Prospect of a CL x40/42 soon? (1 Viewer)

[John A Roberts]

As many will be aware, Swarovski discontinued the SLC x42 line last year, with the last units shipping in December. And following on from that, Kahles has taken up the models with new rubber armouring, as the Helia S series. See at: New Kahles Helia S 8x42 and 10x42 Models

This has left an obvious gap in the Swarovski lineup. In relation to x30/32 models, Swarovski offers both the state-of-the-art and premium priced NL x32 line, along with the more conventional and affordable CL x30 one.

However, while there is the NL x42 line (along with the EL x42 one), there is no lower-priced counterpart. And although the popularity of products declines over time, when the discontinuation of the SLC x42 line was announced, it still comprised 10% of Swarovski binocular sales.
See post #4 at: Swarovski Binoculars - Volume of Production
So clearly there would seem to be a commercial opportunity that is not being addressed.


Swarovski has just uploaded new price lists for 2021/2022 at: My Service
There are export lists for the Nature and Hunting markets, along with seperate ones for various European countries.

What’s indicated in the lists as new products are:
the NL x32 binoculars; the updated CL x25 binoculars; the EL Range TA binoculars; the 115 mm objective for X series telescopes, and; the updated dS sight
i.e. all of the items recently introduced by Swarovski.

The only addition is the ultra-specialised AFL/ Anti-Fog Lens attachment for use on some sights - it was announced on the 1st of July, and is to be available in November (and is listed at €480!).

What’s interesting is that there is no replacement for the SLC x42’s. So if there is to be a CL x40/42 line, we may not see it until 2022 at the earliest.


John

 

[tenex]

I suppose Swaro isn't obligated to provide a direct replacement at all, as those who really want this design can still buy it in brown. And I fail to understand the degree of interest in a possible CL 42, which seems highly unlikely to be an improvement. (Besides, didn't "C" stand for Compact?)

 

[nzwild]

I would love to see a 8x42 CL with an emphasis on light weight. Time for a composite shell maybe?

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Tenex (post #2),

Your right, Swarovski is of course free to do whatever they want. However, they will have in place programmes for ongoing product development, including one for their binocular lineup (and they may already be, at least in the most preliminary way, thinking about what could replace the NL!).

Until recently Swarovski’s approach has been clear in offering three roof prism lines:
the premium technology EL; the high level SLC, and; the entry level CL.

And in terms of the competition, Leica takes a parallel approach with:
the premium technology Noctivid; the high level Ultravid, and; the entry level Trinovid.

In contrast, Zeiss is somewhat different with:
the premium technology Victory; the entry level Conquest, and; the economy level Terra.

- - - -
With the recent introductions of the NL x42 and x32, the Swarovski lineup is in transition. Currently there’s the mix of:
• EL x50 and SLC x56,
• NL x42 and EL x42,
• NL x32 and CL x30, and
• CL x25
(with both the SLC x42 and the EL x32 having been discontinued).


So in terms of further development . . .

The most obvious addition would be NL x50 (or perhaps x56) models to complete the premium lineup.

Then the question is whether Swarovski will continue with two additional lines - with different features at different price points - or perhaps change to one. However, whichever route they take, it’s clear that the role can’t be filled by the EL (if only because of the price). Hence my comments about, for the lack of an alternative term, a 'CL x40/42'.

- - - -
And in terms of the possible meaning of Swarovski’s letter designations . . .

While C may have once stood for 'compact', it’s clear that’s not a rule e.g. it’s hard to imagine how either the original or current series of SLC x56’s can be considered compact! For some historical context see post #3 at: What are the German words for EL & SLC?

And more generally, in terms of the use of letter designations on Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica binoculars, also see post #10 at: Pardon my ignorance, but what do the letters mean?


John

 

[PYRTLE]

I would love to see a 8x42 CL with an emphasis on light weight. Time for a composite shell maybe?

Were the Zeiss FL series barrels not made out of a composite rather than metal alloy? Perhaps Swarovski are not keen on this type of material for the main structure of binoculars given they like to promote a greener outlook wherever possible.

