New Swarovski SLC 42 Binoculars (10 Viewers)

[winwinbino]

Quote:Steve,

Okay, let's set the story straight for our readers. shall we?

You were the one who told me that when you first received the SLC-HD, you noticed that the focuser was harder to turn in one direction than the other, and you were the one who also pointed out to me that the focuser was still a bit harder to turn in one direction some weeks later, though it had improved.
End of quote:

I said "slightly" harder to turn.

Quote:But "usable" isn't silky smooth like the 8x42 HG and 10x42 EDG focusers, which I prefer. Plus, with a 10x bin, I'm not doing that much focusing, because I'm looking long most of the time, but with your 8x30 SLCneu, I found it tedious to focus close because of it taking more effort to turn the focuser one way than the other. Constantly have to pull harder one way as I tried to focus fast to catch a nearby bird drove me nuts, so I just stopped using it for close-in viewing. :End of quote

I just tried an experiment inside the house, using my "little" finger to focus the 8x30SLCneu I had no problem near or far, about 12 ft. to 25ft back and forth, back and forth.

"our readers" :-O I think you have been writing for the paper too long. Besides I doubt many people read much of what I write.
Steve

I have been using 6 SW roof bins (the 7th is on the way). My experience with their focusers are:

SV8.5x42 - remain coarse
SV8x32 - coarse but much smoother over time
SLC10x42(greenish yellow) - smooth but different tension left/right
EL8x32 (non-SV) - very smooth
CL 8x30 - coarse but a bit better than 8.5x42
CL pocket 8x25 - very smooth

Looking forward to see how the SLC HD focuser performs.

Re the SLC Neu 8x30. I prefer CL over them only because the focuser location. I am not a hunter :t:

 

[bh46118]

Is the SV better optically ?

FWIW I've never had an issue with the focus on my 3 1/2 year old SLC HD 10x42 (the original SLC HD) -- never experienced any squeeking or sticking. In fact it works better than the focus on the EL32 Swarovision I have for review, which is noticeably stiffer in one direction. That doesn't really bother me... but it's much more noticeable on the sample of the EL SV than it is on my SLC HD.

The focus mechanism is the main change to the new SLC -- basically lowering the price point with a less complex focus mechanism that pushes out the close-focus distance significantly. That's probably less of an issue for hunters than it is for birders / wildlife watchers.

Glad I got a pair of the original SLC HD before Swaro "dumbed" them down. Cracking binocular!

 

[brocknroller]

Quote:Steve,

Okay, let's set the story straight for our readers. shall we?

You were the one who told me that when you first received the SLC-HD, you noticed that the focuser was harder to turn in one direction than the other, and you were the one who also pointed out to me that the focuser was still a bit harder to turn in one direction some weeks later, though it had improved.
End of quote:

I said "slightly" harder to turn.

Quote:But "usable" isn't silky smooth like the 8x42 HG and 10x42 EDG focusers, which I prefer. Plus, with a 10x bin, I'm not doing that much focusing, because I'm looking long most of the time, but with your 8x30 SLCneu, I found it tedious to focus close because of it taking more effort to turn the focuser one way than the other. Constantly have to pull harder one way as I tried to focus fast to catch a nearby bird drove me nuts, so I just stopped using it for close-in viewing. :End of quote

I just tried an experiment inside the house, using my "little" finger to focus the 8x30SLCneu I had no problem near or far, about 12 ft. to 25ft back and forth, back and forth.

"our readers" :-O I think you have been writing for the paper too long. Besides I doubt many people read much of what I write.
Steve

Don't be modest, Steve, you have over 5,000 followers on Facebook! But ABBA, really?

Steven Moore Profile

I haven't tried your 8x SLCneu since it was new in 2009, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt that the focuser has improved, not that it was awful, if the focuser were in the usual position and I could use my index finger or middle finger, it might be workable, but I suspect what's really going on is that as a mechanic, your finger muscles are like Arnold's (that is, Conan Arnold, not Governator flabby Arnold, although he's back on the big screen, so he's probably pumping iron again), and that while you are turning the knob back and forth, from 12 ft. to 25ft, you are not actually trying to follow birds at close distance, which requires quick movements and fine focusing.

