• 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.

New SLC 8x42 Review by Tobias Mennle (1 Viewer)

Patudo

Well-known member
I have to admit the flat field binoculars I've spent the most time with (ELs, Nikon WX, Nikon SE) have all seemed to work really well for me. I definitely like the edge sharpness, which seems to help with both ease of view and spatial awareness, and think that these binoculars are a little less fatiguing after long glassing sessions. When I've looked at birds closer in through those binoculars, the experience seemed just as satisfying as with any other. That said, I like plenty of non field-flattened binoculars too. Maybe I'm easily satisfied in that respect!

I, personally, don't really perceive the 3d effect others talk about when using porros, either. I do notice a difference, probably because of the wider set objectives, but that doesn't translate into an impression of greater three-dimensionality (not to me anyway). I'd actually have to say a roof prism binocular more closely matches what my eyes see - as you're looking straight down the barrels, as it were.

One thing I have noticed with porros - almost every one I have tried, from 8x30 to 10x50, I have needed more familiarization time to "learn how to look through them" - compared to roof prism binoculars where the image almost always seems to be much more accessible. With most modern roofs (and even older ones like Leitz Trinovids) I can put them to my eyes and the image is right there, it's all there.

All the above is just my own individual perception, and I certainly don't expect anyone else to see things the same way. The requirements of photography/filming may very well be different to observation in the field - I know I have at times watched footage of landscapes that was probably filmed through flat-field wide-angle lenses, and thought what I was seeing felt a bit odd (possibly because the angle of view exceeded the "sweet spot" of sharpness of my own vision in a way that binoculars don't?). If you prefer, and spend a lot of time looking through those kinds of lenses as a film-maker, it's only natural that that preference and familiarity will deeply influence what you like in binoculars.

Anyhow, for what it's worth, I do enjoy reading Tobias's comments/observations even though (or even because) his perceptions are often different from mine, and hope his write-up comparing his various old porros will soon be online.
 

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
We’re truly fortunate to be in the situation of having comprehensive and structured sets of binocular reviews provided by:
• Tobias Mennle at: http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/index.html
• Roger Vine at: http://www.scopeviews.co.uk
• Holger Merlitz at: http://www.holgermerlitz.de, and
• Arek at Allbinos: https://www.allbinos.com/index.html

And also:
• Gijs van Ginkel’s extensive work on transmission at: https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/verrekijkers/verrekijkers-testen-en-vergelijken/
• along with that of Arek

Unsurprisingly - and refreshingly - the first four take different approaches and provide differing perspectives,
which is a great advantage to a reader in coming to an informed overall view

Tobias’ reviews may be 'just his own opinions’ but they are not unconsidered ones
And in contrast while Arek’s reviews may include elements of 'objective testing’ (e.g. quantitative ratings),
there are also obvious limitations to his approach

Personally, I get a great deal from each of them, and my understanding and appreciation is all the richer for it

However, if you wish you can of course choose your preferred expert and proceed accordingly
But as with many areas of study, you may significantly develop your own views, by reading the intelligent expression of views
with which you disagree


John
 
Last edited:

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I have to admit the flat field binoculars I've spent the most time with (ELs, Nikon WX, Nikon SE) have all seemed to work really well for me. I definitely like the edge sharpness, which seems to help with both ease of view and spatial awareness, and think that these binoculars are a little less fatiguing after long glassing sessions. When I've looked at birds closer in through those binoculars, the experience seemed just as satisfying as with any other. That said, I like plenty of non field-flattened binoculars too. Maybe I'm easily satisfied in that respect!

I, personally, don't really perceive the 3d effect others talk about when using porros, either. I do notice a difference, probably because of the wider set objectives, but that doesn't translate into an impression of greater three-dimensionality (not to me anyway). I'd actually have to say a roof prism binocular more closely matches what my eyes see - as you're looking straight down the barrels, as it were.

One thing I have noticed with porros - almost every one I have tried, from 8x30 to 10x50, I have needed more familiarization time to "learn how to look through them" - compared to roof prism binoculars where the image almost always seems to be much more accessible. With most modern roofs (and even older ones like Leitz Trinovids) I can put them to my eyes and the image is right there, it's all there.

