduced in 1985 . . .
A) SLC vinyl
While it had a rear slot for carrying on a belt, it seems to have been mainly intended as a storage case.
It had no seperate padding and sealed with a velcro tab.
Unsurprisingly, the vinyl coating often shows considerable deterioration over the years e.g. a bag that came with a 1987 SLC.
B) SLC Cordura
Like some of the designs in the previous post, it was intended to be primarily used attached to a neck strap (though there was also a belt loop).
There were two versions. While most had a velcro closure, for a brief period following the introduction of the SLC x42 in 1992,
a twist toggle was used.
C) Standard Bag (as per Swarovski)
An unpadded case with a zip on 3 sides, and no provision to attach a neck, belt or shoulder strap. So intended as a storage case.
Referred to by some as a shaving bag, it makes the point that no one bag can suit everyone
e.g. contrast it (or the draw string Storage Bag in post #13) to the maximum features Field Bag.
Again there are two versions, an original black polyester one, and a new one with green panels.
The change occurred recently, and is presumedly due to Swarovski’s move to more environmentally friendly materials and practices.
The new one is available in x30 and x40/ 42 sizes specifically for the Habicht Porro prism binoculars.
- - - -
There was also a variation to the minimalist bag shown at A) in my previous post. It had the addition of green trim
and seems to have been briefly provided following the introduction of the original EL x42 in 1999.
- - - -
The images in this and the previous post show bags that have been typically provided with the full size roof prism models.
However, there were most likely variations depending on what could be sourced at a particular time.
In addition, there are models unique to the current and previous CL x30 lines; and also the current and previous Pocket lines.
John
Image Sources:
1) 2016 eBay listing by alafay.6nvjr
2) 2021 eBay listing by quinntrillion
3) 2022 eBay listing by s.c_81
4) 2018 ebay listing by glenshipgm
5) 2020 eBay listing by cristiagheorghit-7
6) & 7) 2016 eBay listing by suburbanpickers
8) 2013 listing by John Moran Auctioneers
9) Swarovski Optik
10) 2014 eBay listing by mactina
11) 2015 listing by karate_shiatsu
Starting with the original roof prism offering, the SLC 8x30 introduced in 1985 . . .
A) SLC vinyl
While it had a rear slot for carrying on a belt, it seems to have been mainly intended as a storage case.
It had no seperate padding and sealed with a velcro tab.
Unsurprisingly, the vinyl coating often shows considerable deterioration over the years e.g. a bag that came with a 1987 SLC.
B) SLC Cordura
Like some of the designs in the previous post, it was intended to be primarily used attached to a neck strap (though there was also a belt loop).
There were two versions. While most had a velcro closure, for a brief period following the introduction of the SLC x42 in 1992,
a twist toggle was used.
C) Standard Bag (as per Swarovski)
An unpadded case with a zip on 3 sides, and no provision to attach a neck, belt or shoulder strap. So intended as a storage case.
Referred to by some as a shaving bag, it makes the point that no one bag can suit everyone
e.g. contrast it (or the draw string Storage Bag in post #13) to the maximum features Field Bag.
Again there are two versions, an original black polyester one, and a new one with green panels.
The change occurred recently, and is presumedly due to Swarovski’s move to more environmentally friendly materials and practices.
The new one is available in x30 and x40/ 42 sizes specifically for the Habicht Porro prism binoculars.
- - - -
There was also a variation to the minimalist bag shown at A) in my previous post. It had the addition of green trim
and seems to have been briefly provided following the introduction of the original EL x42 in 1999.
- - - -
The images in this and the previous post show bags that have been typically provided with the full size roof prism models.
However, there were most likely variations depending on what could be sourced at a particular time.
In addition, there are models unique to the current and previous CL x30 lines; and also the current and previous Pocket lines.
John
Image Sources:
1) 2016 eBay listing by alafay.6nvjr
2) 2021 eBay listing by quinntrillion
3) 2022 eBay listing by s.c_81
4) 2018 ebay listing by glenshipgm
5) 2020 eBay listing by cristiagheorghit-7
6) & 7) 2016 eBay listing by suburbanpickers
8) 2013 listing by John Moran Auctioneers
9) Swarovski Optik
10) 2014 eBay listing by mactina
11) 2015 listing by karate_shiatsu
Attachments
Last edited:
Such a thorough write up! I really appreciate the work you put into this! Very thoughtful and researched. I appreciate it.
Stevenarnold1957
New member
Are all swarovski 8.5x42 el binoculars got swarvision
Stevenarnold1957
New member
Stevenarnold1957
New member
Are all the new swarovski el 8.5 x42 fitted with swarvision?
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Just the ones with Swarovision 😝. Seriously I believe Swarovision SV came out about 2012 as an upgrade on the Swaros. The binos would usually be advertised as EL SV.
etc
Well-known member
EL's of 2007 vintage were my second Alpha, an upgrade from Trinovid. They are really hard to beat. I tried 8x42 Zeiss SF and was disappointed. Maybe because of the extra 0.5 power, which was a clever marketing trick. It's like buying something and getting something extra. Why buy 8x when you can buy 8.5x? And yes you could resolve more with 8.5 than 8x, noticeably so.
The only thing that beats the 8.5x EL is either 10x EL or 12X EL with the 50mm objective. Everything you said applies to them as well except they have a greater Twilight Index and resolve more due to 10/12x versus 8.5x.