Let's face it, the 8x30 SLCneu is a good bin but it was not designed for birding. That is the job of the 8x32 EL, and the sample I tried had a smooth focuser.

OTOH, the Nikon 8x32 LX/HG's focuser was so smooth and so faassssst that it was hard for me not to overshoot the bird. I don't think you had a problem with its focuser either. Some people are like Teflon. No matter what you throw at them, nothing sticks. Other people are like fly paper. Now you can see why I have problems holding roofs!

The Fly

<B>

 

[mooreorless]

Brock you are very good writer, you should write a book. Might be 10,000 pages though. Someone just told me this morning he would buy your book. I would buy it if you discounted it.

Brock you are sick, that link of same name on Facebook.:-O "Take a chance on me" or should that be S.O.S

I tried the 8x32SV and would have to agree with you, it is better for everything compared to the 8x30SLCneu or old.

Andy in my opinion people outside should wear a billed hat,esp. sunny days. It helps you see, blocks out the sky. BTW I would say you are a credible source on Swarovski focusers.

 

[Uhu74]

Got to check out two Swaro 8x42 SLCs (newest version) today. The older demo unit had a bit of friction on the focus and made a squeacky rubberish sound while focussing. On inspection the focus wheel seemed to touch the rubber armoring of the body. Apparently there was not enough space between focus wheel and body armor.

The second unit was fresh out of the box and with this bin the focus was perfect, no extra friction and no sound.

Same here, mine made a squeeking sound as well, and there was a lot of stiction in the focuser. Returned it, and got a new one. The second one was good out of the box.
Until a couple of days later, it started to make the same sound again, and I was really annoyed. Then I thought, what the heck, and sprayed a little bit of silicone spray around the focuser, and presto, no more noise, and smooth as silk.
It has got nothing to do with the wheel rubbing the armouring, it is just a dry O-ring to keep dirt out of the focusing wheel.
And it has been a couple of weeks ago, and still going strong. I am still delighted with mine, it amazes me every time again when I'm using it.:t:

Best regards,

Gijs

 

[jnielsen]

Just picked up The most recent version of the SLC in 10x42.
Gave it a workout this last weekend in the mountains against my 8.5x42 Swarovision, a Meopta Meostar HD 10x42, Zeiss Victory HT 10x42 and my Golden Ring HD 8x42. I am a previous owner of a Zeiss Victory FL 10x42 and 2008 EL 8.5x42.

Also gave it a workout the other night in low to dark conditions against the Swarovision 8.5x42 (best static view and low light performance I have seen to this date in a 42mm binocular).

The New SLC in my new go to binocular (hunter). The rolling ball in the SV is detrimental to panning (which is mostly what you are doing when looking for game, it did not bother me a first but now it does).

I don't know if any optical improvements were made in it over the disc. SLC HD but I know the SLC HD just did not get that positive reviews.

This binocular is a winner on every front.

Great ergonomics, top tier brightness, great CA control, no rolling ball, neutral transmission and top level contrast. Sweet spot very large. Weight perfect for a 10x. Also impressive is the focus of the SLC, not the mechanics or smoothness but the ease and speed of getting an object in perfect focus and the duration on the wheel that the object stays in focus which is the best I have seen. The duration the object stays in focus is very long and this makes perfect focus very easy (hope this makes sense).

I think the SLC will find itself in many a hunters and birders hands in the near future.

I will be selling my 8.5 swarovision to possibly fund a 8x42 SLC

My opinion of the HT is that it is slightly brighter on paper (not so much in the field) and has slightly better CA control but the SLC has better ergonomics, a larger sweet spot, easier focus, more compact and a little cheaper.

 

[brocknroller]

jnielsen

Not sure why the SLC-HD didn't get positive reviews other than the price was within $200-$300- of the SV EL. The only flaw I recall was some loose armoring.