All the above is just my own individual perception, and I certainly don't expect anyone else to see things the same way. The requirements of photography/filming may very well be different to observation in the field - I know I have at times watched footage of landscapes that was probably filmed through flat-field wide-angle lenses, and thought what I was seeing felt a bit odd (possibly because the angle of view exceeded the "sweet spot" of sharpness of my own vision in a way that binoculars don't?). If you prefer, and spend a lot of time looking through those kinds of lenses as a film-maker, it's only natural that that preference and familiarity will deeply influence what you like in binoculars.

Anyhow, for what it's worth, I do enjoy reading Tobias's comments/observations even though (or even because) his perceptions are often different from mine, and hope his write-up comparing his various old porros will soon be online.
"I, personally, don't really perceive the 3d effect others talk about when using porros, either. I do notice a difference, probably because of the wider set objectives, but that doesn't translate into an impression of greater three-dimensionality (not to me anyway). I'd actually have to say a roof prism binocular more closely matches what my eyes see - as you're looking straight down the barrels, as it were."

Look at a tree at about 30 yards away that is at least 30 feet in diameter with big branches first with your roof prism binocular and then with your porro prism binocular preferably both with the same magnification. Notice with the roof prism how the branches will appear to be all in the same dimension as on a flat sheet of paper now try the same thing with the porro. Look at the branches carefully. You will notice that the branches that are further away from you will now appear further away as in two dimensions, or they will appear more as your eyes truly see them. The porro prism gives you a more "real" view. I find it hard to believe people don't see the difference between a porro and a roof in the 3D dimensionality that a porro adds. The 3D effect of the porro is really only good out to about 100 yards then as objects approach infinity the effect diminishes.
 

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
For those of you with SLC 8x42s, how is veiling glare? It was the deal killer for me with the ELs and NLs (not that the NLs were ever on the table due to cost).
Read Tobias's review; it mentions it as one of the cons in strong backlight and also some peripheral flare less so in sidelight. But if you look into strong backlight I suppose that is to be expected anyway; paradoxically the sun is often the greatest obstacle to visibility. Specifically, I used an SLC 8x42 (latest one, same as in his review) all spring and summer this year and in practical use hardly encountered any cons at all, of this or other kinds. I felt the SLC dealt with such problems as well as anything else I have used, and in most respects better. As always, see if you can try one out for yourself. In my case I ordered blind but have been very happy indeed with the purchase. Good luck!


Tom
 

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
We’re truly fortunate to be in the situation of having comprehensive and structured sets of binocular reviews provided by:
• Tobias Mennle at: http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/index.html
• Roger Vine at: http://www.scopeviews.co.uk
• Holger Merlitz at: http://www.holgermerlitz.de, and
• Arek at Allbinos: https://www.allbinos.com/index.html

And also:
• Gijs van Ginkel’s extensive work on transmission at: https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/verrekijkers/verrekijkers-testen-en-vergelijken/
• along with that of Arek

Unsurprisingly - and refreshingly - the first four take different approaches and provide differing perspectives,
which is a great advantage to a reader in coming to an informed overall view

Tobias’ reviews may be 'just his own opinions’ but they are not unconsidered ones
And in contrast while Arek’s reviews may include elements of 'objective testing’ (e.g. quantitative ratings),
there are also obvious limitations to his approach

Personally, I get a great deal from each of them, and my understanding and appreciation is all the richer for it

However, if you wish you can of course choose your preferred expert and proceed accordingly
But as with many areas of study, you may significantly develop your own views, by reading the intelligent expression of views
with which you disagree


John
Excellent post and conclusions, John. It has been very interesting and thought stimulating to look at your bullet-pointed links over the last year or two to see different takes on binoculars by people who know their own field of work well. By considering experts preferred (including yourself) and also not so preferred, I have found it easier to pick out differences and aspects of binoculars in my own use and gradually refine my own preferences - or equally enjoy all the differences.

Tom
 

bkdc

Well-known member
Tobias does seem to prefer the traditional view without field flatterers. With regard to a sense of depth, the Leica Ultravids do this very well, and even features that are not in focus still are more pleasant to view with better detail. From what I’ve read, the Noctivids also do this well although I have not looked through one. I check the branches and leaves on an olive tree about 20 to 30 meters away and the leaves seem to be in different planes. I wonder what the physics/optics explanation is for this difference. Like CA, this bothers some people more than others.
 