 

[nzwild]

Carbon emissions of composite are comparative to alloy.
Definitely some advantages of composite.
A good way to offer a new marketing line and position for the CL


A quote from a mountain bike manufacturer

A component made from standard carbon fiber of the same thickness as an aluminum one will offer 31-percent more rigidity than the aluminum one, and at the same time, weigh 50-percent less and have 60-percent more strength

 

[Paskman]

I don't think Swarovski view the CL range as their "entry level", they view it as a spcific range aimed at specific groups, for example, people with a disposable income, who travel a lot and want a high quality product to take with them, or people who very occasionally use binoculars and for whom size is more important that the absolute best. They might also already own ELs or NLs. But, these are not people who will, on the whole "move up" to NLs, they don't need to or want to. I also suspect that Swarovski view the ELs as the equivalent to the Leica Ultracids i.e. the high quality working tool of the range, lets face it they are still superb binoculars and a considerable financial saving over the NLs for professional users for whom budgets are an important part of their business. There might indeed be a 42 CL in the future, but I don't see it as a certainty.

 

[Troubador]

Trade contacts report deliveries of Swarovski Optics products are taking 10-12 weeks. Can they really fit another product line in before they get this lead time down to a more acceptable level to dealers?

Lee

 

[jan van daalen]

Last week was the first week this year that the written orders were smaller compared to the production capacity. This does not mean that Swaro can deliver on demand, only that they are now capable of reducing the delivery time which are, like Lee stated, between 10 and ??? weeks.

Jan

 

[dries1]

Better to have long lead times than glass produced sitting on store shelves and not moving.

 

[Troubador]

Better to have long lead times than glass produced sitting on store shelves and not moving.

If you produce according to the demand there is no need for the cost of stocks that don't move and long lead times can persuade folks to buy another brand rather than wait. Its good for Swaro that they have high demand but these long lead times will lose them some business and I am sure I remember Jan mention that this is happening.

Lee

 

[GrampaTom]

Yes well, lets not forget the Virus. Why do we think things are flowing through the system like everything is normal? The news is full of reporting of manufacturing bottlenecks, do to suppliers coming back online, at different rates. An example has been the auto industry has problems delivering whole cars do to a shortage of computer chips. They didnt shut down car manufacturing, but now have incomplete cars that cant be shipped do that shortage. They are and will manage through this.

No doubt Swaros intro of NLs ran headlong into this. In the short term this doesn't have much to do with long term goals of matching demand and supply

 

[GrampaTom]

Im not sure, we've nailed down Swaro thinking re CL42 possibility. Its a little "boxy" to think there's these neat price driven tiers of models within brands and each company needs to match up with those. We seem to look at what has been, what others do and guess thats the goal. Why do we think each company needs a set of binos at $1000. $1500. $2000. whatever? What if the better strategy is function driven? Prices follow performance for identified function. Could a function driven strategy for models cover the water better and eliminate the "need" to have one of everything at several price points?

Does 10% loss of sales revenue do to dropping SLC require a replacement of it? Or might that loss be made up with combination of new and improved 25s, higher priced sets of NLs, new EL Range, something we haven't guessed at? Since Swaro owns Kahles, aggregate thinking would say SLC not dropped but in integrated portfolio.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Tom,

Hopefully a few related thoughts . . .

The world is awash with choices in new binoculars e.g. B&H Photo currently has 1,049 listings and Adorama 1,246, with prices ranging from $12 to $10,000!

Within that deluge, Swarovski is intentionally focused on a both narrow and small market segment - mainly affluent individuals - with it’s primary competitors being Leica and Zeiss. So unsurprisingly the offerings of the three tend to parallel each other in broad terms.

The performance and features - and hence price points - tend to be self defining. With Swarovski:
A) Firstly, state-of-the-art technology, features and styling - the successive EL’s and now the NL’s;

B) Then, still very high level performance but more utilitarian and affordable - the fully RA covered SLC’s, and

C) Finally, even more affordable and 'life style' orientated - the CL’s.