Swarovski copied the 8.5x idea from the Swift Audubon 804 8.5x44 that was the premier birding binocular for over 50 years.I agree that 8.5x was a good idea....we need more 9x binoculars. The Maven 9x45 is still on my list . If it was a 9x50 it'd be even better
etc
Well-known member
Yes, if you do not want a 10x42 but want to stay in the 8x power, 8.5x is automatically a better choice than any Leica 8x42, or Zeiss 8x42. You get kind of a free lunch with it. At least in the mind of a consumer. Half power is a half power.
I tried a 2007 vintage 8.5x42 EL versus 1st gen Zeiss SF 8x42 and liked Swaro better, same for Leica. Better picture quality, more resolution. If I wanted another 8x, I would get a 8.5x42 EL without a doubt over very fine competition. But probably without SV.
I tried a 2007 vintage 8.5x42 EL versus 1st gen Zeiss SF 8x42 and liked Swaro better, same for Leica. Better picture quality, more resolution. If I wanted another 8x, I would get a 8.5x42 EL without a doubt over very fine competition. But probably without SV.
John A Roberts
Well-known member
Well that's a confident assertion!
However, there is at least one alternative:
When developing the original EL - instead of the usual choices of 7x42 , 8x42 and 10x42 -
Swarovski may have considered a more even power spacing of 7x42, 8.5x42 and 10x42,
where there's basically a 1.2 times increase in magnification from 7x to 8.5x, and again from 8.5x to 10x.
And in relation to 8x vs 8.5x:
8.5x only provides a 6% increase in magnification (1 ÷ 8 x 8.5; assuming nominal values = actual values).
So while noticeable on a side-by-side comparison, perhaps not so significant in use?
John
norway
🔻FP🔻
People who think "more is better" would still be more likely to simply get the 10X, no? No doubt most who are considering binoculars in this category are aware of the directly-inverse relationship between magnification and field of view. At least for me, the extra 6% is pretty meaningless in the decision.
Am I the only person who's not that into these winged eyecups?Here another happy 8.5 x 42 EL SV owner (since 2011)
For people wo don't wear glasses, a big improvement / add-on that for some unknown reason very few people use is eyecups! Blocks out the light entering from the sides, which in many cases is a great improvement for very little additional money.
View attachment 1453601
The extra light isolation is OK, but I'm still undecided whether it's worth the drawbacks of the loose-fitting cover and the added bulk, and then there's the issue with sunglasses.
Last edited:
YuShan
Well-known member
They were only £20 as an accessory (in 2011) so worth trying if they work for you or not. For me it was a massive improvement, so I'm always puzzled why not more people use them. It's especially good when the sun is low and coming from the side (blocking out reflections), but even in normal conditions blocking out light coming from the sides is really nice. I'm getting more immersed into the stuff I'm watching.Am I the only person who's not that into these winged eyecups?
The extra light isolation is OK, but I'm still undecided whether it's worth the drawbacks of the loose-fitting cover and the added bulk, and then there's the issue with sunglasses.
The eyecups came together with a rain guard that is shaped to fit the winged eyecups, so if that is what you mean with "loose-fitting", that is a non-existing problem. But yes, it is slightly bulkier.
The big drawback of course (as you already pointed out) is that you cannot use them with glasses. I'm a contact lens wearer myself and definitely when birding, so it is usually not a problem. But sometimes when I'm wearing glasses and I'm caught off guard by something interesting then it's a bit of a pain, because they cannot be quickly removed. I wish they were made such that they can be folded to the side to "disable" them when wearing glasses.
norway
🔻FP🔻
@YuShan
For sure; it's good to have the option, at least. I bought a set last month and the cover is loose enough to get knocked off easily, which was a bit of a disappointment compared to the secure fit of the original cover.
Ah well, it's not a major expense, and it's easy enough to swap them out for different situations with the Field Pro strap system or a quick-detach clip. As you said, the extra isolation is often beneficial.
For sure; it's good to have the option, at least. I bought a set last month and the cover is loose enough to get knocked off easily, which was a bit of a disappointment compared to the secure fit of the original cover.
Ah well, it's not a major expense, and it's easy enough to swap them out for different situations with the Field Pro strap system or a quick-detach clip. As you said, the extra isolation is often beneficial.
safaridreaming
Well-known member
We used the Swaro Field bag for similar, carrying a bird book, sunglass case, note and pencil whilst the binos were carried around the neck.
hopster
Well-known member
Here another happy 8.5 x 42 EL SV owner (since 2011)
For people wo don't wear glasses, a big improvement / add-on that for some unknown reason very few people use is eyecups! Blocks out the light entering from the sides, which in many cases is a great improvement for very little additional money.
View attachment 1453601
I agree. Winged eye cups are such a cheap addition (~£5 from eBay) and bring both ease-of-use and image quality benefits. I use them on all my binoculars.
Crex67
Well-known member
Not using the eyecups anymore. Reason is I also sometimes wear glasses or use contactlenes. Do like the rainguard however, I like the fact it’s loose, original raincover
(NL Pure 19x42) is too tight in my opinion. In the field I want quickly to add and disable the raincover.
(NL Pure 19x42) is too tight in my opinion. In the field I want quickly to add and disable the raincover.