AFAIK, the only differences between the SLC-HD and the the latest SLC are the armoring and the focusing mechanism (slower and not as close focusing). You seem to be happy with the focuser, or at least somewhat, question mark on the "mechanics and smoothness." The focuser on the 10x42 SLC-HD sample I tried turned a bit harder in one direction, which is typical, but not as hard as other Swaros I've tried, and the focus was otherwise smooth and precise. Plus 6 ft. close focus for a 10x42 is quite good.

I call the view a "View to Kill," not because I would use it for hunting, but because it's pretty much perfect in terms of distortion (not too low, not too high), sweet spot ("large" undersells it, it's sharp almost to the edge), neutral color, high resolution, and that hard-to-define quality I call transparency, which is to say, there's nothing in the view to distract you or stand in your way.

I do a lot of panning while birding so I don't care how spectacular a "static view" is in a bin if it makes me nauseous while panning. Holger recently did a study of the distortion levels in the SV EL line, and they are not all created equal. The 8.5x42 model has the most angular magnification distortion (least pincushion is another way to look at it) of the models, so if you're sensitive to "rolling ball," that's the one you're going to see it with. You may not have seen it in the 10x42 SV EL or 8x32 SV EL.

I think there will be an SLC in my hands, though it doesn't look like it will be in the near future.

Brock

 

[bh46118]

Does the SLC have any more of a 3D view than other roofs ?

 

[jremmons]

Does the SLC have any more of a 3D view than other roofs ?

The SLC HD is probably the best binocular I've ever seen, but no, it does not. I have found no roof that offers the 3-D effect I think you desire.

Justin

 

[Uhu74]

Does the SLC have any more of a 3D view than other roofs ?

Hard to tell because of my limited experience with binos in general, but there is a lot of depth in the image, and everything seems to come alive. Addicting view with a big "wow" factor.
I'm still searching for a decent more compact 8x32, but the SLC has got me spoiled rotten, and nothing (in my price range) seems to impress anymore

 

[bh46118]

It's always great to acquire a new item that you are totally happy with and can't wait to use. :t: It happens very rarely in life.

Hard to tell because of my limited experience with binos in general, but there is a lot of depth in the image, and everything seems to come alive. Addicting view with a big "wow" factor.
I'm still searching for a decent more compact 8x32, but the SLC has got me spoiled rotten, and nothing (in my price range) seems to impress anymore

 

[bh46118]

I'm afraid you're right.

The SLC HD is probably the best binocular I've ever seen, but no, it does not. I have found no roof that offers the 3-D effect I think you desire.

Justin

 

[jnielsen]

Yes the focus mechanics of mine in not perfect. Slightly easier to turn one direction ( does not bother me at all). Big improvement however over my 2011 SV, it is a lot harder to turn one direction than the other and is more stiff in general overall.

 

[kabsetz]

Does the SLC have any more of a 3D view than other roofs ?

A 3D view is pretty much the result of objective spacing, with binoculars that have wide objective spacing (traditional Porros) having the most, roof prism binoculars that have objective spacing roughly the same as inter pupillary distance having significantly less, and reverse Porro type binoculars that have objective spacing smaller than inter pupillary distance having the leas

Due to somewhat different roof prism configurations, some roofs have less of a 3D view than others, with the Nikon EDG series being an example of "narrow-spaced" roofs and the Zeiss FL series an example of "wide-spaced" roofs.

The reason why I said "pretty much" in the first paragraph is that, like with many other subjectively experienced and assessed characteristics of a binoculars' view, there are probably some intangibles at play in the creation of a 3D view. I don't think any of these are likely to be of the same magnitude of importance as objective spacing, but when comparing binoculars that have identical objective spacings for your individual inter pupillary distance, they may play enough of a role to make a subjective difference. In this category, I would speculate that a binocular that has very few optical aberrations, mild curvature of the field, a large sweet spot and very little astigmatism towards the edges could also more easily let you concentrate on depth aspects of the view and give an impression of better dimensionality. The SLC series ticks all these boxes.