So arguably this is a functional approach in terms of meeting the target market’s expectations. Though more generally, if manufacturers were to take a truly functional approach regarding performance and price, we’d presumedly be using a variety of internal focusing Porro prism binoculars, with convenience features like click adjustable eyecups!
- - - -

With the introduction of the NL x42, Swarovski’s dropping of the SLC x42 (with c.11% of sales by volume), while continuing with the modified Legend version of the EL x42 (c.22%) was an obvious decision (see the details in the table in post #4 at: Swarovski Binoculars - Volume of Production ).

Similarly, with the introduction of the NL x32, dropping the EL x32 (c.8%) and continuing with the CL x30 (c.13%) was likewise pragmatic.

However, the effect in the short term is the mixed portfolio that I listed in post #4 in this thread.
- - - -

A possible roadmap back to three coherent lines would be:
A) NL - x32, x42 and x50
B) SL - x42 and x56 (a new line with a new two letter designation) *
C) CL - x25 and x30 (with an upgrade to the 2013 optics of the x25, including the FOV?)

* While the SL designation would be the obvious contraction of SLC, a potential problem would be confusion with the previous Porro prism SL series made from 1980 to 1998 (see at: Swarovski SL porro models ). However, probably sufficient time has passed so that it would be clear in context which was being discussed.

So finally, in raising the possibility/need for an SLC x42 replacement, what I’m really anticipating is an 'SL x42' (along with a x56).


John

 

[bockos]

Hi Tom,

Hopefully a few related thoughts . . .

The world is awash with choices in new binoculars e.g. B&H Photo currently has 1,049 listings and Adorama 1,246, with prices ranging from $12 to $10,000!

Within that deluge, Swarovski is intentionally focused on a both narrow and small market segment - mainly affluent individuals - with it’s primary competitors being Leica and Zeiss. So unsurprisingly the offerings of the three tend to parallel each other in broad terms.

The performance and features - and hence price points - tend to be self defining. With Swarovski:
A) Firstly, state-of-the-art technology, features and styling - the successive EL’s and now the NL’s;

B) Then, still very high level performance but more utilitarian and affordable - the fully RA covered SLC’s, and

C) Finally, even more affordable and 'life style' orientated - the CL’s.


So arguably this is a functional approach in terms of meeting the target market’s expectations. Though more generally, if manufacturers were to take a truly functional approach regarding performance and price, we’d presumedly be using a variety of internal focusing Porro prism binoculars, with convenience features like click adjustable eyecups!
- - - -

With the introduction of the NL x42, Swarovski’s dropping of the SLC x42 (with c.11% of sales by volume), while continuing with the modified Legend version of the EL x42 (c.22%) was an obvious decision (see the details in the table in post #4 at: Swarovski Binoculars - Volume of Production ).

По същия начин, с въвеждането на NL x32, отпадането на EL x32 (c.8%) и продължаването с CL x30 (c.13%) също беше прагматично.

Ефектът обаче в краткосрочен план е смесеното портфолио, което изброих в пост # 4 в тази тема.
- - - -

Възможна пътна карта към три последователни линии ще бъде:
А) NL - x32, x42 и x50
B) SL - x42 и x56 (нов ред с ново обозначение с две букви) *
В) CL - x25 и x30 (с надстройка до оптиката на x25 от 2013 г., включително FOV?)

* Докато обозначението SL ще бъде очевидното свиване на SLC, потенциален проблем ще бъде объркване с предишната серия Pormo призми SL, направена от 1980 до 1998 г. (виж на: Swarovski SL porro модели ). Вероятно обаче е изминало достатъчно време, за да стане ясно в контекста, който се обсъжда.

И накрая, при повишаване на възможността / необходимостта от замяна на SLC x42, това, което наистина очаквам, е „SL x42“ (заедно с x56).


Джон

Възможно ли е в бъдеще Swarovski да направи нови 10x50NL и 12x50NL ..? Или е просто мечта.