Last edited:

Patudo

Well-known member
Look at a tree at about 30 yards away that is at least 30 feet in diameter with big branches first with your roof prism binocular and then with your porro prism binocular preferably both with the same magnification. Notice with the roof prism how the branches will appear to be all in the same dimension as on a flat sheet of paper now try the same thing with the porro. Look at the branches carefully. You will notice that the branches that are further away from you will now appear further away as in two dimensions, or they will appear more as your eyes truly see them. The porro prism gives you a more "real" view. I find it hard to believe people don't see the difference between a porro and a roof in the 3D dimensionality that a porro adds. The 3D effect of the porro is really only good out to about 100 yards then as objects approach infinity the effect diminishes.

I'm afraid that's not what my eyes see. Although most of my viewing is well beyond 100 yards, I have looked at closer targets on numerous occasions with both roof and porro (most recently when I was very carefully comparing my Dialyt 10x40 P model against a Nikon 10x42 SE) and cannot say I ever noticed greater three dimensionality with the porro. I actually think, as I noted earlier, the roof view is more natural (to me) because the distance between the objectives matches my IPD more closely. My eyeballs aren't spaced apart as widely as the objectives of a porro.

But that's just my personal perception (and the same with regard to how I find flat field etc). I have no doubt from the observations of others here and elsewhere that they perceive things differently.
 

Jessie-66

Germany
Good morning to all readers, hello Patudo,
your observation interests me a lot because rarely reported, thanks for writing about it. I confirm Dennis' experience ("3D effect" with porro bins < ~ 100 m / ~ 100 yds). Do you perhaps have a "dominant eye", a "leading eye", a visual weakness only in 1 eye or glasses that are poorly adjusted on one side? Your experience is rarely reported, so I find causes interesting. You can also write a PM to me if answer should not public readable.
Best regards and hopefully the pandemic problems (mutation, limitations) are bearable in UK. I'm also in a hotspot. Jessie
 
Last edited:

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Look at a tree at about 30 yards away that is at least 30 feet in diameter with big branches first with your roof prism binocular and then with your porro prism binocular preferably both with the same magnification. Notice with the roof prism how the branches will appear to be all in the same dimension as on a flat sheet of paper now try the same thing with the porro. Look at the branches carefully. You will notice that the branches that are further away from you will now appear further away as in two dimensions, or they will appear more as your eyes truly see them. The porro prism gives you a more "real" view. I find it hard to believe people don't see the difference between a porro and a roof in the 3D dimensionality that a porro adds. The 3D effect of the porro is really only good out to about 100 yards then as objects approach infinity the effect diminishes.
Dennis, I think that there is a learning process involved in coming to appreciate the 3D effect of reduced distance compression. I first noticed this using a Meopta MeoStar 7x42 (roof bino! )on an island in the Western Isles of Scotland when looking at a bay I am very familiar with and have looked at through many different binos. On the south side there is a mainland promontory, then a tiny islet and then a large island, and for the first time through binoculars I could perceive the distance between these objects. In other words there was perceptible depth between these objects. Since then I have recognised this effect through SF 8x32s so I believe I have learned to see it. I am quite prepared to believe that the effect is greater through Porros but I now know it is present in roofies too.

Lee
 

Torview

Well-known member
I find myself concurring with Dennis on the Porro view, distinctly greater sense of spatial separation between objects for me over any roof.

Also for the same magnification the Porro presents the Bird looking a little smaller than a roof for me. I`m not sure I can easily explain the effect but, lets say you had a bird in your hand, the Porro presents the bird as if you were holding it at arms length, the roof like you were holding it with a bent arm a foot in front of your eyes.

Makes sense to me as I write it but I have had several glasses of Christmas cheer thus far !
 

Jessie-66

Germany
Also for the same magnification the Porro presents the Bird looking a little smaller than a roof for me. I`m not sure I can easily explain the effect but, lets say you had a bird in your hand, the Porro presents the bird as if you were holding it at arms length, the roof like you were holding it with a bent arm a foot in front of your eyes.
Hi Torview, this effect of non-inverse porro prism bins is real existent and known as "Lilliputism effect" (seemingly lower magnification, especially at close distance). You have observed and described well. Cheers. Jessie
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top