Kimmo

 

[bh46118]

Thanks Kimmo

A "Porro-like" view is mentioned at the end of this review. That is what had me thinking.
http://www.opticsreviewer.com/swarovski-slc-hd.html

Bruce

A 3D view is pretty much the result of objective spacing, with binoculars that have wide objective spacing (traditional Porros) having the most, roof prism binoculars that have objective spacing roughly the same as inter pupillary distance having significantly less, and reverse Porro type binoculars that have objective spacing smaller than inter pupillary distance having the leas

Due to somewhat different roof prism configurations, some roofs have less of a 3D view than others, with the Nikon EDG series being an example of "narrow-spaced" roofs and the Zeiss FL series an example of "wide-spaced" roofs.

The reason why I said "pretty much" in the first paragraph is that, like with many other subjectively experienced and assessed characteristics of a binoculars' view, there are probably some intangibles at play in the creation of a 3D view. I don't think any of these are likely to be of the same magnitude of importance as objective spacing, but when comparing binoculars that have identical objective spacings for your individual inter pupillary distance, they may play enough of a role to make a subjective difference. In this category, I would speculate that a binocular that has very few optical aberrations, mild curvature of the field, a large sweet spot and very little astigmatism towards the edges could also more easily let you concentrate on depth aspects of the view and give an impression of better dimensionality. The SLC series ticks all these boxes.

Kimmo

 

[ceasar]

Thanks Kimmo

A "Porro-like" view is mentioned at the end of this review. That is what had me thinking.
http://www.opticsreviewer.com/swarovski-slc-hd.html

Bruce

Bruce,

It mentions the "Porro-like" view along with a statement about "depth of view" and supplies a link for a definition of that term. In any case depth of field would be most visible on objects close to the observer rather than far out which applies to all binoculars. I think the term "Porro view" means something different than that.

Bob

 

[bh46118]

Thanks Bob

Bruce,

It mentions the "Porro-like" view along with a statement about "depth of view" and supplies a link for a definition of that term. In any case depth of field would be most visible on objects close to the observer rather than far out which applies to all binoculars. I think the term "Porro view" means something different than that.

Bob

 

[brocknroller]

Here's the excerpt: What about a Porro Prism-like Three-dimensional Effect?

Because of the depth of view with the Swarovski SLC HD binoculars' optics, they come amazingly close to a Porro prism's three dimensional view. It's an enjoyable view and part of the SLC HD binocular experience.

Keep in mind they compared the 8x42 SLC with an unnamed second-tier 10x42 HD bin (Meopta HD? Conquest HD?). So, of course, the 8x is going to have more depth of field, which will give it a "3-D like" view, though NOT "amazingly close" to a Porro. The 10x42 SLC-HD I tried noticeably compressed the distance between objects in the view to the point where 10x roofs should come with a warning sign: "objects may appear closer together than they actually are."

You go down to a 7x42 roof and the greater depth of field will give it an even more "3-D like" view, but still no Porro Kewpie Doll.

I suspect, as Kimmo conjectured above, it's the transparent view lacking in distracting distortions and the sharp edges (90% rated by them, 95% by allbinos) along with the better DOF of 8x magnification give them that impression.

The other factor that adds or detracts from the illusion of 3-D is "speed" of the focuser. Fast focusers tend to make the compression users see in roofs more exaggerated, because you fly through the scene. It requires a deft touch to use a fast focusing bin.

I'm not thrilled with the growing trend of making bin focusers fast. The Zeiss 8x42 Terra ED focusers WAY too fast, IMO. Gives a "slice of life" view that is better served up under a microscope than binoculars.

Brock

 

[Tobias Mennle]

Yeah, "porrolike" came to my mind, too, when using the 8x42 SLC HD for the first time. Anyway I immediately fell totally in love with this glass. The image is gorgeous - it just looks like image contrast equals object contrast. The El 8x32 image looks dull in comparison even in sunlight. Moreover, the SLC has an especially beautiful very soft foreground and background bokeh which might approximate the porro 3D view.