Mod Translation ; Is it possible in the future for Swarovski to make new 10x50NL and 12x50NL ..? Or it's just a dream.‎

(the forum software does seem to have a problem with some auto-translate plugins, the poster types in their native language, sees it translate to English but when posted the text reverts)

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi bockos,

As I noted in post #4, Swarovski is free to do whatever they want. However, since the NL is replacing the EL as their premier product line - the one that showcases their most advanced capabilities - it would be very unusual if they don’t introduce a x50 NL to compliment the x32 and x42 versions.

And hopefully the x50 NL will include an integral tripod mounting point that can be used with the superlative TA-SLC tripod adapter
(the one that’s used with the current x56 SLC and the recently discontinued x42 SLC):

. . . Although not necessarily present on old binoculars - what is increasingly absent from new ones -
is an integral feature that allows the convenient mounting of the binocular on a tripod

. . . The Swarovski SLC series does this in an elegant way: the cap over the front of the axle is removed to expose the recess;
a stud is fitted and secured in the recess, and; then the adaptor slips over the stud and is secured by moving a lever
See the illustrations in the instruction sheet

I recently vented about Swarovski failing to making a similar provision on their premium EL, EL Range and NL lines,
see post #7 at: 3 tripod adapters for the NL Pure

Though of course Swarovski is not alone in this regard. The same applies with both the Leica NV and UV lines and the Zeiss SF and HT ones
( . . . maybe the three manufacturers held a secret conference on this? )

While the lack of such a provision on x42 binoculars is irritating, on x50 and larger ones it’s a major failing . . .

John

 

[NDhunter]

Im not sure, we've nailed down Swaro thinking re CL42 possibility. Its a little "boxy" to think there's these neat price driven tiers of models within brands and each company needs to match up with those. We seem to look at what has been, what others do and guess thats the goal. Why do we think each company needs a set of binos at $1000. $1500. $2000. whatever? What if the better strategy is function driven? Prices follow performance for identified function. Could a function driven strategy for models cover the water better and eliminate the "need" to have one of everything at several price points?

Does 10% loss of sales revenue do to dropping SLC require a replacement of it? Or might that loss be made up with combination of new and improved 25s, higher priced sets of NLs, new EL Range, something we haven't guessed at? Since Swaro owns Kahles, aggregate thinking would say SLC not dropped but in integrated portfolio.

Swarovski and Kahles are closely related, but Kahles is not marketed much if at all in the USA, the 1,000 lb. gorilla in sales overall for
the company.

I do hope the decision is made for a midrange 42 from Swarovski, it will be a big hit, there is a large gap that would be filled.
I suspect we will be seeing something on a new model this fall.

Jerry

 

[bockos]

Здравейте боко,

Както отбелязах в пост # 4, Сваровски е свободен да прави каквото си поиска. Тъй като обаче NL заменя EL като първокласната си продуктова линия - тази, която показва най-модерните им възможности - би било много необичайно, ако не въведат x50 NL, за да допълнят версиите x32 и x42.

И се надяваме, че x50 NL ще включва вградена точка за монтиране на статив, която може да се използва с превъзходния адаптер за статив TA-SLC
(този, който се използва с настоящия x56 SLC и наскоро прекратения x42 SLC):




Джон

Благодаря ти

 

[tenex]

With the recent introductions of the NL x42 and x32, the Swarovski lineup is in transition.

Yes, I suppose that's one word for what it is. I've stopped speculating on how they intend to get it to make sense again.

While C may have once stood for 'compact', it’s clear that’s not a rule e.g. it’s hard to imagine how either the original or current series of SLC x56’s can be considered compact!

Depends entirely on what you compare it to...

 

[John A Roberts]

Hmmm,

I’m not so sure about the equation: Relatively Smaller = Compact

Though for a direct size comparison, some images of: Swarovski SLC 15x56, Zeiss Conquest HD 15x56 and Docter Nobilem 15x60.

They're from Piergiovanno at: Comparativa 15X: Docter Nobilem 15x60 B/GA, Swarovski SLC 15x56 , Zeiss Conquest HD 15x56. - Binomania


John